Atheism

My words earlier were being taken in a different light than intended, so I'm dropping it. It's hard to discuss data garnered in a way that presents them as facts and not a biased speech. I've discussed this problem in regards to non-religiosity and intelligence, and it seems it can also be hard in relation to discrimination.

That atheismexposed website is messed up. It's like a compilation of every stereotype, red herring, and strawman that exists about atheism. Impressive in its rigor, I suppose, though not anything resembling a fair portrayal.

I'm really, really starting to dislike anything with an end goal in sight. Even atheist materials, much as I agree with some of it. So few seem capable of independently holding a microscope to their beliefs or opinions, or adopting provisional beliefs. If I ever have kids, I think the primary thing I'm going to try to ingrain in them is a critical curiosity, or skepticality, about anything and everything. Why could something be true? Why could it not? Until you have a comprehensive understanding of both of those questions, an opinion is completely invalid imo.

It's why I can't take most Christians seriously; they (usually) can't elucidate or display an understanding of the primary criticisms against their beliefs. Whereas, if I were randomly recruited to defend theism (let's presume I'd say yes) I'd feel just as comfortable doing it as I would defending atheism.

Originally posted by Digi
That atheismexposed website is messed up. It's like a compilation of every stereotype, red herring, and strawman that exists about atheism. Impressive in its rigor, I suppose, though not anything resembling a fair portrayal.

I didn't even visit the site. There's probably a couple of atheist websites that are just as disgusting.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm really, really starting to dislike anything with an end goal in sight. Even atheist materials, much as I agree with some of it. So few seem capable of independently holding a microscope to their beliefs or opinions, or adopting provisional beliefs.

Wow. I didn't even read this far into your post. Seems we are on the same page. And by same page, I don't mean KMC. awesome

Originally posted by Digi
If I ever have kids, I think the primary thing I'm going to try to ingrain in them is a critical curiosity, or skepticality, about anything and everything. Why could something be true? Why could it not? Until you have a comprehensive understanding of both of those questions, an opinion is completely invalid imo.

I try to teach my children independent skeptical thinking , as well. So far, they have not displayed prejudice or other types of ugly hate.

Originally posted by Digi
It's why I can't take most Christians seriously; they (usually) can't elucidate or display an understanding of the primary criticisms against their beliefs.

I agree here, as well. It's very irritating. When I watch them argue, it's almost painful. However, most people, including atheists, have a hard time forming decent arguments. Most of the time, it is just recycled shit that they thought sounded cool.

Originally posted by Digi
Whereas, if I were randomly recruited to defend theism (let's presume I'd say yes) I'd feel just as comfortable doing it as I would defending atheism.

Dude...this is awesome. You're have become +5 cool in my book.

But, yes, I like to play the "atheist" in arguments with theists at times. For example, recently, a "deep writing" analysis was done of the book of mormon and it was found to not be written by Joseph Smith. Nor were the books in the book written by the same author. Well, obviously, mormons went ape-shit with this information as though it were proof that Mormonism is the "only way to God" and that we are "undeniably right". That didn't sit well with me because of a nice argument I heard Dawkings make (he made it in the early 90s originally). We can just as easily say "intelligent aliens" as we can "God" to solve the problem. It is only Faith the bridges the gap between "well...it was just intelligent aliens" and "Well, it was God." (edit - We can say other things, as well. But this is just one example) Of course, Dawkins was talking about "what seeded the earth" rather than "how did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon". But I think his argument can apply to many different things.

Glad we're good, duder. You and I disagree on plenty, but at least we've never been at each other's throats like you and some others on the forums.

I appreciate irony, so I'm as likely to take a theistic stance in a real-world argument as an atheistic one, provided there are some in the crowd that realize I'm atheist and are in on the joke. If they call me on it eventually (I always let others clue them in, but I don't do it personally) I tend to say that I was just holding them to a high standard because their argument was lacking, despite my overall agreement. It's also good practice.

That alone isn't enough to say I'm versed on both sides, but my research into this has reached a point where I couldn't find a brand new argument for God's existence that I hadn't heard some variation of several times. It's not impossible for new arguments to exist, but I can feel confident that I paid the theistic argument its due when searching.

Semi-related, another of my favorite things is giving vegans and vegetarians sh*t for their practices, despite being vegetarian myself. Massive fun.

😈

...

Anyway, main point, religious debates are largely going to be fruitless in society. It's too filled with propaganda. I'm convinced the only way to advance us collectively instead of simply polarizing is to engender critical thinking skills into our youth.

Originally posted by Digi
I appreciate irony, so I'm as likely to take a theistic stance in a real-world argument as an atheistic one, provided there are some in the crowd that realize I'm atheist and are in on the joke. If they call me on it eventually (I always let others clue them in, but I don't do it personally) I tend to say that I was just holding them to a high standard because their argument was lacking, despite my overall agreement.

Another of my favorite things is giving vegans and vegetarians sh*t for their practices, despite being vegetarian myself. Massive fun.

😈

Anyone who really knows a topic can debate both sides.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where you go wrong: faith is explicitly not evidence. Faith cannot be used as evidence.

