A few points about atheism...

[JimBrown257]

I have a few thoughts regarding atheism and welcome any comments any of you might have:

The first has to do with how the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are used. While they both denote some degree of doubt or skepticism about gods, when it comes to etymology, the word "atheist" is generally defined as a person who does not believe in god and an "agnostic" is a person who feels that the existence of god is unknowable (source: wik). There are many qualifiers to each word like strong/weak atheist/agnostic (Dawkins has a 1-6 scale), and there are agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists.

However, this is how I have seen the words "atheist" and "agnostic" commonly used: An atheist does not believe in god whereas an agnostic does not believe in god but because of the negative conotations that are associated with the word "atheist" they do not wish to identify themselves as such. Usually when I see someone on television say they are agnostic, I get the feeling that they don't want to say they are atheist because they know how the masses will overreact to such a statement (the "Run for your lives; it's an atheist!!"-type of response).


The second point I want to make has to do with the statistics of atheists, especially here in the States. I have seen multiple polls with different numbers but they are all around the figures found on wik's "Religion in the United States" page. It says the US is, on average, about 76% christian, 4% other religion and 15% non-religious.

However, like with any poll, these numbers are heavily dependant on how the question is phrased. I think that the number of Christians is much less than 76% of the population (source: none). To be an actual christian, it's not the values that are the main thing; the main factor is that you honestly believe that this Jesus character was the son of the god of the bible and his resurrection and ascent to heaven shortly after prove his divinity. I think if asked about that, many people will say that they don't really believe all those things are really true but they like the overall message or they live in a "christian" community or they just think it sounds like the thing to say. I don't think many of these supposed "chrsitians" really consider what being a christian means. I think there is another group of people who live in the bible-belt who are scared for their lives to admit to even an anonymous poll-taker that they have doubts about the Jesus story. P.Z. Myers has mentioned this group of people in lectures.

So I think the number of true christians is less than that 76% and the number of non-believers is higher than 15%. Let me stress that this is all unfounded speculation but I think it is an interesting point to consider. I am curious what the stastics might be if people really answered honestly about there beliefs.

I don't mean to play devil's advocate but to be fair there is another statistic that I must question. Multiple polls I have seen show that the atheist population is way under represented in US prisons, usually as low as 2 or 3% (Gallup polls cited on a YT clip of "The Atheist Experience"). I think this number is artifically low; I think that many people in prison are prone to saying that they have found god or not wanting to admit they are non-believers for parole-hearing reasons (source: none). Although I think the number of atheists in prison is probably still well under the national average as atheists tend to be more educated and people who tend to be more educated tend to stay out of jail.


Anyways, I'd like to hear what you might have to say about any of this.

[bookitty]

I have a few thoughts regarding atheism and welcome any comments any of you might have:

The first has to do with how the words "atheist" and "agnostic" are used. While they both denote some degree of doubt or skepticism about gods, when it comes to etymology, the word "atheist" is generally defined as a person who does not believe in god and an "agnostic" is a person who feels that the existence of god is unknowable (source: wik). There are many qualifiers to each word like strong/weak atheist/agnostic (Dawkins has a 1-6 scale), and there are agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists.

However, this is how I have seen the words "atheist" and "agnostic" commonly used: An atheist does not believe in god whereas an agnostic does not believe in god but because of the negative conotations that are associated with the word "atheist" they do not wish to identify themselves as such. Usually when I see someone on television say they are agnostic, I get the feeling that they don't want to say they are atheist because they know how the masses will overreact to such a statement (the "Run for your lives; it's an atheist!!"-type of response).


Anyways, I'd like to hear what you might have to say about any of this.

Hello, agnostic here. Not an atheist. If I was an atheist, I'd damn well say so. In public even. It is not inconceivable that there is something beyond our ability to know, call it God for want of a better word. Personally, I don't think this god-thingie would bother with the tiny planet Earth or individual humans but that's just me.

It's a bit insulting to say that "agnostic" is just a prettier label for the spineless.

[H'ethetheth]

I would like to confound matters by stating that I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

[Rasmus]

Hello, agnostic here. Not an atheist. If I was an atheist, I'd damn well say so. In public even. It is not inconceivable that there is something beyond our ability to know, call it God for want of a better word. Personally, I don't think this god-thingie would bother with the tiny planet Earth or individual humans but that's just me.

It's a bit insulting to say that "agnostic" is just a prettier label for the spineless.

Here we go again ....

Do you believe that there actually is a god?

If so, tell us a little about that god, please.

If no, you are an atheist.

[Somerandomguy]

Rasmus, what he's saying is that he'd like to suspend judgement. It is possible to not believe nor disbelieve.

[quixotecoyote]

If you don't believe, you're an atheist.

There's no 'disbelieving' requirement involved.

[plong]

surely any true scientist would have to be agnostic as there are no absolutes. Although the body of evidence suggests there is no God the existence of a God cannot be ruled out.
Why can't "I don't know but the probability is small" be an acceptable stance?

[CriticalSock]

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

What would your true scientist say about the existence of that teapot?

[3point14]

I believe in god exactly the same amount as I believe in the bogeyman, Thor, the IPU and the FSM, goblins, faries, dragons and orbital teapots. I call myself an Atheist.

Am I getting it wrong?


ETA.: actually sometimes I just use 'Not deluded', but that's a little strong in some company.

[Lothian]

I think most people use Agnostic as a 'not sure' as opposed to a 'no but I don't want to scare you or have a row'.

[Rasmus]

Rasmus, what he's saying is that he'd like to suspend judgement. It is possible to not believe nor disbelieve.

Yes, but atheism hasn't got a requirement for disbelieve - just a lack of belief. The two are not the same.

And it is simply not possible to both believe and not believe.

To a muslim, you are an infidel, wether you're an atheist or a hindu, simply because you lack the believe in their God. Same principle.

[Dave Rogers]

I think most people use Agnostic as a 'not sure' as opposed to a 'no but I don't want to scare you or have a row'.

Yes, and I think they're incorrect to do so. It seems to me that agnosticism is not only on a different axis of belief than atheism, but also - if genuinely held - a more considered one. It's very simple and straightforward to hold the opinion, "I've never seen any evidence for a god, and the attributes claimed for gods are impossibly complex, therefore I don't believe there is one," which is pretty much the strong atheist position. However, the question, "Is it possible to know with certainty whether there is or is not a god?" is such an abstruse philosophical concept that I seriously doubt that most people have ever really considered it. Yet, when people claim to be agnostics, according to the formal definition of the term they should be claiming that they have considered that question and settled, at least provisionally, on the answer "No." Which is a very different thing from saying, "I haven't decided..." or "I'm not sure whether there is or is not a god."

Dave

[Cainkane1]

I live in georgia USA and if a pollster asked me what my religious beliefs were i'd proudly say atheist.

[volatile]

As we've been through on more than one occasion, "agnostic" is not halfway between theist and atheist. In fact, it's logically impossible for that to be the case.

[Aepervius]

There is no such a things as an "agnostic" alone. You are either agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist. By saying "you don't know if there is something or nothing" you take the coward way to refuse to answer the question. Because in reality in your own life, you will live your life as if there was nothing, aka agnostic atheist, or you will live it as if possibly there is something , aka agnostic theist. Living it as if the question is fully unanswerable and both possibility exists, is not possible. You WILL consciously or not , fall in either category. And in my experience, people which say they are simply "agnostic" are in reality agnostic atheist once they give it thought or take the courage to formulate loudly how they live their life.

[Mark6]

Here we go again ....

Do you believe that there actually is a god?

If so, tell us a little about that god, please.


Yog-Sothoth would be a first approximation.

I am serious. I am willing to entertain the notion that Universe has some kind of guiding intelligence. What I absolutely do not believe is that said intelligence has any particular interest in human species, or views are any different than we view an ant farm. And if we were somehow capable of attracting its attention, that would be not conducive for prolonged existence of individual involved. Or for anything within 1000 light-years, for all I know. So, Yog-Sothoth is a good approximation.

I most certainly do not believe in heaven, hell, immortal soul, or personal god who answers prayers and gets peeved if his is not supplicated.

[Genesius]

As in so many other things, Isaac Asimov said it best:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

[Lothian]

Yes, and I think they're incorrect to do so. It seems to me that agnosticism is not only on a different axis of belief than atheism, but also - if genuinely held - a more considered one. It's very simple and straightforward to hold the opinion, "I've never seen any evidence for a god, and the attributes claimed for gods are impossibly complex, therefore I don't believe there is one," which is pretty much the strong atheist position. However, the question, "Is it possible to know with certainty whether there is or is not a god?" is such an abstruse philosophical concept that I seriously doubt that most people have ever really considered it. Yet, when people claim to be agnostics, according to the formal definition of the term they should be claiming that they have considered that question and settled, at least provisionally, on the answer "No." Which is a very different thing from saying, "I haven't decided..." or "I'm not sure whether there is or is not a god."

DaveI agree but perhaps for different reasons. Gnostic comes from knowledge. Theism comes from belief. Knowledge and belief are two different things. One is not a weaker version on another. Agnostics are simple people who do not have knowledge of a God. Many will be theists, and many athiests.

[Mark6]

Yog-Sothoth would be a first approximation.

I am serious. I am willing to entertain the notion that Universe has some kind of guiding intelligence. What I absolutely do not believe is that said intelligence has any particular interest in human species, or views are any different than we view an ant farm. And if we were somehow capable of attracting its attention, that would be conducive for prolonged existence of individual involved. Or for anything within 1000 light-years, for all I know. So, Yog-Sothoth is a good approximation.

I most certainly do not believe in heaven, hell, immortal soul, or personal god who answers prayers and gets peeved if his is not supplicated.
Notice that whether such being exists or not, makes absolutely no difference to how I live my daily life.

So am I agnostic or atheist?

[Dancing David]

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

What would your true scientist say about the existence of that teapot?


Yay for Russell's teapot!

[MRC_Hans]

Here we go again ....

Do you believe that there actually is a god?

If so, tell us a little about that god, please.

If no, you are an atheist.

Dictionary definitions:

Atheist: Assumes there is no god(s).

Agnostic: Assumes that the answer to the god/no god question is unknowable.


Practical definitions:

Atheist: Feels certain there is no god(s).

Agnostic: Assumes there is no god(s), but leaves open the possiblilty for some higher being/entitiy, which might meet certain definitions of 'god'.

- Remember, over time 'god' has been used to denote anything from emperors to an almighty creator of the universe.

So I'm an agnostic, but I can't tell you anything about god, and I quite doubt there is anything to tell, but being (or trying to be) a true scientist, I accept that there are things I do no know.

Hans

Hans

[SumDood]

I go a bit further from a lack of belief to an active disbelief: "I believe there is no god". Which puts me pretty close to level 7 on Dawkins's scale.


1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

source: http://christophersisk.com/dawkins-belief-scale-images/

I'm putting myself at about 6.5 since as an open, scientifically minded individual, I must accept the possibility that a god or gods may exists, i just put that possibility at the same range that we all live in the matrix or i'm just a brain in a vat.


Hello, agnostic here. Not an atheist. If I was an atheist, I'd damn well say so. In public even. It is not inconceivable that there is something beyond our ability to know, call it God for want of a better word. Personally, I don't think this god-thingie would bother with the tiny planet Earth or individual humans but that's just me.

It's a bit insulting to say that "agnostic" is just a prettier label for the spineless.

A personal inquiry, if you don't mind, but why agnostic and not atheist? I really can't figure out a way to ask this without sounding like a jerk, but are you agnostic regarding all gods or just the christian/jewish god?


There is no such a things as an "agnostic" alone. You are either agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist. By saying "you don't know if there is something or nothing" you take the coward way to refuse to answer the question. Because in reality in your own life, you will live your life as if there was nothing, aka agnostic atheist, or you will live it as if possibly there is something , aka agnostic theist. Living it as if the question is fully unanswerable and both possibility exists, is not possible. You WILL consciously or not , fall in either category. And in my experience, people which say they are simply "agnostic" are in reality agnostic atheist once they give it thought or take the courage to formulate loudly how they live their life.

What is the difference between living one's life as an agnostic atheist vs as an agnostic theist?

[MRC_Hans]

There is no such a things as an "agnostic" alone. You are either agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist. By saying "you don't know if there is something or nothing" you take the coward way to refuse to answer the question. Because in reality in your own life, you will live your life as if there was nothing, aka agnostic atheist, or you will live it as if possibly there is something , aka agnostic theist. Living it as if the question is fully unanswerable and both possibility exists, is not possible. You WILL consciously or not , fall in either category. And in my experience, people which say they are simply "agnostic" are in reality agnostic atheist once they give it thought or take the courage to formulate loudly how they live their life.This has nothing to do with courage (unless perhaps if you live in Kansas), but otherwise you are partly right, except that it is not either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, but a continuous scale between assuming no god, but leaving the door open, to assuming god, but not feeling able to define or know god.

You must also remember that there are other gods than theist's gods.

Hans

[Darat]

surely any true scientist would have to be agnostic as there are no absolutes. Although the body of evidence suggests there is no God the existence of a God cannot be ruled out.
Why can't "I don't know but the probability is small" be an acceptable stance?

Because that is really just a generalisation about knowledge rather than anything specific about knowledge of a god or gods. All statements (including this one) are conditional in that sense.

To someone who replied in that way to me I would ask them which god or gods do they believe in, if they answer with "none" then they are an atheist.

[Darat]

Hello, agnostic here. Not an atheist. If I was an atheist, I'd damn well say so. In public even. It is not inconceivable that there is something beyond our ability to know, call it God for want of a better word. Personally, I don't think this god-thingie would bother with the tiny planet Earth or individual humans but that's just me.

It's a bit insulting to say that "agnostic" is just a prettier label for the spineless.

Following on from my post above... :)

Which god or gods do you believe in?

[Rasmus]

Yog-Sothoth would be a first approximation.

I am serious. I am willing to entertain the notion that

tjhat doesn't address my question.

I don't care if you are willing to entertain the notion that - I want to know if you think that is actually so.

I don't care if you think it might be true, or if you believe that you can or cannot prove it.

The question is: Do you believe this to be so?

I, for example, do not believe that my bank account currently has a balance of one million dollars.

It *might*, though. It is perfectly possible that someone made an error transferring a large sum of money that ended up on my account, after all. I don#t think it is so, but I don't know for certain right now. (I could check - but I haven't actually checked.)



Universe has some kind of guiding intelligence. What I absolutely do not believe is that said intelligence has any particular interest in human species, or views are any different than we view an ant farm. And if we were somehow capable of attracting its attention, that would be conducive for prolonged existence of individual involved. Or for anything within 1000 light-years, for all I know. So, Yog-Sothoth is a good approximation.

Thank you.

I most certainly do not believe in heaven, hell, immortal soul, or personal god who answers prayers and gets peeved if his is not supplicated.

Again, thank you. But the important question is: Beyond thinking it's possible, do you actually think this is so?

[Bikewer]

Even Dawkins maintains that a thinking atheist must reserve some portion of agnosticism.

This only because we can't prove a negative; there might be some super-powerful being which could easily hide from us if it wished to.
However, Dawkins also says that the probability of such a being is very, very low...

I have no problem defining myself as atheist. There may be some possibility of a god of some sort....I'll patiently await the production of any evidence.

I have even heard some apologists of late speaking about a model of god which is "outside of the universe" and having no characteristics or traits that humans could percieve.
To me, this is sort of a "god just to have a god". I cannot see this as being in any practical way different from having no god at all.
It's much the same model proposed by Deists long ago.

[Mark6]

tjhat doesn't address my question.

I don't care if you are willing to entertain the notion that - I want to know if you think that is actually so.

I don't care if you think it might be true, or if you believe that you can or cannot prove it.

The question is: Do you believe this to be so?

I, for example, do not believe that my bank account currently has a balance of one million dollars.

It *might*, though. It is perfectly possible that someone made an error transferring a large sum of money that ended up on my account, after all. I don#t think it is so, but I don't know for certain right now. (I could check - but I haven't actually checked.)





Thank you.



Again, thank you. But the important question is: Beyond thinking it's possible, do you actually think this is so?
I would put the probability of such entity existing on the order of 1%. Much higher than probability of teapot orbiting the Sun, or the bank error you mentioned, yet still not very likely.

[Mark6]

Yog-Sothoth would be a first approximation.

I am serious. I am willing to entertain the notion that Universe has some kind of guiding intelligence. What I absolutely do not believe is that said intelligence has any particular interest in human species, or views are any different than we view an ant farm. And if we were somehow capable of attracting its attention, that would be conducive for prolonged existence of individual involved. Or for anything within 1000 light-years, for all I know. So, Yog-Sothoth is a good approximation.

I most certainly do not believe in heaven, hell, immortal soul, or personal god who answers prayers and gets peeved if his is not supplicated.
Oops. I meant to write "that would be not conducive for prolonged existence of individual involved."

[Rasmus]

I would put the probability of such entity existing on the order of 1%.

That was not my question.

Can you bring yourself to say either "I do believe there is such a god as I just described" or "I don't think there is such a god as I just described"?

You either hold the belive that there is a god to be true, or you do not hold it to be true - which is not the same thing as holding it to be false.

It's funny - this is how these discussions always turn out - and yet people are surprised if self-described "agnostics" are just seen as atheists without balls. If that's not so, then why can you not answer a simple, single question about what it is you actually believe?

[The Man]

I think people get too hung up on labels and grouping others or themselves into certain classifications. I for one have never gone for group affiliations; I can never remember the secret handshakes and the decoder rings never seem to fit.

When forced to label myself, in the regard being discussed, I generally give that label as agnostic simply because I know of no god for myself. Certainly others feel they do know some god and that simple belief along with some worship and perhaps sacrifice is, from my limited understanding, all a god needs to exist. So I certainly do not doubt or disbelieve in the existence of gods (for others) or even the effects they may have on my life (through those others). I simply do not know of any god myself or how I might even possibly come to believe, worship or perhaps even sacrifice to such a god.

However if someone simply chooses to label me themselves as atheist, agnostic atheist or just doofus I tend to be rather apathetic about it. I put more credence (as little credence as I do give for labeling people) in how people choose to label themselves, in the regard being discussed, than how others might choose label them.

Other labels I might tend to apply to myself in this regard.

Apatheism

Apathetic agnosticism

[Doubt]

There is no such a things as an "agnostic" alone. You are either agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist. By saying "you don't know if there is something or nothing" you take the coward way to refuse to answer the question.

I am an agnostic.

I do not know if there is a god and I do not care, given any gods lack of involvement with the world.

Before you call people cowards you may wish to straighten out that false dichotomy of yours.

[volatile]

I am an agnostic.

An agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? Pick one. "Agnostic" is not a position of belief.

I do not know if there is a god and I do not care, given any gods lack of involvement with the world.

Oh... so you're an agnostic atheist, then. Glad you cleared that up.

[The Man]

Believing one does not know and/or simply does not care is "a position of belief”. Why do you feel a need to force one of your ‘positions of belief’ onto others?.

[Darat]

Believing one does not know and/or simply does not care is "a position of belief”. Why do you feel a need to force one of your ‘positions of belief’ onto others?.

Which god or gods do you believe in?

[Trent Wray]

I will generally work within whatever your belief is. I won't mirror it, but I'll play with it and question it and try to speak the language of it and respect it. If you believe in God, I can go there. If not, I can go there also. It's not out of cowardice, rather it's out of curiosity for where your life has been and where it's headed. What does this make me I wonder?

[iknownothing]

It seems like a lot of people describe themselves as agnostic because they don't believe right now, but leave room for the possibility that they could believe if some really convincing proof came along.

But I don't really see the difference between that and just being an atheist. Because if some really convincing proof came along (God descending in clouds sort of unarguable proof), an atheist could change his mind. Atheist doesn't mean disbelieving in God no matter what evidence, but because of the evidence (or lack thereof). If the evidence changed, then the opinion would follow.

