Who has the burden of proof?

[raw_thought]

You disagree with that? Or is it that you do not understand that?
Quite simply, there are "agnostic theists" Agnostics that favor theism. My position, all along and now your position!!!
Anyway, I will stick with the dictionary definitions ( post 373) and you can have fun inventing your own.

 

[raw_thought]

If "agnostic theist"= "theist", why did you add a superfluous word????
In other words, adding "agnostic" does add something. It says, this is not a theist, it is someone that has doubts.
You have finally admitted ( tho unknowingly) that there is a difference between an agnostic and a theist. I thought that was rather obvious, but oh well.
I think both theists and atheists do not like being called agnostic because they mistakenly believe that implies indecisiveness. In fact, agnosticism is the only rational position. This obsession with semantics that my opponent has is obviously psychological and not based in facts or logic.

 

[idav]

I've heard people say they don't know what to believe.

Doubting someone's guilt might not compare to doubting their existence.

Doubting is always an issue when knowability of knowledge is an issue. One thing to say someone existed in some time in place but another to say it does and did not exist in any time or place.

 

[raw_thought]

First see post 382
I am an Agnostic Theist.
Translation, I am not sure about Theism.

 

[idav]

First see post 382
I am an Agnostic Theist.
Translation, I am not sure about Theism.

But am more than 50 percent or enough to say its possibly true, what one thinks in opinion is closest to truth.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Seconded.
So many words, so little reading comprehension.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One can be an agnostic that tends toward theism. However, by definition he is not a theist.

You clearly do not understand what agnosticism is, then. Agnosticism is the position that the ultimate certainty of a particular proposition either isn't known or is unknowable, i.e: I don't KNOW that there is no God, but I don't BELIEVE that there is one = agnostic atheism; whereas, I don't KNOW that there is a God, but I BELIEVE there is one = agnostic theism.

Do you understand?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agnostic means uncertainty. Belief means certainty.

No it does not.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, and even the very dictionary definitions that YOU provided show that you are categorically wrong about the definitions you are using. Belief in a proposition does not mean that you are CERTAIN that the proposition is true, just that you accept the proposition is true.

For example, I believe that the milk in my fridge is not rotten. I currently hold that position to be true. However, I am not certain that the milk isn't rotten - my fridge could have broken without my knowing it, and the milk could have gone off without my knowledge. Though I acknowledge that this is a possible scenario, I also understand that it is unlikely, and in all probability the milk in my fridge is not rotten, which is why I will have no problem whatsoever pouring the milk on my cereal tomorrow morning. Such a decision requires me to form a conclusion, which will be a proposition I hold to be true, which will be "the milk in the fridge is not rotten". There is no certainty required in the holding of that position, just as there is no certainty implied by the positions of atheism or theism - just a belief, or lack of belief.

Seriously, you have had several people - from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds - all telling you that you are wrong about this. It really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

To be fair to raw, I do understand where he's coming from..
I used to consider myself just an agnostic. Then I spent some time talking to atheists,
After that, the important part, I took time talking to atheists and ACTUALLY LISTENING to what they were saying, and it just seems like he's not to that point yet..

I look at it like this, in a 100 level class, you might learn that there's atheist, agnostic and theist... But after you get through that, in the 200 class, you learn, while that is kind of correct, its not really enough, and there's more info to cover, and then they break down what gnostic, and theist actually mean, and how the two aren't mutually exclusive..
Give him time, and once he starts reading for comprehension, instead of reading just to form a reply, maybe he'll see the point you're trying to make.

..I have some hope here.

 

[Parsimony]

No it does not.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, and even the very dictionary definitions that YOU provided show that you are categorically wrong about the definitions you are using. Belief in a proposition does not mean that you are CERTAIN that the proposition is true, just that you accept the proposition is true.

For example, I believe that the milk in my fridge is not rotten. I currently hold that position to be true. However, I am not certain that the milk isn't rotten - my fridge could have broken without my knowing it, and the milk could have gone off without my knowledge. Though I acknowledge that this is a possible scenario, I also understand that it is unlikely, and in all probability the milk in my fridge is not rotten, which is why I will have no problem whatsoever pouring the milk on my cereal tomorrow morning. Such a decision requires me to form a conclusion, which will be a proposition I hold to be true, which will be "the milk in the fridge is not rotten". There is no certainty required in the holding of that position, just as there is no certainty implied by the positions of atheism or theism - just a belief, or lack of belief.

Seriously, you have had several people - from a variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds - all telling you that you are wrong about this. It really shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

Exactly. Have a frubal.

 

[Thief]

Doubting is always an issue when knowability of knowledge is an issue. One thing to say someone existed in some time in place but another to say it does and did not exist in any time or place.

