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. 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.
Hence, there is no conditional relationship in the syllogism he outlined, and why it is not a correction.
It should be noted that I have reported dadudemon to moderators for his antagonistic, condescending, and disrespectful behavior and placed him on my ignore list so I will no longer be responding to his posts.
My willingness to suffer fools has greatly diminished since I began posting on KMC eight years ago and continues to be why I post here with increasingly less frequency.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You asked a rhetorical question and I gave you a rhetorical answer.
This is also a dodge to what I stated.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.”
So why all of the hubbub?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
You contradict yourself. You cannot first state my position and then contradict that you understand by falling back on your old argument. I do not positively hold that God exists. I hold that it is impossible to know. I just happen to fall on the other side of pure agnosticism.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Belief requires one to be convicted by knowledge that a claim is true.
No it doesn't unless you use a very close-minded/myopic definition of "knowledge".
I am telling you that I am not convinced that god exists, right now. So now what? 😬
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If one holds that knowledge of the truth of a claim is not possible, then he cannot be convicted that the claim is true.
I agree. I am uncertain. I do not know if god exists. I just happen to be a practicing Mormon. I just don't know if god doesn't exist, as well.
Sometimes, literally, the only thing the separates an agnostic theist and an agnostic is simply practicing a faith. I just happen to not be a true 50-50 agnostic. More like 60-50.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
You're talking in circles, again. Why rehash your old and tired arguments?
But, no, you're wrong, still. Stop with the ambiguous references. Actually come out and directly say what you want to say. Don't beat around the bush with indirect references to what we are actually talking about. That type of underhanded rhetoric will not fly, anymore.
If you wanted to say this:
"Conversely, if you are convicted that god exists, then you must have some knowledge of god's existence, therefore knowledge of god's existence is possible."
And, obviously, none of that is true. It's all wrong. You have yet to genuinely make a stab at correctly representing my position except for once where I virtually congratulate you....just a few words above.
This is what you should have said:
"Conversely, if you are convinced that god exists, then you must have some knowledge of god's existence, therefore knowledge of god's existence is possible. However, I know you do not believe that so it is just a tangential point I would like to make."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One believes something because it is true, it is not true because he believes it.
Correction: "1. Sometimes, one believes something because it is true, it is not true because he believes it. 2. But sometimes one believes something because it has merit or benefit despite the baggage that might come with it. 3. Additionally, one may side with a virtually binary choice with little conviction either way and still holds that knowledge is impossible the make the correct decision but falls back on #2 to help make that decision."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
And you're telling me this, why? You do know that's basically my position, right? You do know that you reply is pretty much irrelevant to what I had stated to what you had stated prior, right? 😬
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It would seem that way to one whose study of philosophy is limited to justifying his continued belief in Mormonism.
No, it seems that way to a person that has been a student of philosophy for over a decade. I never professed absolute knowledge of philosophy, only that you have been misusing some portions of philosophy 101 and then smugly/condescendingly having the audacity to pretend that you had any grounds to correct me.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I only indicated that your attempt at correction was itself incorrect.
And that correction of my correction was incorrect because I was representing the reason why your use was incorrect...so you were indirectly confirming that you were wrong but glossed over that fact when attempting to be smug.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If an argument is truly asinine, ignorant, or stupid, then it should be evident to all.
You kind of missed the part where I indicated that it was also the presentation of the argument, not just the arguments. You also missed where I pointed out "immature" and "petty" before this portion.
Also, those are subjective labels and it would be in the eye-of-the-beholder. 😬
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That you feel the need to respond with derisive laughter
And now you put words in my mouth. I specifically said "amazed" or "amused", not "laughing at Adam-PoE." You seriously could not act like more of the victim.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
instead of dispassionate discourse
"Dispassionate"? 😆
If you go back through our conversation and look for the moment when it went from intellectual discourse to passionate rage, it is this post of yours:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are repeating yourself. You are so preoccupied with the term “evidence” 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.
I even included smilies in that post you quoted to indicate the light-hearted nature towards the discussion, lest you assume I was being derisive.
I have a strick posting policy of not posting condescendingly unless it is first given. If you thought my "no, this is not correct, as well" was rude, you should have spoken up. I can adjust my posting style just for one person as long as it is not unreasonable. I would change it to something like, "We disagree, here, as well." Or "We still disagree, here."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
demonstrates that you are indeed an insufferable, self-congratulating clown.
My impression is that you realized you were wrong a few pages ago, even admitted I was right multiple times now, but just want to argue. I think you have an agenda against agnostic theists. I do not know if I said this before, but that's just weird. It's borderline creepy, imo. I mean...of all the things, why an agenda against agnostic theists?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is demonstrably false; there is proven knowledge in mathematics and justified knowledge in the empirical sciences for starters.
