Ultimate Beliefs

[Sum1sgruj]

And I do not agree with your definition of agnosticism because you have not demonstrated that there is no distinction between strong and weak agnosticism.



Because agnosticism in and of itself is not a religion; if you do not believe in deities because you think you cannot know anything for sure, and don't know anything, then you are rightly classified as an atheist, and belong to no religion. If, however, you are claiming you are agnostic about some things because you don't know everything, and furthermore, claim that some things cannot be known, then it says nothing about your religious beliefs, so long as we don't know what you think about the existence of a god or gods. (In your case, you seem to be saying you don't think it's possible to know the origin of the universe, in which case you would also have to be an atheist, unless you are asserting there exists a god that did not create the universe.)



Maybe it's because people recently feel the need to pick apart your arguments. And I think it's worth it because it really shows how thoroughly you've researched your arguments. If you really did your research, then you wouldn't have any problems answering any questions anyone throws at you, right?

And a debate is not moving along if the only thing you're doing is ignoring all the problems in your argument and trying to pose new arguments that may not even have anything at all to do with the previous ones. A debate is not simply share your ideas and not care if it's right or not. That's the problem I've been having with your arguments all along, and with your new "rules" in this thread the entire time.

For one, there is no problems to the argument. You are sitting here going on with,, well, I don't even know to be honest. There is no strong and weak agnosticism. The only thing that separates me from some other agnostics is that I take in the full construct of what it is.
There is no research other than what I put on the OP. Do I really need to f*ckin C&P it?
The only person who wants to pick apart my arguments is you because I hit a sore spot on the other debates.
There is nothing to pick apart. You jus want to be god of the debate sects.
Please, for the last time, stop beating a dead bush. You are wrong, get over it damn.
Maybe if you spent more time doing other things rather than attacking me, you wouldn't find yourself in a position of being told this. This is the simplest thing ever, and yet you continue to push and push. Am I the only one who realizes this?
It only becomes necessary after a while, so you need to just back off. It's not like you are asking the same question over and over out of sheer ability- you have to because you know I'm right. And Webster is right, and the meaning is right, and me explaining it in 20 different ways over the spectrum of this section is right.
Just be done with it. Talk about something else.

And also, for that other bit about how it should be easy for me to post sources and whatnot: It should be easy to prove me wrong if I am in fact wrong. You do not simply jump on a debate and immediately ask for proof.
Hell no, I'm not going to entertain that. For someone who is so versed in logic, you seem to leave it on the counter when you enter a debate. The fact is, if you cannot disprove what I say, then tough shit for you. That's just the way it is. It does not worry me if one does not believe it, but trying to damage my credibility? I do not argue with inquiry. I argue with reason. What you are throwing up is a loser concept, and I am no longer speaking on this ever again.

In fact, I'll get the ball rolling on the debate. Atheism- bounded by science. Science simply ignores what it cannot explain. For most atheists, denying a god is not about fact, it's about animosity towards religion. Ad hominem.
Provide some logic for that. I'm no longer answering a billion of the same questions. That was three threads ago. It's time for you to either get real or stop with this nonsense.

There's an atheist on here that believes the universe came from natural occurrence. I do not deny it, and I do not accept it. It is not out of ignorance, it is out of acknowledgment that it is impossible to know. It doesn't mean you cannot believe it. I have no grudge against atheists in general. It's only those who choose to battle agnosticism and theism that annoy me. There is nothing in science that does too much to hurt either one, and so it just becomes a shit-storm.

Agnosticism has referred to knowledge and always to knowledge, not belief. Therefore, atheism and agnosticism are most certainly not mutually exclusive concepts.

So I cannot believe the knowledge of agnosticism?
The gods have wept at this statement.

 

[der Astronom]

For one, there is no problems to the argument. You are sitting here going on with,, well, I don't even know to be honest.

Yes, there is a problem because you are asserting the wrong form of agnosticism; if you are only concerned with what people believe, then only strong agnosticism applies.
And because you are so sure that agnosticism is a belief and not a position on knowledge, how about answering the question of whether or not you believe in a god or gods, since you seem to think that no one can prove how the universe began--do you believe in a god that did not create the universe, or do you believe in no gods? I'm asking because I wanted to know if your beliefs in god are due to your strong agnosticism or the beliefs you are sure about.

There is no strong and weak agnosticism.

