Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 3:47 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
#31
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
Rolleyes
I don't believe you. Get over it.
Reply
#32
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
'The store is open' is a statement I understand. Don't know what 'gods exist' is even supposed to mean.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Reply
#33
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
(November 8, 2016 at 4:56 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote:
(November 8, 2016 at 4:37 am)Irrational Wrote: Person A and Person C make no sense. Unless I'm misunderstanding the notations.

Must be misunderstanding. 

X = gods exist

A: has a belief "gods exist", has no belief "gods do not exist"
B: has no belief "gods exist", has no belief "gods do not exist"
C: has no belief "gods exist", has a belief "gods do not exist"

b:g|~b:~g
~b:g|~b:~g
~b:g|b:~g

Ummm... 

If you believe the store is open, you're not believing the store is closed.
If you have no clue if the store is open, or closed, then you have no belief, either way.
If you believe the store is closed, you're not believing the store is open.

Your wording confused me.

If I have a belief that "God exists" is true, then I also have a belief that "God does not exist" is false.

But I get what you're saying now.
Reply
#34
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
(November 8, 2016 at 5:03 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: 'The store is open' is a statement I understand. Don't know what 'gods exist' is even supposed to mean.

Same result, suspension of judgement. No belief, either way. Both have roots in Pyrrhonic scepticism. 

Sextus Empiricus:

“Let the Dogmatists first agree and concur with one another that god is such and such, and only then, when they have sketched this out for us, let them expect us to form a concept of god. But as long as they do not settle their disagreements we cannot tell what agreed-upon conception we are supposed to get from them.”

“Furthermore, if we go by what the Dogmatists say, even if we form a conception of god it is necessary to suspend judgment concerning whether he exists or does not exist. For it is not pre-evident that god exists.”
Reply
#35
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
OP, Welcome. Thanks for making an intro thread. If the debate becomes heated you might want to start a new thread. We limit "introduction" threads to, well for lack of a better word, niceties. 

It seems that you enjoy defining beliefs, non beliefs, people, things,  .................. 

If you enjoy that it's OK, just don't try to define me. I doubt that you could.

Arf, arf, bark, wooooooof, grr, ruff, bark.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#36
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
Hi.

As others have noted, depends on the usage of the word atheist and what it covers. We mainly go of of how people use the word in question.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Reply
#37
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
(November 8, 2016 at 5:15 am)Irrational Wrote:
(November 8, 2016 at 4:56 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote: Must be misunderstanding. 

X = gods exist

A: has a belief "gods exist", has no belief "gods do not exist"
B: has no belief "gods exist", has no belief "gods do not exist"
C: has no belief "gods exist", has a belief "gods do not exist"

b:g|~b:~g
~b:g|~b:~g
~b:g|b:~g

Ummm... 

If you believe the store is open, you're not believing the store is closed.
If you have no clue if the store is open, or closed, then you have no belief, either way.
If you believe the store is closed, you're not believing the store is open.

Your wording confused me.

If I have a belief that "God exists" is true, then I also have a belief that "God does not exist" is false.

But I get what you're saying now.

Like Jesster was saying a belief is either on or off. My point is that more than a single belief/non-belief is in play, based on an objective question, rather than being dictated by a single subjective question. 

Objectively: the cat is alive (not dead) or that the cat is dead (not alive). Which means people have a few different options for what they subjectively believe. 

X = the cat is alive

Do you believe X is true?
Do you believe X is false? 

YN: alive-ist (belief the cat is alive, no belief the cat is dead)
NY: dead-ist (belief the cat is dead, no belief the cat is alive)
NN: agnostic (a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something; no belief the cat is alive, or dead)

In some rare cases, you might find yourself a Schrodinger...

YY: Schrodinger (belief the cat is both alive and dead)

Sure, you can dictate a single question, as Jesster does ... saying "the question is" ... and, only offer two options, but that's the false dichotomy. 