And you would be wrong, still (or should I rephrase and say, "We disagree,here, as well"? I can if that is more amicable to for you.) This is basic philosophy, 101. Why do you have such blind faith in empirical philosophy? I mean, sure, it's a great framework for reality that seems to flow well from subjective experience to the next, but it is literally not "Objective knowledge", with a capital "O". That would require omniscience to be correct, and neither of us have that (well, I feel that I definitely do not have it: I cannot speak for you. You may very well believe that you posses Objective knowledge but I find such a notion silly.)
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
We covered this already, didn't we?
We did:
I do have evidence, but it is not enough to justify a Gnostic belief in god. There are other reasons I also fall on the side of agnostic theism, other than a sole dedication to a belief. I also do not know if god exists.
And belief without evidence is warranted, always, because that's how all humans operate, fundamentally.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The difference is that existence is a positive state that can be substantiated and nonexistence is a negative state that cannot.
[This is non sequitur to the point I made, by the way. It is mostly a red-herring. But I'll bite to entertain you.]
That's also incorrect (please, let me know if you prefer "I disagree, here"😉.
"Nonexistence" can be a positive state. The concept of "zero" is just that, to many cultures. It is a positive state. Not positive, numerically, but the simple existence of nothing. It is only your definition of "nothing" that leads you to conclude that it is a negative state instead of a positive state. It is a dangerous word game that you play.
You can also affirm that "that space possess nothing", or, "that space has nothing", and that is a positive state. Nonexistance of God is simply another state of existence. It just so happens to be the set of existence which does not contain the "element" god".
Whether or not you are holding a spoon is a bit easier to prove. "I can prove that I am not holding a spoon" is a positive asseration. You show the emptiness of your hand and that emptiness is a positive assertion of "Yes, I am not holding a spoon. Observe the set of emptiness."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Therefore, nonexistence is always presumed and existence must always be substantiated.
Why is nonexistence always presumed? Of course, ignore the first portion of your statement because this can stand alone.
Is it more convenient to presume nonexistence until existence is substantiated? Possibly. But at what point do you assume existence? Are there varying degrees of existence being proven? Are there somethings that cannot be tangibly proven?
Those are mostly rhetorical questions. All types of "existence" are not equal. There are differing things and concepts for which existence is cannot be equally applied. I could have sworn this was also basic philosophy.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
It has been done already. Maybe you missed it so to be fair, here is what I said of that:
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 Adam_PoE
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.
And this is where you are wrong. I did not say what you want me to say, no matter how contrived you try to make my point. Also, Pascals Wager does not at all say that 'one is saved' by wagering belief. Pascal's Wager is about decision theory, not about being saved. If you look through all three portions of that writing, you will not see, at all, the word "saved".
But, of course, you are now using a specific definition of saved and applying it to my point, now aren't you? And did I not also say in that very same portion you quoted that my use of Pascal's Wager is "meaningless/useless" when using it to refer to my perspective? Pascal would agree with me: he was hedging a bet on a specific type of belief system which would contradict with my own.
So, again, I ask: point me to where I stated that wagering a belief in god will save them. I will help you: I made no such statement, ever. Even if you search all of KMC, you will not find such a statement. You will find several contradictions to that statement, of course.
Edit - Since it appears you have put me on ignore, one of the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism is NOT just believing "that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior": we believe that our beliefs, our works, and the content of our heart are what determine "being saved". Again, we do not use the word "saved". Here is why we believe it is silly to think just believing "Jesus is the Christ" will save you: even the devils know that. It's quite a ridiculous belief, imo. But, maybe they think all of the devils and Lucifer himself can be saved, too, if the only thing they do is acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ. If they do, then their belief is not as silly as presume but I have not met that person, yet.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your own admission, you believe that people need to be saved and that wagering a belief will indeed save people.
hahaha
No. No where did I ever state that. I, in fact, stated the opposite, in this very same post you quoted:
Originally posted by dadudemon
..people are saved that come from many different belief systems: from primitive tribes to gnostic atheists to devote Christians.
Now, I do not know if that was deliberate on your part or if you thought maybe you could sneak that by me but that seems like deliberate libel. Edit - Obviously, I do not care to report such behavior because you have me on ignore, already.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You have posited damnation,
I have? Where? Where did I say anyone would be damned?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
salvation,
I have, sort of. But I clarified that, already.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and a means to save one from the other.