And that's what I've been asking you to prove all along. Where do you get your definition of agnosticism from, and if weak agnosticism doesn't exist, what term do you use to describe people who take the position of not knowing without believing that it is impossible to know anything (that is, they just happen not to know if something is true or not for the time being), or for people who do not believe in a claim because they do not know if it is true?

The only thing that separates me from some other agnostics is that I take in the full construct of what it is.

Isn't that an admission of the existence of other kinds of agnosticism?

There is no research other than what I put on the OP. Do I really need to f*ckin C&P it?

And that's enough to tell me that you don't quite understand what agnosticism is.

The only person who wants to pick apart my arguments is you because I hit a sore spot on the other debates.
There is nothing to pick apart. You jus want to be god of the debate sects.
Please, for the last time, stop beating a dead bush. You are wrong, get over it damn.

Actually, you started this thread to start a conversation on agnosticism, not just other beliefs, and to prevent you from going back and editing your post, I'm going to post the excerpt from your original post:

I feel that if one deems themselves agnostic, they should educate themselves on the rationale behind it. It doesn't do good to be anything without the knowledge basing them.
Which is why I have made this thread- to breakdown it's fundamental aspects and breakthrough certain misconceptions of what agnosticism is, as well as other ultimate beliefs.

So I think my complaints about your definition of agnosticism are relevant, as I find a few of your misconceptions about agnosticism are unfounded.
And so what if I wanted to best you in debate? The fact that you're complaining about it isn't helping your argument you know.

Maybe if you spent more time doing other things rather than attacking me, you wouldn't find yourself in a position of being told this. This is the simplest thing ever, and yet you continue to push and push. Am I the only one who realizes this?

In other words, I'm being told by someone who's made sloppy arguments that they don't want to be attacked in a debate. And actually, it's not you I'm attacking; it's your arguments. If you don't like your arguments being attacked in a debate, then don't make such sloppy arguments.

It only becomes necessary after a while, so you need to just back off. It's not like you are asking the same question over and over out of sheer ability- you have to because you know I'm right. And Webster is right, and the meaning is right, and me explaining it in 20 different ways over the spectrum of this section is right.
Just be done with it. Talk about something else.

No, I am asking you because I never received a satisfactory answer for it. All I've gotten from you so far are complaints, red herrings and more fallacies.
And dictionaries aren't always right; they may over generalize some terms or exclude certain details, and they don't always have the word you're looking for. In fact, there are plenty of papers, books and other Internet and non-Internet resources that go into detail about the distinctions between weak and strong agnosticism, so I don't see why a dictionary has any more authority over papers written by philosophers and other authors, who are probably just as qualified to speak on the matter.

And also, for that other bit about how it should be easy for me to post sources and whatnot: It should be easy to prove me wrong if I am in fact wrong. You do not simply jump on a debate and immediately ask for proof.

You don't prove a negative. If you're wrong, all I need to do is point out the contradiction or the flaw in your argument; I'm not making an assertion; I'm simply explaining that your argument is logically inconsistent, in which case, it pretty much disproves itself. Or you haven't supported your assertion enough because you are leaving something out that I feel should be elaborated on, and I'm not doing your homework for you.

Hell no, I'm not going to entertain that. For someone who is so versed in logic, you seem to leave it on the counter when you enter a debate. The fact is, if you cannot disprove what I say, then tough shit for you. That's just the way it is. It does not worry me if one does not believe it, but trying to damage my credibility? I do not argue with inquiry. I argue with reason. What you are throwing up is a loser concept, and I am no longer speaking on this ever again.

And it does not worry me if you choose not to see the problems with your arguments.

In fact, I'll get the ball rolling on the debate. Atheism- bounded by science. Science simply ignores what it cannot explain. For most atheists, denying a god is not about fact, it's about animosity towards religion. Ad hominem.

More bold-faced assertions of atheism without a shred of evidence. And I thought this thread was about agnosticism and beliefs; atheism is not a belief.
An ad hominem is an attempt to disqualify someone's argument by putting the character of the person presenting the argument into question; that we happen to think badly of religion has no bearing on any argument so long as it is not about religion. But if it is about religion, it is relevant, and does not involve an attack of anyone's character. I am not discriminating against someone's argument just because the person presenting it happens to be religious; I have made no such assertions, and I doubt many of the other atheists here have done the same. If you disagree, feel free to quote where I said you can't argue because you're a theist (and in context, please).

