Agnostics

[Excited Penguin]

Because your beagle won't ever evolve a mind capable of understanding and reacting to theism, whereas a baby will. Like I just said, atheism is merely a convenience. We call atheists those thinking minds that either will one day or already do understand theism, but are not theists. Most of language works like that, it is an utility. Don't search for deeper meanings.

So a fertilized egg is atheist if it has human DNA, because it will eventually have the capacity of reacting to theism?

Anyway, let's get back to agnosticism.  It is my position that the brain can hold contrary positions-- part of the brain believes in God, part does not.  When the agent answers a God question, even a very specific one, how is the singular agent supposed to represent an awareness of this internal division?  Should he say he does in fact hold the idea?  That he holds the contrary idea?  That he holds both?  That he cannot resolve the question in a coherent manner?

Here's another example.  What if in different contexts, different parts of the brain "light up."  What if, whenever you go to church, you get a funny feeling that you can readily believe is the presence of God, especially due to a Christian upbringing.  But when you study the physical universe, and consider scientific evidence, you know you won't find any evidence for God.  Do you believe, disbelieve, lack a belief?  How is one to word this?  Can you say, "At this moment in time, I lack a belief in God, but last Sunday I held a belief in God, and I think next Sunday I will probably believe that again"?

Now, I'm not talking about which view is sensible or correct-- only the possibility that a single thinking agent can be aware of holding multiple, and contrary beliefs.  Will you say such a person is schizophrenic or dysfunctional, or acknowledge that due to complexities of the brain, a state in which a simple question cannot be simply answered is a reality?

Again, I refer you to the convenience of language. If you are an atheist most of the time, then that is what you should call yourself. If one a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being you don't believe in (any) God at all, 100 being you completely believe in (a) God, you are under the 50 mark, then you should call yourself an atheist and vice versa.

You are looking to debate language, which is a worthy goal, not one you fulfill by hiding behind the meaningless(by itself) label agnostic though.

[bennyboy]

Again, I refer you to the convenience of language. If you are an atheist most of the time, then that is what you should call yourself. If one a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being you don't believe in (any) God at all, 100 being you completely believe in (a) God, you are under the 50 mark, then you should call yourself an atheist and vice versa.

You are looking to debate language, which is a worthy goal, not one you fulfill by hiding behind the meaningless(by itself) label agnostic though.

"I don't know" is the most meaningful and truthful thing I can say-- about almost any philosophical question. It doesn't need additional qualifiers or considerations.

If you ask me if I believe Schrodinger's cat is dead, what can I say? I have a conditional belief-- the cat is alive if X, and dead if not X. Since I do not know if X (the release of a radioactive particle triggering poison release, I believe it was), then I'm in an ambiguous state-- the cat is alive-dead. It would be dumb to say I lack a belief that it is alive, OR that I have such a belief.

The same goes for God. For example, I'd define a pan-psychic Universe as God. I think, based on what little I know about consciousness and QM, that it's quite possible that the Universe is panpsychic; I believe that the most elemental mental event might be the transmission and absorption of photons, since this represents a combination of state-change, transmission of information, and a kind of persistence of information over time. However, since mind is subjective, I have no way of knowing whether non-Earth life form systems really experience qualia. I do not have any way of resolving "X," and therefore hold both positions at the same time.

What if solipsism represents truth? What if I am the only existent agent, and y'all are figments of my imagination? In that case, I'd define MYSELF as God. Again, I cannot resolve "X," cannot establish as confirmed fact whether others exist or do not exist. I hold both positions at the same time, as a CONDITIONAL BELIEF.

Conversely, what if despite all my sensation of an external physical monist universe, no such thing actually exists? What if it's an idealistic universe? If there is some central organizing principle, then I'd define that as God, too, since while ideas themselves aren't mind, whatever makes them might be. But there's no way to resolve "X," to prove that what I experience really is as it seems. I can believe so, I can make fun of those who don't believe so, but I cannot actually know for sure.

I've thought about this a lot over the past couple days, and I'd say that at the core of my agnosticism is this issue of conditional belief. When I say, "I don't know," I really mean "I have a conditional belief, but cannot resolve the condition, and believe that it cannot be resolved."

[Cyberman]

Describing dogs, rocks, fertilised ova etc as atheists is technically accurate, but not particularly useful to discussion; since atheism is generally understood to pertain to humans who espouse a certain position. It's also technically accurate to describe humans as being made of meat, but hardly useful when swapping recipes.

[Little lunch]

Unless they're long pig recipes. :-)

[Cyberman]

Tasty, though a bit specialised for general barbecue action.