That's not correct. The extreme majority of theists believe even though they know there is no evidence. They believe in spite of the lack. If pressed, almost every last one of them would eventually admit that faith is what bridges the gap for them: no evidence.

The truly gnostic theists would be a short list, imo:

Moses, Joseph Smith, Muhammad....I'm at a loss here for people that claim to have actually seen God. But that's a short list of those that can claim to be gnostic theists. There are probably quite a few crazy theists out there that think they have regular conversations with God, too. This is why I arbitrarily set the number to 99%.

That's not true.

"I don't know, but I believe" is agnostic theism. It's just the flip side of agnostic atheism which is "I don't know, but I don't believe."

Inbetween that is "I don't know, but I am open to evidence either way" is pure agnosticism.

There are forth and fifth kinds, as well. Some say that "God" needs to be defined before a "belief" can be put forth. Som eof them consider themselves separate from agnostics, theists, and atheists: ignostics.

Then there are apatheists who refuse to associate with either theists are or atheists (some atheists put forth the that 'question' is meaningful and needs to be settled...as well as theists). They do not fall in line with ignostics. Some could say that they are agnostics, but there are some that actually believe in God but think the belief is meaningless, and do not act on that belief in any way.

Just saying....it's not just this two form of "ism" you are using.

If A is the rationale for B, then A is absolutely being used in an evidentiary way: whether A constitutes evidence or not, A is still the reason for B; and one who does not claim A, cannot properly conclude B.

Claiming agnostic theism is the equivalent of claiming Not A, therefore B: that one can draw a conclusion from no premises; that he literally holds a belief for no reasons.

The entire point is that agnostic theism only truly exists abstractly for one who claims no knowledge of the existence of a god cannot properly affirm that one exists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If A is the rationale for B, then A is absolutely being used in an evidentiary way:

In agnosticism, "A" is definitely not being used in an evidentiary way to rationalize "B". I feel like I am repeating myself, at this point.

"...faith is explicitly not evidence. Faith cannot be used as evidence."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
whether A constitutes evidence or not, A is still the reason for B; and one who does not claim A, cannot properly conclude B.

No, that's still incorrect.

"In agnosticism, 'A' is definitely not being used in an evidentiary way to rationalize 'B'."

And by "properly" conclude "B", you have it wrong, as well. "A" is not the reason or the evidence agnostic theists claim "B". There are a myriad of reasons other than "A" that agnostics claim "B" as their conclusory "evidence" but they still maintain that it is impossible to definitively/logically conclude their "B".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Claiming agnostic theism is the equivalent of claiming Not A, therefore B: that one can draw a conclusion from no premises; that he literally holds a belief for no reasons.

Again, you're incorrect in how the rationale actually works. I do believe, at this point, that you are explicitly and overtly committing a strawman argument about what I have stated. Even the statement, "I don't know, but I believe", directly contradicts your "A" "B" comparison. In actual logic, you would say, "If P then Q". The statement, "I don't know, but I believe", is explicitly not a "If P then Q" logic statement. The equivalence in logic would be, "Despite P, Q". There could be quite a few other reasons, other than "P" that lead you to conclude "Q". But, at the end of the day, there are still not enough reasons to lead to a definitive Q. 🙂

So what you're doing is applying a binary statement to the logic when a binary comparison doesn't even come close to properly representing the rationale. Much closer would be a 2 dimensional sliding scale (think Cartesian Plane) with various reasons that still will never lend themselves to a definitive conclusion of "yup, God exists". I have had plenty of spiritual experiences that lead me to ask the question, "Was that God?" I cannot logically conclude it was God, but it functions as evidence (lol) for my agnosticism. I cannot logically conclude there definitely is not God. I cannot logically conclude that there is a God. I can only conclude that I do not know.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The entire point is that agnostic theism only truly exists abstractly for one who claims no knowledge of the existence of a god cannot properly affirm that one exists.

Why not just say, "Agnostic theism is defined as believing in the existence of a god [or gods] but not claiming to know for sure that this god [or gods] definitely exist."

http://atheism.about.com/od/Agnostic-Dictionary/g/Agnostic-Theism-Dictionary-Definition.htm

🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
In agnosticism, "A" is definitely not being used in an evidentiary way to rationalize "B". I feel like I am repeating myself, at this point.

"...faith is explicitly not evidence. Faith cannot be used as evidence."

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's still incorrect.

"In agnosticism, 'A' is definitely not being used in an evidentiary way to rationalize 'B'."