Which is still the opposite of a theist, who will steadfastly believe no matter how much evidence has to be ignored.

[The Man]

Which god or gods do you believe in?


As I said before.


When forced to label myself, in the regard being discussed, I generally give that label as agnostic simply because I know of no god for myself. Certainly others feel they do know some god and that simple belief along with some worship and perhaps sacrifice is, from my limited understanding, all a god needs to exist. So I certainly do not doubt or disbelieve in the existence of gods (for others) or even the effects they may have on my life (through those others). I simply do not know of any god myself or how I might even possibly come to believe, worship or perhaps even sacrifice to such a god.

So if by “believe in” you mean ‘believe in the existence of’ than as I said, if someone believes and follows then technically it exists even if just through that belief and their actions. So the answer would be whatever god or gods anyone believes in and follows.

If by “believe in” you mean ‘follow the teachings or edicts of’ than as I said before “I know of no god for myself”, but again as others do influence and affect my life and they do follow the teachings or edicts of some god, then by proxy I’m forced to do so as well to some degree (at least as far as my interactions with them might be concerned).

If you mean something different by “do you believe in”, then you are going to have to be more specific in your question.

You might well ask “Which god or gods do” I disbelieve in and the answer would be none, since someone believing in them could result in both their belief and thus their god having some influence upon my life or the world.

[Rasmus]

I think people get too hung up on labels and grouping others or themselves into certain classifications. I for one have never gone for group affiliations; I can never remember the secret handshakes and the decoder rings never seem to fit.

It's simple:

You're either a smoker or a non-smoker.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you used to smoke and gave up, or if you never smoked in your life. You're a non-smoker or a smoker. You might have the occasional cigarette or go through five packs a day. Maybe you enjoy being a chain smoker or you are looking back on years of trying to stop the habit. Maybenk smoking would be cool, but you have asthma.

Still, you're either a smoker or a non-smoker. Nobody claims that this will give a complete and fair characterization of each and every individual - but at the end of the day, you can group every single person on the face of the planet into either of the two groups.

[Third Eye Open]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_240214ba782be95780.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19492)

[volatile]

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_240214ba782be95780.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19492)

This.

[volatile]

You might well ask “Which god or gods do” I disbelieve in and the answer would be none, since someone believing in them could result in both their belief and thus their god having some influence upon my life or the world.

This makes you an atheist. Quite clearly.

[Darat]

As I said before. ...snip...

If you mean something different by “do you believe in”, then you are going to have to be more specific in your question.

You might well ask “Which god or gods do” I disbelieve in and the answer would be none, since someone believing in them could result in both their belief and thus their god having some influence upon my life or the world.

By believe in - I mean which god or gods do you believe exist or exists?

[The Man]

It's simple:

You're either a smoker or a non-smoker.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you used to smoke and gave up, or if you never smoked in your life. You're a non-smoker or a smoker. You might have the occasional cigarette or go through five packs a day. Maybe you enjoy being a chain smoker or you are looking back on years of trying to stop the habit. Maybenk smoking would be cool, but you have asthma.

Still, you're either a smoker or a non-smoker. Nobody claims that this will give a complete and fair characterization of each and every individual - but at the end of the day, you can group every single person on the face of the planet into either of the two groups.

I smoke cigars thus I’m a smoker. Belief is not as simple as some definable action like smoking. Though I do not know of any gods that could exist for me personally, they do exist for others and thus I must act accordingly. Your smoking analogy only demonstrates why grouping “every single person on the face of the planet into either of the two groups” atheist or theist is a false dichotomy, because there is no defining action or activity that forces one to be only in one or the other group.

[The Man]

This makes you an atheist. Quite clearly.

From your “position of belief” and again how you choose to label me is of little concern to me.

[volatile]

From your “position of belief” and again how you choose to label me is of little concern to me.

It's not my fault - or my interest, really - that you choose to use quite useful philosophical terms incorrectly and in such as way as to render them meaningless. You can carry on using them wrongly and meaninglessly if you want.

Sorry for trying to educate you. Clearly our efforts were wasted.

[volatile]

Though I do not know of any gods that could exist for me personally,.

This means you are an atheist. An agnostic atheist.

These words have meanings.

[The Man]

By believe in - I mean which god or gods do you believe exist or exists?

Again from my understanding of gods, that someone believes in them, worships and perhaps even sacrifices to them is all they require to exists.


So the answer would be whatever god or gods anyone believes in and follows.

[volatile]

Again from my understanding of gods, that someone believes in them, worships and perhaps even sacrifices to them is all they require to exists.

By that definition, you believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Xenu. In which case, you're a theist. If you believe a God exists, you are a theist. If you do not believe a God exists, you are an atheist. Statements on this issue are necessarily binary, and necessarily ontological.

"Agnostic" is a separate category - an epistemological rather than an ontological position. This, too, is binary. It's not a scale. It cannot, both logically and by definition, be a scale.

[The Man]

It's not my fault - or my interest, really - that you choose to use quite useful philosophical terms incorrectly and in such as way as to render them meaningless. You can carry on using them wrongly and meaninglessly if you want.

Sorry for trying to educate you. Clearly our efforts were wasted.

"...choose to use quite useful philosophical terms incorrectly and in such as way as to render them meaningless"? Another "position of belief" for you?


This means you are an atheist. An agnostic atheist.

These words have meanings.

So do these.

…again how you choose to label me is of little concern to me.

[Rasmus]

I smoke cigars thus I’m a smoker. Belief is not as simple as some definable action like smoking.

Or so you claim. But that's not the problem, either, is it? We are not arguing about what it means to believe, are we? At least I don't see that being discussed. Most people are quite clear on what that means. Ask a Christian or Hindu or Muslim or Jew if they believe in a god - chances are, they will be able to answer your question without a huge discussion about what it means to believe.

Though I do not know of any gods that could exist for me personally, they do exist for others and thus I must act accordingly.

Irrelevant. And no, you must not. That others believe that a god exists doesn't mean you'd have to act in a way as if you believed it did, too.

Your smoking analogy only demonstrates why grouping “every single person on the face of the planet into either of the two groups” atheist or theist is a false dichotomy, because there is no defining action or activity that forces one to be only in one or the other group.

Yes, there is. Believe in at least one deity. Granted, it's a characteristic rather than an activity - but so what?

You're either blonde or you're not. You're either male or you're not. You don't have to be female if you aren#t male. Maybe you are only part male, but none of that has any bearing on the question of whether you are male. You either are, or aren't. It will probably not give a complete and fair description of you, but be that as i may: You fall squarely into the camp of people that are male, or you don't.

[volatile]

"...choose to use quite useful philosophical terms incorrectly and in such as way as to render them meaningless"? Another "position of belief" for you?

No, a question of logic and definitions. Not a matter of "belief" at all. You cannot believe something and not believe it at the same time - it is logically impossible. And yet this is what the way you want to use "agnostic" would imply. It's nonsense, compounded by the fact that the word has another, defined, useful and epistemological meaning which, though it has been explained to you, you continue to ignore. What's so hard about using the right terms for the positions you take? What offends you so much about using the correct words to describe what you're talking about? Is clarity and accuracy an anathema to you?

This conversation is like you're wearing a blue shirt, and you telling us it's yellow.

So do these.I'm not "labelling you". I'm explaining that you're using terms incorrectly. The label applies to the ontological and epistemological positions you express, not you. You can choose to ignore that if you want, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

[The Man]

By that definition, you believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Xenu. In which case, you're a theist. If you believe a God exists, you are a theist. If you do not believe a God exists, you are an atheist. Statements on this issue are necessarily binary, and necessarily ontological.

Seems you don't know what you want to label me now.


"Agnostic" is a separate category - an epistemological rather than an ontological position. This, too, is binary. It's not a scale. It cannot, both logically and by definition, be a scale.

As I said I know of no gods for me, if that makes me an atheist or agnostic atheist in your “position of belief” fine. If that I am more then willing to accept the existence of gods for and by others makes me a theist in your “position of belief” that’s fine with me as well, the only problem seems to be with your binary “position of belief”.

[volatile]

Seems you don't know what you want to label me now.

I'm not labelling you. I'm explaining the correct, coherent, consistent and logical terms for the the positions you express.

If you believe a god exists, you are a theist. If you do not belive a god exists, you are an atheist. How "sure" you are has no bearing.


As I said I know of no gods for me, if that makes me an atheist or agnostic atheist in your “position of belief” fine.

It's not my anything. It's the correct descriptive, meaningful and logical set of terms for describing ontological and epistemological positions regarding positions on the existence of and possibility of knowledge about god(s). " I know of no gods for me" means you are an agnostic atheist. That's just the correct label for the position you're expressing. You cannot argue that - it would be like arguing that grass is pink.

The "binary" is inherent in the definitions and in the logic of the terms. You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe. If you do not believe in any gods, atheist. It's that simple.

[Darat]

Again from my understanding of gods, that someone believes in them, worships and perhaps even sacrifices to them is all they require to exists.

That would mean that you believe that the Roman Catholic God, as believed in by the RC theists, exists, which is not what I suspect you do believe?

[CurtC]

Though I do not know of any gods that could exist for me personally, they do exist for others and thus I must act accordingly.
This thread is mostly about word definitions. You seem to be an atheist according to how most educated people use the word. You may not choose to describe yourself with that term, but most of us do.

However, this idea that gods "exist" for other people just because people believe in them, is stretching the usage of words too far. You're substituting your own definitions of words that contradict the commonly understood meanings, and that renders your statements as unintelligible to most of us. Having somewhat standard definitions of words is pretty central to communication, but here you're chucking that all aside and assigning your own meanings to words. That can't help us communicate.

[Darat]

This thread is mostly about word definitions. You seem to be an atheist according to how most educated people use the word. You may not choose to describe yourself with that term, but most of us do.

However, this idea that gods "exist" for other people just because people believe in them, is stretching the usage of words too far. You're substituting your own definitions of words that contradict the commonly understood meanings, and that renders your statements as unintelligible to most of us. Having somewhat standard definitions of words is pretty central to communication, but here you're chucking that all aside and assigning your own meanings to words. That can't help us communicate.

And of course it is completely redefining what the word god means to someone else! A RC theist believes in a god that is described in the Bible and in RC creed, this is a starting point for that description:


1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.


The Man - do you believe in that god?

[dasmiller]

The "binary" is inherent in the definitions and in the logic of the terms. You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe.

Uncertainty is impossible? Do you believe that I have a $5 bill in my wallet?

[volatile]

Uncertainty is impossible? Do you believe that I have a $5 bill in my wallet?

I don't know if you have a $5 bill in your wallet. As I do not know (ontologically), I would be an "agnostic a-dollarist" on that issue.

Uncertainty is possible, but uncertainty still logically puts you on one side of the binary or the other (on both the ontological and epistemological axes). You cannot believe and not believe at the same time. You cannot know and not know at the same time.

If you don't know, then you're agnostic, but you can be an agnostic theist, because the two axes describe different things. Agnosticism is not halfway between theism and non-theism.

[quixotecoyote]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/atheist_chart.gif
Possibly original to http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1467

[biomorph]

surely any true scientist would have to be agnostic as there are no absolutes.

"true scientsts" *could* hold any belief, be agnostic, or whatever.
The scientist's own personal faith based issues are ignored by the scientific method they employ, if not, the results might get well, a touch unreliable.

Although the body of evidence suggests there is no God the existence of a God cannot be ruled out.
Yes it can., and is, often. Just say no....lol

Why can't "I don't know but the probability is small" be an acceptable stance?


because thats where knowledge has driven such ideas, and its not getting any more probable, in fact it gets more improbable (so far!) as we look at reality.

So the probability isn't just undeniably really low, its getting lower as long as we look, real fast too.

so the remote probability one might entertain is a value that is shrinking.

At what point on that decreasing probability of existance do you say "Ok that's enough"?

that i'll leave to you....

[supermanlives]

The way I look at it is this...

Beliefs in different gods have come and gone ever since humankind has been 'intelligent' enough to devise such a being. For that simple fact, the god of all current religions DO NOT exist, since all others before them have been disproven. The problem of today is that SOME theists try to be smart enough to through out a question too difficult to answer 'right away'. As technology advances, and as more people question the validity of the claims that religions offer, the more we will all collectively say 'there is no god' with certainty.

I am an atheist...there is NO god.

[Dave Rogers]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/atheist_chart.gif
Possibly original to http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1467

But debatable. I would describe myself as a strong agnostic atheist; although I believe it is impossible to know with certainty, I nevertheless believe there is no god. Which doesn't fit on that chart.

Dave

[quixotecoyote]

The way I look at it is this...

Beliefs in different gods have come and gone ever since humankind has been 'intelligent' enough to devise such a being. For that simple fact, the god of all current religions DO NOT exist, since all others before them have been disproven. The problem of today is that SOME theists try to be smart enough to through out a question too difficult to answer 'right away'. As technology advances, and as more people question the validity of the claims that religions offer, the more we will all collectively say 'there is no god' with certainty.

I am an atheist...there is NO god.

You say that, but I bet if I were to press you you'd admit you couldn't be 100% sure; that it's just really really likely; you wouldn't claim to have privileged knowledge.

That would make you an agnostic.

But even then you wouldn't believe in a god.

So you'd still be an atheist.

[I Am The Scum]

To anyone who still believes that agnosticism is "in between" atheism and theism, would you please indulge me in a brief, simple thought experiment?

This idea is not mine. I first saw it employed by DavidJohnWellman on Youtube. Let us begin.

Grab a blank sheet of paper, and something to write with.
On the paper, write down the name of every god that you believe is real. For example, if you think Yaweh is real, write "Yaweh."
If you believe in that there is a god that is real, yet does not have any specific name, write a brief description.
When you're done, look down at the sheet of paper.
Is it still blank? If so: Hello, fellow atheist!

By the way, what does it mean for a thing to "exist" for one person yet "not exist" for another? If we can come to a common understanding of what "believe" and "exist" mean (and I'm starting to doubt that we can), then we can make some sense of this conversation.

[Mark6]

That was not my question.

Can you bring yourself to say either "I do believe there is such a god as I just described" or "I don't think there is such a god as I just described"?

You either hold the belive that there is a god to be true, or you do not hold it to be true - which is not the same thing as holding it to be false.

Without convincing evidence one way or another, I do not believe anything - I only estimate probablities.

Anyone who says inequivocally "I do not believe there is a guiding intelligence to Universe" is just as dogmatic as someone who claims the opposite.

Of course, I see convincing evidence that every "god" people actually worship does not exist.

[Darat]

Without convincing evidence one way or another, I do not believe anything - I only estimate probablities.

Anyone who says inequivocally "I do not believe there is a guiding intelligence to Universe" is just as dogmatic as someone who claims the opposite.

Of course, I see convincing evidence that every "god" people actually worship does not exist.


Which god or gods do you believe in?



*believe : accept something as true: to accept that something is true or real

[I Am The Scum]

Believe: To accept a given proposition as true.

Mark6, are you honestly telling me that you accept no propositions whatsoever as true?

[RSLancastr]

Here we go again ....

Do you believe that there actually is a god?

If so, tell us a little about that god, please.

If no, you are an atheist.

Here we go again indeed...

There are varying definitions for both agnostic and atheist.

I am agnostic, and, to me, here is the litmus test:

When asked the question "Do you believe in God?", both agnostics and atheists would answer "no."

However, when asked "Is there a God?", the atheist would answer "No", where the agnostic would answer "I don't know."

There is a difference between not believing in God and believing that there is no God. My agnostic stance has nothing to do with some supposed fear of admitting to being an atheist. In my mind, there is a distinct difference between the two, and I am on the agnostic side of that fence.

I will now sit back and wait for the flames telling me that i am an atheist and don't know it.

[Piscivore]

Yog-Sothoth would be a first approximation.

I am serious. I am willing to entertain the notion that Universe has some kind of guiding intelligence. What I absolutely do not believe is that said intelligence has any particular interest in human species, or views are any different than we view an ant farm. And if we were somehow capable of attracting its attention, that would be not conducive for prolonged existence of individual involved. Or for anything within 1000 light-years, for all I know. So, Yog-Sothoth is a good approximation.

I most certainly do not believe in heaven, hell, immortal soul, or personal god who answers prayers and gets peeved if his is not supplicated.

Seconded.

[Mark6]

Believe: To accept a given proposition as true.

Mark6, are you honestly telling me that you accept no propositions whatsoever as true?
Only with evidence.

[tsig]

Yes, and I think they're incorrect to do so. It seems to me that agnosticism is not only on a different axis of belief than atheism, but also - if genuinely held - a more considered one. It's very simple and straightforward to hold the opinion, "I've never seen any evidence for a god, and the attributes claimed for gods are impossibly complex, therefore I don't believe there is one," which is pretty much the strong atheist position. However, the question, "Is it possible to know with certainty whether there is or is not a god?" is such an abstruse philosophical concept that I seriously doubt that most people have ever really considered it. Yet, when people claim to be agnostics, according to the formal definition of the term they should be claiming that they have considered that question and settled, at least provisionally, on the answer "No." Which is a very different thing from saying, "I haven't decided..." or "I'm not sure whether there is or is not a god."

Dave

Why did you toss the phrase "with certainty" in there? Looks like you've already dropped a special pleading for god right in your question.

Are there other things you need to know "with certainty"?

[quixotecoyote]

Here we go again indeed...

There are varying definitions for both agnostic and atheist.

I am agnostic, and, to me, here is the litmus test:

When asked the question "Do you believe in God?", both agnostics and atheists would answer "no."

However, when asked "Is there a God?", the atheist would answer "No", where the agnostic would answer "I don't know."

There is a difference between not believing in God and believing that there is no God. My agnostic stance has nothing to do with some supposed fear of admitting to being an atheist. In my mind, there is a distinct difference between the two, and I am on the agnostic side of that fence.

I will now sit back and wait for the flames telling me that i am an atheist and don't know it.

Hardly a flame, just that your hypothetical atheist looks stuffed with a bit of straw.

Most atheists, barring a few fringers, when asked "Is there a God?" would answer with some abbreviated version of: "All evidence points to no, but it's impossible to be 100% sure as one cannot prove a negative."

Gnostic atheists are rare.
Agnostic atheists are garden variety.

[iknownothing]

However, when asked "Is there a God?", the atheist would answer "No", where the agnostic would answer "I don't know."

There is a difference between not believing in God and believing that there is no God.

But again, the atheist believes there is no god based on the complete lack of any evidence for such a thing. But if real, strong evidence would turn up somehow, atheists would take that into consideration and possibly change their minds.

So an atheist saying he "believes" there is no god is entirely different from a theist "believing" there is a god. Same word, two meanings. Atheist belief is more like saying "I believe in brushing my teeth twice a day." If strong evidence comes in that brushing 3 times a day makes a big difference, then your "belief" would change to fit the new data.

Some agnostics truly take no position at all, I guess. But if you are an agnostic who sees no reason to believe in any god you've ever heard of, then the only difference between you and an atheist is semantics. You are both non-believers, but may change your minds if given a reason too. The only difference is an agnostic spells out that technicality, and an atheist doesn't.

[quixotecoyote]

You're right, but you're a bit off-topic. The nature of belief may be different, but I don't think it relates to categorization.

[Mark6]

Which god or gods do you believe in?

*believe : accept something as true: to accept that something is true or real
None.

Nor do I "accept that something is true" gods' non-existence -- for sufficiently broad definition of "gods".

[quixotecoyote]

wrong thread

[Third Eye Open]

You say that, but I bet if I were to press you you'd admit you couldn't be 100% sure; that it's just really really likely; you wouldn't claim to have privileged knowledge.

That would make you an agnostic.

But even then you wouldn't believe in a god.

So you'd still be an atheist.

I disagree. This makes the term 'agnostic' completely useless.
If i pressed you enough, you'd admit that you couldn't be 100% sure that the moon exists. Does this mean that you are agnostic about the moon?
100% certainty about anything does not exist in rational people. Tacking the term 'agnostic' on to anything that you are not absolutely certain about makes the word meaningless.

