(July 29, 2016 at 8:39 am)robvalue Wrote: What is 1+1? Answer 3 or 4 please.

This cracked me up, thnaks man.

(August 4, 2016 at 8:25 pm)wiploc Wrote:

Quote:Or try this on for size: in the case of God, most ask, "Do you believe in God?" anticipating a no answer and saying "You're an atheist."
However, if you ask "Do you believe in not-God ?" things look different.  Would you say anyone who lacks the belief in not-God is a theist?

Theists believe gods exist.  
Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists don't believe either way.

Gee I don't like that way of putting it. "Don't believe one way or the other" sounds more like a garden variety agnostic to me. I think of weak atheists as not being prepared to make a summary declaration regarding the 'gods' other people may have in mind. That doesn't stop us from declaring "no" to what we imagine they have in mind or to what we think "gods" refers to (if we have any notion at all).

If they have in mind a fundy version of the xtian god, then no I don't believe in a universe creating, after life providing god. No way, no how can you convince me to take such a notion seriously. But do I KNOW it doesn't exist? Of course not. Like everyone else who was ever born, I don't 'know' why there is something instead of nothing and neither do I possess relevant evidence to counter crazy notions like an afterlife or omni-powers. In the absence of any evidence in favor of such whacky theories I disbelieve them. I just won't be wasting my time trying to argue anyone into speculating about such bullshit as I do (because fuck em').

Being a soft/weak atheist is about knowing when you do or don't have decisive arguments/evidence to offer someone who is inclined to believe fantastic things. Where I do, I'll call myself a hard/strong atheist. Where I don't, I accept the opposite tag. I don't know everything, especially not what someone hooked on believing unsupportable things needs to hear to disbelieve in them. (Fortunately that isn't my job.)

(August 4, 2016 at 8:25 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(August 3, 2016 at 11:29 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's right.  And I think some here would do that-- "I have no active belief about either, so no and no."

I don't believe the cat is dead, and I don't believe it is alive.  I don't believe either way.  To say, "I have no belief about it," would stretch the point, for I believe the cat is in the box.  

--edit--
This is a pretty long answer to your simple statement. I'm answering your post, and also engaging in a new view on the agnostic position.
--/edit--

It occurs to me that your definition of believe and mine might be different.  When I'm in an ambiguous situation, I hold multiple candidate beliefs.  That is, I believe in their possibility or likelihood.

In my case, I'm fine with a belief about something  being a set: the collection of possibilities which I think necessarily include the truth.  For example, if my wife is murdered, and all the doors are locked, I would say I believe either Jenny, Suzy, or Johnny killed my wife.  I wouldn't say I lack a belief that Jenny did it, or that Suzy did it, or that Johnny did it. If I really lacked a belief, I wouldn't bother investigating any of them. That I will closely and suspiciously investigate them all shows my real state: that I strongly believe one of them did it, and I need to collect knowledge to arrive at a gnostic position.

The set of possibilities is cat-alive and cat-dead.  I'm 100% confident that the truth is contained by this set, and do not seriously consider other possibilities: for example, that the cat invented a wormhole device and is now safely living inside a moon in the Alpha Centauri system.  That is my actual belief-- that the cat is either alive or dead. I believe this very strongly. As for WHICH of those strongly-believed candidates represents the truth, I'm agnostic. But forcing me to sate which I believe is like saying, "I'm thinking of an animal. Do you believe it's a duck?" A belief statement, including a statement of lack of belief, in this case is inappropriate-- I believe you are thinking of an animal, and I'm agnostic about which one it is.

@All:

Personally, I define the position "I don't know what to believe" as weak atheism. It's trivially agnostic as well, because no beliefs implies no knowledge already.

Of course, if you define words differently to me, you'll call yourself something else. But you're still a weak atheist, to me.

A different position is "I don't know what I believe". That is indicating some actual internal disconnect, and says far more about the person than the issue at hand. I'd say that in such a rare case, the person is undefined pending further information. And again trivially agnostic.

And "I don't understand the question" is ignosticism, and is technically undefined also, I would say. I still call myself an atheist to avoid confusion, as this level of labelling is way past what the average person is familiar with.

Basically, "God" is such a meaningless word that there is no sensible answer to the general question. There are only answers to specific definitions.

(August 5, 2016 at 3:05 am)robvalue Wrote: @All:

Personally, I define the position "I don't know what to believe" as weak atheism. It's trivially agnostic as well, because no beliefs implies no knowledge already.

Of course, if you define words differently to me, you'll call yourself something else. But you're still a weak atheist, to me.