And by "properly" conclude "B", you have it wrong, as well. "A" is not the reason or the evidence agnostic theists claim "B". There are a myriad of reasons other than "A" that agnostics claim "B" as their conclusory "evidence" but they still maintain that it is impossible to definitively/logically conclude their "B".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, you're incorrect in how the rationale actually works. I do believe, at this point, that you are explicitly and overtly committing a strawman argument about what I have stated. Even the statement, "I don't know, but I believe", directly contradicts your "A" "B" comparison. In actual logic, you would say, "If P then Q". The statement, "I don't know, but I believe", is explicitly not a "If P then Q" logic statement. The equivalence in logic would be, "Despite P, Q". There could be quite a few other reasons, other than "P" that lead you to conclude "Q". But, at the end of the day, there are still not enough reasons to lead to a definitive Q. 🙂

So what you're doing is applying a binary statement to the logic when a binary comparison doesn't even come close to properly representing the rationale. Much closer would be a 2 dimensional sliding scale (think Cartesian Plane) with various reasons that still will never lend themselves to a definitive conclusion of "yup, God exists". I have had plenty of spiritual experiences that lead me to ask the question, "Was that God?" I cannot logically conclude it was God, but it functions as evidence (lol) for my agnosticism. I cannot logically conclude there definitely is not God. I cannot logically conclude that there is a God. I can only conclude that I do not know.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why not just say, "Agnostic theism is defined as believing in the existence of a god [or gods] but not claiming to know for sure that this god [or gods] definitely exist."

http://atheism.about.com/od/Agnostic-Dictionary/g/Agnostic-Theism-Dictionary-Definition.htm

🙂

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are repeating yourself.

hahaha

Why are you informing me that I am repeating myself when I specifically implied I was about to do so and then put it in quotes?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are so preoccupied with the term “evidence”

Just the opposite is true, actually. I specifically am not preoccupied with the term "evidence": you are. I am responding to your occupation of evidence. Keep in mind, in this particular subject, it was first you that went into a diatribe about "evidence" concerning agnosticism:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Theists who claim Agnosticism are not claiming no evidence, they are claiming no material evidence.

To actually address this point you made:

Incorrect. They are specifically claiming that even if there is [material] evidence to prove their position, they still cannot know if it is actual/legitimate evidence. It is claiming ignorance. A.K.A Without Knowledge. A.K.A. Without Gnosis. A.K.A. A-Gnostic.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and by extension what constitutes proper “evidence” that you fail to recognize that any justification, rationale, reason, or support for a belief is being used as evidence for that belief. This is wholly separate from whether it is good, legitimate, or proper evidence.

Again, incorrect. You are preoccupied with the specific misrepresentation of what agnosticism actually is that you cannot even form a coherent/proper thought on it.

So what is it that agnosticism has done to you to make you hate it so much? What about it or them have offended you on such a level that you cannot even discuss it rationally?

But, to actually address your point, here is how you should have worded what you said if you wanted to be right:

Some agnostics who have theistic leanings are claiming evidence does not really work, they are claiming that of all the evidence known, it all falls short of creating gnostic theism/atheism and by extension what constitutes proper “evidence” in any justification, rationale, reason, or support for a belief is always seen as inadequate for justifying a theistic or atheistic belief.

And, dude, what a needlessly wordy sentence. 😬

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You just conceded my point; that one who does not claim knowledge of the existence of a god cannot properly conclude that a god exists.

Incorrect. You conceded my point, multiple times, and then contradicted yourself and simply stated wrong theophilosphies. Some agnostic theists are specifically not concluding God exists. I would hold that all do not conclude God exists, if pressed philosophically on their belief.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Syllogisms require conditional relationships, e.g. and, or, nor, IF and only IF. “Despite” is not a logical operator, nor is “Despite P, Q” a syllogism, because the truth value of Q cannot be determined from Despite P. Moreover, “Despite P, Q” is logically equivalent to “Not A, therefore B,” so the point is moot.

lol!

No: you don't get to lecture me/educate me on proper logical structure. The section you quoted was me doing that to you. 😉

Point blank: you tried a "If P, then Q" on a statement that was specifically, "Not P, but Q anyway".

I was informing you of proper logical structure due to your abuse of logical structures while committing a logical fallacy (strawman).

And, again, “Not A, therefore B,” is a strawman. That's still not a proper representation as the "not P" is only tangentially related to "but Q, anyway".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The entire point is that it is logically contradictory to hold a belief while claiming no justification, rationale, reason, or support; it is completely irrational.

HA!

I love it. Here's the problem: technically, there is no evidence of anything. Nothing can be truly known.

Your supposed position of 'superior rationale' is an illusion you have justified.

I will go ahead and flesh out only a tiny bit of the theophisophical arguments for you so we can move on: There is not one specific rationale that can/should be used but here's two of them.

Epistemological and prudential.

From these two arise some rationale/conclusions.

But I would say that an agnostic theist is closer to being a practical non-evidentialist.

I am prima facie justified in believing this "theism" because it seems to that "theism" is true, despite the lack of gnostic evidence in either direction. Read: it is not res ipsa loquitur.

In order to even start the discussion on the "existence of god" as an agnostic, you must first conclude that the existence of God is truely unknowable on a fundamental level. It is then concluded that those that claim gnosis either way are irrational: gnostic atheists and gnostic theists (these two are two sides of the same belief-philosophy coin: evidentialists). They know that the evidence is in favor of their position.

The agnostic theist sees this (the inability to truly know) but finds the practicality/pragmatism in going ahead with the religious system. This is a rational thought, not irrational as you are want to misrepresent. This is not the same thing as Pascal's wager: you cannot cookie cut all theists with the same cutter.