[quixotecoyote]

I disagree. This makes the term 'agnostic' completely useless.
If i pressed you enough, you'd admit that you couldn't be 100% sure that the moon exists. Does this mean that you are agnostic about the moon?
100% certainty about anything does not exist in rational people. Tacking the term 'agnostic' on to anything that you are not absolutely certain about makes the word meaningless.

No, because in a religious context, gnosticism is prevalent. Religion isn't rational. In normal day to day life it would be silly to have to tack agnostic onto everything because we recognize the limits of perception and logic and the fact that we could be wrong. Religion isn't like that. Quite a few of the faithful KNOW that their god exists, 100%, period. That's why the divide exists in this context.

eta:I guess that means you're sort of right. It's a silly term to have to include. But a lot of people don't want to leave things at belief/non-belief, meaning theism/atheism. They want to tack on a disclaimer that says that while they may not believe, they don't know with 100% certainty and aren't claiming to disprove god. Thus agnosticism.

[Mark6]

I disagree. This makes the term 'agnostic' completely useless.
If i pressed you enough, you'd admit that you couldn't be 100% sure that the moon exists. Does this mean that you are agnostic about the moon?
100% certainty about anything does not exist in rational people. Tacking the term 'agnostic' on to anything that you are not absolutely certain about makes the word meaningless.
I would not call someone not 100% sure Moon exists "rational".

"If I asked you on a cloudy day can you be sure Sun is in the sky, would you say yes?"
"Of course not. Someone could be supplying artificial light, for all I know."

That is not rational thinking either (although necessary in the book's context).

[Aepervius]

But debatable. I would describe myself as a strong agnostic atheist; although I believe it is impossible to know with certainty, I nevertheless believe there is no god. Which doesn't fit on that chart.

Dave

It *IS* the definition of an agnostic atheist. The term strong or weak has nothing to do direcly to how much convinced you are.

Basically agnostic=you believe it is impossible to know with certainty and there is nog god =atheist.

Agnostic Atheist.

[Third Eye Open]

I would not call someone not 100% sure Moon exists "rational".

That is not rational thinking either (although necessary in the book's context).

We could be in a computer simulation, meaning that nothing 'really' exists, including the moon. A tiny tiny fraction of a percent, if you pressed really hard. But yes, no rational person considers those possibilities for very long. I just brought it up to illustrate my point that attaching the term 'agnostic' onto things that you are certain about, but just not ABSOLUTELY certain about, is pointless.

I am a gnostic atheist. I think we can know if there are gods or not, and I am convinced that there is none.

If I were an agnostic atheist, that would mean I think that there is not much evidence leaning either way, but would be going with the default position of non belief.

A true agnostic would have no opinion either way, and may not even think it is possible to ever know.

[bookitty]

Here we go again ....

Do you believe that there actually is a god?

If so, tell us a little about that god, please.

If no, you are an atheist.

OK, I believe that there is the possibility of something that our brains are too small or our lives too short to understand. I can not explain what this god-thingie might be, anything that looks as if it might be a sign of the god-thingie is naturally suspect. (Anyway, if I did believe that I could explain it, I would be a theist.)

[Corky]

They say that one cannot prove the existence of any gods and that one cannot disprove the existence of a god. However, the existence of biblegod is disproved in the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Actually, in the first chapter, the other 10 chapters only provide further evidence.

[Hokulele]

I am an ignostic and proud of it. Unless anyone can tell me exactly what a "god" is and can at least explain what the evidence should be (regardless of whether or not such evidence can be provided), there is no point in discussing its existence.

[Piscivore]

I believe in many gods I know are imaginary because it amuses me to do so.
Hail Eris!

[CurtC]

They say that one cannot prove the existence of any gods and that one cannot disprove the existence of a god. However, the existence of biblegod is disproved in the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Actually, in the first chapter, the other 10 chapters only provide further evidence.

The existence of a god could is provable - just have it show up and do god stuff.

We can't disprove some vaguely-defined concept of God, but if the definition of God includes logical impossibilities (like the first two chapters of Genesis, or the traditional idea of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient entity), then that definition of God disproves itself.

[quixotecoyote]

I am an ignostic and proud of it. Unless anyone can tell me exactly what a "god" is and can at least explain what the evidence should be (regardless of whether or not such evidence can be provided), there is no point in discussing its existence.

Yeah, I'm that too.

Ignostic in general and atheistic for any god with a semi-meaningful definition.

[quixotecoyote]

We could be in a computer simulation, meaning that nothing 'really' exists, including the moon. A tiny tiny fraction of a percent, if you pressed really hard. But yes, no rational person considers those possibilities for very long. I just brought it up to illustrate my point that attaching the term 'agnostic' onto things that you are certain about, but just not ABSOLUTELY certain about, is pointless.

I am a gnostic atheist. I think we can know if there are gods or not, and I am convinced that there is none.

If I were an agnostic atheist, that would mean I think that there is not much evidence leaning either way, but would be going with the default position of non belief.

A true agnostic would have no opinion either way, and may not even think it is possible to ever know.

I know the thread's moving fast, so instead of rehashing my previous reply, I'll direct you to the wiki on gnosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

That's the kind of knowledge you're claiming to have as an gnostic atheist.

I don't think you really mean that.

[Uncle Otto]

I once delivered a "sermon" in a UUA church on this subject. Here is my take on it---------my rule of thumb if you will---------

If you hold forth no positive belief in any one or more "gods" or "deities", you are an atheist. You are without theism------end of discussion. That you may be agnostic into the bargain is secondary. Most atheists are probably also agnostic in reality. Don't confuse belief with knowledge.

Atheism deals with a lack of belief about something. Agnosticism deals with a lack of knowledge about something. The two are related and overlapping. They in no way cancel each other out, and are not contradictory.

I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist. But I've found that identifying myself this way causes confusion to those not well read in the literature on the subject, so I just identify as an atheist to most people when the subject comes up.

[Third Eye Open]

I know the thread's moving fast, so instead of rehashing my previous reply, I'll direct you to the wiki on gnosis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

That's the kind of knowledge you're claiming to have as an gnostic atheist.

I don't think you really mean that.

Well, then, that term also seems pretty useless. Who really claims that kind of knowledge about anything?

I guess I'll just stick with atheist then, guh, labels are annoying.

[quixotecoyote]

Well, then, that term also seems pretty useless. Who really claims that kind of knowledge about anything?


The religious. Which is why agnosticism goes along so well with atheism. :)

[Dave Rogers]

Why did you toss the phrase "with certainty" in there? Looks like you've already dropped a special pleading for god right in your question.

You're right. In fact, it's redundant with the meaning of the word 'know'.

Are there other things you need to know "with certainty"?

No, and that's rather the point. I'm about as certain that there is no god as I am that things will fall when I drop them, which has to be very slightly less than 100%. So if you're suggesting that I'm overstating my level of uncertainty about the nonexistence of god compared to my level of uncertainty about everything else in order to justify the label 'agnostic', then you may be right. On the other hand, theists will cling to that infinitesmal scintilla of doubt like a lifeline and claim it as an inconsistency in an atheist's beliefs if it's not stated up-front, so it's one way of denying them that particular diversionary tactic.

Dave

[Richard Masters]

There is no such a things as an "agnostic" alone. You are either agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist. By saying "you don't know if there is something or nothing" you take the coward way to refuse to answer the question.

I don't think so. For about a year or two I was still weighing the evidence, and did consider myself just agnostic. Now I consider myself agnostic atheist, but now I have some strong arguments to back my position.

Being just agnostic was not just a way to refuse to answer the question, although it is a convenient way to appease religious nuts and hold a more productive discussion (otherwise they might refuse to hear anything you have to say. This way they think they have a chance of converting you).

[Doubt]

An agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist? Pick one. "Agnostic" is not a position of belief.



Oh... so you're an agnostic atheist, then. Glad you cleared that up.

No. I am an agnostic. Given that I cannot know, what I believe does not matter. My position on belief is I don't care. Full stop. Belief or the lack of it is irrelevant from my perspective.

[Darat]

No. I am an agnostic. Given that I cannot know, what I believe does not matter. My position on belief is I don't care. Full stop. Belief or the lack of it is irrelevant from my perspective.

Which god or gods do you believe in?



















;)

[volatile]

No. I am an agnostic. Given that I cannot know, what I believe does not matter. My position on belief is I don't care. Full stop. Belief or the lack of it is irrelevant from my perspective.

If you do not believe, you are an atheist. "Not caring" falls under the same heading as not believing. Darat's posts explain that quite well. If you do not believe in any Gods, you are an atheist; it's that simple.

[dasmiller]

If you do not believe, you are an atheist. "Not caring" falls under the same heading as not believing. Darat's posts explain that quite well. If you do not believe in any Gods, you are an atheist; it's that simple.

So you use the same term for "Convinced that there is an absence of gods" and "unconvinced about the absence of gods?"

[volatile]

So you use the same term for "Convinced that there is an absence of gods" and "unconvinced about the absence of gods?"

No.

That's where "agnostic" and "gnostic" come in. ""Convinced that there is an absence of gods" is a gnostic atheist. As for "unconvinced about the absence of gods?", it's unclear what you mean. If you meant "unconvinced about the presence of gods", that's agnostic atheist. If you actually meant "unconvinced about the absence of gods" in that you believe there is a God, that's an agnostic theist.

As Darat said, if you can't name a God or being with godly attributes in which you believe, you are an atheist. Your degree of conviction doesn't come into the theist/atheist binary. Logically, it cannot.

[Darat]

So you use the same term for "Convinced that there is an absence of gods" and "unconvinced about the absence of gods?"

I use the term "atheist" as a label for those people that when asked "Which god or gods do you believe in?" answer with "none" - will such a label tell me everything about how they reached or why they think it is "none"? Of course not but that is the same for all such labels.

[Doubt]

If you do not believe, you are an atheist. "Not caring" falls under the same heading as not believing. Darat's posts explain that quite well. If you do not believe in any Gods, you are an atheist; it's that simple.

By the definition you appear to be using, everybody is an atheist of one form or another. Since (almost) nobody believes in all gods, everybody is an atheist to all the gods they don't believe in. At that point the term atheist is rendered useless.

[paximperium]

By the definition you appear to be using, everybody is an atheist of one form or another. Since (almost) nobody believes in all gods, everybody is an atheist to all the gods they don't believe in. At that point the term atheist is rendered useless.
No. Most theists are atheist to many other gods but are only theistic to their own particular beliefs.

I and most atheists just take that one step further. I don't believe in any gods.

[Darat]

By the definition you appear to be using, everybody is an atheist of one form or another. Since (almost) nobody believes in all gods, everybody is an atheist to all the gods they don't believe in. At that point the term atheist is rendered useless.

Not at all. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any god. Someone who believes in one god or more is a theist.

[Doubt]

Not at all. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in any god. Someone who believes in one god or more is a theist.

Dictionary.com would not quite support that. Although it may just be a case of a sloppy definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist


–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Now if that said all supreme beings instead of a.....But maybe that is what they had in mind.

In any event, if you wish to call me atheist, that would be your choice and not mine. But once you reach a point of understanding that you cannot know for sure if there is a god, what is the point of defining yourself based on what you don't believe? I would rather define my self based on what I do or do not know rather than what I do or do not believe.

[volatile]

In any event, if you wish to call me atheist, that would be your choice and not mine.

No. It would be the correct and only logically-coherent label for your professed belief via-a-vis the existence of (a) god. That is no more "my choice" than telling you the grass is green, even if you want to persist in calling it red.

[Dave Rogers]

If you do not believe in any Gods, you are an atheist; it's that simple.

By the definition you appear to be using, everybody is an atheist of one form or another.

Do you understand the meaning of the grammatical construction 'not [...] any...'? It seems perfectly clear to me that the clauses "If you do not believe in any gods..." and "If there are any gods you do not believe in..." have radically different meanings.

Dave

[paximperium]

In any event, if you wish to call me atheist, that would be your choice and not mine. But once you reach a point of understanding that you cannot know for sure if there is a god, what is the point of defining yourself based on what you don't believe? I would rather define my self based on what I do or do not know rather than what I do or do not believe.
The day that atheist need to stop calling themselves atheists is the day theists automatically assume everyone is a believer and stop pushing their beliefs onto other.

[volatile]

t once you reach a point of understanding that you cannot know for sure if there is a god, what is the point of defining yourself based on what you don't believe?

That is the "gnosis" part of the full description "agnostic atheist". "Agnostic" is not (and logically cannot) be halfway between atheist and theist, because gnosticism is an epistemological position (a position regarding knowledge) and theism is an ontological position (a position regarding existence). They're two entirely different questions.

If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. The degree of certainty does not come into that particular descriptor. If you need to clarify your epistemological stance, then you are an agnostic atheist.

[paximperium]

That is the "gnosis" part of the full description "agnostic atheist". "Agnostic" is not (and logically cannot) be halfway between atheist and theist, because gnosticism is an epistemological position (a position regarding knowledge) and theism is an ontological position (a position regarding existence). They're two entirely different questions.

If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. The degree of certainty does not come into that particular descriptor. If you need to clarify your epistemological stance, then you are an agnostic atheist.
As an aside, the term Atheist is as much a self label(or occasional derogatory term) as much as a descriptive term. I have no issue with people who call themselves Agnostics(who are actually agnostic atheists) and prefer to avoid the Atheist label due to the social and historical baggage that it carries. I prefer to call myself an atheist. It explains a lot and is actually confrontational and not passive like the term "agnostic".

What I have an issue with are self-righteous "agnostics" who think that their position is somehow superior and that people who call themselves atheists are somehow irrational or fanatics. They seem to base this solely on an ignorance of the term and how the label is used.

[volatile]

As an aside, the term Atheist is as much a self label(or occasional derogatory term) as much as a descriptive term.

Well, I'd agree that's the case. But as the late MobySeven of this parish was always keen top point out, that doesn't make "agnostic" any more logically coherent when used to mean "halfway between atheism and theism". Used that way, it's logically nonsensical, and I think here, if nowhere else, we should point that out whenever we see it used that way.

[paximperium]

Well, I'd agree that's the case. But as the late MobySeven of this parish was always keen top point out, that doesn't make "agnostic" any more logically coherent when used to mean "halfway between atheism and theism". Used that way, it's logically nonsensical, and I think here, if nowhere else, we should point that out whenever we see it used that way.I agree.

I'm more a fan of calling myself an Ignostic Atheist. Basically define your god/s and then we'll look at the evidence to see if this god exists. I've yet to see any real coherent and evidenced definition of a god that can't be replaced with words like "nature" or "luck" or the universe.

[volatile]

I agree.

I'm more a fan of calling myself an Ignostic Atheist. Basically define your god/s and then we'll look at the evidence to see if this god exists. I've yet to see any real coherent and evidenced definition of a god that can't be replaced with words like "nature" or "luck" or the universe.

I agree entirely.

[Doubt]

What I have an issue with are self-righteous "agnostics" who think that their position is somehow superior and that people who call themselves atheists are somehow irrational or fanatics. They seem to base this solely on an ignorance of the term and how the label is used.

And what I have is an issue with getting lumped in with what you would call gnostic atheists.

[volatile]

And what I have is an issue with getting lumped in with what you would call gnostic atheists.

"What you call..."? Stop making out like this is some arbitrary labelling system. The terms have (and can only have) one logical set of meanings. The way you want to use "agnostic" is meaningless, because it implies an inherent logical contradiction - believing two contradictory and mutually-exclusive things simultaneously.

If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. That's what the word means.

[Doubt]

"What you call..."? Stop making out like this is some arbitrary labelling system. The terms have (and can only have) one logical set of meanings. The way you want to use "agnostic" is meaningless, because it implies an inherent logical contradiction - believing two contradictory and mutually-exclusive things simultaneously.

If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. That's what the word means.


No, the way I use agnostic is not meaningless. I identify myself based on what I know. Period. If not calling myself and atheist is a problem for you then than is your problem, not mine. And you would have to explain how not stating a belief equals a logical contradiction. That lack of a statement regarding belief is just that. It implies nothing at all rather than, say, the grass being red as you stated previously.

ETA: Also, the reason for using "what you would call" is because many atheists don't distinguish between being gnostic or agnostic.

[dasmiller]

No.

That's where "agnostic" and "gnostic" come in. ""Convinced that there is an absence of gods" is a gnostic atheist. As for "unconvinced about the absence of gods?", it's unclear what you mean. If you meant "unconvinced about the presence of gods", that's agnostic atheist. If you actually meant "unconvinced about the absence of gods" in that you believe there is a God, that's an agnostic theist.

If I were convinced about the presence of gods, then I would be simultaneously convinced about the absence of gods (if I were convinced that they were present, I would be simultaneously convinced that they were not absent).

It follows that if I'm unconvinced about the absence of gods in general, then I'm also unconvinced about their presence, so I don't understand your distinction.

"postively convinced of their presence/negatively convinced of the absence" is theist, the opposite is clearly atheist

But one can be simply unconvinced. Why try to force "unconvinced" to lean one way or the other? If someone's deeply conflicted about it, would you say that they're continually flipping between theist and atheist?

As Darat said, if you can't name a God or being with godly attributes in which you believe, you are an atheist. Your degree of conviction doesn't come into the theist/atheist binary. Logically, it cannot.

It cannot if you define atheist/theist to be a simple binary with no in-between. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.

[volatile]

No, the way I use agnostic is not meaningless.

Yes it is, because it means you simultaneously claim to believe in God and not believe in God at the same time. That, clearly, is meaningless. Whether or not you believe in a god - whether or not you can answer Darat's question - is a binary choice. You cannot answer both Yes and No. It is meaningless

I identify myself based on what I know. Period. If not calling myself and atheist is a problem for you then than is your problem, not mine.Why do you want to ignore the only logical meaning of terms? If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. If you do, you're a theist. Those are your two options. Do you believe in any gods?

And you would have to explain how not stating a belief equals a logical contradiction. That lack of a statement regarding belief is just that. It implies nothing at all rather than, say, the grass being red as you stated previously.Because a lack of a statement of belief puts you slap-bang, square-in-the-middle of "atheist". If you do not believe in any Gods, you are an atheist, even if you think there might be one but are not convinced. I'll say it again: that is what the term means.

Just like "the grass is green" describes the grass, "Doubt is an atheist" describes you. It's a descriptive label. You can't (logically, sensibly) ascribe to the meaning of a word but deny the label itself.

ETA: Also, the reason for using "what you would call" is because many atheists don't distinguish between being gnostic or agnostic.Many people are as ill-informed as you are. Doesn't make them right, or logically coherent.

[I Am The Scum]

I identify myself based on what I know. Period.
How are you defining "know" in this context?

It cannot if you define atheist/theist to be a simple binary with no in-between. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.
Because the law of excluded middle is pretty important.

[volatile]

If I were convinced about the presence of gods, then I would be simultaneously convinced about the absence of gods (if I were convinced that they were present, I would be simultaneously convinced that they were not absent).

Yes.

It follows that if I'm unconvinced about the absence of gods in general, then I'm also unconvinced about their presence, so I don't understand your distinction.

Because "unconvinced about the absence of gods" allows for speculative belief - say, as in Pascal's Wager. It would be possible to be unconvinced about the absence of God and be the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not linguistically the same as "unconvinced about the presence of God", which puts you on the other side of the atheist/theist line. It wasn't linguistically clear what you meant.

But one can be simply unconvinced.

If you are unconvinced of presence, you're an atheist. You do not believe in a God. How (un)convinced you are is by the by as far as the term itself goes. The term is binary. If you believe, theist. If you don't, atheist.

Why is this so complicated for everyone?

[Beth]

Where does someone who isn't certain about whether or not they believe in god fit into your binary terms?

[volatile]

Where does someone who isn't certain about whether or not they believe in god fit into your binary terms?

Do you believe in a God? If "Yes", theist. If not "atheist". I would imagine most people who are "not sure" would come under "atheist", though I'm sure it's possible to find yourself being an unsure theist.

