This is what I think of religion.

[bluemax]

There's the old adage:
"Opinions are like armpits - everyone has them and they usually stink."

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Also nowhere did totalcommand claim everyone is agnostic. You're jumping to conclusions yourself when you don't understand the definition totalcommand is using.

What do you conclude from this:

Real agnosticism is that it's not that we don't have enough evidence or knowledge, but that it's not even possible for us to know whether or not God exists. In other words, because the concept of God is what it is, there is no way we can know if he exists, or if he doesn't exist.

Everyone knows we cannot prove it. Everyone knows it is not even possible for us to know it. Therefore, using that defintion only, everyone is a real agnostic. Totalcommand didn't say that, but his definition can only conclude that.

But, that definition gets us nowhere. Using that defintion, there are real agnostics who believe strongly in god and real agnostics who believe strongly that there is not a god. Therefore, that definition doesn't give us any information, it is useless. A real agnostic is NOT what totalcommand said - it requires MORE than that.

The definition of agnosticism posted by totalcommand is one you'd find in a good philosophy or religion textbook or even a common dictionary. Although your "real" definition is also listed, but usually as a second entry as some people commonly used.

Dictionary.com says:

1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Defintion 1a is totalcommand's definition. Definition 1b is mine. We all know it is impossible to know for certain there is a God. Thus, defintion 1a says we are all agnostic.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: bluemax
There's the old adage:
"Opinions are like armpits - everyone has them and they usually stink."

That's not how it goes, and it would be nice if people could complete a thought in writing without resorting to a hackneyed saying.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: bluemax
There's the old adage:
"Opinions are like armpits - everyone has them and they usually stink."

That's not how it goes, and it would be nice if people could complete a thought in writing without resorting to a hackneyed saying.

Aw you're just trying to pick a fight. Boo!

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: dullard
Everyone knows we cannot prove it. Everyone knows it is not even possible for us to know it. Therefore, using that defintion only, everyone is a real agnostic. Totalcommand didn't say that, but his definition can only conclude that.

Again you're just making an assumption "everyone knows we cannot prove it." If that was the case then I guess Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, other metaphysicians I've probably never even heard of clearly weren't trying to prove it. :roll:

Even if that definition were the ONLY definition of Agnosticism possible, it does not make everyone a real agnostic. Because there's such a thing as being a Gnostic, believing that the truth about the existence or non-existence of God is knowable by humans.

But, that definition gets us nowhere. Using that defintion, there are real agnostics who believe strongly in god and real agnostics who believe strongly that there is not a god. Therefore, that definition doesn't give us any information, it is useless.

You've misapplied it completely. Agnostic just means they don't think the truth is unknowable. They can still have a belief about whether or not god exists IF they want to.

A real agnostic is NOT what totalcommand said - it requires MORE than that.

I'll agree, but it doesn't take much more:

Your version of a "real" agnostic works just fine with totalcommand's definition. They think the truth about the existence/non-existence of God is unknowable and additionally do not take a stance of belief one way or another.

Dictionary.com says:

1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Defintion 1a is totalcommand's definition. Definition 1b is mine. We all know it is impossible to know for certain there is a God. Thus, defintion 1a says we are all agnostic.

Again, you make a horrible argument. Based on assumed premise again. Read the first definition again. It's about BELIEVING that it impossible to know. Not about KNOWING.

Also try Merriam-Webster to verify

": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

The first definition is totalcommand's. Notice that it doesn't commit the person to any particular belief. The "broadly" one is yours and does say something about beliefs.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vinny N
I'll agree, but it doesn't take much more:

Your version of a "real" agnostic works just fine with totalcommand's definition. They think the truth about the existence/non-existence of God is unknowable and additionally do not take a stance of belief one way or another.

Like I said, the narrow definition just isn't useful. It just needs a simple tweak - whether or not they take a stance. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here. But in many religion threads the agnostics come in and bash everyone else saything that they are stupid and that since we cannot prove God's existance, we should all be agnostic. That is a very common argument posted repeatedly here and spoken elsewhere. I'm just trying to stop that argument. Agnostic means MORE than just totalcommand's defintion. Not much more, but it does require more.

Try Merriam-Webster.

": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

The first definition is totalcommand's. Notice that it doesn't commit the person to any particular belief. The "broadly" one is yours and does say something about beliefs.

Same exact thing as the dictionary.com definitions. The broadly definition is mine and it is very useful, the other defintion adds nothing to discussions.

I like to take arguments out of the context to get emotions out of the way. Try this:
Me: Is that a cat, a dog, or some other creature?
Totalcommand: Its an animal.
Me: Yes, but is it a cat or a dog?
Totalcommand: Its an animal.
Totalcommand in that silly example is correct, but it adds nothing to our discussion.

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: dullard
Like I said, the narrow definition just isn't useful. It just needs a simple tweak - whether or not they take a stance. I know it seems like I'm splitting hairs here. But in many religion threads the agnostics come in and bash everyone else saything that they are stupid and that since we cannot prove God's existance, we should all be agnostic. That is a very common argument posted repeatedly here and spoken elsewhere. I'm just trying to stop that argument. Agnostic means MORE than just totalcommand's defintion. Not much more, but it does require more.

All it takes to dismantle those agnostic bashers is one question: "How do you know it's unknowable?" They don't. They BELIEVE it is unknowable. That's what makes them Agnostic. Not necessarily their lack of a stance.

