NationStates Jolt Archive

In the context you have used it, it is you who has changed this definition. You claim that agnosticism is not between atheism and theism because there can be nothing between something and nothing. There is nothing between 1 and 0. But the agnostic recognises the possibility of both 1 and 0. In other words, an average; the 0.5.

unless you believe in both God and do not believe in God (which is impossible), you are not 0.5

There is nothing between 1 and 0. But the agnostic recognises the possibility of both 1 and 0.

If there was an applause emoticon, it would be here.

In the context you have used it, it is you who has changed this definition. You claim that agnosticism is not between atheism and theism because there can be nothing between something and nothing. There is nothing between 1 and 0. But the agnostic recognises the possibility of both 1 and 0. In other words, an average; the 0.5.

Except that theism and atheism are not 1 and 0. They are >0 (greater than 0) and <=0 (less than or equal to 0) And there is nothing between those two.

If there was an applause emoticon, it would be here.

Sympathy applause I'd hope.

...my terms never changed. You're changing the concept of "something".
Again, you quote part of my response and ignore the bit you do not like.

Still, I think that just means its a language thing, I don't think you're deliberately lying.
Indeed, if I have made any misrepresentation it is certainly accidental.

Except that theism and atheism are not 1 and 0. They are >0 (greater than 0) and <=0 (less than or equal to 0) And there is nothing between those two.
I used 0 and 1 to demonstrate the binary aspect of it. Either you have something (1) or do not (0).

You don't get bothered if people lie about you? How strange.



Why does it not bother you that you use the term "atheism" incorrectly?

On the internet it doesn't.

Because the differences we have in our opinions of atheism are really small and meaningless. You say it's not believing, I say it's believing there is not. It's just different ways of phrasing the same idea, with some differences in implication.

Again, you quote part of my response and ignore the bit you do not like.

No. "something" is not the whole. Something is anything more than nothing. Thus, there's are no points between something and nothing. part of something is something.

Again, you quote part of my response and ignore the bit you do not like.
Again, you keep thinking that the rest of what you wrote actually mattered.



Indeed, if I have made any misrepresentation it is certainly accidental.
Not when you continued to do it over and over it's not.

Sympathy applause I'd hope.

Haven't we already established that I don't agree with you?

In the context you have used it, it is you who has changed this definition. You claim that agnosticism is not between atheism and theism because there can be nothing between something and nothing. There is nothing between 1 and 0. But the agnostic recognises the possibility of both 1 and 0. In other words, an average; the 0.5.

Uh, I'll have to check with one of the guys over in Discrete, but I'm pretty sure its not really meaningful to average values in a choice set.

Normally I have no problem using those kinds of values to represent ideas, but once you start trying to apply operations to them, it becomes problematic.

How about more of a Schrödinger condition, both or neither until some condition is met?

I used 0 and 1 to demonstrate the binary aspect of it. Either you have something (1) or do not (0).

Well, he left binary, so I suppose I had to follow him to make it make sense.

On the internet it doesn't.
Then it shouldn't matter in real life, either.


Because the differences we have in our opinions of atheism are really small and meaningless.
No, it's quite large and meaningful. There's a world of difference between lack of belief and belief in lack.

religion is like eating ice cream. i can think about having ice cream as long as i want, but as long as i'm only thinking about it, i'm not eating it.
Sigged, cos it sounds coolio!

Haven't we already established that I don't agree with you?

Yeah, but I'd still like to think you realize the mutual exclusivity of "something" and "nothing"

No, it's quite large and meaningful. There's a world of difference between lack of belief and belief in lack.

I lack belief in belief.

Again, you keep thinking that the rest of what you wrote actually mattered.
How wonderful. So locked up in the certainty of arrogance that you can do little more than resort to insults.

Not when you continued to do it over and over it's not.
Alternatively, you have seen a lie because you do not like the possibility of being wrong, and prefer to cry foul play rather than face the reality.

...and prefer to cry foul play rather than face the reality.

The reality is there is nothing between "something" and "nothing"

Then it shouldn't matter in real life, either.



No, it's quite large and meaningful. There's a world of difference between lack of belief and belief in lack.
I draw distinctions between the internet and real life.

If that's what you want to think.

Yeah, but I'd still like to think you realize the mutual exclusivity of "something" and "nothing"

I do, but not in relation to something as fluid (for lack of a better word) as religion and beliefs. I guess I agree with you if I were to nitpick over dictionary definitions, but I think real world application leaves room for a middle.

I lack belief in belief.

that's still belief... what a paradox:eek:

The reality is there is nothing between "something" and "nothing"
There is a part of something.

You say 1 and 0; I say 10 and 0.

How wonderful.
It is.


Alternatively, you have seen a lie because you do not like the possibility of being wrong,
No, there's no possibility that I'm wrong here. You don't like the fact that I demonstrated what I said, elaborated on it, and showed you to be utterly in error.

Now go play with your Tonka trucks and leave this discussion to the adults.

that's still belief... what a paradox:eek:

It's like expecting irony. If you think about it too long, your head may explode.

The reality is there is nothing between "something" and "nothing"

it's probably better stated:
the reality is there isn't anything between "something" and "nothing"

I do, but not in relation to something as fluid (for lack of a better word) as religion and beliefs. I guess I agree with you if I were to nitpick over dictionary definitions, but I think real world application leaves room for a middle.

We're trying to work with logic here. so it should be definitive. You don't believe, or you do. Whether or not you think we can know for sure is where agnostic comes in. However people you know like to use it, agnostic is not a middle ground.

It is.



No, there's no possibility that I'm wrong here. You don't like the fact that I demonstrated what I said, elaborated on it, and showed you to be utterly in error.

Now go play with your Tonka trucks and leave this discussion to the adults.
Ah, the mature, reasoned argument.

I am glad that I am not the one left so utterly lost in my own arrogance that I have to resort to playground insults.

There is a part of something.

You say 1 and 0; I say 10 and 0.
Wrong base, bucko.

Something exists. Something doesn't exist. Where's the middle? THERE ISN'T ONE!

"Ummm, well, it sorta exists" doesn't make any damned sense whatsoever.

"She's halfway pregnant" doesn't make any sense, either.

But that's what you'd have us believe.

There is a part of something.

You say 1 and 0; I say 10 and 0.

...Does a part of something exist?

Ah, the mature, reasoned argument.
Yes, it is.

It's like expecting irony. If you think about it too long, your head may explode.

You should try it sometime.

I do, but not in relation to something as fluid (for lack of a better word) as religion and beliefs. I guess I agree with you if I were to nitpick over dictionary definitions, but I think real world application leaves room for a middle.
Hoorah, sense! Have a cookie (http://www.allisonsgourmet.com/graphics/gift-basket-cookie.jpg).

...Does a part of something exist?

Well. Yea. How else would we have oranges?

Ah, the mature, reasoned argument.

I am glad that I am not the one left so utterly lost in my own arrogance that I have to resort to playground insults.

Well, your so lost in your own ignorance you can't understand the word "something". Seems like a rather familiar situation, in fact.

By the way, ignorance is not stupidity, don't start on that.

I do, but not in relation to something as fluid (for lack of a better word) as religion and beliefs. I guess I agree with you if I were to nitpick over dictionary definitions, but I think real world application leaves room for a middle.

But sometimes, metaphysical and ontological subject matter are better served with a rigorous precision of language (something I admit I struggle with).

I think BAAWA is a bit unnecessarily caustic, but a discussion like this has a much better chance of being fruitful with a set of careful definitions.

No, I have part of that something.

This case is only polarised because you have set your own terms of reference to be that way.

Okay. If someone has part of something ... like say a crumb of a cookie, then they still have something. It may not be enough to even tell by tasting whether that cookie was oatmeal or peanutbutter, but they still have a cookie crumb.

So if you have a crumb of god-beleif, you may have no clue which one or which religion or anything else and so are unable to define a stand, but you still have the belief-crumb.

Wrong base, bucko.

Something exists. Something doesn't exist. Where's the middle? THERE ISN'T ONE!

"Ummm, well, it sorta exists" doesn't make any damned sense whatsoever.

"She's halfway pregnant" doesn't make any sense, either.

But that's what you'd have us believe.
Again, you have set the terms and cry that they are breached. Belief in God is not an absolute; it is not the '1'. There is huge potential for differences in opinion; what kind of God He is, what He can do, where He came from etc. You are saying 'he either exists or he doesn't'. I am saying that He either exists, He doesn't, or He lies somewhere in between. Binary might not accept that, but theology does.

