Agnosticism is NOT a system of belief.

[dragonix]

is there some reason this thread is so important? all were doing is fighting over definitions..... kinda sad....

[Cryostasis]

Seeing that he won that debate. Is there any "point" Hitchens made that Craig didnt have a good answer for? I didnt see one at all.

Only because you won't see it mate. You never will. There's a difference between answering a question with logic and trying to prove a point with emotion, smoke and mirrors like Craig does so well. I mean... seriously... DWLC? Are you serious? He's almost as bad as that other bloke.
"Hi, this is dr james dobson with focus on the family"

DWLC: blah blah burden of proof argument... >sigh<

[Ägallar]

I refuse, the semantics and the philosophy are all I care about.

I hope you understand that what you've shown is an act of faith on the OP's behalf. You're refusing to show your work for one of many reasons, the most likely being: there is no source.

If you're going to fight for the semantics, you're going to lose because they are disproven by the accepted theories of the scientifically minded communties of this world. The counter to your logic is written in textbook format and is readily available and has been referenced. If you cannot do the same, then all you've proven here is that you believe something and refuse to give ground.

And that is fine - but it does not make you any more correct than anyone else.

[Doylez]

So what you're trying to say to me, in these terms, is more like saying "The answer to my question is 3, but there's no evidence to prove that that's true. Do you accept or reject my claim?" then obviously, I reject.

What if I say the answer is NOT 3? But still present no evidence? Would you also reject that claim?

[Landwhale]

How are you not understanding this? Deism and Fidesim are simply standpoints on how to come to know if god exists or not. Deism favors reason, while fideism favors faith. Both systems have a belief in god as an underlaying basis. Agnostic/gnostic is how certain someone is of their conclusion.

In other words:
All Deists can be seen as gnostic theists, but not all gnostic theists are Deists.
All Fideists can be seen as agnostic theists, but not all agnostic theists are Fideists.

whats bolded is EXACTLY what this argument is about, according to you mooks who thing that theres such things as gnostic theists/athiests.

your definition of a gnostic theist is that they believe in god and believe they can explain and support their belief? THATS WHAT A DEIST IS.

your definition of an agnostic theist is that they believe in god but dont have the means to support their belief? THATS WHAT A FIDEIST IS.

youre using terms that are incorrect because you are not using the correct defintion of gnosticism. i encourage you to look it up before replying to me.

[Shinshiva]

im sorry but i dont agree on a couple of things u said there. not being able to find something doesnt mean it isnt there. physics are still looking for particles that have never been seen but have been implemented into theories. theories that you will probably take for granted. an example is quantum theory, not every particle that is needed for this theorie has been found. this doesnt mean however that the theory doesnt hold at this moment. there have been experiments that indicate its plausible at this moment.

i think the biggest problem i have with ur post is that u talk about evidence, where there have only been explanations that are more logical then others. as far as i know there is no evidence that god doesnt exist. i myself find it however highly inpropable that he does judging the information we have at the present day.

I heartily agree.
Science has not found many things that we assume are there. But science has the added advantage of being modest enough to admit that very fact. We can say that god doesn't exist for many, many reasons. We can also say that string theory doesn't exist/work for many many reasons. The difference between those two things is that string theory has been used to prove, and to explain many things that we can test and reason out for ourselves. God has none of that character. There is no verifiable test for god like there is for string theory. And the test for string theory isn't even fully correct yet, and we know that. But it doesn't make it wrong or right. It does, on the other had, make it an plausible idea. God, any gods, are not a plausible idea at all.

[zorkuus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqnq_DnuW6w

/thread

this guy is one of the best Theistic philosophers alive today. He has a double PhD. Listen to him!

If he's the best theistic philosopher alive then non-belief has never been more solid. William Lane Craig is one of the worst apoletics I am aware of. He's just all rhetoric and no substance. Most of the time he argues in favor of a deistic god even though we all now he's a christian. Maybe somewhere deep down he knows his monotheistic personal god cannot be defended with the same kind of logic he uses to defend a deistic notion of god. So in other words: he's dishonest.

