Agnostics

[Excited Penguin]

Your rudeness is noted.  Also noted is your misunderstanding of how the brain works in decision-making.  The brain is not a unified agent.  It is a collection of parallel processes, and is perfectly capable of holding contrary beliefs.  Just because I have one mouth, and can only express one idea at a time, doesn't mean that my brain is in 100% alignment on every issue.  In fact, I'd argue it is almost NEVER the case that even when one gives a simple answer, there isn't a lot of complexity and some contradiction going on in the brain.  


Trying to railroad all of that into only the answers you want to hear is like asking someone, "Are you going to let me answer the way I want, or are you going to be an asshole?"

Go ahead, fucker, answer my question.  And only choose one of the options I'm making you take.  They are the only two options you get.

Rude or not, I tend to side with EP on this.

Belief is defined by contemporary analytic philosophers of mind as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true.

I have no idea what it would be like to both accept a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true, simultaneously. Or, being in some inbetween mental state of neither accepting a premise as being true, and not accepting the same premise as being true.

I don't think it's possible for the mind to be in either of those states.

And that's not even taking into consideration the formal definition of the word 'agnostic', that does not even concern belief.

There's no point trying to argue with him. He earlier admitted he "didn't agree" with the term soft atheist, and that's why he doesn't want to be called one.

You see, Simon, I don't agree with him calling me rude, so I'm not rude, ok?