Do you believe; and why?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2019, 03:59 PM)Lucidus Wrote: 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.

I don't need any of this explained to me.  You claimed you didn't understand how anyone could be anything other than agnostic, not me.  That is just a failure to understand another person's point of view.  You've have claimed many Christians believe based upon evidence at least twice.  That's just one example of why someone isn't agnostic.  They have evidence to support their belief therefore they aren't agnostic. Pretty simple.  Somehow you have explained why some Christians aren't agnostic while simultaneously ignoring your own explanation.  That's impressive.

Quote: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".

LMAO

This is just a really poor example and just plain ol' bad logic.  Gee, someone was murdered.  How? Let's say gunshot wound to the chest, for arguments sake.  By the manner in which the victim was murdered we know they were murdered with a firearm.  Just because they police don't have the firearm in their possession doesn't mean that firearm doesn't exist.  And we know the firearm does exist from the bullet wound in their chest.

By your logic, we could never determine that Iraq wasn't actively pursuing WMDs (they weren't) or Andrew Wakefield isn't a fraud (he is) by the complete lack of evidence.  Ever. At some point, an overwhelming lack of evidence is evidence.

BTW, you just created an argument for the existence of God by substituting "God" for "murder weapon."  Just because [evidence of] God can't be found, doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Also, look at the two bold sentences.  In the first sentence, you argue the weapon exist.  In the second, you argue the weapon doesn't exist.  Obviously, you aren't paying a bit of attention to your own argument or you've confused even yourself.

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

Tigerblood is your former screen name.  Oh, but I don't have evidence to support that claim?  Doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist and you're not Tigerblood.  Right?  Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?

Quote: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.

But, you're an agnostic atheist asking for evidence when thousands of years of human history haven't produced a single shred of evidence for you.  Fruitful dialogue?  C'mon.

Quote: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?

Let me quote you, "agnosticism deals with knowledge."  So knowledge has zero to do with what they believe and why the believe?

You've officially jumped the shark if you hadn't done so already.  

Quote: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?

Do you have evidence to support your belief? Yes or no?

Quote: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.

Yes, you must decide to believe or not.  It's a choice.  You do.  Or you don't.  The rest of your post is about informed decision making.  They are called faith based religions, not informed decision making religions, for a reason.

Quote: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?

What's you're issue with me asking you questions?  You can ask others these question, but they can't be asked of you?