The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

Well, I’m working within your personal definitions, so I needed you to explain yourself further. It doesn’t quite match up with the formal definitions used in philosophy, but you were close. The premise of agnosticism isn’t the counterpoint to theism, but the counterpoint to theistic arguments both for and against the existence of God. I do not believe it can be known whether the god of classical theism exists or not, and I do not accept any of the arguments that attempt to definitively prove or disprove its existence. So the hard position of agnosticism fails to be the hard position of atheism, sure, but that’s kind of the point.

please by all means let's see these dictionaries that define it in such ways.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sacrificial love apparently does not have evidence of natural origins but here in the Bible is the account of a follower of Jesus, forgiving and praying for his enemies: stephen:
"When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep."
Acts 7:54-60

 

[gaara4158]

please by all means let's see these dictionaries that define it in such ways.

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Please quote a few sentence definition out of that article, as that page is just a text wall of information to hide the true basic definition.

 

[gaara4158]

Please quote a few sentence definition out of that article, as that page is just a text wall of information to hide the true basic definition.

Right, I’m hiding something from you by posting the whole thing

Here’s something bite-sized, since you seem to have no motivation to learn a little about philosophy:

an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false.

 

[createdtoworship]

Right, I’m hiding something from you by posting the whole thing

Here’s something bite-sized, since you seem to have no motivation to learn a little about philosophy:

let me quote a former athiest turned thiestic apologist:

"
Agnosticism, properly defined, is the ‘withholding of belief’ in God; that is to say that one simply does not know. The problem with this position is instantly recognizable: When asked the question; “do you believe in God?”, the appropriate answer could not possibly be “I do not know”, unless we are dealing with someone who has either simply never considered the question, or is not aware of the only two appropriate answers; ‘yes’ or ‘no’. And that really does lie at the heart of the whole agnostic position. It is either a state of complete confusion or an epistemic vacuum- insanity or ignorance.

....Assuming that one is both sane and understands what is meant by the word “God” (as most people do) then there is no conceivable manner in which one may reason their way to the empty state of non-belief that agnosticism supposes. Please note that we are using the term ‘non-belief’ in its actual sense of “not believing either way” and not in the modern-day atheist perspective as the negation of a particular proposition.[149] Non-belief in its proper sense is the same as saying “I believe nothing regarding this particular question”. But that is as useful a statement as no statement at all, since the subject of the statement itself is “nothing”, which does not exist. A person can only believe “nothing” about something which he knows nothing about; like the Mursi tribesman and the mental patient. About anything of which we are aware, however, we have beliefs whether we like it or not. If those beliefs concern the physical or metaphysical existence of some thing ‘X’, then those beliefs can either be positive or negative; we confirm their existence or we deny their existence; on faith, not on certainty; we lean to a positive or the negative response to any question which we consider seriously. Atheism and theism are thus asymmetrical responses to the same question; “does God exist?” If one is believed to be true, the other is believed to be false and vice versa. There is no in-between. Hence what we mean when we say: “agnosticism does not exist. In fact what we find in reality is that the majority of people who identify as agnostics are actually inclined toward one belief or the other, whether or not they prefer to acknowledge that belief. The philosopher Michael Ruse, for example, identifies as an agnostic, but it is almost certain from his written work that he is not inclined to theism and therefore, by exclusion, must believe that atheism is true and that theism is subsequently false.
Bertrand Russell, no less, said;

“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist.”[150]


”.


"

above quote from Jinn Bo, illogical atheism

 

[gaara4158]

let me quote a former athiest turned thiestic apologist:

"
Agnosticism, properly defined, is the ‘withholding of belief’ in God; that is to say that one simply does not know. The problem with this position is instantly recognizable: When asked the question; “do you believe in God?”, the appropriate answer could not possibly be “I do not know”, unless we are dealing with someone who has either simply never considered the question, or is not aware of the only two appropriate answers; ‘yes’ or ‘no’. And that really does lie at the heart of the whole agnostic position. It is either a state of complete confusion or an epistemic vacuum- insanity or ignorance.

....Assuming that one is both sane and understands what is meant by the word “God” (as most people do) then there is no conceivable manner in which one may reason their way to the empty state of non-belief that agnosticism supposes. Please note that we are using the term ‘non-belief’ in its actual sense of “not believing either way” and not in the modern-day atheist perspective as the negation of a particular proposition.[149] Non-belief in its proper sense is the same as saying “I believe nothing regarding this particular question”. But that is as useful a statement as no statement at all, since the subject of the statement itself is “nothing”, which does not exist. A person can only believe “nothing” about something which he knows nothing about; like the Mursi tribesman and the mental patient. About anything of which we are aware, however, we have beliefs whether we like it or not. If those beliefs concern the physical or metaphysical existence of some thing ‘X’, then those beliefs can either be positive or negative; we confirm their existence or we deny their existence; on faith, not on certainty; we lean to a positive or the negative response to any question which we consider seriously. Atheism and theism are thus asymmetrical responses to the same question; “does God exist?” If one is believed to be true, the other is believed to be false and vice versa. There is no in-between. Hence what we mean when we say: “agnosticism does not exist. In fact what we find in reality is that the majority of people who identify as agnostics are actually inclined toward one belief or the other, whether or not they prefer to acknowledge that belief. The philosopher Michael Ruse, for example, identifies as an agnostic, but it is almost certain from his written work that he is not inclined to theism and therefore, by exclusion, must believe that atheism is true and that theism is subsequently false.
Bertrand Russell, no less, said;

“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist.”[150]


”.