[Doubt]

Yes it is, because it means you simultaneously claim to believe in God and not believe in God at the same time. That, clearly, is meaningless. Whether or not you believe in a god - whether or not you can answer Darat's question - is a binary choice. You cannot answer both Yes and No. It is meaningless

AH, you still are not clear on this. And that is a problem.

Identifying myself as an agnostic does not say a damn thing about belief. For you to say otherwise is a load of BS. I am not answering both yes and no. I am not answering when I state that I am an agnostic.

Are we clear on this now? Or are you going to make up more stuff?

[Hokulele]

I don't see why everyone is giving Doubt such grief here. He has explained what he thinks, what he wants to be called, and why. A lot of this is starting to sound like fundamental Christians telling Catholics they aren't really Christian, or telling atheists they are really Satanists.

Yes, I realize about definitions, etymology, and all that, but religion (or lack thereof) is a fuzzy, gray blob of ambiguity to begin with, so it is much easier to ask someone what they believe and why rather than to go off on a pigeon-holing spree.

[volatile]

AH, you still are not clear on this. And that is a problem.

Identifying myself as an agnostic does not say a damn thing about belief.

Exactly. Now you're getting it. Even if you're "not sure", "agnostic" tells us nothing about your position on the existence of God.

I am not answering both yes and no. I am not answering when I state that I am an agnostic.

Are we clear on this now? Or are you going to make up more stuff?

Yes, you're an agnostic atheist. Which Gods do you believe in? If the answer is "none", you're an atheist.

Which Gods do you believe in?

[volatile]

I don't see why everyone is giving Doubt such grief here. He has explained what he thinks, what he wants to be called, and why. A lot of this is starting to sound like fundamental Christians telling Catholics they aren't really Christian, or telling atheists they are really Satanists.

Yes, I realize about definitions, etymology, and all that, but religion (or lack thereof) is a fuzzy, gray blob of ambiguity to begin with, so it is much easier to ask someone what they believe and why rather than to go off on a pigeon-holing spree.

I don't think that's fair, Hok. "Agnostic" has a specific and useful meaning philosophically, and an ambiguous, weasly, meaningless colloquial usage. I think it's important to point out errors in both language and in logic where they occur.

It's not about "pigeon-holing", it's about coherent and comprehensible communication. "Atheist" is a term which means "has no belief in God". Why would someone resist the term which describes, accurately and fully, their own expressed positions? Doubt does not believe in a God, therefore he is an atheist. He also has no knowledge (epistemologically-speaking) of this absence, therefore he is agnostic. The two terms have different, complementary meanings. Why use one but resist the other?

[I Am The Scum]

Where does someone who isn't certain about whether or not they believe in god fit into your binary terms?
In the same file where I keep track of their handedness and favorite color. It's right next to the current price of tea in China.

Volatile and I are on the same page, here. I'm going to try to explain this as simply as I can.

We're looking at it from a logical perspective. Primarily we're invoking the law of non-contradiction:

It is the case that x
---OR---
It is not the case that x

It doesn't matter what x is. That's a placeholder that can be whatever you want it to be. In this case, x stands for Doubt believes that there exists a god or gods. So, to restate that again, it would look like this:

It is the case that Doubt believes that there exists a god or gods.
---OR---
It is not the case that Doubt believes that there exists a god or gods.

In the English language there are words to summarize these two claims. If the first choice applies, we would state, "Doubt is a theist." Otherwise, we would state, "Doubt is an atheist."

If you try to invoke certainty in this regard, as though it is some form of third option, then you are going off-topic and being quite illogical.

[volatile]

In the same file where I keep track of their handedness and favorite color. It's right next to the current price of tea in China.

Volatile and I are on the same page, here. I'm going to try to explain this as simply as I can.

We're looking at it from a logical perspective. Primarily we're invoking the law of non-contradiction:

It is the case that x
---OR---
It is not the case that x

It doesn't matter what x is. That's a placeholder that can be whatever you want it to be. In this case, x stands for Doubt believes that there exists a god or gods. So, to restate that again, it would look like this:

It is the case that Doubt believes that there exists a god or gods.
---OR---
It is not the case that Doubt believes that there exists a god or gods.

In the English language there are words to summarize these two claims. If the first choice applies, we would state, "Doubt is a theist." Otherwise, we would state, "Doubt is an atheist."

If you try to invoke certainty in this regard, as though it is some form of third option, then you are going off-topic and being quite illogical.

I was trying to avoid formal logic (p / not p) but you've done a wonderful job of making clear what I was only skirting around. Thanks.

[Doubt]

Yes, you're an agnostic atheist. Which Gods do you believe in? If the answer is "none", you're an atheist.

Which Gods do you believe in?

I don't believe in any god that I never heard of. That does not preclude the existence of a god that I never heard of, although the odds of that being true are rather small given what we know about the universe. But the odds are not zero.

So, are we clear now? No statements about the grass being red?

For future use, my point of view:

"Agnostic atheist" tells me a lot about somebody's perspective.
"Gnostic atheist" also tells me a lot. Mostly it tells me this person is a problem with their reasoning.
"Agnostic" by itself tells me about as much as Agnostic atheist since agnostic theists are rather rare.
"Atheist" does not tell me much since I don't know if they are an atheist for rational reasons or not.
"Agnostic theist" tells me a lot. Although I am likely to have a lot of questions for such a rare person.
"Gnostic theist" tells me a lot but they could leave off the gnostic part since most theists appear to think they know for sure about god.
"Theist" tells me about as much as gnostic theist does in most cases.

[volatile]

Anyone answering the question "Is there a God?" with the unqualified response "I don't know" is an atheist.

[volatile]

I don't believe in any god that I never heard of. That does not preclude the existence of a god that I never heard of, although the odds of that being true are rather small given what we know about the universe. But the odds are not zero.

Yes, that's fine and coherent. In that case, you're an atheist. "Atheist" does not say anything about odds. Nothing. Nada. It is irrelevant to the term.

"Agnostic atheist" tells me a lot about somebody's perspective.
"Gnostic atheist" also tells me a lot. Mostly it tells me this person is a problem with their reasoning.Perhaps, though you might want to read more about gnosticism. It is not necessarily an unreasonable position.

"Agnostic" by itself tells me about as much as Agnostic atheist since agnostic theists are rather rare.What makes you say that? I bet a lot of average non-evangelical Christians would be agnostic theists.

"Atheist" does not tell me much since I don't know if they are an atheist for rational reasons or not. Yes, true. But gnosticism is not inherently irrational and gnosticism is not a term regarding rationality.

"Agnostic theist" tells me a lot. Although I am likely to have a lot of questions for such a rare person.See above. I think most "cultural Christians", and probably many non-orthodox Jews and Hinuds would be agnostic theists.

"Gnostic theist" tells me a lot but they could leave off the gnostic part since most theists appear to think they know for sure about god.
"Theist" tells me about as much as gnostic theist does in most cases.I think you should read up on Gnosticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic and, more specifically on the concept of gnosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis). But you're broadly right here.

[Doubt]

Exactly. Now you're getting it. Even if you're "not sure", "agnostic" tells us nothing about your position on the existence of God.

I got it from the start. The perception problem is on your end. You started making up positions form me in the absence of a statement by me, which is exactly the sort of thing I expect from fundies. The tendency by some atheists to do this is why I will not associate myself with them.

[volatile]

I got it from the start. The perception problem is on your end. You started making up positions form me in the absence of a statement by me, which is exactly the sort of thing I expect from fundies. The tendency by some atheists to do this is why I will not associate myself with them.

Nothing "fundamentalist" about it, unless you call people who tell you the grass is green "fundamentalists".

I couldn't care less what you believe, or how certain you are of that belief. I do care about people using the correct terms, because language and philosophy are both useful, especially in discussions like this. I don't know why you think I'm attacking what you believe; I'm not. I'm just trying to tell you the correct and only logically-coherent term for expressing what your beliefs are.

ETA: If someone came on here and said "I believe that Jesus Christ, Son of God, rose from the dead; I'm a Zoroastrian" you'd tell them they were using the wrong terms to describe their beliefs, would you not? I sure would, so I don't see why those who use the term "agnostic" incorrectly should get a free ride.

[Doubt]

Nothing "fundamentalist" about it, unless you call people who tell you the grass is green "fundamentalists".

I couldn't care less what you believe, or how certain you are of that belief. I do care about people using the correct terms, because language and philosophy are both useful, especially in discussions like this. I don't know why you think I'm attacking what you believe; I'm not. I'm just trying to tell you the correct and only logically-coherent term for expressing what your beliefs are.

And I choose to identify myself based on what I find important, which is knowledge and not belief. had the opening post not opened up with the "coward" label I would have had no problem here.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

"However, this is how I have seen the words "atheist" and "agnostic" commonly used: An atheist does not believe in god whereas an agnostic does not believe in god but because of the negative conotations that are associated with the word "atheist" they do not wish to identify themselves as such. Usually when I see someone on television say they are agnostic, I get the feeling that they don't want to say they are atheist because they know how the masses will overreact to such a statement (the "Run for your lives; it's an atheist!!"-type of response)."

I think this is certainly true for some agnostics. Just from what I have seen personally, I feel that believers generally give atheists a harder time than agnostics and that atheism carries more of a stigma.

However, I would like to give another perspective that applies to agnostics like myself and some others that I have spoken to. I have a general belief that there is more to this world than we can see. I believe in some sort of creative force in the universe. I believe that there may be some sort of after life, though I envision as more of a reincarnation in which we have no attahcment to our past lives.

However, though I believe there is "something more" out there, I recognize there is no proof of this. I just have a general *feeling* that there is from the various works of philosophy and theology I have read. But I also read a lot of fantasy and mythology and did quite a bit of hallucinagenics in college that have impacted my thinking on this. But I don't pretend to know what that something more is...whether it's A God or mutiple Gods or the force like in Star Wars. Also, maybe there are supernatural things or aspects of an afterlife (again, like reincarnation) but not one divine force it all comes from.

So I am agnostic because though I feel like there is something more out there, I don't know WHAT that something is. I certainly don't buy into any specific dogma from any religions, but I do like a lot of the philosophical writings that have come from various thinkers.

So that's my perspective. Also, I am able to distiguish between beliefs and facts. I recognize there is no actual evidence of an afterlife or of a creative force or anything like that. I recognize that this world might be all there is, and that's how I live my life, with that assumption. No matter how strongly I feel and believe there is something more. I know that at the end of the day, beliefs are just that, beliefs. And people believe things that turn out to be not true all the time. So while I may really like sitting in an Amsterdam coffeeship waxing ecstatic on the mysteries of the world, I don't take my beliefs too seriously.

[volatile]

And I choose to identify myself based on what I find important, which is knowledge and not belief. had the opening post not opened up with the "coward" label I would have had no problem here.

You can't "choose to label yourself" anything. The label is a descriptor and comes after your decisions / conclusions, not before. Just as someone who believes that Jesus is Lord and Saviour is properly called a Christian, your conclusions - that you do not believe in God - make you an atheist. The guy who believes in Jesus might [mistakenly] label himself a Zoroastrian, but that wouldn't make him a Zoroastrian.

The reason (I suspect) that "coward" was used was because, as in your case, there seem to be many atheists who are afraid to admit (even to themselves?) that they are indeed atheists.

You're an atheist. What's so terrifying about saying it out loud?

[volatile]

However, though I believe there is "something more" out there, I recognize there is no proof of this. I just have a general *feeling* that there is from the various works of philosophy and theology I have read.

The term to describe your position is perhaps best surmised as agnostic deist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) or agnostic pantheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism). Again "agnostic" on its own does not cover it - because gnosis is not an ontological category.

[quixotecoyote]

And I choose to identify myself based on what I find important, which is knowledge and not belief.

In your first post in your thread, you posted in response to the statement that there is no such thing as just an agnostic, but only agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.

You replied to that saying that you are an agnostic, which was in opposition to the statements that people are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists..

You now are talking about that you label yourself an agnostic.

The difference is that what you label yourself is different than what you are. If you don't believe in anygods you are an atheist on top of whatever agnosticism exists. You can label yourself Lord McAgnostic von Whizzfizzle the 28th, but that doesn't change anything. It only draws claims of obfuscation when you try to pass the label off as the actual status.

[Trent Wray]

Is this a decent summary?

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "No comment."

?

[volatile]

Is this a decent summary?

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
"Agnostic": "No comment."

?

With a correction in punctuation... ;)

[quixotecoyote]

Is this a decent summary?

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "No comment."

?

No. Because an agnostic is not defined by refusal to answer.

The appropriate summary is like so:


Theist: Yes.
Atheist: No.
Agnostic: I can't answer without telling you if I'm theist or atheist.

or

Agnostic Theist: Yes, but I'm not 100% sure.
Agnostic Atheist: No, but I'm not 100% sure
Gnostic Theist: Yes, and I'm 100% sure.
Gnostic Atheist: No, and I'm 100% sure.

[Darat]

Is this a decent summary?

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "No comment."

?

Nope :)

Q: "Which god do you believe in?"

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: God X or none

[Trent Wray]

Okay, how about this then (I'm looking at a grand TOE movement :)) :

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "I'm looking at probabilities."

?

[quixotecoyote]

Okay, how about this then (I'm looking at a grand TOE movement :)) :

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "I'm looking at probabilities."

?

Still doesn't work.
Agnostic still isn't a position of belief in gods.

No matter how many ways you try to form the question, an agnostic is still always an atheist or a theist. If the probabilities lead him to believe there is a god, he's a theist. If not, he's an atheist.

[Trent Wray]

Nope :)

Q: "Which god do you believe in?"

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: God X or none I like this. But how about THIS:

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: Possibly God X or none

[Darat]

Okay, how about this then (I'm looking at a grand TOE movement :)) :

Q: "Do you believe in a god?"

Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "I'm looking at probabilities."

?
Nope agnostic is a position taken on what we can know; an agnostic is someone who believes that we cannot know whether a god or gods exist or do not exist.

[quixotecoyote]

I like this. But how about THIS:

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: Possibly God X or none


"God X or none" for the agnostic would mean that it would be one or the other depending on where he fell on the theist/atheist divide, not that he's unsure.

If the possibly leads him to believe in the god, he is a theist. If it does not, he's an atheist.

[Darat]

I like this. But how about THIS:

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: Possibly God X or none

More like this:

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: Possibly God X or possible none but we can never know

[Trent Wray]

see below :)

[Trent Wray]

I've got it, and then I'm out :)

Q: Do you believe in a God?

Theist: Yes, it's God X.
Atheist: No.
Agnostic: Planet X.

:)

[quixotecoyote]

More like this:


Agnostic: Possibly God X or possible none but we can never know

Yes, and whether he believes or not in spite of that uncertainty would determine whether he is atheist or theist.

Q: Do you believe in a God?

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: The question is irrelevant.

?

There you go. It's irrelevant to the position of agnosticism.

[Darat]

Q: Do you believe in a God?

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: The question is irrelevant.

?

I'd still say "nope" :)

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: The answer is unknowable

[quixotecoyote]

I'd still say "nope" :)

Theist: God X
Atheist: None
Agnostic: The answer is unknowable
Yes, and whether he believes or not in spite of that uncertainty would determine whether he is atheist or theist.

[quixotecoyote]

To everyone making lists like

Theist
Atheist
Agnostic

Remember to add "Gnostic" at the bottom or your list is incomplete and may confuse people.

[dasmiller]

It is not linguistically the same as "unconvinced about the presence of God", which puts you on the other side of the atheist/theist line. It wasn't linguistically clear what you meant.

First - I don't think it's reasonable to infer which side of the "line" one is on by whether one is "unconvinced of the absence" or "unconvinced of the presence." If you're unconvinced of one, then you're necessarily unconvinced of the other, so either phrase would apply.

The term is binary. If you believe, theist. If you don't, atheist.

Why is this so complicated for everyone?

Oh, it's clear that you're using "atheist" this way. But for some of us, it's not clear that this is either desirable or common parlance.

Re desirability - We may define "Empty" as "Not Full" but that doesn't mean that there are no meaningful gradations between the two. Even in an election, with a ballot proposition that has only "yes" and "no" votes, it is useful to speak of undecided voters up until the actual vote. Why not undecided on gods?

Re common parlance - Wikipedia, for example, has 3 definitions for Atheism, and only the 3rd is simply "absence of belief."

If you're campaigning to stop the non-binary uses for 'atheism' and revert back to the etymological definition, that's certainly your prerogative. But as far as I can discern, you're telling posters that they're simply wrong because they're not using your preferred definitions for "atheist" and "agnostic" rather than other commonly accepted definitions.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

First - I don't think it's reasonable to infer which side of the "line" one is on by whether one is "unconvinced of the absence" or "unconvinced of the presence." If you're unconvinced of one, then you're necessarily unconvinced of the other, so either phrase would apply.



Oh, it's clear that you're using "atheist" this way. But for some of us, it's not clear that this is either desirable or common parlance.

Re desirability - We may define "Empty" as "Not Full" but that doesn't mean that there are no meaningful gradations between the two. Even in an election, with a ballot proposition that has only "yes" and "no" votes, it is useful to speak of undecided voters up until the actual vote. Why not undecided on gods?

Re common parlance - Wikipedia, for example, has 3 definitions for Atheism, and only the 3rd is simply "absence of belief."

If you're campaigning to stop the non-binary uses for 'atheism' and revert back to the etymological definition, that's certainly your prerogative. But as far as I can discern, you're telling posters that they're simply wrong because they're not using your preferred definitions for "atheist" and "agnostic" rather than other commonly accepted definitions.

agree completely. Personally, I don't label myself agnostic OR atheist, I just say "secular." But if pressed to chose between the two, i'd go with agnostic.

As to the claim that if you aren't a theist, you're an atheist, there's only two choices...I agree with the above. I just am not fan of such black and white thinking, you're one or the other.

Also, I have been attacked by more atheists I can count on message boards (though not on JREF so far!) who have made fun of me for even considering the possibility that God exists. Most atheists I have met or spoken with personally are not of the opinion "there may or may not be a God and we just don't know" which is what *I* think, but are more hardlined "there is no God." That further makes me feel not alligned ideologically with a classification of atheism.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The term to describe your position is perhaps best surmised as agnostic deist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) or agnostic pantheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism). Again "agnostic" on its own does not cover it - because gnosis is not an ontological category.

interesting, I'd never even heard of these things, thanks for the links!

[Beth]

Do you believe in a God? If "Yes", theist. If not "atheist". I would imagine most people who are "not sure" would come under "atheist", though I'm sure it's possible to find yourself being an unsure theist.

And if the answer is "I'm not sure" rather than Yes or No, how do you classify that person into your binary scheme?

[volatile]

First - I don't think it's reasonable to infer which side of the "line" one is on by whether one is "unconvinced of the absence" or "unconvinced of the presence." If you're unconvinced of one, then you're necessarily unconvinced of the other, so either phrase would apply.

Yes, which is what I said. It's unclear. "Unconvinced of the absence" covers both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, but the lack of clarity is in the terms you use, not in the positions themselves. My inferences were just that - inferences. I suspect an agnostic theist would be more prone to saying "unconvinced of absence" rather than "unconvinced of presence".


Oh, it's clear that you're using "atheist" this way. But for some of us, it's not clear that this is either desirable or common parlance.

It's not me. It's logically the only way it can be used - as Darat, Quix and, more formally, as Scum have explained. You either believe, or do not believe, How certain you are is not able to be encompassed in the term, because it is a term which describes a binary ontological condition.

Re desirability - We may define "Empty" as "Not Full" but that doesn't mean that there are no meaningful gradations between the two. Even in an election, with a ballot proposition that has only "yes" and "no" votes, it is useful to speak of undecided voters up until the actual vote. Why not undecided on gods?

Because if you're undecided - if you do not believe in a God - then you are an atheist. By definition. The better analogy is between "[completely] full" and "not full", not between "full and empty".

