(November 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Those who respond to God-claims with an honest "I don't know" are the indeterminate, not the "non-existent".

"I don't know" is an epistemic response, reflecting agnosticism. The issue is atheism—and, as per Adrian's point, using the principle of excluded middle to argue that there is no third alternative (i.e., if theos is X then atheos is ¬X, which exhausts the category of X.) Agnosticism, as a subset of both atheism and theism, is necessarily a different category (i.e., if gnosis is Y then agnosis is ¬Y, which exhausts the category of Y).

(November 18, 2010 at 1:54 am)Arcanus Wrote: Agnosticism, as a subset of both atheism and theism, is necessarily a different category (i.e., if gnosis is Y then agnosis is ¬Y, which exhausts the category of Y).

I'm not a personal fan of the term agnostic. I'm 100% certain of quite possibly nothing, but I needn't employ the term agnostic in all aspects of life, so why atheism? Technically speaking, I'm agnostic about an invisible, intangible leprechaun masturbating to an equally invisible, intangible issue of Playboy magazine inside my closet; but, I am still an amasturbatinginvisibleintangibleleprechauninmyclosetist, as I lack belief.

I've seen the term agnostic used more often as a qualifier to an individual's position in colloquial conversations, usually meant to signify a level of detachment from said position.

(November 18, 2010 at 1:54 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(November 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Those who respond to God-claims with an honest "I don't know" are the indeterminate, not the "non-existent".

"I don't know" is an epistemic response, reflecting agnosticism. The issue is atheism—and, as per Adrian's point, using the principle of excluded middle to argue that there is no third alternative (i.e., if theos is X then atheos is ¬X, which exhausts the category of X.) Agnosticism, as a subset of both atheism and theism, is necessarily a different category (i.e., if gnosis is Y then agnosis is ¬Y, which exhausts the category of Y).

No, it's not reflecting agnosticism, that's the very separate issue of what is knowable or unknowable to a degree of certainty. "I don't know" is not a position, it is a response that acknowledges an absence or lack of coherentism. Whenever someone responds over and over again to claims, regardless of whether these claims are making propositions of there being god(s) OR not being god(s), with a "I don't know" it tells you nothing about their beliefs. It can be used by many who require justification to answer the question, including some verificationists, as a regress argument which is a fundamental problem in epistemology because they are not making any claim to knowledge therefore this exchange can carry on endlessly in a debate.

I've met someone who claims to be fully agnostic - he both fully believes and fully disbelieves in god at the same time.

(November 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I've met someone who claims to be fully agnostic - he both fully believes and fully disbelieves in god at the same time.

... My head just exploded. Did he divide by zero?

(November 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I've met someone who claims to be fully agnostic - he both fully believes and fully disbelieves in god at the same time.

Schizophrenia is a bitch.

(November 18, 2010 at 4:21 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Whenever someone responds ... with a "I don't know," it tells you nothing about their beliefs.

Precisely. It tells you about their knowledge; specifically, that on said issue their knowledge is either insufficient or non-existent ("I don't know"). What a person believes and what he knows are categorically different things. As I said, "I don't know" is an epistemic response, reflecting agnosticism (privation of gnosis, knowledge). It doesn't tell you whether they are an atheist or a theist ("it tells you nothing about their beliefs"), since both can answer "I don't know" to the question of God's existence; e.g., a fideist says, "I don't know that God exists but I believe he does."

---

---

(November 18, 2010 at 3:57 pm)Lethe Wrote: Technically speaking, I'm agnostic about an invisible, intangible leprechaun masturbating to an equally invisible, intangible issue of Playboy magazine inside my closet; but, I am still an amasturbatinginvisibleintangibleleprechauninmyclosetist, as I lack belief.

So in terms relevant to deity, "Technically speaking, I'm agnostic about God; but I am still an atheist, as I lack belief." That is, you employ the term agnostic in your atheism because each term addresses a different aspect—what you do or don't know on the one hand, and what you do or don't believe on the other.

Let me provide you with some reasoning children...

Agnostic Wrote:The thing that always stuck with me is the idea that the cat (Erwin Schrödinger's cat) is BOTH alive and dead until it is observed. For me, the existence of God is in a similar box. Until we look inside, God both exists and doesn’t exist. The difference is that we have no way of looking into the box. While proving whether or not the cat is alive or dead is easily determined by observation (and in fact, determined by observation), in the case of God, that observation, the thing that makes it one or the other, is robbed from us because there is no way to prove of disprove the existence of God. So God both exists and does not exist eternally. While Pandora’s box is one we can never close, God’s box is a box we can never open.

This is why I can say that I neither believe in the existence of God nor do I disbelieve the existence of God. My belief is absolutely neutral because God simultaneously exists and does not exist.

This neutrality, to me, is the essence of Agnosticism. I cannot know, nor will I ever know, therefore I can never say. I must, logically, remain neutral on the matter.

Haha! That's some serious mental masterbation right there.

Yes, but we aren't logical and we are not hypothetical people. Real people either believe or do not believe, no matter what the claim. We then go on to justify our beliefs through rationalization or we could take the path of the agnostic in fr0d0's quote and try to justify a non-choice in the matter. None of that masterbatory thought experimentation changes the state of our belief in any real way. Belief is something that happens acording to our experiences and gnostic or agnostic is a statement about wheather that belief is based on knowledge or not.