Agnostic vs Atheist

Frank Apisa wrote:

What I do not know, Set...I acknowledge that I do not know.

What I am unwilling to guess about...because of the nebulous nature of the evidence available to me...I decline to guess about.

I do not know, for instance, if there is a God...or gods involved in the REALITY of existence.

I also do not know that there are no gods.

I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a guess about whether or not there is a God...are gods...or are no gods.

That's fine, for as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far.

There is practically nothing in life about which you can know every detail to a certainty, so you are, as is anyone, obliged to "make guesses" (to employed your favorite simple-minded formula) about so many things in life, to avoid being paralyzed by your uncertainty. That is why i call your "philosophy" hypocritical--because you apply it selectively, for example, selecting the question of whether or not there are any gods to apply your uncertainty.

But you go farther than that--you preen yourself on being intellectually, philosophically or morally (all terms you've used in the past) to people who do not apply selective uncertainty. The position which i take, which i believe it is fair to say is similar to EB's position, is that there is insufficient plausible grounds for believing in a god, and no evidence at all, and therefore, i don't believe there is any god. However . . .

Quote:

Because you idiots want to equate this with no knowing about purple CPA's working on a moon of Saturn...doesn't mean that they are equals.

I am willing to make guesses about some things I do not know.

What is your fukin' problem with that?

You cannot respond to criticisms of your position without crudity and personal insult (and i've reported that post as well, we all have a right to discuss this without being characterized as idiots; you seem incapable of separating the thought that something may seem idiotic to you without implying that the person from whom you heard is an idiot).

I have never personally advanced the "purple CPAs" thesis, and don't do so now.

You write: I am willing to make guesses about some things I do not know. You acknowledge yourself that you do not assert a universal principle. You apply your uncertainty selectively, and are then willing to call people who do not agree with you idiots on such a basis. It is a feeble basis; it is a flimsy argument.

Frank Apisa wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

You just are incapable of grasping real logic. I guess I have to call you a dumb-ass wollygloddle.

You wouldn't recognize "real logic" Edgar...if it were a hat you were wearing.

You certainly are free to call me a "dumb-ass wollygloddle"...if you truly want to sound like an eight year old. Your choice.

Har har. The guy calls me a jerk and then accuses me of acting like an eight year old when I respond in good humor. Frank, get some brain food. Seriously.

I've reported your latest excursion into invidious slander, too, Francis.

You have failed entirely to address the issue of your selective uncertainty.

This does not surprise me.

I suspect you cannot answer that criticism of your thesis, which is rendered naively simple-minded by your selectivity.

None of which constitutes a reasonable response to the criticism of the selectivity of your uncertainty. Just more invective and the continuing lack of substance.

Hey, you guys wanna start a pm with each other, or is part of the fun doing this for an audience?

snood wrote:

Hey, you guys wanna start a pm with each other, or is part of the fun doing this for an audience?

I enjoy audiences...and enjoy entertaining.

I ain't doing no stinkin' PM's with Set.

I'm enjoying this way too much just the way it is going.

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Atheists these days are laughable.

Who are you trying to convince, frank?

You...and the others.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Atheists these days are laughable.

Who are you trying to convince, frank?

You...and the others.

You might want to revise your methods then. Perhaps flesh your argument out a little.
At present, to date, I have found it most unconvincing.
The main problem I see is that your position is not internally coherent, as you do not attribute the same amount of credibility to all unprovable ideas as you are willing to attribute to the idea of deity.
For instance, I am willing to bet you would assert there is no such thing as unicorns, thor, or fairies. However, if so, you would be 'guessing about reality', no different than one who asserts there is no god.

I wouldn't as I am not all knowing. There is always the possibilty that something can exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Atheists these days are laughable.

Who are you trying to convince, frank?

You...and the others.

You might want to revise your methods then. Perhaps flesh your argument out a little.
At present, to date, I have found it most unconvincing.
The main problem I see is that your position is not internally coherent, as you do not attribute the same amount of credibility to all unprovable ideas as you are willing to attribute to the idea of deity.
For instance, I am willing to bet you would assert there is no such thing as unicorns, thor, or fairies. However, if so, you would be 'guessing about reality', no different than one who asserts there is no god.

But stop trying to pretend that asserting that there is no spiritual component is any more logical than asserting that there is.

Quote:

But stop trying to pretend that asserting that there is no spiritual component is any more logical than asserting that there is.

Ok, let's do logic then.
a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.
b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.
c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.
d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Now, if you accept these 4 premises as true, the conclusion that it is highly unlikely the supernatural exists seems quite reasonable.