Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<p>

The quote you examined stated that agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other. You misinterpreted what I said as if I somehow thought agnostics are inherently atheistic. The “argument” was the subject of “dismiss”, not the possibility of a deity. When you quoted me, you conveniently left out the “doesn’t exist” at the end. So maybe you didn’t misunderstand what I said. Instead, unable to find anything else wrong with my argument, resorted to distortion.</p>

<p>All rational theists and atheists are technically agnostic, that does not prevent us from taking a stance. Does claiming to be atheist mean I’m stating certainty in my beliefs? No. That’s what you fail to understand and fail to correct. The inception of debate is not in certainty but decision. I’ve made a decision on how I perceive the world around me.

</p>

<p>The quote I “examined” states, “When confronted with the possibility of a god, agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed because it is impossible to prove a deity doesn’t exist.” Whether or not “doesn’t exist” was included or not at the end doesn’t make one bit of difference. It wasn’t relevant to what I was addressing either, so I left it out.</p>

<p>But again, that’s not necessarily so. On what basis is the position “agnostic theist” possible if all agnostics “dismiss the argument” and believe it is “inherently flawed”? I anticipate you’re going to claim that I just took your quotes out of context, but I really didn’t; that’s what you claimed agnostics do. The point is that there must be some who see it as a tenable position. And by tenable I mean “worthy of being believed.” Would both sorts of agnostic argue that it’s impossible to know with certainty? Sure. Is that what I’m disputing? No.</p>

<p>

The quote you examined stated that agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other.

That wasn’t the part I was addressing.</p>

<p>

The “argument” was the subject of “dismiss”, not the possibility of a deity.

Please clarify what you mean with “the argument.” I assumed you meant the thesis “god exists” by it. When people say “the argument,” they can also mean “the assertion being put forth,” and not just “the disagreement.” I’m stating the obvious, but you’re most likely going to try and pin this dispute on me instead of your own ambiguous language.</p>

<p>

Your ad hominem was your attempt to undermine my intelligence and ability to form an argument. You falsely claimed I was employing a straw man argument (as in the above quote where you failed to understand what I meant by agnostics dismissing the religious debate) so as to undermine my entire argument.

Me identifying your fallacious reasoning isn’t an ad hominem. “Undermining” your intelligence isn’t an ad hominem either. </p>

<p>Learn. Now. Please.</p>

<p>

At the very least I have addressed all of your complaints whereas you have skipped the questions I have posed towards you.

You’re right. I address the most important claims first. I’m not going to sit here and go over each sentence in your reply. Though, if you would like me to address something in specific, bring it my attention. Quit acting as though I’m purposely ignoring the content of your posts.</p>

<p>I most likely will not be able to respond until until tomorrow night.</p>