Agnosticism

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

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”

1. The addition of “doesn’t exist” alters the intent of the individual attempting to “prove” a deity’s existence or lack thereof.
2. Without “doesn’t exist”, the entire statement is false. It is hypothetically possible to prove a deity exists through manifestation and some consider the debate over a god’s existence an entirely empirical question.
3. Just quote the entire clause next time, it’ll cost you a half-a-second more. Unless you are physically incapable of dragging your mouse an additional centimeter to the right, the only two reasons you could have for not quoting my entire statement are laziness and/or deliberate distortion.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.”

I never stated that “god exists” was the thesis being dismissed. I took issue with the fact that you attacked my assertion before asking for clarification. If something I say is not crystal clear to you, ask for clarification before you attack the straw man.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

That’s the point. A purely agnostic stance to the question “Do you think there’s a god?” is nonsense. If someone poses a question of belief, the appropriate answer is a stated belief. Claiming agnosticism is not a real answer to the question. If someone answers that question with “I’m agnostic”, they are claiming to be completely devoid of belief in the same vein as someone saying “I don’t know”. You cannot answer a question of belief with a position on knowledge. Now you’ll respond: “Well that’s why there are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists!” Well if someone responds “I’m an agnostic theist”, I will appreciate the offered position on belief, but for the purpose of the question, I don’t care about the added “agnostic” as it is completely irrelevant. That being said, it depends on how the question is formed. My issue with those who claim to be solely agnostic is the use of the term as a cop-out to any religious question, regarding both belief and knowledge. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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?

Then ask what I mean before preemptively accusing me of making a false claim.</p>

<p>

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

"Or you could just look at the root words, but I think that’s expecting too much from you. Keep beating that straw man! " Linking your perception of my capabilities to the validity of my argument is an ad hominem. If we reverse the sentence positioning it can be stated “His argument is fallacious. He can’t even read!”</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

No, actually. It’s rather stupid to even suggest I am insecure about my abilities to read or research (which is what directly preceded the “I think that’s expecting too much from you”) as my simple presence on this forum would suggest. I simply haven’t had to rely on nearly as many personal insults to try to get my points across. I could copy your format wherein I simply call you an idiot every other paragraph but I think the argument stands for itself. For example, I could point out that you managed to spell “embarrassing” wrong despite the fact that you’ve probably seen the term handed to you on numerous occasions, like this debate for instance, and CC happens to have a spell check but I just assume you thought the red squiggles under your fail were fun little word blankets.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.”

You accused me of making a straw man argument, so point it out correctly, if there is one. It’s either that or retract the accusation that I’ve made a straw man argument.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

"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.

Are you aware of what the terms “on par” or “linked” mean? A comparison between two like terms isn’t equivalent to saying agnosticism = epistemological nihilism. Now that you’ve looked up the term epistemological nihilism it’s worth pointing out that I had pointed out very early on that I considered agnosticism a position on knowledge, a fact that you’ve attempted to “correct” me on numerous times despite my early implication of this awareness.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

It’s an individual who answers a question of belief with a position on knowledge, someone who either doesn’t understand what agnosticism means or simply doesn’t care. “Agnostic” has quickly become a term used by the non-religious who don’t take their lack of beliefs as far as atheists. Before you incorrectly accuse me of it, I’m not saying this represents all people claiming to be agnostic, but all it takes is one look on Facebook to see how many people put “Agnostic” under “Religious BELIEFS” to understand the scope of this term’s misuse.</p>