bohm: Regarding logical fallacies:
You wrote - Secondly I find myself doubting if you really believe what you are writing. For instance, are you truly agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster, or do you as I, believe it is a mock-god made up by an atheist? Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer volcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?
I wrote - My logical fallacy senses are tingling, proof to me that God does not exist so I can answer your questions :)
I’m reply you wrote - What is the logical fallacy? I am simply asking you if you are an agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster. Your previous statements would imply it since you directly said we could define God as the flying spaghetti monster and you believed agnosticism is the default position on the existence of God.
First, you were not just asking me if I am an agnostic with respect to the flying spaghetti monster but also " Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer volcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible? "
Second, you quoted me out of context, this is what I wrote - From here I will refer deity as anything ranging Jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we don’t know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be. To elaborate, I used the word deity as a universal not prove that all gods simultaneously exist or don't, but so the argument I proposed does not get dragged on to external factors such as the bible, which religion is true? Which god is true? Etc.
So this argument does not get pushed aside, I will know refer this deity or deities as the one/s assuming that created this darkness we call space, and that created the cosmos and set them in motion, I will call my god/s that derived from an assumption as ? (Question mark).
The logical fallacies are:
Straw man - Misrepresenting my argument by taking it to extremes - Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer volcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible? I would say most improbable but I wouldn't mind if it started to rain donuts, by my argument is in relevance of the unknown.
Abusive analogy - Once again, you indirectly insult me by what you wrote giving the readers the false impression that you are discussing the same argument while character assassinating my intelligence.
Analogical fallacy, secundrum quid and dicto simpliciter (they are all very similar) - Supposing that things similar in one respect must be similar in others, in this case not knowing if ? exists is the same as - Do you really believe we cannot know if we will live on the slopes of a beer vulcano near the stripper factory when we die, or do you believe that is highly implausible?
Begging the question - your conclusion seeks to be established.
Now on to null hypothesis, it's the first time that I have heard that a null hypothesis could also imply something which can be falsified. I don't follow, I know that null hypothesis is not only used in statistics I know that wiki at times are incorrect, but if you could quote me an academic book that says otherwise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
WTWizard: Usually in debates, like the youtube channel atheistexperience 9 out of 10 they will say that there is not proof to believe in god (depending who they are talking to they could be referring to some deity in a book like genesis), therefore there is no reason to believe in ?
That's news to me, Satanists like Marilyn Mason don't believe in Satan, are spiritual Satanists different from Satanists?
DT wrote There is no need for the term agnosticism to fill in a gap between theism and atheism. Theism is a definite state of belief and atheism merely refers to those who don't have that belief, regardless of whether they lack belief or believe the opposite.
As I pointed out on my first post, there are many definitions for these words, here is 17 kinds of atheism - http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 surprise surprise apparently agnosticism is also a form of atheism.
Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge rather than lack of belief. Therefore, it includes some theists and atheists. Thank you for pointing that out, but I would also go as far to say that both atheism and theism are beliefs, the fact is there is a lack of knowledge.
sabastious: as I wrote to the other person, prove to me that God does not exist, let's see who is the cop-out.
d0rkyd00d: If you don't believe that God exists then you are an atheist. I defined God in the top part of this same post. I personally have strong reasons not to believe in the bible therefore any religion that claims their god comes and is written in a man-made book is false, but I cannot say the same about Eastern Orthodoxy because they don't believe in the bible (although if I seek hard enough I'm sure I can find enough evidence to at least debunk their religion)
LouBelle: I cannot write Agnosticism is such and such because there many different understandings, and some agnostics might say that I am not even an agnostic, so I wrote To me an agnostic..., yes according to me this is what I think agnosticism should be, I don’t think I came of as arrogant, how else could I put it in words?