Provide some logic for that. I'm no longer answering a billion of the same questions. That was three threads ago. It's time for you to either get real or stop with this nonsense.

You just made a strawman. What more is there to say on that?
And if you're wondering why all the questions look the same, it's because you haven't dropped your crusade against the philosophical definition of agnosticism. It's just come to my attention that most people are getting their definition of agnosticism from a dictionary and nothing else. No wonder they don't know much about it.

There's an atheist on here that believes the universe came from natural occurrence. I do not deny it, and I do not accept it. It is not out of ignorance, it is out of acknowledgment that it is impossible to know. It doesn't mean you cannot believe it. I have no grudge against atheists in general. It's only those who choose to battle agnosticism and theism that annoy me. There is nothing in science that does too much to hurt either one, and so it just becomes a shit-storm.

You can't really have a grudge against a group of people for which you do not understand the label applied to them.

I happen to think theism is worth battling because there are some fallacies that people need to see, and have yet to see, and because I think that thinking based off of theism (specifically, gnostic theism) is not healthy and does more damage to society than most people realize it does.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Yes, there is a problem because you are asserting the wrong form of agnosticism; if you are only concerned with what people believe, then only strong agnosticism applies.
And because you are so sure that agnosticism is a belief and not a position on knowledge, how about answering the question of whether or not you believe in a god or gods, since you seem to think that no one can prove how the universe began--do you believe in a god that did not create the universe, or do you believe in no gods? I'm asking because I wanted to know if your beliefs in god are due to your strong agnosticism or the beliefs you are sure about.

There is agnosticism, and then there is atheism. Agnostics believe that the origin/truth behind why we/everything exists is unlikely to ever be answered/proven.

ag-nos-tic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing either the existence or non-existence of God or gods.

Exact textbook definition_

if weak agnosticism doesn't exist, what term do you use to describe people who take the position of not knowing without believing that it is impossible to know anything (that is, they just happen not to know if something is true or not for the time being), or for people who do not believe in a claim because they do not know if it is true?

They are still agnostic, no doubt, they just don't know the full context of what they are implying. Agnosticism does not state that you cannot know anything. I can know that Earth is round, fire is hot, etc., I could even know that there are 1 to the 500th power parallel universes, or that gravity is a particle.
There's a difference between uncertainty and ignorance.

Isn't that an admission of the existence of other kinds of agnosticism?

It would certainly appear not.

Actually, you started this thread to start a conversation on agnosticism, not just other beliefs

Not just other beliefs. Key phrase.. I even said that if anyone wants to entertain it, then that's fine. But you are beating a dead bush and refuse to go into the broad subject of the thread, which is most iconic because agnosticism promotes the crux of atheistic pitfalls.

So I think my complaints about your definition of agnosticism are relevant, as I find a few of your misconceptions about agnosticism are unfounded.
And so what if I wanted to best you in debate? The fact that you're complaining about it isn't helping your argument you know.

I'm sure when this post goes up, it will be fully relevant that I am not the one with misconceptions.

In other words, I'm being told by someone who's made sloppy arguments that they don't want to be attacked in a debate. And actually, it's not you I'm attacking; it's your arguments. If you don't like your arguments being attacked in a debate, then don't make such sloppy arguments.

I don;t make sloppy arguments. I re-answer your questions over and over again and you straw-man them.

No, I am asking you because I never received a satisfactory answer for it. All I've gotten from you so far are complaints, red herrings and more fallacies.
And dictionaries aren't always right; they may over generalize some terms or exclude certain details, and they don't always have the word you're looking for. In fact, there are plenty of papers, books and other Internet and non-Internet resources that go into detail about the distinctions between weak and strong agnosticism, so I don't see why a dictionary has any more authority over papers written by philosophers and other authors, who are probably just as qualified to speak on the matter.

What is right and what is satisfactory? Take a look at Mr. Gorillas source he so nicely contradicted himself with. I thought it'd be a cold day in hell before somebody put their foot in their mouth in such a fashion in a debate thread. Look at you and J's definiton on the other thread. All these things have only enforced my statements.