Okay, I am off my soap box. Here is my disclosure about my beliefs: I think I believe in a form of Pascal's Wager but it is so universal as to make it meaningless/useless to refer to it as Pascals Wager. I think that if there is a god, people are saved that come from many different belief systems: from primitive tribes to gnostic atheists to devote Christians.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...
Okay, I am off my soap box. Here is my disclosure about my beliefs: I think I believe in a form of Pascal's Wager but it is so universal as to make it meaningless/useless to refer to it as Pascals Wager. I think that if there is a god, people are saved that come from many different belief systems: from primitive tribes to gnostic atheists to devote Christians.

Why do we need to be saved? I think this is a very old belief. Even in Buddhism, there is references to saving people (however, this is saving people from suffering).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do we need to be saved? I think this is a very old belief. Even in Buddhism, there is references to saving people (however, this is saving people from suffering).

I am using "saved" because that seems to be the word everyone is stuck on, around these parts.

"When in Rome."

In Mormonism, we don't say "saved", at all.

Also, saved is quite ambiguous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am using "saved" because that seems to be the word everyone is stuck on, around these parts.

"When in Rome."

In Mormonism, we don't say "saved", at all.

Also, saved is quite ambiguous.

Thank you for adding to the Ambiguity. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
hahaha

Why are you informing me that I am repeating myself when I specifically implied I was about to do so and then put it in quotes?

For the same reason you felt the need to state that you were repeating yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just the opposite is true, actually. I specifically am not preoccupied with the term "evidence": you are. I am responding to your occupation of evidence. Keep in mind, in this particular subject, it was first you that went into a diatribe about "evidence" concerning agnosticism:

To actually address this point you made:

Incorrect. They are specifically claiming that even if there is [material] evidence to prove their position, they still cannot know if it is actual/legitimate evidence. It is claiming ignorance. A.K.A Without Knowledge. A.K.A. Without Gnosis. A.K.A. A-Gnostic.

Again, incorrect. You are preoccupied with the specific misrepresentation of what agnosticism actually is that you cannot even form a coherent/proper thought on it.

So what is it that agnosticism has done to you to make you hate it so much? What about it or them have offended you on such a level that you cannot even discuss it rationally?

But, to actually address your point, here is how you should have worded what you said if you wanted to be right:

Some agnostics who have theistic leanings are claiming evidence does not really work, they are claiming that of all the evidence known, it all falls short of creating gnostic theism/atheism and by extension what constitutes proper “evidence” in any justification, rationale, reason, or support for a belief is always seen as inadequate for justifying a theistic or atheistic belief.

And, dude, what a needlessly wordy sentence. 😬

My point is twofold:

[list=1][*]Agnostic theism is unwarranted. Beliefs are either warranted, i.e. justified or supported with evidence or reason, or unwarranted, i.e. simply held without justification or support. Since agnostics hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable, agnostic theists must necessarily believe in the existence of a god without justification or support. In other words, because agnostic theists cannot conclude that a god exists from evidence or reasons they hold to be incomplete, incomprehensible, or unknowable, they must necessarily believe in the existence of a god without justification or support.

[*]Theists whose beliefs are warranted are not agnostics. If one claims any evidence, justification, rationale, reason, or support for his belief in the existence of a god, then his belief is warranted, and he is not truly agnostic. Theists whose beliefs are warranted but claim agnosticism are operating under the misconception that because they have no empirical or material evidence for the existence of a god that their other justifications or support do not warrant belief.[/list]

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. You conceded my point, multiple times, and then contradicted yourself and simply stated wrong theophilosphies. Some agnostic theists are specifically not concluding God exists. I would hold that all do not conclude God exists, if pressed philosophically on their belief.

The notion that some theists, who by definition must believe that a god exists, do not affirm that a god exists, is completely asinine.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!

No: you don't get to lecture me/educate me on proper logical structure. The section you quoted was me doing that to you. 😉

Point blank: you tried a "If P, then Q" on a statement that was specifically, "Not P, but Q anyway".

I was informing you of proper logical structure due to your abuse of logical structures while committing a logical fallacy (strawman).

And, again, “Not A, therefore B,” is a strawman. That's still not a proper representation as the "not P" is only tangentially related to "but Q, anyway".

My first degree is in Philosophy with an emphasis in Logic. That you think “despite” is a logical operator and that a syllogism can have, let alone that the truth value of something can be determined from, no conditional relationship demonstrates that you do not understand the first thing about Logic. I would insert some self-congratulatory HAs and LOLs but I am not an insufferable clown.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HA!

I love it. Here's the problem: technically, there is no evidence of anything. Nothing can be truly known.

Your supposed position of 'superior rationale' is an illusion you have justified.

It is evident in that we have some declarative knowledge that knowledge is possible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I will go ahead and flesh out only a tiny bit of the theophisophical arguments for you so we can move on: There is not one specific rationale that can/should be used but here's two of them.

Epistemological and prudential.

From these two arise some rationale/conclusions.

But I would say that an agnostic theist is closer to being a practical non-evidentialist.

