(August 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Nah, regardless of honesty or dishonesty he still either believes or doesn't

But I know you know that EP

Isn't that exactly what I just said, Hammy?

EP Wrote:There is no other option here. Well, I suppose being dishonest about it is.

Seemed to me like you were saying "actually I suppose being dishonest about it would be another option."

I was just messing with ya.

(August 2, 2016 at 2:01 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Isn't that exactly what I just said, Hammy?

Hey! You called me "Hammy" instead of "Evie"

Why'd you change from "Evie" to "Hammy" anyway?

My original reason for being "Evie" is now obsolete. My bestie Losty gave me my new name "Alasdair Ham"

Ah, fair enough.

(August 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 2, 2016 at 2:14 am)bennyboy Wrote: This isn't a science issue, it's a philosophical one.  I'm using Schrodinger's cat as an example of something that is intrinsically ambiguous, and is not a matter of weight of opinion.  This is what I'm saying about my view on God-- that it is in fact both possible to believe in something and its opposite, exactly equally, conditional on an unknown/unknowable state value.

No, it's not possible, and that statement is ridiculous.

You either believe in a God or you don't. There is no other option here. Well, I suppose being dishonest about it is.

Your rudeness is noted.  Also noted is your misunderstanding of how the brain works in decision-making.  The brain is not a unified agent.  It is a collection of parallel processes, and is perfectly capable of holding contrary beliefs.  Just because I have one mouth, and can only express one idea at a time, doesn't mean that my brain is in 100% alignment on every issue.  In fact, I'd argue it is almost NEVER the case that even when one gives a simple answer, there isn't a lot of complexity and some contradiction going on in the brain.


Trying to railroad all of that into only the answers you want to hear is like asking someone, "Are you going to let me answer the way I want, or are you going to be an asshole?"

Go ahead, answer my question. And only choose one of the options I'm making you take.

(August 2, 2016 at 7:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: No, it's not possible, and that statement is ridiculous.

You either believe in a God or you don't. There is no other option here. Well, I suppose being dishonest about it is.

Your rudeness is noted.  Also noted is your misunderstanding of how the brain works in decision-making.  The brain is not a unified agent.  It is a collection of parallel processes, and is perfectly capable of holding contrary beliefs.  Just because I have one mouth, and can only express one idea at a time, doesn't mean that my brain is in 100% alignment on every issue.  In fact, I'd argue it is almost NEVER the case that even when one gives a simple answer, there isn't a lot of complexity and some contradiction going on in the brain.  


Trying to railroad all of that into only the answers you want to hear is like asking someone, "Are you going to let me answer the way I want, or are you going to be an asshole?"

Go ahead, fucker, answer my question.  And only choose one of the options I'm making you take.  They are the only two options you get.

Rude or not, I tend to side with EP on this.

Belief is defined by contemporary analytic philosophers of mind as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

I have no idea what it would be like to both accept a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true, simultaneously. Or, being in some inbetween mental state of neither accepting a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true.

I don't think it's possible for the mind to be in either of those states.

And that's not even taking into consideration the formal definition of the word 'agnostic', that does not even concern belief.

(August 2, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(August 2, 2016 at 7:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Your rudeness is noted.  Also noted is your misunderstanding of how the brain works in decision-making.  The brain is not a unified agent.  It is a collection of parallel processes, and is perfectly capable of holding contrary beliefs.  Just because I have one mouth, and can only express one idea at a time, doesn't mean that my brain is in 100% alignment on every issue.  In fact, I'd argue it is almost NEVER the case that even when one gives a simple answer, there isn't a lot of complexity and some contradiction going on in the brain.  


Trying to railroad all of that into only the answers you want to hear is like asking someone, "Are you going to let me answer the way I want, or are you going to be an asshole?"

Go ahead, fucker, answer my question.  And only choose one of the options I'm making you take.  They are the only two options you get.

Rude or not, I tend to side with EP on this.

Belief is defined by contemporary analytic philosophers of mind as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

I have no idea what it would be like to both accept a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true, simultaneously. Or, being in some inbetween mental state of neither accepting a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true.

I don't think it's possible for the mind to be in either of those states.

And that's not even taking into consideration the formal definition of the word 'agnostic', that does not even concern belief.

There's no point trying to argue with him. He earlier admitted he "didn't agree" with the term soft atheist, and that's why he doesn't want to be called one.

You see, Simon, I don't agree with him calling me rude, so I'm not rude, ok?

(August 2, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Belief is defined by contemporary analytic philosophers of mind as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

I have no idea what it would be like to both accept a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true, simultaneously. Or, being in some inbetween mental state of neither accepting a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true.

I've described it several times in this thread. It is the possibility of a conditional belief-- If A, then B; if not A, then not B. For example, if the universe is a created thing, I'd be willing to call whatever philosophical principle or creative impetus created it "God." Since I cannot know whether the universe is a created thing, I have a belief state of AnotA.

As for "contemporary analytic philosophers of mind," you'll have to demonstrate that their view matters. You'll have to establish that I am actually a unified agent, and that belief is OF that unified agent, and not something a subsystem of the brain is capable of achieving. In my opinion, the neurology of decision-making trumps the philosophical authorities to whom you are referring as a go-to for what belief really is.

Quote:I don't think it's possible for the mind to be in either of those states.

And that's not even taking into consideration the formal definition of the word 'agnostic', that does not even concern belief.

I think you should read about the last 10 pages, because you are about to just go through all the same arguments that EP has made. In your case, though, you can nip it in the bud and go read what I've said before we drag this on another 20 pages.