- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Since my other arguments don't seem to be clear I'm going to try and show the relationship between (a)gnosticism and (a)theism graphically. The rows show the spectrum of gnosticism and agnosticism respectively, while the columns show the spectrum of atheism, theism, and a neutral state showing that the person has no opinion as to the existence, or non-existence of god. This follows the general form as D&D;alignments so if you're familiar with those then this should appear familiar:
agnostic atheist | agnostic neutral | agnostic theist
gnostic atheist | gnostic neutral | gnostic theist
I've eliminated the pure neutral, neutral atheist, and neutral theist from this scheme for the simple reason that I view gnosticism and agnosticism as discrete states.
You seem to have missed my entire point. I wasn't taking a crack at you anymore than I was taking a crack at myself and the rest of the human race. We are all irrational. To form an opinion without any evidence one way or another defies all logic. That doesn't mean that all of us don't do it. The thought pattern that you described is not internally coherent. If there is not enough evidence to say that a god exists, and there is not enough evidence to say a god does not exist, and if one believes that one cannot know if god exists or not, then to say that you believe that there is no god is not consistent, it's not logical. But we are not defined by, or governed by logic.
All I'm saying is that being an agnostic and forming any opinion about god is inherently illogical.
As I said earlier, Agnosticism is a philosophical description of one's knowledge: we cannot know whether or not a god exists. Theism and Atheism are descriptions of belief. What we know, and what we believe are two separate concepts. I do say that I believe that God exists, but I also say that no one can know with certainty that God exists or not.
It is irrational to admit that you cannot know with certainty whether or not a god exists, but to then go on to say that you do not believe that a god exists. If you cannot know whether or not a divine being exists then logically one would not form an opinion on the matter, when posed the question "Do you believe in a god?" one would simply answer "I don't know." But an atheist would answer "No, I do not." They may elaborate, as you have, as to their reasoning but they have a definitive answer. But humans are inherently irrational, we form opinions all the time without evidence to support our claims. I for one am an admitted agnostic theist, I believe quite firmly that a divine being exists but I also acknowledge that I cannot know for certain whether or not the god I believe in exists because I cannot prove that He exists. That doesn't stop me from believing the way I do.
Agnosticism should not be measured on the same scale as theism or atheism. It's a completely different concept, theists can be agnostic, as can atheists. Atheism and theism are descriptions of what one believes, agnosticism is a description of what one knows. They are too completely different issues.
No, an agnostic simply believes that one cannot be certain that a god exists, or doesn't exist. Agnostics don't say that they aren't sure if a god exists, rather they say that no one can know for certain, that is there is no proof one way or another, that god exists. An agnostic may be unwilling to form an opinion on the matter since absolute knowledge is impossible to obtain, or they may choose to believe that there is or is not a god. This belief is admittedly irrational since their belief is not based on facts.
Agnosticism is not the middle between theism and atheism. Theists can be agnostic, as can atheists, and agnostics may be neither. Its the same argument as a square is a rhombus but a rhombus need not be a square.
Your definition, then, would be technically wrong. Agnosticism is defined as "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge." That does not preclude a person from making a personal judgment one way or another. Simply that one acknowledges that one cannot be absolutely certain one way or another.
Agnosticism is simply the belief that one cannot know for certain whether or not a divine being exists, and that is actually a very limited view of the full scope of the term. An atheist is not inherently agnostic but many atheists do base their beliefs off of an agnostic point of view. That is, since the existence of a divine being cannot be proven or refuted they choose to believe that there is no such being. By the same account a theist can be agnostic in that they acknowledge that the divine being or beings they believe in cannot be proven to exist.
I don't define greatness by the size of military might, nor by the landmass. The land of the Roman Empire was acquired through alliances and good faith. The Romans were known throughout the world, before the fall of the Republic, for their trustworthiness and reluctance for war. I'm not convinced that the fall of the Roman Empire sparked a "dark age" or that the time of the Empire was some golden age. The Medieval Period wasn't at all the Dark Age that it has so long been characterized as. Not that religious zealism and intolerance didn't limit scientific advancement, but there was significant engineering, technological, and scientific advances that took place during this period. But even with that in mind it's pointless to speculate what would have happened if the Roman Empire in the West hadn't collapsed under its own decadence and apathy.
As far as I can tell this scare is almost exactly like the Y2K scare, that is the calendar approaches a pivotal number and people freak out because they worry that the system is going to crash. What makes this more ridiculous than Y2K is that people are fearing the end of the world because the Mayan calendar, which hasn't been used for centuries, is about to start over its long-cycle. Essentially it's exactly the same as flipping to Jan 1 on your desk calendar on New Years Eve.
Biodiesel fuel is almost more unsustainable than fossil fuels. The current population of humans (6.8 billion) requires arable land equal to the size of South America (spread out across the globe) in order to survive. If population growth continues as it has in 2050 we'll require another Brazil's worth of arable land and the fact of the matter is that land simply doesn't exist (Despommier 82). All that is for food production. No, biodeiesel is a horrible alternative fuel source in that it reduces time, effort, and land devoted to more beneficial pursuits. On the other hand wind, water, and solar energy are much more plentiful, cleaner and cheaper in the long run. Not only that but with the right incentives and public will we can convert completely to WWS power by 2030 (Delucchie and Jacobson 65).
Delucchi, Mark A. Jacobson, Mark Z. "A Path to Sustainable Energy By 2030". Scientific American Nov. 2009: 58 - 65. Print.
Despommier, Dickson. "The Rise of Vertical Farms". Scientific American Nov. 2009: 80 - 87. Print.