Religion rant on my blog

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Your question assumes i believe there will be an apocalypse

How does it assume that? A certain president of a certain country of a certain religion is creating nuclear weapons while telling people that his job in life is to bring about the apocalypse, but you're ranting about Christians who advocate simple morality into our society.

You're just a typical spoiled ignorant kid who thinks he's a fvcking genius. You're so naive.

Oh, and learn to read and comprehend.

Try Googling: "wipe israel off the map" and "death to america"

Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Your question assumes i believe there will be an apocalypse

How does it assume that? A certain president of a certain country of a certain religion is creating nuclear weapons while telling people that his job in life is to bring about the apocalypse, but you're ranting about Christians who advocate simple morality into our society.

You're just a typical spoiled ignorant kid who thinks he's a fvcking genius. You're so naive.

Oh, and learn to read and comprehend.

Try Googling: "wipe israel off the map" and "death to america"

Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

Yet you chose to rant about Christians, who don't affect your life, don't force you to do anything, and you ignore radical Islam, who threaten your way of life (i.e. right to say stupid shvt).

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

Jewish extremists? I didn't think that was a big problem in the world. Tyrannical israeli leaders maybe, it's arguable. Unless you were referring to larry david.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

Jewish extremists? I didn't think that was a big problem in the world. Tyrannical israeli leaders maybe, it's arguable. Unless you were referring to larry david.

rofl :thumbsup::laugh:, op needs to curb his rantusiasm.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

You don't think that a god exists, but you claim no knowledge of any god's nonexistence, right? What you are is an atheist who recognizes no proof of his beliefs.

I don't have a belief wrt the existence of God. Why would I need proof of a belief I do not hold?

If you are an atheist then what you believe is that there is no god, and you have no proof to support that belief. If your opinion is that there is no God but you admit that you may be wrong, then you are something else. I would call you an agnostic despite your little argument a few posts back. True, the literal meaning of agnostic is "without knowledge" but it's application to religion is implied by the context in which it is used. Do you really think that if I call myself agnostic I'm telling you that I am "without knowledge" or that don't know anything? Even worse I could be claiming that I don't know some specific thing that may or may not have anything to do with the context in which I used the word.

So you have designated a cozy little place from which you can attack all other belief-systems.

No, I have a cozy little place that is consistent with my experience and my understanding of epistemic limitations. Where have I attacked a belief system at all in this thread? And why would attacks on a belief system depend at all on my own position?[/quote]

You're right I was out of line with that one.

As for your second question your position can mean a great deal in a debate regarding religion, politics, and many other things. I call to example you're earlier attemp to place yourself in a position of authority by claiming "No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God. ".

Do you realize that by your very claim and definition of agnostic-atheism you have discredited your previous argument?

No, I don't, because I haven't.

...right

Do you not recognize the fact that the ideas of not believing in a god and , at the same time, recognizing the opposite possibility are mutually exclusive?

What is inconsisent about lacking belief in a proposition but realizing it's coherency and that it could conceiveably be instantiated in reality? Here's an example:

"George Bush spies on domestic civilians for purely political gain."

Now, I do not believe this proposition, but I cannot prove it false, and I recognize that it is conceiveably a fact.

Where is the inconsistency?

This example does not apply to our debate. And once again we're on the topic of athiesm being not the lack of one belief but the substitution of that belief for another. Once again I'll tell you that if you realize the "coherency" of the proposition and "that it could conceiveably be instantiated in reality", but choose not to believe it the that is your opinion, not your belief, therefore you are not an athiest.

 

[artikk]

I love threads like these.
They accomplish absolutely nothing.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Doboji

If you are an atheist then you believe there is no god...

Wrong.

you cannot simultaneously be an agnostic, and an atheist. It's just not possible.

I guess I don't exist, then. Funny. It's kinda hard to post to a discussion forum when you don't exist. Maybe there just something flawed in your analysis.

If you are an atheist than you believe there is no god.

No, you simply do not believe that there is one. Recognize the difference between "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X."

Not a whole lot of unknowns or indecision in the concept of "no god". Being an agnostic isn't about how confident you are in your beliefs in god, it's the state of not knowing one way or the other.

Look, the root of gnostic is gnosis, or knowledge. Gnosticism says that you are "with knowledge" and agnosticism says you are "without knowledge," but neither says anything about what you do or do not know. There's nothing inconsistent about believing a God exists but lacking knowledge to substantiate that position. Such a person would be an agnostic theist. They are a theist because they do believe a god exists, and they are agnostic because they lack justifying knowledge.

You are in actuality an Atheist who has no proof... which is exactly the same as everyone else... EVERYONE is either a theist with no proof or an atheist with no proof. By your definition, EVERYONE is an agnostic.

Wrong again, genius. This has nothing to do with proof. It has to do with knowledge, or more accurately the belief that one has or does not have knowledge.

Webster says

{snip}

Dictionaries do not define words, they record word usage -- even sloppy word usage.

First of all dude... you're not making any sense...

I do not believe in gods or god, I believe not in god, whatever... the logic is all the same. One who does not believe in god/gods is an atheist, one who does believe in gods/god is a theist. It's really that simple... That is the english meaning of those two words, theist and atheist. Please note, neither definition claims proof, or knowledge, but simply belief. This is because God's existence cannot be proved priori or posteriori.

Which brings us to the term gnostic... which yes a literal translation means "one who knows". However that definition does not apply in the context of this religion conversation. There can be no gnostic(literal greek) in terms of the existence of God, because as I said before God's existence cannot be proven priori or posteriori. There is no gnostic(greek) in relation to god. A gnostic within the english language in terms of religion would simply be someone who believes one way or the other in terms of gods existence....

However there is such thing as an agnostic... however in modern english, agnostic does not translate the same as it does literally from the greek. Agnostic in english in terms of god's existence means one who does not subscribe definitivly to either theism or atheism. Agnostisism in regards to english no longer means "to not know" it means to "not believe" this makes sense because as stated before it is not possible to "know" or not to "know" in regards to the existence of god.

Thus a gnostic could be either an atheist or a theist, but an agnostic could be neither atheist nor theist.

I suppose the real semantic debate we should be having is the term "knowledge". I'm defining it as priori or posteriori. Belief != knowledge.

-Max

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

You don't think that a god exists, but you claim no knowledge of any god's nonexistence, right? What you are is an atheist who recognizes no proof of his beliefs.

I don't have a belief wrt the existence of God. Why would I need proof of a belief I do not hold?

If you are an atheist then what you believe is that there is no god,

No, I don't. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

As for your second question your position can mean a great deal in a debate regarding religion, politics, and many other things. I call to example you're earlier attemp to place yourself in a position of authority by claiming "No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God. ".

And how exactly is that an attack on another belief system?

Do you not recognize the fact that the ideas of not believing in a god and , at the same time, recognizing the opposite possibility are mutually exclusive?

What is inconsisent about lacking belief in a proposition but realizing it's coherency and that it could conceiveably be instantiated in reality? Here's an example:

"George Bush spies on domestic civilians for purely political gain."

Now, I do not believe this proposition, but I cannot prove it false, and I recognize that it is conceiveably a fact.

Where is the inconsistency?

This example does not apply to our debate. And once again we're on the topic of athiesm being not the lack of one belief but the substitution of that belief for another.

Which is false.

{snip}

 

[Accipiter22]

is myspace...down? oh wait

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Doboji

{snip-snip-snip}

Thus a gnostic could be either an atheist or a theist, but an agnostic could be neither atheist nor theist.

Nonsense. The dichotomies are pefect in that they exhaust all possibilities. One is either a theist or he is not. If he is not, he is an atheist. His beliefs about his position on theism are then subsequently described in the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy.