"

above quote from Jinn Bo, illogical atheism

Yes, and this is why hard agnostics still qualify as atheists, if atheism is concerning the psychological state of belief. I do not believe in the anthropomorphic god of Christianity and I do not fully understand the concept of the god of classical theism. Therefore I do not believe in God, but I do not profess to know that he doesn’t exist. You’re the one insisting people identify as one or the other, when most of us would most appropriately fit the label agnostic atheist.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, and this is why hard agnostics still qualify as atheists, if atheism is concerning the psychological state of belief. I do not believe in the anthropomorphic god of Christianity and I do not fully understand the concept of the god of classical theism. Therefore I do not believe in God, but I do not profess to know that he doesn’t exist. You’re the one insisting people identify as one or the other, when most of us would most appropriately fit the label agnostic atheist.

but the point is that neither answer the question "is there a God", so my point remains, what good is calling onself by one of those terms.

 

[gaara4158]

but the point is that neither answer the question "is there a God", so my point remains, what good is calling onself by one of those terms.

I’m trying to work within your vocabulary so you can understand me better, that’s the only reason I’m going into this with you. I can’t answer the question “Is there a god” but I can tell you what I believe, and what I don’t. Labels really aren’t important to me.

 

[Yttrium]

but the point is that neither answer the question "is there a God", so my point remains, what good is calling onself by one of those terms.

Personally, I prefer listing my faith as "N/A", but this site didn't have that option.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m trying to work within your vocabulary so you can understand me better, that’s the only reason I’m going into this with you. I can’t answer the question “Is there a god” but I can tell you what I believe, and what I don’t. Labels really aren’t important to me.

So I guess your agnosticism fails too. Because it doesn't know the answer to the question it poses.

 

[gaara4158]

So I guess your agnosticism fails too. Because it doesn't know the answer to the question it poses.

No, your reading comprehension fails. I’m sitting here telling you exactly where I stand on God’s existence and you’re telling me it fails because it’s neither confirmation nor denial. You’ll now have to prove that it’s not possible to have a position where you neither confirm nor deny something.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, your reading comprehension fails. I’m sitting here telling you exactly where I stand on God’s existence and you’re telling me it fails because it’s neither confirmation nor denial. You’ll now have to prove that it’s not possible to have a position where you neither confirm nor deny something.

If I ask you a question about the existence of God, and you reply with neither a confirmation or a denial. Did you actually answer the question?

 

[Yttrium]

So I guess your agnosticism fails too. Because it doesn't know the answer to the question it poses.

For the typical agnostic, agnosticism isn't a philosophy. It's simply an acknowledgement that the individual doesn't know whether a god exists or not. Agnosticism can't fail a person in this case, because it isn't trying to accomplish anything.

It's not a case of "I'll be an agnostic because it makes the most sense", it's "I don't know whether God exists or not, so I guess that makes me an agnostic".

 

[gaara4158]

If I ask you a question about the existence of God, and you reply with neither a confirmation or a denial. Did you actually answer the question?

No. But I explained my position, which isn’t an attempt to answer that question. I am perfectly happy telling you I can’t answer that question. It’s called being honest.

 

[createdtoworship]

For the typical agnostic, agnosticism isn't a philosophy. It's simply an acknowledgement that the individual doesn't know whether a god exists or not. Agnosticism can't fail a person in this case, because it isn't trying to accomplish anything.

It's not a case of "I'll be an agnostic because it makes the most sense", it's "I don't know whether God exists or not, so I guess that makes me an agnostic".

I never said it was a philosophy, I said it does not answer the question if there is a God or not, so it ultimately fails what it was sent out to do.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. But I explained my position, which isn’t an attempt to answer that question. I am perfectly happy telling you I can’t answer that question. It’s called being honest.

so then it fails. Again theism came out, then a group of anti theists decided there was no God. Later they realized that even though there is evil in the world, they cannot prove God does not exist somewhere in the universe, that they don't know of. So they turned into agnostics. But when they did so, they failed the mission that they originally sent out to do, which was to be anti thiest.

 

[Yttrium]

I never said it was a philosophy, I said it does not answer the question if there is a God or not, so it ultimately fails what it was sent out to do.

It can't fail what it was sent out to do, because it wasn't sent out to do anything besides shrug and say "I dunno". Alternatively, you could say it was sent out to not answer the question if there is a God or not.

 

[gaara4158]

so then it fails. Again theism came out, then a group of anti theists decided there was no God. Later they realized that even though there is evil in the world, they cannot prove God does not exist somewhere in the universe, that they don't know of. So they turned into agnostics. But when they did so, they failed the mission that they originally sent out to do, which was to be anti thiest.

Yes, it fails to be anti-theism. But it doesn’t fail to be a coherent position. I don’t know what’s so difficult about this for you. Agnosticism was never meant to deny theism. You’d know that if you’d read the article.

 

[createdtoworship]

It can't fail what it was sent out to do, because it wasn't sent out to do anything besides shrug and say "I dunno". Alternatively, you could say it was sent out to not answer the question if there is a God or not.

Yes, it fails to be anti-theism. But it doesn’t fail to be a coherent position. I don’t know what’s so difficult about this for you. Agnosticism was never meant to deny theism. You’d know that if you’d read the article.

atheism by definition was meant to be anti theist, and was derived as a result of theism. And owes it's complete existence to theism. Agnosticism does not answer the question at all, and is no help in the controversy at all. It sort of gives up, and raises the white flag.