Re common parlance - Wikipedia, for example, has 3 definitions for Atheism, and only the 3rd is simply "absence of belief."

If you're campaigning to stop the non-binary uses for 'atheism' and revert back to the etymological definition, that's certainly your prerogative. But as far as I can discern, you're telling posters that they're simply wrong because they're not using your preferred definitions for "atheist" and "agnostic" rather than other commonly accepted definitions.

It's not just etymology. It's logic, and coherence. "Agnostic" as used as a middle ground does not mean anything other than (if you want) as a shortening of "agnostic atheist" - but Doubt and others are actively resisting that. I don't know why.

[volatile]

And if the answer is "I'm not sure" rather than Yes or No, how do you classify that person into your binary scheme?

Like Darat has said, if you believe in a god, theist. If you don't (and more often than not "I'm not sure" is in this category), then you're an atheist. An agnostic atheist, more precisely.

[volatile]

agree completely. Personally, I don't label myself agnostic OR atheist, I just say "secular." But if pressed to chose between the two, i'd go with agnostic.

As to the claim that if you aren't a theist, you're an atheist, there's only two choices...I agree with the above. I just am not fan of such black and white thinking, you're one or the other.

Also, I have been attacked by more atheists I can count on message boards (though not on JREF so far!) who have made fun of me for even considering the possibility that God exists. Most atheists I have met or spoken with personally are not of the opinion "there may or may not be a God and we just don't know" which is what *I* think, but are more hardlined "there is no God." That further makes me feel not alligned ideologically with a classification of atheism.

I think it might help if you stop thinking of it as an ideology. It's not. It's a descriptive label about belief in a state of existence. Scum's post explained it quite well.

[volatile]

interesting, I'd never even heard of these things, thanks for the links!

No problem. Have you read Spinoza?

[Third Eye Open]

Q: Do you believe in a God?

Theist: Yes, God X
Atheist: No
Agnostic: I don't think these things can be known for sure.

Theist and Atheist: Neither do we, but what do you think is the answer?

Agnostic: Oh, well then, I guess I believe ...

[dasmiller]

It's not me. It's logically the only way it can be used - as Darat, Quix and, more formally, as Scum have explained. You either believe, or do not believe, How certain you are is not able to be encompassed in the term, because it is a term which describes a binary ontological condition.

Well, that's our point of disagreement. I don't view "belief" as a simple binary condition.

[Trent Wray]

Q: Do you believe in a God?

Theist: Yes, God X
Atheist: No
Agnostic: I am belief and so can you!

:)

[Schrodinger's Cat]

No problem. Have you read Spinoza?

I know he wrote "Ethics" but I've never read it. Do you know of a good translation you'd recommend?

[volatile]

Well, that's our point of disagreement. I don't view "belief" as a simple binary condition.

It's not just "belief". It's ontological belief; belief about existence. Existence is a binary - at least one god exists, or no god exists. There's no middle ground between those statements, and it is impossible logically to believe them both at the same time. You can see that can't you?

This binary does not preclude degrees of certainty either way - just the term "atheist" as an ontological position does not have any room in it to describe these degrees, and the term "agnostic" is not just shorthand for "halfway between belief in God and non-belief in God", because, as I hope you can see, that position is impossible.

[volatile]

I know he wrote "Ethics" but I've never read it. Do you know of a good translation you'd recommend?

Well, the complete works (tr. Shirley) is the only translation I've read... you should read "Short treatise on God, Man and his well-being".

[The Man]

Sorry I have not had time to reply or catch up so I’ll reply to what I can right now and probably be able to catch up later on this evening.


No, a question of logic and definitions. Not a matter of "belief" at all.


Well since atheism and theism by definition specifically deal with beliefs, then yes this is specifically a matter of “belief”.


You cannot believe something and not believe it at the same time - it is logically impossible.


Again I have no specific belief in any god, but believe that others do. Their beliefs are not constrained by my personal lack of belief in any specific god. I have no doubts that you may see this as illogical as it is not the simple and binary approach of believe or not believe.

An individuals beliefs are sometimes conflicted and conflicting, an aspect of myself I have no problem accepting. Also the potentially conflicting answer to the question of the ones belief in the existence of gods is one of the reasons I don’t find the question particularly meaningful for myself. Basically to me it is just a matter of subjective opinion, that someone feels this it their god just as they may feel something else makes them happy.



And yet this is what the way you want to use "agnostic" would imply. It's nonsense, compounded by the fact that the word has another, defined, useful and epistemological meaning which, though it has been explained to you, you continue to ignore. What's so hard about using the right terms for the positions you take? What offends you so much about using the correct words to describe what you're talking about? Is clarity and accuracy an anathema to you?

I’m not ignoring or trying to change the meaning of agnosticism at all I am in fact specifically considering the meaning of agnosticism by not restricting it to a matter of my or anyone else beliefs or lack thereof. However atheism and theism are specifically about belief (or the lack thereof).


What's so hard about using the right terms for the positions you take? What offends you so much about using the correct words to describe what you're talking about? Is clarity and accuracy an anathema to you?

I am using the right terms for the positions I take and you’re the only one of us who seems to be offended by that usage. Is someone trying to express their beliefs as accurately as possible such an anathema to you?

Just because I do not have any personal belief in a god does not mean I assert that I can know gods do not exists. I just don’t know of any for myself (an expressed lack of knowledge). Similarly just because I might know and believe (lacking any counter indications) people who do tell me they have a belief in some god and by that belief enact said gods will does not mean I can know that gods do exists or even that said people do actually believe in their god and enact what they perceive as its will.


So I label myself as agnostic because of a specific lack of knowledge about the existence of gods. In fact since I perceive god as being simply subjective, I ascribe to one of the basic tenets of Strong Agnosticism "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.” You can certainly choose to believe, I can choose not to and I can even choose to believe you when you claim you have chosen to believe.

However I do not classify myself as Atheistic or Theistic specifically because I do have conflicting beliefs about the existence of gods. The fact that I do not believe in any specific god myself does not restrict me for asserting as believable a particular criteria for a god that someone might (and on a numbers of occasions have) expressed to me. Again I certainly understand that you may feel some need to ascribe me to one camp or the other in terms of belief (Atheistic or Theistic), but I simply do not feel that need.

Agnostic atheism; Does not accuratly describe my position since I do find a specific criteria for the existence of the gods of others to be believable (as expresses to me by such people) and thus their god to be believable.

Agnostic theism; Isn’t much better as the particular belief in a god fitting that criteria is not mine and thus nether is that particular spirituality, I just find the criteria itself to be believable, thus the existence of their god or spirituality for them and by their proxy for others also believable.

The best description for myself and my positions that I have found so far, I think, is Apatheism




This conversation is like you're wearing a blue shirt, and you telling us it's yellow.

Actually it is more like you simply claiming my shirt must be blue or yellow when in fact it is just red.

Since I do consider the ascription of someone or something as deity to be a purely subjective issue it would be like me saying a don’t believe in existence of sadness simply because I am not currently sad or have never been sad.



I'm not "labelling you". I'm explaining that you're using terms incorrectly. The label applies to the ontological and epistemological positions you express, not you. You can choose to ignore that if you want, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.



Again this specifically comes down to beliefs by definition, in this instance mine, a critical aspect of who I am. So in attempting to label or categorize (if you prefer) that critical aspect of me (my beliefs) you are indeed attempting to label or categorize me. Just because you feel you need to categorize me and/or my beliefs does not make you any less wrong. Particularly when already noted, even by you, my beliefs do not logically fit into either of the categories you apparently want to put them in.










This thread is mostly about word definitions. You seem to be an atheist according to how most educated people use the word. You may not choose to describe yourself with that term, but most of us do.

However, this idea that gods "exist" for other people just because people believe in them, is stretching the usage of words too far. You're substituting your own definitions of words that contradict the commonly understood meanings, and that renders your statements as unintelligible to most of us. Having somewhat standard definitions of words is pretty central to communication, but here you're chucking that all aside and assigning your own meanings to words. That can't help us communicate.



This definition is the one I was using.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exists

ex•ist
   ɪgˈzɪstShow Spelled[ig-zist] Show IPA
–verb (used without object)

1.
to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.


As presumably one of those “most educated people”, what definition were you thinking of?







And of course it is completely redefining what the word god means to someone else! A RC theist believes in a god that is described in the Bible and in RC creed, this is a starting point for that description:



The Man - do you believe in that god?



Again I have no specific belief in any god. Also I know of no one who has professed to me a specific belief in the god you describe and that said gods existence is based solely on their having that belief. For the most part as far as those I’ve encounter expressing a belief in the god you describe assert that said god’s existence is independent of any particular belief in it (theirs or mine). So it simply would not fit the criteria I mentioned of the god being made real simply by ones belief. Generally it has been new age types, self professed Pagans, Wikans and even Christians that have professed the criteria I am describing to me.


No I’m not “redefining what the word god means to someone else”; I am in fact just letting people define what god they choose to believe in themselves. Again since I consider there being a god for someone as a subjective interpretation, what or who one choose to classify as a deity is entirely up to the one applying said interpretation.






By the way, what does it mean for a thing to "exist" for one person yet "not exist" for another? If we can come to a common understanding of what "believe" and "exist" mean (and I'm starting to doubt that we can), then we can make some sense of this conversation.

It is not a matter of it existing for them and not for others, the specific part of the belief is that said belief makes their god exists through them and that belief. Again I do not need to ascribe to the belief in any particular god in order to believe that they believe in their god and do make their god exist through them and that belief. Of course nether of us can prove that and I certainly can’t know (due to the subjective nature) that they do or do not actually believe in their god or do in fact make their god exists through them and that belief.

[volatile]

Again I have no specific belief in any god, but believe that others do. Their beliefs are not constrained by my personal lack of belief in any specific god.

Then you are an atheist. The beliefs of others do not have any bearing on the appropriate label for yours.

I have no doubts that you may see this as illogical as it is not the simple and binary approach of believe or not believe.You're conflating "belief" in general, and the strength of belief in general, with belief in a specific ontological condition - existence. And worse, and more incoherently, you're also strangely conflating "believable" with belief. Like I said, pointing out that atheist and theist are binary does not preclude strengths of belief, or surety of belief. It's just that the terms have nothing to do with certainty or surety, or even whether the counter-proposal is plausible. "Atheism" is an ontological position. Ontological positions - positions about "being" - are binary. You cannot believe that God exists and that God does not exist at the same time. It is logically impossible. But that's what people want to try and pretend "agnostic" means. It doesn't. It can't.

I'm not "offended". I'm just trying to explain to you that claiming "agnosticism" is some halfway house between theism and atheism is not only wrong, it's impossible.

Since I do consider the ascription of someone or something as deity to be a purely subjective issue it would be like me saying a don’t believe in existence of sadness simply because I am not currently sad or have never been sad.Eh? I'm also not telling you that belief in gods (or "feelings of sadness") do not exist. That would be "acredism" or something! Not believing in something does not mean assuming or accepting that no-one else believes in it, and I don't see why you've made that strange leap either.

You said "I have no specific belief in any god". that makes you an atheist, no matter how sure or unsure you are of that position. What's so hard about admitting that?

[tsig]

Which god or gods do you believe in?



















;)

The Internet. It has all the answers and it's always there.

[quixotecoyote]

The Internet. It has all the answers and it's always there.
http://wigu.com/overcompensating/2006/09/good-old-internet.html

[tsig]

To everyone making lists like

Theist
Atheist
Agnostic

Remember to add "Gnostic" at the bottom or your list is incomplete and may confuse people.

Gnostic: I know something you don't know.

[tsig]

http://wigu.com/overcompensating/2006/09/good-old-internet.html

No matter how high you aim, you can't overshoot the Internet.

All of us are smarter than any of us.

Am I writing this or is the keyboard demanding input?

I looked into the Abyss and said Hi.

Atheism is what happens.

[dasmiller]

It's not just "belief". It's ontological belief; belief about existence. Existence is a binary - at least one god exists, or no god exists. There's no middle ground between those statements,

So, given the necessarily fuzzy definitions for godhood, you don't think it's conceivable (though perhaps unlikely) that there is an entity that exists but only ambiguously meets the criteria for godhood? You don't think there are ambiguities about the definition of "existence?"

Yes, I think there's quite a bit of middle ground between those statements.

But even if existence is binary, why does that make belief in existence binary? I may agree that "There either are or are not gods" but that doesn't mean I'm taking a position on "are" vs "are not."

and it is impossible logically to believe them both at the same time. You can see that can't you?

As I've said before, I consider that to be a false dichotomy. "Undecided" doesn't mean that you believe both propositions.

Do I necessarily have a 'belief' about every proposition, whether or not I've even heard it?

Every integer is either prime or it is not; it's a simple binary proposition. Do I have an infinite number of 'beliefs', one for each positive integer, about whether or not it is prime?

This binary does not preclude degrees of certainty either way - just the term "atheist" as an ontological position does not have any room in it to describe these degrees, and the term "agnostic" is not just shorthand for "halfway between belief in God and non-belief in God", because, as I hope you can see, that position is impossible.

Actually, as I'm sure you're aware by now, I don't see that it's impossible to be between beliefs.

[quixotecoyote]

As I've said before, I consider that to be a false dichotomy. "Undecided" doesn't mean that you believe both propositions.


It doesn't have to. Undecided means that you won't commit to saying that you believe. If you don't believe, you're an atheist. You can be an atheist because you can't decide if god exists, because you don't think god exists, because you think god doesn't exist, because you've never heard of the concept of god.

All atheism denotes is that you do not have a belief in any god. Undecided clearly falls under that description.

[Bill Thompson]

Atheism does not provide any answers.
Showing where something else is wrong does not magically make you right.
Looking down your noses at biblical fundamentalists does not make you intelligent. It only means you can recognize what is obviously untrue. Big deal.
In the end, atheism does not provide any answers.

How do you define God? You mean a literal biblical God? That is clearly and uncontravertably not real. Is that what being an atheist means to you? Well, way to go!! Did you figure out that there is not an invisible man living in the sky all by yourself or did someone tell you?

Some monothiestic religions say that the universe is an illusion and God is the only thing that is real. Physics says that there is more or less correct. Ah, but you have to replace the word "God" with something else. How about "That Which No Greater Can Be Thought". Which has been said before. To bad noone studies these things.

It is too bad western cultures are hung up on God being a man in a robe with feet and hands and looks like Santa after a couple of years in the gym. Without getting beyond this, I avoid religious debates.

[paximperium]

So, given the necessarily fuzzy definitions for godhood, you don't think it's conceivable (though perhaps unlikely) that there is an entity that exists but only ambiguously meets the criteria for godhood? You don't think there are ambiguities about the definition of "existence?" Something that "ambiguously" meets an undefined position is not a "god".

You could define a God as cold and taste like icecream and that will most definitely make me a Gnostic Theists but you've rendered the definition of god meaningless in that case.

There is a reason I prefer to call myself an Ignostic Atheist. Most people can't define a coherent concept of god therefore I don't believe in said god or any such definitions or even undefined gods until someone actually can tell me what the heck they are claiming actually exists.

Yes, I think there's quite a bit of middle ground between those statements. I don't see any.
But even if existence is binary, why does that make belief in existence binary? I may agree that "There either are or are not gods" but that doesn't mean I'm taking a position on "are" vs "are not." You have taken a position whether you want to or not. If you are "undecided" or "don't know", you "don't believe in". This is not the same as "believe it is impossible."

As I've said before, I consider that to be a false dichotomy. "Undecided" doesn't mean that you believe both propositions. Yes. It means you don't believe in the claim at all.

Do I necessarily have a 'belief' about every proposition, whether or not I've even heard it? No but you have a "lack of belief" in everything that you have never heard of.

Have you heard of Hwamba the purple talking zebra that only little 3 year old Bobby knows about and has never ever told anyone? No? Therefore you are not only ignorant about said definition of Hwamba but completely lack any awareness or belief in Hwamba.

[paximperium]

Atheism does not provide any answers. Who said it does?
<Snipped nonsensical garbage>
People love making crap up don't they?

[Sledge]

Atheism does not provide any answers.
Showing where something else is wrong does not magically make you right.
Looking down your noses at biblical fundamentalists does not make you intelligent. It only means you can recognize what is obviously untrue. Big deal.
In the end, atheism does not provide any answers.
Is there a god? Atheism says no. Atheism has provided an answer.
Without getting beyond this, I avoid religious debates.
You're doing very badly at it. PROTIP: to avoid religious debates, stay out of the Religion and Philosophy forum.

[devnull]

Atheism does not provide any answers.

Sure it does.

Q: Is there a god?
A: No.

See?

Showing where something else is wrong does not magically make you right.
Looking down your noses at biblical fundamentalists does not make you intelligent. It only means you can recognize what is obviously untrue. Big deal.


Ummm..... what? So, by your logic, we shouldnt ever tell anyone theyre wrong.

There's a drunk on the street downstairs who claims to be a heart surgeon - shall I get him to scrub in on your triple bypass? After all, I dont want to appear intelligent by contradicting him.

How do you define God?

I dont - or at least, I rely on the (poor) definitions from the religious. See, Im not the one making the wild claims of magic men here.

Since you appear to be making a claim, how do *you* define god?


You mean a literal biblical God? That is clearly and uncontravertably not real.


Yay! We can all agree on this one :)


Is that what being an atheist means to you? Well, way to go!!


Thanks!


Did you figure out that there is not an invisible man living in the sky all by yourself or did someone tell you?


Nup, figured it all out by myself. Actually, there wasnt much figgerin - its pretty obvious, as you point out above.


Some monothiestic religions say that the universe is an illusion and God is the only thing that is real. Physics says that there is more or less correct.


Ummm, what? Physics says what now? Cite?


Ah, but you have to replace the word "God" with something else. How about "That Which No Greater Can Be Thought". Which has been said before. To bad noone studies these things.


Oh, so you mean that if you redefine "God" a lot, and squint really hard, you can almost believe it's real?


It is too bad western cultures are hung up on God being a man in a robe with feet and hands and looks like Santa after a couple of years in the gym. Without getting beyond this, I avoid religious debates.

So again, if you are making a claim about the existence of something supernatural, care to define it?

[Bill Thompson]

Is there a god? Atheism says no. Atheism has provided an answer.



You mean "response" not "answer".

You did not read my post.

Atheism shows where something else is wrong. Showing where something else is wrong does not magically make you right.
Ironically, that is one of the rules of Dr. Segan's Balloney Detection Kit. Showing where something else is wrong, does not make your theory right.

Looking down your noses at biblical fundamentalists does not make you intelligent. It only means you can recognize what is obviously untrue. Big deal. In the end, atheism does not provide any answers. Like I said, a Response is not an Answer.

For example, I read lots of Mormon Apologists "responses" in other debates. They like to write counter arguments to what they see as attracks. One common thing they do is they attack where their detractors get one or two minor things wrong. That does not make their theories right.

How do you define God? You mean a literal biblical God? That is clearly and uncontrovertibly not real. Is that what being an atheist means to you? Well, way to go!! Did you figure out that there is not an invisible man living in the sky all by yourself or did someone tell you?

Some monotheistic religions say that the universe is an illusion and God is the only thing that is real. Physics says that there is more or less correct. Ah, but you have to replace the word "God" with something else. How about "That Which No Greater Can Be Thought". This has been said before. Too bad no one studies these things.

It is too bad western cultures are hung up on God being a man in a robe with feet and hands and looks like Santa after a couple of years in the gym. Without getting beyond this, I avoid religious debates.

Spinoza says that Nature and God are one and the same thing. So, are you saying Nature is not real?

[Bill Thompson]

Sure it does.

Q: Is there a god?
A: No.

See?


You don't get it.

Gee, I just had a thought. Maybe people here are just goofing around and are not really thinking. Well, excuuuuuse me then.

I mean answers to the big questions. Why does the universe bother to exist? What is the nature of consciousness?

[Hokulele]

Who exactly is asking "atheism" to provide answers to anything? :confused:

[Olowkow]

Atheism does not provide any answers.
No tenets no dogma, just a statement about lack of belief. So?

