Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Of course I know that cheese exists. Because I don't have enough information to say, I am left without knowing if it exists or not. And if I don't know if it exists or not, then I'm agnostic. When the concept is not defined, I am unable to know if it exists or not. If I don't know if it exists, then I'm agnostic. I, quite literally, lack the knowledge of whether or not an undefined concept exists. Regardless of my knowledge of the definition of "it", if I do not know if it exists or not, then I'm agnostic by definition.You've asserted that I cannot make a statement, can you support that beyond repeating yourself? And you don't even have a name for the position between not knowing and knowing? I doubt it exists at all. But I didn't know what it was so I, quite literally, did not know if it existed or not. I don't see the problem here.Once the concept became defined, I had the knowledge of whether or not it exists. What's ridiculous about that? So I DO know whether or not it exists!? No, that can't be right. Hrm. There must be some other position between not knowing and knowing. But you can't tell me what it is... I guess you're just plain wrong and I do, in fact, not know if it exists. But if I don't know what they're talking about, then how can I know if it exists or not? I think its clearer what you are saying:For a concept like cheese, since I know that it exists then I'm not agnostic towards it. And if someone is talking about cheese and I don't know that it is what they are talking about, I can't be agnostic about it because I'm already not agnostic towards cheese. So I have to be in some undefined position until I know what they're talking about.My problem with this is that this undefined postion doesn't exist. If I don't know what they're talking about then I simply lack the knowedge of whether or not exists, regardless of my knowledge that cheese exists. I think this undefined position has come about as a debate point because its already been claimed in another argument and now that its been brought to the surface, you want to maintain your previous position. But when it requires inventing positions that don't exists, I think that's when its getting ridiculous. So what do you call the position between not knowing and knowing? And I can easily defend it by saying that I didn't know what they were talking about. The basis for making my claim of agnosticism for its existence was that I didn't know what "it" was, so it was impossible for me to have the knowledge of whether or not it exists. And if I lack the knowledge of whether or not something exists, then I'm agnostic to it by definition.So what's the problem with that? Please don't bother just repeating yourself that I am unable to take that position. Why can't I? And what's wrong with my argument? Don't I, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not an undefined conept exists?

Meaningfullness aside, I did, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not your concept existed. There wasn't anything I could have been other than agnostic about it. I think you're playing the word games. "Getting you to saY"... seriously? If you admit that you don't know something then I've "gotten" you!? That seems paranoid.Whether you're willing to admit it or not, if you don't know what my god concept is, then you do, in fact, lack the knowledge of whether or not it exists. How could you possible know either way?

quote:

---

But I am not agnostic towards your concept of god.

---

Oh yeah? Well my concept of god is cheese. You've just proclaimed that you don't know if cheese exists or not. Now who's playing the word games....It seems that you just have to regard yourself as an atheist regardless of what knowledge you don't have. No matter what, even if you don't know anything about the concept at all, you just cannot not regard yourself as an atheist!? You feel that if you admit that you don't know if it exists or not, then I will have "gotten" you Maybe you do have cognitive dissonance, but either way, you're comming off as a major psycho to me. Wait a minute... last time you said that you weren't going to tell me what it is and then we I did proclaim my position, you whipped it right out to say that I had undying agnosticism towards cheese and then you accuse ME of playing word games...Anyways, because I don't know what concept you are referring to, I am unable to have knowledge of whether or not it exists. Since I lack the knowledge of its existence, I am agnostic towards it by definition.What's wrong with that? But being unable to apply that opinion and reasoning would leave you with a lack of knowledge on whether or not the concept exists and you would be left with the position of agnosticism. OOOoooohh. SO you're afraid that if you admit agnosticism towards an ill defined concept, then you'll no longer be an atheists towards that god. I think this might really be cognitive dissonance. Wow.I'm not out to get you and its no big deal if you admit that you lack knowledge. Although refusing to admit it makes you come off as being a little crazy.
Besides, admitting agnosticism doesn't make you a non-atheists when its simply a lack of belief, no?

I don't think they can say. I'm sure they'd love to explain it, but they lack any knowledge about it to give any description at all. This remains a problem in their entire argument, and has been a problem since the pseudo-thread.We remain with an ambiguous, nondescript concept that we have to contend with and weigh in on. They can't explain it in any more detail than that, so how can we be asked to take a position on it?First they need to explain in detail what we're talking about, then I'll try to match it to anything I've witnessed in reality. If they can't do this, then I remain skeptical (not to god him/her self) but to their concept of it.In your cheese example, the first thing that would need to be agreed on is that we all recognize what cheese is; if anyone is in the dark about cheese, or never seen cheese before, you would need to explain what cheese is, show them some cheese, describe what its made of, then you can proceed with your question.Likewise, if none of us have ever seen a god, you would need to explain what god is before we can proceed with the questioning. If the person asking the question, has never seen a god and can't give you a better description than an ambiguous, unknowable force, it would be the same as saying cheese is an ambiguous, unknowable food. In other words, it would be nonsense.I find it pointless to say that I'm agnostic to ambiguous, unknowable foods, in the same way that I find it pointless to say that I'm agnostic to ambiguous, unknowable forces.I take no position until they define what we're talking about.CS and I had this exchange in the pseudo-thread, starting with message 265:

quote:

---

Oni writes:

​

You seem to want to label that god, don't know why, but I can say for sure that I'm not an atheist toward that concept. I hold no position at all.

