Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hey Non-Theists: Let's Mass Debate Each Other
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by Subey on Apr-22-2005 02:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade
It's not an issue of temporality though. I'm not saying that before becoming an agnostic you have to adopt a solely atheistic position for x amount of time before being permitted to progress towards agnosticism, I'm simply saying that - logically - agnosticism is dependant on the rejection of belief in God.

quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
Agree.

You agree to strange things...

Let's say I am a theist, and my belief has its basis in culture rather than an independent conclusion that I have come to. So one day let's say i'm 25, and I decide to explore the validity of the existence of god on my own, going beyond the confines of the particular faith I have traditionally been a memeber of.

The moment before I make this decision I was a theist.

After I make this decision I am in limbo. I am rejecting theism, atheism and agnosticism simultaneously, because I would be suspending my judgement on which category best fits my interpretation of the universe until after I'd done some research.

There is no reason for me ever to move into the atheistic category. I could conclude that theism is still true at the end of my research. I could conclude that weak agnosticism is the answer, and I could conclude that atheism is the answer. Who knows, where i'll end up, until after such time as I've felt I've explored the issue enough to be comfortable choosing an ontological view of the universe.

Posted by trancaholic on Apr-22-2005 02:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Subey
You agree to strange things...

If you think this is strange, you should see my mistress' dungeon.

Actually, I agree with you. What I was agreeing with Renegade about, is that *agnosticism* logically depends on no belief in god. I.e. "X is agnostic"=>"X does not believe in God".
What I don't agree with him about is that rejection of god *precedes* agnosticism, because I cannot follow the semantics he puts behind "precede". And it seems to be "precede" that you are attacking in your post.

Posted by Subey on Apr-22-2005 12:46:

quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
If you think this is strange, you should see my mistress' dungeon.

Actually, I agree with you. What I was agreeing with Renegade about, is that *agnosticism* logically depends on no belief in god. I.e. "X is agnostic"=>"X does not believe in God".
What I don't agree with him about is that rejection of god *precedes* agnosticism, because I cannot follow the semantics he puts behind "precede". And it seems to be "precede" that you are attacking in your post.

I think what his entire argument boils down to is what I mentioned in my post with the theist.

He is recognizing that the moment the theist decides to re-evaluate his belief system, then at that moment he does not believe in god. Making him an atheist. Focus of his argument.

The problem with his argument though, is that he is ignoring the fact that while it is true that at that moment the person does not believe X, where X = belief in god, he also does not believe in Y, where Y = belief in no god.

He is acknowledging this limbo state only up till the point that it appears to support atheism. And ignoring the part that supports deism. When in fact, it really doesn't support either, because its an indeterminant limbo state.

At least I think, that's what he's arguing

Pages (2): « 1 [2]