(July 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