His logic goes something like this: here's why a creator of the universe must exist... and therefore... the creator is the god of the bible.

To anyone who's writing a dictionary: when you get to defining what the term argument from ignorance means, put WLC's face right next to the definition.

[Sarcasm]

God could or could not exist. So how can I have a belief one way or the other? I have no way to prove it and I'm not one to make a blind judgement to say something does not exist just because I can't prove it.

So why must I make a judgement at all?

Imagine I have a sealed box, and I tell you "in this box, there is an apple". You have no way of knowing whether or not I'm right, but logically, it still makes sense to reject my claim.

There could be an apple in the box, how would you know? If there was an apple in the box, you'd be wrong. But that's not what's up for questioning here. What's up for questioning here is if I tell you something is fact, but there is no way to prove it, will you go by my word and accept it?

[Baever]

Want to know what really pisses me off? Self-proclaimed "agnostics". Want to know why? Because you've got no idea what it means.

Being gnostic/agnostic describes how much a person knows, generally with regards to theistic claims.
Gnostic: Claims to possess knowledge relating to theistic matters.
Agnostic: Does not claim to possess knowledge relating to theistic matters. In other words, is not a gnostic.

These two words, while useful, give no indication or description of your stance on religious beliefs.

Being theist/atheist describes your position with regards to religious beliefs and concepts.
Thiest: Believes in the existance of a God or Gods.
Atheist: Does not accept theistic claims. In other words, is not a theist.

The common misconception is that "atheist" means "gnostic atheist", which isn't always the case. Being atheist doesn't mean "I know that God doesn't exist and you're stupid if you believe it does". Being atheist means you don't accept theistic claims as fact. So everyone who claims to be "agnostic", is in fact an agnostic atheist. You either believe in a God or you don't, there is no in-between. If you can't say, with 100% confidence, that you believe in a God, you're an atheist. Sure, you can be agnostic all you want, I don't care, but you're still an atheist.

Given two binary choices, this produces four possible outcomes:
- Gnostic theist: Believes in the existance of God(s), and claims to be able to prove their beliefs are fact. These are the "Bible is fact and are proof of God's existance" theists.
- Agnostic thiest: Believes in the existance of God(s), but does not claim to be able to prove their beliefs are fact. These are the "I know I can't prove my beliefs are true, but I have a feeling that they are" theists.
- Gnostic atheist: Rejects the claims made by theists, and claims to be able to show that theistic claims are impossible. These are the "God isn't real and I can prove it" atheists.
- Agnostic atheist: Rejects the claims made by theists, typically due to lack of evidence to support theistic claims, but does not claim to be able to show that theistic claims are impossible. These are the "I don't think God(s) are real, because there is no evidence to suggest that they are" atheists.

When it comes to your stance on religion, you're one of these four. So "agnostics", which one will it be?

Your avatar already provides as much insight into how seriously you and your argument should be taken.

[haxartus]

Yeah, that's what I thought, you assume. Come back with facts telling me why I'm stupid, based on the few words that we have just exchanged.

You first post seems like you assume English is my first language and I can't write in it, which is quite stupid. Or you just want to look smarter, so you must feel stupid.

[Sarcasm]

What if I say the answer is NOT 3? But still present no evidence? Would you also reject that claim?

Again, different situations. If you tell me the answer IS three, you're giving me one option. If you tell me the answer is NOT three, you're giving me an infinite amount of options. It's not really a fair comparison.

[Landwhale]

Imagine I have a sealed box, and I tell you "in this box, there is an apple". You have no way of knowing whether or not I'm right, but logically, it still makes sense to reject my claim.

There could be an apple in the box, how would you know? If there was an apple in the box, you'd be wrong. But that's not what's up for questioning here. What's up for questioning here is if I tell you something is fact, but there is no way to prove it, will you go by my word and accept it?

you are using dichotomous situations to describe a problem that is NOT a dichotomy.

[Deleted]

nice wikipedia research & copypaste bro!!

someone calling himself an atheist usually wants to imply he believes that there is not a god regardless of how he reached that conclusion.