I am prima facie justified in believing this "theism" because it seems to that "theism" is true, despite the lack of gnostic evidence in either direction. Read: it is [b]not res ipsa loquitur.[/B]

An unwarranted belief is never and can never be justified.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In order to even start the discussion on the "existence of god" as an agnostic, you must first conclude that the existence of God is truely unknowable on a fundamental level. It is then concluded that those that claim gnosis either way are irrational: gnostic atheists and gnostic theists (these two are two sides of the same belief-philosophy coin: evidentialists). They know that the evidence is in favor of their position.

That the existence of a god is unknowable is itself a proposition that must be established. It is not presumed to be true because it supports your argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The agnostic theist sees this (the inability to truly know) but finds the practicality/pragmatism in going ahead with the religious system. This is a rational thought, not irrational as you are want to misrepresent. This is not the same thing as Pascal's wager: you cannot cookie cut all theists with the same cutter.

If one has a practical or pragmatic reason for believing in the existence of a god, then his belief in the existence of a god is not without evidence, justification, rationale, reasons, or support.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, I am off my soap box. Here is my disclosure about my beliefs: I think I believe in a form of Pascal's Wager but it is so universal as to make it meaningless/useless to refer to it as Pascals Wager. I think that if there is a god, people are saved that come from many different belief systems: from primitive tribes to gnostic atheists to devote Christians.

What reason do you have to believe that people need saving? What reason do you have to believe that wagering a belief in the existence of a god will indeed save them? You are simply positing all sorts of entities for no reason whatsoever.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
For the same reason you felt the need to state that you were repeating yourself.

That's non sequitur but I bet you thought it sounded like a great comeback? 😄

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since agnostics hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable, agnostic theists must necessarily believe in the existence of a god without justification or support.

Incorrect. They do have justification or support. But none of it is a sure knowledge. In fact, they also hold that god may not exist and is a possibility. The fundamental aspect of this system, which is what you keep missing, is that it is literally unknowable.

So, let me repeat what you have stated which shows you clearly are talking yourself into oblivious contradiction:

"Since agnostics hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable..."

In order to be an agnostic theist, one must already believe these things: "knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable..."

So believing this: "knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable"

is not believing this:

"...x must necessarily believe in the existence of a god..."

If you wanted to be correct, you could have stated the following:

"Agnostics hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable. Agnostic Theists believe that god exists but also hold that belief that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable."

Now, I have made it quite clear what type of agnostic theist I am. I would be quite content if some sort of Godlike entity came into our lives and explained that my belief in God was wrong (it would take a godlike entity to convince me. That entity does not have to be omnipotent, as well. I hold that we will prove the existence of God in our life time...either for or against. I am perfectly content with no God existing, as well.)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, because agnostic theists cannot conclude that a god exists from evidence or reasons they hold to be incomplete, incomprehensible, or unknowable, they must necessarily believe in the existence of a god without justification or support.

That's, again, not true. They do have justification or support. But none of it is a sure knowledge. Almost all theists are technically agnostics theists. Again, very few can claim a sure knowledge of God. 🙂

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Theists whose beliefs are warranted are not agnostics. [/B]

That's not true, either. Adam_PoE, meet Dawkins "Advanced Alien" argument. Meet philosophy's Evil Demon argument. Meet philosophy's "Brain in a Vat" argument.

I assume you will not understand why what I just stated make sense to your post. That's because one could obtain, for all they know, a perfectly warranted belief based quite solidly on evidence. It still does not guarantee a sure knowledge for those particular reasons. Thus, the person must always admit to agnosticism: they really can't know for sure.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one claims any evidence, justification, rationale, reason, or support for his belief in the existence of a god, then his belief is warranted, and he is not truly agnostic.

Incorrect and I think you are going out of your way to be ignorant of what agnosticism is, at this point, because you have firmly established already that you definitely know what agnosticism is in some portions of your post.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Theists whose beliefs are warranted but claim agnosticism are operating under the misconception that because they have no empirical or material evidence for the existence of a god that their other justifications or support do not warrant belief.

That makes no sense if we are to take it in context with your other points. Here is what you should have stated if you wanted it to make sense:

"Theists whose beliefs are unwarranted/unsupported but claim agnosticism are operating under a misconception: they have no empirical or material evidence for the existence of a god that their other justifications or support do not warrant belief."

Of course, this is still a wrong point of yours, no matter how incorrectly on non sequitur you present it. I do claim justification, evidence, knowledge that supports my beliefs. I am not so dumb as to think that it proves God's existence, however. It is still truly unknowable if these experiences prove the particular belief that I may hold.

What IS unwarranted is a gnostic belief for or against God. That is illogical, unscientific, and close-minded.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The notion that some theists, who by definition must believe that a god exists, do not affirm that a god exists, is completely asinine.

Don't mix your words up to strawman the point, now. That would be immature and petty. 😉

The idea that some agnostics, who be definition do not know if God exists or does not exist, but follow a system of belief regardless of their unsurety, is perfectly legitimate and logical.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
My first degree is in Philosophy with an emphasis in Logic.