I really do not know where you are trying to go with this..
I believe in the concept of agnosticism. It's my belief. I believe the knowledge that spurs from it. What one believes does not have to have a divinity complex. Maybe that was Mr/ Gorillas real aim for posting it, I do not know. But saying agnostic is not a belief is just a big word game. I can't be held responsible for agnostics who do not venture on the term and proclaim to know nothing.

 

[Mr. Gorilla]

So I cannot believe the knowledge of agnosticism?
The gods have wept at this statement.

/facepalm

First and foremost, you don't believe knowledge; you know knowledge (There's a very big, fat difference between the two words). Agnosticism isn't "knowledge;" rather, it's a stance on knoweldge, with that stance being that absolute knowledge regarding certain subjects (Generally of cosmic nature) is impossible to obtain (Which is a position that the vast majority of atheists hold). Furthermore, agnosticism may be a philosophy, but it most certainly is not a religion.

Exact textbook definition_

[citation needed]

(Yes, I know you got it from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but citing your sources/information is the first step in the long road to making yourself seem credible, especially considering the fact that one definition in one book does not speak for every definition in every book).

Of course, I'm not denying that agnosticism may have multiple definitions; what I'm trying to point out is that your definitions are inconsistent, conflict with the most commonly-used definition (The one most commonly used in philosophy and academia), and that your so-called "reasoning" can be refuted by anyone with something greater than a fifth-grade education. You can believe something while not knowing that it's true (And you can believe something while believing that it's impossible to know that it's true, making you an agnostic theist (With "theist" being exchangeable for "christian," "Hindu," "Jew" or what have you)), which is probably the biggest point I've been trying to make in this thread.

In fact, I was tempted to reply to your response to my post in full, but around halfway through typing my response up I realized you weren't actually debating my points or rationalizing at all (And the same applies to your debate with der Astronom (Someone I can attest from experience is far more reasonable than the vast majority of video game-themed forum lurkers on teh Interwebz), where your stance is literally "well I'm right and your wrong I made my point in my opening post and nothing can say otherwise so deal with it"), and my efforts are better spent not trying to talk sense to ignorant anti-intellectuals (It was obvious at the start, when you implied that your "ultimate belief" threatened mine (Which is laughable because A). I don't have an "ultimate belief," which is why I'm an atheist (Please learn to comprehend your opponent's argument), and B). given how poorly-formed your argument is, there is nothing to threaten me with), when you somehow got the impression I was "right wing" (I'm actually a Libertarian Socialist; troo fax), and when you completely ignored the difference (Or probably didn't understand the difference?) between "gnosis" (Which is part of the etymology of "agnosticism") and "gnosticism" (Which is something completely different)).

It's better for me to just sit back and laugh at the "debate" taking place in this thread than take part in it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

/facepalm

First and foremost, you don't believe knowledge; you know knowledge (There's a very big, fat difference between the two words). Agnosticism isn't "knowledge;" rather, it's a stance on knoweldge, with that stance being that absolute knowledge regarding certain subjects (Generally of cosmic nature) is impossible to obtain (Which is a position that the vast majority of atheists hold). Furthermore, agnosticism may be a philosophy, but it most certainly is not a religion.



[citation needed]

(Yes, I know you got it from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but citing your sources/information is the first step in the long road to making yourself seem credible, especially considering the fact that one definition in one book does not speak for every definition in every book).

Of course, I'm not denying that agnosticism may have multiple definitions; what I'm trying to point out is that your definitions are inconsistent, conflict with the most commonly-used definition (The one most commonly used in philosophy and academia), and that your so-called "reasoning" can be refuted by anyone with something greater than a fifth-grade education. You can believe something while not knowing that it's true (And you can believe something while believing that it's impossible to know that it's true, making you an agnostic theist (With "theist" being exchangeable for "christian," "Hindu," "Jew" or what have you)), which is probably the biggest point I've been trying to make in this thread.

In fact, I was tempted to reply to your response to my post in full, but around halfway through typing my response up I realized you weren't actually debating my points or rationalizing at all (And the same applies to your debate with der Astronom (Someone I can attest from experience is far more reasonable than the vast majority of video game-themed forum lurkers on teh Interwebz), where your stance is literally "well I'm right and your wrong I made my point in my opening post and nothing can say otherwise so deal with it"), and my efforts are better spent not trying to talk sense to ignorant anti-intellectuals (It was obvious at the start, when you implied that your "ultimate belief" threatened mine (Which is laughable because A). I don't have an "ultimate belief," which is why I'm an atheist (Please learn to comprehend your opponent's argument), and B). given how poorly-formed your argument is, there is nothing to threaten me with), when you somehow got the impression I was "right wing" (I'm actually a Libertarian Socialist; troo fax), and when you completely ignored the difference (Or probably didn't understand the difference?) between "gnosis" (Which is part of the etymology of "agnosticism") and "gnosticism" (Which is something completely different)).

