A Wild Elles Appeared!

[fr0d0]

So if you called yourself a shithead but you were actually a pure dick, I'd be wrong to point it out to you?

---

It's not changing the classification.. just the label

Oh in that case... NOPE still jackassery. Labels are used to classify so if I were to say I was agnostic and you tell me I am gnostic that changes the classification.

I bet you have reasoning to the opposite that you just can't quite put into words...

Rhizo

[Rhizomorph13]

So if you called yourself a shithead but you were actually a pure dick, I'd be wrong to point it out to you?

---

It's not changing the classification.. just the label

Oh in that case... NOPE still jackassery. Labels are used to classify so if I were to say I was agnostic and you tell me I am gnostic that changes the classification.

I bet you have reasoning to the opposite that you just can't quite put into words...

Rhizo

Ok, what, in Elles' OP leads you to conclude that she is a gnostic?

Edited to add a sheepish WELCOME to Elles, may your play here be fun. Sorry, I got caught up in the tangent, completly forgeting the circle from whence it came. This is a fun place where magic unicorns come to graze with fabulous orangutans in pin striped suits. Some dollys get carried away bobbing their heads that they feel are so full of knowledge.

Rhizo

[Tiberius]

Slow down cowboy! No one explained to me why they think I'm talking total bullshit. For a start - this is Arcanus's point, and not mine. I considered it and agreed he was right... therefore: Of course you can find opposing statements of mine!

We explained in the other thread.

Like a few others have pointed out to you, your choice of the word 'certain' is too innacurate.

And the whole reason Arcanus and I started work on the other scale was because I admitted this was a mistake.

The scale Dawkins uses is illogical because it contains first and last logical fallacies.

Yeah, not to mention a mis-definition of the word agnostic.

Christians, like Arcanus has suggested, can be gnostic yet consistently do not claim empirical proof. This contradicts your statement.

Please point to where I said knowledge = empirical proof. I never did.

Arcanus's suggestion is perfectly right. Both Atheists and Theists have conclusively established (go read Arcanus's explanation of the logic linked above) the non existence and existence of God. No need for a jelly livered agnostic stance. You are an gnostic atheist.

If Arcanus' suggestion is that a conclusive argument is on which "adequately settles the question", then I am still an agnostic atheist. I don't think that any theistic arguments settle the question of "is there a God?", but likewise I don't think that any atheistic arguments settle the question either. I don't believe in god because I have nothing to base such belief on. That doesn't mean I have settled the question of whether god exists or not. I've only settled the question of whether there is enough reason to believe.

There is nothing "jelly-livered" about agnosticism. It's a very logical position to take on claims that are literally untestable.

[fr0d0]

You need to go read the discussion I linked Rhizo. I like the description of this place.. excellent!

[Rhizomorph13]

You need to go read the discussion I linked Rhizo. I like the description of this place.. excellent!

I just did, I still think you overstepped your bounds trying to tweak her definition of herself, because it is baseless. If she had said, "I am an agnostic who knows god doesn't exist" then you might have cause to correct her. That wasn't how this thing went though.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

The scale Dawkins uses is illogical because it contains first and last logical fallacies.

Yeah, not to mention a mis-definition of the word agnostic.

Well I totally agreed with your scale and reasoning for what it's worth.

Christians, like Arcanus has suggested, can be gnostic yet consistently do not claim empirical proof. This contradicts your statement.

Please point to where I said knowledge = empirical proof. I never did.

Fair enough, I retract

Arcanus's suggestion is perfectly right. Both Atheists and Theists have conclusively established (go read Arcanus's explanation of the logic linked above) the non existence and existence of God. No need for a jelly livered agnostic stance. You are an gnostic atheist.

If Arcanus' suggestion is that a conclusive argument is on which "adequately settles the question", then I am still an agnostic atheist. I don't think that any theistic arguments settle the question of "is there a God?", but likewise I don't think that any atheistic arguments settle the question either. I don't believe in god because I have nothing to base such belief on. That doesn't mean I have settled the question of whether god exists or not. I've only settled the question of whether there is enough reason to believe.

Neither do I think the arguments settle the question if you're talking from an impersonal position. I think Arcanus is talking about personally though. Personally I have conclusively established it. I would suggest that you have conclusively established the opposite - perhaps the personal nature needs clarifying? This would mean, and accurately it seems to me, that you're gnostic in your atheism. You don't need to have settled the question, in the same way that I haven't.. because I think you're talking about more than conclusively establishing.

There is nothing "jelly-livered" about agnosticism. It's a very logical position to take on claims that are literally untestable.

Granted.

---

You need to go read the discussion I linked Rhizo. I like the description of this place.. excellent!

I just did, I still think you overstepped your bounds trying to tweak her definition of herself, because it is baseless. If she had said, "I am an agnostic who knows god doesn't exist" then you might have cause to correct her. That wasn't how this thing went though.

Rhizo

Fair enough then.

[Elles]

Can we just say "Russel's Teapot" and call it settled?

[fr0d0]

That would be too gnostic a statement LOL

[Elles]

I see what you did there.

[Ryft]

Neither do I (think the arguments settle the question) if you're talking from an impersonal position. I think Arcanus is talking about personally though. Personally I have conclusively established it. I would suggest that you have conclusively established the opposite. Perhaps the personal nature needs clarifying?

Although that is an implication of what I said, it's not an entirely correct understanding. Settling the question for your own self is obviously involved, of course, but I meant much more than that. Remember, I also said (emphasis added; link):

Those who fall under the Gnostic Theist category would hold that a group of two or more people, when they are personally and actively involved in a discussion that examines the arguments for the existence of God, could be intellectually persuaded that the arguments conclusively establish his existence. That is to say, despite the background beliefs that another brings to the table, they hold that the parties involved can be brought into agreement that (i) the premises are more probable than their denials, and (ii) given the premises the conclusion does follow. Equally important to consider, there is no reason for anyone to think that this is done in a singular argument; i.e., it almost necessarily implies a series of arguments covering relevant areas. One does not build the roof without first building the walls. ... This is in contrast to Agnostic Theists, who feel that objections can be sustained even when given voice, that is, that certain premises are equally as probable as their denials and therefore the arguments are not conclusive.