• 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!

Your thoughts on Agnostics

Omega Man said:
Refer back to my post about Taranis. I learned long ago about Taranis, therefore I have knowledge about Tarnis. Based upon this knowledge, I can therefore determine whether Taranis is real or mythical. Unfortunately, when it comes to different versions of the Judeo-Christian deities, the water gets a bit muddied. Whereas superstitious cultures from an ancient era were prone to belief in their cultural deities, the biblical "God" has been perpetuated religiously, socially, and politically. I don't claim that a creative force of some sort doesn't exist (commonly referred to as "God"), I just don't believe that ancient nomads somehow got it right. If others want to believe, good for them. Everyone's gotta believe in something I suppose.
Click to expand...

No, at best, you have knowledge about claims made ABOUT Taranis, not about Taranis itself. You'd have to be able to validate those claims, prove they are objectively true, before you'd have any actual knowledge about Taranis. Or God. Or unicorns. Or anything else. Claims and knowledge are not the same thing.
 
I am a practicing Christian, but my theological beliefs are vague enough as to approach agnosticism. I wish I could prove the existence of God the way I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but I cannot.
 
SmartCat said:
I am a practicing Christian, but my theological beliefs are vague enough as to approach agnosticism. I wish I could prove the existence of God the way I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but I cannot.
Click to expand...

The Resurrection of Jesus. That's a vital key to believing in God. If Jesus is resurrected then there is a God, and that God is the God of the Bible.

Recommended reading (definitely read the first two):

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

Both are available on Amazon. Amazon

Also,

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel"
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

The more you read along these lines, the greater your faith in God will be. I promise you. Works for me.
 
Logicman said:
The Resurrection of Jesus. That's a vital key to believing in God. If Jesus is resurrected then there is a God, and that God is the God of the Bible.

Recommended reading (definitely read the first two):

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

Both are available on Amazon. Amazon

Also,

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel"
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

The more you read along these lines, the greater your faith in God will be. I promise you. Works for me.
Click to expand...
There are non supernatural explanations to the resurrection if it even happened. which you cant even prove so the burden of proof remains with you and you cant even come close to meeting it
 
Cephus said:
No, at best, you have knowledge about claims made ABOUT Taranis, not about Taranis itself. You'd have to be able to validate those claims, prove they are objectively true, before you'd have any actual knowledge about Taranis. Or God. Or unicorns. Or anything else. Claims and knowledge are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "objectively true"???? Having knowledge about Taranis isn't the same as claiming Taranis exists. I can pull up any number of books to validate my claims that I have knowledge about Taranis.


OM
 
Logicman said:
The Resurrection of Jesus. That's a vital key to believing in God. If Jesus is resurrected then there is a God, and that God is the God of the Bible.

Recommended reading (definitely read the first two):

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr, Gary Habermas.

Both are available on Amazon. Amazon

Also,

"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel"
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

The more you read along these lines, the greater your faith in God will be. I promise you. Works for me.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep cut/pasting that list, yet back off from actually discussing in a rational manner the so called 'evidence' that is presented. IT's almost as if you never actually read any of those.
 
SmartCat said:
I am a practicing Christian, but my theological beliefs are vague enough as to approach agnosticism. I wish I could prove the existence of God the way I can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but I cannot.
Click to expand...

Correct, and the reason you cannot prove your religion is because Mathematics is a closed functional system while Religion is an open functional system. Mathematics makes use of proofs (extensions of foundational axioms) but Religion does not.

In fact, it is a logical fallacy to try to prove a religion (Circular Argument Fallacy).

A religion IS an initial circular argument, so circular arguments themselves are not logical fallacies, but trying to prove them is what becomes the logical fallacy.
 
gfm7175 said:
Correct, and the reason you cannot prove your religion is because Mathematics is a closed functional system while Religion is an open functional system. Mathematics makes use of proofs (extensions of foundational axioms) but Religion does not.

In fact, it is a logical fallacy to try to prove a religion (Circular Argument Fallacy).

A religion IS an initial circular argument, so circular arguments themselves are not logical fallacies, but trying to prove them is what becomes the logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

You just entered your own paradox city.
 
devildavid said:
A logical fallacy that is not a logical fallacy? Sounds like you stepped in your own paradoxical poop.
Click to expand...
Stepped in??
He positively wallows in it
 
devildavid said:
A logical fallacy that is not a logical fallacy? Sounds like you stepped in your own paradoxical poop.
Click to expand...

No, it's always a logical fallacy. But circular arguments are not always fallacious arguments... Only when someone attempts to prove them are they fallacious...
 
