Horse shit. I given you my reason...and you just refuse to accept them.
Fine. Go your own route.
Apostates versus converts
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Fine. Go your own route.
No scientist would say, I can't tell you why. That person would lose respect.
What if you have imperfect knowledge? Will you make a decision?
You clearly do not want discussion. Why you prefer exchanging hate posts with the forum trolls.
Tell me, Ob...are there any sentient beings living on any planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol?
No, agnostics deny the possibility of knowledge.
Like skeptics, they think saying "it cannot be known," should end all discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you.
good...I should probably ignore you blind guess blind guess blah blah blah
Hopefullly you understand my position now. It's been pretty clear all along. But I'm glad you are beginning to grasp it.
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.
That is nonsense.
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'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.
See above.
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.
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.
Demonstrably not.
So you think a jury verdict is "laughable"? Because the rubric I am using is nothing more or less than a jury verdict.
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.