But sometimes, metaphysical and ontological subject matter are better served with a rigorous precision of language (something I admit I struggle with).

I think BAAWA is a bit unnecessarily caustic, but a discussion like this has a much better chance of being fruitful with a set of careful definitions.
I'm just sick of people being imprecise about the terms and then claiming that *I'm* the one with the problem.

Again, you have set the terms
Yes, we do.

Have.

Lack.

Middle? None.

Unless you'd care to demonstrate that a woman can be halfway pregnant.

Like to do that?

Again, you have set the terms and cry that they are breached. Belief in God is not an absolute; it is not the '1'. There is huge potential for differences in opinion; what kind of God He is, what He can do, where He came from etc. You are saying 'he either exists or he doesn't'. I am saying that He either exists, He doesn't, or He lies somewhere in between. Binary might not accept that, but theology does.

You can't "partially exist" It just doesn't work like that, you can exist in myriad different ways, but you can't partially exist...Geeez...

Yes, we do.

Have.

Lack.

Middle? None.

Unless you'd care to demonstrate that a woman can be halfway pregnant.

Like to do that?

Only in retrospective.

Yes, we do.

Have.

Lack.

Middle? None.

Unless you'd care to demonstrate that a woman can be halfway pregnant.

Like to do that?
A half quote again. :p

Rather than 0 and 1, I like to think of it as "Yes", "no", or "maybe"

A half quote again. :p

The other half wasn't worth quoting.

A half quote again. :p
Because you keep making the same damned error that you have been corrected on for about the last 8 to 10 pages!

What is your damned problem? Why do you think that something can halfway exist?

You can't "partially exist" It just doesn't work like that, you can exist in myriad different ways, but you can't partially exist...Geeez...
Of course you can. Do you exist in mind or spirit? Do you exist physically or emotionally?

You are thinking in three dimensional, human terms. Theology is about thinking beyond this.

Rather than 0 and 1, I like to think of it as "Yes", "no", or "maybe"

Slightly more complex than "yes" and "no".

Rather than 0 and 1, I like to think of it as "Yes", "no", or "maybe"
And your "like to think of it as" is incorrect, as the question is "Do you have the belief that there is a god?"

If you don't know what beliefs you have, then you're dead and can't know.

Slightly more complex than "yes" and "no".

How? 0 or 1?

I'm just sick of people being imprecise about the terms and then claiming that *I'm* the one with the problem.

Well, if they disagree, they disagree. It feels to me like "lying" might denote a more deliberate act of deception. Some just aren't seeing your view.

Also, I'm not sure its ever wise to refute any possibility of the self being wrong.

Of course you can. Do you exist in mind or spirit? Do you exist physically or emotionally?

You are thinking in three dimensional, human terms. Theology is about thinking beyond this.

I exist, in some for or another. I don't partially exist. and if I didn't exist, I wouldn't exist. It doesn't matter how I exist, but I do, Period.

Of course you can.
No. You either exist or you do not.


Do you exist in mind or spirit? Do you exist physically or emotionally?
No such thing as spirit, and emotions rely on the physical.

So did you have a valid analogy?


You are thinking in three dimensional, human terms. Theology is about thinking beyond this.
There are other terms beside human?

And your "like to think of it as" is incorrect, as the question is "Do you have the belief that there is a god?"

If you don't know what beliefs you have, then you're dead and can't know.

What if my belief is that I don't know?

How? 0 or 1?

If you're talking in binary, yes. Or "something and nothing" is a good example.

What if my belief is that I don't know?

Depends, don't know what?

Well, if they disagree, they disagree. It feels to me like "lying" might denote a more deliberate act of deception.
After how many times he was corrected and STILL made the claim, I would call that lying.


Also, I'm not sure its ever wise to refute any possibility of the self being wrong.
Sure there is, when we are speaking in a priori terms.

If you're talking in binary, yes. Or "something and nothing" is a good example.

Something = yes, nothing = no

Yes, we do.

Have.

Lack.

Middle? None.

Unless you'd care to demonstrate that a woman can be halfway pregnant.

Like to do that?
Pregnancy and religion, what a wonderfully apt analogy. :rolleyes:

What if my belief is that I don't know?
You don't know *what*? If you have the belief?

No. You either exist or you do not.

Says where?

No such thing as spirit, and emotions rely on the physical.

Proof? Evidence?

There are other terms beside human?

Yes. Mine.

Something = yes, nothing = no

Then "maybe" doesn't exist as a middle ground.

Depends, don't know what?

Don't know if God exists

There are other terms beside human?
And therein lies the nature of your problem.

You accuse me of lying, but the reality is that you fail to understand the very nature of religion.

Pregnancy and religion, what a wonderfully apt analogy. :rolleyes:
It's the idea of not being able to have it halfway. A woman is pregnant or she is not. A person believes something or does not. There is no half-assed way about it.

And therein lies the nature of your problem.
No, therein lies the nature of YOUR problem. You want to divorce terms from their meaning. You want to play it all Humpty-Dumpty.

Don't know if God exists

Well, who does know? You're just like everyone else really. Now, if you believe we can never know, then you're agnostic, then the question becomes "Agnostic Theist" or "Agnostic Atheist"?

Then "maybe" doesn't exist as a middle ground.

The fact is either yes or no, the view is either yes or no (knowing), or maybe (not knowing).
I don't think maybe is a middle ground, it's completely seperate from a decided opinion

Says where?
Ontology.



Proof? Evidence?
1. Show that "spirit" exists.
2. Show that emotions exist apart from a being to have them.



Yes. Mine.
You're not human?

Of course you can. Do you exist in mind or spirit? Do you exist physically or emotionally?

You are thinking in three dimensional, human terms. Theology is about thinking beyond this.

Some philosophers (and mathematicians) and Lakoff and Nunez have done some interesting work in establishing that anything considered or discussed by humans is limited to human terms, a priori.

That is to say, a human is incapable, by definition, of thinking beyond what they can think about. Anything they can think about becomes included in the set of "human terms", as a matter of tautology.

Is it possible that theology really is just a human subject matter which addresses supernatural metaphysics in the same way an academic field like mythology does?

Well, who does know? You're just like everyone else really. Now, if you believe we can never know, then you're agnostic, then the question becomes "Agnostic Theist" or "Agnostic Atheist"?

Neither. Just Agnostic.

Neither. Just Agnostic.
Not possible. Agnosticism is orthogonal to theism and atheism.

We went over this earlier in the thread. Please familiarize yourself with pages 1-10.

Well, who does know? You're just like everyone else really. Now, if you believe we can never know, then you're agnostic, then the question becomes "Agnostic Theist" or "Agnostic Atheist"?

Then I'm agnostic :)

EDIT: Is it possible though to be "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" by believing that it is not possible to know if God exists, or if God doesn't exist?

Ontology.

Baaaaaa?

1. Show that "spirit" exists.
2. Show that emotions exist apart from a being to have them.

1. The electrical current and capitance field which runs though every living being.
2. Never watched Star Wars? There are places tained by the Dark Side.

You're not human?

Took you long enough.

Neither. Just Agnostic.

No, you either believe or not. If you don't think about it, if God has never crossed your mind, you obviously don't believe in him, thus Atheist.

Baaaaaa?
Do you not know what ontology is?



1. The electrical current and capitance field which runs though every living being.
As opposed to the electrical current and capacitance field through the components in my computer?


2. Never watched Star Wars? There are places tained by the Dark Side.
A work of fiction? You're citing a work of fiction?

It's the idea of not being able to have it halfway. A woman is pregnant or she is not. A person believes something or does not. There is no half-assed way about it.
Belief is not total. People have been having crisises(sp?) of faith ever since there has been faith. Theists, when faced with the loss of a loved one for example, often question why their god/s allowed so terrible a thing to happen, and this leads to a question of 'is there a god, is what I believe wrong?'As they question their beliefs then surely they can't be said to still believe, but they do no 'not believe' either. There is your middle ground.

Not possible. Agnosticism is orthogonal to theism and atheism.

Is not. I simply do not know wether there is or is not.

We went over this earlier in the thread. Please familiarize yourself with pages 1-10.

I refuse.

Belief is not total.
So what? You either have it or you do not. Even in a "crisis of faith" for a theist, the theist still believes until the belief is dropped.

That's it.

Is not. I simply do not know wether there is or is not.
It is, whether or not you agree.

Is not. I simply do not know wether there is or is not.



I refuse.
whatever, come online

Is not. I simply do not know wether there is or is not.

