(October 2, 2015 at 11:58 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Psychonaut Wrote:

---

---

Are you saying that a person can be uncertain consciously, and certain subconsciously?

No.  I am not saying that one is certain of anything.  I am saying that one is or is not a theist.  Just like I either have cancer or I do not have cancer.  What anyone knows about either is irrelevant to those facts.

(October 2, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Psychonaut Wrote: Simultaneously?

Also, how do you know that there is no middle ground?

Because I understand the concept of negation, which is the common use of the word "not" in English.  To say:

Not X.

means anything other than X.  There is no "middle ground," because "Not X" is anything that isn't X.

Thus, I can be absolutely certain of the following sentence:

Either you are a theist or you are not a theist.

There is no middle ground because "not a theist" covers absolutely everything other than being a theist.

Are you then saying that a person believes or disbelieves, regardless of whether they are certain about it or not? As in, it is a matter of fact that a person is either X or not X? Regardless of their experience of such? I understand that you are using the concept of negation, and by definition, 
Not X means "everything other than X" but I don't think we have enough certainty to know whether or not "X or not X" statements about most things reflect reality. 

I'm not certain, but I think we're taking this from different angles. I think experience is key to belief, as I have never been aware of believing while I have not been experiencing. 

Sorry, it may seem ridiculous that I'm essentially regurgitating what you say, but I'm genuinely trying to understand your views on this, I don't want to misread what you've said.

I also understand that it may seem silly, and essentially pointless that I am question every basic and seemingly self evident assumption that one has about reality, but I cannot help but see things this way.

If I am mistaken, please let me know.

Why don't you start with simple stuff like god before you take on fundamental mathematical principles?

Yes, we have to assume certain logical facts are true, such as the negation property. We can't ever be certain of anything; we must make some assumptions at some point. The negation rule seems to work completely universally, and without it we can't use any rules of logic to do hardly anything. So it's a necessary and reasonable assumption. Of course it could be wrong. If we ever found out it is wrong, we would have to go back to the drawing board.

We have to define exactly what the criteria for "believes" is. I'd say a decent measure is "acts as though it is true". If you don't act as though it's true, you don't really believe it.

I mentioned it earlier, but I think it's reasonable to say someone could be both an atheist and a theist, because the brain is very complex. It is capable of holding contradictory beliefs, for different reasons. So maybe it's more accurate to say you're either an atheist, a theist, or both. And of course you can change between these states.

Just don't cross the streams.

That way lies madness, valuable rob. Being all prophet and stuff means starting with simultaneity. There is no logical construction beyond "god both exists and does not exist" even though that statement is essentially true. One must be a flaming nutbag - for which I'm eminently qualified - to posit god. Thus I dismiss all logical argument for god, 'cause there ain't. It's all rhetoric.

Sure, I'm not saying it's at all helpful to be a theist and an atheist at the same time. It has happened in a split brain patient that I'm aware of, further to that I don't know for sure.

I could imagine that someone could logically see that God is a nonsense concept, and lacks belief, but also has strong emotional ties to the concept which leads to a contradictory belief. Maybe these inform actions in different ways at different times. What do people think?

Personally, I think all God belief is emotional and the logical side tries to rationalise it after the fact, which is why the arguments are all balls.

Re the OP: in addition to believing gods do or don't exist, and, the confidence you place in that belief there are at least two other questions you might ask. One, is the 'god' in question well defined enough to permit us to assume any of us are talking about the same entity? And, do you care enough about god questions to be arsed to answer any of them?

God could be like that snark they made you try to catch at night, non-existent and essentially just someone's practical joke. if so, you would be quite reasonable to ask to see an actual photograph of a snark (or god). If none is forth coming you would again be reasonable to answer more promising and potentially more rewarding questions. (File the god questions in the round file pending better intel.)

(October 2, 2015 at 8:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I have found that although the AF party line is that atheism is only the lack of belief the dominant philosophy is materialistic.

Yes, atheism itself is only a lack of belief in God and yes, most atheists are materialists. There is no hard connection between the two though.

(October 3, 2015 at 12:52 am)Psychonaut Wrote: Are you then saying that a person believes or disbelieves, regardless of whether they are certain about it or not?...

I am saying that one either has a belief in a god or one does not have such a belief.  ("Disbelieve" is problematic in this context, as it sometimes means "Be unable to believe" which is something a little different from merely not believing.)  Now, the question of how one determines whether one has a belief or not is a separate issue, but that is unimportant to the point.  This is why I earlier introduced the idea of me having undetected cancer.  I KNOW, ABSOLUTELY, the following:

Our new friend bambi seems a candidate for an atheist and theist simultaneously. He seems highly aware that the arguments are suspect and pretty much admits the logical arguments aren't solid. He's aware how ridiculous it seems to us, and how it would have been even to himself not long ago. Yet he is emotionally caught up in believing. (Apologies if I've misrepresented.) Maybe different parts of his brain are in conflict?

I suppose it comes down to how this informs actions. But the brain could send mixed messages. It certainly seems to for people who think God is protecting them yet fasten their seatbelt.

(October 3, 2015 at 12:10 pm)robvalue Wrote: Our new friend bambi seems a candidate for an atheist and theist simultaneously. He seems highly aware that the arguments are suspect and pretty much admits the logical arguments aren't solid. He's aware how ridiculous it seems to us, and how it would have been even to himself not long ago. Yet he is emotionally caught up in believing. (Apologies if I've misrepresented.) Maybe different parts of his brain are in conflict?

I suppose it comes down to how this informs actions. But the brain could send mixed messages. It certainly seems to for people who think God is protecting them yet fasten their seatbelt.

If we define "theist" as "someone who has a belief in a god," and "atheist" as "not a theist," then he is a theist (and not an atheist) if he believes in a god.  Even if he simultaneously believes that there is no god.

This brings us back to my original post, that the question of the opening post is a matter of definition.  It is a question of precisely how we define the terms.  Different definitions for the terms will give us different results.