It doesn’t help much when I’m right all along, not because of me , but because of the way things actually are.
I would suggest getting out of the books for a while and just look around you and determine for yourself what is case in fact first hand.
@CoffeeBean, you haven’t been here for very long so haven’t had much of an opportunity to learn that folks here who are long-time, regular posters will often call out anything they consider challengeable. It’s not personal.
1 Like
Nor would i personally take offense at such challenges. :0)
I think it has to do with how the subject is being approached. Some go through books and resource materials quoting various definitions and general academia, whereas I look more directly at history and actuality involving people’s claims, and if such claims have actually been validated or not.
I’m not against academia or proper resource material citing various definitions , but sometimes a person can get lost in it if he or she does not actually look out the window once in a while to stay in focus.
I suppose this could happen. However, is it possible to determine, as fact, that any given poster in an online forum with whom one has had an exchange of a handful of posts is doing so?
That’s vapid rhetoric, you were demonstrably wrong since your claims were at odds with the dictionary, and your arguments irrational (as I demonstrated), and you laughably tried to claim to know the future. This isn’t only about being right though, it’s about having the integrity to admit when you’re wrong.
There are people who hide behind a misconception of agnosticisms of course, but that doesn’t change what the word means. We see theists and religious apologists try to peddle this one all the time, along with comparable semantics that try to present atheism as a claim or belief.
I would suggest you stop mimicking theists, with unevidenced hyperbole, and irrational arguments, and also have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong.
Like there, unless you can demonstrate a single example of me remotely claiming a deity is possible.
Or there, where you used an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and seem to think handwaving is a credible response.
Or there where you claim to know what will happen in the future.
Or there where you resorted to an ad hominem fallacy.
Dictionary definitions reflect common usage, so if one makes a sweeping claim that is at odds with it, then they’re wrong.
That statement is factually wrong, since one cannot claim to be an agnostic, and claim to know a deity is possible. I am an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, this includes deities, and I am an atheist, and I won’t believe anything is possible until it is demonstrated to be so, with sufficient objective evidence, and this includes claims for deities. Parenthetically I cannot claim deities are not possible, as I would need sufficient objective evidence to believe that as well.
Ahem, go to this earlier post of mine and learn why your assertion is completely and utterly wrong. Which I demonstrate in detail.
1 Like
Lack of evidence is only evidence of lack when that evidence is to be logically expected. You cannot disprove deism. (That is a fact.) Deism is the belief in a sole creator god who set the universe in motion according to nature’s laws and then left it to run on its own.
Demonstrate the deistic god does not exist.
1 Like
Is he still trying to redefine agnosticism? Is that still what all this is about? DUDE! Is there no limit to your ignorance?
You are learning something very valuable as an atheist. When you ask someone, “Do you believe in God.” and they respond “I am agnostic.” They have not answered your question. They are avoiding the question completely. Your are completely justified in responding “I did not ask you what you knew. I asked you what you believed. Do you believe a god exists. It is a yes or no question.”
Claiming to be an agnostic does not equate to any position at all on the existence of a god.
Do you understand that the Atheist position is the null hypothesis? Not Agnosticism. It is the atheist position that there is no good reason to believe as there is no good evidence. The God hypothesis has not been demonstrated. Not Agnosticism. Agnosticism is about what you KNOW to be true. Not what you BELIEVE. (Knowledge as previously defined: ‘Belief which is held to such a degree that it would be life-altering if it was demonstrated to be wrong.’)
1 Like
One example I’ve used to understand where Sheldon is coming from is a nugget I picked up from an atheist podcast.
A bubble gum machine…
A claim is made that there is an even amount of gumballs.
There is no evidence for this conclusion.
Does that mean “believing” it is an odd number?
Nope.
Still no evidence for that either.
Until the balls are taken out and counted can you know whether it’s even or odd.
There is no evidence for god/s. Likewise, produce the evidence there isn’t any 
… there could be, but doesn’t give a rat’s ass - or was one and it died (caused the Big Bang 
)
I withhold belief or “confidence” in a deity/deities. There’s no good reason to believe.
2 Likes
Well you can stay with what you state, but I’ll stay with what is actually going on around me.
Definitions almost always are a tit for tat exchange and almost always, terms like agnosticism and atheism will always be in contention because definitions and meaning change all the time , and people view definitions differently.
So if you want to stay with the recent vernacular that’s fine with me , but I’ll stick with the reality that is going on around me.
It is a statement of fact that the current dictionary definition of agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Ipso facto anyone claiming to know anything about a deity is not an agnostic. Your subjective and unevidenced anecdotal claims about personal experience are irrelevant to that.
You also failed to address the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you used, So whilst you may be content to make irrational arguments, and ignore what this infers, I cannot.
You also made a false accusation that I had defended the possibility of theism, yet despite being asked twice to offer even a single example, have failed to offer any quote from me to support this. What else can one infer but that this was either an error or mendacity?
No they certainly don’t change all the time, though overtime some words do change, and etymology whilst fascinating does not change the current definition, which reflects common usage.
