Why Agnosticism is the right choice.

[newpolitics]

What I said is that logic is, in and of itself, argument. You misquoting and twisting what I said does not make it wrong. It does, however, make you wrong.

You're so frustrating to argue with, man. Would you please make some sense here?

You are saying logic=argument. I am saying, that is absolutely false. Where have did I go wrong?

You said this:

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

You are clearly trying to establish equivalency for two different words and use them interchangeably. Do you stick by this? So when I say to someone, "you are very logical," I could also say "you are very argumentative" and it would mean the same thing? No. So stop fucking that logic is argument. Logic is not argument. It is used in argument. Get it???!!

Stop acting like you know philosophy. You don't. When did you study it, 40 years ago?

It is frustrating because you are wrong. When you argue with someone you are reasoning with them in order to convince them that you are correct. Logic is the study of reasoning, and learning to use logic means you learn to argue.

I am not the one pretending that I understand anything. No one understands philosophy, they use it.

Okay. I'm done with you man. We are arguing over such minor details, but very important, and basic ones, and its impossible to get anywhere with you. I understand that logic is used in argumentation, and is in fact, central to it. That does make it equivalent to logic. That is illogical to say!! You are committing a composition fallacy, essentially, saying that logic, which is applied within arguments, is equivalent to argumentation itself. That's nonsensical and implies a dual definition that contradicts itself, also violating the law of noncontradiction with respect to the definition of logic.

Now you're taking this "I dont know anything" buddhist approach. Get real dude. We have to establish definitions for things, by the very laws of logic, such as the law of Identity. Logic is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, and what it isn't, is argumentation.

You say that I am wrong, but you can't show me how I am wrong. You are equivocating on the definition of logic. First you use to to mean that which is used in arguments, and then you also say logic is argumentation itself. You can't have both. Which is it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're so frustrating to argue with, man. Would you please make some sense here?

You are saying logic=argument. I am saying, that is absolutely false. Where have did I go wrong?

You said this:

You are clearly trying to establish equivalency for two different words and use them interchangeably. Do you stick by this? So when I say to someone, "you are very logical," I could also say "you are very argumentative" and it would mean the same thing? No. So stop fucking that logic is argument. Logic is not argument. It is used in argument. Get it???!!

Stop acting like you know philosophy. You don't. When did you study it, 40 years ago?

It is frustrating because you are wrong. When you argue with someone you are reasoning with them in order to convince them that you are correct. Logic is the study of reasoning, and learning to use logic means you learn to argue.

I am not the one pretending that I understand anything. No one understands philosophy, they use it.

Okay. I'm done with you man. We are arguing over such minor details, but very important, and basic ones, and its impossible to get anywhere with you. I understand that logic is used in argumentation, and is in fact, central to it. That does make it equivalent to logic. That is illogical to say!! You are committing a composition fallacy, essentially, saying that logic, which is applied within arguments, is equivalent to argumentation itself. That's nonsensical and implies a dual definition that contradicts itself, also violating the law of noncontradiction with respect to the definition of logic.

Now you're taking this "I dont know anything" buddhist approach. Get real dude. We have to establish definitions for things, by the very laws of logic, such as the law of Identity. Logic is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, and what it isn't, is argumentation.

You say that I am wrong, but you can't show me how I am wrong. You are equivocating on the definition of logic. First you use to to mean that which is used in arguments, and then you also say logic is argumentation itself. You can't have both. Which is it?

You are the one that keeps calling it equivalent, I have never said that. That is why you finding yourself confused, I keep making my point, you keep arguing against yourself.

Strange how you are arguing about definitions while insisting on ignoring them.

ar·gu·ment/ˈärgyəmənt/

Noun:

• An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
• A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

log·ic/ˈläjik/

Noun:

• Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic".
• A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic".

Since I never said that logic is equivalent to argument we can skip your arguments against that and simply examine the definition and discover that, ultimately, logic is about proving your position, just like argument is.

 

[newpolitics]

It is frustrating because you are wrong. When you argue with someone you are reasoning with them in order to convince them that you are correct. Logic is the study of reasoning, and learning to use logic means you learn to argue.

I am not the one pretending that I understand anything. No one understands philosophy, they use it.

Okay. I'm done with you man. We are arguing over such minor details, but very important, and basic ones, and its impossible to get anywhere with you. I understand that logic is used in argumentation, and is in fact, central to it. That does make it equivalent to logic. That is illogical to say!! You are committing a composition fallacy, essentially, saying that logic, which is applied within arguments, is equivalent to argumentation itself. That's nonsensical and implies a dual definition that contradicts itself, also violating the law of noncontradiction with respect to the definition of logic.