I have? Where? What means did I save, in my discussion with you, that I posited a means to save one from the other?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Thus far, you have not qualified any of those entities.
Well, you certainly do not get to claim that I "posited the means to save one from the other" and then, in the same paragraph, say I have not qualified any of those entities. Now that would be just plain contradictory. Also, you do not get to make up positions I have no made and then argue against them. That's not even a strawman, that's...I dunno...delusional? Libel? I do not know what type of logical fallacy that is.
Originally posted by Adam_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.
The question was a joke. It rhymes with the meme" You mad, bro?" It was not intended to be serious. It was intended to get at least a smile out of you because it seemed our conversation was getting too serious.
But, if you wanted to properly represent what is occurring, you would have said this:
"I would be frustrated if I thought I could reason you out of a position that you reasoned yourself into long before this thread was even started."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Hence, there is no conditional relationship in the syllogism he outlined, and why it is not a correction.
Yeah, you don't get to pretend that I wasn't correcting you and showing you why your comparison was not only wrong but silly.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It should be noted that I have reported dadudemon to moderators for his antagonistic, condescending, and disrespectful behavior and placed him on my ignore list so I will no longer be responding to his posts.My willingness to suffer fools has greatly diminished since I began posting on KMC eight years ago and continues to be why I post here with increasingly less frequency.
Stop playing the victim. You were the one that was being derisive and went over the top (elementry school shit of "he started it!" I know, lame). I did not stoop to your level of derision and condescension, but I do admit that I was condescending at times.
You can't seriously contemplate the idea that you are this innocent persona that did nothing wrong and did not instigate anything. You got upset and frustrated when I pointed out where you went wrong so you started petty squabbling. This is not the first time you have done something like this, either.
You said in the past that I was the "reasons" you left this place. Obviously, you have an agenda against me. I do not care. 🙂
Found it:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Would you like me to call Whine-1-1? Do you need a waaambulance? The inanity of your arguments lowers the level of discussion in every thread in which you participate. It is tiresome, and one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore.
😆
That post still makes me laugh.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
My willingness to suffer fools has greatly diminished since I began posting on KMC eight years ago and continues to be why I post here with increasingly less frequency.
I've been here almost as long and I fondly remember the days when you could suffer a fool. Good times pasted.
Originally posted by Robtard
I've been here almost as long and I fondly remember the days when you could suffer a fool. Good times pasted.
When I had to separate my reply into two posts in order to submit it, I noted how much time I had spent composing it, and questioned why I was putting for the effort to carefully consider his arguments and compose a thoughtful reply when he was only going to dismiss it flippantly.
On its face, it would seem that both agnostic theism and gnostic atheism are possible, because a/gnosticism addresses what one knows and a/theism addresses what one believes. However, while both positions are possible abstractly, they are not possible in practice:
Agnostic theism requires one to hold two logically contradictory propositions simultaneously, i.e. that knowledge of the existence of a god is impossible, and that one is convicted by knowledge that a god exists.
Likewise, gnostic atheism is logically untenable, because it requires systemic knowledge of all things for one to know that a god does not exist, and that degree of knowledge is not possible.
This is not a new concept in Philosophy. It is specifically addressed by George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God and Matt Dillahunty in an episode of "The Atheist Experience" among others if anyone would like to explore further.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
When I had to separate my reply into two posts in order to submit it, I noted how much time I had spent composing it, and questioned why I was putting for the effort to carefully consider his arguments and compose a thoughtful reply when he was only going to dismiss it flippantly.
That's my line. 😐
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Agnostic theism requires one to hold two logically contradictory propositions simultaneously,
If you knew what Agnosticism meant, you would know how horribly wrong this statement is.
Agnosticism explicitly allows for the possibility of God...which immediately bars "agnosticism" from being logically contradictory to "theism". And, you said you have taken philosphy...so you would know that belief and knowledge are sometimes not the same thing.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
i.e. that knowledge of the existence of a god is impossible,
No, that's still wrong. It's more like "the knowledge of the existence of God may not be possible". If I stated otherwise in the past, it was only to paraphrase or quote you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and that one is convicted by knowledge that a god exists.
No, that's explicitly false of what agnostic theism is. That's almost the exact opposite of what it actually is. Maybe this is why you have been arguing the point? You had a false idea of what it was?
Regardless, agnostic theism is explicitly a person that does not have a sure knowledge of God's existence. That is the foundation of what it means to be agnostic and an agnostic theist. Once you build from that knowledge, you'll be able to understand where you went wrong in this conversation.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Likewise, gnostic atheism
Uh, no. You cannot say "likewise, gnostic atheism" because that thought does not extend to any "gnosis" because it is the literal a-gnosis of something. You're dealing in opposites but likening them to each other.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
is logically untenable, because it requires systemic knowledge of all things for one to know that a god does not exist, and that degree of knowledge is not possible.