Showing where something else is wrong does not magically make you right.No magic involved at all. Proving something wrong just proves something wrong. You might be right as a result. Strawman.

Looking down your noses at biblical fundamentalists does not make you intelligent. It only means you can recognize what is obviously untrue. Big deal.No but its good fun. Loosen up.

In the end, atheism does not provide any answers.
Should it? Does theism?

How do you define God? You mean a literal biblical God? That is clearly and uncontravertably not real. Is that what being an atheist means to you? Well, way to go!! Did you figure out that there is not an invisible man living in the sky all by yourself or did someone tell you?Is that a chip on your shoulder? Most of us did in fact figure it out all by ourselves, while keeping a day job.

Some monothiestic religions say that the universe is an illusion and God is the only thing that is real. Physics says that there is more or less correct. Ah, but you have to replace the word "God" with something else. How about "That Which No Greater Can Be Thought". Which has been said before. To bad noone studies these things.

It is too bad western cultures are hung up on God being a man in a robe with feet and hands and looks like Santa after a couple of years in the gym. Without getting beyond this, I avoid religious debates.
I'm guessing Jack Daniels, or Crown Royal. Good stuff.

[dasmiller]

Something that "ambiguously" meets an undefined position is not a "god".

You could define a God as cold and taste like icecream and that will most definitely make me a Gnostic Theists but you've rendered the definition of god meaningless in that case.

And I would offer up no such definition. However, I could certainly come up with a list of characteristics for a hypothetical being that would cause great dispute among reasonable people about whether it was actually a god. If such a being was subsequently found, it would 'ambiguously' meet the critera for godhood.

You have taken a position whether you want to or not. If you are "undecided" or "don't know", you "don't believe in".

So if I'm undecided about the absence of gods, I'm a theist? I don't think that's common parlance.

And "undecided" is a logically impossible position for anyone, on any proposition, because it involves "don't believe in" both "X is false" and "X is true?"



As I've said before, I consider that to be a false dichotomy. "Undecided" doesn't mean that you believe both propositions.
Yes. It means you don't believe in the claim at all.

Again, I'm not sure that's common parlance . . . .
A: "He said he could run a 4 minute mile."
B: "I don't believe it"
A: "I'm undecided."
B: "Same thing."

No but you have a "lack of belief" in everything that you have never heard of.

So, are we distinguishing between "lack of belief in a proposition" and "belief that a proposition is false?"

If not, then saying that I have a "lack of belief" in every proposition I've never heard means that I believe that every proposition I've never heard is false. FWIW, I strongly suspect that there are true propositions that I haven't heard yet.

If we are distinguishing between them, then "lack of belief" is, indeed, a position that is distinct from either the belief that a proposition is true or belief that it is false, so belief is not a simple binary.

[devnull]

You don't get it.

Gee, I just had a thought. Maybe people here are just goofing around and are not really thinking. Well, excuuuuuse me then.

I mean answers to the big questions. Why does the universe bother to exist? What is the nature of consciousness?

Why do you even think there is an "answer"?

We are the result of chemistry and time. Don't wind yourself up over it.

[The Man]

Then you are an atheist. The beliefs of others do not have any bearing on the appropriate label for yours.

Which would include your belief in what you consider to be the “appropriate label for” my beliefs. My beliefs are directly influenced by “The beliefs of others”, if yours are not, that is simply up to you.


You're conflating "belief" in general, and the strength of belief in general, with belief in a specific ontological condition - existence.

Nope, not at all, I have made no assertion about “the strength of belief in general”, simply that my “belief in a specific ontological condition – existence” of gods is directly conflicted. It is in fact you who apparently is asserting that one aspect of that directly conflicted belief must or should outweigh the other.



And worse, and more incoherently, you're also strangely conflating "believable" with belief.

What? So you have a belief in something that you do not find to be believable? Wow, talk about conflicted beliefs.



Like I said, pointing out that atheist and theist are binary does not preclude strengths of belief, or surety of belief. It's just that the terms have nothing to do with certainty or surety, or even whether the counter-proposal is plausible. "Atheism" is an ontological position. Ontological positions - positions about "being" - are binary. You cannot believe that God exists and that God does not exist at the same time. It is logically impossible.

So once again you assert that my “Ontological positions - positions about "being"” with regard to my belief in the existence of gods simply can not logically fit into that binary framework since it is just “logically impossible”. Much as you might like to assert, beliefs are not constrained by logic, binary or otherwise, that’s part of what makes them, well, simply beliefs.






But that's what people want to try and pretend "agnostic" means. It doesn't. It can't.

Could be, I wouldn’t know. I have never pretended that an assertion or position about knowledge, specifically a lack of knowledge, infers any particular belief (or lack of belief) other than a belief in that lack of knowledge.




I'm not "offended". I'm just trying to explain to you that claiming "agnosticism" is some halfway house between theism and atheism is not only wrong, it's impossible.

Glad to hear it, but since I have never made or even ascribe to that claim, you logically must be trying to explain that to someone else. Hey, I still believe that you believe you were trying to explain it to me, thanks for that strawman anyway. Are sure you don’t want to try to stand it up and knock down a couple of more times before you just leave it where it belongs?



Eh? I'm also not telling you that belief in gods (or "feelings of sadness") do not exist. That would be "acredism" or something! Not believing in something does not mean assuming or accepting that no-one else believes in it, and I don't see why you've made that strange leap either.

Sorry, that statement was specifically to my beliefs and not intended to infer anything you might have said. Also sorry, since I guess the point of that statement was apparently lost as you seem to have made your own rather “strange leap” there.

So you do assert that a belief in gods does exist?



You said "I have no specific belief in any god". that makes you an atheist, no matter how sure or unsure you are of that position. What's so hard about admitting that?

Oh, I’m entirely certain of that position. I have also asserted a non-specific (at least for any particular deity) belief in gods, a position I am also entirely certain of. Does that make me a theistic atheist or atheistic theist?

[Trent Wray]

There's a drunk on the street downstairs who claims to be a heart surgeon - shall I get him to scrub in on your triple bypass? After all, I dont want to appear intelligent by contradicting him. Unfortunately, I knew a cardiothoracic surgeon who supposedly performed a CABG whilst still drunk and puking and crapping on himself during the surgery.

I know any physicians who might see this will say, "BS", but you do not know this surgeon.

[Trent Wray]

You don't get it.

Gee, I just had a thought. Maybe people here are just goofing around and are not really thinking. Well, excuuuuuse me then.

I mean answers to the big questions. Why does the universe bother to exist? What is the nature of consciousness? I probably shouldn't jump in .... but I have a semi-neutral question. What is the relevance of the answers to those questions for you personally? If I may ask.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Not entirely sure where I fit in in the deist/agnostic/athiest continuum. I'm an athiest who considers the language of religion occasionally useful in describing what it means to be human, and I have no problem with those who believe, as long as they're not pushy about their ignorance. Just as an example, I'm familiar with the prayer practices of most christians and a fair number of nonchristians, and in the past, while working in hospice, I had no problem at all praying with my clients. Although intellectually I know it's not real, emotionally, I can try to speak to their beliefs to comfort them as they die, and that doesn't leave me horribly conflicted. Some times just aren't right for a theology vs. reality discussion.

A

[BobTheDonkey]

Not entirely sure where I fit in in the deist/agnostic/athiest continuum. I'm an athiest who considers the language of religion occasionally useful in describing what it means to be human, and I have no problem with those who believe, as long as they're not pushy about their ignorance. Just as an example, I'm familiar with the prayer practices of most christians and a fair number of nonchristians, and in the past, while working in hospice, I had no problem at all praying with my clients. Although intellectually I know it's not real, emotionally, I can try to speak to their beliefs to comfort them as they die, and that doesn't leave me horribly conflicted. Some times just aren't right for a theology vs. reality discussion.

A
Compassionate Atheist?



:D

[quixotecoyote]

Oh, I’m entirely certain of that position. I have also asserted a non-specific (at least for any particular deity) belief in gods, a position I am also entirely certain of. Does that make me a theistic atheist or atheistic theist?

Most of that was incoherent, but this is simple.

If you believe in any gods, specified or not, you are a theist. Probably some flavor of deist. If you are entirely certain of that, you are a gnostic theist.

However.

I suspect you're playing word games with your 'real for you but not for me' style first post, your bait-and-switch from talking about belief in gods to talking about belief in knowledge in your second post, your "if you believe it, it exists" where apparently you want to equate ideas with things themselves in the third post, and so on.

It's a simple question you're trying to complicate. Do you believe in any gods; supernatural type beings of immense power such as: Yaweh, Zeus, Zoroaster, Shiva, the Prime Mover, etc.

Not do you believe that people follow them.

Not do you believe that people have concepts of them.

Not do you believe that other people believe in them.

Not do you believe you have knowledge of them.

Not do you believe you lack knowledge of them.

Not do you believe you don't know about them.

Do you believe in them?

[quixotecoyote]

Not entirely sure where I fit in in the deist/agnostic/athiest continuum. I'm an athiest who considers the language of religion occasionally useful in describing what it means to be human, and I have no problem with those who believe, as long as they're not pushy about their ignorance. Just as an example, I'm familiar with the prayer practices of most christians and a fair number of nonchristians, and in the past, while working in hospice, I had no problem at all praying with my clients. Although intellectually I know it's not real, emotionally, I can try to speak to their beliefs to comfort them as they die, and that doesn't leave me horribly conflicted. Some times just aren't right for a theology vs. reality discussion.

A

Well you know you're an atheist. You haven't mentioned enough to make a call on agnosticism, but it's a safe bet.

None of that makes a difference as far as being a decent human being is concerned.

[Trent Wray]

None of that makes a difference as far as being a decent human being is concerned. For me, this is the bottom line :)
----------------------

But I want to try one more time to narrow it all down:

Q: Do you believe that God X exists?

Theist: Yes, I'm a wave.
Atheist: No, I'm a particle.
Gnostic: Planet X.
Agnostic: Quantum X.

?

[devnull]

Just to confuse the issue further, dont forget that all theists are also atheists with respect to all others gods except their own.

Always makes me wonder how they can't seem to understand the atheist position, when they themselves are, for the most-part, atheists themselves. This also renders the "no atheists in foxholes" argument moot, because if it were true then theists would suddenly gain a belief in thousands of current and historical gods in times of great crisis.

[volatile]

Which would include your belief in what you consider to be the “appropriate label for” my beliefs. My beliefs are directly influenced by “The beliefs of others”, if yours are not, that is simply up to you.

Fine and dandy.

What does this has to do with the term "atheist", which means "Does not believe any gods actually exist"?


Nope, not at all, I have made no assertion about “the strength of belief in general”, simply that my “belief in a specific ontological condition – existence” of gods is directly conflicted. It is in fact you who apparently is asserting that one aspect of that directly conflicted belief must or should outweigh the other.Do you believe in any Gods? If the answer is "No", then you're an atheist. Your degree of confliction is logically irrelevant - you cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in the existence of something.


What? So you have a belief in something that you do not find to be believable? Wow, talk about conflicted beliefs.No - something can be believable (or plausible, if you like) without someone believing in it. "Atheism" is not a proposition that includes any statements about present or future or potential believability. It is only a statement of belief of a binary ontological condition. Why do you persist in adding your own, strange, illogical and unnecessary extra criteria to what really is a very simple concept? All this other stuff is fine - and I do not dispute that what you describe accurately reflects your beliefs. But that does nothing to affect the only logical definition of the term "atheist".

So once again you assert that my “Ontological positions - positions about "being"” with regard to my belief in the existence of gods simply can not logically fit into that binary framework since it is just “logically impossible”. Much as you might like to assert, beliefs are not constrained by logic, binary or otherwise, that’s part of what makes them, well, simply beliefs.

Do you agree that it is impossible to simultaneously believe in something and to not believe in that same thing?


So you do assert that a belief in gods does exist?No. :confused: How did you get that from my post? In fact, I specifically said "that would be acredism", didn't I?


I have also asserted a non-specific (at least for any particular deity) belief in gods, a position I am also entirely certain of. Does that make me a theistic atheist or atheistic theist?That makes you an agnostic deist or pantheist. Not just "agnostic", because "agnostic" is not an ontological statement. "Theistic atheist" is oxymoronic, and no-one has proffered it as a legitimate term.

Quix summed it up: you really are quite incoherent.

[volatile]

And I would offer up no such definition. However, I could certainly come up with a list of characteristics for a hypothetical being that would cause great dispute among reasonable people about whether it was actually a god. If such a being was subsequently found, it would 'ambiguously' meet the critera for godhood.

Fine. This has nothing to do with your current statement of belief. Do you believe in a God with any characteristics at all?

So if I'm undecided about the absence of gods, I'm a theist? I don't think that's common parlance.

Of course it isn't "common parlance". It's your confusing definition. You migt be a theist, you might be an atheist. That formulation you have introduced is unclear - which is why we have the simple, clear and logical terms "atheist" and "theist" in the first place. These terms say nothing about the degree of conviction. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is undecided about the absence of Gods. But he's a theist.

And "undecided" is a logically impossible position for anyone, on any proposition, because it involves "don't believe in" both "X is false" and "X is true?"

Not on any position. But on any proposition of belief in a binary ontological category, yes. Remember, this isn't a continuum like "full" to "empty". It's a binary like "full" and "not full".

[I Am The Scum]

Bill Thompson, I feel the need to point out that demonstrating that any given proposition is correct, entails demonstrating that the converse of that claim is wrong. Let's take the following claim as an example:

There are, in existence, no gods whatsoever.

If you can show me a single one, you will have proven me wrong. The very idea you are decrying is a logical necessity. Remember, kids, when making a point, try not to shoot yourself in the foot.

[Sun Countess]

Spinoza says that Nature and God are one and the same thing. So, are you saying Nature is not real?
No, I would say that Spinoza is wrong.

That's like naming your dog "god" and then laughing at the atheists who have to admit that they've met god.

I mean answers to the big questions. Why does the universe bother to exist? What is the nature of consciousness?
Atheism only answers the questions about the belief in gods, and isn't required to answer these questions.

Most religions claim to have answers to these questions; which one has it right? I'm not going to respect any religion for making up false answers to questions, and then bragging that they at least put down an answer.

[Sledge]

You mean "response" not "answer".
No, I mean "answer." You may or may not agree with that answer, but it is an answer to that question. Stop being upset that your little rant was so easily refuted, consider that you've learned something today, and move on.

[dasmiller]

Fine. This has nothing to do with your current statement of belief. Do you believe in a God with any characteristics at all?

Actually, I don't see the relevance of my particular beliefs to a discussion of terminology. Which is why the previous quote was unrelated to any statement of my belief. The quote addressed your assertion that the existance of one or more gods was a simple binary. I dispute your assertion, although that point of disagreement is more-or-less tangential to this discussion.

Of course it isn't "common parlance". It's your confusing definition.

Pax's original assertion was that if I'm undecided about a proposition, then I don't believe in it. Thus:

If I'm undecided about the absence of gods, it follows that I don't believe in the absence of gods.
If belief is binary, and I don't believe in the absence of gods, then I necessarily believe in the presence of gods.
If I believe in the presence of gods, then I'm a theist.

What definition did I use here, and how is it confusing?

Again, my assertion is that using the term "belief" to be a simple binary condition is a) not common parlance and b) leads to some very odd conclusions.

In common parlance, "lack of belief in the proposition" is not necessarily the same as "belief that the proposition is false." Many people see no problem with being "undecided" about which of two mutually exclusive options are true, yet if "belief" is a binary, then it's logically impossible to be undecided in that case. If "belief" is binary, then expressions such as "strongly believe" and "firmly believe" are nonsensical, yet they are commonly used and both the speakers and listeners understand exactly what they mean.

As for the odd conclusions - First, if "belief" is a simple binary, then I necessarily have an infinite number of "beliefs" about propositions that I've never heard, despite the fact that my mind has finite capacity and that even I can't know what most of my beliefs are.

Second, if "belief" is a simple binary, then I must "believe" either the truth or falsehood of nonsensical or poorly-formed propositions. Evidently I must believe that "Justice is redder than the number 7", "384OIbujrs", and "My dog barks in the night" are each either true or false (btw, I have no dog). If "belief" applies only to well-formed propositions, then what about those propositions that I have yet to determine the 'formedness?'

As Godel has demonstrated, there are propositions that not provably true or false. By definition, then, the truth of such a proposition is unknowable. If I am confronted by such a proposition, am I required to have a belief that it is true (or false), while simultaneously believing that the truth is unknowable?

Remember, this isn't a continuum like "full" to "empty". It's a binary like "full" and "not full".

We're going around in circles here.

[quixotecoyote]

Actually, I don't see the relevance of my particular beliefs to a discussion of terminology. Which is why the previous quote was unrelated to any statement of my belief. The quote addressed your assertion that the existance of one or more gods was a simple binary. I dispute your assertion, although that point of disagreement is more-or-less tangential to this discussion.



Pax's original assertion was that if I'm undecided about a proposition, then I don't believe in it. Thus:

If I'm undecided about the absence of gods, it follows that I don't believe in the absence of gods.
If belief is binary, and I don't believe in the absence of gods, then I necessarily believe in the presence of gods.
If I believe in the presence of gods, then I'm a theist.


This is a semantic twist which only serves to obscure meaning.

If you are undecided in a belief regarding whether something exists, you still lack belief in that something existing.

If you are undecided in a belief regarding whether something doesn't exist, that doesn't imply that you believe in that thing, only that you're refraining from making a positive claim of its non-existence.

You're using words in forms that look similar but that have different meanings.



Again, my assertion is that using the term "belief" to be a simple binary condition is a) not common parlance and b) leads to some very odd conclusions.

In common parlance, "lack of belief in the proposition" is not necessarily the same as "belief that the proposition is false." Many people see no problem with being "undecided" about which of two mutually exclusive options are true, yet if "belief" is a binary, then it's logically impossible to be undecided in that case. If "belief" is binary, then expressions such as "strongly believe" and "firmly believe" are nonsensical, yet they are commonly used and both the speakers and listeners understand exactly what they mean.

As for the odd conclusions - First, if "belief" is a simple binary, then I necessarily have an infinite number of "beliefs" about propositions that I've never heard, despite the fact that my mind has finite capacity and that even I can't know what most of my beliefs are.

Second, if "belief" is a simple binary, then I must "believe" either the truth or falsehood of nonsensical or poorly-formed propositions. Evidently I must believe that "Justice is redder than the number 7", "384OIbujrs", and "My dog barks in the night" are each either true or false (btw, I have no dog). If "belief" applies only to well-formed propositions, then what about those propositions that I have yet to determine the 'formedness?'

As Godel has demonstrated, there are propositions that not provably true or false. By definition, then, the truth of such a proposition is unknowable. If I am confronted by such a proposition, am I required to have a belief that it is true (or false), while simultaneously believing that the truth is unknowable?



The blue is answered by the bit you declare is "going around in circles."

The red is backwards, as you lack belief in an infinite number of concepts because you've never heard of them or they haven't been constructed yet.

[volatile]

Das - why have you ignored the nuerous times it has been explained that it is not "belief" in general which is binary, but belief in the existence of (at least one) God. Ontological beliefs are binary, yes - but this does not apply to any conceivable belief.

Atheism, or theism for that matter, says nothing about degrees of conviction. It's simply not part of the term. So why you're talking about "firm belief" is beyond me; we've explained this error over and over again.

I don't understand why you're finding this difficult. Can you believe and not believe in the existence of something at the same time?

[quixotecoyote]

This is a semantic twist which only serves to obscure meaning.

If you are undecided in a belief regarding whether something exists, you still lack belief in that something existing.

If you are undecided in a belief regarding whether something doesn't exist, that doesn't imply that you believe in that thing, only that you're refraining from making a positive claim of its non-existence.

You're using words in forms that look similar but that have different meanings.



Better phrasing:

If you haven't taken a position on whether something exists or does not exist, you don't believe it.

