Printable View
Wiki interpretationQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
However, Merriam-Webster does not recognize the word.
From what I can derive, it is a position in which explicitly declares the meaninglessness of the Big Question; whereas agnosticism in general dances around the topic with an "I'm not sure," Ignostics, in my interpretation, would say "I don't care."
In a way, it might be closer than Occam's Razor that it first appears.
I said right off the bat that belief in God is a matter of faith!Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
'Just merely believing, or having faith is irrational.'
Really? Are you just saying that or do you have faith in it (the belief that having faith is irrational)?
I would really like to here your theories! No, I wouldn't - I would REALLY REALLY like to!
What! My arguement was not that God came into existense!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
As for Him coming into existence, He didn't! He has always existes and there for could never 'come' into existence!
If you don't want to believe it, don't! It is my personal conviction. Having spent many years studying the origin of life, and argueing AGAINST Christianity, I came to that conviction because al else seemed wrong! Not only that but the Bible seemed way to accurate for a book of Its years to NOT be divinely inspired!
"Irrational" does not necessarily come with the negative connotation it has in everyday speech. In this particular case, it merely is an adjective to describe a position not supported by the use of logic, often referred to as "faith."Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
OED doesn't recognize it either, but if people are using it then I suppose it exists. I like the 'apathetic agnosticism' definition, but as most agnostics I know are apathetic anyway the term would seem just a little redundant.
But that doesn't make any bit of sense. How can something exist but not have a creation? How can something just have always existed? Why did "all else" seem wrong? Was it your personal conviction? Because if you are arguing with logic and rationality, then you can't possibly believe that God has always existed. I just don't understand how this could happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Your about to argue yourself into a circle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowhead418
Yeah...if something can't exist without being created, than how does anything exist?
Yes, I'm going to stop before it gets any more confusing...~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Good point, it's just hard for me to imagine God always existing. When was there a beginning? How did this beginning come about? Why does God exist? Why does the universe exist? If there was no beginning, then how is this possible? Man, I have to stop...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
If 'god' didn't need a creator, why does the universe? It makes no sense. Be consistant.
The theist argument is the one that is 'circular', a fallacious position also known as 'begging the question'. Basically, you can't justify a claim - e.g. that God exists - simply by assuming that it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.
edit: you might want to read what I wrote - did I claim the theist arguement does not contain logical fallacies, or did I state something else? Are you attempting a strawman arguement by arguing a position that I did not claim in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
And neither can you justify a claim as false by simply attempting to disprove existance by lack of evidence. That is also a major logical fallacy. So if you agree that the theist argument is one type of logical fallacy - you have to also realize attempting to disprove God's existance based upon lack of evidence of his existance is also a fallacuous postion to take.
Not really, especially if your rational reason is based upon the arguement that god does not exist because of the lack of evidence of god's existance.Quote:
Yet another rational reason to be an atheist.
I often find it amusing that those that claim rational reasoning for their disbelive in gods existnace often fall into this simple logical fallacy and claim to be using rational logical in their arguement.
My apologies if I misconstrued your original post, there was some degree of ambiguity. Although it does not excuse your rather supercilious tone my old friend. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
As for your later assertions, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I will re-cap my earlier post as you clearly did not read it:
"I don't know what 'Ignosticism' is, but my take on 'Agnosticism' is that it is a cop-out, a kind of intellectual cowardice.
It is irrational to suspend judgement on the question of the existence of God/gods [I wouldn't want to privilege the monotheists ;) ]. The burden of proof lies with the believer, the 'theist', which means that the logical stance to take is atheism.
Ockham's Razor posits that when you have two equally supported hypotheses then you pick the simpler of the two. It is a commonsense approach. So, you can say, on the one hand, that you have some of those pesky, yet invisible, Leprechauns in your garden as well as a lawn and some flowers, or you can say that there is only a lawn and a bunch of flowers out there. The evidence for both might be irrefutable - I mean how can you prove that the invisible Leprechauns don't exist?
Yet, the rational, commonsense thing to do is to believe the latter hypothesis, unless you are drunk or worse. Why should I be 'agnostic' about this and suspend judgement?
Also, some people erroneously claim that 'atheism' is as much a matter of faith as 'theism', but they are not intellectually equal positions. It's true that we cannot prove that God/gods exist, and that we cannot prove that they positively do not exist, however this does not mean that it would be just as commonsensical or sensible for us to believe that they do exist as it is to believe that they do not. The latter is the rational, more logical and sensible stance to adopt."
I think we have the next Richard Dawkins here. Only rather better at it already...
I find strawman arguements such as the one you present deserve such a response. I make no excuse for being blunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
To assume I did not read your initial postion is false, it did not apply to my retort to your use of a strawman postion, since I dealt with the basic logical fallacies used by both sides. To include your postion that it is up to the theist to prove God's existance, That is like stating that it is up to scientists to prove the big bang theory as the creating event of the universe as fact? While the theory is logical it can not be proven.