I agree. I made that point earlier. 👆
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is specifically addressed by George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God and Matt Dillahunty in an episode of "The Atheist Experience" among others if anyone would like to explore further.
I am familiar.
There are newer philosophical ideas on "God", "Atheism", and "Theism", as well. I recommend "The Dawkins Delusion?" and a closer look at Dr. Alvin Plantiga's ideas: especially his modal ontological argument.
Couple vids I found and enjoyed:
- the first is the always-incisive Penn Jillette, with a political overview from a religious perspective. It's not just a Republican bashing fest. He starts with Obama in his crosshairs, and also gives us some historical perspective on religion in the country's history.
*vulgarity and swearing are in the vid, so it's probably NSFW and such.
- the second is a trailer for a documentary from a formerly American, now-British, filmmaker responding to religious intolerance she sees.
Originally posted by Digi
YouTube video
Some of the snippits of video she put together, I agreed with: I thought it was supposed to be showing "intolerance" rather than showing us what's wrong with many atheists. mwhahahahaa
Also, spinning "non-believers" into something of a pejorative is damn lame. Could there be something more mundane whined about? Awww...atheists are such victims because someone called them a "non-believer". That would be like Mormons getting offending because someone calls us non-Trinitarians. Sorry, but were are and there is nothing offensive about that. We take pride, as do atheists, in not believing in that concept.
I find close to 99% of atheists to be hypocritical and ignorant in their arguments. Very few are actually well versed in the nuances of the "god" debate and they really do set a double standard by which each side's arguments are made. They whine and cry about someone arguing against their position with a strawman but everyone is just being "intellectually dishonest" when a strawman is levied against one of their arguments: hypocritical.
What I would like to see is less hypocrisy from both sides. I would like to see many more concessions from both sides and an admittance of "agnosticism" from both sides.
Originally posted by Digi"My name is Digi, KMC Moderator, and I approve this message."
YouTube video
Actually, given how well you generally present your position, I think you'd make a more impressive/substantial vid.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What I would like to see is less hypocrisy from both sides. I would like to see many more concessions from both sides and an admittance of "agnosticism" from both sides.
"what I'd like to see is less people thinking for themselves and everyone admitting that my perspective is the correct one"
Originally posted by Mindship
"My name is Digi, KMC Moderator, and I approve this message."Actually, given how well you generally present your position, I think you'd make a more impressive/substantial vid.
I led with the Penn Jilette video for a reason. This one was obviously more of a fluff piece. While I can't say it's the most biting of critiques on religious culture, or the least biased, the idea that we should actively work to create understanding and tolerance is never unwelcome. Prejudice against atheists is far from the most severe in our world, but it's also one of the most widespread.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Some of the snippits of video she put together, I agreed with: I thought it was supposed to be showing "intolerance" rather than showing us what's wrong with many atheists. mwhahahahaaAlso, spinning "non-believers" into something of a pejorative is damn lame. Could there be something more mundane whined about? Awww...atheists are such victims because someone called them a "non-believer". That would be like Mormons getting offending because someone calls us non-Trinitarians. Sorry, but were are and there is nothing offensive about that. We take pride, as do atheists, in not believing in that concept.
I find close to 99% of atheists to be hypocritical and ignorant in their arguments. Very few are actually well versed in the nuances of the "god" debate and they really do set a double standard by which each side's arguments are made. They whine and cry about someone arguing against their position with a strawman but everyone is just being "intellectually dishonest" when a strawman is levied against one of their arguments: hypocritical.
What I would like to see is less hypocrisy from both sides. I would like to see many more concessions from both sides and an admittance of "agnosticism" from both sides.
This doesn't seem like a direct response to the video, but more a jumping off point to share a relevant but somewhat tangential opinion. See my response to Mindship.
Originally posted by dadudemon
...I find close to 99% of atheists to be hypocritical and ignorant in their arguments. Very few are actually well versed in the nuances of the "god" debate and they really do set a double standard by which each side's arguments are made. They whine and cry about someone arguing against their position with a strawman but everyone is just being "intellectually dishonest" when a strawman is levied against one of their arguments: hypocritical.What I would like to see is less hypocrisy from both sides. I would like to see many more concessions from both sides and an admittance of "agnosticism" from both sides.
Does your 99% of atheists include Richard Dawkins? If so, what do you find inadequate in his explanation of atheism?