A shame because you seem to not be doing it justice, at all. No offense, but you come off as an young man (in his teens) who just discovered wikipedia and is fumbling through a crash course of philosophy.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That you think “despite” is a logical operator and that a syllogism can have, let alone that the truth value of something can be determined from, no conditional relationship demonstrates that you do not understand the first thing about Logic.

😆 😆

Oh man.

You still do not get it.

I'll make it more clear for you:

You bastardized logic by incorrectly equating what I was stating with another incorrect logic statement. Quite explicitly, I was showing you that what I was saying canNOT be equated to the classic "If P, then Q" logical structure. I was correcting you. You literally cannot correct me when that is exactly what I was doing to you.

Here's what happened:

Me: This is what's up.

You: Nuh uhhh! You conclude B because of A!

Me: No, dude, not even close. I conclude B despite A. By the way, it's "If P, then Q" and that's not what I was doing.

You: You don't know logics, mang! If P then Q is classic logic structure! See here!

Me: *facepalm* I...just said that and corrected your bastardization of it.

You: You think Despite is a logical operator! UR DUMB!

Just so you cannot pretend to have introduced some new "pure" knowledge about logic to me, here is a post I made about this topic before our conversation:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be clear that your reasoning is baseless and, therefore, absolutely cannot be logical.

In order to be logical, you must fit the classic logic model of "if p then q". You have no p, therefore you conclusion cannot be logical. It is just speculation.

Enjoy. 😐

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I would insert some self-congratulatory HAs and LOLs but I am not an insufferable clown.

It's a shame you feel that "has" and "lols" are self-congratulatory instead of it being an expression of being amused or being amazed at the stupidity, ignorance, or assinine-ness of the presentation or content of a point. But the idea that the other person is an self-congratulating and is an "insufferable clown" probably makes you feel better, right?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is evident in that we have some declarative knowledge that knowledge is possible.

Uhhh...

You just ignored what I just stated because my response to this is exactly the same:

Nothing can be truly known.

And if it is truly knowable, meaning, mind-independent, then it would be objective knowledge. So some would say, "OBJECTION! Objective knowledge is a myth as nothing can truly be objectively known. The only objective knowledge that truly exists is that no objective knowledge can be known."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An unwarranted belief is never and can never be justified.

WHEW! Glad the belief we are talking about is not unwarranted.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That the existence of a god is unknowable is itself a proposition that must be established. It is not presumed to be true because it supports your argument.

Here, let me try:

"That the nonexistence of a god is knowable is itself a proposition that must be established. It is not presumed to be true because it supports your argument."

And again:

"That the existence of a god is knowable is itself a proposition that must be established. It is not presumed to be true because it supports your argument."

But I know you're just beating around the bush on purpose to avoid the real problem, here. You definitely know why agnostics claim that God's Existence is unknowable. You want to delve into the belief system called ignosticism.

Check this out: you can be a theist and an ignostic at the same time. You can be ignostic about a certain set of God beliefs, agnostic about another set, and atheistic about still an entirely other God. WOOHOO!

But saying you don't know if something is true because that something is specifically NOT knowable is hardly a "it must be true because it supports my argument! RAWR!" statement. The bane of ignosticism is the introduction of a meaningful definition. Then the person can no longer claim to be ignostic towards that particular definition. But then the ignostic can feign that the definition presented is "meaningless" just to avoid the discussion. So, it is my opinion that ignosticism is simply a dodge tactic when employed in most conversations. There are legit applications of ignosticism and I think pretty much every human is ignostic about something.

Why did I got into that "lengthy discourse"? Because it seems like you're hiding behing ignosticism and think it is magically more logical than agnosticism.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one has a practical or pragmatic reason for believing in the existence of a god, then his belief in the existence of a god is not without evidence, justification, rationale, reasons, or support.

Oh man. I could have sworn that this is what I had already communicated. I think you're now trying to obfuscate my actual point to make it seem like I am confused or not making a solid position.

Let me make it clear, yet again, that I do have justifications and evidence to believe what I believe HOWEVER, I hold that those beliefs could be wrong and that the existence of God is unknowable.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What reason do you have to believe that people need saving?

What reason do you have or believe that the question "what reason to you have to believe that people need saving?" is meaningful? In other words, what purpose does this question intend?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What reason do you have to believe that wagering a belief in the existence of a god will indeed save them?

By all means, point me to a portion of my post where I state that wagering a belief in God will save them. Once you do so, then we can entertain this question of yours with more rhetoric.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are simply positing all sorts of entities for no reason whatsoever.

Even you know that's not true. 🙂

I have a question for you: You mad, PoE?

Isn't "despite P, Q" just an informal way of saying "P and Q" where the statement is generally believed to be false?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't "despite P, Q" just an informal way of saying "P and Q" where the statement is generally believed to be false?

Honestly, I don't know.

In the context of the conversation, this "P" is only tangentially related to "Q". Despite the tangenital-ness of "P" to the "then Q", it is still being used to point out why "then Q" is wrong. I believe that this is what is called "non sequitur" because it does not follow. I submitted that a "then Q" cannot be logically concluded, as well, because there's nothing definitive about "unknowable, incomplete, etc.".

