• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your thoughts on Agnostics

Quag said:
You ignored my post entirely and just repeated the same thing over and over again Deal with what I am actually saying
But you have no actual knowledge of Taranis, you keep saying it wrong. What you have is knowledge of the stories of Taranis

Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between the two statements?
Click to expand...

A child could comprehend it. He's just being bolshie to amuse himself.
 
Quag said:
No you have knowledge of the stories of Taranis
Lets try it another way
I have knowledge of the conspiracy theory that Sandy Hook was a false flag event
I do not have knowledge that Sandy Hook was false flag event.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
Omega Man said:
Only when you shifted the goal posts by suddenly including "real" into the equation (which I wasn't discussing).


OM
Click to expand...

The way you have written it you are stating Taranis/God is real, despite your claims to the contrary
Thus the need for a qualifier
 
zyzygy said:
A child could comprehend it. He's just being bolshie to amuse himself.
Click to expand...

Actually, I know exactly what he is saying.... Quag and omega man are saying the same thing, but both are playing a semantics game.
 
RAMOSS said:
Actually, I know exactly what he is saying.... Quag and omega man are saying the same thing, but both are playing a semantics game.
Click to expand...

I said I was being predantic from the start. But OM doenst want to admit there is a difference.
 
Omega Man said:
I'm not talking about proving something. This is like the 4th time I've mentioned that, and yet ya'll keep going back to that. I'm talking knowledge of a subject.


OM
Click to expand...

Seems like you are finding out that Quag isn't very good at logical discussion... that's why he doesn't respond to my posts anymore.

His posts typically commit the Argument By Repetition Fallacy... He makes an argument, you make a counter-argument, he responds to your counter-argument with his initial argument, and keeps doing that ad nauseum...


I understand what you're asserting to him concerning knowledge, and I generally agree with it. He refuses to acknowledge your argumentation and resorts to Argument By Repetition instead...
 
Omega Man said:
You just moved the goal posts. I never said I had knowledge of a real Taranis; only that I had knowledge of Taranis. Same with your Hogwarts analogy. This is now the 5th time I've had to redirect you (and others) away from that continual straw man of an argument.


OM
Click to expand...

Precisely! Those posts of theirs are rather painful to read...

You have knowledge of Taranis and Hogwarts, not of a 'real' Taranis and a 'real' Hogwarts. Those things DO exist, but they exist in mythology and in a book series, rather than in actuality.
 
Cephus said:
But you're changing the idea from knowledge about a subject, to knowledge about the object of that subject. You can read all the books on Taranis you want. You can read all the claims people have made about Taranis you'd like. None of that actually refers to a real Taranis. You know about the claims. You don't know about the actual entity.
Click to expand...

How do you know that, though? Taranis could very well be out there somewhere, and those "myths" are evidence of such existence... Same goes for any god(s)... One accepts the real existence/non-existence of these god(s) on a faith basis...


As to what Omega Man is talking about, that bit I said above is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that Taranis exists (in what one is believing to be mythology only) and that one can gain knowledge of Taranis by reading that mythology... Same with any god(s) that one comes up with...

Something doesn't have to exist in actuality in order for one to gain knowledge about it...
 
gfm7175 said:
All that is relevant is that Taranis exists in mythology (what is believed to be mythology) and that one can gain knowledge of Taranis by reading that mythology... Same with any god(s) that one comes up with...

Something doesn't have to exist in actuality in order for one to gain knowledge about it...
Click to expand...

Precisely. Same as the knowledge I have gained from reading about the biblical God's (yes, as in plural; more than one representation). I couldn't fathom how that was so hard to digest. Fiction is an undeniable source of knowledge. It places you squarely into the thoughts and minds of others; provides you with heretofore unfamiliar perspectives. If those other posters are unable to glean knowledge from fiction, that is not my loss. My only mistake was trying to convince them.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
... trying to educate Quag ...
Click to expand...

Quag said:
Neither am I
Click to expand...
Yes you are, Quag... you keep using the word "prove" when Omega Man is not attempting to prove the actual existence of any of those things...

Quag said:
I am talking about your wording. If you state you KNOW God or Taranis it is given that you are stating that they exist and the knowledge you have is true
Click to expand...
And those entities DO exist (at least in mythos, possibly even in actuality)...

Quag said:
This is false, which you have admitted
To state it correctly you need to qualify your statement for example:
"I have knowledge of what the Bible says about God" or "I have knowledge of the stories about Taranis"
Click to expand...
Omega Man doesn't have to qualify anything... He is correct when he states that he has knowledge of Taranis and knowledge of God. Something doesn't have to exist in actuality in order for knowledge to be obtained about it...

Quag said:
To claim there is no difference between those statements and "I have knowledge of God/Taranis" is false
Click to expand...
Sure, there might be multiple sources of knowledge, and it might be useful to distinguish those sources sometimes, as those sources are where you are deriving knowledge of the thing itself from. Yet, Omega Man is correct in stating that he has knowledge of Taranis and knowledge of God and knowledge of Hogwarts... He's making no such claim that they exist in actuality, but those things DO exist (at least in mythos) and knowledge CAN be gained about those things, regardless of whether they merely exist in mythos or exist in actuality.