Look at it this way: you cannot infer anything about a person's theistic beliefs or lack thereof from the stipulation of their agnosticism. If one is posed the question "Do you believe in God?" Saying "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question. All it says is that whatever beliefs he may or may not hold wrt God's existence, he does not purport to have knowledge of the veracity of his beliefs.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

You don't think that a god exists, but you claim no knowledge of any god's nonexistence, right? What you are is an atheist who recognizes no proof of his beliefs.

I don't have a belief wrt the existence of God. Why would I need proof of a belief I do not hold?

If you are an atheist then what you believe is that there is no god,

No, I don't. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

As for your second question your position can mean a great deal in a debate regarding religion, politics, and many other things. I call to example you're earlier attemp to place yourself in a position of authority by claiming "No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God. ".

And how exactly is that an attack on another belief system?

Do you not recognize the fact that the ideas of not believing in a god and , at the same time, recognizing the opposite possibility are mutually exclusive?

What is inconsisent about lacking belief in a proposition but realizing it's coherency and that it could conceiveably be instantiated in reality? Here's an example:

"George Bush spies on domestic civilians for purely political gain."

Now, I do not believe this proposition, but I cannot prove it false, and I recognize that it is conceiveably a fact.

Where is the inconsistency?

This example does not apply to our debate. And once again we're on the topic of athiesm being not the lack of one belief but the substitution of that belief for another.

Which is false.

{snip}

I think that wikipedia article is horsemanure...

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Doboji

{snip-snip-snip}

Thus a gnostic could be either an atheist or a theist, but an agnostic could be neither atheist nor theist.

Nonsense. The dichotomies are pefect in that they exhaust all possibilities. One is either a theist or he is not. If he is not, he is an atheist. His beliefs about his position on theism are then subsequently described in the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy.

Look at it this way: you cannot infer anything about a person's theistic beliefs or lack thereof from the stipulation of their agnosticism. If one is posed the question "Do you believe in God?" Saying "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question. All it says is that whatever beliefs he may or may not hold wrt God's existence, he does not purport to have knowledge of the veracity of his beliefs.

Bull hockey... If someone says I'm agnostic... that means... "I have no idea, I haven't decided one way or the other"

If someone says I'm an atheist... it means I don't believe in the existence of god or gods.

If someone says I'm a theist.... it means I believe in the existence of gods or gods.

You can argue semantic nonsense until you're blue in the face... however... this is the language EVERYONE else in this thread is speaking... you can use your philosophical nonsense if you want... but in the language the rest of us speak you are an atheist.... and in the context of what we're talking about here.. your garbage semantics have no value or place.

-Max

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Doboji

{snip-snip-snip}

Thus a gnostic could be either an atheist or a theist, but an agnostic could be neither atheist nor theist.

Nonsense. The dichotomies are pefect in that they exhaust all possibilities. One is either a theist or he is not. If he is not, he is an atheist. His beliefs about his position on theism are then subsequently described in the gnostic/agnostic dichotomy.

Look at it this way: you cannot infer anything about a person's theistic beliefs or lack thereof from the stipulation of their agnosticism. If one is posed the question "Do you believe in God?" Saying "I'm agnostic" doesn't answer the question. All it says is that whatever beliefs he may or may not hold wrt God's existence, he does not purport to have knowledge of the veracity of his beliefs.

Bull hockey... If someone says I'm agnostic... that means... "I have no idea, I haven't decided one way or the other"

If someone says I'm an atheist... it means I don't believe in the existence of god or gods.

Explain to me how the latter does not follow necessarily from the former.

You're basically assigning the meaning of atheism to two different terms because you are ignorant of the real meaning of agnosticism. It does not mean, "I haven't decided," but rather it means "I don't believe one can know justifiably that claim X is true." One can consistently believe a proposition to be true while simultaneously believing that justifable knowledge about the truth of the proposition is unattainable.

