Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<p>It’s difficult not to be condescending when you’re so arrogant. Apparently, every tid-bit of information I decided to include was a result of me looking it up on wikipedia in second prior to posting. Hey thanks!</p>

<p>

1. The addition of “doesn’t exist” alters the intent of the individual attempting to “prove” a deity’s existence or lack thereof.

Hey, this “debate” is going great. Let’s just keep bouncing back our assertions without any justification. My assertion: it doesn’t alter the intent of the individual.</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>Let’s take a look at two of your quotes:

1. “[My] quote [which 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.”
2. “It is hypothetically possible to prove a deity exists”</p>

<p>How does “realistically [proving]” something differ from just “proving” it? Why qualify that word? I’d like clarification on what you meant. I’m not attempting to pull a red herring like the other user claims. These are just two quotes that stuck out to me.</p>

<p>

Linking your perception of my capabilities to the validity of my argument is an ad hominem.

Yep, it would be if I actually made any link.</p>

<p>“His argument is fallacious.”
Not an ad hominem.</p>

<p>“He can’t even read!”
Not an ad hominem.</p>

<p>“His argument is fallacious. He can’t even read!”
Not an ad hominem. </p>

<p>This is fun.</p>

<p>

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>Yeah, I thought they were word blankets. Nevermind the fact that the spelling checker is a result of your browser (edit: not so sure about this anymore) and that I might actually be using a word editor. Anyway, this is becoming stupid. </p>

<p>Also: this isn’t a debate.</p>

<p>If you agree with what I initially wanted to correct you on, then I really have nothing to say. What I will say is that the demeanor in your OP really didn’t suggest you knew what you were talking about (and it really isn’t the same as what you’re saying now).</p>

<p>“I’ve never quite understood agnosticism. I’ve always seen it as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.”</p>