Apostates versus converts

[Ross Dolan]

Problem with agnostics is they confuse their preference with a rational argument. Like someone saying chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
At this level, saying, "I am agnostic," is like saying, "I like chocolate ice cream."

Agnostics never give reasons and merely state their belief like an opinion about ice cream.

Horse shit. I given you my reason...and you just refuse to accept them.

Fine. Go your own route.

 

[Hume]

Naw, an agnostic, like any true scientist, is not afraid to say “I don’t know.”

No scientist would say, I can't tell you why. That person would lose respect.

 

[Obtenebrator]

If I somehow can determine the truth of a claim...I consider it true.

What if you have imperfect knowledge? Will you make a decision?

 

[Hume]

Horse shit. I given you my reason...and you just refuse to accept them.

Fine. Go your own route.

You clearly do not want discussion. Why you prefer exchanging hate posts with the forum trolls.

 

[domer76]

Theism or atheism = belief
Gnostic or agnostic = knowledge

 

[Ross Dolan]

On the whole I generally agree with the statement, but my form of atheism is the same way I try to treat all truth claims IRL.

The "tests" I do to test against the "No God" null hypothesis are very much in line with your statement about "a diety with those attributes". I fail to find sufficient evidence. It could be, though, that I am incorrect or missing something quite key. Which is why I prefer the more logically robust position of weak atheism.

I fear that some on here like @Cypress or @Ross Dolan wish to debate the existence or lack of existence of some ineffible, perfectly unknowable being which is dangerously close to "unfalsifiable" for my tastes. As such it is easy for them to be perfectly agnostic as there is no value to the truth claim they are testing at that point.

Of course no one can know something that cannot be known. But if something can be known, even hypothetically, it is liable to be testable. And for most people their conception of God has very real aspects rather than being a fuzzy unfalsifiable meaningless concept.

Tell me, Ob...are there any sentient beings living on any planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?

 

[Hume]

Theism or atheism = belief
Gnostic or agnostic = knowledge

No, agnostics deny the possibility of knowledge.

Like skeptics, they think saying "it cannot be known," should end all discussion.

 

[Obtenebrator]

No scientist would say, I can't tell you why. That person would lose respect.

Again, 100% wrong. The scientist is always going to present you with the possibility that an explanation may be in error. Without sufficient information if the scientist cannot determine the truth or falsity of a claim they will go with "we don't know'.

ON THE OTHER HAND: scientists OFTEN make decisions (verdicts) on hypotheses even with the understanding that the information is NOT perfect and error-free. That's why they include that little p-value. It's an explicit declaration that any given decision like "This medicine works as advertised" still has a p-value because there is no perfect knowledge, no perfect data set.

Yet decisions can still be made.

 

[Obtenebrator]

Tell me, Ob...are there any sentient beings living on any planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?

I do not know. Is that OK with you? I do not know.

My gut tells me that the answer is likely "no" unless they never developed electromagnetic based communications which would be expected to broadcast their presence. But there could very well be less developed sentient beings there.

Note I NEVER claimed that I am NEVER agnostic about a claim. It is why I accept your agnosticism as a valid position you hold.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You clearly do not want discussion. Why you prefer exchanging hate posts with the forum trolls.

I want discussion...with anyone.

But you keep saying that agnostics never give reasons for their take...yet I have given you MY reasons several time. You have even complained about that.

I do not want to discuss things with someone who cannot concede the obvious.

 

[Obtenebrator]

No, agnostics deny the possibility of knowledge.

Like skeptics, they think saying "it cannot be known," should end all discussion.

There is that definition and I have heard it expressed that way before. But if one is being generous with Huxley and accepting his original definition it is also reasonable to assume that it is not that limited (eg that it forbids ANY possible knowledge) but is rather one of failure to make a verdict. A personal "hung jury" if you will.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I do not know. Is that OK with you? I do not know.

My gut tells me that the answer is likely "no" unless they never developed electromagnetic based communications which would be expected to broadcast their presence. But there could very well be less developed sentient beings there.

Note I NEVER claimed that I am NEVER agnostic about a claim. It is why I accept your agnosticism as a valid position you hold.

Thank you.

 

[Hume]

I want discussion...with anyone.

But you keep saying that agnostics never give reasons for their take...yet I have given you MY reasons several time. You have even complained about that.

I do not want to discuss things with someone who cannot concede the obvious.

good...I should probably ignore you blind guess blind guess blah blah blah

 

[Obtenebrator]

Thank you.

Hopefullly you understand my position now. It's been pretty clear all along. But I'm glad you are beginning to grasp it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, agnostics deny the possibility of knowledge.

They do not!

You clearly do not understand agnosticism.

Okay...that is why I suggest that instead of using descriptors like "agnostic" or "atheistic"...we set our positions out clearly...as I have set mine out.

Like skeptics, they think saying "it cannot be known," should end all discussion.

That is nonsense.

 

[domer76]

No scientist would say, I can't tell you why. That person would lose respect.

What I posted is that a true scientist is not afraid to say “I don’t know.” That goes for any reasonable, thinking person, as well.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Hopefullly you understand my position now.

I've understood your position all along.

You do not know...and have invented a laughable way of justifying your need to be called an "atheist."

I suspect you have not understood your position.

It's been pretty clear all along. But I'm glad you are beginning to grasp it.

See above.

 

[Hume]

What I posted is that a true scientist is not afraid to say “I don’t know.” That goes for any reasonable, thinking person, as well.

I have no idea what the context would be.
Any professional scientist would state the standard of judgment. Going around saying, who's to know, is absurd.

 

[Ross Dolan]

What I posted is that a true scientist is not afraid to say “I don’t know.” That goes for any reasonable, thinking person, as well.

For some people...saying "I do not know" is intolerable. So they do what Ob is doing...invent ways to avoid saying it when discussing the existence or non-existence of gods.

 

[Obtenebrator]

I've understood your position all along.

Demonstrably not.

You do not know...and have invented a laughable way of justifying your need to be called an "atheist."

So you think a jury verdict is "laughable"? Because the rubric I am using is nothing more or less than a jury verdict.

I suspect you have not understood your position.

Your hubris and self-regard are off the charts. You demonstrably have not understood anything I've said and yet you think the problem is me not understanding what I wrote and what I supported with actual references.