​

CS writes:

​

Then you're not a psuedoskeptic...

​

and that sure sounds like agnosticism to me (at least in the way I use the word).

​

Message 314:

​

Oni writes:

​

That's what I've been say'n.
If that sounds like agnosticism then whatever. To me, it sounds like nothing at all.

​

CS writes:

​

Alrighty then.

---

So CS and I agreed that it can be seen both ways. He thinks its agnosticism, while I feel its nothing at all.I hope this helps advance your discussion with him - but, probably not. - Oni

Its not simply a refusal to say. Back in Message 393 you wrote:

quote:

---

So are you telling me that those who believe in gods have no clue what it is they believe in? No concept at all? Or do they know what they believe in (at least loosely) but (like my cheese example) refuse to tell us to maintain some veneer of rationality in the form of telling atheists that they should be agnostic? Do theists/deists have a concept of what they believe in? Or not.

---

I didn't reply because it'd have been a long explanation and irrelevant to my point.But part of the problem is that the god concept is ambiguous. Its not just a refusal to say, but an inability to accurately describe it in a way that makes sense enough to type it out here.It is more of a lack of information than it is a refusal to supply it.

Yes, you're much closer than Straggler. Quite right.I maintain though, that you do lack the knowledge of the existence of an unknown concept and that agnosticism is a correct description of that position. The point is that you do, in fact, lack the knowledge and there's nothing wrong with admitting it.

If the concept doesn't exist how can any position on it exist?When you ask the question "Does god exist?" do you literally have no idea what it is you are asking about?If you don't then I don't see how you can claim belief in it.
If you do then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is identical to your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese. Meaningless and misleading.

Is god a conscious being immune from empirical detection?If CS or RAZD will even go that far in defining whatever it is we are talking about then we can have a reasoned opinion on the matter.If they literally have no damn idea at all what it is they believe in, not even the vaguest of concepts possible, then frankly they are mad for stating belief in "it". There is either a concept or there isn't.

Be as ambiguous as you like.But when you ask "Do you believe god exists?" unless you have literally no idea what it is you yourself mean by "god" (and have stated belief in) then any claim of "I don't know" on my part is as stupid and misleading as was your proclaimed agnosticism towards cheese.If I don't know what concept it is you are asking me about I am not agnostic. I just don't know what the fuck we are talking about.They are (blatantly) not the same position.

What do you mean?If the concept doesn't exist then the position is that it doesn't exists Or do you mean if we're left without a concept? If we're not talking about something then we're not talking about anything No, I do have some idea. Yet honest and true.

But if you don't know what we're talking about, then its impossible for you to know if it exists or not and you must be agnostic. And yet, you are still left with a lack of knowledge if it exists or not.

No. If I don't know what we are talking about then as far as I am concerned there is no concept upon which to state any opinion.Which part of this is so difficult for you to understand?

Unless you define the concept in your head in some way no position is possible. Not even "I don't know"I cannot possibly even say "I don't know" regarding a non-existent concept. Then until you share it no comment on my (or anyone elses) part has any meaning,. You could be talking about ethereal moon monkeys for all I know. In which case claiming agnosticism on my part is just insane. And thus I refuse to do it. Honest and true? You think claiming that you are agnostic about the existence of cheese is an "honest and true" reflection of your beliefs?Are you mad? It is deceptive and dishonest to take any proclamation of "I don't know" as being equivalent to agnosticism towards the concept of god you have in your head but will not reveal.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Haha! If I achieve nothing else in these debates then this is good enough for me! What knowledge could there be of something that is, by its very definition, claimed to be unknown? To be fair, we ALL lack the knowledge of things that are by their very definition unknown. I gladly admit that I don't know, and add to that the fact that ANY unknown concept is unknown to ALL of humanity.If I'm agnostic to unknown concept for which we lack knowledge on, then so are you. How can you possibly have knowledge of something that is unknown?Unless you are claiming that you know the description of this unknown force, then I would ask for the method you used to gain knowledge of it, and if you could please describe it.What information am I lacking that is limiting my understanding of this unknown concept?- Oni

From Message 431: Because regardless of you're opinion on the matter, you do lack the knowledge of whether or not the concept exists. For you to not lack the knowledge means that you do have the knowledge (which is obviously wrong) unless there is some position between not knowing and knowing that I am unaware of. Even if you feel like its a meaningless non-position, the fact that you do lack the knowledge defines you as being agnostic.From Message 432: But you do, in fact, not know. Regardless of whether or not you see meaning in the answer, you are in a position of lacking the knowledge of whether or not the concept exists. That is agnosticism by definition. No, but when I didn't know what the concept was, it was impossible for me to know if it existed or not so I did not have the knowledge of whether or not it existsed, ergo I was agnostic. No, it is simply what the word means.

Does this mean we get to do Jager shots!? That's what I'm screamin'! Exactly! Even if the concept that I didn't know about happened to be cheese, it was impossible for me to know if it existed or not. I had to be agnostic. And once we start getting into those particulars, then you have something that you can be an atheist to. Before that, you're stuck in a position of agnosticism.