• 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

Rich2018 said:
But if an Agnostic doesn't believe in god, then what is the difference between them and Atheists ?
Click to expand...

Devildavid is making an Argument By Repetition Fallacy with his "agnosticism is not a belief" chant...

While agnosticism is not a belief in the framework of the existence or non-existence of god(s) [agnosticism isn't concerned with choosing sides], it IS a belief in the framework of our abilities (non-abilities) to know god(s).
 
Rich2018 said:
But if an Agnostic doesn't believe in god, then what is the difference between them and Atheists ?
Click to expand...

An agnostic has never claimed to not believe in God. That would be an atheist.


OM
 
gfm7175 said:
Devildavid is making an Argument By Repetition Fallacy with his "agnosticism is not a belief" chant...

While agnosticism is not a belief in the framework of the existence or non-existence of god(s) [agnosticism isn't concerned with choosing sides], it IS a belief in the framework of our abilities (non-abilities) to know god(s).
Click to expand...

Talk about repeating the same false over and over again in hopes that someone will start to believe it, that is what you do. Unable to face the truthy and urge others to follow suit with you.
 
Omega Man said:
An agnostic has never claimed to not believe in God. That would be an atheist.


OM
Click to expand...

This is true. An Agnostic only claims to have seen no evidence of this god. An Atheist denies the existence of such an entity.
 
Arjay81 said:
Talk about repeating the same false over and over again in hopes that someone will start to believe it, that is what you do. Unable to face the truthy and urge others to follow suit with you.
Click to expand...

Inversion Fallacy.

If one argues point A, and then gets response B to it, but then goes back to arguing point A INSTEAD of responding to response B, then response B still applies.

One can't just chant point A over and over again... One instead needs to address response B...
 
gfm7175 said:
Inversion Fallacy.

If one argues point A, and then gets response B to it, but then goes back to arguing point A INSTEAD of responding to response B, then response B still applies.

One can't just chant point A over and over again... One instead needs to address response B...
Click to expand...

You really ought to learn another term as "inversion fallacy" does not apply as you seem to think it does. Nor does your attempt at logic hold true.

Not to mention that you do exactly as you accuse others of doing and in your egotistic manner fail to see it. Really invalidates whatever you think your point is.
 
Arjay81 said:
This is true. An Agnostic only claims to have seen no evidence of this god. An Atheist denies the existence of such an entity.
Click to expand...

An atheist lacks belief in gods. They fall into the belief approach to gods. They don't deny anything.
 
Arjay81 said:
You really ought to learn another term as "inversion fallacy" does not apply as you seem to think it does. Nor does your attempt at logic hold true.

Not to mention that you do exactly as you accuse others of doing and in your egotistic manner fail to see it. Really invalidates whatever you think your point is.
Click to expand...

He thinks there is something called a schminversion schmallacy. He uses his own language and definitions so I add "schm" to the front of all the words he uses to avoid confusion.
 
devildavid said:
An atheist lacks belief in gods. They fall into the belief approach to gods. They don't deny anything.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, they deny. They deny that any gods exists, a basic tenant of being an atheist.
 
Arjay81 said:
Oh yes, they deny. They deny that any gods exists, a basic tenant of being an atheist.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. There are no tenets of atheism. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.
 
devildavid said:
Agnostics don't take the belief approach to god.
Click to expand...


But they are aware of belief in a supreme being.

Therefore they have to take a belief....and basically they must think that god exists.

If they have no belief in god, they are by definition, Atheists.
 
Rich2018 said:
But they are aware of belief in a supreme being.

Therefore they have to take a belief....and basically they must think that god exists.

If they have no belief in god, they are by definition, Atheists.
Click to expand...

Being aware of a belief does not require anyone to take a belief.

They approach the god question from a knowledge position.
 
Arjay81 said:
You really ought to learn another term as "inversion fallacy" does not apply as you seem to think it does. Nor does your attempt at logic hold true.
Click to expand...
An inversion fallacy is essentially 'projection'... It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It is attempting to apply "context A" to "person B" (another person who is unrelated to the context) instead of "person A" (the original person who the context applies to).

Arjay81 said:
Not to mention that you do exactly as you accuse others of doing and in your egotistic manner fail to see it. Really invalidates whatever you think your point is.
Click to expand...
No, I don't... Also, logic is not void.
 
gfm7175 said:
An inversion fallacy is essentially 'projection'... It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It is attempting to apply "context A" to "person B" (another person who is unrelated to the context) instead of "person A" (the original person who the context applies to).


No, I don't... Also, logic is not void.
Click to expand...

First, you are proving my point by continuing to use a phrase that you show you do not understand and insisting that you are correct. You are not. Look it up.

Second, who said anything about a void? Now you are just making stuff up to show that you are totally incorrect. A liars best weapon is to make stuff up and say that someone else said it.

Provide a quote (which you can't) of someone else saying it or admit that you are a liar.

Also, look up the term logic as you are using it incorrectly. It does not only apply to what you claim, it applies to the babble that you continue to spew.
 
Arjay81 said:
First, you are proving my point by continuing to use a phrase that you show you do not understand and insisting that you are correct. You are not. Look it up.
Click to expand...
Logic is not a 'master list' located online somewhere, Arjay... It is defined by its axioms... An inversion fallacy is a type of contextomy fallacy. It is essentially projection. It is not defined by any website...

Arjay81 said:
Second, who said anything about a void? Now you are just making stuff up to show that you are totally incorrect. A liars best weapon is to make stuff up and say that someone else said it.
Click to expand...
You are redefining logic as void... That's why I mentioned it.

Arjay81 said:
Provide a quote (which you can't) of someone else saying it or admit that you are a liar.
Click to expand...
Explained above.

Arjay81 said:
Also, look up the term logic as you are using it incorrectly.
Click to expand...
No, I am not. Logic is not defined by a website, Arjay... It is defined by its axioms. It is a closed functional system. You are woefully illiterate in it.

Arjay81 said:
It does not only apply to what you claim, it applies to the babble that you continue to spew.
Click to expand...
Argument of the Stone Fallacy.
 
gfm7175 said:
An inversion fallacy is a type of contextomy fallacy. It is essentially projection. It is not defined by any website...
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight: "inversion fallacy" is a term that no logician or or any other published philosopher has ever used (or s/he would have defined it), nor is it a common colloquial term.

So how is anybody supposed to understand what it means?
 
devildavid said:
Being aware of a belief does not require anyone to take a belief....
Click to expand...

Not require but it's natural to form an opinion.


Ask yourself, what myths and stories are you aware of ?

The Loch Ness Monster ?
Do you believe Nessie exists ?


...they approach the god question from a knowledge position.
Click to expand...


So once again I ask you: Are you saying that Agnostics believe that, if god exists, he is incapable of communicating with humans ?
 
pinqy said:
Let me get this straight: "inversion fallacy" is a term that no logician or or any other published philosopher has ever used (or s/he would have defined it), nor is it a common colloquial term.

So how is anybody supposed to understand what it means?
Click to expand...

Every time tries to use that term, he unwittingly commits the, "Oh, I just made some bull**** up!" fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom