Agnostics

[Excited Penguin]

I have no problem saying "I don't know." I also have no problem saying "I don't believe." I don't see a problem with holding those two views on the same topic concurrently.

Well, I've introduced the idea of conditional belief-- a belief that is ambiguous until a knowledge requirement is resolved.  Do you accept this as a valid basis for a pure agnostic position?

An agnostic atheist position, yes.

 A pure agnostic position? There is no such thing.

You are the definition of an agnostic atheist, and everything you've described up to this point is agnostic atheism, yet you choose to not use the word for whatever reason and instead look silly trying to divorce an idea of one of it's essential components while purportedly retaining all of its original meaning.

It just doesn't work like that. Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel. I appreciate the effort, but the actual results make you look more than a little stupid(no offense).

[bennyboy]

Well, I've introduced the idea of conditional belief-- a belief that is ambiguous until a knowledge requirement is resolved.  Do you accept this as a valid basis for a pure agnostic position?

An agnostic atheist position, yes.

 A pure agnostic position? There is no such thing.

You are the definition of an agnostic atheist, and everything you've described up to this point is agnostic atheism, yet you choose to not use the word for whatever reason and instead look silly trying to divorce an idea of one of it's essential components while purportedly retaining all of its original meaning.

It just doesn't work like that. Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel. I appreciate the effort, but the actual results make you look more than a little stupid(no offense).

I'm YOUR definition of an agnostic atheist.  I do not use that definition, and so I choose not to identify myself in that way.  I'm perfectly capable of understanding the words, and choosing those which I feel best describe me.  I've described the ways in which I feel one can be purely agnostic on the God position without being atheist, and why I prefer to identify using that word.  You can keep going around the merry-go-round if you like, but there's little you can say that will shed new light on the debate, while I believe my idea of conditional belief at least gives an angle that people haven't considered before. In the end, you can call me whatever you want, by your definitions, and I will identify as whatever I want, by my definitions. But I'd never tell YOU how to identify YOURSELF, because I'm not God (so far as I currently know).

As for you calling me stupid(no offense), I'd respond that you are a disrespectful, condescending asshat (no offense). You are also unoriginal, which in my eyes makes most of what you've typed a waste of space.

[account_inactive]

The savagery in this thread is off the charts.

[bennyboy]

The savagery in this thread is off the charts.

Rawwrrrrr!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have no problem saying "I don't know." I also have no problem saying "I don't believe." I don't see a problem with holding those two views on the same topic concurrently.

Well, I've introduced the idea of conditional belief-- a belief that is ambiguous until a knowledge requirement is resolved.  Do you accept this as a valid basis for a pure agnostic position?

Of course. I think that a thoughtful person is mentally able to hold contradictions in balance until conditions are clarified. I also think that it's possible to see both the good and the bad points in arguments on most given topics -- which is another way of saying, "if you catch me at this time I will focus on this, if you catch at that time I will focus on that" -- which is, I think, a restatement of your point, albeit in less-philosophical terms. So far as I'm concerned, I value flexibility of mind over certitude anyway.

Be it known -- regarding god(s), my agnosticism (and gnosticism!) vary depending on the definition of the god being discussed.

I've been relatively quiet in this discussion, Benny, because you're saying much of what I think and in such an erudite manner that my posting would be superfluous.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel.

The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. words can and do have connotations as well as denotations; they can also have shades of meaning that are dependent upon context.

If I'm understanding Benny correctly, he's agnostic in the sense that those times he might believe in god(s) and those times he doesn't are close enough in frequency that he can't really decide for himself. (If I've misstated your position, Benny, please accept my apologies).

Badgering someone to change the way they think of themselves on the basis of your definition of them is not likely to do much more than set his heels in, in my experience.

I really detest the antipathy some atheists display regarding agnostics. Agnosticism is simply someone following the reasoning they find more compelling than yours. If the only case you can make for your point is linguistic, I think that shows less about the person under discussion and more about the limitations of language, which does not -- and cannot -- describe most things even close to perfectly. When the thing being described is as complex as a person's view on deity, the language is truly beggared. This tail-chasing seems to me to be strong evidence of that.

[Excited Penguin]

I'd have to say I agree with benny on this matter...yikes!..Yowsa!
I think it's quite possible that a person could be uncertain as to whether he or she actually believes or not.

No, it's quite simple, really.

For  1234 = God(s), the following is true:


A believes 1234 (more than A doubts 1234).
A is theist.

A1 doesn't completely believe 1234.
A1 is agnostic theist.

A2 completely believes 1234.
A2 is gnostic theist.


B doubts 1234 (more than B believes 1234).
B is atheist.

B1 doesn't completely doubt 1234.
B1 is agnostic(weak) atheist. 

B3 completely doubts 1234.
B2 is gnostic(strong) atheist.

B3 thinks 1234 is meaningless.
B3 is ignostic atheist.


A ≠ B.
A1 ≠ B1.
A ∩ B = ∅.

[Excited Penguin]

An agnostic atheist position, yes.

 A pure agnostic position? There is no such thing.

You are the definition of an agnostic atheist, and everything you've described up to this point is agnostic atheism, yet you choose to not use the word for whatever reason and instead look silly trying to divorce an idea of one of it's essential components while purportedly retaining all of its original meaning.

It just doesn't work like that. Learn to accept language for what it is, don't try and reinvent the wheel. I appreciate the effort, but the actual results make you look more than a little stupid(no offense).

I'm YOUR definition of an agnostic atheist.  I do not use that definition, and so I choose not to identify myself in that way.  I'm perfectly capable of understanding the words, and choosing those which I feel best describe me.  I've described the ways in which I feel one can be purely agnostic on the God position without being atheist, and why I prefer to identify using that word.  You can keep going around the merry-go-round if you like, but there's little you can say that will shed new light on the debate, while I believe my idea of conditional belief at least gives an angle that people haven't considered before.  In the end, you can call me whatever you want, by your definitions, and I will identify as whatever I want, by my definitions.  But I'd never tell YOU how to identify YOURSELF, because I'm not God (so far as I currently know).

As for you calling me stupid(no offense), I'd respond that you are a disrespectful, condescending asshat (no offense).  You are also unoriginal, which in my eyes makes most of what you've typed a waste of space.

I don't set new definitions to words, I use those already in usage. A word doesn't have as many definitions as there are people in the world unwilling to use the already established definitions or making their own up for various reasons. For a conversation to accept esoteric definitions to words, both parts would have to agree to use said definitions(something that never happened here).

You are simply uneducated about this and are constrained by a misuse of the consistency principle to wallow in your own continual ignorance on the matter. My advice to you is to value truth above all else, it will do you much better in the long run, I assure you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Expired]