alliop wrote:
So at what point should one draw the line?

alliop wrote:
You can't proove or disprove the existance of god but at the same time you can't prove or disprove the existnce of ghosts, leprechans, or a tree that I claim to have floating above my head that happens to lies in a seperate plain of existnece (so therfore you can't see or touch or hear or feel or taste or smell it).

alliop wrote:
So at what point should one draw the line? At one point should one say "sure you can't prove or disprove the existance of [insert whatever] but that doesn't mean I am going to say there is a possibility it exists and that maybe it isn't just something humans made up". Should a line even be drawn?

WW_II_ANGRY wrote:
I believe we can be atheist and agnostic at the same time. I don't believe in God (atheist) but I don't deny that it is possible that a God exists.

The_Rational_Animal wrote:


By Occam's Razor, I can reject the claim that such mystical entities exist in reality. These entities are "multiplied beyond necessity" and are therefore more unlikely to exist. I cannot offer you certain claims against yours, but the differences we have are conceptual differences; that is, they fall between the dichotomy of rational to irrational.



There should most certainly be a line. Atheists are certain: they have incontrovertible proof that God, given certain undeniable premises about existent reality, cannot fit into the overall plan as It (God) is presently defined. Agnostics acknowledge the possibility of either answer (weak agnostics). Agnostics may also comprise the skeptics, who deny that one could ever know the answer to such a question (strong agnostics).



Atheism and agnosticism cannot be reconciled. That is, unless your belief in the nonexistence of God is without reason. If you say that it is possible that God exists at the same time as saying He does not, you are generating a contradiction (A&-A), and one of your premises is a tautology, shifting the conclusion either way. You are an agnostic because you use the word "believe". "To believe" is the inadequate form of "to know", and "to know" is the activity of the atheist or the theist.

The_Rational_Animal wrote:


I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly what I just said? I said:

A: "to believe" is not "to know" (believing is inadequate for knowing),

B: atheists "know" that God does not exist,

C: Thus, "to believe" that God does not exist is not atheism

"I do not believe" that God exists means that you do not "know" and thus you could be wrong, or in error. If you admit the possibility of your error, you are not making any truth claim at all, which is what the agnostic tries to do: to remain neutral.

Dranu wrote:
You two are having a problem with the terms 'belief' and 'knowledge.' If you are going to seperate the two terms (which I do not think you should, because it comes down to degrees of knowledge) you need to define them.

To believe God doesn't exist is atheism. To not hold belief in His existence or non-existence is agnosticism (as I see it anyhow). One cannot be agnostic and atheist. Nor can one be agnostic and theist. Consider what the term a gnostic means. The only way out is to really make a clear seperation between belief and knowledge, which needs to be done if y'all are going to continue.

Dranu wrote:
Ok, that is a start. Now clearly define the difference so we can work from there.

Dranu wrote:
Philosophy involves the meaning behind words. What the majority says of a verbal sound correlating to a meaning is not all that important. What I am saying is that the terms 'belief' and 'knowledge' being employed here are almost indistinguishable in meaning. If they are distinguishable then present it, and we shall put the lexical definition to the logical test and application.

We can have a dialogue here. We do not have to just say we disagree. We can rationally argue for our positions.

Heck, we wouldn't have such famous works such as Plato's Republic if we simply accepted the word on the street for terms like 'justice'.

keda wrote:
Well being an agnostic theist, I find it a very important distinction. I'm reluctant to use that word though without defining it thought because it is ambigous. I do think its impossible to prove that God exists, which by the definition of a-gnosis meaning no knowledge, or in a stronger sense no possible knowledge, of God I am agnostic, and I do think this is a major stumbling block to so called believers, that they cannot believe without evidence, or dogma filling up its place to feel secure in their weak belief, degrading the moral content of their actions.

Dranu wrote:
First off, thank you for giving us something to work from.
1.)So the theist and atheist has no knowledge, they only think they do? Thus, they are only believers? (note:by how you have now defined agnostic, this seems to internally work and the problem of everyone being agnostic seems to disappear, but note question 2.)
2.)What would you call someone who holds neither a position on God's existence or non-existence? (note: it is not an agnostic by your term, so it seems perhaps it was the third problem I thought of in post #15. Furthermore, and getting on to Keda's post, how could anyone claim to have true knowledge of God's existence unless the term knowledge is defined specifically to seperate it from belief? In other words, depending on what one called knowledge, I could just call all who do not call themselves agnostic, by your terms, as unreasonable sicne there may be no such thing as one who has knowledge of God)

I guess it depends on what you mean by proof. Knowing that you have some Kantian influence, I can see why you would say this, but I shall try to avoid talking about 'dialectic illusion' and objections to the Ontological argument here, both of which I do not entirely understand yet anyhow . I have three questions though:
1.)Can we as humans have any true knowledge, and what is knowledge?
2.)Is there actually such thing as a 'non-agnostic' that is more than just a lie(a rational 'gnostic' if you will )? Maybe a better way to ask what I am getting to is to ask if a position of knowledge is possible and to ask if those who claim it is are just deluded?
3.)The same question #2 that I asked WW III ANGRY.

Dranu wrote:

I guess it depends on what you mean by proof. Knowing that you have some Kantian influence, I can see why you would say this, but I shall try to avoid talking about 'dialectic illusion' and objections to the Ontological argument here, both of which I do not entirely understand yet anyhow . I have three questions though:
1.)Can we as humans have any true knowledge, and what is knowledge?
2.)Is there actually such thing as a 'non-agnostic' that is more than just a lie(a rational 'gnostic' if you will )? Maybe a better way to ask what I am getting to is to ask if a position of knowledge is possible and to ask if those who claim it is are just deluded?
3.)The same question #2 that I asked WW III ANGRY.