Do you believe there is?

After how many times he was corrected and STILL made the claim, I would call that lying.



Sure there is, when we are speaking in a priori terms.

Right, but as yet, they don't buy your correction, so they still disagree and aren't trying to deceive.

I agree with your terms by definition, they still don't, and its still possible (though a very small possibility in my view), that ours is the misunderstanding of the terms.

Suppose I'm insane, and the terms I accept as a priori aren't really so. Its highly unlikely, but still possible.

I just don't think its conducive to meaningful discourse to pronounce one's self as categorically right (although you should certainly continue to make your case).

So what? You either have it or you do not. Even in a "crisis of faith" for a theist, the theist still believes until the belief is dropped.

That's it.

What about uncertainty?

Do you not know what ontology is?

I do. But I'm too lazy to reply on this subject at the moment. And I need to get my post count up.

As opposed to the electrical current and capacitance field through the components in my computer?

Uhm. Lol, who says that your computer doesn't have a spirit?

A work of fiction? You're citing a work of fiction?

I never heard people crying when there were citaions from the bible either. And Star Wars is way better fiction.

Right, but as yet, they don't buy your correction, so they still disagree and aren't trying to deceive.
When more than one person corrects you multiple times and demonstrates how you're wrong, you're either lying or stupid. (And by you I mean in a general sense, not you specifically).

I go with lying--slaps people harder.

What about uncertainty?

If, while uncertain, you don't believe, you're atheist. You could rapidly fluctuate between believing and not believing. but you don't end up in the middle.

Some philosophers (and mathematicians) and Lakoff and Nunez have done some interesting work in establishing that anything considered or discussed by humans is limited to human terms, a priori.
Indeed, this has been the very nature of the problem in this thread. "I do not understand it so it cannot possibly be true!"

In human terms, I have no idea what lies between something and nothing. But, in spiritual terms, I know that something does. The atheists claim that this means that agnostism cannot exist between atheism and theism; I believe that it can, because, far from the absolute terms of 'something and nothing', theology deals with matters beyond that.

What about uncertainty?
Uncertainty if you have the belief or not? How can you not know what you believe? Have you been in a coma?

Do you believe there is?

How should I belief if I do not know? For me, belief is non-existant as long as there is no conclusive evidence on the subject.

Belief is not total. People have been having crisises(sp?) of faith ever since there has been faith. Theists, when faced with the loss of a loved one for example, often question why their god/s allowed so terrible a thing to happen, and this leads to a question of 'is there a god, is what I believe wrong?'As they question their beliefs then surely they can't be said to still believe, but they do no 'not believe' either. There is your middle ground.

Some might interpret that kind of condition as a fluctuation between states of belief and disbelief, or perhaps a "doubted belief", still being a belief.

I could see viewing that as a sort of "halfway" point, but at any given continuous interval, the person either believes (with or without doubt) or doesn't.

When more than one person corrects you multiple times and demonstrates how you're wrong, you're either lying or stupid. (And by you I mean in a general sense, not you specifically).

I go with lying--slaps people harder.

As far as Phil goes, get used to that. The others? *shrug* I dunno.

So what? You either have it or you do not. Even in a "crisis of faith" for a theist, the theist still believes until the belief is dropped.

That's it.

By saying 'So what?' it is implied that you agree with my statement but find no value in it. However the rest of your post suggests you disagree with me. You're defying your own beloved binary system. Your post is both a 1 and a 0.

How should I belief if I do not know? For me, belief is non-existant as long as there is no conclusive evidence on the subject.

If belief is non-existant, you do not believe. Atheist.

Indeed, this has been the very nature of the problem in this thread. "I do not understand it so it cannot possibly be true!"

In human terms, I have no idea what lies between something and nothing. But, in spiritual terms, I know that something does.
No, you do not have the epistemology to make that claim. You can BELIEVE it, but you don't KNOW it.

Unless, of course, you can provide the epistemic means (and they must be valid, not just something like "faith") by which you make that claim.

Uncertainty if you have the belief or not? How can you not know what you believe? Have you been in a coma?

You can believe that you are uncertain whether or not you believe in God

By saying 'So what?' it is implied that you agree with my statement but find no value in it. However the rest of your post suggests you disagree with me. You're defying your own beloved binary system. Your post is both a 1 and a 0.

the post as a whole maybe, the first two words would be 1 and the rest 0. one byte can be made up of bothe 1s and 0s, but it doesn't make a middle ground between 1 and 0.

By saying 'So what?' it is implied that you agree with my statement but find no value in it. However the rest of your post suggests you disagree with me. You're defying your own beloved binary system. Your post is both a 1 and a 0.
Non sequitur and strawman.

In no way does "so what" imply that I agree with your statement. Please try again.

If belief is non-existant, you do not believe. Atheist.

Nope. To be atheist, would would have to believe there is no God. As belief is non-existant to me, I cannot believe in there not-being a deity.

You can believe that you are uncertain whether or not you believe in God
Then you don't believe that there is one.

But people like you like to be all wishy-washy.

You can believe that you are uncertain whether or not you believe in God

If you don't know whether or not you believe in God, you might be Atheist or Theist, you just don't know. Don't know if it's a 1 or a 0, but that doesn't make it something between the two.

Some atheists don't so much believe there are no gods, as see no meaning in the question in the first place. Tricky to disbelieve in something when the question of its existence is pre-empted.

To be exact, that would be Ignosticism.


Atheism is the lack of belief in the existance of a God.


Ignosticism is the viewpoint that the question of the existance of a diety is meaningless or nonsence.
Such as:
Does a god exist?
What do thoughts taste like?

Indeed, this has been the very nature of the problem in this thread. "I do not understand it so it cannot possibly be true!"

In human terms, I have no idea what lies between something and nothing. But, in spiritual terms, I know that something does. The atheists claim that this means that agnostism cannot exist between atheism and theism; I believe that it can, because, far from the absolute terms of 'something and nothing', theology deals with matters beyond that.

The point was that your "spiritual" terms are really just a subset of human terms, and have the same limitations. Basically, my premise was that you can't "know" anything outside of human terms, and that includes anything you can think about, "spiritual" or not.

Your concept of "spiritual terms", if it lies outside of human terms, can't allow you to know anything under this axiom.

There could be some sort of "spiritual" thing, but if its outside human terms as you say, you can't make any sort of meaningful observation or statement about it.

Nope. To be atheist, would would have to believe there is no God. As belief is non-existant to me, I cannot believe in there not-being a deity.

*sigh* Atheism is a lack of belief.

No, you do not have the epistemology to make that claim. You can BELIEVE it, but you don't KNOW it.

Unless, of course, you can provide the epistemic means (and they must be valid, not just something like "faith") by which you make that claim.
Again, the fact that you dismiss faith as an answer shows where you are coming from when setting your terms of reference. You do not grasp the idea of thinking outside of the box, and so you cannot see that there may be things that you do not understand. Rather than concede that you are not all knowing, you revert to playground insults.

I prefer acknowledged self-ignorance to arrogant foolishness.

Then you don't believe that there is one.

But people like you like to be all wishy-washy.

It's not wishy-washy. It's called keeping an open mind to all possibilities. Of course, someone as fixed and set in their ways such as yourself cannot comprehend this.

Then you don't believe that there is one.

But people like you like to be all wishy-washy.

Uncertian =/= not believing

And enough of the bitchy side-comments, I haven't thrown any at you.

The point was that your "spiritual" terms are really just a subset of human terms, and have the same limitations. Basically, my premise was that you can't "know" anything outside of human terms, and that includes anything you can think about, "spiritual" or not.

Your concept of "spiritual terms", if it lies outside of human terms, can't allow you to know anything under this axiom.

There could be some sort of "spiritual" thing, but if its outside human terms as you say, you can't make any sort of meaningful observation or statement about it.
Indeed, but it is too late to get into another sub-argument, and I don't appreciate being called stupid and a liar simply because I don't agree with someone, so I took the opportunity to press my point. :p

It's not wishy-washy. It's called keeping an open mind to all possibilities. Of course, someone as fixed and set in their ways such as yourself cannot comprehend this.

You can keep your mind open to both Atheism and Theism, but that doesn't put you in the middle.

Uncertian =/= not believing

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10766254&postcount=350

Again, the fact that you dismiss faith
Because it is not a valid epistemic means.

You hold faith as an epistemic means because you don't want to do any thinking. It's difficult to actually determine if something is true. It's easy to just say "yes" or "no" without thought (faith).