It's better for me to just sit back and laugh at the "debate" taking place in this thread than take part in it.

Hey, it's your fault you posted a source that went against your own argument. In fact, you are not going to find a source that does otherwise. You are trying to make consistent a concept that doesn't exist in either the word or any meaning whatsoever.
This is semantics turned sour. I warned you all not to do it, but noooo.. let's just put foot in mouths to try and crucify the real agnostic here.

If you sit back and laugh at the debate, make sure you have a mirror in front of you. Agnosticism is my belief. It's what I believe to be the human condition on ultimate truth. The atheist belief is that nature is it's own maker. The Christian belief is that God created us and Jesus is our king. Belief, belief, belief.
Really, to use wordplay to avoid a broad debate., you should be ashamed.

be-lief: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Having to post definitions such as this is what is laughable_ Among other things: Putting words in my mouth, as if I stated that agnosticism is a religion; twisting what I have said about agnosticism (agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, and so knowledge is spurred from it); there is no such thing as an agnostic theist (wth??); stating my standing on agnosticism can be refuted by anyone with a 5th grade education (which is considerably false, seeing how it can't be refuted); and probably the most laughable of all- avoiding the concepts of a/theism because you know that an agnostic can rip them to shreds

Please try to be more considerate of the truth before spamming me with such blasphemy. It will be greatly appreciated. This thread is getting ridiculous. It has gone as far as me actually being asked to source a raw textbook definition of a word. Trying to insult my intelligence is a double-edged blade, with one side being sharper than the other. I would suggest just moving on to other things.

 

[Mr. Gorilla]

Hey, it's your fault you posted a source that went against your own argument. In fact, you are not going to find a source that does otherwise. You are trying to make consistent a concept that doesn't exist in either the word or any meaning whatsoever.
This is semantics turned sour. I warned you all not to do it, but noooo.. let's just put foot in mouths to try and crucify the real agnostic here.

Which source was it and how did it contradict my argument?

The atheist belief is that nature is it's own maker.

There is no "atheist belief;" atheism is the lack of belief.

To demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is, using the same argument you used in your original post, which you admitted you still stand by, considering the word structure ("a" and "theist"), atheism literally means the lack of "theism," which would imply a lack of belief. And thus, you've defeated your own argument.

Really, to use wordplay to avoid a broad debate., you should be ashamed.

herp derp saying that agnosticism is the opposition to "gnosticism" the philosophy becase it has "gnosticism" in its name is doing this very thing.

be-lief:

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

And none of that has anything to do with sound knowledge.

Having to post definitions such as this is what is laughable_ Among other things: Putting words in my mouth, as if I stated that agnosticism is a religion;

Except for the fact that I haven't been putting words in your mouth.

twisting what I have said about agnosticism (agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, and so knowledge is spurred from it);

1. That's not "twisting what you said about agnosticism." That's disagreeing with what you said about agnosticism because it's wrong.

2. Knowledge (As well as belief) is not spurred from agnosticism; it is a means of evaluating knowledge spurred from other sources (Agnosticism makes no claims to how the universe was born/what happens after we die/etc.).

there is no such thing as an agnostic theist (wth??);

Yes there is, and I've already pointed this out.

stating my standing on agnosticism can be refuted by anyone with a 5th grade education (which is considerably false, seeing how it can't be refuted);

Hey, if you want to deny the fact that your argument is poorly-formed, lacks reason and has been ripped to shreds, be my guest.

and probably the most laughable of all- avoiding the concepts of a/theism because you know that an agnostic can rip them to shreds

Where have I ignored the concepts of a/theism? Quit making things up.

Please try to be more considerate of the truth before spamming me with such blasphemy.

If by "truth" you mean your own warped version of it, then I'd rather not.

It will be greatly appreciated. This thread is getting ridiculous. It has gone as far as me actually being asked to source a raw textbook definition of a word.

