This thread was intended to be about the proposition that everyone is agnostic regarding the existence of God. I originally agreed.
That's EXACTLY what I thought.... but when I agreed with your point, you seemed to passionately disagree and then (without telling us) changed your mind and went off in totally different direction. Producing quite a puzzle.
Yes, as I stated (but you SEEMED to disagree with me).... in this uber-philosophical sense, in an objective and absolute sense, Theism and Atheism cannot be PROVEN (indeed, maybe
nothing can in that sense) - we ultimately are all people of faith, people of belief, people who chose our assumptions/realities (well or otherwise) and proceed accordingly. You never really responded - just disagreed and went off in a completely different direction (one very hard to follow).
one not need to prove their belief to claim knowledge
Belief can never been "proven" AT ALL, the verb needs a noun, a subject - whatever is or is not "believed." Never understood your insistence to delete the actual proposition, the subject out of the discussion... STILL am completely puzzled there.
You redefined your own thread to relate what you indicated was a very new position, one created by a few new Atheist, created by "stripping" the word of its meaning..... and combining Atheism equally with Agnosticism. I STILL find that entirely nonsensical. I not only asked HOW these two are co-equal, co-current (which IMO you never addressed) and also WHY this newly created fourth position, why the need to invent this new stance? You ignored that for pages - but finally Tigger presented his thought (which you ignored). Finally, it seems to me you largely agreed with what Tigger said: the reason was to avoid the burden of proof that Theists have (meaning Atheist can jump ship on that - evade the thing they demand of the antithesis position). Very odd. Especially coming from you.
One need only provide compelling evidence if they are to convince others that they should also accept their claim in the pursuit of truth. Neither gnostic theists, nor gnostic atheists can meet this burden of proof, but this does not change the fact that they can claim knowledge, and thus should not be considered agnostic. Claims of knowledge and actual possession of knowledge are not by necessity the same thing, but this is irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread. Hence, I dutifully changed my view and posted as such. Discovering and admitting one is wrong is a moment of growth and I am happy for it.
1. I don't recall where you said what your previous position was OR when you posted that you changed your mind. When I agreed with you and you disagreed with me - I thought I was wrong. That too was/is a puzzle.
2. Here too, you seem to be stripping words of meaning. Pretty much everything you just said is classic, un-stripped, what-the-word-says, traditional, normal Agnosticism. Accept you seem to say that "knowledge" is unrelated to truth or positions (THAT makes me scratch my head); I think MAYBE what you are indicating is what pretty much means Agnosticism. You don't take a dogmatic POSITION - but you are proceeding on some thoughts which at this point are not definitive positions and being investigated. I tried to convey that REPEATEDLY and you always evaded and ignored it. For example: While it's not really my field, IMO it is quite possible that life at least once existed on Mars - and therefore may very well still - and so I'm very much in favor of pursuing that possibility, may "actions" (if I had any!) would be to search for such. But this is irrefutable: at this point, there is NOTHING to support that there is OR equally that there is not life on Mars - the verdict is entierly, wholly, completely "out" - the "THERE IS!" and "THERE IS NOT" positions have a burden of proof - and neither has a thing to offer. Yet. While you probably can find people (knowledgeable or otherwise) who state, "There is life on Mars" and "There is NO life on Mars" pretty much everyone known to me is an Agnostic. And yes, if you say "the verdict is out - I'm NEUTRAL" you have no burden of proof. Where this newly created fourth position becomes nonsensical is in trying to hold two different, entirely exclusive positions concurrently. It is at least very confusing and simply adds to misunderstanding OR its illogical and nonsensical. Either way, lol.
3.
I'm a Theist. And yes - that IS a dogmatic declaration and yes, ergo I have a burden of proof. But I'd not agree that it's ABSOLUTE. Or that it is invalid if Donald Trump isn't immediately, completely, totally convinced. What I think most honest, thinking people realize is that some things are simply beyond the scope of "proof" that opponents will be forced to accept as obvious and unavoidable. The "honest preacher" in the OP is right: in many things (and probably in all things!) this "burden of proof" is not absolute and cannot be rendered impossible by not permitting "evidence" that could support it (which is what every Atheist known to me constantly does); bottom line..... in this uberphilosophical extreme sense..... in an absolute sense....... little, probably nothing..... meets the "burden of PROOF" that is absolute and objective and accepted by all - that all will categorically accept. I admit that. Every Theist known to me does. I would never even attempt to "prove" it to anyone (especially since they may well not allow the supernatural - and thus it would be impossible). And while I admitted this - WAY, WAY, WAY back at the beginning of all this - before we knew (today) that you changed your mind and the topic of thread - I just wouldn't belabor this reality TOO far (unless you plan on suicide) - avoiding nihilism and relativism.
I'm glad you learned something. I learned that a few Atheists recently STRIPPED words of meanings and came up with a new nonsensical, illogical position in order to evade the accountability they demand of others. I found that sad, harmful, disingenuous. And surprised you'd promote and defend it (it seems entirely out of your character and positions). You posted some rather "mean" things to and about me (also out of your character), which I lamented, but all forgiven.
- Josiah
.