So a little doubt goes a long way?

I am sure there is Something Greater.
Look up.

I am sure I am not top of the line life form.

I am sure that out of 7billion copies of a learning device....some of us will survive the last breath.

With intent and certainty on my side I hope to be one of the few that make it.

(not so sure about that)

I suspect heaven has a personal interest whatever stands from the dust.
This chaos we suffer might not be allowed to continue.
Peace first.

So...angels are displayed with sword in hand.
Swords sever the living from the dead.

I suspect swordplay in the hour that we die.

 

[RitalinOhD]

You clearly do not understand what agnosticism is, then. Agnosticism is the position that the ultimate certainty of a particular proposition either isn't known or is unknowable, i.e: I don't KNOW that there is no God, but I don't BELIEVE that there is one = agnostic atheism; whereas, I don't KNOW that there is a God, but I BELIEVE there is one = agnostic theism.

Do you understand?

Good luck. I said that exact same thing at least twice and it went right over his head, which is why I stopped trying.

 

[raw_thought]

UMMM, that is my position not Ritalins. Yes, as I showed Agnosticism is uncertainty.* And yes, agnostic theism is that you do not know for sure that there is a God but you believe in God.
READ MY POSTS.
Now retalin has taken my position and claiming that it was his all along!!!!!
* In other words if you are uncertain, you are an agnostic. If you are not uncertain, you are not an agnostic.

 

[raw_thought]

If "agnostic theist"= "theist", why did you add a superfluous word????
In other words, adding "agnostic" does add something. It says, this is not a theist, it is someone that has doubts.
You have finally admitted ( tho unknowingly) that there is a difference between an agnostic and a theist. I thought that was rather obvious, but oh well.
I think both theists and atheists do not like being called agnostic because they mistakenly believe that implies indecisiveness. In fact, agnosticism is the only rational position. This obsession with semantics that my opponent has is obviously psychological and not based in facts or logic.

Here, I will make it easy by showing my post.
If a person that is uncertain ( he has doubts) is called a theist and not an agnostic the terms become interchangeable and therefore meaningless.

 

[raw_thought]

You clearly do not understand what agnosticism is, then. Agnosticism is the position that the ultimate certainty of a particular proposition either isn't known or is unknowable, ...
Do you understand?

UM yeah see post 373
agnosticism
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
Agnosticism | Define Agnosticism at Dictionary.com
If you are uncertain about a proposition, you are agnostic about that proposition.
Note that the definition does not specify the level of uncertainty.
I really wish you guys would read my posts and not merely scan them.

 

[raw_thought]

So you guys would call all those that are not absolutely certain ( and yet are open to the possibility) that God exists, theists?!!!! Or only those that are 51% sure that God exists. As I pointed out earlier, such a quantification is problematic.

 

[raw_thought]

Anyway, I agree that your version is the way people talk. However, it is not grammatical. In other words if a person says that they are not an agnostic, they are a theist, I may understand that they are trying to imply that they favor theism. However, that is not what they are saying. They are saying that they have no doubts regarding theism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

UM yeah see post 373
agnosticism
an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.
Agnosticism | Define Agnosticism at Dictionary.com
If you are uncertain about a proposition, you are agnostic about that proposition.
Note that the definition does not specify the level of uncertainty.
I really wish you guys would read my posts and not merely scan them.

Here are some other posts of yours:

One can be an agnostic that tends toward theism. However, by definition he is not a theist.

Agnostic means uncertainty. Belief means certainty. If you say I believe X but I might be wrong, you are uncertain, an agnostic.

These are the statements I was referring to, and these are the statements which demonstrate that you don't understand agnosticism as it relates to theism and atheism, and the fact that they are not mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It depends on the structure of the argument. Everyone has their own burden of proof in terms of providing a solid argument. Someone taking on an atheist argument doesn't get a secret bullet proof vest that eliminated the need for them to substantiate their positions. However that is distinctly different from having to "prove there is no god" or "prove there is a god". If the argument is about proving god exists then it is upon the theist. If it is proving he doesn't then it would be upon the atheist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you guys would call all those that are not absolutely certain ( and yet are open to the possibility) that God exists, theists?!!!!

NO.

I am getting increasingly frustrated with your lack of reading comprehension and determination to put words in other people's mouths.

Theist = "I believe a God exists."
Agnostic theist = "I believe a God exists, but I do not claim certainty that God exists."
Gnostic theist = "I believe a God exists, and I claim certainty that God exists."

A person who is "open to the possibility" of God could be either an atheist or a theist, because being "open to the possibility" isn't what determines theism or atheism. Theism or atheism is determined by BELIEF or LACK OF BELIEF.