Which did not invalidate the other definitions/sources posted here, nor was that definition proven as the one used by philosophers/academia and pretty much everyone else.

Trying to insult my intelligence is a double-edged blade, with one side being sharper than the other.

Do you honestly believe that most of the bright, educated people reading this thread think your debate is superior?

I would suggest just moving on to other things.

That would be the rational thing to do.

...but then again, if I (And others) did, you would be making less of a fool of yourself!

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Which source was it and how did it contradict my argument?

Your sources defend what I state. Words cannot describe how stupid this argument is.

There is no "atheist belief;" atheism is the lack of belief.

The lack of belief- in theism.

To demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is, using the same argument you used in your original post, which you admitted you still stand by, considering the word structure ("a" and "theist"), atheism literally means the lack of "theism," which would imply a lack of belief. And thus, you've defeated your own argument.

No, you defeated yourself. See quote above.

herp derp saying that agnosticism is the opposition to "gnosticism" the philosophy becase it has "gnosticism" in its name is doing this very thing.

You posted a source on this base concept, yet you didn't read the whole source. Or even the 1st few paragraphs.
How do you straw man someone with a source that straw-mans yourself

1. That's not "twisting what you said about agnosticism." That's disagreeing with what you said about agnosticism because it's wrong.

2. Knowledge (As well as belief) is not spurred from agnosticism; it is a means of evaluating knowledge spurred from other sources (Agnosticism makes no claims to how the universe was born/what happens after we die/etc.).

1. There's not a source, book, agnostic on Earth that will agree that I'm wrong. This is a travesty. I almost feel bad for this thread.

2. Knowledge is spurred from evaluating knowledge. Educated agnostics make a claim that a/theists don't know shit about the origins of reality. Knowledge enough in my book, because it is true.

Hey, if you want to deny the fact that your argument is poorly-formed, lacks reason and has been ripped to shreds, be my guest.

You are just in complete and utter denial. I'm the only one with a formed argument. You all are just drawing straws and being redundant. This little debate was over a long time ago, I'm just making sure my credibility isn't washed out by this nonsense.

If by "truth" you mean your own warped version of it, then I'd rather not.

It's the truth, bro. It's the truth..

Do you honestly believe that most of the bright, educated people reading this thread think your debate is superior?

Yes, I do. Not that I'm stating anything other than basic truth, but yeah.

you would be making less of a fool of yourself!

See quotes above.

This is the most ridiculous heap of shit I've ever heard in my life. Good luck with all that. So not only am I more knowledgeable, but I have better common sense as well. Nice.

 

[CassinoChips]

I'm going to say this one time, and one time only. If the insults do not stop in this thread, it will be closed and infractions will be handed out. "herp derp" is unnecessary. "heap of shit" is unnecessary. Knock it off, grow up, and debate like adults. If you can't handle that, you'll have to go elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Gorilla]

Your sources defend what I state. Words cannot describe how stupid this argument is.

In what way do they defend what you state and contradict what I state (I want to know so I know you actually took the time to read the sources)?

The lack of belief- in theism.

Alright, so atheists don't believe what theists believe (Because atheism, again, is the lack of belief). What's your point? This, again, is a binary truth value; you either believe in the supernatural or you don't, and thus, every person is either an atheist or a theist.

Whether or not someone knows something is a completely different ballgame, however.

No, you defeated yourself. See quote above.

Where you said "the lack of belief- in theism?" Because that did not prove anything.

You posted a source on this base concept, yet you didn't read the whole source. Or even the 1st few paragraphs.

Again, which source was this and where was the contradiction?

How do you straw man someone with a source that straw-mans yourself

Well golly, I don't know. I guess that's why I'm not doing that.

1. There's not a source, book, agnostic on Earth that will agree that I'm wrong. This is a travesty. I almost feel bad for this thread.

And yet I've cited sources that agreed with me (And since you're disagreeing with me, that would mean they're disagreeing with you).

2. Knowledge is spurred from evaluating knowledge.

Knowledge is spurred from the facts of reality, not through an evaluation method for reality. The better the method the more knowledge can be drawn from reality, but that's different from that method "spurring" that knowledge.

Educated agnostics make a claim that a/theists don't know shit about the origins of reality.