If, as in the attempted rephrase, you haven't taken a position on whether something does not exist or does not not exist, it has the same meaning as the first, but is couched in backwards language.

It's like attempting to reverse the burden of proof by saying, "I'm not saying God exists. I'm just saying God does not not exist, and since no one can be expected to prove a negative, I'm safe."

[dasmiller]

Das - why have you ignored the nuerous times it has been explained that it is not "belief" in general which is binary, but belief in the existence of (at least one) God.

Since the existence of gods is a binary question, it follows that belief in the existence of a god is necessarily binary?

So .. . does it apply only to binary ontological questions? If so, then what's so special about ontology? And if it applies to any binary question, then we're back to the infinite number of binary true/false propositions that I've never heard but evidently believe are false.

To my stubborn way of thinking:
"belief that the proposition is true,"
"belief that the proposition is false," and
"lack of belief in the proposition"
are distinct states. Conflating the 2nd and 3rd leads to the logical problems that I discussed earlier.

Atheism, or theism for that matter, says nothing about degrees of conviction. It's simply not part of the term.

That's entirely dependent on the definition of atheism. Certainly "the belief that there are no deities" and "the rejection of the belief in the existence of dieties" (wikipedia definitions #1 and #2) imply a strong conviction; "lack of conviction in the existence of dieties" would not qualify as atheism under either of those definitions.

So why you're talking about "firm belief" is beyond me; we've explained this error over and over again.

It went to my argument that common usage for the word "belief" does not require it to be binary. Even when it's being used to describe a belief in a diety.

I don't understand why you're finding this difficult. Can you believe and not believe in the existence of something at the same time?

You ask that as if it's a rhetorical question. Actually, yes, my mind can simultaneously consider mutually-exclusive propositions, particularly while comparing them. I often do this while trying to decide what to have for lunch.

I can be uncertain about the existance of a thing, which means acknowledging the possibilities of both existence and non-existence. I don't feel that "acknowledging the possibilities" necessarily rises to the level of "belief" as the term is commonly used.

[Trent Wray]

Let me ask:

Suppose I believe that a god or supernatural intelligence exists, but also doesn't exist at the same time. In this sense, God doesn't exist everywhere for everyone. God exists in a limited fashion. For some, God reveals him/her/itself. And for others, god NEVER will. So for them and that "part of the universe", it's not a matter of them not seeing god, or not experiencing god. For them, god literally doesn't exist. There will never be any evidence, and they will never know any different. They will never stand on one side of the fence and look over at the others and see "god". It would almost be like living in two separate realities, yet it isn't. It's this one reality.

In this sense, to claim God doesn't exist is true. If you're a believer who experiences god though, to say that God exists is true. If somehow you understand "both sides", then you can say that god does and does not exist.

What label goes on this type of person? (other than DID :))

[The Man]

Most of that was incoherent, but this is simple.

If you believe in any gods, specified or not, you are a theist. Probably some flavor of deist. If you are entirely certain of that, you are a gnostic theist.

However.

I suspect you're playing word games with your 'real for you but not for me' style first post, your bait-and-switch from talking about belief in gods to talking about belief in knowledge in your second post, your "if you believe it, it exists" where apparently you want to equate ideas with things themselves in the third post, and so on.

It's a simple question you're trying to complicate. Do you believe in any gods; supernatural type beings of immense power such as: Yaweh, Zeus, Zoroaster, Shiva, the Prime Mover, etc.

Not do you believe that people follow them.

Not do you believe that people have concepts of them.

Not do you believe that other people believe in them.

Not do you believe you have knowledge of them.

Not do you believe you lack knowledge of them.

Not do you believe you don't know about them.

Do you believe in them?

Once again I have no particular belief is the existence of any god, but do believe some gods do exist. Beliefs are sometimes complicated, conflicting and even contradictory. Certainly you can make a question about ones beliefs as simple as you want, but unless those beliefs are equally as simple you can get a simplified response, in accordance with the question, that is not accurately reflective of the belief or beliefs. Alternatively the response may attempt to accurately reflect ones beliefs and as a result be unresponsive to the simplicity of the question or contradictory within those limits it imposes.


Actually I was not “playing word games” , doing a “bait-and-switch” or trying to “equate ideas with things themselves”. I was just trying to express one of the reasons I don’t find the question of the existence of gods particularly meaningfully, at least for me.

[Doubt]

I keep seeing positions created for people here in this thread that have not been stated. I have also seen a number of positions not stated clearly. That includes me. I guess we need to clear up some logic. a few quick points:

1. The existence of one or more supreme beings can be stated as a binary option and should be when it comes to describing some one as either atheist or theist. X = there is a god and NOT X = there is no god.

2. Believing two mutually exclusive things at the same time is not impossble. It is, however, irrational.

3. Opinions and beliefs are not the same thing. Opinions are not necessarily binary. All of the following are valid opinions:

God exists
God does not exist
God is irrelevant
I don't care if god exists
I don't know if god exists

All of the above are valid opinions. They are not all statements of belief.

4. Not caring, usually expressed as "don't care" when working in Boolean equations does have a specific meaning in binary logic. That meaning is not X and NOT X being true at the same time. It means that X and NOT X are irrelevant.

[The Man]

Fine and dandy.

What does this has to do with the term "atheist", which means "Does not believe any gods actually exist"?

Once again the term is specifically about beliefs and what beliefs one might or might not have.


Do you believe in any Gods? If the answer is "No", then you're an atheist. Your degree of confliction is logically irrelevant - you cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in the existence of something.

Again simple beliefs are not constrained by logic, binary or otherwise.



No - something can be believable (or plausible, if you like) without someone believing in it.

Exactly. So how was I “strangely conflating "believable" with belief”? Since I never claimed that simply being “believable” infers that someone does or must believe in it.

Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that I was specifically talking about something that is believable that someone does expressly believe in?




"Atheism" is not a proposition that includes any statements about present or future or potential believability.

I never claimed it was.



It is only a statement of belief of a binary ontological condition. Why do you persist in adding your own, strange, illogical and unnecessary extra criteria to what really is a very simple concept?

Because it is not my concept and can not accurately reflect my concept based on that binary restriction. Again beliefs do not have to be binary, so I don’t consider a question about beliefs with such restrictions to be particularly meaningful, at least for me in this instance, since my belief is not binary.



All this other stuff is fine - and I do not dispute that what you describe accurately reflects your beliefs. But that does nothing to affect the only logical definition of the term "atheist".

Once again since beliefs are not restricted by logic, binary or otherwise, that simply makes “the only logical definition of the term "atheist"“ not descriptive of my beliefs and inapplicable.


Do you agree that it is impossible to simultaneously believe in something and to not believe in that same thing?

Obviously not and that is probably the major contention that will prevent us from ever reaching an agreement on this issue. If it were impossible then peoples beliefs would not be conflicting and contradictory as they sometimes are. As I have said before you can call me or my beliefs whatever you want it really does not matter to me. Trying to make my beliefs conform to what you think they should be simply makes them not my beliefs.




No. :confused: How did you get that from my post? In fact, I specifically said "that would be acredism", didn't I?

Well, from your post.


Eh? I'm also not telling you that belief in gods (or "feelings of sadness") do not exist.

So now you are telling me “that belief in gods (or "feelings of sadness") do not exist”?

Sorry, I have no idea what “acredism” is suppose to mean since you did relate it to your assertion that you were “not telling” me “that belief in gods (or "feelings of sadness") do not exist”, but apparently that is no longer the case.





That makes you an agnostic deist or pantheist. Not just "agnostic", because "agnostic" is not an ontological statement. "Theistic atheist" is oxymoronic, and no-one has proffered it as a legitimate term.

Once again I have no singular and non-contradictory “ontological statement” or “position of belief” on the existence of gods. So an ontological term referring to belief with such a binary restriction would simply not apply. However I do have a singular Epistemological position that does conform to the term “agnostic”.

You still can’t seem to give up that strawman. Why do you seem to insist on trying to deliberately conflate the two descriptions (ontological and epistemological) when I specifically am not?

Again apatheism or even apathetic agnosticism might best describe my position.





Quix summed it up: you really are quite incoherent.


Sometimes beliefs are and expressing them accurately can certainly be, as most people tend to interpret that expression based on their own beliefs.

[The Man]

Let me ask:

Suppose I believe that a god or supernatural intelligence exists, but also doesn't exist at the same time. In this sense, God doesn't exist everywhere for everyone. God exists in a limited fashion. For some, God reveals him/her/itself. And for others, god NEVER will. So for them and that "part of the universe", it's not a matter of them not seeing god, or not experiencing god. For them, god literally doesn't exist. There will never be any evidence, and they will never know any different. They will never stand on one side of the fence and look over at the others and see "god". It would almost be like living in two separate realities, yet it isn't. It's this one reality.

In this sense, to claim God doesn't exist is true. If you're a believer who experiences god though, to say that God exists is true. If somehow you understand "both sides", then you can say that god does and does not exist.

What label goes on this type of person? (other than DID :))

Pretty much some of the points I was trying to make, although I think you said it better. Particularly relevant when considering said god is simply just a concept or idea.

[I Am The Scum]

I... do believe some gods do exist.

Please define the word "god" as you are using it in this sentence.

[The Man]

I keep seeing positions created for people here in this thread that have not been stated. I have also seen a number of positions not stated clearly. That includes me. I guess we need to clear up some logic. a few quick points:

1. The existence of one or more supreme beings can be stated as a binary option and should be when it comes to describing some one as either atheist or theist. X = there is a god and NOT X = there is no god.

2. Believing two mutually exclusive things at the same time is not impossble. It is, however, irrational.

3. Opinions and beliefs are not the same thing. Opinions are not necessarily binary. All of the following are valid opinions:

God exists
God does not exist
God is irrelevant
I don't care if god exists
I don't know if god exists

All of the above are valid opinions. They are not all statements of belief.

4. Not caring, usually expressed as "don't care" when working in Boolean equations does have a specific meaning in binary logic. That meaning is not X and NOT X being true at the same time. It means that X and NOT X are irrelevant.

Good points Doubt, and trying to bring some rationality to the irrationality I have been trying to express is basically what brought me to my current "don't care" position quite a long time ago. I just never knew there was actually a name identifying such a type of position until just a year or so ago.

[Rasmus]

Let me ask:

Suppose I believe that a god or supernatural intelligence exists, but also doesn't exist at the same time. In this sense, God doesn't exist everywhere for everyone. God exists in a limited fashion. For some, God reveals him/her/itself. And for others, god NEVER will. So for them and that "part of the universe", it's not a matter of them not seeing god, or not experiencing god. For them, god literally doesn't exist. There will never be any evidence, and they will never know any different. They will never stand on one side of the fence and look over at the others and see "god". It would almost be like living in two separate realities, yet it isn't. It's this one reality.

In this sense, to claim God doesn't exist is true. If you're a believer who experiences god though, to say that God exists is true. If somehow you understand "both sides", then you can say that god does and does not exist.

What label goes on this type of person? (other than DID :))

Oh, I can think of a couple of labels here ...

seriously, though: No, this doesn't describe a situation where god does exist and does not exist.

I have something edible on my desk. In a momwent or two, I will eat it. You will never know what it was and to you, it is exactly like the thing never existed. That doesn't make the claim that it didn't exist anymore true, though.

You might be able to construct a scenario with different realities for different people. But the ordinary claim that something does or does not exist only relates to one reality - regardless of how many people share it.

And even then, you would only ever be in one of these realities - so for you, personally, you would indeed either claim that God exists or doesn't exist.

[volatile]

All this waffling, and still you're not getting it.

Here it is, in your own words

Once again I have no singular and non-contradictory “ontological statement” or “position of belief” on the existence of gods. So an ontological term referring to belief with such a binary restriction would simply not apply.


Yes, you do. Yes it would. Yes it does. Look, here, in your own words, is a a statement of theistic belief:

I do believe some gods do exist.That is an ontological statement of belief, which makes you a theist, by definition. Whether you like that or not it is irrelevant. It is what the word means.

[I Am The Scum]

I feel the need to point out that any declarative statement, any sentence that expresses an idea, is binary in nature. Take any proposition, P, and it's converse can be stated as "It is not the case that P."

[The Man]

Please define the word "god" as you are using it in this sentence.






http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god

Noun
1. god (plural gods)
A deity:




http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en%7Cen&q=god&hl=en&aq=f


god /ɡ'ɒd


3. In many religions, a god is one of the spirits or beings that are believed to have power over a particular part of the world or nature.


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=33577&dict=CALD&topic=god-and-gods


god noun (SPIRIT)
/gɒd/#PRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=US pronunciation symbol"/gɑːd/ n [C]
a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or a representation of this spirit or being.


http://www.dictionary.net/god

3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. [1913 Webster]

[dasmiller]

I keep seeing positions created for people here in this thread that have not been stated. I have also seen a number of positions not stated clearly. That includes me. I guess we need to clear up some logic. a few quick points:

1. The existence of one or more supreme beings can be stated as a binary option and should be when it comes to describing some one as either atheist or theist. X = there is a god and NOT X = there is no god.

2. Believing two mutually exclusive things at the same time is not impossble. It is, however, irrational.

3. Opinions and beliefs are not the same thing. Opinions are not necessarily binary. All of the following are valid opinions:

God exists
God does not exist
God is irrelevant
I don't care if god exists
I don't know if god exists

All of the above are valid opinions. They are not all statements of belief.

4. Not caring, usually expressed as "don't care" when working in Boolean equations does have a specific meaning in binary logic. That meaning is not X and NOT X being true at the same time. It means that X and NOT X are irrelevant.

Refreshingly, I think I agree. I'd add a couple more to your list of potential opinions -

"The proposition that god exists (or that god does not exist) is poorly formed"
"The proposition that god exists is well-formed but unprovable"
"I haven't even decided whether I believe that the proposition is well-formed and provable"
(You may say that those are subsumed under your opinions #3 and #5. If you did, in fact, say so, I would agree that it's plausible but I'd have to think about it more)

I'll have to ponder the distinction between 'belief' and 'opinion.' Certainly they're different in common parlance, and it seems to me that they should be different here, but I'm not sure I can elaborate on the distinction.

I think one point of confusion has been that some thought that when I said that belief was not binary, I meant that belief had to fall on a contuum. That was not my intent, and maybe I wasn't clear on that. I am of the opinion that the 'belief' in a binary proposition cannot be completely described by "believe" or "don't believe." Offhand, I have 6 possible values (believe it's true, believe it's false, lack belief in truth or falsehood (i.e.don't know/don't care), believe that it's pooly formed, believe that it's unprovable, lack belief in the provability or formedness).

[Trent Wray]

Oh, I can think of a couple of labels here ...

seriously, though: No, this doesn't describe a situation where god does exist and does not exist.

I have something edible on my desk. In a momwent or two, I will eat it. You will never know what it was and to you, it is exactly like the thing never existed. That doesn't make the claim that it didn't exist anymore true, though.

You might be able to construct a scenario with different realities for different people. But the ordinary claim that something does or does not exist only relates to one reality - regardless of how many people share it.

And even then, you would only ever be in one of these realities - so for you, personally, you would indeed either claim that God exists or doesn't exist. I would claim that god exists, but at the same time ... if I can only experience god in certain circumstances I can't say for sure whether god exists because of those circumstances or because of me personally. So I could still say that god does and does not exist, I suppose.

But I like Doubt's word "irrational." There is nothing rational about this belief. It is irrational. To say a theist is irrational, is redundant because a theist bases their belief on faith in the first place.

So perhaps there is such a thing as an irrational agnostic? Or an irrational atheist?

[The Man]

All this waffling, and still you're not getting it.


Waffling? My position has not changed.

This makes you an atheist. Quite clearly.

In which case, you're a theist.

Then you are an atheist.

That makes you an agnostic deist or pantheist.






Here it is, in your own words



Yes, you do. Yes it would. Yes it does. Look, here, in your own words, is a a statement of theistic belief:

That is an ontological statement of belief, which makes you a theist, by definition. Whether you like that or not it is irrelevant. It is what the word means.

That is not a accurate quote. So if resorting to deliberately manipulating a quote is the only way you can force my stated position to conform to your needs then I don’t see any reason to continue this discussion. As you obviously are only interested in forcing some position of your own choice onto what I have stated. Now you’ve gone as far as deliberately manipulating a quote, so you might as well go all the way and just make up whatever you think you would like me to say next, which isn’t that far removed from what you have been doing all along.

[I Am The Scum]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god





http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en%7Cen&q=god&hl=en&aq=f




http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=33577&dict=CALD&topic=god-and-gods




http://www.dictionary.net/god
You're using the same word four different ways in one instance? Could you please narrow that down to one coherent idea?

[quixotecoyote]

That is not a accurate quote.


Looks accurate to me. What's wrong with it?

[quixotecoyote]

I would claim that god exists, but at the same time ... if I can only experience god in certain circumstances I can't say for sure whether god exists because of those circumstances or because of me personally. So I could still say that god does and does not exist, I suppose.


This still doesn't work, trent. This is peekaboo - reality goes away every time you can't see it.

Are you really going to take a reasonable definition of god, and say that this god is created and destroyed by your experiential status? You create and destroy gods? Should be be founding a church in your honor?

Either you have far more productive uses of your power than you've been using, or you're switching the reality of god with the idea of god.

And even if either of those was the case, it still would be "on again/off again" not "on&off simultaneously:

[Doubt]

Looks accurate to me. What's wrong with it?

Which post did the quote come from?

[quixotecoyote]

Which post did the quote come from?

207

I have no particular belief is the existence of any god, but do believe some gods do exist


You don't need any particular belief in any particular god to be a theist and not an atheist.

All you need is any belief in any god.

If you say "I do believe some gods do exist" then whatever else you add onto it (barring a claim that you're talking out your ass) doesn't matter. It's a plain, straightforward claim of theism.

[Trent Wray]

This still doesn't work, trent. This is peekaboo - reality goes away every time you can't see it.

Are you really going to take a reasonable definition of god, and say that this god is created and destroyed by your experiential status? You create and destroy gods? Should be be founding a church in your honor?

Either you have far more productive uses of your power than you've been using, or you're switching the reality of god with the idea of god.

And even if either of those was the case, it still would be "on again/off again" not "on&off simultaneously:
Hmm ... but what if the peekaboo reality goes away depending on who I'm with.

Suppose it's like this: I see and talk with god, but others cannot see that same god "appear" before me. Until Person X, Y, Z come along. They can see and talk to that god. And that god can perform miraculous feats, manifest things into reality, etc and so forth. BUT ... when Peeps A, B, C come along, they cannot hear or see god, and they perceive the exact same manifestations but after the fact. Not only this, but I can no longer see nor hear god either. It's not like I'm talking to him adn they just don't see him. He is GONE. Nowhere to be found. No way to communicate with him. And after examining the "evidence", even if it's physical, it remains circumstantial because he is absolutely gone.

Until days, or months, or years later, when god "appears again", because of me, or A, B, C, etc. and whatever.

In this sense, I can say he exists, because I have "evidence". But if the evidence cannot be provided when certain "types" of people are around or seeking it .... NO MATTER WHAT .... logically, I have to conclude that God doesn't exist in certain circumstances.

And all this is hypothetical of course, assuming my own personal evidence along with X, Y, Z peeps are "real" and not delusionary.

So if persons A, B, and C said, "okay, where is God?" I cannot say, "over there," and I cannot say, "here," and I cannot say, "he will appear at such and such a time on such and such a day," because they will never see or experience god regardless. And neither will I, so long as I am with them or whatever circumstance he doesn't exist in.

So, strictly speaking from my pov, I can say:

1) God exists in circumstance X
2) God doesn't exist in circumstance Y
3) Some people only exist in circumstance X
4) Some people only exist in circumstance Y
5) Some people exist in both circumstance X and Y

If the above is absolutely true, and I (#5) exist in both circumstance X and Y, what does that mean? To me, it either means both 1 and 2 are true at the same time, or a third variable needs to be created: Z. But what is Z based on? Probabilities?

eta: hmm ... Peeaboothesit :)

[quixotecoyote]

Are you just yanking my chain?