Now you're taking this "I dont know anything" buddhist approach. Get real dude. We have to establish definitions for things, by the very laws of logic, such as the law of Identity. Logic is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, and what it isn't, is argumentation.

You say that I am wrong, but you can't show me how I am wrong. You are equivocating on the definition of logic. First you use to to mean that which is used in arguments, and then you also say logic is argumentation itself. You can't have both. Which is it?

You are the one that keeps calling it equivalent, I have never said that. That is why you finding yourself confused, I keep making my point, you keep arguing against yourself.

Strange how you are arguing about definitions while insisting on ignoring them.

ar·gu·ment/ˈärgyəmənt/

Noun:

• An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
• A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

log·ic/ˈläjik/

Noun:

• Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic".
• A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic".

Since I never said that logic is equivalent to argument we can skip your arguments against that and simply examine the definition and discover that, ultimately, logic is about proving your position, just like argument is.

I think you are a little strange.

You said

Logic is, in and of itself, argument. Philosophy is founded on logic. Therefore, philosophy is argument.

Here you are explicitly forming an equivalency between logic and argument. You said: "Logic is, in and of itself, argument." Am I going crazy?

Now, you're saying that you are not saying that? I think you're trolling me dude. For real. It's messed up. Youre screwing with my head.

Logic is not about proving your position. Arguments are designed to prove positions. Logic is used within arguments and determine whether it is of a valid form or not.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I claim agnosticism, but that does not prevent my respecting others' beliefs. Or worse yet, declaring what others wish to place their faith in as being invalid.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Heh... the first line of the opening paragraph pretty much makes my point. Did you read it?



Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments with 'in the strict sense'. Popular usage mangles many useful words, but usually - as it does in this case - also renders them incoherent. If what we mean to say is "unsure", why bother with a fancy word? Just say "unsure".

Yes, "unknown and unknowable" means you can't believe in a deity and think you're agnostic.

Ima, you are incorrect here. The two terms a/gnostic and a/theist are not mutually exclusive, as they address two different things. Agnosticism goes to knowledge, whereas atheism goes to belief. I am an agnostic atheist. The colloquial definition suggests that agnosticism is a mid-point between the two, but this is logically invalid.

Faith in a religious sense is illogical.

 

[newpolitics]

I claim agnosticism, but that does not prevent my respecting others' beliefs. Or worse yet, declaring what others wish to place their faith in as being invalid.

Agnosticism is a meaningless position on the question of belief. It addresses a question about knowledge of god, not belief in god. I'm an agnostic with respect most gods. With respect to the judaeo-christian god, I can call myself a gnostic atheist, because this god is logically impossible. With regards to a deistic god, I am an agnostic atheist. I lack belief, but I do not believe it can be known or proven that this god does or doesn't exist.

 

[Avatar4321]

Faith in a religious sense is illogical.

I disagree. I find it completely logical.

Then again, if I didn't, I wouldn't have tried it.

 

[ima]

Faith in a religious sense is illogical.

I disagree. I find it completely logical.

Then again, if I didn't, I wouldn't have tried it.

Faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. That's something my brain is incapable of doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Faith in a religious sense is illogical.

I disagree. I find it completely logical.

Then again, if I didn't, I wouldn't have tried it.

Faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. That's something my brain is incapable of doing.

You believe in a false definition of faith, doesn't that prove that your brain is capable of believing something without proof?

 

[amrchaos]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

There is no need to prove a negative when there is so much information given in what is claimed.

If you want to prove the existence/nonexistence of a thing without any information about that thing, I would agree with you.

But once they start giving description and information about their god, then you can construct a test. That leads to two to types of conclusions. 1)existence or non-existence of a god as defined by a group. or 2)that group do not know what the hell they are talking about due to inconsistencies in their claims.

You need not take an agnostic stance with every religious group, some of them are out their minds, literally!!

 

[ima]

I disagree. I find it completely logical.

Then again, if I didn't, I wouldn't have tried it.

Faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. That's something my brain is incapable of doing.

You believe in a false definition of faith, doesn't that prove that your brain is capable of believing something without proof?

"...Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief". Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed to reason. In contrast, some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence...."