People seeing themselves as an agnostic simply express that they accept the fact that they do not know and in our current times have no chance to gain the knowledge wether or not a higher deity exists.

If I was a nitpicker I should have to consider myself an Ignostic. But I just dont care enough about what anybody thinks my opinion should be called. And why are you telling me that I either have to believe in a god or believe that there is no god.
As soon as you become aware that your beliefs are not even your own you should try to stay from them and educate yourself instead.
Knowledge is power, believing or not believing in something unawareness, at best.

[Rukus]

I agree fully, 100%.


I'm going to explode if I have to say this one. more. fucking. time.

There are varying degrees of atheists. Some don't believe in God because there is no evidence to suggest that he does exist. This is perfectly reasonable. There is no burden of proof required for this, because I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm rejecting your claim.

Some atheists don't believe in God because they think they have evidence to prove he doesn't exist. But logically, it is impossible to prove a negative, so they're wrong anyway. They may have reasons to suggest that God doesn't exist, but it's not proof.

By rejecting my claim, you have to prove my claim false. If I reject that you are a man, then I must have good evidence to do so otherwise its an unfounded rejection. By rejecting something, you automatically accept something else. Its a logical law. If p and q are two choices, I deny p and choose q. You must then show why q is more superior to p otherwise it was just a 50/50 blind choice. Atheists must have evidence against theism in order to reject it. They must not necessarily have evidence "for atheism" since you cant really prove a negative BUT they must have some evidence against theism to suggest that Atheism is the better view...without it, who would want to be an atheist? If you cant show that its a step more logical to believe than theism?

To reject a claim is still a proactive choice in another direction. Such choice needs good reasons to be warranted (aka burden of proof). Op, dont get angry with me either. Your hostile tone is making it really not worth my time (and others here) to respond to you. If you calm down some and watch your language, you may get better responses here.

[slayr]

Antitheism is what im all about.

originally same thing as atheism...but it sounds even stronger idd ;D
its just latin / greek

if u want i like that, agnostic antitheist here

[Badpaladin]

The point is... religion distorts the parent.
For a good man to good things, you need a good person
For a good man to do evil things, that takes religion.

No, religion did not distort the parent. The parent was a bad parent. Religion is completely independent of one's parenting skills. For one who's claiming to be using logic, I'm surprised you're making a very illogical connection.

As for forcing atheism on a kid?
All kids are born atheists - they are then indoctrinated into theism. So, your point is mute.

Who are you to say a kid is wrong in deciding he believes in the Christian God? A father forcing his child to not believe this is just as bad a father as one who would force an atheistic child into Christianity.

A kid isn't going to be born into an atheist house and at a certain age ask his atheist parents where he came from?
They're not going to "off the bat reply" - THERE IS NO GOD!
They will probably say: "we don't know"
and if the kid says: "but is there a god", they will say: "there is not real proof, we don't know"
Faith, however, is forced - as you (as you claim) and I are very aware.

Why are you diverting from the scenario again? A good father would not give a reasonable answer, and you're assuming a bad parent forcing his beliefs on his kids. The key word is forcing, and not influencing.

I am of the opinion if religion was not permitted to be taught till kids are adults that atheism and logic would prevail in a few decades.

I am of the opinion that kids are allowed to believe whatever the fuck they want.

Ah, well at least you're not into the intelligent design theory. Kudos for that.

That's because intelligent design is hilarious.

As for the superiority thing, ask one of them what happens to you when you die if you haven't accepted JC as your personal saviour.
You burn in hell. They, will go to la-la land.
No, their doctrine is all about being god's creation, gods chosen ones. They are special.

Go and find out how many Christians actually make the "you will burn in hell" a part of their beliefs. We're not in the middle ages anymore. And I wouldn't dare say that they're somehow less Christian for not making it such an important part of their beliefs either, because that would be telling people their personal beliefs aren't real.

