Proposition of New Terminology Concerning Belief

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

[Doktor Howl]

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite.

"I am not sure if I believe" != "I don't believe".

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Good point. And one of the reasons I don't bother identifying myself as an atheist even though I don't believe that God exists. They've made a religion out of non-religion. I don't believe God exists (and I personally think the whole idea is incomprehensibly stupid), but if God DID exist I wouldn't give a shit or change a single thing about how i live my life. And I'm sure that I have ideas that other people find incomprehensibly stupid so whether or not someone believes in God is of little consequence to how I view them as a person. The manner in which they ACT on that belief can have a great deal of influence in how I view them as a person, but then so can how an atheist acts on their non-belief.

This is pretty much exactly where I stand these days. I don't identify as atheist, partly to avoid being lumped in with the Dawkins crowd and their ilk. Agnostic is the short answer I give to people when I don't want to discuss the issue (which I usually don't).

The best "isms" to describe my position on the matter are Apatheism and Ignosticism. The former is acting with disregard or lack of interest in the belief of lack of belief in a deity. The latter is the position that the question of whether or not a god exists is a meaningless question until what "god" is has been defined.

Ignosticism is a word I'm going to have to commit to memory. May have saved the Pastafarians the trouble.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite.

"I am not sure if I believe" != "I don't believe".

Not always. But if you're Penn Gillette and interested in calling bullshit on something through the means of a false dichotomy, you might could get away with "I am not sure if I believe" != "I believe" and therefore is functionally the same thing as "I don't believe". But throw in a little "I believe I am not sure if I believe", and the whole thing kinda crumbles.

[Doktor Howl]

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite.

"I am not sure if I believe" != "I don't believe".

Not always. But if you're Penn Gillette and interested in calling bullshit on something through the means of a false dichotomy, you might could get away with "I am not sure if I believe" != "I believe" and therefore is functionally the same thing as "I don't believe". But throw in a little "I believe I am not sure if I believe", and the whole thing kinda crumbles.

I'm a little disappointed in Penn Gillette.  He's become a preacher, like Dawkins.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

[hirley0]

usb0008eci.php 

usb0008eb8.php 

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

Newsflash, Aspie: human reality is not binary.

And you're not even correct mathematically speaking. "I don't know" would not be "0", it would be "undefined". 

[Doktor Howl]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

What the hell does that have to do with human behavior? 

[LMNO]

Dear Nigel:

Ma'am, that was brilliant.

[minuspace]

Concerning god, a belief may be indererminite in that we are allowed to passively hold an inarticulate "understanding" thereof (however the factical existence of G can be reduced to a binary).  "I don't know" is allowed in the context of belief.  For belief, the burden of proof is on the world.  The same is not true for faith.

Underlying the assumption is an alleged difference between belief and faith.

Faith seems to have a more active requirement on the subject instead of the object thereof.
I can have faith in something existing without knowing if it does (excluding faith itself), and, the more something presents itself as actual, the less requirement there is on faith.

Contrawise, belief relies on making assumptions upon what (for some reason) it thinks is verifiable.

Being an absolute sceptic, therefore, makes me have faith in belief 

(post will self-destruct in five minutes per wish of the recently departed)
(bc. it maintained funny)

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

Newsflash, Aspie: human reality is not binary.

And you're not even correct mathematically speaking. "I don't know" would not be "0", it would be "undefined".

My assertion exactly.

True in a sense, false in a sense, meaningless in a sense and on and on and on...in the sense that Penn Gillette and One-Eye were speaking, "I don't know" would be 0. Their statements are true in that sense. In the sense that "I don't know" is undefined...their statements are false. The sense which one chooses to respond to...well...that's probably where meaning may be found.

I meant to draw the distinction between an infinite negative bias and a waiting for more information before I decide. The "I don't know" that given some MIND BLOWING SPIRITUAL INSIGHT^TM may become a believer, is not the same thing as the "I don't know" that given some MIND BLOWING SPIRITUAL INSIGHT^TM WEIRD SHIT^TM would just have more they don't know.

It's true that atheism and agnosticism are functionally the same thing. It's not true that the difference between the two is just a matter of semantics.

Saying "maybe" is always saying "I don't know", but saying "I don't know" is only sometimes saying "maybe".

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

What the hell does that have to do with human behavior?

What the hell does human behavior have to do with logic?

[Doktor Howl]

I was trying and failing to think of how to articulate that. Thanks for doing such a killer job of it!

And I tend to agree with Penn Gilette about agnosticism in regards to "God". If belief in God requires faith in the existence of God, I don't see how being "unsure" whether or not God exists is functionally any different from not believing God exists except as a matter of semantics.

I'd agree that calling oneself agnostic simply because they are on the fence, pretty much means they're atheist since not believing is not believing, even if they don't necessarily believe the opposite. Where that breaks down though, is when agnosticism becomes a position on it's own, not in the middle of, but out from, two opposing ideas. At that point it's incorrect to lump it in with atheism, because it's not just a position of neither belief nor disbelief, it's also a position of both belief and disbelief. It's not just "I'm on the fence because neither side is compelling enough for me to believe," it's also, "there is no fence, but the ground I'm standing on is just as likely to be one thing as the other."

"I don't know" is not the same answer as "yes" or "no".

Truth...but the set of non-negative integers includes both 0 and all positive integers. Acknowleging only those two sets work just fine when you're adding/subtracting, it's only when you start multiplying/dividing that the distinction between positive and 0 becomes evident. "I don't know" is functionally "no" in terms of "yes" alone. " I know I don't know" has no functional definition in terms of yes or no alone.

What the hell does that have to do with human behavior?

What the hell does human behavior have to do with logic?

Fuck this sophistry.

Bailing on this shit.