Omega Man said:
What do you mean by "objectively true"???? Having knowledge about Taranis isn't the same as claiming Taranis exists. I can pull up any number of books to validate my claims that I have knowledge about Taranis.
Click to expand...

Objective: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". Demonstrable. Something that is not just claims, but can be backed up by evidence. Claims are not proof. You need proof.
 
gfm7175 said:
No, it's always a logical fallacy. But circular arguments are not always fallacious arguments... Only when someone attempts to prove them are they fallacious...
Click to expand...

A logical fallacy is always a logical fallacy. There are no conditional logical fallacies.
 
Quag said:
There are non supernatural explanations to the resurrection if it even happened. which you cant even prove so the burden of proof remains with you and you cant even come close to meeting it
Click to expand...

I don't need or want to prove anything to you. You've been educated on what happens scripturally to dedicated Christ-deniers when they belly up, and you've alienated yourself from the truth.
 
Logicman said:
I don't need or want to prove anything to you. You've been educated on what happens scripturally to dedicated Christ-deniers when they belly up, and you've alienated yourself from the truth.
Click to expand...

What happens scripturally? What does that mean? Things happen or don't happen. What scriptures state has nothing to do with it. Scriptures are not a description of reality. Words on paper are not reality.
 
Cephus said:
Objective: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". Demonstrable. Something that is not just claims, but can be backed up by evidence. Claims are not proof. You need proof.
Click to expand...

Proof of what? That I read and learned about Taranis?

Hint: Learning about Tarnis - thus obtaining knowledge - is not the same as claiming Taranis is real.


OM
 
devildavid said:
Yet you just made one up. Paradox city is your hometown.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I have explained what the Circular Argument Fallacy is... It deals with attempting to prove circular arguments, not the existence of circular arguments themselves... Do try to keep up...

I do appreciate your liking for my coined term "Paradox City"... Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... ;)
 
Logicman said:
I don't need or want to prove anything to you. You've been educated on what happens scripturally to dedicated Christ-deniers when they belly up, and you've alienated yourself from the truth.
Click to expand...
And you have been educated on logic and reason. The fact you chose to ignore that is your problem not mine.
However I will continue to point out you get it all backwards and make absurd claims whenever you do so.


As to the truth you are so far removed from it you cant see it from the dark corner you've backed yourself into.

You want to claim the resurrection is real you must prove it
You have 0 evidence to back up the claim just claims. Claims that if they have any truth behind them are far more easily explained without going to the supernatural.
 
Omega Man said:
Proof of what? That I read and learned about Taranis?

Hint: Learning about Tarnis - thus obtaining knowledge - is not the same as claiming Taranis is real.


OM
Click to expand...

To be more technically correct you learned about the myths/claims/stories whatever you want to call it of Taranis. You cant claim to actually have learned anything about Taranis unless you can show that Taranis is real and that what you learned is true.

Same with God, using the Bible to claim you know something about God is true only if you can show that God exists and what the Bible says is true. If not all you can claim is you have learned and know what is written in the Bible.
 
Quag said:
To be more technically correct you learned about the myths/claims/stories whatever you want to call it of Taranis. You cant claim to actually have learned anything about Taranis unless you can show that Taranis is real and that what you learned is true.

Same with God, using the Bible to claim you know something about God is true only if you can show that God exists and what the Bible says is true. If not all you can claim is you have learned and know what is written in the Bible.
Click to expand...

I have knowledge of Taranis. I have interpreted that knowledge to mean that Taranis is mythical. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe after all is said and done, turns out some ancient Celts got it right, and I got it wrong. But either way, the knowledge I have about Taranis has led me to my opinions about Taranis. Same goes with any deities, really. It's not up to us to determine if somebody else interpreted the knowledge incorrectly; only that they have indeed obtained knowledge in doing so.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
I have knowledge of Taranis. I have interpreted that knowledge to mean that Taranis is mythical. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe after all is said and done, turns out some ancient Celts got it right, and I got it wrong. But either way, the knowledge I have about Taranis has led me to my opinions about Taranis. Same goes with any deities, really. It's not up to us to determine if somebody else interpreted the knowledge incorrectly; only that they have indeed obtained knowledge in doing so.


OM
Click to expand...
Yes in common usage you can say you have knowledge of Taranis and it is often accepted and people will generally understand what you mean but technically it is not true.
Again, being a bit pedantic here but you dont have knowledge of something that may or may not exist and the info you have learned may or may not be true. What you have is knowledge of the myths/claims/stories.
Same with the God and the bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom