Agnostics

[Edwardo Piet]

Ah cool

[Mister Agenda]

I'll just let that baste....

I'm sorry, you made some good points. I just don't know when to drop it, I guess 

That was so courteous that I kudoed it despite your sig leaving me with the feeling you don't want any. Hope you don't mind. I intended the opinion definition to indicate my own opinion fits the description.

[bennyboy]

Do you believe in boobledyboo, or not?

Look, we can do this dance all day.  If you want to know if there's anything I call "God," then I'd say only good orgasms and good League of Legends junglers.  If you want to know if I believe in one of a variety of gods and deities, then you'll have to define them.

I don't believe in boobledyboo. How could I?

Because "boobledyboo" as I define it means "bacon," and EVERYONE believes in bacon.  You just didn't know that, because you failed to ask the important question: "What do you mean by boobledyboo?"

[bennyboy]

Atheism is not an opinion. Far greater minds than yours or mine agree with me on that, if "mere" logic doesn't convince you. Atheism is the description of a non-state, it is the default position - it is natural.

Then my beagle is an atheist. Clever beagle!
My bunions are atheists, too. Clever bunions!
So is the jizz in the sock under my bed. Clever jizz!

[Excited Penguin]

Atheism is not an opinion. Far greater minds than yours or mine agree with me on that, if "mere" logic doesn't convince you. Atheism is the description of a non-state, it is the default position - it is natural.

Then my beagle is an atheist.  Clever beagle!
My bunions are atheists, too.  Clever bunions!
So is the jizz in the sock under my bed.  Clever jizz!

No, atheism only describes (potentially)thinking minds, as I already stated after that reply.

You mistake it for some sort of a philosophical position when it is merely a linguistic convenience for describing people other than theists, theists who make up the majority since time immemorial. Atheism doesn't mean anything. It is merely a placeholder for the longer phrase, I am not a theist.

[bennyboy]

No, atheism only describes (potentially)thinking minds, as I already stated after that reply.

Why? Is there something special about potentially thinking minds beyond the normal physics of the Universe?

[Excited Penguin]

No, atheism only describes (potentially)thinking minds, as I already stated after that reply.

Why?  Is there something special about potentially thinking minds beyond the normal physics of the Universe?

Yes, benny, there is. That is a stupid question, care to either define what you mean by special or better phrase that question?

Also, see my updated previous comment please.

[bennyboy]

Why?  Is there something special about potentially thinking minds beyond the normal physics of the Universe?

Yes, benny, there is. That is a stupid question, care to either define what you mean by special or better phrase that question?

Also, see my updated previous comment please.

Okay.  Why is it that my beagle, a thinking agent, is not atheist, but a person, a thinking agent, is an atheist by default?

[Excited Penguin]

Yes, benny, there is. That is a stupid question, care to either define what you mean by special or better phrase that question?

Also, see my updated previous comment please.

Okay.  Why is it that my beagle, a thinking agent, is not atheist, but a person, a thinking agent, is an atheist by default?

Because your beagle won't ever evolve a mind capable of understanding and reacting to theism, whereas a baby will. Like I just said, atheism is merely a convenience. We call atheists those thinking minds that either will one day or already do understand theism, but are not theists. Most of language works like that, it is an utility. Don't search for deeper meanings where there aren't any to be had.

[bennyboy]

Because your beagle won't ever evolve a mind capable of understanding and reacting to theism, whereas a baby will. Like I just said, atheism is merely a convenience. We call atheists those thinking minds that either will one day or already do understand theism, but are not theists. Most of language works like that, it is an utility. Don't search for deeper meanings.

So a fertilized egg is atheist if it has human DNA, because it will eventually have the capacity of reacting to theism?

Anyway, let's get back to agnosticism. It is my position that the brain can hold contrary positions-- part of the brain believes in God, part does not. When the agent answers a God question, even a very specific one, how is the singular agent supposed to represent an awareness of this internal division? Should he say he does in fact hold the idea? That he holds the contrary idea? That he holds both? That he cannot resolve the question in a coherent manner?

Here's another example. What if in different contexts, different parts of the brain "light up." What if, whenever you go to church, you get a funny feeling that you can readily believe is the presence of God, especially due to a Christian upbringing. But when you study the physical universe, and consider scientific evidence, you know you won't find any evidence for God. Do you believe, disbelieve, lack a belief? How is one to word this? Can you say, "At this moment in time, I lack a belief in God, but last Sunday I held a belief in God, and I think next Sunday I will probably believe that again"?

Now, I'm not talking about which view is sensible or correct-- only the possibility that a single thinking agent can be aware of holding multiple, and contrary beliefs. Will you say such a person is schizophrenic or dysfunctional, or acknowledge that due to complexities of the brain, a state in which a simple question cannot be simply answered is a reality?