Agnostics

[bennyboy]

Well, one could answer "no" to both "Do you believe the cat is dead?" AND "Do you believe the cat is alive?"

That's right.  And I think some here would do that-- "I have no active belief about either, so no and no."

If I flip a coin, and ask you if you believe it's heads, you could answer "No.  I have no belief about the state of the coin, since I have no information about its state."  But my way of looking at it is that I hold a conditional belief-- FOR SURE I believe one of the two is true, and I'm simply agnostic about which one that happens to be. To say I lack a belief would mean to say that I lack a belief either that it's heads or it's tails. But I certainly don't lack that.


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?  I doubt it. To me, the tendency to default toward one's own position, and away from its inverse, is simple bias.

When you ask me the first question, I automatically ask myself its negative as well.  The result is either that I'm both an atheist and a theist, or both, or neither.  In other words, the answer is undefined.  Given this, "I don't know" is simpler to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

The problem is that in the case of almost any God idea, the box is unopenable.

Is it, lol ?  I've never heard of a god idea that's even remotely close to unopenable.  God is this, god is that, god did this or that, or will do this or that. I doubt that people could form an attachment, as they do, to an unopenable god box.

It makes me wonder how many sick fucks have done actually cat-in-box experiments just because it seems like such a fun idea, though.  

IKR?  World's full of deviants.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well, one could answer "no" to both "Do you believe the cat is dead?" AND "Do you believe the cat is alive?"

That's right.  And I think some here would do that-- "I have no active belief about either, so no and no."

If I flip a coin, and ask you if you believe it's heads, you could answer "No.  I have no belief about the state of the coin, since I have no information about its state."  But my way of looking at it is that I hold a conditional belief-- FOR SURE I believe one of the two is true, and I'm simply agnostic about which one that happens to be.


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?  I doubt it.

When you ask me the first question, I automatically ask its negative correlate.  The results is either that I'm both an atheist and a theist, or both, or neither.  In other words, the answer is undefined.  Given this, "I don't know" is simpler to me.

Well..not exactly.  The inverse to  the question "Do you accept as true or likely true that a god exists?" is "Do you accept as true or likely true that no Gods exist?"

I would answer no to both of them.  I am both an atheist and an a-no-gods-exist-ist (we don't have a very good term for this position so far).  Because I think neither side has met their burden of proof. 

Just because you don't accept the statement "God exists" does not mean that you DO accept the statement "God does not exist."  Atheism is just the neutral position.  I don't think we can know anything about the nature of God (or his lack thereof), which is why I'm an agnostic.  I'm also an atheist because I don't think the God claim has met its burden of proof.  I'm also an a-no-gods-exist-ist (some call this 'strong atheism' but I think that's just a confusing term), because I also don't think the people that say God doesn't exist have not met their burden of proof.

Agnosticism isn't a middle ground between two claims.  And atheism is simply a response to a single claim - that "God(s) exist."  

If you honestly don't know what you believe, that's fine, and nobody can force you to use a term you don't like (hell, terms change over time anyway), but when it comes to the concepts, let me ask you a couple questions.  You'll note that I'm NOT attaching terms or labels to your answers.

Do you accept as true or likely true that God(s) exist?  (and if you want a more specific example in the case of 'what do you mean by God', let's say the God presented in the Bible).

Do you accept as true or likely true that God(s) do NOT exist?

Do you accept as true or likely true that we can ascertain absolute knowledge about the nature of God(s)?



My answers are no, no, and no.  The labels that describe those answers for ME, are atheist, a-strong-atheist (still don't like this term), and agnostic. 

And hey, again, if you want to answer "I don't know" for every one of those questions, I can't stop you, but the discussion just kinda ends there then.  I'm not gonna beat you over the head with labels.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea that we can't know is an interesting cultural artifcact.  It started out as a scorched earth defense in favor of a god (some might recognize it as the operative portion of pascals wager, lol).  Peddled and repeated by frustrated god botherers until it became a truism.   Well played there, I guess.

[bennyboy]

That's just it, benny, if the box is unopenable, and the truth on the matter is unknowable, you might as well( in fact this is all you get to do) disbelieve in it. Since it doesn't affect you in any way, you can very well disbelieve in it. This is the logical thing to do. Do you have to worry about Lord Voldemort on the base of your agnosticism about everything? Of course not. Do physicists act like a parallel, metaphysical world that beyond any possible reach exists? No, because it doesn't help them to in any way. Just so for a person considering the question of god existence. I don't know if it does or it doesn't, but since I have no reason whatsoever to believe that anything I would call a God exists, I might as well express doubt and skepticism on the matter. Your doctrine of doubting everything, even the truth or falsity of any given proposition, while perfectly wise in theory, doesn't really work in practice.

First of all, my username is bennyboy, not benny.  If you intend to use me by my real name, I prefer you use "Benjamin."

Okay, in the case of the cat, you will disbelieve BOTH propositions:
Do you believe the cat is alive?  No.  I lack that belief.
Do you believe the cat is dead?  No.  I lack that belief, also.