Look, I know what most people THINK agnosticism is, but those people are wrong, and you appear to be one of them.

{snip}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Doboji

I think that wikipedia article is horsemanure...

Yeah, well you can think circles have corners, that bachelors have spouses, and that agnostics are not theists or atheists, but you're still wrong.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

Jewish extremists? I didn't think that was a big problem in the world. Tyrannical israeli leaders maybe, it's arguable. Unless you were referring to larry david.

rofl :thumbsup::laugh:, op needs to curb his rantusiasm.

Did i say there were jewish terrorists?

There are jews in Israeli govt that would like to continue the perpertuating cycle of what is going on in the ME.

 

[Jules]

your myspace blows. kthx

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

Jewish extremists? I didn't think that was a big problem in the world. Tyrannical israeli leaders maybe, it's arguable. Unless you were referring to larry david.

rofl :thumbsup::laugh:, op needs to curb his rantusiasm.

Did i say there were jewish terrorists?

There are jews in Israeli govt that would like to continue the perpertuating cycle of what is going on in the ME.

Seriously, you're some kind of political scholar. Go work for a think tank.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Garth

No, I don't. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

I've done a bit of research into the link you gave me along with other pages on the same subject. I must admit that there seem to be at least as many folks in agreement with your division of atheism into strong and weak as there are people who are not. Now I still think you're wrong to call yourself an atheist as I believe this "implicit atheism" is an impossible state of mind. However, the topic has become rather subjective and I concede that we will probably not be able to reach an agreement.

For your perusal I offer an exerpt from the same wikipedia as your link. Note that my views would fall somewhere between the second tradition and the third. That is to say you cannot define atheism as simple lack of belief. In the face of views to the contrary your unbelief becomes conscious rejection and therefore you are not an atheist if you claim to simply lack belief. I do not think that state of mind is possible once you are exposed to theism of any sort.

"Among proponents of atheism and neutral parties, there are two major traditions in defining atheism and its subdivisions. The first tradition understands atheism very broadly, as including both those who believe gods don't exist (strong atheism) and those who are simply not theists (weak atheism). George H. Smith, Michael Martin, and (formerly) Antony Flew fall into this tradition, though they do not use the same terminology. (Flew has recently adopted a form of deism.)

The second tradition understands atheism more narrowly, as the conscious rejection of theism, and does not consider absence of theistic belief or suspension of judgment concerning theism to be forms of atheism. Ernest Nagel, Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen are prominent members of this camp. Using this definition of atheism, "implicit atheism", lack of theism without the conscious rejection of it, may not be regarded as atheistic at all, and the umbrella term nontheism may be used in its place.

A third tradition, more common among laypeople, understands atheism even more narrowly than that. Here, atheism is defined in the strongest possible terms, as the belief that there is no god. Such usage is not exclusive to laypeople, however--atheist philosopher Theodore Drange uses the narrow definition.[1]"

As for your second question your position can mean a great deal in a debate regarding religion, politics, and many other things. I call to example you're earlier attemp to place yourself in a position of authority by claiming "No, it isn't. Trust me, I am one, and I don't affirmatively believe that there is no God. ".

And how exactly is that an attack on another belief system?
[/quote]

It's not an attack on another belief system. I was demonstrating how your professed athiesm as a religious or non-religous standpoint affected your role in the debate. Your question specifically said attacks while my answer was meant to address all forms of debate. I apologize for any confusion.

"And why would any discourse regarding a belief system depend at all on my own position?" would be the question that fit my answer best.

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: Garth
No. You're question is like asking "Do you acknowledge that there are some people that are *JUST* taller than 5 feet or shorter than 5 feet, and that there are some people who *JUST* weigh more than 100lbs or less than 100lbs?" You're talking about two different things.

