Agnosticism - bit of a cop-out?

Originally posted by frogstomp
you can wait, I already can see.

Apparently, you are able to see more than the average (or, above-average) bear.
You are somehow able to dismiss what hundreds of greater minds before you have been unsuccessful in doing: lay waste to the basis for the Christian faith. Perhaps you should take your show on the road!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Apparently, you are able to see more than the average (or, above-average) bear.
You are somehow able to dismiss what hundreds of greater minds before you have been unsuccessful in doing: lay waste to the basis for the Christian faith. Perhaps you should take your show on the road!

My show is all done at my clan's forum, where you aint invited. Laying waste to the faith isn't an objective since Paul, Iraneus and Constantine done that long ago.

Originally posted by frogstomp
My show is all done at my clan's forum, where you aint invited. Laying waste to the faith isn't an objective since Paul, Iraneus and Constantine done that long ago.

So according to your information, Paul, the greatest believer of the Church age, somehow laid waste to the Christian faith? Do tell, Stomper of Frogs, do tell.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Is there a name for people who believe that God only knows what people who believe we cannot determine whether "God exists" has meaning would be called?

dottewells

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So according to your information, Paul, the greatest believer of the Church age, somehow laid waste to the Christian faith? Do tell, Stomper of Frogs, do tell.

Ya got to read the book first.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Think of it as a simple matter of on whom the burden of proof is on. To an atheist, the burden of proof is on the theist and the default position is that there are no gods. To the agnostic, no burden of proof resides on the theist and there is no default position; he evaluates the evidence with an open mind. He just hasn't come to a conclusion yet (and might not in this lifetime).

Not having a "default position" is not evaluating the evidence with an open mind, It's simply not evaluating the evidence you have.

A "default position" is nothing more than an opinion, if you have none then you have no opinion. For me, a "default position" is essential when testing any hypothesis or simply processing new information about the subject at hand.

Edit: And yes, I think it's a cop-out.

Originally posted by Palynka
Not having a "default position" is not evaluating the evidence with an open mind, It's simply not evaluating the evidence you have.

A "default position" is nothing more than an opinion, if you have none then you have no opinion. For me, a "default position" is essential when testing any hypothesis or simply processing new information about the subject at hand.

Edit: And yes, I think it's a cop-out.

Your definition of "default position" is non-standard.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your definition of "default position" is non-standard.

Why?

Originally posted by Palynka
Why?

Because it does not conform with the standard definition of a "default position" the existence of which is surely not necessary for someone to form a position based on evidence. If the evidence exists for a position and is satisfactory, then that is the position one will take. But if their is insufficient evidence either way, it's simply foolish to say "I will take this position by default even though there is insufficient evidence to support it". Why would someone do such an irrational thing?

Originally posted by no1marauder
"I will take this position by default even though there is insufficient evidence to support it". Why would someone do such an irrational thing?

That irrational thing is called science. The default position is non-existence if there is no evidence to support existence.

Originally posted by Palynka
That irrational thing is called science. The default position is non-existence if there is no evidence to support existence.

"No evidence"?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Ya got to read the book first.

Amazing the lengths to which the mind will go, to support the unsupportable. It will devise shadows, conclude foundations, invent conspiracies, imagine fragments, all to bolster its untenable suppositions. Almost religious-like, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Amazing the lengths to which the mind will go, to support the unsupportable. It will devise shadows, conclude foundations, invent conspiracies, imagine fragments, all to bolster its untenable suppositions. Almost religious-like, wouldn't you say?

Freaky? Are you making a theistical cop-out, here? How fascinating. Do continue... :

Originally posted by no1marauder
"No evidence"?

Yes, "no evidence". Unless you count speculation as evidence.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, "no evidence". Unless you count speculation as evidence.

You're being ridiculous and closed minded which are certainly not traits associated with science. Are the physical laws of the universe "speculation"? Isn't the undenialable fact that the various basic forces of the universe are bounded in narrow confines that make life possible at least some evidence that the universe was "designed" in some way to be life-friendly (absent any evidence of alternative universes or META laws?)?