A question for Agnostics about Elves

For a good understanding of why atheism could be considered a sound option it is a good idea to read Bertrand Russell.

Now personally I am agnostic in the sense that I wouldn’t make a definitive claim like “god does not exist” since there is no way to prove that claim true or false, however due to the unlikelihood that gods exist I would go ahead and also claim to be an atheist since I don’t practice a religion that includes a god.

Here is a quote from Bertrand Russel that closely matches my own opinion:

It is clear that it’s not just the people on this forum who find the binary simplicity of agnosticism vs atheism as promoted by people such as Huxley (and Kokomojojo by extension) to be lacking the ability to express the more nuanced views of those who have labeled themselves Agnostic Atheists.
This doesn’t invalidate the great work by Huxley, it just expands on it by giving greater clarification. The entire history of philosophy is a history of one polymath genius building on the work of the polymath genius before them.

 

No that is not what you are doing!!!

Russel claims to be atheist to bar room brawler crowd and when he is with academic crowd he states his true position as an agnostic because they will understand.

The only reason he says atheist to the bar room brawler crowd is because they are too ignorant to comprehend what an agnostic is.

He absolutely DOES NOT combine agnostic to atheist like you do because its a contradiction.

But then WTF does Webster know?

Definition of agnostic

1 : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

very simply if you write atheist on a sheet of paper and hand it to the judge he will put you down as atheist regardless of how unsure unstable or strongly you claim it. Atheist establishes a one committed position, agnostic establishes a contradictory position to atheist. (in academic circles only)

Apparently you dont understand how to maintain context integrity

 

Its not rational for me to believe Pikachu does not exist since I have no supporting empirical evidence?
You can plug in anything imagined by humans, Zeus, leprechauns, elves, Isis, Superman and it still would be semantic mental masturbation bull schitt. It is irrational to believe any of these could or would possibly exist. Leaning on the lack of empirical evidence as proof that the possibility of these made up entities could exist is beyond ridiculous. There is either reality or philosophical bull schitt. I chose. Admittedly it is a judgement call, but the rational one.

 

Here is the link to the article.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050622001026/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

 

To hold the mythical storybook Gods of Greek imagination in the same stead as the God of the Bible, is shallowness aforethought. One may as well say the prophets were revered, reviled and murdered for being disciples of Astro Boy. Or that Jesus Christ was so very much hated, mocked, and crucified simply for being a fool. To believe this is to fault the very people who did it, and thereby condemn ones own self.

To hold God in derision by malice, or suspect by deafness like a bump in the night, is not objective reasoning. I was born into a nonreligious family. But I was not born deaf and blind. As a boy, I recall once reading of Jesus's baptism. And the passage seemed to evoke beauty, strength and grace to me. It resonated in eternity and went to my spirit. It was simple, whole, and perfect. So I kept it in my heart like a boy might keep in his pocket a special found thing, because it was not to be found anywhere else in life, not at home, the dinner table, Scouts, associations, School, my favorite fishing lake or elsewhere. I still keep it. And no amount of crassness, disbelief, mockery, threats, subtlety, bullying, or education, can take it away. It is and will forever be a living part of me. And in the end, when I am pared away, it and other worldly rejects may be all that I am, because it is more to me than life.

 

The Greek gods are just as realistic as the God of the Bible. In fact, early Christians eagerly borrowed from pagan thought in their theology. Paul quoted pagan poets when explaining his God. And there were pagans who were hated/mocked/murdered for their beliefs as well, so that isn't a really good standard of evidence.

 

When I talked with Santa just before Christmas, he said the elves were working hard on the toys...

 

Sure, but reason alone won't do it. You need some sort of data to base that reason on. Otherwise, elves would be reasonable to believe in.

It being irrational to believe an unfalsifiable claim is true, because it has no evidence and is a big claim, doesn't make it impossible to be true. It could be true.

 

Therefore agnosticism is an irrational belief.

 

I don't see how that follows from what I wrote, but if that is your opinion, ok.

What would follow from what I wrote would be that if it is irrational to be agnostic, then that doesn't make it impossible for the agnostic claim (that it is impossible to know if God exists or not) to be true.

 

You wrote "it is irrational to be agnostic". I wrote "agnosticism is an irrational belief".

 

You can reason out the value of x for the equation 3x+2=11 without any empirical data.
Math is an entire language of reason. It’s exciting really.

Physicists used math to conclude that the planet Neptune existed long before anyone saw it.

 

oh contrare
atheist and theist are irrational
both make and believe claims they cannot prove
agnostics on the other hand deal in truth and pure reason, hence
the theist position as it stands is false because it cannot be prove, and likewise
the atheist position as it stands is false because it cannot be proven.
Therefore both the atheist and theist positions are irrational, not to mention unreasonable as in lacking reason.

'Pure' agnostics are in the catbird seat! lol

 

If agnostics are all about pure reason, why ignore all the reasoning that indicates there is no God?
If what you have said up to now is consistent. agnostics deal only with evidence.

 

Only because you have a baseline and you know for a fact that it references objects that are empirical. If you have no baseline references you would be screwed to make sense out of that, simple as it is.

 

What objects that are empirical?

 

If the reasoning that there is no God is sound, then you would easily prove up the point. Its not reasoned facts but faith. Frankly atheists have less evidence than theists.

agnostics deal in truth. neither atheists or theists have a truthful position.

 

please, must you?
3 relates to 3 tangible somethings.
2 relates to 2 tangible somethings.
11 relates to 11 tangible somethings.
x is the unknown number of somethings that we solve for.

I mean seriously?
You cant proof it without tangible references to give it meaning.
Just because you take it for granted, it is nonetheless the process.

 

How much does a tangible something weigh? What colour is it? What temperature does it turn into a gas at?

 

ask an embarrassing question then double and triple down with more?

 

What truth? God either is or is not. That is truth. Your stance is that you are blind to the truth.

 

Sorry, you lose. Reason is a valid source of knowledge.

 

LOL, zing that went right over your head.
you cant prove God does not exist, you have no facts, yet you believe your baseless conclusions, that is irrational. sorry.
agnostics call you on your error.

 

Not really, no. I stated that as a premise for an entirely different point, not as a claim I was making. The point was to note the logic fail.