Agnosticism

[heampopy]

<p>

@heampopy

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

@goingmeta

Let’s just keep bouncing back our assertions without any justification. My assertion: it doesn’t alter the intent of the individual.

Hypothetical: A man thinks there’s treasure hidden beneath his porch while his neighbors scoff at the idea. He decides to prove them wrong and dig under his porch.
Question: Is he trying to prove the treasure exists or doesn’t exist?
The inclusion of a negative redefines the intention of the treasure hunter and his perception of reality.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

I added the qualifier “realistically” to the first quote as a means to show that proving a deity’s existence is not something humanity can achieve on it’s own. Given the qualities attributed to any variety of deities, the only way someone can prove a deity’s existence is by that deity’s own will. As such, no person on earth can claim to be able to prove a deity’s existence. The second quote lacks the qualifier because it addresses possibility.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

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.

[Argumentum</a> Ad Hominem](<a href=“http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html]Argumentum”>Ad Hominem)
Informal Structure of Ad Hominem
Person L says argument A.
Person L’s circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.
In context:

1. I made my argument.
2. You deemed my ability to research my arguments inadequate.
3. You stated my argument was fallacious without any other justification aside from the preceding judgment.
   Our debate over ad hominem closely resembles this:
   <a href=“http://cectic.com/comics/069.png[/url]”>http://cectic.com/comics/069.png&lt;/a&gt;
   Although for our purposes, “believer” will be replaced by “goingmeta”. Your responses to my justification have simply been “No it’s not” without providing justification on your part.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Also: this isn’t a debate.

@goingmeta

you really don’t understand any of the nuance of debate, do you?

You acknowledged it yourself in post 15. That was fun. I didn’t even have to meticulously explain how you’re wrong this time. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

If you agree with what I initially wanted to correct you on, then I really have nothing to say.

@My first post

I’ve never quite understood agnosticism. I’ve always seen it as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots. I’m interested in knowing whether or not it actually works.
To The Religious:
Do you perceive agnostics differently than atheists? This is especially directed toward those who might have answered “Atheists” in the Least Trustworthy Demographic poll.</p>

<p>To Agnostics:
What made you become agnostic? Do you say it as a means to straddle the fence or is it genuine skepticism?

@goingmeta's first post

First you should learn what being agnostic really entails.</p>

<p>It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Your response to my very first post was essentially “So then learn about it.” I suppose you expected my response to be “Oh, thank you! What a wonderful and insightful answer to my question!” Given that you’ve stated your intent coming into this forum was to “correct” me and your method of doing so, I’m assuming you’re not a teacher. </p>

<p>While I have refined my definition of agnosticism over the course of this debate, it became clear by post #6, in which I differentiated between theists/atheists and those who label themselves solely as agnostics, that the “agnostic” I was referring to was the individual in post #16. My sole mistake has been in using the term “agnosticism” as I had generalized the agnostic population. </p>

<p>Your initial attempt at correction was to point out that “It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist”, however I think you fail to understand that the term “correction” denotes something was wrong in the first place. I never claimed that it was impossible to be an agnostic theist or atheist. As I previously stated, I clearly asserted my awareness in the post immediately after your attempt at “correction” (post #6).</p>

<p>Something I’d like you to address:

@heampopy

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>

This is fun.

I do enjoy winning.</p>