Here's what he said:

"Claiming agnostic theism is the equivalent of claiming Not A, therefore B: that one can draw a conclusion from no premises; that he literally holds a belief for no reasons."

This is what I said in response:

"In actual logic, you would say, "If P then Q". The statement, "I don't know, but I believe", is explicitly not a "If P then Q" logic statement. The equivalence in logic would be, "Despite P, Q". There could be quite a few other reasons, other than "P" that lead you to conclude "Q". But, at the end of the day, there are still not enough reasons to lead to a definitive Q.

[basically]...various reasons that still will never lend themselves to a definitive conclusion."

In other words, if you were to try and make a parallel in logic with Adam_PoE's point, you would say ,"despite P, Q anyway". That is obviously not proper and what I was pointing out to him.

The word "but" is an "and" operator as far as I understand it since in both cases you're stating that both things are true. Certainly there is no use for "then" in the context you came up with since you're not drawing a conclusion from "I don't know but I believe" that is just two premises.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The word "but" is an "and" operator as far as I understand it since in both cases you're stating that both things are true.

I lost you here.

The first portion of my statement is neither true nor not true: it is undefined and is being presented as undefinable.

The second statement is not directly related or logically following the first portion.

I am not aware of any proper logical structure used in Modal Logic that would correctly fit my statement.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Certainly there is no use for "then" in the context you came up with since you're not drawing a conclusion from "I don't know but I believe" that is just two premises.

I think I understand what you're saying here.

My commentary was on "If P, then Q" to his "Not A, therefore B".

He was trying to pontificate. If I wanted to truly represent his argument, I would have said, "Not P, then Q." but my point was not to represent his argument, but only to bring about the commonly understand structure to illustrate how silly a "Despite P, Q anyway" statement sounds using that proper structure.

I may have misunderstood you here, as well, so please let me know.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's non sequitur but I bet you thought it sounded like a great comeback?

You asked a rhetorical question and I gave you a rhetorical answer.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. They do have justification or support. But none of it is a sure knowledge. In fact, they also hold that god may not exist and is a possibility. The fundamental aspect of this system, which is what you keep missing, is that it is literally unknowable.

So, let me repeat what you have stated which shows you clearly are talking yourself into oblivious contradiction:

"Since agnostics hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable..."

In order to be an agnostic theist, one must already believe these things: "knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable..."

So believing this: "knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable"

is not believing this:

"...x must necessarily believe in the existence of a god..."

If you wanted to be correct, you could have stated the following:

"Agnostics hold that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable. Agnostic Theists believe that god exists but also hold that belief that knowledge of the existence of a god is incomplete, incomprehensible, or otherwise unknowable."

Now, I have made it quite clear what type of agnostic theist I am. I would be quite content if some sort of Godlike entity came into our lives and explained that my belief in God was wrong (it would take a godlike entity to convince me. That entity does not have to be omnipotent, as well. I hold that we will prove the existence of God in our life time...either for or against. I am perfectly content with no God existing, as well.)

That's, again, not true. They do have justification or support. But none of it is a sure knowledge. Almost all theists are technically agnostics theists. Again, very few can claim a sure knowledge of God.

That's not true, either. Adam_PoE, meet Dawkins "Advanced Alien" argument. Meet philosophy's Evil Demon argument. Meet philosophy's "Brain in a Vat" argument.

I assume you will not understand why what I just stated make sense to your post. That's because one could obtain, for all they know, a perfectly warranted belief based quite solidly on evidence. It still does not guarantee a sure knowledge for those particular reasons. Thus, the person must always admit to agnosticism: they really can't know for sure.

Incorrect and I think you are going out of your way to be ignorant of what agnosticism is, at this point, because you have firmly established already that you definitely know what agnosticism is in some portions of your post.

I understand your position that one may hold a belief in the existence of god while acknowledging that it is not possible to justify this belief sufficiently for it to be considered “known.”

However, you do not seem to understand my position that it is logically contradictory to hold that the existence of a god is unknowable, yet positively assert a belief in its existence.

Belief requires one to be convicted by knowledge that a claim is true.

If one holds that knowledge of the truth of a claim is not possible, then he cannot be convicted that the claim is true.

Conversely, if one is convicted that a claim is true, then he must have some knowledge of the truth of the claim, therefore knowledge of the truth of the claim is possible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes no sense if we are to take it in context with your other points. Here is what you should have stated if you wanted it to make sense:

"Theists whose beliefs are unwarranted/unsupported but claim agnosticism are operating under a misconception: they have no empirical or material evidence for the existence of a god that their other justifications or support do not warrant belief."

Of course, this is still a wrong point of yours, no matter how incorrectly on non sequitur you present it. I do claim justification, evidence, knowledge that supports my beliefs. I am not so dumb as to think that it proves God's existence, however. It is still truly unknowable if these experiences prove the particular belief that I may hold.

What IS unwarranted is a gnostic belief for or against God. That is illogical, unscientific, and close-minded.

