What's up

[theVOID]

Because being an agnostic is all about lack of knowledge, and admitting that lack. If Fr0d0 goes into detail of what that god is, he will be claiming that he has knowledge. Agnosticism is saying that a god is unknowable, if he writes out a laundry list of what god is then he is claiming god is knowable...especially the claims of a god existing or not. Agnostic theism is Belief but without Knowledge.

Actually he would only be describing what he believes god is.

For instance, I could tell you what string-theory is without having knowledge of the existence of string theory.

I wouldnt either, but sometimes he openly points things out "This is god", "that isnt god", "You will go to hell", etc..

And if you asked him more specifically I'm fairly sure he'd prefix all that with "I believe", it's more of a case of careless language.

[reverendjeremiah]

Actually he would only be describing what he believes god is.

Okay. I can accept that to a point (not that my acceptance has any bearing on his beliefs), but how would that be any different from just plain old theism? I suppose it would be a 100% reliance on faith alone. I never really came across an "agnostic christian" before. Not that Im trying to stir the pot on this, even though I do enjoy stirring the pot.

And if you asked him more specifically I'm fairly sure he'd prefix all that with "I believe", it's more of a case of careless language.

Good point, because I was thinking to myself: "shouldnt an agnostic theist be using the words "I guess" and "maybe" more often instead of "this is" and "that is"?"

[theVOID]

Actually he would only be describing what he believes god is.

Okay. I can accept that to a point (not that my acceptance has any bearing on his beliefs), but how would that be any different from just plain old theism? I suppose it would be a 100% reliance on faith alone. I never really came across an "agnostic christian" before. Not that Im trying to stir the pot on this, even though I do enjoy stirring the pot.

Faith isn't knowledge, so you could rely 100% on faith for the ontological side of the belief without claiming any knowledge.

He also has the instrumental side, he perceives his beliefs to be useful in achieving his goals, though any claims that this makes his beliefs likely to be true are nonsense, it's like the housewife who's belief that her husband isn't cheating makes her happier and that makes it true.

Good point, because I was thinking to myself: "shouldnt an agnostic theist be using the words "I guess" and "maybe" more often instead of "this is" and "that is"?"

Yeah, we all tend to get a bit complacent though.

[fr0d0]

@ VOID whilst I have rarely used another posters comments, I don't do that all the time, which is what I accuse Nap of. You're jumping in to protect his stance is doing nothing to encourage his critical thinking skills. He can now continue to take pot shots relying on someone who might have a thought in their head to come along and fill in the blanks for him.

I did look at my agnostic reference last night after a couple of challenges, which I appreciate. I put that there after the thrashing out we did on this forum a while back. I'm thinking it isn't quite transparent to a new audience, and should really change it. You are right in that case VOID, that it's a lazy use of language. After all, when I said I can't know I'm only referring to empirical evidence, and not reasoning that would lead to concrete conclusions that would also qualify as knowledge.

Your interjection Rev was a snipe I felt, which didn't present anything to be refuted. I found that mildly irritating. No offense intended. I'd be glad to take up the forgiveness thread, as Tack hasn't responded.

[Violet]

Faith isn't knowledge, so you could rely 100% on faith for the ontological side of the belief without claiming any knowledge.

*twitch*

If you believe something is true, it is tautology that you know it is true. Like if you are aware of it: you know it. Confidence: knowledge. Faith in truth of: knowledge. Believe to be true: knowledge.

Please denote scientific knowledge (or knowledge/confidence/faith/belief accepted on basis of evidence provided by a verifiable scientific method).

Anyway, a denial requires first the existence of the denied. A state of denial is to suggest that the thing being denied is, but one will not accept this for whatever reason. It is necessarily an assertion, and requires defense.

A lack of belief regarding a thing (no opinion) is not an assertion, although it is always great to defend holding no opinion as I would hope there is a reason for it

[theVOID]

*twitch*

If you believe something is true, it is tautology that you know it is true. Like if you are aware of it: you know it. Confidence: knowledge. Faith in truth of: knowledge. Believe to be true: knowledge.

Uh, No.

Knowledge necessitates belief, you cannot be said to know something that you do not believe - I cannot know that the sky is blue without believing that the sky is blue.

Belief says nothing about knowledge, I can believe that the sky is green and it wouldn't be possible to know that the sky is green because it's not true.

Knowledge is at a minimum a true justified belief, though it requires something more than that which is hard to pin down - Most presentations of this unknown x fail possible intuitive counter-examples, it all turns into semantic wrangling when you get passed the basic outline of TJB + x and x remains ambiguous at best.

Faith is an unjustified belief, doesn't come close to knowledge.

Anyway, a denial requires first the existence of the denied. A state of denial is to suggest that the thing being denied is, but one will not accept this for whatever reason. It is necessarily an assertion, and requires defense.

That isn't true either. I deny that the FSM exists, it does not need to exist in order for me to deny it.

A lack of belief regarding a thing (no opinion) is not an assertion, although it is always great to defend holding no opinion as I would hope there is a reason for it

Agreed.

[Violet]

Knowledge necessitates belief, you cannot be said to know something that you do not believe - I cannot know that the sky is blue without believing that the sky is blue.

Correct.

Belief says nothing about knowledge, I can believe that the sky is green and it wouldn't be possible to know that the sky is green because it's not true.

Incorrect. Knowledge does not assert correctness.

Knowledge is at a minimum a true justified belief, though it requires something more than that which is hard to pin down - Most presentations of this unknown x fail possible intuitive counter-examples, it all turns into semantic wrangling when you get passed the basic outline of TJB + x and x remains ambiguous at best.

False. Truth is irrelevant to the process of knowing.

Hence, the purpose of scientific knowledge, which gives us our best(?) chance of having true knowledge.

That isn't true either. I deny that the FSM exists, it does not need to exist in order for me to deny it.

Everything is. That means everything exists. If you deny a thing exists, then you deny that everything exists. The FSM does infact exist. However, it is not 'real' (existing with force outside of the mind?).

[theVOID]

Incorrect. Knowledge does not assert correctness.

It absolutely does. Something known is necessarily something true. You cannot know false things.

False. Truth is irrelevant to the process of knowing.

What the fuck???

Can you know something that isn't true? No.

Hence, the purpose of scientific knowledge, which gives us our best(?) chance of having true knowledge.

"Scientific knowledge" is a colloquialism, it is more astutely an epistemically justified proposition, it is entirely tentative.

Everything is. That means everything exists. If you deny a thing exists, then you deny that everything exists. The FSM does infact exist. However, it is not 'real' (existing with force outside of the mind?).

b 4fedac

Translation: Slammed head on keyboard.

[Violet]

It absolutely does. Something known is necessarily something true. You cannot know false things.

And yet the people in the 1400s knew that taking a bath took away your bod's defenses.

What the fuck???

Can you know something that isn't true? No.

Easily yes.

"Scientific knowledge" is a colloquialism, it is more astutely an epistemically justified proposition, it is entirely tentative.

Evidence being not solely that from scientific method and verified: necessary justification. Though I agree that it is an epistemically justified position. I'm probably going to stick with <type of> knowledge though, as that has a lot more uses. Thanks for telling me the correct terms anyway

Translation: Slammed head on keyboard.

Do you seriously deny that everything it? Fascinating

[theVOID]

It absolutely does. Something known is necessarily something true. You cannot know false things.

And yet the people in the 1400s knew that taking a bath took away your bod's defenses.

No, they believed it. For them to have known it would require that it be true.

Easily yes.

Such as?

Do you seriously deny that everything it? Fascinating

I am NOT going down this road again.