Do you believe; and why?

[Lucidus]

(05-21-2019, 01:37 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 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.

Having perceived "evidence" that you feel justifies a belief, says nothing about whether you feel the truth of what you believe can be known factually and with certainty, or whether you feel you even have the means to know if said truth can be known. 

Offering evidences in support of a claim is not an assertion that you know for a fact, and with certainty, that said claim is true. That claim - that you can know for sure - would be quite a different conversation requiring a explanation of how you can know for sure.

Quote: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.

Correct. We know there is a gun because the wound and other factors that are all "evidence" demonstrating that it is indeed a gunshot wound, therefore coming from a "gun". Now, what if the body is missing and it can't be examined? The gunshot wound would still exist and the gun is still the murder weapon, but until we find the body, we have no means of making that determination as we currently don't have access to it. 

When it comes to a God, my position is that we can't simply dismiss the possibility that there could be one simply because we don't currently have that type of evidence. I would also offer that there is no real justification to actively believe that there is a God until such evidence is available for us to evaluate, just as we should not "believe" there is a gun responsible for a murder if there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. 

Quote: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.

Again, absence of evidence is not demonstrable evidence itself. However, I would offer that it is a rationally valid reason to not actively believe until which time there is evidence to justify that belief.

Quote: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.

In the case of the murder weapon, we have demonstrable proof that there must be a gun via the evidence (gunshot wound). To this point, the same doesn't apply to God. However, that doesn't mean the possibility that God exists is automatically eliminated. 

Quote: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.

In the first bold sentence; the lack of an actual murder weapon does not mean we don't know (through demonstrable means) know what the murder weapon was. Therefore, we know it must exist or at the very least, existed at one point (even if it were destroyed).

In the second; it would be difficult to get a conviction based simply on the assertion that is a murder weapon. First, it must be proven that (via the evidence) that the asserted murder weapon is the cause. Once that happens, it's perfectly justifiable to believe that there must be a murder weapon.

Quote: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?

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "tigerblood" meant as a pejorative towards me in some way?

Quote: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.

Correct in that I'm not sure if it can be known (agnosticism) and I've yet to be shown that there's a reason to "believe" (atheism).

That does not mean there couldn't be evidence that I'm unaware of, haven't been presented with or might not have access to currently. That is a very audacious claim to make, as I'm not privy to all knowledge that can be known, or even that has been known.

Apart from that point however, my objective is more along the lines of engaging with people as to the why's and what's of their beliefs. People are free to offer any evidences that they may find compelling if they choose to do so. You seem to find my dialogue with believers somehow problematic, but don't seem to share those same concerns with your own exchanges with them. 

Quote: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.  

Again, agnosticism deals with whether you can know and how you can know it. If one says they know for certain that there is or isn't a God, they must demonstrate how they know that for certain and by what means they used to make a factual determination.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition "there is a God" due to not feeling you have a justification for believing it's the case.

To say that I don't know that X is the case or can be known to be the case is admitting that I don't have the factual /certain knowledge to make such a determination.

To say that I reject the claim that X is the case, or even likely to be the case, is to state that I have not yet seen reason to justify actively believing in the claim. 

By the same token, if one says the believe, they can do so while also admitting that they can't know 100% for sure what they're believing is indeed true, which many do.

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

By answering the questions posed, the answer to your question should be provided.

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

I have no problem with that at all. Quite the contrary, I encourage it, by all. I don't get offended by questions, nor feel the need to tell others what questions they should or shouldn't ask, what topics of discussion they should be interested in or suggest that I know the intent behind people's curiosity or pursuits of dialogue with those of different perspectives.