The dictionary definition reflects common usage, so why would I accept your subjective opinion based on vague and unevidenced anecdotal claims for personal experience? Not only is this is exactly the kind of theistic arguments I reject all the time, but your claims were sweeping absolutes, and when I offered a qualification to help you, that some agnostics themselves wrongly misinterpret agnosticism, you simply ignored it.
Now of course you can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, but your claims of personal experience of agnostics are anecdotal and unevidenced, and would not apply universally anyway since they are subjective, and they contradict the dictionary defection of agnosticism which reflect common usage, and your arguments are irrational, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to imply that a lack of evidence or proof for a deity, proves it doesn’t exist.
Agnostic
noun
- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Now compare that with your claim here:
By definition an agnostic can make no claims about any deity, so if someone claims a deity is possible, then they have ceased to be an agnostic, at least in that instance. If you have misunderstood them however, and all they did was claim a deity might be possible, which is the same as saying it might not be possible, then they have no actually made any claim to know whether a deity is possible. I think perhaps your sweeping claims and absolutes, and the poorly worded arguments are just a poor use and understanding of language, time here might remedy that, but only if you are prepared to keep an open mind.
You also didn’t address your risible claim to know what will be known in the future.
As I said it is simply risible to claim to know what may or may not be known in the future, with or without the absolute certainty you used, which merely indicates a closed mind. As I said earlier you’re confusing hubris and hyperbole with confidence, my confidence directly reflects the amount of objective evidence that supports any claim, no matter what that claim may be.
You should stick around, and read some of the debates that are recorded here, it will help you enormously I think to better understand what strong well reasoned arguments look like and why.
For example did you even read @Whitefire13’s or @Cognostic’s posts? They both explain a fundamental error in epistemology that you’re making here. Disbelieving a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim, and whilst the former can rationally be based on a lack of knowledge, the latter cannot. Basically if we cannot know whether a claim or belief is true, then we can rationally disbelieve it, but we cannot rationally claim it is untrue. this would apply to all unfalsifiable claims of course.
1 Like
You can lead a horse to water…
1 Like
…but a pencil must be lead… 
True dat…
Where? …???
Please define “recent vernacular”. Please provide details of how the “reality going on around” you is effecting the definitions of words.
Thats quite a post you made!
I’d say you corrected me to a tee here and i really do see what your trying to relay in terms of defining what agnosticism is through the lens of your viewpoint as well as the provided dictionary definition contrary to mine.
So as a now duly and soundly corrected individual on the matter of agnosticism, I am sincerely compelled now to ask you a simple question using your particular understanding of agnosticism and not mine as you very eloquently relayed in your response to me.
Are you agnostic as well in regards to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Hogwarts including Fluffy as well mind you, and South Park’s underpants gnomes?
I look very much forward to reading your answer!
I am agnostic about all unfalsifiable concepts, I believe I stated this more than once. However since there is objective evidence they are works of fiction, and this represents knowledge about their nature and existence, I would not be agnostic about them. I don’t know who or what Fluffy is, so I must remain agnostic about it, but still withhold belief. Though you have of course not offered any definition of the concepts or what you’re claiming about them of course, what does “in regards” mean for example? So this is a prima facie observation based on the facts we know about them.
FYI the definition is not my opinion, and not presented through any lens, I quoted the dictionary verbatim, and linked it. Only you are offering (naught) but a subjective opinion about what agnosticism means.
You also failed again to address your use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and failed to address how you claim to know what will happen in the future, and failed to offer a single quote from me to support your claim that “that I had defended the possibility of theism”…
1 Like
Basically he needs to offer something beyond bare assertions, I am glad someone else noticed.
As far as the etymology of the word agnostic goes " Agnostic first appeared in 1869, (possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agnōstos (meaning “unknown, unknowable”) ."
1 Like
Simply by pointing out that there is plenty we know about God. First it only comes from and is sourced completely by human invention and is found nowhere else in the universe , exactly like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Hogwarts and fluffy and South Park’s Underpants Gnomes, and all the other concepts that come out of the human mind.
To state that you don’t know, or it can’t be known, as per the stock definition of agnosticism, is not really being completely honest about it because people actually do know quite a bit about where God and similar concepts come from. Its always sourced from people and people alone and entertaining such concepts with a reply of, I dont know " becomes neither a confirmation nor dismissal , which why i regard agnosticism as a position akin with fence sitting because it allows for any and all possibilities , when its quite clear by now since the dawn of man those possibilities are just not going to ever manifest.
Maybe that will help somewhat to get an idea on my perspective here.
I thought I made a pretty darn good case for the easter bunny and for the tooth fairy citing objective evidence I might add.
When I was about 6 and stilled believed in god I prayed every night for a week asking him to tell santa to bring me a roy rogers 6 shooter and a cowboy hat. Was my prayer answered? No Nada No way. The next christmas I went straight for the big guy himself hopped on his lap and told him that he didn’t deliver last year probably because god forgot but that I still wanted that roy rogers 6 shooter and that cowboy hat. Voila that christmas what did santa bring exactly what I asked for. Santa won god boo. I’m with you on god but leave the holy trinity (santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy) alone or I’ll have to ask TinMan to make up a list of every citation in all of the books and songs that praise them. And above all santa knows if you’ve been naughty or nice and where you live. 
Cheers carry on your debate.
2 Likes