[Trent Wray]

You seem to be conflating (conflate? equate?) the ability to prove something with the existence of that something.

When you turn off the computer, do I stop existing? Perhaps.

In all seriousness, that's a good point. And I can "Assume" you are a real person. I can assume that people I can physically meet know you, and that if I physically met you, I could put two and two together. Or perhaps I don't ever have to meet you to "believe" you actually exist.

But you are a human being. There is evidence humans exist. I can compare your claims to those of others. If you claim to exist as a poster on the forum, I can look and see and find that, wow, I am one of those also. I have friends who do it also. Your existence is reinforced by comparison.

If this hypothetical God exists and ONLY exists in ways that compare to nothing else, not one other thing, then it would require my faith to believe that god existed, even if he "appeared" coming down from the sky on clouds. I have nothing else to compare him to. If aliens could project him holographically like Obi Wan or something, I might could compare it to that ... but that's more or less still sci fi, barely in the realm of sci-fact last I checked.

So I have faith that there is a real person typing your responses. 99.9% faith :). But if there is a god manifesting stuff into reality that I can compare to other stuff, it makes it tricky. If there is a god who manifests himself only to XYZ people but not ABC people, what else can I compare it to? To me, it's like trying to nail down wave-particle duality. It just "is". God is and isn't. He only comes out on the full moon, leaves no trace, twice on the eve of Midsummer's day, along the 38th parallel to those in faithful prayer, etc and so forth. He's an invisible pink unicorn. BUT ... if the unicorn peforms actual feats that XYZ can witness in a group, manifesting "things", that is evidence. Perhaps it's delusional, perhaps not. but the manifested evidence is something to look at. If ABC look into it, never find anything miraculous about it but rely on Occam or something .... and can NEVER hope to find God or what XYZ find, then what is the conclusion?

It would be as though only certain types of scientists were able to witness wave-particle duality. For other types, they don't see it whatsoever. No matter what the experiment. Only one kind of scientist sees it .... those between 5'5" and 6'3" for example. What is the conclusion?

[quixotecoyote]

<cough>

see edit.

[Trent Wray]

Are you just yanking my chain? I'm not yanking your chain :). That would be impolite and wasting your time. If I was yanking your chain I'd tell you quickly ;)

I am speaking in hypotheticals, but I'm examining the idea that people claim:

* you need to have faith to see god
* god does what he wants, to whom he wants, for no rational explanation
* possibly a sheep-goat effect, etc

All this talk about agnostics, gnostics, atheists, theists .... I like unified stuff. I like the "both" answers, personally. So I'm exploring it.

An episode I saw the other day of "The Outer Limits" made me think of this idea ... that multiple people can see the exact same thing, and see it as something different, but they are all correct --- in reality. They are all correct.

[Trent Wray]

No worries though, QC ---- if you don't want to go down that rabbit hole, it's cool. I am about to go to work for awhile though, so don't take my abscence as a sign that I was yanking your chain. It's all coincidental I have to leave in a moment LOL :)

[quixotecoyote]

I'm not yanking your chain :). That would be impolite and wasting your time. If I was yanking your chain I'd tell you quickly ;)

I am speaking in hypotheticals, but I'm examining the idea that people claim:

* you need to have faith to see god
* god does what he wants, to whom he wants, for no rational explanation
* possibly a sheep-goat effect, etc

All this talk about agnostics, gnostics, atheists, theists .... I like unified stuff. I like the "both" answers, personally. So I'm exploring it.

Well ok, I can understand that, but some of this stuff is just silly.

If something doesn't exist sometimes and exists at another time, it's not existing/not existing at the same time.

The idea that people can create actual gods is a bit screwy, although fun in fiction.

If you know something exists but then it disappears and comes back, why say it ceased to exist rather than you stopped seeing it? Nothing (save mental constructs) in the world stops existing because you stop being aware of it, but you think you can ditch a god that way?

I get that you're playing with hypothetical, but this stuff just seems, well, fluffy?

An episode I saw the other day of "The Outer Limits" made me think of this idea ... that multiple people can see the exact same thing, and see it as something different, but they are all correct --- in reality. They are all correct.

And how would this relate to everything else you're talking about.

[Trent Wray]

Well ok, I can understand that, but some of this stuff is just silly.

If something doesn't exist sometimes and exists at another time, it's not existing/not existing at the same time.

The idea that people can create actual gods is a bit screwy, although fun in fiction.

If you know something exists but then it disappears and comes back, why say it ceased to exist rather than you stopped seeing it? Nothing (save mental constructs) in the world stops existing because you stop being aware of it, but you think you can ditch a god that way?

I get that you're playing with hypothetical, but this stuff just seems, well, fluffy?



And how would this relate to everything else you're talking about. Well, the Outer Limits epi specifically addressed the idea of this.

Basically, a guy was "caught" on film using some supernatural abilities. The military got ahold of him and began to run tests. To make a long story short, they were experimenting on him when something blew up, causing a flash of light and all the experimenters to black out momentarily. During their blackout, each one had a vision of the guy. In one vision, he turned into "god", in another vision he became somebody's father, in another he was an angel, in another he was an advanced piece of technology by "Russians", in another a person saw themselves, etc and so forth.

You never find out exactly what he was in particular, as he wanted them all to see him differently on purpose. He purposely wanted to "exist" as something supernatural to some, and non-supernatural to others. And he provided no concrete, conclusive evidence either way to any of them to say he was one thing over the other.

So I was thinking about this. If I knew that God worked this way with people, so to speak, and knew his "secret" .... that he didn't want his identity revealed let's say ... then I would have to deny his existence with those who claimed he didn't exist, to keep in line with the way he wanted things. At the same time, I would also have to recognize his existence as an alien, or a "god" or whatever he chose to reveal himself as to someone else, if that's what they saw god as.

So, if I truly believed in this "god" .... with some people he would simply not exist, and he would never exist. That would have to be a reality I agreed to recognize in order to keep inline with the reality of those individuals that "god" wanted to maintain. And when I would be sitting alone in a room, all by myself, trying to decide what exactly god was, I couldn't come up with a logical conclusion .... because he would be "all things to all people, and some people he would be nothing."

Would it not be logical then, for me to say, "God is and is not at the same time." It wouldn't be rational, but wouldn't it be logical based on my own POV. After all, god was an alien, a person, a god, a delusion, nothing, etc? In all those attributes, one of those attributes is "non-existent" LOL. What kind of believer is this?

ETA: and as far as "fluffy", I didn't know one could get too fluffy in this section of the forum LOL ;)

[Trent Wray]

Well I guess I killed that thread :(

[Mister Agenda]

At least it went peacefully. BTW, your idea is interesting and entertaining...but what can you follow it with?

[quixotecoyote]

Well I guess I killed that thread :(

Well, I've already raised my objections to your points to the effect that



if something doesn't exist sometimes and exists at another time, it's not existing/not existing at the same time.
One person person perceiving something when another doesn't - doesn't fracture reality into parallel sections

"Subjective reality" is a way of talking about this difference
It doesn't imply some sort of solipsist universe generation


If you believe a trickster god exists and hides himself from people sometimes, then you aren't really saying that he simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. You're saying he's simultaneously perceived by some people and not perceived by others.

You didn't really seem interested in moving the language from the realm of fluff to the realm of meaning, and I didn't feel like starting a fight with you, so I let it go.

[jiggeryqua]

I feel the need to point out that any declarative statement, any sentence that expresses an idea, is binary in nature. Take any proposition, P, and it's converse can be stated as "It is not the case that P."

Binary, as in 'one of two states'? Rather than, say, three? P, Not P, both P and Not P. Oh, and 'neither P nor Not P'. Everything is binary if your understanding of the nature of existence is binary. Things are binary, therefore things are binary - things that are not binary are clearly not things, by definition.

[quixotecoyote]

Binary, as in 'one of two states'? Rather than, say, three? P, Not P, both P and Not P. Oh, and 'neither P nor Not P'. Everything is binary if your understanding of the nature of existence is binary. Things are binary, therefore things are binary - things that are not binary are clearly not things, by definition.

Yes, he should have limited the statement to existence claims.

[I Am The Scum]

It's not limited to claims of existence, or claims in regards to things that exist. If your claim is coherent (we can make sense of it, regardless of whether or not it's true), then it either IS or IS NOT.

It is the case that Darth Vader used to pilot a pod racer.
It is not the case that Darth Vader used to pilot a pod racer.

If you are telling me that both of these are correct, or neither of these are correct, then you're not making any sense. Even though it's make-believe, we can still have a sensible conversation about it and determine what is and is not true within that framework.

If you can provide me with some examples of things that simultaneously are and are not, I'd be highly impressed. As far as I'm aware, the only way this can be done is with propositions that are self-referencing, such as the Liar Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox).

[quixotecoyote]

"[aaaaaaaaaaaaaa]aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

In the above quotation, is the sequence of "a"s inside the brackets?

[I Am The Scum]

"[aaaaaaaaaaaaaa]aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

In the above quotation, is the sequence of "a"s inside the brackets?

Depends on which one you're referencing.

EDIT: Actually, I see what you're getting at. Let's shorten it down to this.

[x]x

In reference to the bold section:
It is the case that an x is present in brackets.
---OR---
It is not the case that an x is present in brackets.

The first claim is true. The second is not.

[quixotecoyote]

Depends on which one you're referencing.

EDIT: Actually, I see what you're getting at. Let's shorten it down to this.

[x]x

In reference to the bold section:
It is the case that an x is present in brackets.
---OR---
It is not the case that an x is present in brackets.

The first claim is true. The second is not.

Well sure, if you modify any example I present into a form that fits into a binary true/false paradigm, than all examples I present will fit into a binary true/false paradigm.

Of course, if you take them as I give them, they don't.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/2space.jpg

This car is inside the parking space on the left.

[dasmiller]

If you can provide me with some examples of things that simultaneously are and are not, I'd be highly impressed. As far as I'm aware, the only way this can be done is with propositions that are self-referencing, such as the Liar Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox).

Godel proved that within any non-trivial system, there are unprovable assertions. IIRC, such an assertion does not necessarily need to be self-referencing. Such assertions occupy an uneasy limbo between truth and falsehood.

[quixotecoyote]

Godel proved that within any non-trivial system, there are unprovable assertions. IIRC, such an assertion does not necessarily need to be self-referencing. Such assertions occupy an uneasy limbo between truth and falsehood.

Poor example, I think. If you don't know whether something is true or false, that does not mean it is neither true nor false. It just means you don't know.

[I Am The Scum]

When have I ever stated anything other than an IS or IS NOT dichotomy?

As for your parking example, it depends on what you mean by "inside." Do you mean partially? If so, then yes it is inside the space. If you mean completely, then it's the other way around.

[quixotecoyote]

When have I ever stated anything other than an IS or IS NOT dichotomy?

This was your original claim:

any declarative statement, any sentence that expresses an idea, is binary in nature. Take any proposition, P, and it's converse can be stated as "It is not the case that P." Yet my declarative statement, a sentence that expresses an idea and thus falls into the category you are claiming must be binary, is not, as you say below.

As for your parking example, it depends on what you mean by "inside." Do you mean partially? If so, then yes it is inside the space. If you mean completely, then it's the other way around.If you reword the sentence to add meanings I didn't use, you have a different declarative sentence. If you take the sentence I used, it is both inside and not inside; both P and not P.

Rules of formal logic tend to break down when faced with messy informal realities.

[I Am The Scum]

All I did was ask you to clarify what you meant. If there is a meaning behind the word "inside", then please tell me. If there is no meaning behind it, then your sentence is vacuous and does not express an idea.

[quixotecoyote]

All I did was ask you to clarify what you meant. If there is a meaning behind the word "inside", then please tell me. If there is no meaning behind it, then your sentence is vacuous and does not express an idea.

Yes, you asked me to clarify the declarative sentence by adding meaning which would change it into a different sentence, which I decline to do.

The meaning of inside is not in question. I refrained from expanding the meaning with "completely" or "partially" which is completely legitimate given your claim that "any declarative statement" would fit your argument.

[dasmiller]

Poor example, I think. If you don't know whether something is true or false, that does not mean it is neither true nor false. It just means you don't know.

Hopefully, someone who's better-trained than I in formal logic can answer this - but in the realm of logic, does "true but unprovable" mean anything? Is there necessarily an underlying truth/falsehood?

[Trent Wray]

At least it went peacefully. BTW, your idea is interesting and entertaining...but what can you follow it with? What do you mean, "follow it with,"? Like evidence? Or do you mean, "okay, where does it go from there?" I'm not sure I understand, but thanx for saying it's interesting and entertaining LOL :)

Well, I've already raised my objections to your points to the effect that



if something doesn't exist sometimes and exists at another time, it's not existing/not existing at the same time.
One person person perceiving something when another doesn't - doesn't fracture reality into parallel sections

"Subjective reality" is a way of talking about this difference
It doesn't imply some sort of solipsist universe generation


If you believe a trickster god exists and hides himself from people sometimes, then you aren't really saying that he simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. You're saying he's simultaneously perceived by some people and not perceived by others.

You didn't really seem interested in moving the language from the realm of fluff to the realm of meaning, and I didn't feel like starting a fight with you, so I let it go. I'd actually love to move it to the realm of meaning. It's a POV I find interesting .... the idea that god may exist in some people's reality while not in others, and it's "all correct." I don't see where I'd view any debate over it as raising my blood pressure either, tbh. If it does yours then that's cool .... we can drop it. I'm interested in it, but I'm not taking it so seriously that I'm going to get pissed off and start banging out put-downs online :) Do I come across as confrontational? God I hope not!

So if you wanna continue, that's cool. If not, that's cool also. But I'll address your list anywayz ---

* One person perceiving something that another doesn't, does not fracture realities. I'd agree with that most definitely. If in order for this "view of god" to work we have to start bringing in MWI and alternate dimensions mixing and matching, I'd just assume toss it.
* it's definitely subjective and irrational, unless our interaction with god is completely subjective at all times, regardless of the person's POV. Unless we could prove God exists objectively (LOL), then subjective is all we have.
* that having been said, assuming for a moment that those who see god as a monkey-headed human with twelve arms is actually seeing the same god that Moses saw in the burning bush and one who reaches nirvana sees, etc .... then they are all experiencing the same god via their own subjective realities. That is probably more or less a unitarian type of view.

What throws the curveball into it, is when I would also say that Not only does god exist in those multiple ways, but he also doesn't exist.

I think of it in terms of zero and infinity. Within zero, there is nothing. Within infinity, there are infinite probabilities. So looking at our current universe, we do not know whether we came from zero or infinity, and we do not know whether we are going towards a zero or infinite universe. We more or less know the universe is expanding intrinsically, and we are fairly certain of the Big Bang being a starting point ... but beyond that "we don't know." Beyond the realm of what we experience exists both zero, and infinity. They exist at the same time within probabilities. There are probabliiities that determine whether or not we came from zero or infinity. It's like adding zero and infinity together.

So if I'm looking at God that way, I can say god is infinite in infinite ways. He can do as he wants or appear as he wants. But I can also say he doesn't exist whatsoever. Wherever Zero is ... there he isn't.

Now, supposing we actually have the opportunity to determine whether we fit into zero or infinity, or whether or not "god himself" decides which of us will fit into zero or infinity. Right now we are finite. When we die, we are essentially becoming one or the other. Those who don't believe in a god, logically we "die" and cease. Our atoms don't .... yet ..... but the "I" part is toast. Those who believe, believe in eternal life/punishment/put your woo here/etc.

So, what if both believers and non-believers are correct? What if "God" is allowing us to more or less make our own choices as to whether or not we want a "god"? For those who don't, they live in a finite way going towards zero. No harm no foul. Those who do want a god live in a finite way going towards infinity. Both are realities. And for those who choose "no god" ... they will never, ever know of god. So it's realisitic to say, god doesn't exist from their pov.

It's almost like saying that we will choose how the universe begins and ends, based on whether our subjective experience will allow such a thing. It's more like saying that reality isn't fractured in multiple realities YET. But at some point, it will be fractured into multiple realities ..... it is in the process of "fracturing" towards zero and infinity.

I hope I didn't just ramble up a big salad of woo in need of dressing :)

Still hypothetical :)

[quixotecoyote]

So if you wanna continue, that's cool. If not, that's cool also. But I'll address your list anywayz ---

* One person perceiving something that another doesn't, does not fracture realities. I'd agree with that most definitely. If in order for this "view of god" to work we have to start bringing in MWI and alternate dimensions mixing and matching, I'd just assume toss it.


ok

* it's definitely subjective and irrational, unless our interaction with god is completely subjective at all times, regardless of the person's POV. Unless we could prove God exists objectively (LOL), then subjective is all we have.Once again, subjective reality refers to perception, which is independent of whether god actually exists. When you see a mirage, that doesn't mean there's actually water on the ground, it means you perceive water on the ground. No mater how strong your subjective viewpoint is, you still can't drink it.

* that having been said, assuming for a moment that those who see god as a monkey-headed human with twelve arms is actually seeing the same god that Moses saw in the burning bush and one who reaches nirvana sees, etc .... then they are all experiencing the same god via their own subjective realities. That is probably more or less a unitarian type of view.
Ok, let's assume the existence of a trickster god that plays with people's perceptions.

I disagreed with you above about how you were using the word 'subjective', but this is the point I lose you completely.

What throws the curveball into it, is when I would also say that Not only does god exist in those multiple ways, but he also doesn't exist.

I think of it in terms of zero and infinity. Within zero, there is nothing. Within infinity, there are infinite probabilities. So looking at our current universe, we do not know whether we came from zero or infinity, and we do not know whether we are going towards a zero or infinite universe. We more or less know the universe is expanding intrinsically, and we are fairly certain of the Big Bang being a starting point ... but beyond that "we don't know." Beyond the realm of what we experience exists both zero, and infinity. They exist at the same time within probabilities. There are probabliiities that determine whether or not we came from zero or infinity. It's like adding zero and infinity together.

So if I'm looking at God that way, I can say god is infinite in infinite ways. He can do as he wants or appear as he wants. But I can also say he doesn't exist whatsoever. Wherever Zero is ... there he isn't.

Now, supposing we actually have the opportunity to determine whether we fit into zero or infinity, or whether or not "god himself" decides which of us will fit into zero or infinity. Right now we are finite. When we die, we are essentially becoming one or the other. Those who don't believe in a god, logically we "die" and cease. Our atoms don't .... yet ..... but the "I" part is toast. Those who believe, believe in eternal life/punishment/put your woo here/etc.

So, what if both believers and non-believers are correct? What if "God" is allowing us to more or less make our own choices as to whether or not we want a "god"? For those who don't, they live in a finite way going towards zero. No harm no foul. Those who do want a god live in a finite way going towards infinity. Both are realities. And for those who choose "no god" ... they will never, ever know of god. So it's realisitic to say, god doesn't exist from their pov.

It's almost like saying that we will choose how the universe begins and ends, based on whether our subjective experience will allow such a thing. It's more like saying that reality isn't fractured in multiple realities YET. But at some point, it will be fractured into multiple realities ..... it is in the process of "fracturing" towards zero and infinity.

I hope I didn't just ramble up a big salad of woo in need of dressing :)
I'm gonna be honest, that's what it sounded like. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. You talk about zero and ininitiy as if it they were actual places, about adding zero to infinity as if the result would be something other than infinity, and about that each person has the power to choose how the universe would begin, end, and eventually generate actual universes through subjectivity even though you previously said you agreed peoples' beliefs couldn't fracture the universe.

It's one thing to say that there's a trickster god that will give you eternal life if you want it and will destroy you if you don't believe in it. That has problems of its own, but it's mostly coherent.

It's quite another to talk about perceptions creating universes and that that god really actually exists if I perceive it and yet doesn't really actually exist if you don't perceive it. Why would you think perceptions have that much power?