• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheism vs Agnosticism

If you are saying "I do not know if gods exist or not"...we are simpatico.

If you are saying something other than that, chances are we are not in agreement.

I have difficulty understanding what you are saying with regard to the question: "Do gods exist or not?"

Here is my take on that question:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods;
I do not know if there are no gods;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.


Why don't you put something out there as clear as that...so I can determine IF you are making an assertion where you incur the burden of proof.

My stance is I do not know if God(s) exist. We agree on that point.

I also do not know if they are possible or not. You don't know that either. Our conclusions are the same.

However, you try to justify your stance by saying that if they can't be proven impossible then they are possible. You will not consider yourself an atheist because you hold out some possibility that there could be god(s). If you didn't continue with that argument we would not have a disagreement. How can you prove something possible or impossible if you don't know the rules or even if there are any rules?

The difference between us is that you think god possible while I don't know and can't know if god is possible.

We are both agnostic toward god's existence but I don't think I can know anything about gods or their possibilities either. Also I am atheist because I can't actively accept something for which we have zero convincing evidence.
 
What you have proved is that you love to claim victories that you do not deserve.

IT WAS POSSIBLE.

But continue to insist it was not. I am loving it.
Something that was proved impossible wasnt ever possible. It was never possible that those were channels on Mars. The only way to make it possible is to remove some of the factors that made it impossible. Of course people may have thought it was possible at the time. The logical approach though would be to say that it looked like there were channels on Mars; but that they didnt know if it was even possible lacking any real information on the conditions on Mars at the time.

If we apply this to gods: The best that anyone who lacks knowledge about gods could say is that they do not know anything about gods. They lack the information to know if gods are possible or not.

It is illogical to assume something is possible without any rational reason for the thing to be possible. When someone says that a that a things maybe possible for all they know, they are admitting that they do not know anything. Frank you dont know enough to say whether gods are possible or not.
 
WOW you really want to double down on failure dont you Frank.

Not at all. I acknowledge when I am wrong.

But you love to claim victories where you have none.

I think it is cute.
 
My stance is I do not know if God(s) exist. We agree on that point.

I also do not know if they are possible or not. You don't know that either. Our conclusions are the same.

Of course you know it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, Russell...just as you know it is POSSIBLE gods do not exist.

However, you try to justify your stance by saying that if they can't be proven impossible then they are possible.

That follows logically. Think about it.



You will not consider yourself an atheist because you hold out some possibility that there could be god(s). If you didn't continue with that argument we would not have a disagreement. How can you prove something possible or impossible if you don't know the rules or even if there are any rules?

If you cannot establish it as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

The difference between us is that you think god possible while I don't know and can't know if god is possible.

YOU do know it. You just cannot allow yourself to acknowledge it.

Either gods exist or they do not.

We do not know which it is...so either is possible.

YOU know that it is possible there are no gods...which means you also know it is possible there are gods.

We are both agnostic toward god's existence but I don't think I can know anything about gods or their possibilities either. Also I am atheist because I can't actively accept something for which we have zero convincing evidence.

I have no idea of what you are...or why you want to label yourself the way you do.

But as for "Do gods exist?"...it is possible they do...and it is possible they do not.
 
Something that was proved impossible wasnt ever possible. It was never possible that those were channels on Mars. The only way to make it possible is to remove some of the factors that made it impossible. Of course people may have thought it was possible at the time. The logical approach though would be to say that it looked like there were channels on Mars; but that they didnt know if it was even possible lacking any real information on the conditions on Mars at the time.

If we apply this to gods: The best that anyone who lacks knowledge about gods could say is that they do not know anything about gods. They lack the information to know if gods are possible or not.

It is illogical to assume something is possible without any rational reason for the thing to be possible. When someone says that a that a things maybe possible for all they know, they are admitting that they do not know anything. Frank you dont know enough to say whether gods are possible or not.

Do not give lectures on what is logical and what is not. It appears you do not understand logic at all.
 
Nothing "idiotic" about "If it is not established as impossible...it is possible."

Makes perfect sense just as it is.

No Frank it makes no sense.
But then there is no point in discussing it because you refuse to debate the issue.
 
Not at all. I acknowledge when I am wrong.

But you love to claim victories where you have none.

I think it is cute.


You are neither cute nor clever Frank
But you are free to continue in your delusions
 
Do not give lectures on what is logical and what is not. It appears you do not understand logic at all.

Frank why do you think everyone is telling you that your logic is lacking?
Do you seriously believe that you are the only logical person and everyone else is illogical?
Or could it possibly be that you are the one lacking logic?
Hint its option #2
 
Of course you know it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, Russell...just as you know it is POSSIBLE gods do not exist.

That follows logically. Think about it.

Is it possible there are 20 fairies dancing on my desk? Is it possible that the Loch Ness Monster exists in Loch Ness?

Do I really have to go through the mental torture of rationalizing that those things have not been proven impossible to demonstrate they are the opposite of impossible? Also, no matter how long or hard you my try, you will never be able to prove them impossible if you have no rules to test them against. The requirements of your logic make no sense. You can't prove a negative so there is no point in employing that predicate as part of your argument in the form....if/then. It's irrational and impossible to do. The greatest minds in the history of the world have not been able to avoid that fact...but you insist on using it anyway.
 
Who the hell are you to decide that?

One does NOT have to be either a theist or an atheist.

I, for instance, am not a theist...nor am I an atheist.

You don't like the either/or comparison as simple opposites...but when you do it it's completely fine?