Obviously physical properties such as height or weight have a truth value regardless of whether someone thinks about them or whether we ask someone about them.
However, you do not know unless you have some uncanny ability at a glance what someone weighs and exactly how tall they are. Yes there are ways of finding out about their height or weight with tools for measuring.

Garth, you seem to be pre-occupied with the law of excluded middle. Which if properly applied in this case means you know that a person will have a height greater than or less than 5 feet AND that they have a weight greater than or less than 100lb. This is knowing all possible properties. This does not mean you know the actual properties. (Or the measured properties if that makes more sense to you.)

Remarking that someone is an atheist or theist (with no hint of whether they are agnostic or gnostic) is descriptive. So is remarking that a person is an agnostic or gnostic (with no hint of whether they are an atheist or theist).

Now if you ask them whether or not they are gnostic or agnostic, then they could answer they are undecided. There is no default there, is there?
Now if you are content to browbeat the person into answering yes or no, then obviously there are only two possible answers they can give.

In practice, we don't really browbeat people into answering (I would hope). Because sometimes a person will just give a meaningless answer so the browbeating stops. We instead accept that there is such a thing as being undecided.

This does not violate the law of excluded middle, there are still only two possibilities. We are just making the additional claim that someone lacks knowledge of their own (or of another's) belief state/system.

When someone asks "Are you an X?" or "Is he an X?" The answer "I don't know, or he is undecided." is certainly one we understand. Or would you claim absurdly that we do not know what that means?

Or in your height/weight example: "Is he over 5 feet tall and over 100lbs?" The answer "Yes he's over 100lbs, but that's all I know. I'm not sure how tall he is (he could just be 4'11")" Just as someone could describe someone as atheist or theist without knowing if they are agnostic or gnostic or as an agnostic or gnostic without knowing if they are an atheist or theist. It is a description that we understand.

EVERYBODY either believes in God or they do not. EVERYBODY believes their position to be justifiably known, or they do not.

Until you ask someone or somehow read their mind it is an unknown, they are undecided as far as you can be concerned. Are you denying there is such a thing as an unknown? Everbody CAN either believe in God or not. Everybody CAN believe that their position is justifiable known or not. Possibility alone does not dictate what they know or do not know of their beliefs, only what their possible beliefs could be.

It is comprehensible to identify oneself as just a theist or atheist.
We know they mean "I don't know if I have the beliefs that make me an agnostic, or gnostic." Of course it's only going to be one or other, but it's also going to be either they know or they do not know and they are asserting they do not know. That is the essence of "undecided".

It is comprehensible to identify oneself as just an agnostic or gnostic.
We know they mean "I don't know if I have the beliefs that make me an theist or atheist."
Again, of course it's only going to be one or other, but it's also going to be either they know or they do not know and they are asserting they do not know. That is the essence of "undecided".

Let P stand for the proposition "God exists" (or "Whether God exists is knowable" if you prefer)
Let R stand for the proposition I know I have the belief that P. (or ~P if you prefer)

Given a person, they can believe either that P or ~P.
You can browbeat them into answering, but if you do so you are disregarding the dichotomy they are presenting to you.

Given this person, they believe either that R or ~R.
You don't have to browbeat them here, they are asserting ~R.

I am not saying there is no answer to P or ~P for this person. There is! But they don't know it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Ahh so you think i have nothing against Judaism or Islam?

I think both of those religions extremists are in the dark ages and simply cant handle the technology that was given to them. Itd be like giving king arthur nuclear technology and saying "play nice with your neighbors".

There are peaceful avenues to those conflicts, radical Islam refuses to pursue them.

Jewish extremists? I didn't think that was a big problem in the world. Tyrannical israeli leaders maybe, it's arguable. Unless you were referring to larry david.

rofl :thumbsup::laugh:, op needs to curb his rantusiasm.

Did i say there were jewish terrorists?

There are jews in Israeli govt that would like to continue the perpertuating cycle of what is going on in the ME.

Seriously, you're some kind of political scholar. Go work for a think tank.