A). Agnosticism is independent of theism/atheism; agnosticism comes with the implication that the nature of the origin of the universe/existence of god/whatnot is unknowable. Replacing "a/theists" with "people" in that quote, that would be right, but

B). it doesn't make any claims to the origins of reality itself (The only claim is that the origins of reality is unknowable), and

C). that, again, is related to knowledge, not belief. If you believe that some deity created the universe and his son died on the cross for humanity's sins, then that person is a Christian (A theist). If that person also believes that there is no way to know for a fact that that deity existed and is willing to admit that it might not be true, however, then that person is also an agnostic.

Conclusion? Theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive (Which would be your stance), and neither is atheism and agnosticism (Which is also your stance), and you've yet to provide a reasonable argument demonstrating otherwise.

You are just in complete and utter denial. I'm the only one with a formed argument. You all are just drawing straws and being redundant.

You kept repeating the same thing you said in your first post without further clarifying it/sourcing it/rationalizing it at all. No, I'm definitely not the one contributing to the obvious redundancy in this thread.

This little debate was over a long time ago, I'm just making sure my credibility isn't washed out by this nonsense.

Thing is, though, is that your argument never had any credibility.

It's the truth, bro. It's the truth..

It's far from it.

Yes, I do. Not that I'm stating anything other than basic truth, but yeah.

Would you care to test that hypothesis?

This is the most ridiculous heap of shit I've ever heard in my life. Good luck with all that. So not only am I more knowledgeable, but I have better common sense as well. Nice.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Agnosticism. We hear it a lot, especially these days because of extreme diversity. Some people simply do not see the point in believing an ultimatum that holds no possibility of being proven.

The basic definition of agnosticism is the belief that the origins of our reality is unknown and likely unknowable, despite scientific or creationist views. Not all agnostics venture on the educated aspects of it, but it doesn't discount them nonetheless. Whether you know the specific details or not, it all points toward the same aim and voids gnostic teaching.
Technically speaking, anyways.
I feel that if one deems themselves agnostic, they should educate themselves on the rationale behind it. It doesn't do good to be anything without the knowledge basing them.
Which is why I have made this thread- to breakdown it's fundamental aspects and breakthrough certain misconceptions of what agnosticism is, as well as other ultimate beliefs.


a.gnosticism- breakdown the word and you have void/anti gnosticism. Gnosticism was a once a school of cosmic philosophy that taught a general, nameless view of creationism. In other words, divine influence is what created reality.

When you look at it this way, the term 'agnosticism' seems to be synonymous with the term 'atheism'. Technically speaking, this is grammatically correct.
However, agnosticism is more involved about gnostic teachings, and so is coined in relevance to it's genre rather then to atheism, which has no prevalence on creationism altogether.

The teachings of gnosticism itself is a dead subject for the most part in this day and age. However, it phantoms within religious teaching.

The deepest conception of agnosticism goes all the way back to the beginning of reality. What is there lies a big
?
Pretty much, an agnostic believes that science nor creationism can prove what made this reality.
This is highly logical. Science can uncover every aspect of reality, but it cannot reveal it's origin. As far as religion goes, it just so happens that most of them are unfalsifiable.

There is one misconception about agnosticism, however, which is surprisingly popular. It's the idea that agnostics say everything is uncertain. This is simply not a requirement for having an agnostic approach. I'm personally certain about many, many things, and I hold agnosticism with great esteem.

This is my belief and rationale.

Anyways, I wanted to make a specific thread on ultimate beliefs because they seem to be a reoccurring subject for me as well as others. If anyone wishes to talk or debate about this subject, feel free.

NOTE: I made this thread to keep things somewhat relevant. I know that sometimes it is necessary to stray to ultimately get a point across, and that's okay, but don't let it derail into a whole different subject.
Also, if you disagree, have a reasonable explanation why. There will be no saying someone is 'false' or 'prove it' simply out of stubbornness. And there will be no collaborating against anyone. I'm sure that could count as trolling.

I fail to see how you are doing anything else besides being an ass. You don't even believe what you are stating, it has simply just become about arguing with me specifically. This juncture in itself enforces how knowledgeable I am and how badly you all want throw me off that boat.
I'm pretty sure that immediately after this post, I'll get a bunch of crap about how I'm so wrong and yada yada ya, but I don't care. I proved my case.

 

[CassinoChips]

Apparently we can't follow directions.