That's the way you prefer to address this situation.


My way is this: since the cat is for sure either alive or dead, I cannot render a sensible belief statement.  I simply do not know the cat's existential state.

You could force me to view the question from a single perspective; "Do you believe the cat is dead?  No, I lack that belief, but I don't know the truth" but also "Do you believe the cat is alive?  No, I lack that belief also, but I don't know the truth."  So I'm either/both an agnostic dead-ist or an agnostic alive-ist, depending simply on which form of the question you choose to address to me.  In reality, it's a paradox: you can say I believe both, or belief neither, or cannot form a belief.  But what you CAN for sure say is that I'm agnostic.

[FatAndFaithless]

That's just it, benny, if the box is unopenable, and the truth on the matter is unknowable, you might as well( in fact this is all you get to do) disbelieve in it. Since it doesn't affect you in any way, you can very well disbelieve in it. This is the logical thing to do. Do you have to worry about Lord Voldemort on the base of your agnosticism about everything? Of course not. Do physicists act like a parallel, metaphysical world that beyond any possible reach exists? No, because it doesn't help them to in any way. Just so for a person considering the question of god existence. I don't know if it does or it doesn't, but since I have no reason whatsoever to believe that anything I would call a God exists, I might as well express doubt and skepticism on the matter. Your doctrine of doubting everything, even the truth or falsity of any given proposition, while perfectly wise in theory, doesn't really work in practice.

First of all, my username is bennyboy, not benny.  If you intend to use me by my real name, I prefer you use "Benjamin."

Okay, in the case of the cat, you will disbelieve BOTH propositions:
Do you believe the cat is alive?  No.  I lack that belief.
Do you believe the cat is dead?  No.  I lack that belief, also.

That's the way you prefer to address this situation.


My way is this: since the cat is for sure either alive or dead, I cannot render a sensible belief statement.  I simply do not know the cat's existential state.

You could force me to view the question from a single perspective; "Do you believe the cat is dead?  No, I lack that belief, but I don't know the truth" but also "Do you believe the cat is alive?  No, I lack that belief also, but I don't know the truth."  So I'm either/both an agnostic dead-ist or an agnostic alive-ist, depending simply on which form of the question you choose to address to me.  In reality, it's a paradox: you can say I believe both, or belief neither, or cannot form a belief.  But what you CAN for sure say is that I'm agnostic.

If you do not believe the cat is alive, that does not make you a dead-ist, and if you do not believe the cat is dead, that does not make you an alive-ist.  Not accepting one claim is not the same as affirming the opposite.

"Do you believe the cat is dead?" "No" - you're an a-deadist.
"Do you believe the cat is alive?" "No" - you're an a-alive-ist.

Those are not exclusive positions, you can easily be both, and be agnostic about both (which mirrors my theist-atheist position).

[bennyboy]

Is it, lol ?  I've never heard of a god idea that's even remotely close to unopenable.  God is this, god is that, god did this or that, or will do this or that.  I doubt that people could form an attachment, as they do, to an unopenable god box.  

For all the god ideas that are considered openable, I've opened those mother fuckers and declared them DOA.

It is the hypothetical God ideas-- about creative philosophical principles, idealistic god-minds, etc. which I myself might consider workable (theists would never consider them I guess) which seem unopenable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Creative philosophical principles are the polar opposite of unopenable.  Philosophy and principle isn't just an open box.... it's standard sized, well defined, well lit, well marked, and available for public viewing at any time. If you tell me you have a philosophical god, we can -definitely- open that box...we're the ones who made the box to begin with. No part of it is hidden to us, as it's manufacturers.

[bennyboy]

If you do not believe the cat is alive, that does not make you a dead-ist, and if you do not believe the cat is dead, that does not make you an alive-ist.  Not accepting one claim is not the same as affirming the opposite.

Fine. Then by the weak definition, I'm an agnostic a-dead-ist and an agnostic a-live-ist. Either way, the beliefs rendered are conditional on the form of question asked, but the agnostic position is alive and well. Therefore, I would identify myself by the consistent agnostic position, and not by the inconsistent weak a-dead-ist or a-alive-ist positions.

Again, if there was a cultural skew toward one, I might find it convenient to declare myself against it-- so no offense to those who see in weak atheism some real utility. But in my background, there's so little skew that I wouldn't bother taking a contrary position-- agnostic is good enough.

[bennyboy]

Creative philosophical principles are the polar opposite of unopenable.  Philosophy and principle isn't just an open box.... it's standard sized, well defined, well lit, well marked, and available for public viewing at any time.  If you tell me you have a philosophical god, we can -definitely- open that box...we're the ones who made the box to begin with.

If you ask me an open question like "Do you believe in God," I will formulate that any way I want to.  If I want to make an unopenable box, I'll make an unopenable box.

Give me a specific definition of God, and I will almost for sure shoot it down in flames.  Otherwise, I will look at the things I personally consider potential God ideas, and for these I know there's no way to establish truth values, at least right now.