One believes something because it is true, it is not true because he believes it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't mix your words up to strawman the point, now. That would be immature and petty.

The idea that some agnostics, who be definition do not know if God exists or does not exist, but follow a system of belief regardless of their unsurety, is perfectly legitimate and logical.

Following a system of belief that presumes or affirms the existence of a god is not the same as believing in the existence of a god.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A shame because you seem to not be doing it justice, at all. No offense, but you come off as an young man (in his teens) who just discovered wikipedia and is fumbling through a crash course of philosophy.

It would seem that way to one whose study of philosophy is limited to justifying his continued belief in Mormonism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh man.

You still do not get it.

I'll make it more clear for you:

You bastardized logic by incorrectly equating what I was stating with another incorrect logic statement. Quite explicitly, I was showing you that what I was saying canNOT be equated to the classic "If P, then Q" logical structure. I was correcting you. You literally cannot correct me when that is exactly what I was doing to you.

Here's what happened:

Me: This is what's up.

You: Nuh uhhh! You conclude B because of A!

Me: No, dude, not even close. I conclude B despite A. By the way, it's "If P, then Q" and that's not what I was doing.

You: You don't know logics, mang! If P then Q is classic logic structure! See here!

Me: *facepalm* I...just said that and corrected your bastardization of it.

You: You think Despite is a logical operator! UR DUMB!

Just so you cannot pretend to have introduced some new "pure" knowledge about logic to me, here is a post I made about this topic before our conversation:

Enjoy.

I only indicated that your attempt at correction was itself incorrect.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's a shame you feel that "has" and "lols" are self-congratulatory instead of it being an expression of being amused or being amazed at the stupidity, ignorance, or assinine-ness of the presentation or content of a point. But the idea that the other person is an self-congratulating and is an "insufferable clown" probably makes you feel better, right?

If an argument is truly asinine, ignorant, or stupid, then it should be evident to all. That you feel the need to respond with derisive laughter instead of dispassionate discourse demonstrates that you are indeed an insufferable, self-congratulating clown.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhhh...

You just ignored what I just stated because my response to this is exactly the same:

Nothing can be truly known.

And if it is truly knowable, meaning, mind-independent, then it would be objective knowledge. So some would say, "OBJECTION! Objective knowledge is a myth as nothing can truly be objectively known. The only objective knowledge that truly exists is that no objective knowledge can be known."

This is demonstrably false; there is proven knowledge in mathematics and justified knowledge in the empirical sciences for starters.

Originally posted by dadudemon
WHEW! Glad the belief we are talking about is not unwarranted.

If there is no evidence that a god exists, one is not justified in believing that a god exists. Belief without evidence is definitionally unwarranted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here, let me try:

"That the nonexistence of a god is knowable is itself a proposition that must be established. It is not presumed to be true because it supports your argument."

And again:

"That the existence of a god is knowable is itself a proposition that must be established. It is not presumed to be true because it supports your argument."

But I know you're just beating around the bush on purpose to avoid the real problem, here. You definitely know why agnostics claim that God's Existence is unknowable. You want to delve into the belief system called ignosticism.

Check this out: you can be a theist and an ignostic at the same time. You can be ignostic about a certain set of God beliefs, agnostic about another set, and atheistic about still an entirely other God. WOOHOO!

But saying you don't know if something is true because that something is specifically NOT knowable is hardly a "it must be true because it supports my argument! RAWR!" statement. The bane of ignosticism is the introduction of a meaningful definition. Then the person can no longer claim to be ignostic towards that particular definition. But then the ignostic can feign that the definition presented is "meaningless" just to avoid the discussion. So, it is my opinion that ignosticism is simply a dodge tactic when employed in most conversations. There are legit applications of ignosticism and I think pretty much every human is ignostic about something.

Why did I got into that "lengthy discourse"? Because it seems like you're hiding behing ignosticism and think it is magically more logical than agnosticism.

The difference is that existence is a positive state that can be substantiated and nonexistence is a negative state that cannot. Therefore, nonexistence is always presumed and existence must always be substantiated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What reason do you have or believe that the question "what reason to you have to believe that people need saving?" is meaningful? In other words, what purpose does this question intend?

You stated, “I think that if there is a god, people are saved that come from many different belief systems . . . .” I am asking you to qualify that people need to be saved.

Originally posted by dadudemon
By all means, point me to a portion of my post where I state that wagering a belief in God will save them. Once you do so, then we can entertain this question of yours with more rhetoric.

You stated, “. . . I believe in a form of Pascal’s Wager but it is so universal as to make it meaningless/useless to refer to it as Pascal’s Wager.” At the heart of Pascal’s Wager is the notion that one is saved by wagering a belief. I am asking you to qualify that wagering a belief will indeed save people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even you know that's not true.

By your own admission, you believe that people need to be saved and that wagering a belief will indeed save people. You have posited damnation, salvation, and a means to save one from the other. Thus far, you have not qualified any of those entities.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a question for you: You mad, PoE?

I would be frustrated if I thought I could reason one out of a position that he did not reason himself into in the first place.