I beg to differ - that is ludicrous. Comparing one type of insanity with another is not logical. Evil men are evil. Religion gives men justification to be evil. Science is put under review. If the facts dont pan out, you get shot down, but religion, this nonsense has to be "respected"

Religion is put under review as well. A hell of a lot of review, actually. Science explains the "how", and religion attempts to explain the "why". Scientists indeed do use the "how" to support their "why", and will distort their "how" in doing so. This is very dangerous, because it's not distorting the intangible, it's distorting fact. It's precisely why I'm glad so many scientists choose not to take a moral stance when dealing with their work, but unfortunately not all things get put under enough review.

Comparing science to religion is absurd. Absolutely absurd.

I'm not comparing the two.

Exactly - and yet, they still follow the bible as the word of god.

....What? That makes no sense. You agree that people view the bible as figurative, then turn right back around and state their believe it to be the word of God? Consider that "this is the word of God" isn't literal for a moment.

Sorry, BadPaladin - you chase your points and your logic is so, theist in nature, just leaves an unsettling in my stomach.

And your logic isn't even logical. I'm terribly sorry, but nothing you've said is anywhere near reminiscent of a cogent argument. Here's something any logician will tell you:

Logic is a tool, not a doctrine. It's highly illogical to assume that all matter exists and has always existed. It's also highly illogical to assume an uncreated creator can exist. Logic is independent of debates such as this. I don't think anything gets more on my nerves when people throw around the term "Logic" without knowing a single thing about it.

I have a sincere disrespect for atheists religious apologists. I will always regard you as hypocrytical people. Logic dictates this.
I feel further discussion would be counter-productive on this matter.

Again, your problem and not mine.

[Deleted]

Imagine I have a sealed box, and I tell you "in this box, there is an apple". You have no way of knowing whether or not I'm right, but logically, it still makes sense to reject my claim.

There could be an apple in the box, how would you know? If there was an apple in the box, you'd be wrong. But that's not what's up for questioning here. What's up for questioning here is if I tell you something is fact, but there is no way to prove it, will you go by my word and accept it?

No, I would not accept it. Neither would I reject it. I would open the box if that would be possible.

[Shadowmeld]

I did not go through and read more than the first page or so of this thread, but from what I got out of your original post you have some thought out ideas. The issue is that you made a lot of this 'points' on on facts that you 'assumed' were true, or that you told us were true and we are supposed to just 'assume' you are right. Athiest means I believe "There is not god". The other side would be I believe "There is a god". Agnostic mean's "Only fools are positive. I do not believe you can say either is correct until I have complete proof. Until then, there is no answer."

[Cryostasis]

Can you point me to a debate in which WLC lost to an atheist? I cant find any. Also, there are hundreds of atheists on the web who admit WLC to be the BEST christian philosopher debater alive today. If you think he is so bad, why dont YOU debate him and prove his arguments invalid. www.reasonablefaith.org

Ah, the christians have arrived.

note the CAPITALS. We must ALL praise HIM and love HIM for HE is the ONE true LORD and SAVIOUR...

Hitchens, dawkins (oops sorry - hawkins doesn't debate delusional people), just about any book by the four horsemen completely destroys him.
Now, if only a christian would read the damn things... sigh

You know what started me on my road to being an atheist? I read the bible - cover to cover... 3x

You know what I thought after I was done? "What a mean sh*t this god is"

[Rukus]

If he's the best theistic philosopher alive then non-belief has never been more solid. William Lane Craig is one of the worst apoletics I am aware of. He's just all rhetoric and no substance. Most of the time he argues in favor of a deistic god even though we all now he's a christian. Maybe somewhere deep down he knows his monotheistic personal god cannot be defended with the same kind of logic he uses to defend a deistic notion of god. So in other words: he's dishonest.

Instead of making bland, ad hominen remarks towards the man how about you give me some specific examples of where he is "without substance". Show me how his arguments are invalid. If you ever watch his debates (which I doubt you have) he has used the SAME 5 arguments for over 20 years now.....20 years. No one has been able to successfully disprove his arguments or at least deem them inferior to their own arguments. He may not be the greatest theistic philosopher (i think Alexander Pruss or Alvin Plantinga is) but he is the best debater out there. Once again, show me some specific examples otherwise I cant take your claims seriously.