If it's not impossible then it is possible. If you are not an atheist then you are a theist.

There is a middle ground for both statements. "I don't know or I am uncertain".
 
You don't like the either/or comparison as simple opposites...but when you do it it's completely fine?

If it's not impossible then it is possible. If you are not an atheist then you are a theist.

There is a middle ground for both statements. "I don't know or I am uncertain".

Frank is certain that he is uncertain of everything.
 
Frank is certain that he is uncertain of everything.

Which is fine but then he asserts positively that "If it's not impossible then it is possible".

There is uncertainty in everything we can measure and know, but some things I would never bet against! Likewise, there are "things" I would never bet on...like the existence of god. I would never, ever get the money I bet back. It would for ever be left in limbo awaiting a resolution. Whether or not god is impossible or possible we have no way of knowing...it's a meaningless exercise in futility.
 
Which is fine but then he asserts positively that "If it's not impossible then it is possible".

There is uncertainty in everything we can measure and know, but some things I would never bet against! Likewise, there are "things" I would never bet on...like the existence of god. I would never, ever get the money I bet back. It would for ever be left in limbo awaiting a resolution. Whether or not god is impossible or possible we have no way of knowing...it's a meaningless exercise in futility.

Actually he asserts that if it is not established as impossible it is possible.
For some reason known only to himself he believes that not knowing something is impossible magically means it is possible.
He started a thread on this that went on for 114 pages and never once tried to explain, defend or debate that bit of illogic.
 
Actually he asserts that if it is not established as impossible it is possible.
For some reason known only to himself he believes that not knowing something is impossible magically means it is possible.
He started a thread on this that went on for 114 pages and never once tried to explain, defend or debate that bit of illogic.

Sure, but if something is impossible that is because we have established it as impossible. A possibility is not a characteristic of objective reality. A possibility is OUR assessment of that reality.
 
No Frank it makes no sense.
But then there is no point in discussing it because you refuse to debate the issue.

It makes perfect sense.

I'm willing to discuss it with anyone.
 
You are neither cute nor clever Frank
But you are free to continue in your delusions

I think the way you claim victories you have not earned...

...is cute.,

Keep doing it.
 
Frank why do you think everyone is telling you that your logic is lacking?
Do you seriously believe that you are the only logical person and everyone else is illogical?
Or could it possibly be that you are the one lacking logic?
Hint its option #2

I have never suggested I am the only logical person here...nor have I ever suggested everyone else is illogical.

Why do you make stuff like that up?

Oh, I know. You can't mount a decent argument against what is actually said...so if you make stuff up...you have an advantage of working against an opponent who makes no sense most of the time.
 
I think the way you claim victories you have not earned...

...is cute.,

Keep doing it.

You keep pretending you are clever it isn't cute and you arent
 
I have never suggested I am the only logical person here...nor have I ever suggested everyone else is illogical.

Why do you make stuff like that up?

Oh, I know. You can't mount a decent argument against what is actually said...so if you make stuff up...you have an advantage of working against an opponent who makes no sense most of the time.

Try reading what I posted instead of the nonsense your brain twists it into.
Oh that's right you dont do reality, you live in Frank land where whatever illogical statement you make is perfectly logical
 
Sure, but if something is impossible that is because we have established it as impossible. A possibility is not a characteristic of objective reality. A possibility is OUR assessment of that reality.

Frank applies his maxims to everything. There is no logic. just a belief that he clever. His belief is unfounded
 
Is it possible there are 20 fairies dancing on my desk? Is it possible that the Loch Ness Monster exists in Loch Ness?

If you want to deal with the Loch Ness Monster or with fairies...do it with someone else.

Do I really have to go through the mental torture of rationalizing that those things have not been proven impossible to demonstrate they are the opposite of impossible? Also, no matter how long or hard you my try, you will never be able to prove them impossible if you have no rules to test them against. The requirements of your logic make no sense. You can't prove a negative so there is no point in employing that predicate as part of your argument in the form....if/then. It's irrational and impossible to do. The greatest minds in the history of the world have not been able to avoid that fact...but you insist on using it anyway.

If a person cannot "prove" something...then they ought not to assert that thing.

It is POSSIBLE that gods exist, Russell...just as it is POSSIBLE that none exist.

I think you know that...but you have painted yourself into a corner...and do not have what it takes to acknowledge that you have.

Too bad that. You seem like more than that.
 
You don't like the either/or comparison as simple opposites...but when you do it it's completely fine?

Stop digging. You are deep enough.

IT IS POSSIBLE THERE ARE NO GODS. IT ALSO IS POSSIBLE THERE ARE.



If it's not impossible then it is possible. If you are not an atheist then you are a theist.

You are correct that if it is not impossible then it is possible. I'm not sure why you want to eliminate the "If it is NOT ESTABLISHED"...but that is your problem. The way you state it makes it true definitionally.

But anyone who says that one must be either an atheist or a theist...is wrong.


There is a middle ground for both statements. "I don't know or I am uncertain".

I am not an atheist...and I also am not a theist.
 
I know that there are a few threads where this has been discussed but, I was watching this and thought that Matt Dillahunty made some interesting points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ohbrPQ7HU

Around 18:20 the interesting part starts and ends around 26:00.

Atheism and agnosticism are not in conflict except for an emerging form of agnosticism, that he discusses, that asserts that they have the most logical position. Are we really in conflict?

So, did anyone watch the video, I think that Matt articulates the problems quite well.
 
Back
Top Bottom