I like the way Samuel Clemens put it: Faith is believing something you know ain't true.

Non sequitur and strawman.

In no way does "so what" imply that I agree with your statement. Please try again.
Yes it does. You quoted 'But religion is not total'(or words to that effect) then said 'So what?' What is implied here is 'So what if religion is not total?'. Now do you see how it is further implied that you agree with the statement 'religon is not total'?

Uncertian =/= not believing
Uncertain = do not have belief in.

*sigh* Atheism is a lack of belief.

Maybe so. But seeing how belief is non-existent for me, I cannot 'lack' in it either.

Try again.

And your "like to think of it as" is incorrect, as the question is "Do you have the belief that there is a god?"

If you don't know what beliefs you have, then you're dead and can't know.
Problem there is that God is not an objectively defined thing. The question is a yes or no one, but because of its subject, it can have answers that are flicker between yes and no for varying contexts.

Do you believe that I should answer this question by your definition or my definition of God? If I were to tell you that I believe in a cosmic natural force, internal to reality, of which all living things were a part of and which might as well be considered an extension of my own consciousness, you would tell me that the belief I hold is not that there is a God, but rather that it is that there is a "something else". However, it is apparent to me that the thing you call God is my thing, and therefore in my own eyes what I believe in can be said to be that there is a God. I naturally hide this to prevent confusion, since I'm aware that your definition is probably different to mine, but it is nonetheless an aspect of my belief that "God" is another way of looking at it.

Because it is not a valid epistemic means.

You hold faith as an epistemic means because you don't want to do any thinking. It's difficult to actually determine if something is true. It's easy to just say "yes" or "no" without thought (faith).

I like the way Samuel Clemens put it: Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
It is not a valid human means of understanding. This does not dismiss its relevance, however.

Yes it does.
No, it does not. I simply dismissed your statement, nothing more.

Who the funk talks to god during sex?! I get calling out his name and that (;) ) but not talking to him. Unless that's what you meant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_God

These people apparently imagine they are having sex with God (or Jesus, anyways).

Loving Jesus: This is a term that members of the Family use to describe their intimate, sexual relationship with Jesus. The Family describes the "Loving Jesus" teachings as a radical form of bridal theology [2]. It is their understanding of the Scriptures that the followers of Christ are His bride, called to love and serve Him with the fervor of a wife. They take bridal theology a step further than most Christians have by encouraging members to imagine that Jesus is having sex with them during sexual intercourse or masturbation. Male members are told to visualize themselves as women "in the spirit", in order to avoid a homosexual relationship with Jesus.

It is not a valid human means of understanding.
There are non-human means of understanding?

And aren't you human? Am I not human?

You can keep your mind open to both Atheism and Theism, but that doesn't put you in the middle.

Never said it did.

Maybe so. But seeing how belief is non-existent for me, I cannot 'lack' in it either.

Try again.

Of course you can. Lacking is not having. YOu can not have something that doesn't exist, right? In fact there's no way you could have something that doesn't exist. If it's not real, you obviously don't have it.

Again, the fact that you dismiss faith as an answer shows where you are coming from when setting your terms of reference. You do not grasp the idea of thinking outside of the box, and so you cannot see that there may be things that you do not understand. Rather than concede that you are not all knowing, you revert to playground insults.

I prefer acknowledged self-ignorance to arrogant foolishness.

You drew a contrast between "human terms" and "spiritual terms", saying you couldn't know something under one set and could under the other.

The idea was presented earlier that there is reason to suspect that humans cannot address any idea outside human terms, since to be aware of something, it has to be within the scope of what you can consider (even as an unknown).

I see these ideas interacting in a particular way; how do you see them?

There are non-human means of understanding?
And again...

You are coming from an atheist point of view. "There is no God, and that is certain; therefore there is nothing beyond human comprehension and recognisable laws of physics."

Theology does not look at things from an atheists perspective, and so yes, there are non-human means of understanding. If there are non-human means of understanding, then there can be something between something and nothing. If there is something between something and nothing, than agnostics can be between atheists and theists.

There are non-human means of understanding?

What, you never had a pet of some sort? In case you didn't notice, through the process of conditioning, non-human beings can 'understand' what is requested of them if certain commands are issued.

Right, I need to get this cleared up before there's any misunderstanding.
I do not think that there is a middle ground between yes and no. I think that belief in God is either certain (either way, yes or no), or not-knowing (either certain that you cannot know, or uncertain about all of it).

And again...
Aren't you human?


You are coming from an atheist point of view. "There is no God, and that is certain; therefore there is nothing beyond human comprehension and recognisable laws of physics."
Strawman.


Theology
...is stupid.

Of course you can. Lacking is not having. YOu can not have something that doesn't exist, right? In fact there's no way you could have something that doesn't exist. If it's not real, you obviously don't have it.

I could have nothing.

I could have nothing.

Then you lack something.

You drew a contrast between "human terms" and "spiritual terms", saying you couldn't know something under one set and could under the other.

The idea was presented earlier that there is reason to suspect that humans cannot address any idea outside human terms, since to be aware of something, it has to be within the scope of what you can consider (even as an unknown).

I see these ideas interacting in a particular way; how do you see them?
I see that you are placing my unknown as a human unknown, while I am placing it as an unknown unknown.

Indeed, but it is too late to get into another sub-argument, and I don't appreciate being called stupid and a liar simply because I don't agree with someone, so I took the opportunity to press my point. :p

Why is this a sub-argument? I find it highly pertinent.

Its at least as useful as trades of "liar" and "arrogant fool".

I could have nothing.
You have nothing, now get on MSN.

You hold faith as an epistemic means because you don't want to do any thinking. It's difficult to actually determine if something is true. It's easy to just say "yes" or "no" without thought (faith).

Militant atheists always like to make this claim, that faith must necessarily be "unthinking". And yet their only support for such a statement is their own bigotry.

Uncertain = do not have belief in.

We're thinking about different ways of interpreting uncertainty here. Uncertain can mean wavering, or lack of, faith. It can also be indecision as to yes or no.

No, it does not. I simply dismissed your statement, nothing more.
Are you going to address the rest of the post or ignore it because it proves you wrong? Next time you want to dismiss someone's statement don't use 'So what?' and you'l avoid all this being wrong, since you seem to be so opposed to it.

I have some advice for you before I go to sleep(it is quarter to twelve after all):If you accept the possibility that you do not know everything and you could be wrong you'll find people are more receptive to what you say. Unforgiving arrogance that you are wholly and absolutely right and everyone else is wrong will probably get you beaten up by somebody someday.

Why is this a sub-argument?
Because it's late, I can't even remember what we're arguing about anymore, and I want to go to bed?

Militant atheists always like to make this claim,
No--rational people state it. The support is the fact that faith is not a valid epistemic means.

I see that you are placing my unknown as a human unknown, while I am placing it as an unknown unknown.

I see I'm not explaining myself well.

Anything you can post on this thread is something that is considered within a human mindset. Anything outside that mindset cannot be rendered with a human construct, such as language.

Please elaborate on the difference between a "human unknown" and an "unknown unknown"?

Then you lack something.

Oh really? What?

Are you going to address the rest of the post
There was nothing to address. You made an error, so I have no need to address the rest of it.

I have some advice for you: be more precise in your terms or don't post.

We're thinking about different ways of interpreting uncertainty here. Uncertain can mean wavering, or lack of, faith. It can also be indecision as to yes or no.
If you don't have something, you don't have it. That's it.

There was nothing to address. You made an error, so I have no need to address the rest of it.

I have some advice for you: be more precise in your terms or don't post.
:rolleyes: Oh boy, back to this.

"I don't like what you said, therefore I am going to ignore it as irrelevant. If you dispute this fact, I will argue all night if necessary over the definition of an irrelevant word, and call you a liar if you still refuse to agree with me."

Solid argument, that.

Oh really? What?

Well, if you have absolutely nothing, then you lack everything.

Because it's late, I can't even remember what we're arguing about anymore, and I want to go to bed?


I see. I would interpret that as "For valid real-life related reasons, Philo prefers not to persue that line of questioning at this time".

Its different, but reasonable.

If you don't have something, you don't have it. That's it.

So you can, not have certainty.

No--rational people state it.

I know many rational people. Only the militant atheists ever demonstrate such a profound misunderstanding of what faith is.

The support is the fact that faith is not a valid epistemic means.

A statement is not support of that statement. You say faith is not valid. That is your opinion. As of yet, you have provided no support for it.

