'The store is open' is a statement I understand. Don't know what 'gods exist' is even supposed to mean.

(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.

(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.”

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.

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.

(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.

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.

(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. 

If you try to shove people into your own semantic boxes, you're gonna have a bad time.