Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

I don't think you even understand the argument.

We, as mortal, transcient creatures, have absolutely no saying about what is inherently designed, and what appears designed, that's why I extended the definition of design, it's simply the right definition to use in a formal argument. In this world, we simply pick existent stuff and work with it, we never ever create something ex nihilo.

Nope. That is not why your argument fails.

Try again.

You're arguing against a designer which is like Plato's Demiurge.

That's not what Klorophyll is defending. 

A lot of modern Christians believe in something like a Demiurge, but not Klorophyll. You are arguing against something he hasn't advocated.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No hes's not

---

Hey there,

Non religious people tend to overly use words without thinking about them, just like many religious people do, only in a much more dishonest manner.

Let's take the motto "I believe in science" for example, which is, for most skeptics, a euphemism for "I don't believe in anything any religion claims". The latter declaration already contains a mistake since nobody exhausted all the religious claims and ensured that they're fake. Let's remember that atheists are perfectly fine with ruling out entire religions with guesswork and false stereotypes.

Fancy words like science, reason, etc. refer to a very simple idea : we struggle very hard to figure out how things work around us. We invented mathematics and fancy abstract concepts for the sole purpose of getting our thoughts straight. When our mathematics became good enough we were finally able to have a better intuition of the universe. What should be kept in mind here is that we didn't create anything, we adapted to an a priori existence, all our attempts in science are a posteriori explanations that we try to fit to what we see around us. It's easy to imagine a very clever alien figuring out our entire "glories" of science in a couple of hours, then coming with a working theory of everything in the next, but this very alien is clever enough not to mess with fundamentally different questions like a meaning of his existence , or disregard revelation without looking at it hard enough.

So the purpose of science is attempts to figure out a posteriori how stuff works. Religion is about wondering why there is an a priori to discover in the first place. These are two entirely distinct compartments. Huge advancements in one don't negate the importance of the other.

That's why people repeating the aforementioned motto are fundamentally dishonest, they equivocate and mix these two very different aspects of reality.

It's not hard to make a case that we will never access any kind of ultimate reality, we already know that we cannot ever predict a physical quanity of a particle with certainty [Uncertainty principle]. Yeah : predicting certainly anything about one particle anywhere in the universe is already inaccessible to us forever.

And let's not forget that it took us 1700+ years to prove pi is irrational. And some still say : I'm open minded about discovering God in the future .

The only honest position is actually to take one of the two extremes. Saying that you're open to science discovering god is a grave misunderstanding of both science and religion.

It's only dishonest if one knows there is no god but claims to be agnostic.  I was once an agnostic theist.  I didn't know if there was a god but I wanted there to be and I believed there was (for really bad reasons).  I was being honest.  I then stopped believing that there was a god even though I wasn't sure there wasn't one.  I was an agnostic atheist.  I was being honest.  Then after much study and thought I became convinced that there was no god and there never could be.  Rather than be dishonest and say I was an agnostic atheist because people wouldn't like it much if I said I was a hard atheist, I chose to be honest and stated that I was a strong atheist, after all I don't care what people think of me.  I'm going, to be honest, no matter who doesn't approve.  So you see, at no point in my life have I been dishonest with regard to this issue.

Your arguing with the deluded

Let's take the motto "I believe in science" for example, which is, for most skeptics, a euphemism for "I don't believe in anything any religion claims". The latter declaration already contains a mistake since nobody exhausted all the religious claims and ensured that they're fake. Let's remember that atheists are perfectly fine with ruling out entire religions with guesswork and false stereotypes.

It's not the job of the irreligious to prove any religion false and it's hilarious he goes on about stereotypes of he religious when his whole objecion to athists is a stereotype and a bad one .

So the purpose of science is attempts to figure out a posteriori how stuff works. Religion is about wondering why there is an a priori to discover in the first place. These are two entirely distinct compartments. Huge advancements in one don't negate the importance of the other.

Nah the formers advancement the later is a great deal of mindless gibberish

It's easy to imagine a very clever alien figuring out our entire "glories" of science in a couple of hours, then coming with a working theory of everything in the next, but this very alien is clever enough not to mess with fundamentally different questions like a meaning of his existence , or disregard revelation without looking at it hard enough.

Only easy to someone as dim as you

[Rahn127]

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

[Objectivist]

[quote pid='1959678' dateline='1583021679']
It's only dishonest if one knows there is no god but claims to be agnostic.  I was once an agnostic theist.  I didn't know if there was a god but I wanted there to be and I believed there was (for really bad reasons).  I was being honest.  I then stopped believing that there was a god even though I wasn't sure there wasn't one.  I was an agnostic atheist.  I was being honest.  Then after much study and thought I became convinced that there was no god and there never could be.

I am curious to know how you became convinced that there is no god. There are very few atheists who make such a claim, not even the most hardcore skeptic can claim to have an argument against any possible deity.

