Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<p>

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.

It does no such thing. Now you’re just grasping at straws. If the reader had any sort of background knowledge on the topic, then your sentence without the last two words can only be interpreted in one way which is identical in meaning to the sentence including those last two words. The addition of “doesn’t exist” doesn’t change the implied noun (the deity’s existence) and it doesn’t add any sort of “atheistic tilt,” chrissake. There’s not much more I can do beyond assert what I believe is a possible interpretation. This is getting tiresome.</p>

<p>

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.

Let’s go back then.</p>

<p>

@you

@me

@you

@me

@you

When confronted with the possibility of a god, agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed because it is impossible to prove a deity

</p>

<p>No, they don’t. I just told you that agnostics can be theists. You can believe in a god while simultaneously maintain that it may be impossible to know with any certainty.

</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>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>Let’s follow this conversation. The original portion of the quote I addressed was the part where you stated that “agnostics dismiss the argument as inherently flawed.” I took issue with it because, as I stated before, there are some agnostics who find theism a tenable position. Therefore, if you meant the thesis “god exists” by “the argument,” then all agnostics do not “dismiss the argument.” Then in response, you claim that the meaning of your quote was actually that “agnostics choose to not argue in favor of theism or atheism because it is impossible to realistically prove one side or the other.” Although I think this is false as I read it now, I think I made it clear after that point that that wasn’t what I was disputing. AGAIN, I was disputing your usage of the phrase “dismiss the argument.” I had no beef with he second part of what you said, so I didn’t think there was anything to address.</p>

<p>

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>I’m trying to get you to realize that a “pure agnostic position” is nonsense. One either understands what agnosticism means or one doesn’t. If an individual understands that agnosticism is actually JUST a stance on knowledge, then this conception of it being a middle ground is NONSENSE because a position on knowledge goes hand-in-hand with a position in belief. When you speak of your “typical” or “pure” agnostic, you’re speaking of positions which are, ironically, based in ignorance of the true meaning of the word. </p>

<p>I am agnostic towards all supernatural beings. Philosophically speaking, it’s ridiculous to claim to know with certainty whether something exists or not given that we have reason to believe our universe is the size it is. For the record, there is no such thing as a “scientific proof.” Science is experience based. If you’re trying to convince someone that something exists in the universe, you can provide evidence or proof, but you can’t <em>prove</em> it in any mathematical sense. Though I understand “to prove” may have a less strict colloquial meaning. Which sense of the word are you using? I don’t know.</p>

<p>

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.

It’s <em>so</em> obvious when an expression can mean two different things. For someone who refers to others as having “rudimentary debate skills,” you really don’t understand any of the nuance of debate, do you?</p>

<p>

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.

lol@“Not every fallacy is made in the exact condition you find when you muse through Wikipedia seeking help with your rudimentary debate skills.” Actually, I did check wikipedia to make sure someone of the likes of you-- i.e. someone with an equally poor understanding of the fallacy-- didn’t write something that you would then cite against me.</p>

<p>No, actually, this is common sense. If I called you an imbecile and your “argument” moronic, that still wouldn’t constitute an ad hominem. It’s only when I try and correlate the validity of your argument with my perception of your ineptness (because as we all know, ideas stand on their own regardless of the individual presenting them). In other words: “Your argument is wrong because I percieve you as being a nincompoop.” I haven’t tried to make such a connection which is why I asked you to quote it–because I knew you were full of it. </p>

<p>I haven’t made any ad hominems, I’ve just been condescending–there is a difference. </p>

<p>

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.

I was implying that you were incapable of performing a simple task by stating “I think that’s expecting too much from you.” Was I suggesting that your “argument” is invalid because of this incapability? No. Did I think your “argument” is invalid because of the fallacy I identified? Yes. It’s actually quite embarassing how easily you let your insecurities get in the way of the discussion. </p>

<p>

You never correctly identified my “fallacious reasoning”.

Does that mean that you do have a fallacy in your reasoning and that I just didn’t correctly identify it? You should get a better grasp of the English language. Either way, address the portion of that post that starts with “I’m trying to get you to realize.”</p>

<p>

I did not start with a flawed conception of what agnosticism means. I made a point to suggest I linked agnosticism with epistemological nihilism.

I’m not a philosopher, but it’s pretty obvious that they are not the same. One is saying “we should approach grand existential claims with uncertainty” whereas the other is claiming “there is no objective basis for knowledge, period.”</p>

<p>

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.

The “average agnostic” is a nonsense position as I mentioned earlier. You’re making an argument based on what the ignorant interpret agnosticism to mean.</p>