Does Agnosticism Make Sense?

^
That is what you said... I never even metioned Aristotle, nor did I mention anything about biological progress(seeing as how it's irrelevant). My usage of the "unicorn" was first derived from a previous statement & used to illustrate a thought that we do not know what lies beyond what we have seen. Although I had a feeling prior to using the "unicorn" example that it might create confusion because it was people's imaginations who so-called "created" the creature. To some that immediatly deems the creature as an impossibility... I see in this case, instead of using an already known fanciful creature, It might have been better if I'd gone with my first instinct and pulled a Brand New fanciful creature out of the air, perhaps something more suiting to your system of probability. (I couldn't go into depth with my explanation because I didn't have much time to spare.. but I do now.) I see that sometimes if people (I in this case) don't thoroughly explain themselves (and this goes double for topics concerning beliefs), people listening who don't understand, like you in this particular case, sometimes will not simply think/say "I don't understand" & move on, but Instead will paste what was said together with items from their own assuptions to make up what they think was truely meant & then react accordingly. <Not a good thing. I don't think you can immediatly have the "essence", but you can take a guess.

What do you mean by "have it both ways"? I mean, what were your refering to?

 

My argument is that you implied that science is valid by saying that people once thought that the earth was flat and now know it to be round. But you then go on to reject science by saying that unicorns may, in fact, exist. Unicorns are mythical creatures, which no one believes in anymore because science has found no evidence supporting their existence. That's what I meant by saying that you can't have it both ways.

 

I did not imply I just didn't elaborate, and I wouldn't say that "science is valid" instead I'd say science is a way to classify, not the absolute truth. By saying that "people once thought that the earth was flat ect." was my way of pointing out that we never stop discovering or learning, unless we strive otherwise by believing that what we know to be true right now to be absolute truth.. and that's forever. I think we as a species have barely even begun to scratch the surface of what lies undiscovered & therefor unclassified out in the universe. Now I know that the actual existance of unicorns may be a bit difficult to accept due to probability, but until we see everything no matter what you do the statement will not be incorrect. ----->In other words go search the universe, and after you cover every inch of space(which is said to be expanding, so you better hurry) and time (equiped with your magnifying glass that can see ininitly small objects & you'll probably need an instrument that can disifer extreemely large organic beings too...) and retrieve evidence of that unicorns never existed, then and only then will the existance unicorns PROVE false. (But before you set out on that mission through space, I'll give you this thought of mine: Even if you found nothing, that could just mean that the went extinct or maybe that they were all destroyed along with all the relative evidence...

I'm just saying there are as many possibilities as there are numbers.

 

So, your whole argument is based on a logically fallacious foundation of appeal to ignorance.

This is what Christians use to say, "Since you can't prove there is no God, there probably is one, so let's live our lives like one exists."

No one can prove a universal negative. And the burden of proof isn't on the atheist, it's only the theist. Theism is a claim. Atheist is merely a doubt of that claim.

You can't prove there isn't unicorns, the Easter Bunny, or invisible, intangible pink fairy-trolls in your brain either, but we take what we have and make a reasonable assessment to live by.

Since there is NO EVIDENCE of "God", why assume "he" exists?

The appeal to ignorance is not an argument.

LACK OF EVIDENCE is not evidence.

 

I'm not sure what you mean

ok.

are you still stalking to me?

I don't understand, this. Was this intended to be an argument for me? because I was never arguing. I was just speaking about what I feel... the easter bunny, unicorns, a man like god (or what I understand the people make of it to be), which is that there is not enough current evidence to make a decision, and that is agnosticism (as I understand it anyway).

 

Ok. Fair enough.

So, do you BELIEVE (not "know", but just "believe") in a "god"?

 

What does it matter? I think while we are here we should do the best with what we've got and get along.

 

...

 

I'm just asking you a question.
Are you avoiding the question? If so, why?
It's just a simple question.

 

I assure you I'm not trying to avoid the question. Like I said before, I'm not sure, it can't get any simpler that. So that is it, my answer is I don't know, It's like if a dollar fell out of the sky to my feet and someone asked if I thought it was fate (something interviened in order to get the dollar to me) or chance (it accidentally blew over from somewhere), honestly I'd say what does it matter anyway? I found a dollar.

 

But, do you or do you not BELIEVE in a God or gods?

I am not asking about KNOWING, I am asking if you, personally, hold any belief in a deity.

If it doesn't matter to you, just answer it to humor me, ok?

 

yikes! I just don't know how to put it so you'd understand. I was put into christianity as a kid & with everything they taught me that god is, I now feel that their idea of god suggests fate & the idea of no god suggests chaos, what do you think is going on?

cha·os
n.

1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
2. A disorderly mass; a jumble: The desk was a chaos of papers and unopened letters.
3. often Chaos The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe.
4. Mathematics. A dynamical system that has a sensitive dependence on its initial conditions.
5. Obsolete. An abyss; a chasm.

fate
n.

1. The supposed force, principle, or power that predetermines events.
   1. The inevitable events predestined by this force.
2. A final result or consequence; an outcome.
3. Unfavorable destiny; doom.
4. Fates Greek & Roman Mythology. The three goddesses, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, who control human destiny. Used with the.

AND! when you get deeper into it, it's like one suggests the other...I can not profess a belief I do not posess just to "humor you".



My answer: sorry just I don't have one that'll please you. I have to go with my heart on this one.... Let's just say I believe in nature. Well, unless your a part of a religion or/group who's god or/the force that governs you says that you must hurt or eliminate everyone who will not profess. In which case I am only kidding & I most certainly do.

 

If you do not possess the belief then you are atheist.

If you don't have a belief in theism, you are "a-theist".

How simple it is.

 

maybe for you, But I think I'll sit on the sidelines while those two battle it out. However i'd be delighted to further explain my stance to you or any one esle who asks for my oppinion

 

ATHEISM literally means "without theism".

If you don't have theism, you are without it = ATHEISM.

 

If you look at how many fossil records we have against how many animals must have exisisted you can see thats no proof against them at all. and they are mentioned in very nonfictional text, so i would be a little surprised if they didnt exist at one time,

 

I know what atheism means, as well as I know what theism means. The problem is that neither of their beliefs deal with facts that can be proven to our forms... I believe The truth is out there we just aren't allowed to see it, we can see pieces, but not enough to classify it, If we were able to classify universal truth that would make it smaller than us, you follow? But hey there is a lot of other great things to look at, I just learned how to knit, & have you ever bird watched, or just sat down to play an instrument and really enjoyed the sound that you created? There's many other things we have access to that are lovely... I think a lot of people just have an obsession with trying to obtain what they cannot have. I just think it's better to smell the flowers.

 

Neither of their "beliefs"? Atheism is not a belief system. It is a LACK of belief.

You are speaking of ANTITHEISM, apparently.

Either you hold a belief in theism or you do not. We are NOT speaking of KNOWING. We are speaking of BELIEVING. You can't "not know" if you BELIEVE something...unless of course you are in a coma or something.

 

when you disbelieve in something you believe in it's counterpart. Which you know in this situation is that there is no god. So atheism is a belief, it just doesn't come with a doctorine or a bunch of rules and all that jazz.

 

How hard is it for you to grip the meaning of a claim and the doubt of a claim?