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ima]

I firmly believe that the values of religious/metaphysical beliefs regarding a specific deity, or deities are unknown. I understand that faith in the unknown of an incoporeal deity is paramount to any metaphysical faith, but frankly there are too many loopholes in religion. I would like to consider myself an Agnostic-Theist in the sense that I do believe that God exist, but the definition of God is unknown. I firmly believe that there is a deity that exist and is above all others in the universe but I do not know, nor can define, what this deity is. i guess you can say like people of religious faith, have a faith-like belief in something unknowable. But I firmly believe Agnosticism is probably the most logical thinking. Monotheism, like atheism is fine but there is no proof for either, just philosophical arguments for proof and disproof.

No true atheist can prove a negative and neither a theist can prove the existence of an incoporeal deity.

There is no need to prove a negative when there is so much information given in what is claimed.

If you want to prove the existence/nonexistence of a thing without any information about that thing, I would agree with you.

But once they start giving description and information about their god, then you can construct a test. That leads to two to types of conclusions. 1)existence or non-existence of a god as defined by a group. or 2)that group do not know what the hell they are talking about due to inconsistencies in their claims.

You need not take an agnostic stance with every religious group, some of them are out their minds, literally!!

What test?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Faith is believing in something for which there is no proof. That's something my brain is incapable of doing.

You believe in a false definition of faith, doesn't that prove that your brain is capable of believing something without proof?

"...Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief". Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed to reason. In contrast, some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence...."

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The value of Wiki is that you can edit before you quote it.

Christians do not believe without proof.

 

[ima]

You believe in a false definition of faith, doesn't that prove that your brain is capable of believing something without proof?

"...Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief". Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed to reason. In contrast, some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence...."

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The value of Wiki is that you can edit before you quote it.

Christians do not believe without proof.

"...Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence..."
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So you have proof of the Ark? The Flood? Adam and Eve? The garden of Eden? An invisible god? People living until 900 years old?...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof, and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief". Some critics of faith have argued that faith is opposed to reason. In contrast, some advocates of faith argue that the proper domain of faith concerns questions which cannot be settled by evidence...."

Faith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The value of Wiki is that you can edit before you quote it.

Christians do not believe without proof.

"...Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence..."
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So you have proof of the Ark? The Flood? Adam and Eve? The garden of Eden? An invisible god? People living until 900 years old?...

Quote all the dictionaries you want, that is far from the only definition of the word.

 

[ima]

The value of Wiki is that you can edit before you quote it.

Christians do not believe without proof.

"...Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence..."
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So you have proof of the Ark? The Flood? Adam and Eve? The garden of Eden? An invisible god? People living until 900 years old?...

Quote all the dictionaries you want, that is far from the only definition of the word.

Ya, because all the dictionaries in the world are wrong and you're right. Ok Einstein.

So Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

The value of Wiki is that you can edit before you quote it.

Christians do not believe without proof.

"...Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence..."
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So you have proof of the Ark? The Flood? Adam and Eve? The garden of Eden? An invisible god? People living until 900 years old?...

Quote all the dictionaries you want, that is far from the only definition of the word.

No. That is exactly how "faith" is defined, and exactly what it means. If one wants to include logical proof or material evidence, whether valid or not, to their beliefs, it does not remove the basic definition of "faith." The only reason one would deny that is if they are ashamed of what the word means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence..."
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


So you have proof of the Ark? The Flood? Adam and Eve? The garden of Eden? An invisible god? People living until 900 years old?...

Quote all the dictionaries you want, that is far from the only definition of the word.

Ya, because all the dictionaries in the world are wrong and you're right. Ok Einstein.

So Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Quote all the dictionaries you want, that is far from the only definition of the word.

Ya, because all the dictionaries in the world are wrong and you're right. Ok Einstein.

So Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

 

[ima]

Ya, because all the dictionaries in the world are wrong and you're right. Ok Einstein.

So Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?

Here is the entire definition from the link above.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Since it is now obvious that the real chain of events is that you and ima are the ones that are ignoring the dictionary I expect you will pretend to have the high ground and insist I am lying.

Thank you for providing all senses.

I don't see a single one of them that contradicts the second sense in any meaningful way. I don't think you are a liar, because I fully have "faith" that you believe what you say, or ascribe to a different version of faith than most people. "Faith" is pretty synonymous with trust in that which is not supported by material evidence. You're not really denying that, are you?

No, you just don't understand English.

So bag, Christians don't believe without proof? Turn to page 1 of the bible, what's your proof that the world was made in 6 days?