Do you believe; and why?

[Lucidus]

(05-18-2019, 01:36 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That is a really odd statement to make.  You're on a quest to understand what other people believe, but you admit you don't understand why people would believe differently than you?  A card carrying member of the intelligentsia can't understand how someone could be anything other than agnostic?

What is this? Another of your thought experiments?

Agnosticism deals with claims to knowledge, and whether said knowledge is even attainable.

Is there currently a way that we can truly "know" if a God does or doesn't exist?
Is there currently a method that we can use to determine if it's even "knowable"?

If you, or anyone, answered no to those questions, then you - by definition - are agnostic.

However, that only deals with what we can know and if we can know it. That's where the subsets of theism and atheism come into play. They answer the single proposition "God exists". Theists accept [believe] the proposition. Atheists reject [don't believe] the proposition.

Therefore, it seems to me that we would all be agnostic when it comes to whether a God exists or not, unless it can be proven that it is knowable and that we have some reliable method that allows us to know.

A person can claim they're not agnostic, but then there needs to be a request for there methods of determining certainty. If those methods can't be observed or examined, then the claim of not being agnostic seems to defy logical conclusion.

Quote:Ah, the Donald Rumsfeld "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" defense.  Just because we don't have any evidence to support our claims Iraq is actively seeking WMD programs doesn't mean there isn't the possibility there is evidence out there.

This is the same reasoning anti-vaxxers use to support their beliefs, too. Just because no one has ever repeated Andrew Wakefield's research results, and there is no evidence to support a link between vaccinations and autism, and there is no evidence to suggest the vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is harmful doesn't mean there is a possibility that one day there might be.

Strange bedfellows; Donald Rumsfeld, an anti-vaxxer, and an agnostic atheist intellectual.

The statement, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is absolutely true. Just because a murder weapon can't be found, doesn't mean the murder weapon doesn't exist. The question becomes how do you approach that problem. It would seem that you cannot convict on a weapon that has yet to be proven to exist. Therefore, until which time the weapon is found, it can't be used as "evidence".

Quote:What a coincidence because I feel like I'm being Tigerblooded really hard by a guy who admittedly enjoys thought games.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "being Tigerblooded", so you'll need to clarify.

Quote:Have you ever met a Christian that didn't believe in Christ? 

By definition, they believe in Christ. However, there are a myriad of reason for doing so. Some of these are points of contention within the faith itself and sects and belief systems are viewed as flawed or improper by other sects. This is why it is useful to know what a person actually means when they say the are a Christian, if you're wanting to have a fruitful dialogue with them.

Quote:Seems like an exercise in futility given you're "not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

Agnosticism has zero to do with what they believe and why they believe it. Should scientists give up and stop trying to understand all things that they don't yet have a way of knowing, and aren't sure if there is a way of knowing?

Quote:Really? You stated you're an agnostic atheist.  That's a belief.  Now demonstrate the evidence for your belief.  Otherwise, if you don't have evidence to support the belief of agnostic atheism than you can't believe in it; at least according to your logic.

Once again, agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism deals with non-belief.

If someone tells you and I that there are universe creating pixies that are responsible for our existence.

1] Is there a way that we can know 100% for sure that these pixies do or don't actually exist?
2] Are there currently any means for us to even access these pixies for observation, examination or evaluation?
3] Can we make any definitive evidence based claims on the existence on nonexistence of these fairies sans 1 and 2?

If we answered no / I don't know to all three questions; would we not both not be agnostic as to whether we can actually "know" if these pixies exist or not? So, does that mean we "believe" in something now? The 3 questions - if answered "no/I don't know" lead to a conclusion which doesn't require belief, as it simply provides the logical default - "we currently don't / can't know" - therefore agnosticism.

Now there comes the question of whether we will accept or reject the assertion of universe creating pixies, with the understand that we can't be 100% certain either way.

Let's say I accept (believe) that they do exist. Let's say that you don't accept (believe) that they exist.

Who has the "belief" in this situation?

If you don't accept the proposition that these fairies exist, then what exactly are your "beliefs" that would need to be demonstrated?

Quote:If I told you I had a fire breathing dragon in my garage and you accepted it as true then you would believe.

If you were shown, then you would know. 

You're confusing the two. I believe it was you who wrote, "This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake."

Concerning the dragon in the garage claim, my natural default position would be agnostic in nature because I have no way of knowing if dragons are actually real or if it's even possible to get one into your garage.

From there, I must then decide if I should "believe" your claim or not, without the "knowledge" of whether it's true or not. That does not mean I believe there isn't a dragon or couldn't be a dragon.

Because of the extraordinary nature of the claim, I would chose to withhold belief until which time you took me into the garage and showed me the dragon.

At that point I would have the "knowledge" needed to justify now believing you.

Quote:Of course, you're right because you found enlightenment in the most unexpected place which is why you aren't here asking for evidence of God.

Oh, wait . . .

Is this not a section of the site dedicated entirely to politics and religion? So, tell me what exactly is off limits when it comes to religious discussion here? Perhaps there are rules on this that I'm unaware of? The thread itself has been a very good discussion, and the posters have been incredibly civil and respectful. I'm not sure what your issue is with asking questions and letting people answer for themselves?