Rather than be dishonest and say I was an agnostic atheist because people wouldn't like it much if I said I was a hard atheist, I chose to be honest and stated that I was a strong atheist, after all I don't care what people think of me.  I'm going, to be honest, no matter who doesn't approve.  So you see, at no point in my life have I been dishonest with regard to this issue.

There is no way for me or anyone to check that you're truly honest. We should either just take your word for it, or ask you to clarify your reasons for asserting that there is no god.
[/quote]
I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll.  I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist and 1:  I'm under no obligation to disprove every deity that mystics dream up, that would be a never-ending job,  2:  I'm not asking you to agree with me,  it's enough that I know, and 3:  If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with.  The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.  

No, there's no way for you to know if I'm being honest.  No more can you know that all those who claim to be agnostic are being dishonest.    Errors of knowledge are not necessarily dishonest.  Dishonesty is a breach of morality, errors of knowledge are not.  Errors of knowledge can be corrected.  Evasion, and willfully faking reality are deliberate acts which are chosen.  

If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

Agreed till then all his proclamations are  pointless

---

[quote pid='1959678' dateline='1583021679']
It's only dishonest if one knows there is no god but claims to be agnostic.  I was once an agnostic theist.  I didn't know if there was a god but I wanted there to be and I believed there was (for really bad reasons).  I was being honest.  I then stopped believing that there was a god even though I wasn't sure there wasn't one.  I was an agnostic atheist.  I was being honest.  Then after much study and thought I became convinced that there was no god and there never could be.

I am curious to know how you became convinced that there is no god. There are very few atheists who make such a claim, not even the most hardcore skeptic can claim to have an argument against any possible deity.

Rather than be dishonest and say I was an agnostic atheist because people wouldn't like it much if I said I was a hard atheist, I chose to be honest and stated that I was a strong atheist, after all I don't care what people think of me.  I'm going, to be honest, no matter who doesn't approve.  So you see, at no point in my life have I been dishonest with regard to this issue.

There is no way for me or anyone to check that you're truly honest. We should either just take your word for it, or ask you to clarify your reasons for asserting that there is no god.

I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll.  I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist and 1:  I'm under no obligation to disprove every deity that mystics dream up, that would be a never-ending job,  2:  I'm not asking you to agree with me,  it's enough that I know, and 3:  If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with.  The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.  

No, there's no way for you to know if I'm being honest.  No more can you know that all those who claim to be agnostic are being dishonest.    Errors of knowledge are not necessarily dishonest.  Dishonesty is a breach of morality, errors of knowledge are not.  Errors of knowledge can be corrected.  Evasion, and willfully faking reality are deliberate acts which are chosen.  

If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.
[/quote]
Indeed one has no obligation to prove any possible god false .

---

25 pages in and all we gotten from this clown is

1. Strawmen  and ironically stereotypes of unbelievers 

2. Awful defenses of Islam

3. Tired worn out apologist arguments. Then awful defenses of said arguments

4. Assertion and assertions atop those assertions     

All in all a typical theist thread 

[Objectivist]

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

Agreed till then all his proclamations are  pointless

---

I am curious to know how you became convinced that there is no god. There are very few atheists who make such a claim, not even the most hardcore skeptic can claim to have an argument against any possible deity.


There is no way for me or anyone to check that you're truly honest. We should either just take your word for it, or ask you to clarify your reasons for asserting that there is no god.

I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll.  I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist and 1:  I'm under no obligation to disprove every deity that mystics dream up, that would be a never-ending job,  2:  I'm not asking you to agree with me,  it's enough that I know, and 3:  If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with.  The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.  

No, there's no way for you to know if I'm being honest.  No more can you know that all those who claim to be agnostic are being dishonest.    Errors of knowledge are not necessarily dishonest.  Dishonesty is a breach of morality, errors of knowledge are not.  Errors of knowledge can be corrected.  Evasion, and willfully faking reality are deliberate acts which are chosen.  

If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.

Indeed one has no obligation to prove any possible god false .

---

25 pages in and all we gotten from this clown is

1. Strawmen  and ironically stereotypes of unbelievers 

2. Awful defenses of Islam

3. Tired worn out apologist arguments. Then awful defenses of said arguments

4. Assertion and assertions atop those assertions     

All in all a typical theist thread 
[/quote]

I've found that for most people, something is considered possible if they can imagine it.  They usually will say something like "well it's not logically impossible".  While that may be true of many things that one can imagine, it definitely is not the case when we're talking about a supposed god, at least if we're talking about the god of the Abrahamic religions or one that is essentially similar.  

On my view, something can only be considered possible if there is at least some evidence for it and none that contradicts it.  The god of Islam fails on both counts.  So when someone says that "You can not make an argument against all possible gods, I wonder how "God" became a legitimate possibility.  What they mean is that if I disprove one god, they can just make up another one that attempts to weasel around my criticisms.  But they've got it backward.  One does not achieve knowledge by dreaming up some conception, defining it and then going out to look for evidence of it.  One starts by perceiving and then identifying what one perceives in conceptual form, then defining it objectively in terms of essential characteristics.  Of course, without a theory of concepts and a commitment to metaphysical subjectivism, it's not surprising to find this reversal taking place in the minds of mystics.  

