Agnostics

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

When it comes to the cultural thing, that I can totally understand - if you don't have religion thrust into your face every time you read a political speech or watch a news story then I can get why it might not be such a self-identifier.

But the bolded part above - that's what I was getting at, you're positions are the same as mine, but the terms can get jumbled and confusing, which is bound to happen sometimes.  But, when someone asks you "Do you believe the cat is alive?", all they're asking you about is specifically your position regarding the statement "The cat is alive", and vice versa for the other way round.  The question is almost always formed this way, in this conditional structure, and the agnosticism of the position doesn't really enter into it. They aren't asking "do you think it's possible to gain knowledge" about the cat being alive, they're just asking if you accept it as true or likely true.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

If wer're tyalking philosophical principles...then it;s one thing to assert that the box is unopenable, and another to present an unopenable box.  You can't actually "make it" any way you choose.  

Give me a specific definition of God, and I will almost for sure shoot it down in flames.

Then the box is openable.

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.

That you personally consider something a god idea does not mean that it actually -is- a god idea..or that the idea is unopenable. It was your choice to reference philosophy. If what you actually meant was not a hypothetical, god, a creative philosophical principle...but instead "that which can be asserted"....well...sure, you may never know. We can assert anything we like, though..obviously, I don;t think we're talking about knowledge - or whether or not we have it or can aqcuire it, anymore, at that point.

[bennyboy]

But the bolded part above - that's what I was getting at, you're positions are the same as mine, but the terms can get jumbled and confusing, which is bound to happen sometimes.  But, when someone asks you "Do you believe the cat is alive?", all they're asking you about is specifically your position regarding the statement "The cat is alive", and vice versa for the other way round.  The question is almost always formed this way, in this conditional structure, and the agnosticism of the position doesn't really enter into it.  They aren't asking "do you think it's possible to gain knowledge" about the cat being alive, they're just asking if you accept it as true or likely true.

Maybe it's my way of thinking about questions that is different. If you ask me, "Do you believe the cat is alive?" I interpret that as a question about the cat's state, and infer ". . . or dead?" whether you ask it or intend it. In this case, I don't know what TO believe, since I'm given two candidate beliefs and no method for applying a weight to them. I'm in a state of limbo with regard to the process of establishing a belief. But since those beliefs have reached the brain well-formed and coherent, and since I'm vividly imagining and openly considering them, I think saying I "lack" any belief is a misstatement-- saying I can't choose among the two beliefs seems more accurate to me, or to put it simply, "I don't know what to believe."

[FatAndFaithless]

But the bolded part above - that's what I was getting at, you're positions are the same as mine, but the terms can get jumbled and confusing, which is bound to happen sometimes.  But, when someone asks you "Do you believe the cat is alive?", all they're asking you about is specifically your position regarding the statement "The cat is alive", and vice versa for the other way round.  The question is almost always formed this way, in this conditional structure, and the agnosticism of the position doesn't really enter into it.  They aren't asking "do you think it's possible to gain knowledge" about the cat being alive, they're just asking if you accept it as true or likely true.

Maybe it's my way of thinking about questions that is different.  If you ask me, "Do you believe the cat is alive?" I interpret that as a question about the cat's state, and infer ". . . or dead?" whether you ask it or intend it.  In this case, I don't know what TO believe, since I'm given two candidate beliefs and no method for applying a weight to them.  I'm in a state of limbo with regard to the process of establishing a belief.  But since those beliefs have reached the brain well-formed and coherent, and since I'm vividly imagining and openly considering them, I think saying I "lack" any belief is a misstatement-- saying I can't choose among the two beliefs seems more accurate to me, or to put it simply, "I don't know what to believe."

But my question isn't "Is the cat alive or dead?"  I'm not asking you to pick between two possibilities, I'm specifically asking you about your position on the claim "The cat is alive."  I'm not even concerned about the cat's "dead" status in this question. If you need that to be clarified each time, that's fine, but you've already given you answer to this question previously.

"Do you believe the cat is alive?" You said "No." That's all the answer I was looking for - nothing about the possibility of gaining knowledge about the cat, or even about the possibility of the cat's 'dead' status.

[bennyboy]

If wer're tyalking philosophical principles...then it;s one thing to assert that the box is unopenable, and another to present an unopenable box.  You can't actually "make it" any way you choose.  

If you ask me an undefined question, then I will package it and present it to myself in any form I want. It's only when I want to persuade someone else to adopt my view that I have to follow ANY rules about how to communicate those principles.

Give me a specific definition of God, and I will almost for sure shoot it down in flames.

Then the box is openable.

Yep, for that specific definition. Absolutely. And in that case, I suspect I will 100% of the time find upon opening the box that there's nothing more than magical monkey farts inside.

That you personally consider something a god idea does not mean that it actually -is- a god idea..or that the idea is unopenable.  It was your choice to reference philosophy.  If what you actually meant was not a hypothetical, god, a creative philosophical principle...but instead "that which can be asserted"....well...sure, you may never know.  We can assert anything we like, though..obviously, I don;t think we're talking about knowledge - or whether or not we have it or can aqcuire it, anymore, at that point.

Like I say, if you ask me if I believe in ANY definition of God at all, then I will look for definitions of things that I think aren't fucking stupid ideas, but may sensibly be called God. The idea of a panpsychic universe, with all of it together being a kind of massive intelligence, I'd maybe be willing to call God. It's not really my favorite definition of God, but at least it's not Sky Daddy watching teens masturbate in the shower and telling the devil to sharpen his pitchfork.

As for opening the box. If I could PROVE the universe was panpsychic, I might just keep it to myself. Otherwise, the fucking Christians would conflate my God definition with theirs and say, "Now we have PROOF God exists. . . so Johnny, you'd better get out of that goddamned shower right now!"

[bennyboy]

But my question isn't "Is the cat alive or dead?"  I'm not asking you to pick between two possibilities, I'm specifically asking you about your position on the claim "The cat is alive."  I'm not even concerned about the cat's "dead" status in this question.  If you need that to be clarified each time, that's fine, but you've already given you answer to this question previously.

"Do you believe the cat is alive?"  You said "No."  That's all the answer I was looking for - nothing about the possibility of gaining knowledge about the cat, or even about the possibility of the cat's 'dead' status.

It's a strange situation, to have such a symmetrical situation presented in such an asymmetrical way. In this case, an alive cat is not dead and vice versa. Couching it in skewing language seems a bit devious-- My real belief is that the cat is maybe dead, maybe alive-- in fact, I'm a very strong gnostic deadalive-ist. Much more interesting than my answer is your motivation-- why are you trying to make me comment on whether a coin will come up heads, but demanding that I avoid any discussion of whether it will come up tails? I mean, if you really want to do it this way you can. . . when I have to answer your question. But when I'm declaring, of my own volition, my own religious beliefs, I get to ask much more fair questions than that.

[FatAndFaithless]

I think this discussion has come to the end of its usefulness, unfortunately.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think so too lol

[account_inactive]

I think this discussion has come to the end of its usefulness, unfortunately.

It came to that a while ago.

[bennyboy]

I think this discussion has come to the end of its usefulness, unfortunately.

Maybe.  My intent was to demonstrate that a pure agnostic position is valid.  I've made the most compelling arguments I'm capable of, and you guys are free to discard them if you like.  But don't be surprised if, the next time you tell a declared agnostic that he's "really" an agnostic atheist, no matter what he says, you will face disagreement.