Its not a hard concept to grasp, im just trying to hear other viewpoints.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Vinny N

Originally posted by: Garth
No. You're question is like asking "Do you acknowledge that there are some people that are *JUST* taller than 5 feet or shorter than 5 feet, and that there are some people who *JUST* weigh more than 100lbs or less than 100lbs?" You're talking about two different things.

Obviously physical properties such as height or weight have a truth value regardless of whether someone thinks about them or whether we ask someone about them.
However, you do not know unless you have some uncanny ability at a glance what someone weighs and exactly how tall they are. Yes there are ways of finding out about their height or weight with tools for measuring.

Garth, you seem to be pre-occupied with the law of excluded middle. Which if properly applied in this case means you know that a person will have a height greater than or less than 5 feet AND that they have a weight greater than or less than 100lb. This is knowing all possible properties. This does not mean you know the actual properties. (Or the measured properties if that makes more sense to you.)

Remarking that someone is an atheist or theist (with no hint of whether they are agnostic or gnostic) is descriptive. So is remarking that a person is an agnostic or gnostic (with no hint of whether they are an atheist or theist).

Now if you ask them whether or not they are gnostic or agnostic, then they could answer they are undecided. There is no default there, is there?
Now if you are content to browbeat the person into answering yes or no, then obviously there are only two possible answers they can give.

In practice, we don't really browbeat people into answering (I would hope). Because sometimes a person will just give a meaningless answer so the browbeating stops. We instead accept that there is such a thing as being undecided.

This does not violate the law of excluded middle, there are still only two possibilities. We are just making the additional claim that someone lacks knowledge of their own (or of another's) belief state/system.

When someone asks "Are you an X?" or "Is he an X?" The answer "I don't know, or he is undecided." is certainly one we understand. Or would you claim absurdly that we do not know what that means?

Or in your height/weight example: "Is he over 5 feet tall and over 100lbs?" The answer "Yes he's over 100lbs, but that's all I know. I'm not sure how tall he is (he could just be 4'11")" Just as someone could describe someone as atheist or theist without knowing if they are agnostic or gnostic or as an agnostic or gnostic without knowing if they are an atheist or theist. It is a description that we understand.

EVERYBODY either believes in God or they do not. EVERYBODY believes their position to be justifiably known, or they do not.

Until you ask someone or somehow read their mind it is an unknown, they are undecided as far as you can be concerned. Are you denying there is such a thing as an unknown? Everbody CAN either believe in God or not. Everybody CAN believe that their position is justifiable known or not. Possibility alone does not dictate what they know or do not know of their beliefs, only what their possible beliefs could be.

It is comprehensible to identify oneself as just a theist or atheist.
We know they mean "I don't know if I have the beliefs that make me an agnostic, or gnostic." Of course it's only going to be one or other, but it's also going to be either they know or they do not know and they are asserting they do not know. That is the essence of "undecided".

It is comprehensible to identify oneself as just an agnostic or gnostic.
We know they mean "I don't know if I have the beliefs that make me an theist or atheist."
Again, of course it's only going to be one or other, but it's also going to be either they know or they do not know and they are asserting they do not know. That is the essence of "undecided".

Let P stand for the proposition "God exists" (or "Whether God exists is knowable" if you prefer)
Let R stand for the proposition I know I have the belief that P. (or ~P if you prefer)

Given a person, they can believe either that P or ~P.
You can browbeat them into answering, but if you do so you are disregarding the dichotomy they are presenting to you.

Given this person, they believe either that R or ~R.
You don't have to browbeat them here, they are asserting ~R.

I am not saying there is no answer to P or ~P for this person. There is! But they don't know it.

Thank you, hopefully this will end that silly debate

 

[plastick]

Originally posted by: notfred
It is your hypocrisy that has been a noose around the neck of the realm for so long!

Watch it.

Oh dear God! What is this that our culture has become?!?!