Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Brian37]

Lets say we were both NFL fans, and bet on the game. You leaned to the Patriots winning, but of course, even with their better play, you lean to them winning even though you are "agnostic" about the final score. I leaned to the Packers winning, even though also being "agnostic" about the final score. But neither team can win and lose at the same time while the game is being played. Just like there is no god and a god until the final score.

If i put gun to your head to place a bet your choices while the game is being played would be on or off, the the only part "agnostic" can refer to is the future. You cant say currently a god exists and does not exist both at the same time. You can only be agnostic about the possible outcome.

[dyresand]

Lets say we were both NFL fans, and bet on the game. You leaned to the Patriots winning, but of course, even with their better play, you lean to them winning even though you are "agnostic" about the final score. I leaned to the Packers winning, even though also being "agnostic" about the final score. But neither team can win and lose at the same time while the game is being played. Just like there is no god and a god until the final score.

If i put gun to your head to place a bet your choices while the game is being played would be on or off, the the only part "agnostic" can refer to is the future. You cant say currently a god exists and does not exist both at the same time. You can only be agnostic about the possible outcome.

Falling off the fence is going to to hurt.

[Asmodee]

I've actually had this argument before. The way you deliver your response matters quite a bit here. Yes, there is either belief (I believe God exists) or non-belief (I don't believe God exists) if you look at it that way, but there are actually 2 possible beliefs. All three of the following are valid

1) I believe God exists
2) I believe God does not exist
3) I hold no belief either way

And those are not the only three possible answers, either. Each person's beliefs or lack thereof are his or her own; theirs to have, theirs to define. You could answer "I believe there is SOMETHING. I don't know if I'd label it as God". What the hell does that mean? I have no idea, but it's a valid answer because the person giving it is expressing what their beliefs are.

In the argument I had before those who believed there were only 2 possible positions were working off a definition for atheism that, frankly, they just made up based on some chart of words and combinations of those words which were possible which could, in their opinion, definitively define a person's beliefs and, thus, label them without question. This was, of course, not true. They were getting hung up on definitions and insisting that those definitions which, again, they simply made up and agreed upon as a community, were 100% accurate, unquestionable, all the time, the end. The problem is they don't fit people who claim to be agnostic as it tries to shoehorn them into a label they are not comfortable with and, frankly, which doesn't fit them. If you want to get hung up on definitions then agnostic is a word with a definition as a valid position on religion. Beliefs are so varied from person to person that it's a little small-minded to think you can narrow people's beliefs down to 2 simple categories without question, in my opinion.

UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG and UGGGGGGGGGGGG


No you are being simple minded.

Nobody sits on the fence. That false position was stupidly concocted by Huxley.

Everyone as a degree of leaning one way or the other. If one leans to "I suspect there is, but I am not sure. That is still leaning. The only thing "Agnostic" can apply to is the future.

If you lean to "off" again, the only thing agnostic can refer to is the future.

Everyone still leans in one direction or the other. No different than a dimmer switch on a light. I can get brighter or dimmer but it cannot be both on and off at the same time.

Which way you lean still is separate than being sure or not sure.

I disagree. You are treating opinions and beliefs as absolutes instead of abstract concepts. You are trying to definitively quantify what a person can and cannot believe as if there are a set of rules which cannot be broken. You know full well that one can hold two or more opposite beliefs simultaneously. It is not logical. It does not make sense. But it is possible and every fiery-pit believing Christian does it. They believe both in the perfect love for us their God has and that he will punish us for non-belief by lighting us on fire for all eternity. The two beliefs are mutually exclusive, but that does not stop Christians from holding both. To try to pin down what beliefs can and can't be and quantify them with absolute definitions is, frankly, stupid when you are fully aware that beliefs are not absolutes, do not need to make sense and do not follow any such rules, or any rules at all, for that matter.