It would be like me saying, "Reading is not a valid epistemic means," because I did not read.

:rolleyes: Oh boy, back to this.
Yes, back to precision. I don't tolerate Humpty-Dumpty terms.

I see many of you should see "Thank You For Smoking" - you'll find that much of the tactics of argument used in this thread are explained in that movie. =P

I know many rational people.
As do I. And your ad hominem fallacy is noted.


A statement is not support of that statement.
Then the proponents of faith must show that it is valid. But they can't, because it isn't.

I see. I would interpret that as "For valid real-life related reasons, Philo prefers not to persue that line of questioning at this time".

Its different, but reasonable.
I would be more than happy to pursue it at a later date, it does look to be an interesting topic and I'm really not trying to simply avoid it. But it is nearly midnight here, and there comes a point when my brain says "less philosophy, more sleep." :p

Well, if you have absolutely nothing, then you lack everything.

Or I have absoluty do not have anything. Ah, lingual games.

Of course you can. Lacking is not having. YOu can not have something that doesn't exist, right? In fact there's no way you could have something that doesn't exist. If it's not real, you obviously don't have it.
Take a cookie. You have a cookie.

Break it in half. Set half of the cookie on the table. You now have half a cookie. Is this a cookie in itself?

Take the cookie half from the table. Put the two halves together. How many cookies are there?

Separate the two halves.

How many cookies do you have?

Do you have a whole cookie?

So you can, not have certainty.
How do you not know what you believe? Are you unconscious?

I see that you are placing my unknown as a human unknown, while I am placing it as an unknown unknown.
Rumsfeld got torn apart for that kind of language. I'd be careful about putting it to use.

Rumsfeld got torn apart for that kind of language. I'd be careful about putting it to use.
I was thinking about Rumsfeld as I wrote it. :p

Take a cookie. You have a cookie.

Break it in half. Set half of the cookie on the table. You now have half a cookie. Is this a cookie in itself?

Take the cookie half from the table. Put the two halves together. How many cookies are there?

Separate the two halves.

How many cookies do you have?

Do you have a whole cookie?

I have something. It might not be whole, but it is nowhere close to being between something and nothing. If you took the entirety of the cookie away, I would have nothing, and lack something.

How do you not know what you believe? Are you unconscious?

I can believe that I do not know, that is a belief.

Or I have absoluty do not have anything. Ah, lingual games.

*shrug* You asked what you lacked.

I can believe that I do not know, that is a belief.
Then you don't believe.

How do you not know what you believe? Are you unconscious?

Someone can have writers' block, so it's not incredibly unfeasable to have religion block (the state of which a person can't think a spiritual debate through within their own mind and come out with an answer that boils down to "Yes I believe in god" or "No, I don't believe in god").

The point is when you change the "not believe" in to "believe in no [object]" then you change what the negative (ie word no or not) is modifying. Linguistically, not believing is different from believing in nothing. Thus not a belief. Whereas walking not (which is an archaic usage, much like holp as the past tense of help) and not walking are the exact same action (whether or not one is being conveyed by other forms of transportation).
I would say, "I think not". However, you've made me think. I concede you on this point.
The point is that Judeo-Christians deny the existance AND THE VALIDITY of any and every other god, religion, or non-theisitic religion or philosophy. Thus even less multi-cultural.
Alright, when the average Western Atheist says, "I don't believe in God!" they are just denying the Judeo-Christian god. To be more multi-cultural, it is my opinion that they need to deny every god in history, and thus stop pidgeon holing Jews and Christians. That's all I'm trying to express here.

Then you don't believe.

I do believe that I don't know.

Someone can have writers' block, so it's not incredibly unfeasable to have religion block
It's not feasable that you don't know what you believe. You're the one thinking! How do you not know? Is your head with you?

Someone can have writers' block, so it's not incredibly unfeasable to have religion block (the state of which a person can't think a spiritual debate through within their own mind and come out with an answer that boils down to "Yes I believe in god" or "No, I don't believe in god").

However, they're not in the middle between those two, they just don't now which one they're in.

Then you don't believe.

The belief that oneself is unsure is not necessarily the belief of a lack of anything at all.

As do I. And your ad hominem fallacy is noted.

What ad hominem fallacy? I did not personally attack you or bring up any aspect of your person that was irrelevant to the discussion.

Then the proponents of faith must show that it is valid. But they can't, because it isn't.

The proponents must only show it is valid if they are trying to use it in some way against you or on you. If I have a personal belief that comes from a philosophy book, I do not have to "prove" it to be true. Only if I want to somehow force it upon others do I need to demonstrate its truthfulness. Faith is much the same.

One could just as easily argue that those who denigrate faith must show that it is invalid. but they can't, because it isn't.

I have something. It might not be whole, but it is nowhere close to being between something and nothing. If you took the entirety of the cookie away, I would have nothing, and lack something.
Having only two halves of a cookie, you can lack a whole one or have created a new cookie that you did not have before, despite the fact that you still only posess everything that was originally in the whole cookie.

Things you posess do not have to be real in any sense in order to belong to you.

I do believe that I don't know.
And you don't believe in it.

The belief that oneself is unsure is not necessarily the belief of a lack of anything at all.
That you are unsure means that you do not have the specified belief of which you were asked.

And you don't believe in it.

If not knowing is "no", what is the "yes" equivalent?

What ad hominem fallacy? I did not personally attack you or bring up any aspect of your person that was irrelevant to the discussion.
"Militant atheist"--as a disparaging term.

So don't play stupid.


The proponents must only show it is valid if they are trying to use it in some way against you or on you.
If they are trying to use it, period.


One could just as easily argue that those who denigrate faith must show that it is invalid. but they can't, because it isn't.
They could, but that would be the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

Having only two halves of a cookie, you can lack a whole one or have created a new cookie that you did not have before, despite the fact that you still only posess everything that was originally in the whole cookie.

And yet, never do I have a thing that is neither something nor nothing. It may change as to what it is, but it is never between something and nothing. I may lack the original cookie, but what I have now remains in the realm of something.

If not knowing is "no", what is the "yes" equivalent?
The question is "Do you have belief X?"

If you're unsure, then clearly you DON'T have that belief because one would think that if you had it, you'd know it, right?

Or don't you take your brain with you on discussions like these? Because not knowing what you believe really means that you took your brain out and left it somewhere else. That you aren't thinking.

That you are unsure means that you do not have the specified belief of which you were asked.

This is true, but that does not automatically default the answer to disbelief of the specified belief of which you were asked.

It's not a black/white situation, there are grey areas which cannot be ignored unless you honestly don't care about the truth.

"Militant atheist"--as a disparaging term.

No more or less disparaging than "evangelist" or "fundamentalist." If you think that the things these words describe are distasteful or disparaging, that is your opinion. Perhaps you should stop demonstrating the traits of such things.

If they are trying to use it, period.

What business do you have telling me what I "must" do in my own life, which does not affect you?

They could, but that would be the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

You are the one making a statement. You said it had support. You have provided none and instead said, "PROVE ME WRONG! NYA NYA!" One might be led to believe that you have no such support.

This is true, but that does not automatically default the answer to disbelief of the specified belief of which you were asked.

It's not a black/white situation, there are grey areas which cannot be ignored unless you honestly don't care about the truth.

Actually, it is black and white, you just don't know which.

This is true, but that does not automatically default the answer to disbelief of the specified belief of which you were asked.
Yes, it does. Disbelief simply means that you do not believe, not that you believe in not.

No more or less disparaging than "evangelist" or "fundamentalist."Much more so, since one cannot be a militant atheist.


If you think that the things these words describe are distasteful or disparaging, that is your opinion. Perhaps you should stop demonstrating the traits of such things.
I'm not. Please stop lying.


What business do you have telling me what I "must" do in my own life, which does not affect you?
I'm not.


You are the one making a statement.
I don't have the burden of proof, child.

I'm not. Please stop lying.

I don't have the burden of proof, child.
Ha ha ha! :D

Back to lying accusations and childish insults.

You're more reliable than a Swiss watch.

Ha ha ha! :D

Back to lying accusations and childish insults.

You're more reliable than a Swiss watch.

When's the last time you said something worthwhile here?

Ha ha ha! :D
You have no chance to survive make your time.

You're just pissed because you got caught lying. Go cry somewhere else.

Much more so, since one cannot be a militant atheist.

Of course there can. I have met more than one. Even my atheist fiance refers to some as "militant atheists" because of the way they treat their belief.

I'm not. Please stop lying.

