Originally posted by HalitoseIrrational then. Why would anyone withhold a stance due to a lack of evidence? Take my xuxulux example again. If I say to you that there is a supernatural being called a xuxulux and you say 'it can neither be confirmed nor denied that a xuxulux exists' and then withhold your decision on which stance you take, you are effectively saying that the possiblity of a xuxulux existing is strong enough from just my say so, to not rule out that existence. This is certainly an irrational view since it would lead to a million possiblities of every single thing suggested, or imagined being true. You would not be able to dismiss anything at all: A fififif exists, a gugugaloa exists, a qwertyuiop exists etc. Surely you must agree this is an irrational position.
[b]But the stance...of weak agnosticism, whilst perhaps being neutral, is not in my opinion, logical.
Naïve perhaps, but certainly not illogical...in the strictest sense of the word.[/b]
I might go so far as to say it were illogical too, but I am but a lowly student of logic. Perhaps Cribs would care to cast his opinion.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat manner of proof would you accept, as most atheists (weak or strong) are materialists? This is a mandatory assumption that rules out all conclusions other than itself. It is like have a preset rule for recieving an answer - and as a result all research will only support materialistic conclusions.
I managed to mess up the phrasing of my post but the point stands. The burden of proof rests in proving that God exists. RBHILL cannot ask me to prove that God does not exist if he has not presented any evidence that God exists.
As an assumption naturalism/materialism is philosophy, not science. It's based on faith, not on evidence found by research. It can hinder the legitimate search for truth because it inherently denies the possibility of answers outside itself. It's bad philosophy as well, because it can't answer such fundamental questions as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Why is this assumption rather than a different assumption, the only legitimate place to begin?"
Originally posted by StarrmanLol, I humbly bow out; maybe Cribs could add something profound.
Irrational then. Why would anyone withhold a stance due to a lack of evidence? Take my xuxulux example again. If I say to you that there is a supernatural being called a xuxulux and you say 'it can neither be confirmed nor denied that a xuxulux exists' and then withhold your decision on which stance you take, you are effectively saying that the possibl ...[text shortened]... gical too, but I am but a lowly student of logic. Perhaps Cribs would care to cast his opinion.
1 edit
I missed none, but I noticed that the authors of the quiz misspelled one of the books of the Bible (Revelation they have as Revelations), and included at least four questions concerned with Western bible culture, rather than the biblical text itself:
covenant/testament; "doubting Thomas"; Jezebel; Golden Rule.
All-in-all a simple quiz that is terribly flawed.
I also do not appreciate websites that want to place a whole box of cookies on my hard drive. None were needed to complete the quiz (I denied all cookies, and had no problem with the site's functionality).
All who took the quiz should run their anti-spyware software.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThere is nothing irrational in saying that having looked at the evidence, pro and con, that a God of some sort exists, one is unable to come to a conclusion one is comfortable with. It would be profoundly irrational to do otherwise. Surely you concede that there is SOME evidence for the existence of some kind of God; to assert otherwise is to be in total denial. There is no evidence at all for your mythical beast, so it may be rejected out of hand unless some evidence can be presented for its existence.
Irrational then. Why would anyone withhold a stance due to a lack of evidence? Take my xuxulux example again. If I say to you that there is a supernatural being called a xuxulux and you say 'it can neither be confirmed nor denied that a xuxulux exists' and then withhold your decision on which stance you take, you are effectively saying that the possibl ...[text shortened]... gical too, but I am but a lowly student of logic. Perhaps Cribs would care to cast his opinion.
I refer to the type of inferential evidence that a Deist might make for a Creator God (Watchmaker type argument) and for the more recent arguments based on the natural forces in the Universe being within small parameters such that the universe is life friendly in toto. You may find such evidence unconvincing, but it is arrogant to say it isn't evidence at all.
Originally posted by WulebgrYou know, this is just crappy!
I also do not appreciate websites that want to place a whole box of cookies on my hard drive. None were needed to complete the quiz (I denied all cookies, and had no problem with the site's functionality).
All who took the quiz should run their anti-spyware software.
Grrrrr😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠😠ðŸ˜
Originally posted by no1marauderHal's original definition of a weak-agnostic was not someone that could not decide how best to categorise a god, but someone that in the light of current evidence, could neither confirm or deny that a God or gods exist. It was this I was replying to. If he had already decided that there was some sort of god, then surely he is no longer an agnostic but a theist, albeit one who has yet to expand on that belief enough to pinpoint what type of god(s) he believes in.
There is nothing irrational in saying that having looked at the evidence, pro and con, that a God of some sort exists, one is unable to come to a conclusion one is comfortable with. It would be profoundly irrational to do otherwise. Surely you concede that there is SOME evidence for the existence of some kind of God; to assert otherwise is to be in total ...[text shortened]... o. You may find such evidence unconvincing, but it is arrogant to say it isn't evidence at all.