But let's say you are right. Everyone leans at least a little one way or another. What does that mean? It means we are born either atheist or theist and change can come only instantaneously. Which way does a baby lean? Wait until he's 12 and ask him, then you'll know which way he leaned all along, right? And if we imagine this leaning as the needle on a gauge and we start deconverting a theist then there is no point where the needle reaches zero. If you were to chart the way they lean for every second of their life the needle would slowly decline until there was a sudden jump to the other side with no data in between. A person would go from theist one second to atheist half a second later. Because that's exactly how the human brain works. It's all digital. Ones and zeroes, on and off. I may be "simple minded", but I'm pretty sure Intel didn't design my brain.

[Brian37]

Ok try this, try having your computer half on and half off right now. See if you can do that at the same time.

[Asmodee]

Ok try this, try having your computer half on and half off right now. See if you can do that at the same time.

Because opinions are exactly like computers and everything in the universe is absolute....

---

LOL, I can actually do that. A computer is made up of many components. I can simply unplug half of them. The combination of those parts make up "my computer" as a whole, therefore my computer very much CAN BE half on and half off.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you believe that I smoke cowboy killers Asmodee?

[GrandizerII]

Brian, if someone were to ask if you believe you'll still be alive five minutes from now, could your answer possibly differ from your answer to whether or not you know you'll be alive five minutes from now?

[Asmodee]

Do you believe that I smoke cowboy killers Asmodee?

I do not have enough information to have an opinion on that. I would need the definitions you are using for "smoke" (light on fire and inhale? kill?) and "cowboy killers" (don't even know where to go with that one). But I doubt it. I don't see how my opinion on some specific, very silly thing is relevant to the conversation of opinions in general, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

I do not have enough information to have an opinion on that.

I didn't ask you whether or not you had enough information, or whether or not you believed you had enough information. I know it seems odd to slice the knife here, but we need to understand where and when we aren't having the same conversation, despite speaking to each other, eh? This is important, because when people say "I don;t know whether or not I believe" they usually seem to mean "I don't know what we're talking about". Subtle but important difference - as we're about to see.

I would need the definitions you are using for "smoke" (light on fire and inhale? kill?) and "cowboy killers" (don't even know where to go with that one).

Then we have a failure of communication. You seem to assume that you might have some answer if you knew what I meant. You aren't agnostic about my smoking cowboy killers - you're agnostic about what a cowboy killer -is-.

But I doubt it.

Suppose you knew that "cowboy killer" is a term very widely used for a specific brand a cigarettes? Marlboro Reds.

I don't see how my opinion on some specific, very silly thing is relevant to the conversation of opinions in general, though.

It's incredibly informative if you know how to parse the data. So now, armed with this new knowledge. Do you believe that I smoke Marlboro Reds?

[Asmodee]

I do not have enough information to have an opinion on that.

I didn't ask you whether or not you had enough information, or whether or not you believed you had enough information. I know it seems odd to slice the knife here, but we need to understand where and when we aren't having the same conversation, despite speaking to each other, eh?

I would need the definitions you are using for "smoke" (light on fire and inhale? kill?) and "cowboy killers" (don't even know where to go with that one).

Then we have a failure of communication. You seem to assume that you might have some answer if you knew what I meant. You aren't agnostic about my smoking cowboy killers - you're agnostic about what a cowboy killer -is-.

But I doubt it.

Suppose you knew that "cowboy killer" is a term very widely used for a specific brand a cigarettes? Marlboro Reds.

I don't see how my opinion on some specific, very silly thing is relevant to the conversation of opinions in general, though.

It's incredibly informative if you know how to parse the data. So now, armed with this new knowledge. Do you believe that I smoke Marlboro Reds?

I do not have enough information to form a belief on that. In other words, I neither believe you do, nor do I belief you don't. I hold no belief either way.

---

Then we have a failure of communication. You seem to assume that you might have some answer if you knew what I meant. You aren't agnostic about my smoking cowboy killers - you're agnostic about what a cowboy killer -is-.

So you're saying it is possible to be simply "agnostic". Thank you.