Actually, you are. By implying that all who have faith are "unthinking" - by stating that anyone who has faith simply doesn't want to think - you are demonstrating every bit as much bigotry as a fundamentalist of any given religion.

I'm not.

And you accuse me of lying?

The proponents must only show it is valid if they are trying to use it in some way against you or on you.
If they are trying to use it, period.

I don't have the burden of proof, child.

You made a declarative statement. If you will not support it, there is no reason to listen to anything you have to say.

And I am hardly a child.

The question is "Do you have belief X?"

If you're unsure, then clearly you DON'T have that belief because one would think that if you had it', you'd know it, right?

Or don't you take your brain with you on discussions like these?

Ah! I understand now. I thought you were saying that you cannot not know whether God exists, rather than you cannot not know what you believe.
It's probably because I'm getting tired, so I'm going to get some sleep now.

And yet, never do I have a thing that is neither something nor nothing. It may change as to what it is, but it is never between something and nothing. I may lack the original cookie, but what I have now remains in the realm of something.
What is the difference between a whole cookie and two halves?

Do you ever posess that difference? Surely you must do, since at one point you have a whole and at another you have two halves.

Is that difference a something? Is it a nothing? I would argue not. It cannot be nothing, since without it the whole and the halves would be the same. And it cannot be something, since it can both be and not be simultaneously; sticking the two halves of the cookie back together again is a good example of that, where you have both two separate halves and a whole at the same time.

When's the last time you said something worthwhile here?
Alas, are we feeling a little bit beaten into the ground here? Nothing further to add except personal attacks?

Of course there can.
Nope, since atheism is not a cause.


Actually, you are.
Actually, I'm not.


You made a declarative statement.
And?

Alas, are we feeling a little bit beaten into the ground here? Nothing further to add except personal attacks?
That just pegged my irony-o-meter.

Alas, are we feeling a little bit beaten into the ground here? Nothing further to add except personal attacks?
Its been like that for a while actually in this thread, but you get used to it. ;)

Actually, it is black and white, you just don't know which.

But in not being either black or white, in the unknowledge of being such, then you are, by default, in the grey area until further notice.

Like, if I'm not sure if I'm breathing, that doesn't mean I'm automatically not breathing at all. I could just be breathing, and not notice it because my mind is somewhere else. The fact that you have to breathe can be put aside for this argument, let's say the thought "Am I breathing? I don't know." lasts for less than the maximum amount of time you can last without breathing, so the possibility of breathing is not based upon the need for it.

Nope, since atheism is not a cause.

Anything can be made into a cause. Your obvious need to denigrate anyone who does not agree with you would suggest that it is much more than a personal belief to you.

Actually, I'm not.

Did you not label an entire group of people as "not wanting to think"?

And?

You made the statement. Support it, or admit that you are talking out of your ass.

That just pegged my irony-o-meter.
Really? How strange. You have done nothing in this thread except scream "I am right, la la la! Anyone who disagrees with me is lying, la la la!"

As I said right from the start, you have set your own terms of reference, and then attacked anyone who disagreed with them with childish insults. Perhaps it is you who needs to go and find your toy cars and leave this to the grown ups?

Problem there is that God is not an objectively defined thing. The question is a yes or no one, but because of its subject, it can have answers that are flicker between yes and no for varying contexts.

Do you believe that I should answer this question by your definition or my definition of God? If I were to tell you that I believe in a cosmic natural force, internal to reality, of which all living things were a part of and which might as well be considered an extension of my own consciousness, you would tell me that the belief I hold is not that there is a God, but rather that it is that there is a "something else". However, it is apparent to me that the thing you call God is my thing, and therefore in my own eyes what I believe in can be said to be that there is a God. I naturally hide this to prevent confusion, since I'm aware that your definition is probably different to mine, but it is nonetheless an aspect of my belief that "God" is another way of looking at it.

If you think it is a god and you believe it in you are theistic. Doesn't matter if it is Jehova, Eris, Chuck Norris, your Aunt Millie's cat, or the Philosophical Implications of the Laws of Physics.

If you don't think it is a god, then it is not.

Atheism or theism only addresses beleif in god. Not the nature of the god, who gets to define the god, how to find the god, or what must be done once the god is found.

Anything can be made into a cause.
No.


Did you not label an entire group of people as "not wanting to think"?
That's simply a fact. How much thought does faith require? None.


You made the statement.
And? I'm not the one with the burden of proof. The one claiming that faith is a valid epistemic means is the one with the burden of proof.

So stop talking out of your ass.

Really?
Yes. You've done nothing for the last 10 pages or so except scream at me.

But in not being either black or white, in the unknowledge of being such, then you are, by default, in the grey area until further notice.

Like, if I'm not sure if I'm breathing, that doesn't mean I'm automatically not breathing at all. I could just be breathing, and not notice it because my mind is somewhere else. The fact that you have to breathe can be put aside for this argument, let's say the thought "Am I breathing? I don't know." lasts for less than the maximum amount of time you can last without breathing, so the possibility of breathing is not based upon the need for it.

Actually, I just thought of a better one.

If you're lost, and you don't know where you are, that doesn't automatically mean you're nowhere. You're obviously somewhere, you just haven't found out where that place is yet.

But in not being either black or white, in the unknowledge of being such, then you are, by default, in the grey area until further notice.

Like, if I'm not sure if I'm breathing, that doesn't mean I'm automatically not breathing at all. I could just be breathing, and not notice it because my mind is somewhere else. The fact that you have to breathe can be put aside for this argument, let's say the thought "Am I breathing? I don't know." lasts for less than the maximum amount of time you can last without breathing, so the possibility of breathing is not based upon the need for it.

You are either black or white. there's no spot between them, you just don't know where. I never said uncertainty = not believing, that was the other guy. You either breathing or you're not, uncertainty about it does not put you between the two.

What is the difference between a whole cookie and two halves?

Do you ever posess that difference? Surely you must do, since at one point you have a whole and at another you have two halves.

Is that difference a something? Is it a nothing? I would argue not. It cannot be nothing, since without it the whole and the halves would be the same. And it cannot be something, since it can both be and not be simultaneously; sticking the two halves of the cookie back together again is a good example of that, where you have both two separate halves and a whole at the same time.

Eh...I don't think you can posess differences. I can have two different things, but I don't have a diffence.

Atheism or theism only addresses beleif in god. Not the nature of the god, who gets to define the god, how to find the god, or what must be done once the god is found.
Quite so.

@Kamakasi: There's no point in mentioning the elephant for which we all are reaching for in an arguement as broad as this. There's enherent objectivity in subjectivity. However, I do find your musings rather insightful.

No.

Do you ever support anything you say? At all?

Anything that I believe strongly enough that it leads to me trying to push it on others and denigrating those who disagree has become a cause.

That's simply a fact. How much thought does faith require? None.

Yes, in much the same way that I could say, "All atheists are psychopaths," and suggest that it is a fact. It isn't, of course, but it has an equal amount of support to your, "All people of faith just don't want to think."

My faith requires quite a bit of thought, constant questioning and examination. Like I said, you do not have faith, and you have a profound misunderstanding of what it is.

And? I'm not the one with the burden of proof. The one claiming that faith is a valid epistemic means is the one with the burden of proof.

And once again, I am not the one trying to infringe upon your life. I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you.

Actually, I just thought of a better one.

If you're lost, and you don't know where you are, that doesn't automatically mean you're nowhere. You're obviously somewhere, you just haven't found out where that place is yet.

Exactly. You're not between nowhere and somewhere. In this case you know you're somewhere, akin to believeing in a god but not knowing which.

What is the difference between a whole cookie and two halves?

Do you ever posess that difference? Surely you must do, since at one point you have a whole and at another you have two halves.

Is that difference a something? Is it a nothing? I would argue not. It cannot be nothing, since without it the whole and the halves would be the same. And it cannot be something, since it can both be and not be simultaneously; sticking the two halves of the cookie back together again is a good example of that, where you have both two separate halves and a whole at the same time.

I find this interesting (wish I didn't have to go now, hopefull this will be going later).

Could we call the difference "that something without chich the whole and the two halves would be the same", and so have it be closer to the realm of something than nothing?

Please elaborate on why it can't be something, I'm not totally following that part.

Damn, thread was getting better, and I gotta jet.

Do you ever support anything you say?
When I need to.

Non-events can't be the cause of something.


Yes, in much the same way that I could say, "All atheists are psychopaths," and suggest that it is a fact.
No, it's completely different.