I do indeed concede that there is some evidence that might suggest the existence of a god(s), although you are also right that I do not find it at all convincing. I do however maintain that if an agnostic discusses, not the characteristics of a type of god, as you suggest, but the existence of any type of god, he should admit the following: That in the light of insufficient evidence either for or against the existence of god, to remain impartial is to assent to the posibility of that god's existence. This ties him to the belief that god(s) can indeed exist.
I guess what I am saying in retrospect is that weak-agnosticism (as defined by Halitose) is an untenable position.
Originally posted by StarrmanHalitose's statement was: Weak-agnosticism: The belief that in the light of current evidence it can neither be confirmed or denied that a God or gods exist.
Hal's original definition of a weak-agnostic was not someone that could not decide how best to categorise a god, but someone that in the light of current evidence, could neither confirm or deny that a God or gods exist. It was this I was replying to. If he had already decided that there was some sort of god, then surely he is no longer an agnostic but a ...[text shortened]... saying in retrospect is that weak-agnosticism (as defined by Halitose) is an untenable position.
I see nothing "untenable" about this position using the terms "confirmed" or "denied" in their everyday meanings. Nor do I see anything "irrational" in the position that god(s) might indeed exist or in the position that god(s) might not exist. A "belief" that something is possible doesn't tie you to the position that it is true, just that it may be true. Explain why you think that is "untenable" or "irrational".
Originally posted by no1marauderI will attempt to do so tomorrow, I have been busy tonight.
Halitose's statement was: Weak-agnosticism: The belief that in the light of current evidence it can neither be confirmed or denied that a God or gods exist.
I see nothing "untenable" about this position using the terms "confirmed" or "denied" in their everyday meanings. Nor do I see anything "irrational" in the position that god(s) migh ...[text shortened]... s true, just that it may be true. Explain why you think that is "untenable" or "irrational".
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell, I know that you don't believe in him and that is ok.
There is no 'proff' that God exists outside the imaginations of Christians. I don't need 'proff' to say that he doesn't exist as I have the absence of 'proff' that he does.
He is looking for you he wants to find the soft spot in your heart to change your life.
Truly He finds people. people don't find him.
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, here goes:
Halitose's statement was: Weak-agnosticism: The belief that in the light of current evidence it can neither be confirmed or denied that a God or gods exist.
I see nothing "untenable" about this position using the terms "confirmed" or "denied" in their everyday meanings. Nor do I see anything "irrational" in the position that god(s) migh ...[text shortened]... s true, just that it may be true. Explain why you think that is "untenable" or "irrational".
I look at weak-agnosticism as a fork in the road. It is not, in my view a position that can be retained, but a process which one should move from, towards either a theistic belief of some sort, or an atheistic one. So, in as much as it is perhaps tenable within itself, when applied to life or any other event over time, it is weakened. I admit I had not sufficiently thought about this prior to your post. However, this is how I view weak-agnosticism with that in mind.
If we take the core of Hal's definition to mean that the weak-agnostic is unable to say for sure that god exists or not, then he retains the 'possibility' of existence as true. If he maintains the possibility as true, I suggest he must accept that he has a belief in god, but has yet to define what that belief is or is yet to verify the belief against some notion of proof. You may disagree with this assumption, and essentially it is what my arguement is based on. I still think that to acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural is to believe that it exists, but that it has either yet to be proven, or that the evidence does not yet outweigh that against it. I concede that I am talking from an atheistic standpoint.
On the other hand, if we take it to mean that the decision cannot be taken on whether or not there is a possiblity of god's existence because there is no compelling evidence, then I suggest that the agnostic's normative state should move to one of denial, until such time as evidence instils a belief in the possibilty of god's existence in him. He effectively moves towards weak-atheism.
Underpinning my stance is my opinion that there is a normative state in which any form of belief cannot be held, until that belief can be proven (or at least shown to be a reasonable possibilty). As such, to me the notion of even the 'possibilty' of god's existence rest not on some evidence, but on reasonable evidence. To claim that it is possible that god exists, one should first assess whether that possibilty is a reasonable one. I do not believe it is and as such anyone that asserts the possiblity of god is holding a belief in his existence, thus the weak-agnostic becomes the theist.
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't see how that follows. How can believing in the possibility of something equal believing in the thing (or concept, event etc.) itself? That would also mean that I'd believe in mutually exclusive things (concepts, events...), as many of the possibilities are mutually exclusive.
If we take the core of Hal's definition to mean that the weak-agnostic is unable to say for sure that god exists or not, then he retains the 'possibility' of existence as true. If he maintains the possibility as true, I suggest he must accept that he has a belief in god, but has yet to define what that belief is or is yet to verify the belief against some notion of proof.
I also wonder what the difference between strong and weak atheism would be in your view. If neither strong nor weak atheists believe that the existence of God, a god or gods is possible, I can't see a difference between the two. As I understand it, weak atheism would rather be a stance like "I believe there are no gods because there's a lot more evidence to the contrary, but if I'd ever get a proof or more evidence, I would change my belief", thus admitting the possibility.