Should Agnostics shut up, since they don't know?

[Guitar's Cry]

I think I've got my answer. Agnostics refuse to stick to the topic, instead professing how much noone knows. What would they have to say in a theistic debate? Not much.

Well, that doesn't seem to be the purpose of the thread.

 

[Atheologian]

I had a thread about the philosophy of God. I basically said the same thing. You can't deny that God exists, at least philosophically.

 

[Aquitaine]

Clever insult, but you still never answered the question. What would agnostics offer in a theistic debate, besides the fact we don't know?

What do Theists have to offer in a theistic debate? Other than the fact that they don't know, and that they're talking utter fairytale nonesense?

 

[Quagmire]

Clever insult, but you still never answered the question. What would agnostics offer in a theistic debate, besides the fact we don't know?

Exactly the same thing everyone else in here has to offer, minus the pompous, self-deluded parts.

He didn't even have to insinuate I was somehow pompous or deluded to do it, either.

I don't think anyone has to insinuate that.

 

[Atheologian]

I'd first respond to the Theist who makes these claims of his existence, then I'd say it cannot be proven and there's yet to be any credible evidence for the existence of any of these Gods, and I'd also point out that an Omni-max being is logically impossible anyways, that's all I'd say, that's all I'd need to say.

What if a theist proposes the Bible as a form of proof?

 

[Atheologian]

Exactly the same thing everyone else in here has to offer, minus the pompous, self-deluded parts.



I don't think anyone has to insinuate that.

You don't have an answer do you?
It can't be exactly the same as everyone else, you'd have to take every position, all the time.

 

[Quagmire]

You don't have an answer do you?

You're not reading my posts are you?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

I think I've got my answer. Agnostics refuse to stick to the topic, instead professing how much noone knows. What would they have to say in a theistic debate? Not much.

Damn... Until you made this post I was going to stick up for you... In fairness I don't understand why everyone's taking such a hard stand against this quesiton but... Well whatever...

If you are trying to ask what people without an opinion on a topic can contribute to a debate about an opinion, your question is a tautology by its very nature.
What you have to realise, however, is that a theistic debate is not 2 sided. In fairness, neither you nor I have any certainty of knowing we are right, which as you said, means that we all are technically agnostic.

My bottom line: Opinion is one thing, and fact is very much another. An agnostic is able to have an opinion without claiming to have any facts. That's why they shouldn't shut up (To use your incredibly ignorant choice of words)

GhK.

 

[Aquitaine]

What if a theist proposes the Bible as a form of proof?

Then I'd laugh at him..... no wait..... first I'd extend my arm, point and laugh at him.

It's the equivilent of someone quoting a Sakespear play to "prove" that Shakespear was infact God.

 

[JustWondering]

You can't deny that God exists,

Really? Atheists do it all the time.

 

[Atheologian]

What do Theists have to offer in a theistic debate? Other than the fact that they don't know, and that they're talking utter fairytale nonesense?

lol, while i agree, I think we can't just call it nonsense. Theists have moved God to the realm of the intangible. Like I was saying in the last post, we can't deny he exists philosophically. So, as an agnostic, would you be more likely to to argue that a philosphical god is just as real as a physical God?

 

[Atheologian]

You're not reading my posts are you?

Yep, lots of flaming and underhanded remarks. What of them?

 

[Nepenthe]

...we can't deny he exists philosophically. So, as an agnostic, would you be more likely to to argue that a philosphical god is just as real as a physical God?

What do you mean here exactly?

 

[Atheologian]

Greetings

Damn... Until you made this post I was going to stick up for you... In fairness I don't understand why everyone's taking such a hard stand against this quesiton but... Well whatever...

If you are trying to ask what people without an opinion on a topic can contribute to a debate about an opinion, your question is a tautology by its very nature.
What you have to realise, however, is that a theistic debate is not 2 sided. In fairness, neither you nor I have any certainty of knowing we are right, which as you said, means that we all are technically agnostic.

My bottom line: Opinion is one thing, and fact is very much another. An agnostic is able to have an opinion without claiming to have any facts. That's why they shouldn't shut up (To use your incredibly ignorant choice of words)

GhK.

Understand I'm NOT trying to insult agnostics. I think people are more likely to admit a given position if motivated. If the topic were, Should athiests shut up about God, since they don't believe?, it would be the atheists in here insulting me for being a religious zealot.

The best discussion are the most heated.

 

[Atheologian]

What do you mean here exactly?

if the discussion led to a position of God being just as real, in the minds of the believers, as if he were a physical manifestation? Would you agree, as an agnostic, not as a theist, that it was true?

 

[Aquitaine]

lol, while i agree, I think we can't just call it nonsense. Theists have moved God to the realm of the intangible. Like I was saying in the last post, we can't deny he exists philosophically. So, as an agnostic, would you be more likely to to argue that a philosphical god is just as real as a physical God?

What do you mean by "philisophical God", you mean a hypothetical God that was Omni-Max, and not neccessarily associated with a religion? Perhaps like a Deist God or something?

As for the Theists moving God to the intangible, by doing so they also remove his justifcation and presence from the rules of Physics and Logic, which only make it further nonesense and on-par with the stuff about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (except the FSM is actually real, though).

 

[Atheologian]

What do you mean by "philisophical God", you mean a hypothetical God that was Omni-Max, and not neccessarily associated with a religion? Perhaps like a Deist God or something?

As for the Theists moving God to the intangible, by doing so they also remove his justifcation and presence from the rules of Physics and Logic, which only make it further nonesense and on-par with the stuff about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (except the FSM is actually real, though).

exactly this is the idea of God that I gather from most theists. That is he does not have to necessarily exist in a tangible, physical sense.

 

[Atheologian]

If I had known people were that sensitive to the phrase "shut up", I would have used a more child friendly world, like hush. Good "God"

 

[JustWondering]

exactly this is the idea of God that I gather from most theists. That is he does not have to necessarily exist in a tangible, physical sense.

Playing make believe is fun!

 

[Aquitaine]

exactly this is the idea of God that I gather from most theists. That is he does not have to necessarily exist in a tangible, physical sense.

But by doing that, they also strip the need of logic, and most importantly - evidence from his justification too. Therefore it becomes more and more of a fiction, and less and less of a fact.

Again, it's the same as believing in Unicorns and Chocolate Fairies on the other side of the universe.

Only difference is, when a normal person would claim those to be true, he'd get laughed at, but when a Theist claims those equally rediculous things to be true - he gets a Church, money, power and respect.