My faith requires quite a bit of thought,
Can't--that's why it's faith. Faith is belief without reason--without evidence. Without thought.

You have a profound misunderstanding of what faith is.

If you think it is a god and you believe it in you are theistic. Doesn't matter if it is Jehova, Eris, Chuck Norris, your Aunt Millie's cat, or the Philosophical Implications of the Laws of Physics.

If you don't think it is a god, then it is not.

Atheism or theism only addresses beleif in god. Not the nature of the god, who gets to define the god, how to find the god, or what must be done once the god is found.
Until someone tells me what God is, I cannot fairly answer that question. People are being torn to shreds here on a persistant basis because they have an interpretation for what Atheism and Agnosticism are that differs from a "dictionary definition" (by which I do of course mean whichever definition the retorter posesses). If I profess an understanding that Agnostics are those who don't believe in God where Atheists are those who believe in no God, I will be told I am wrong whenever I refer to Agnostics in that light. What I believe about the definition doesn't change whether or not someone is actually an Agnostic.

In truth, I don't know whether or not a person in question is an Agnostic until I know what the questioner I'm talking to understands by Agnostic, since I don't make the name up. The same must be true about whether or not an idea is a "God", since it's not a phrase I penned myself. Unless God is something we make up, our own definition is worthless in response to a question about it. It is others', not our own understanding of God, that we must address whenever we answer the question "Do you believe?".

Exactly. You're not between nowhere and somewhere. In this case you know you're somewhere, akin to believeing in a god but not knowing which.

I disagree. I liken it to believing in something or believing in nothing or having a lack of opinion, as in, it's not binary. 1,0, black hole. That type of thing. The negation of something entirely. Such uncaringness of whether or not god exists at all, that the thought just barely crosses the mind until being returned to sender with a bigass "I DON'T CARE" sticker slapped on it.

Wow. There are people who talk to God during sex? That's really pathetic. They need to start adultering, because something their current partner is doing isn't working out.

I disagree. I liken it to believing in something or believing in nothing or having a lack of opinion, as in, it's not binary. 1,0, black hole. That type of thing. The negation of something entirely. Such uncaringness of whether or not god exists at all, that the thought just barely crosses the mind until being returned to sender with a bigass "I DON'T CARE" sticker slapped on it.

Well, considering lacking an opinion would ultimately be lacking in belief, that would be Atheist, as well as that "Ignostic" term I believe was brought up previously?

Well, considering lacking an opinion would ultimately be lacking in belief, that would be Atheist, as well as that "Ignostic" term I believe was brought up previously?

*shrugs* Agree to disagree, then. The difference being that I believe there to be an inbetween and even a lack of anything (black hole) in between the black and white, whereas you simply believe in the black and white themselves and nothing more. Kind of a restrictive philosophy, but it's yours and you have a right to it.

Having only two halves of a cookie, you can lack a whole one or have created a new cookie that you did not have before, despite the fact that you still only posess everything that was originally in the whole cookie.

Things you posess do not have to be real in any sense in order to belong to you.

Having two cookies, or a new slightly different physical variation of the cookie is still having something. In "belief" terms this might be seen as a change or evolution in belief. You have lost the meaning of the original cookie or belief, but you still have something. Abandon the cookie altogether and then you will have nothing. Changing belief isn't the same as not having belief.

When I need to.

Non-events can't be the cause of something.

"Events" have nothing to do with this. Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint - the viewpoint that there is no God, not an "event".

No, it's completely different.

In what way?

Can't--that's why it's faith. Faith is belief without reason--without evidence. Without thought.

No, it isn't. Faith without reason or thought is generally referred to as "blind faith" and has nothing at all to do with my religion.

You have a profound misunderstanding of what faith is.

Hardly. I have faith, and I know what it is. You, on the other hand, are making unsubstantiated guesses based on your bigotted views of anyone who disagrees with you.

Wow. There are people who talk to God during sex? That's really pathetic. They need to start adultering, because something their current partner is doing isn't working out.

Actually, they are allowed to have sex with anyone else - it is a religious experience for them. But, no matter who they are with, they are supposed to imagine that they are having sex with Jesus Christ.

"Events" have nothing to do with this. Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint
Wrong. It's a lack of belief. A non-event.


In what way?
You can't get that from the definition of "atheism".


No, it isn't.
Yes, it most certainly is. You can scream and cry and deny it all you like--but in the end, faith is belief without reason. Belief without evidence. Belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Belief without thought.

You have a profound misunderstanding of what faith is.

*shrugs* Agree to disagree, then. The difference being that I believe there to be an inbetween and even a lack of anything (black hole) in between the black and white, whereas you simply believe in the black and white themselves and nothing more. Kind of a restrictive philosophy, but it's yours and you have a right to it.

A lack of anything is nothing. Hence the term "black hole". Black, as in absence of color.

Eh...I don't think you can posess differences. I can have two different things, but I don't have a diffence.
Well, there is something that the whole cookie has that the two halves don't and that is lost whenever you divide it. If this difference is not a part of the cookie you own, you do not have a whole cookie - you have two halves of a cookie. And surely, if you own something, you own a whole something; not just parts of that something?

Please elaborate on why it can't be something, I'm not totally following that part.
In order to be a thing, it has to have clearly defined boundaries as to when and where it is and is not. It can't be and not be at the same time. Or, at least, that's what the trend of argument seems to have been so far.

Thus, if there is a... well, a theoretical thing (something that could potentially be a thing) that can both exist and not at the same time then it cannot be a thing.

My example for this was with the cookie in two halves. Putting them together gives you two halves of a cookie, and also at the same time a whole one. But we have already established that there is a difference between the halves and the whole; there are unique properties of the whole and halves that must allow them to be separate things. Thus, in order for it to be both things at once, it must simultaneously posess and not posess these properties.

Is that worded any better?

In the context you have used it, it is you who has changed this definition. You claim that agnosticism is not between atheism and theism because there can be nothing between something and nothing. There is nothing between 1 and 0. But the agnostic recognises the possibility of both 1 and 0. In other words, an average; the 0.5.

After 250-some posts, this is as close as anyone's gotten to making sense...and I just can't take any more.

This would have been perfect had you not insisted on extending the math. There is only 1 and 0. The agnostic recognizes the possibility of either. This is not a 0.5, it's an indeterminate state.

Schrodinger's cat is distinctly alive, or not...but it's condition is unknown, and unknowable...without fundimentally altering the environment.

In order to be a thing, it has to have clearly defined boundaries as to when and where it is and is not. It can't be and not be at the same time. Or, at least, that's what the trend of argument seems to have been so far.

Thus, if there is a... well, a theoretical thing (something that could potentially be a thing) that can both exist and not at the same time then it cannot be a thing.

My example for this was with the cookie in two halves. Putting them together gives you two halves of a cookie, and also at the same time a whole one. But we have already established that there is a difference between the halves and the whole; there are unique properties of the whole and halves that must allow them to be separate things. Thus, in order for it to be both things at once, it must simultaneously posess and not posess these properties.
False. You're forgetting part of the law of non-contradiction: same RESPECT. Clearly, if you are looking at the two halves, you are not looking at them from the same respect as looking at them joined.

You might want to re-think your position based on that.

Actually, they are allowed to have sex with anyone else - it is a religious experience for them. But, no matter who they are with, they are supposed to imagine that they are having sex with Jesus Christ.

....you're not serious. Are you?

A lack of anything is nothing. Hence the term "black hole". Black, as in absence of color.

Lol. I didn't mean "black and white" like that. To clarify, change "black and white" to "red and blue" or "green and yellow" or any two things that are opposite.

Easier still, 1 and 2. 1, being yes, 2 being no, 0 being lack, and decimals between.

This would have been perfect had you not insisted on extending the math. There is only 1 and 0. The agnostic recognizes the possibility of either. This is not a 0.5, it's an indeterminate state.
Technically, there is nothing between 1 and 0 when dealing with only whole numbers. In reality, however, there exists fractions and irrational numbers ( gotta love that terminology ).

I would say that Agnostism is doubt, but there is belief in the possibilites of 1 and 0. If one is Agnostic one cannot choose, or refuses to choose ( thus leaving the possibily of both 1 and 0 ). Since its fence sitting, it can be considered not part of Theism or Atheism, but it can also be considered as accepting that both Theism and Atheism are possibly correct. Thus, it gains its own term: Agnosticism. Its not Theism or Atheism, Agnosticism excludes the two ( doubt in both -isms ) or acceptance that both could exist ( a pinch of Theism with a dash of Atheism ).

Lol. I didn't mean "black and white" like that. To clarify, change "black and white" to "red and blue" or "green and yellow" or any two things that are opposite.

Easier still, 1 and 2. 1, being yes, 2 being no, 0 being lack, and decimals between.

Except that No, as in "No I do not believe in God" would be a lack of belief in God, and 2 woul equal 0.

False. You're forgetting part of the law of non-contradiction: same RESPECT. Clearly, if you are looking at the two halves, you are not looking at them from the same respect as looking at them joined.

You might want to re-think your position based on that.
Well yes, you aren't looking at them in the same respect, but the thing you own remains constant.

Yes, you view the two halves in respect of their division and you see them as two halves. Yes, you view the cookie in respect of its unity and you see the whole. That doesn't change the fact that you still own both the two halves and the whole cookie whenever you put the two halves together. Posession transcends perception, in this respect.

I would say that Agnostism is doubt, but there is belief in the possibilites of 1 and 0. If one is Agnostic one cannot choose, or refuses to choose
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...

And the choice isn't "Is there a god or isn't there", but properly it is "Do you have the belief that there is a god or do you not?"

Well yes, you aren't looking at them in the same respect, but the thing you own remains constant.
So what?


Yes, you view the two halves in respect of their division and you see them as two halves. Yes, you view the cookie in respect of its unity and you see the whole. That doesn't change the fact that you still own both two halves and a whole cookie whenever you put the two halves together. Posession transcends perception, in this respect.
Ummm...no.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...
Yes, I know, I wrote it. In that case, there'd be doubt, or rationalization for fence sitting. Most of these choices would be sub-conscious, especially the dout choice, for instance, choosing not to choose without logically argueing for and against Theism or Atheism.
And the choice isn't "Is there a god or isn't there", but properly it is "Do you have the belief that there is a god or do you not?"
In which case, the response can vary. For example:

- "Yes [I believe in a god(s)]." Theist.
- "No [I do not believe in any god(s)]." Atheist.
- "I don't belive one way or the other." More likely: "I do not know [what to believe]." This would be doubt.
- "I do believe there could be a god(s), but - ... " Which would be the choosing not to decide, id est: Fence sitting. There are people that know there very well could exist a god(s), however know very well that there could not exist a god(s).

Thus, Agnostics don't honestly know, or have an or two idea, but won't decide. Niether Theist, or Atheist, possibly something in between, otherwise not.

In which case, the response can vary. For example:

- "Yes [I believe in a god(s)]." Theist.
- "No [I do not believe in any god(s)]." Atheist.
- "I don't belive one way or the other." More likely: "I do not know [what to believe]." This would be doubt.
- "I do believe there could be a god(s), but - ... " Which would be the choosing not to decide, id est: Fence sitting. There are people that know there very well could exist a god(s), however know very well that there could not exist a god(s).

Thus, Agnostics don't honestly know, or have an or two idea, but won't decide. Niether Theist, or Atheist, possibly something in between, otherwise not.
Wrong. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD, THEY ARE ATHEISTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR THAT CAN BE MADE.

Wrong. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD, THEY ARE ATHEISTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR THAT CAN BE MADE.
You're saying that there are no Agnostics.

Mariehamn, check the chart, eh? I'm tired...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

Agnostic is not about doubt or acceptance, it is the belief that we can never know for sure one way or the other. It is not fence sittiong, It is not between Theism and Atheism. It's part of a totally separate scale.

Wrong. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD, THEY ARE ATHEISTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR THAT CAN BE MADE.

So....there's no such thing as an agnostic?

Thus, Agnostics don't honestly know, or have an or two idea, but won't decide. Niether Theist, or Atheist, possibly something in between, otherwise not.

The basic choices would be:

Agnostic Theist
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Theist
Gnostic Atheist

The two, (a)gnostic and (a)theistic, are independant of each other.

So....there's no such thing as an agnostic?

Yes there is, if they don't think we can know for sure, but if they don't beelieve, they are Atheist.

Yes there is, if they don't think we can know for sure, but if they don't beelieve, they are Atheist.

No, I agree with you, I was just querying BAAWA's statement.

Wrong. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD, THEY ARE ATHEISTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR THAT CAN BE MADE.
I can call someone an agnostic if they do not profess a belief in God because that is what I call Agnosticism.

I can call an idea God if it is an overseeing natural force because that is what I call God.

These two pieces of reasoning are identical.

If I do not know your definition of what Agnosticism is and I try to express a belief that a given person is an agnostic then I will be told that I am wrong. The same is true of God. If I don't know what you mean by God, what I profess to be a belief in God could in fact not be a belief in God in your eyes.

The only way I can tell you whether or not I am an Atheist is to know what you mean when you say both Atheism and God. And in that respect, whether or not I am an Atheist can change from person to person.

Isn't it convenient that the whole point is moot due to the impossiblity of proving or disproving his existence?

That's why it's so much fun, because it's a waste of time.

Yes, it most certainly is. You can scream and cry and deny it all you like--but in the end, faith is belief without reason. Belief without evidence. Belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Belief without thought.


I think your confusing faith with faith in an idea or being that has no evidence supporting it.

I can have faith that a friend will pay me money I lend him because he has repaid every loan he has ever had. In this case, I have faith because the evidence leads me to reasonably conclude he will pay me back.

In that case, my faith is supported by reason.

I think your confusing faith with faith in an idea or being that has no evidence supporting it.
That's what faith is.


I can have faith that a friend will pay me money I lend him because he has repaid every loan he has ever had.
No, you have rational trust/no reason to believe otherwise--not faith.

You're saying that there are no Agnostics.
There aren't.

There aren't.
I'm not real....




fuck.

So....there's no such thing as an agnostic?
No, there is no such thing as an agnostic.

I'm not real....
You're either an atheist or a theist. Not an agnostic. There is no separate "agnostic" position. We've been through this already. Check out pages 1-10.

I can call someone an agnostic if they do not profess a belief in God because that is what I call Agnosticism.
You're incorrect. If one does not profess a belief in god, one is an atheist.

I think your confusing faith with faith in an idea or being that has no evidence supporting it.

I can have faith that a friend will pay me money I lend him because he has repaid every loan he has ever had. In this case, I have faith because the evidence leads me to reasonably conclude he will pay me back.

In that case, my faith is supported by reason.

That's not faith. That's rational judgement, logical extrapolation from past experiences, inductive reasoning. Based upon all the information you possess, the rational conclusion is that your friend will repay you.

If he was a total stranger and you lent him money, that would be faith.

You're either an atheist or a theist. Not an agnostic. There is no separate "agnostic" position. We've been through this already. Check out pages 1-10.
That's mad retarded.

No, you have rational trust/no reason to believe otherwise--not faith.
So, faith is just belief without reason, while trust is belief with reason?

That's mad retarded.
No, that's language and logic.

So, faith is just belief without reason, while trust is belief with reason?
Trust is a type of belief with reason. But faith is belief without reason.

You're incorrect. If one does not profess a belief in god, one is an atheist.
Responded just as I suspected you would.

Go back and read the post. The whole post.

Responded just as I suspected you would.
*yawn*

Go back and read what you wrote. Read all of it.

You're either an atheist or a theist. Not an agnostic. There is no separate "agnostic" position. We've been through this already. Check out pages 1-10.

Lol. You act as if the issue was decided in your favor, and you've convinced everyone. Sorry, no; you've just repeated yourself and refused to change your opinion for 10 pages of counterargument straight. Ferrus Cranus would definitely be your classification.

Im an Atheist. *does a little dance*

And I think you should give agnostics a break. Sure, they can be seen theists that doubt or uncommited atheists, but they are still a group of people with a distinct set of beliefs. Entirely different from either atheists or theists.

Im an Atheist. *does a little dance*

And I think you should give agnostics a break. Sure, they can be seen theists that doubt or uncommited atheists, but they are still a group of people with a distinct set of beliefs. Entirely different from either atheists or theists.

They are either theists or atheists.

No, that's language and logic.
It's only logical that I come to the conclusion that I can't know something for which there is no hard evidence for.

Lol. You act as if the issue was decided in your favor,
It is. Always was. The etymological breakdown of the word trumps whatever incorrect connotations anyone else has.

It's only logical that I come to the conclusion that I can't know something for which there is no hard evidence for.
It's only logical that you come to the conclusion that any assertion which insulates itself from scrutiny that is not an a priori statement is worthless junk which is undifferentiable from not saying anything at all.