You're so right!  It is always the same, isn't it?  If there were internet forums a hundred years ago, we'd find the same tired old worn-out arguments and unargued assertions, wouldn't we, minus appeals to quantum physics and the double-slit experiment.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Agreed till then all his proclamations are  pointless

---

I became convinced by means of reason, Klorophyll.  I'm not a skeptic, I'm an Objectivist and 1:  I'm under no obligation to disprove every deity that mystics dream up, that would be a never-ending job,  2:  I'm not asking you to agree with me,  it's enough that I know, and 3:  If by a deity you mean some kind of supernatural being, then I don't think such a thing is possible, to begin with.  The notion of the supernatural is fraught with contradictions and stolen concepts.  

No, there's no way for you to know if I'm being honest.  No more can you know that all those who claim to be agnostic are being dishonest.    Errors of knowledge are not necessarily dishonest.  Dishonesty is a breach of morality, errors of knowledge are not.  Errors of knowledge can be corrected.  Evasion, and willfully faking reality are deliberate acts which are chosen.  

If you really want to know my reasons, you'll find them in the Objectivist Metaphysics and the Objectivist theory of concepts.

Indeed one has no obligation to prove any possible god false .

---

25 pages in and all we gotten from this clown is

1. Strawmen  and ironically stereotypes of unbelievers 

2. Awful defenses of Islam

3. Tired worn out apologist arguments. Then awful defenses of said arguments

4. Assertion and assertions atop those assertions     

All in all a typical theist thread 

I've found that for most people, something is considered possible if they can imagine it.  They usually will say something like "well it's not logically impossible".  While that may be true of many things that one can imagine, it definitely is not the case when we're talking about a supposed god, at least if we're talking about the god of the Abrahamic religions or one that is essentially similar.  

On my view, something can only be considered possible if there is at least some evidence for it and none that contradicts it.  The god of Islam fails on both counts.  So when someone says that "You can not make an argument against all possible gods, I wonder how "God" became a legitimate possibility.  What they mean is that if I disprove one god, they can just make up another one that attempts to weasel around my criticisms.  But they've got it backward.  One does not achieve knowledge by dreaming up some conception, defining it and then going out to look for evidence of it.  One starts by perceiving and then identifying what one perceives in conceptual form, then defining it objectively in terms of essential characteristics.  Of course, without a theory of concepts and a commitment to metaphysical subjectivism, it's not surprising to find this reversal taking place in the minds of mystics.  

You're so right!  It is always the same, isn't it?  If there were internet forums a hundred years ago, we'd find the same tired old worn-out arguments and unargued assertions, wouldn't we, minus appeals to quantum physics and the double-slit experiment.
[/quote]

True very true 

[Belacqua]

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

There are several definitions for the word God in western monotheism.

Actus purus,

the Ground of Being,

the Form of the Good,

and others. 

I'm not saying you ought to believe in any of these, but it is not true to say that the word God has no definition. Each term has a long history and many traditional arguments for its existence, and to dismiss one as meaningless would require you to know what the term means. Your post only shows that you don't know anything about the subject.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nah it just shows he's not concerned with make believe terms or archaic nonesense ,And you can shove your condescension up your nose .

---

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

Apparently  Belacqua he who knows all doesn't like your comment 

[Objectivist]

The word "god" is an unknown value that describes nothing until it has been shown to exist.
It's as meaningless a word as the word "flerb"

What's a flerb you may ask ?
It's an infinitely long zhanjk and you have no idea what a zhanjk is.

A god isn't powerful until you can show that it exists. Until then, it has ZERO power.
Things that don't exist, can't do anything. They have zero power.

Asserting that a god creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist is meaningless until you show that the god you claim exists, actually exists.

When I can replace the word god with flerb in your sentence and it still makes as much sense as when you first typed it, that's when you know that you really have no real definition for a god.

Flerb creates all the natural laws that allows for a snowflake to exist.

There are several definitions for the word God in western monotheism.

Actus purus,

the Ground of Being,

the Form of the Good,

and others. 

I'm not saying you ought to believe in any of these, but it is not true to say that the word God has no definition. Each term has a long history and many traditional arguments for its existence, and to dismiss one as meaningless would require you to know what the term means. Your post only shows that you don't know anything about the subject.

There's more than just several, which is strong evidence that "God" is a product of the Human Imagination.  In fact, each believer seems to have his own personal definition which vary quite a bit.   When it comes to concepts which identify actually existing concretes, we don't find this happening.  The definition of a rock, a tree, a bridge, a snow cone, or a Rhinoceros are pretty much universal.  But, we do find this variation in "definitions" of imaginary things.