Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
"Still, you made the claim that it was fake gold, and denied my claim that your useless anti-agnostic atheism was less valuable than Agnosticism. Show that anti-agnostic atheism is more valuable and that Agnosticism is worthless."
|
and
Quote:
Ok.
Agnosticism = without A, gnostic having "knowledge", ism a belief or idea. Meaning "without beliefs about knowledge"; but in a more pleasant sense, Agnosticism is the idea of being in a state of lacking beliefs about knowledge being certain and distinct. word originated from Huxley. Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atheism = without belief in gods. word originated from the Roman Empire. Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but in more pleasant terms, it is the idea of being in a state of lacking belief in deities
I'm asking catman to show me the reasons he believes that having no god beliefs is better than understanding one's lack of absolute certainty. If he isn't an anti-agnostic atheist.
|
First I'm not at all sure that your 'definition' above is valid. you writ 'A.gnostic' (which means 'without knowledge' and then, producing 'ism' out of nowhere, gives it a definition of 'beliefs without knowledge'. What I would quote from the reference you give :-
"All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence,"
agnosticism or gnosticism relates to what one knows (or claims to know) but belief based on that knowledge is a different thing. The reference should show whay atheism - non - belief where the evidence is not good enough to warrant it is better than belief in what one does not know.
Now I am not saying that I am denouncing your views as 'fake gold'. That's for Catman to argue, but to counter your "claim that your useless anti-agnostic atheism was less valuable than Agnosticism."
"Show that anti-agnostic atheism is more valuable and that Agnosticism is worthless." is simply, as I said, forcing Catman to defend a position he doesn't hold.
If I may take the liberty of guessing what he meant, he thought your beliefs or claims based on agnosticism (inadequate knowledge) was 'fake gold'. I have to concur, unless you can give some sound reasons to believe it.
That said, it should be clear enough that a worldview based on only giving belief to what has sound evidential basis (which is what results in atheism where the knowledge is inadequate) is more valuable than beliefs based on inadequate knowledge ((beliefs based on inadequate knowledge).
It could also be argued that holding an 'agnostic position' on gods is well enough, but failure to consider what one's belief - position should be based on agnosticism is not only absurd, but in fact I don't believe anyone really does it. I come suspect that what 'agnostics' really do is try to justify a half - belief in some god - idea or other which is really justified by the evidence. I'm not sure that your apples and oranges analogy helps to clarify the matter, but I'll have a look.
In fact yes ". its like asking: which idea is better, that heavenly dictates mandate we don't keep dogs as pets, or that we should brush our teeth at least once a day as recommended by dentists? one of them is better than the other."
Yes, the dental advice is based on validated medical knowledge and is valuable. The divine embargo on keeping dogs as pets is merely the unjustified orders on an unproven god and is without any real value.
While pointing up the looming question of what 'knowledge' is valid (with 'how do we know what we know?' lurking in the wings) it actually seems to support Catman's argument.