Now I get where your username comes from...

[bennyboy]

Describing dogs, rocks, fertilised ova etc as atheists is technically accurate, but not particularly useful to discussion; since atheism is generally understood to pertain to humans who espouse a certain position.

I know.  I'm going somewhere with this line.

[Cyberman]

Ah, ok. Here's your ball back .

[wiploc]

I generally agree, one is either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist...

I met a gnostic atheist in Texas.  He told me that science has proved that gods don't exist.  When I asked for clarification, he just repeated that science has proven it.  

So there is (or was) at least one gnostic atheist. 

If we're talking about the SCG (standard Christian god) then I myself am a gnostic atheist.  A god who is omnipotent but can't defeat iron chariots?  Who is love, but who tortures people forever?  Who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but who coexists with evil?  Who is only one but is three?  That sucker does not exist.

[Excited Penguin]

Again, I refer you to the convenience of language. If you are an atheist most of the time, then that is what you should call yourself. If one a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being you don't believe in (any) God at all, 100 being you completely believe in (a) God, you are under the 50 mark, then you should call yourself an atheist and vice versa.

You are looking to debate language, which is a worthy goal, not one you fulfill by hiding behind the meaningless(by itself) label agnostic though.

"I don't know" is the most meaningful and truthful thing I can say-- about almost any philosophical question.  It doesn't need additional qualifiers or considerations.

If you ask me if I believe Schrodinger's cat is dead, what can I say?  I have a conditional belief-- the cat is alive if X, and dead if not X.  Since I do not know if X (the release of a radioactive particle triggering poison release, I believe it was), then I'm in an ambiguous state-- the cat is alive-dead.  It would be dumb to say I lack a belief that it is alive, OR that I have such a belief.

The same goes for God.  For example, I'd define a pan-psychic Universe as God.  I think, based on what little I know about consciousness and QM, that it's quite possible that the Universe is panpsychic; I believe that the most elemental mental event might be the transmission and absorption of photons, since this represents a combination of state-change, transmission of information, and a kind of persistence of information over time.  However, since mind is subjective, I have no way of knowing whether non-Earth life form systems really experience qualia.  I do not have any way of resolving "X," and therefore hold both positions at the same time.

What if solipsism represents truth?  What if I am the only existent agent, and y'all are figments of my imagination?  In that case, I'd define MYSELF as God.  Again, I cannot resolve "X," cannot establish as confirmed fact whether others exist or do not exist.  I hold both positions at the same time, as a CONDITIONAL BELIEF.

Conversely, what if despite all my sensation of an external physical monist universe, no such thing actually exists?  What if it's an idealistic universe?  If there is some central organizing principle, then I'd define that as God, too, since while ideas themselves aren't mind, whatever makes them might be.  But there's no way to resolve "X," to prove that what I experience really is as it seems.  I can believe so, I can make fun of those who don't believe so, but I cannot actually know for sure.

I've thought about this a lot over the past couple days, and I'd say that at the core of my agnosticism is this issue of conditional belief.  When I say, "I don't know," I really mean "I have a conditional belief, but cannot resolve the condition, and believe that it cannot be resolved."

Except, benny, that I agree with everything you've just said. I, too, would call those things God, can't solve X, believe solipsism is the only position we can hold with certainty. So, you see, we are cut of the same cloth on this issue, I can say that for certain after reading your particular phrasing of those ideas. Phrasing matters. You do not claim to know anything of those things,  id est you do not claim to know of the existence of any Gods, you merely allow for the possibility of their existence - if certain conditions were satisfied you would accept that possibility as truth.

But there are certain things to consider here, nevertheless. The word God(and their equivalents) carries a lot of baggage. So while I did just say I would call certain things God(including those listed by you) if I allowed for their existence - even if just for the sake of the argument, I wouldn't really. Why not? For one, because of the actual definition of a god. It is defined either in the monotheistic sense(which, I'm pretty sure, is something both of us completely reject), or as something you worship. Secondly, for the time being, all these hypothetical "Gods" lack any evidence whatsoever, so I am perfectly content with disbelieving in them just as much as I would be with disbelieving a crazy person can fly just because they might tell me so. 

Benny, you are either a soft atheist, just like me, or a believer/worshipper of a deity. I would respect you very much if you accepted this and took a stand on the matter. Because you clearly cannot be both, by virtue of the respective definitions of the ideas at play here.

[wiploc]

[quote pid='1349578' dateline='1470067889']
... secular people, which agnostics clearly are.

[/quote]

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day.  She was an agnostic theist, one who believed that gods exist but didn't know that gods exist.