Futhermore To make a strawman arguement that I has a theist believe you must except God's existance again is a reaching aruement since its not a postion I have taken. You don't have to believe in his existance - its mote to me if you do or not. So this whole discussion between us two is based upon your use of a strawman, and it seems you continue to do so.
Oh dear, I had to assume that you hadn't read the original post because it basically answered the position you accused me of assuming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
A theist states or assumes that something exists, i.e. God, which cannot be either quantitatively or qualitatively proven by any sensible criteria, therefore the onus is on him to find proof of God's existence. The atheist doesn't have to do this because the lack of such proof already supports his position.
You have a penchant for this 'Straw Man' chap I have noticed, but I can assure you that he exists only in your own mind, and you call him 'God'. ~;) :laugh4:
Oh, and I am quite satisfied that my reasoning is valid. It may not ultimately be correct [Please no God, don't send me thereeeeeeee! :oops: ], but it ain't bogus.
It seems that your continuing your strawman arguement once again, pretty much the normal course of events for discussions concerning religion. For someone who attempted to strawman my statement into a logical fallacy that did not exist - you have demonstrated a penchant for making many different types of logical fallacies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Lol! Being a generous sort I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. A desperate tactic, yet quite useful in maintaining a completely untenable intellectual position. :beam:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Tsk Tsk - it seems your still maintaining the strawman method of approaching an arguement. :dizzy2:
It's not a strawman dude, he just misinterpretted what you wrote.
Oh I could have some fun.........:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Is this where you wanna be when Jesus comes back?:inquisitive:
Most amusing Redleg. You persist with this 'Straw Man' accusation, bandying the term about as if it was some magical formula to ward off the evil of a reasoned argument. Yet, you never take the trouble to advance your own position any further, or evince any understanding of the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.
Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.
Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket. :laugh4:
Thank you. I was thinking along these lines, but I couldn't seem to put my thoughts into an understandable argument.:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
Or could it be that you have not bothered to pay attention to my postion because you have trapped yourself in your own strawman. Your assuming that I have taken a postion on Ignosticism, which you will discover if you go back and read - I have not. What I have stated is that one can not prove existance based upon the lack of evidence of his non-existance, and the converse is true one can not disprove existance by the lack of evidence of its existance. If you had been paying attention you would of noticed that postion. In other words I have no desire to attempt to prove God's existance nor his non-existance, since it always ends with ad hominem statements, and ancedotal evidence would not constitute proof, because you did not observe it nor could you replicate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Yep, which you did, don't attempt to deny it. Shall we review your initial statement to me.Quote:
So, let me help you. In order to be a Strawman argument I must have misrepesented the position of those against whom I was arguing, i.e. theists and agnostics in this case.
Where in my postion of your about to argue yourself into a circle did I state a postion on the existance of god... You took the strawman route because you did not understand the statement. Good show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Ah again with the strawman arguement. Rather lovely isn't. Your arguing against a postion that I have not taken, which is exactly what a strawman arguement is. Have a nice day....:smash:Quote:
Let's see. I stated that the former believe in a 'God', an invisible, unquantifiable deity, and I reasoned by analogy that this was not a sensible or rational position to adopt. How can that be a misrepresentation? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for the latter, the same argument holds, especially if they accept the Ockham proposition that the simpler of two hypotheses is the one to adopt, i.e. that there is no God/gods. Maybe they are holding out ... just in case, a lazy and morally dubious stance to take IMO.
Now, you can take my arguments apart piece by piece, if you like, but just to keep braying 'Strawman' at me just ain't cricket. :laugh4:
Well, there's no resolution to this, seeming as you are stuck in your 'Straw Man' wonderland. :dizzy2:
Ciao!
:laugh4:
Who is to say that God came first?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
I find it funny that you are belittling theist and agnostics saying that they are out of it, that atheism is the only logical choice considering Ockham’s methodological procedure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
I don’t know much about you Red Peasant but I might assume you are a student at Oxford. You seem to be regurgitating something a professor or lecturer might have said. You might even be one.. I don’t know.
It is funny how they always seem to drag religion into the scientific sphere where it does not belong.
You can’t use logic or a scientific methodology like Ockham’s on the metaphysical sphere that religion resides in.
Do you even know anything about Ockham? He was deeply religious himself being a friar and a great theologian.
The logical point of view if I should even dare to use that word is agnosticism, because that at least acknowledges the fact that religion and religious questions are metaphysical and hence not applicable to logic or science.
The answer to any such metaphysical question is: “There is no way of knowing”.
Warning a rebuttal in the same manner of ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
Actually one should say that it is yourself stuck in denial, and I am rather amused by that.