The first definition is totalcommand's. Notice that it doesn't commit the person to any particular belief. The "broadly" one is yours and does say something about beliefs.

Same exact thing as the dictionary.com definitions. The broadly definition is mine and it is very useful, the other defintion adds nothing to discussions.[/quote]

I made an edit you might find useful.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vinny N
I made an edit you might find useful.

If you know it, you believe it. Changing that one word does not change my argument or invalidate my argument. Of course, the reverse isn't true - if you believe it you don't necessarily know it. But that difference has no impact on this argument.

I also made an edit, what is your response to that silly example?

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: dullard
I like to take arguments out of the context to get emotions out of the way. Try this:
Me: Is that a cat, a dog, or some other creature?
Totalcommand: Its an animal.
Me: Yes, but is it a cat or a dog?
Totalcommand: Its an animal.
Totalcommand in that silly example is correct, but it adds nothing to our discussion.

Sorry but that's not a fitting analogy (and I doubt very much that anyone could think of a really good analogy for this.)

Come on now, we can stick to the topic.

Your claim is that totalcommand's definition of agnosticism doesn't add to a discussion or is in some way uninformative.

That's not the case. If someone is an agnostic based on that definition, it reveals to us that they think the truth about god's existence is unknowable. Believe it or not, some people are interested in this.


edit: Allright, you want a recap of this discussion minus the god talk?

Oh, and although it's not an analogy, this is far closer to the argument that is here.
Imagine this thread:

OP: Ok, so I think there's this thing inside of a box. I can't open it, lift it shake it, or anything and I don't really hear anything from inside it. It's not an option to X-Ray it or bust it open. Do you guys think it's a cat or a dog?

cat poster: I believe it's a cat.

dog poster: I believe it's a dog.

other poster: I can't decide. I'm an anfrabjolositer.

totalcommand: Actually a real anfrabjolositer believes that whether it is a cat or a dog cannot be known.

dullard: What? That's a useless definition. Everyone KNOWS that we cannot know whether it is a cat or a dog. Therefore we're all anfrabjolositers.

Can you see the structure there? That's what your posts look like. Comment on usefulness. Assumed premise which uses the word KNOW (because you know you'd never get away with saying Everyone BELIEVES...). Use of totalcommand's definition as a mismatched premise (it says it's a person who BELIEVES). Jump to Conclusion.

vinny n: I don't think you understand what totalcommand says. Cat poster, dog poster, and other poster CAN all be anfrabjolositers but they don't have to be. They can just as well be frabjolositers. It's a matter of what they BELIEVE not what they KNOW. Knowing something doesn't automatically make you a believer. But it's not even a given that everyone KNOWS that the contents of the box can't be known. You assumed it.

Cat poster might believe it's knowable or not knowable, it won't change that cat poster believes it is a cat.

Dog poster might believe it's knowable or not knowable, it won't change that dog poster believes it is a dog.

Other poster might believe it's knowable or not knowable, it won't change that Other poster is undecided.

What can it do for the OP? OP might feel better about making a decision about what to believe since he sees that he won't necessarily be burdened with justifying his position, or the OP may now feel ok being undecided since OP may not have considered the answer to his question to be unknowable.

Originally posted by: dullard
If you know it, you believe it.

Oh really?

Well you said "Everyone knows we cannot prove it. Everyone knows it is not even possible for us to know it."

"it" in this thread is of course: "whether or not God exists."

So why don't you post a new thread saying: "Everyone believes we cannot prove whether or not God exists. Everyone believes it is not even possible for us to know whether or not God exists."

I'm sure people will pat you on the back for making it clear not only what everyone KNOWS, but also what everyone BELIEVES. :roll:

Want to make any other assumptions?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vinny N
Sorry but that's not a fitting analogy (and I doubt very much that anyone could think of a really good analogy for this.)

There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. But it shows that an overly applicable definition does not help this thread or this discussion.

That's not the case. If someone is an agnostic based on that definition, it reveals to us that they think the truth about god's existence is unknowable. Believe it or not, some people are interested in this.

Again, that doesn't help the situation. The definition of animal may be quite important in other threads, you may be very interested in the definition of an animal. But it doesn't help in a cat vs dog thread. The OP wants to choose A or B. Someone comes in and believes the correct answer cannot be known. Of course with current data we cannot know it or prove it. So that statement doesn't help the choice of A vs B. If we had more data, maybe we could know it. But at this point in time, we have to work with what we have.

 

[Vinny N]

Originally posted by: dullard
There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. But it shows that an overly applicable definition does not help this thread or this discussion.

Of course not. But your example is slanted towards your presumed argument being correct. A dog or cat HAS to be an animal. A theist or atheist does not HAVE to be an agnostic even under totalcommand's definition.

Even if we ASSUME (which is what you have consistently done) everyone in the world KNOWS that the truth about god's existence is unknowable, it does not mean they BELIEVE it. People know Santa isn't real, but they believe he is anyways don't they?

If they do not BELIEVE it, they are not Agnostic under totalcommand's definition.

The OP wants to choose A or B. Someone comes in and believes the correct answer cannot be known. Of course with current data we cannot know it or prove it. So that statement doesn't help the choice of A vs B.

It's a discussion. That someone is giving their opinion on the situation. It's a valid addition. The OP may not have considered that it's unknowable. The OP may no longer want to choose after hearing this. Or the OP may have an easier time choosing A or B now that the OP realizes he doesn't have to justify his choice since perhaps it isn't provable.