Do you believe X is true?

Y: aliveists + Schrodinger
N: deadists + agnostics

Being a deadist and being an agnostic are two different things. It's nonsensical to consider an agnostic a weak/negative/soft deadist, or a deadist a strong/positive/hard agnostic. 

X = the total number of stars in the universe is odd

Do you believe X is true?
Do you believe X is false?

YN: odd-ist
NY: even-ist
NN: agnostic

X = The store is open

Do you believe X is true?
Do you believe X is false?

YN: open-ist
NY: closed-ist
NN: agnostic


Are you attracted to people of the opposite sex?
Are you attracted to people of the same sex?

YN: heterosexual (sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, not sexually attracted to people of the same sex)
NY: homosexual (not sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, sexually attracted to people of the same sex)
NN: asexual (not sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, not sexually attracted to people of the same sex)
YY: bisexual (sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex, sexually attracted to people of the same sex)

Sure, you can dictate a single question, as Jesster does ... saying "the question is" ... and, only offer two options, but that's the false dichotomy. 

Are you attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Y: heterosexuals + bisexuals
N: homosexuals + asexuals

It would be nonsensical to label asexuals weak/negative/soft homosexuals, or homosexuals strong/positive/hard asexuals.

Most of the debate centres around label ~Pist. The people who originally put the word together, put it together ~P + ist = someone who believes not P. But, others have read it as ~ + Pist = not someone who believes P. One describes position C specifically. The other covers positions B and C, and then requires qualifying words to tell the two apart again.
Reply
#38
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
Agnostics are cool.... as long as you don't believe in some silly-assed god you're fine in my book.

I am an atheist.  But it is not a question of "belief."  It is a question of evidence.  There has never been a single proponent of any god that humanity has concocted who could produce a single shred of evidence for that god.  If they do, I'll consider it.  Until then god is non-existent.
Reply
#39
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
(November 8, 2016 at 11:58 am)mh.brewer Wrote: OP, Welcome. Thanks for making an intro thread. If the debate becomes heated you might want to start a new thread. We limit "introduction" threads to, well for lack of a better word, niceties. 

It seems that you enjoy defining beliefs, non beliefs, people, things,  .................. 

If you enjoy that it's OK, just don't try to define me. I doubt that you could.

Arf, arf, bark, wooooooof, grr, ruff, bark.

Define yourself how you want. I defined myself how I wanted, defined the terms how I use them. Then, someone told me "Agnosticism relates to knowledge; not beliefs", someone told me "In my opinion, "elephant" means "carrot"", both implying I'm using words wrong, and someone took issue with me not being a fan of their definition. 
Reply
#40
RE: Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.
If you try to shove people into your own semantic boxes, you're gonna have a bad time.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New here...just sayin' Hello. Frank Apisa 15 1761 June 27, 2021 at 6:52 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Just joined – here's my story! GeorgiasTelescope 20 4045 June 25, 2017 at 4:25 am
Last Post: ignoramus
Smile Hi, agnostic here :) Erin27 31 3760 April 17, 2017 at 10:10 am
Last Post: Brian37
  Agnostic among Atheists doomed 43 9073 November 8, 2016 at 5:20 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Viocjit the agnostic viocjit 29 7257 September 30, 2016 at 10:54 pm
Last Post: c172
  Ex Christian, relieved to be an agnostic atheist SerenelyBlue 28 4361 September 7, 2016 at 12:18 pm
Last Post: ScienceAf
  I guess I'm agnostic? gubeym 19 3665 May 27, 2015 at 1:11 am
Last Post: SteelCurtain
  Just landed here Hotel Bravo 23 2753 July 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Last Post: ShaMan
  Agnostic leaning towards atheism OGirly 18 5189 March 16, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  From theist to agnostic to atheist to agnostic to freethinker and... old man 70 21149 August 26, 2013 at 6:01 am
Last Post: Sword of Christ



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)