Agnosticism

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

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 does make a difference. You had suggested that my understanding (or your perceived lack of) had an atheistic tilt. Adding the phrase “doesn’t exist” negates that tilt.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

It wasn’t relevant to what I was addressing either, so I left it out.

@goingmeat

That wasn’t the part I was addressing.

Actually it was. The phrase “agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other” is in reference to the quote labeled “What I said”. If you go to my previous post, you will see that I cited it and in your last post, you quoted it. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

I did not address “agnostic theists” nor “agnostic atheists” in that quote. They are fundamentally different from pure agnostics. When posed the question “Is there a god?” the classic agnostic reply, and I’m referencing the Slate Article, is “I just don’t know.” The agnostic theist’s reply is “I believe there is but I cannot prove it.” To make it clear I am specifically addressing pure agnostics. If, as you put it, agnosticism within the context of this discussion is purely a position on knowledge then address the question I posed toward you several times: Are you an agnostic about all manner of supernatural beings ie. the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster?</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Please clarify what you mean with “the argument.”

By argument I meant “the disagreement”, the debate over god’s existence, which should be obvious given the context of this discussion and what we have agreed agnosticism means. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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

<p>Learn. Now. Please.

Ad Hominem- A fallacy in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. </p>

<p>You stated “I think that’s expecting too much from you. Keep beating that straw man!” You are expressing that my arguments are invalid by implying I’m intellectually inadequate and suggesting that I am incapable of forming an argument devoid of fallacy. The obvious connotation of “keep” is to suggest consistency of so-and-so action. If you’re going to attempt to correct me on the terminology, I suggest you learn in yourself. Not every fallacy is made in the exact condition you find when you muse through Wikipedia seeking help with your rudimentary debate skills.</p>

<p>You never correctly identified my “fallacious reasoning”. When I asked you what it was you stated “You started with a flawed conception of what agnosticism means and began arguing against a position that doesn’t really exist (in the academic setting).” I did not start with a flawed conception of what agnosticism means. I made a point to suggest I linked agnosticism with epistemological nihilism. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

Actually you are ignoring the content of my posts. Should I assume you are incapable of refuting the parts you have not addressed? </p>

<p>Refute my counter:

@goingmeta

This is either an over-generalization or a straw man–take your pick.

@heampopy

Once again, a failure to comprehend what I’ve said. It’s neither. The subject of the quote was your average agnostic, someone who takes a middle ground on the possibility of a deity yet doesn’t take pause when rejecting the possibility of other supernatural beings like fairies and invisible pink unicorns.

</p>