A different position is "I don't know what I believe". That is indicating some actual internal disconnect, and says far more about the person than the issue at hand. I'd say that in such a rare case, the person is undefined pending further information. And again trivially agnostic.

And "I don't understand the question" is ignosticism, and is technically undefined also, I would say.

Basically, "God" is such a meaningless word that there is no sensible answer to the general question. There are only answers to specific definitions.

I agree. Do you, bennyboy?

BTW, bennyboy, I wasn't trying to upset you when I called you benny. It's just something a lot of people do here, they shorten nicknames and stuff. I think benny rolls off the tongue better, in addition to sounding better(to me, at least). I'm called EP by a lot of people, but of course they know I'm Excited Penguin and not just simply EP.

What annoys me the most is when people try to define "God" so that it necessarily exists. That is really pathetic. They then use their definition as "evidence".

In fact, it's "evidence" that they are exploring their imagination and nothing more. So much of theism is circular; more so when religion gets involved.

I've even heard deists sort-of say that "no cause at all for our reality" could be a possible definition of "God". But that still makes the assumption that there is even a placeholder for a cause/non cause and not instead an eternal reality.

(August 5, 2016 at 3:15 am)robvalue Wrote: What annoys me the most is when people try to define "God" so that it necessarily exists. That is really pathetic. They then use their definition as "evidence".

In fact, it's "evidence" that they are exploring their imagination and nothing more. So much of theism is circular; more so when religion gets involved.

I've even heard deists sort-of say that "no cause at all for our reality" could be a possible definition of "God". But that still makes the assumption that there is even a placeholder for a cause/non cause and not instead an eternal reality.

I know, tell me about it...

(August 5, 2016 at 3:08 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I agree. Do you, bennyboy?

Sure. I've disagreed with very little that most, including you, have said, except when I'm told that there is only one right way to frame the issue. Sometimes we forget that semantics involving words with many different meanings are dependent as much on one's personality as on the "right" meanings of things.

Quote:BTW, bennyboy, I wasn't trying to upset you when I called you benny. It's just something a lot of people do here, they shorten nicknames and stuff. I think benny rolls off the tongue better, in addition to sounding better(to me, at least). I'm called EP by a lot of people, but of course they know I'm Excited Penguin and not just simply EP.

It's not a problem at all. I've been called Benji, Benny, Ben, Benjamin, and hey you. I used always to go by Ben, but now that's more for school friends and family.

(August 5, 2016 at 3:15 am)robvalue Wrote: What annoys me the most is when people try to define "God" so that it necessarily exists. That is really pathetic. They then use their definition as "evidence".

Absolutely.  This is why it's hard for me to declare theism in reponse to EP's very guided questions.  I could say, "Well, one definition of God is 'whatever allowed the universe to exist,'" but that feels like cheating to me.

The problem with these arguments is they often get used in a kind of pivot move.  Like Craig argues for a Deity, and then after all that-- "And since there's a God, I would like to suggest that the Biblical God of the Christians is the best fit."

bennyboy Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:And that I can't believe you before I know what you mean is my point.

Maybe not.  But as it turns out, you DO have a believe about the thing-- you just don't know it, because you haven't learned what the heck I'm talking about yet.  So if you asked ME, "Do you believe in boobledyboo," I'd say, "I don't know. . . what does that word mean to you?"  I don't disregard your stance, of default disbelieving until you are a good enough definition to form a coherent answer.  But I'd rather force the coherent question first before making a statement about beliefs.  If pressed, I'd say, "Dude, step off!  I don't know what you're even talking about," and not "Dude, I don't believe in that. . . but can you tell me what it is?"

Not saying you're wrong.  Just saying that the way I would approach that situation would be different than your way of approaching it.

In general, I'd say I'm agnostic on God in generalfor a variety of reasons.  But as soon as you define what your specific usage of the term "God" means, I have an excellent chance of being able to make a belief statement about it.  And in my experience, I'm either hard atheist or antitheist about almost all the specific God ideas I'm presented with; and the others I generally disagree with on a personal level: "God is love," I would say such a God must be real since I believe love is real, but I don't think much of that definition, and I wouldn't really call that particular thing God.

I don't believe in things before I know what they are. In my opinion I can't believe in things before I know what they are. YMMV. Ask me a yes or no question, and I'll usually give you a yes or no answer. The person asking the question has some responsibility to be clear, don't they?

And with God, people are usually playing games when they define God as something I would accept the existence of. If you define God as the universe, sure, 'God as the universe' exists, but so does 'God as that cat' or 'God as the itch in my crotch'. A word that can mean anything means nothing. I think a very good case can be made for sticking with the dictionary on this one.