See to it, Quag... ;)
 
Last edited:
Omega Man said:
Precisely. Same as the knowledge I have gained from reading about the biblical God's (yes, as in plural; more than one representation). I couldn't fathom how that was so hard to digest. Fiction is an undeniable source of knowledge. It places you squarely into the thoughts and minds of others; provides you with heretofore unfamiliar perspectives. If those other posters are unable to glean knowledge from fiction, that is not my loss. My only mistake was trying to convince them.


OM
Click to expand...

It all depends upon your definition of knowledge. gfm says that dictionaries do not define words and makes up his own definitions. No wonder that you two are so pally.
 
zyzygy said:
It all depends upon your definition of knowledge. gfm says that dictionaries do not define words and makes up his own definitions. No wonder that you two are so pally.
Click to expand...

There are several definitions of knowledge in the dictionary, and only one of them has anything to do with established truth.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Precisely. Same as the knowledge I have gained from reading about the biblical God's (yes, as in plural; more than one representation). I couldn't fathom how that was so hard to digest. Fiction is an undeniable source of knowledge.
Click to expand...
It really shouldn't be hard at all to digest... The only reason that comes to my mind offhand is that their religious fundamentalism is blinding them...

Omega Man said:
It places you squarely into the thoughts and minds of others; provides you with heretofore unfamiliar perspectives.
Click to expand...
It does indeed provide you with heretofore unfamiliar perspectives, for sure, but remember that those perspectives are still subject to your own personal model of the universe and how it works (in other words, how Phenomenology (a branch of Philosophy) defines what "reality" is). That's why I wouldn't use the exact words "places you squarely into...", but I do agree with the general gist of what you're saying here.

Omega Man said:
If those other posters are unable to glean knowledge from fiction, that is not my loss. My only mistake was trying to convince them.

OM
Click to expand...
Because of the self-inflicted insanity which may ensue from attempting to do so... ;)

I guess they don't have knowledge of how they gain some of their knowledge...
 
zyzygy said:
It all depends upon your definition of knowledge. gfm says that dictionaries do not define words and makes up his own definitions.
Click to expand...
Dictionaries don't define words, nor do they have the final authority over any word definition... Dictionaries are a collection of words, for the purpose of standardizing spelling and pronunciation... They also happen to include what the authors of them considered to be "common" definitions of words. "Common" does not mean "the best" or "most sound"...

zyzygy said:
No wonder that you two are so pally.
Click to expand...
I get along well with him because he has shown that he is able to make logical and coherent arguments... We have our disagreements and differences of beliefs, but that will be the same for anyone, as we each experience reality differently...
 
zyzygy said:
It all depends upon your definition of knowledge. gfm says that dictionaries do not define words and makes up his own definitions. No wonder that you two are so pally.
Click to expand...

gfm says a lot of things none of it is ever logical
 
Omega Man said:
Precisely. Same as the knowledge I have gained from reading about the biblical God's (yes, as in plural; more than one representation). I couldn't fathom how that was so hard to digest. Fiction is an undeniable source of knowledge. It places you squarely into the thoughts and minds of others; provides you with heretofore unfamiliar perspectives. If those other posters are unable to glean knowledge from fiction, that is not my loss. My only mistake was trying to convince them.


OM
Click to expand...

Your mistake was poorly wording your post then refusing to admit it was poorly worded
 
Quag said:
Your mistake was poorly wording your post then refusing to admit it was poorly worded
Click to expand...

Not at all. I said precisely what I said; I didn't mince words. It was not I who unnecessarily conflated "real" into the discussion. But I can see now what your tactics are, and I will adjust accordingly.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Not at all. I said precisely what I said; I didn't mince words. It was not I who unnecessarily conflated "real" into the discussion. But I can see now what your tactics are, and I will adjust accordingly.


OM
Click to expand...

What you wrote doesn't convey the meaning you want it to have thus your chose your words poorly.
You seem confused on my position.
It doesn't matter if God is real or not.
Ill try again
You do not know God. What you know is what the Bible says about God. The two are not the same thing no matter how much you want to pretend that they are.
 
Quag said:
What you wrote doesn't convey the meaning you want it to have thus your chose your words poorly.
You seem confused on my position.
It doesn't matter if God is real or not.
Ill try again
You do not know God. What you know is what the Bible says about God. The two are not the same thing no matter how much you want to pretend that they are.
Click to expand...

Another straw argument. I never once claimed that I knew God. How can I know God, if I'm not even certain it exists?


OM
 
Omega Man said:
Another straw argument. I never once claimed that I knew God. How can I know God, if I'm not even certain it exists?


OM
Click to expand...

Fine I will correct myself.
You do not have knowledge of God. You have knowledge of what the Bible says about God.
It doesn't matter if God is real or not.
What you wrote doesn't convey the meaning you want it to have thus your chose your words poorly.
 
Quag said:
What you wrote doesn't convey the meaning you want it to have thus your chose your words poorly.
Click to expand...

I said what I said. I didn't say what I didn't say. I have knowledge of Taranis from published myths, and knowledge of the biblical God from the Bible. That's not to say that others who read the same material believe the same about them as I do.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
I said what I said. I didn't say what I didn't say. I have knowledge of Taranis from published myths, and knowledge of the biblical God from the Bible. That's not to say that others who read the same material believe the same about them as I do.


OM
Click to expand...

Only you dont have knowledge of Taranis you have knowledge of the published myths of Taranis
You dont have knowledge of the God you have knowledge of what the Bible says about God

Your wording is still off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom