Matthew Le God

Agnosticism concerns knowledge... not belief Atheist & theism concerns belief Agnosticism and gnostism concerns knowledge

How have you come to that conclusion? I wouldn't ban it, but it is harmful to society to believe its moral system and teachings. Do you think we should follow the 10 commandments? One of them says disobedient children should be stoned to death? Should we ignore that commandment?

A quick summary of why my summary is wrong with do. You had time enough to write this reply and in that time you could have answered it. What did the Egyptian babies do that warranted death? How can a god be 100% kind and loving if he kills babies? Also... there is 0% archaeological evidence Jews where ever held as slaves as described in the Bible. Why is that relevant? As I just said, there is no archaeological evidence the Jews were held as slaves. The Bible gives instructions for Jews on who they can own as slaves, so the god of the Bible clearly thinks slavery is ok for the Jews to do.

Agnostic theist in regard to you owning a goldfish = I think it is possible you could own a goldfish, but I don't know you own a goldfish Belief is binary, you either believe or you don't. You can be an agnostic believer or an agnostic unbeliever.

Force

What unsubstantiated teachings are you claiming I've hung my hat on?

If I'm boring why do you keep positing in this thread? Is it not healthy to have your views on the Bible challenged? If they all true then any challenge should be easy to deal with.

There is a difference between interchanging words and seeing that one word is a subset of another.

How would a ban work? This isn't 1984 with thought crime.

You have taken that out of the context it was written in... i.e. towards goldfish... not god. I was using the religious terms for belief/knowledge of ownership of goldfish.

I have not predetermined the outcome. I used the evidence from the book and made a summary. I'm sure you disagree with that summary and I'd like to know what about it you disagree with?

I believe it is possible he might have a goldfish, because we have evidence that people own goldfish. I do not believe he owns a goldfish and I do not know that he owns a goldfish.

As Turkish won't answer this question, can you...?

I believe it is possible you could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that you have one. Using religious terms I am an agnostic theist towards you having a goldfish.

You are mixing up knowledge and belief.

It isn't simply theist, atheist & agnostic. It is possible to be... 1) agnostic theist 2) agnostic atheist 3) gnostic atheist 4) gnostic theist

What do you think I mean by knowledge is a subset of belief?

What are you claiming I am wrong about? Plus you appear to be using the fallacious argument that the number of people impacts validity. Argumentum ad populum - (not a Harry Potter spell)

I agree, believing something is true does not make it so. So how am I undercutting my own argument?

Atheism does not require any faith in the slightest. Atheism is not the claim there are no gods, it is the rejection of theist claims. Those are too very different things.

This is an issue with you not understanding knowledge is a subset of belief, not a cop out at all. I said in the post that I do not know that he has one! The issue is you not understanding subsets and that knowledge is a subset of belief.

Under

I answered this in post #1231 I believe it is possible he could have a pet goldfish... but I do not know that he has one. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge, knowledge is a subset of belief... not an alternative.

It isn't unfeasible, strong evidence exists people keep goldfish as pets. But if you said you had a pet invisible dragon I'd want stronger evidence than just you saying it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not an old book.