Hey everyone!
It's been a long time since I've posted here. I've been busy with school and work - doing both at the same time leaves little time for fun stuff, and unfortunately Reddit sneakily took the place of my go-to site.
I'm stopping by to link you guys to something I just put up on my blog - an idea I've been tinkering with for awhile and finally decided to do something about. It's about agnosticism, atheism, and belief. I think it's pretty cool and the diagram I put with it has been pretty useful for me in discussions about these kind of subjects.
So, here is is: http://chicagobelgium.blogspot.com/2012/02/proposition-of-new-terminology.html
I'd love to head what you guys think.
The Nannywall got me. I'll look at it at home tonight.
NWC! Yay!
I will look at it when I get home!
Hey NWC! welcome back
It's funny how the atheist and agnostic positions are slowly becoming camps. A position like atheism shouldn't need leaders (like Richard Dawkins) - I mean, it's not a church, right? It's a position about churches. And slowly, it's morphing into an institution, which is about the worst thing that can happen to it.
Penn Gilette posted a video a few years ago about how anybody who claims to be an agnostic is really just an atheist. Because, as he frames it, it really just as simple as "Do you believe that there's a god or not?"
I couldn't object more!
It's like, I've got this box. I've told everybody that there's a monkey inside of it. Suddenly there are two camps, a group of people that believe me, and a group of people that think the box doesn't have a monkey in it.
The agnostic position is "Without opening the box, I can't judge whether or not there's a monkey in it." Gillette seems to insist that EVERYBODY either supports or denies the existence of that monkey. But seriously, if we want to be really scientific about it, I can't make a statement about the reality of that monkey without opening the box. So my "belief" is a Mu-position1, neither on nor off.
wrote about this a bit more here (http://23ae.com/2011/05/spagnosticism/).
1 You know, the same noise the chao makes
Thanks for reading!
Quote from: Cramulus on February 15, 2012, 04:43:09 PM
The agnostic position is "Without opening the box, I can't judge whether or not there's a monkey in it." Gillette seems to insist that EVERYBODY either supports or denies the existence of that monkey. But seriously, if we want to be really scientific about it, I can't make a statement about the reality of that monkey without opening the box. So my "belief" is a Mu-position1, neither on nor off.
I've agreed with this, before, but always with hesitation, and I recently articulated why. Simply put, there are unexplainable things in the world which the belief in a higher power explains. We can only go back so far in our retracing of the big bang, we can't find that first cause. There are things which physics, especially on a quantum level, cannot explain with any degree of certainty. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and hoping that science will one day answer those questions is tantamount to having faith in science: positing a belief in its future triumph.
There is a position which some take to the question which is similar - just ignoring it. Kind of like your mu-position (I like that term), people who are simply uninterested questions such as "What are we?", "Where do we come from?", "What does it mean to be a good person?". These questions take different forms depending on one's beliefs or lack thereof. As someone who has been poisoned with these questions, I'm unable to detach myself from asking them, so for me, the domain of the
beyond has always had some interest, if only as a tool is repositioning my questions in order to play new games with them.
I don't know if those questions are worth asking - I'll take an agnostic stance there too - but I'm unable to convince myself that they're not
(Maybe that's something I should think about doing next..) , and I think that's the case for most of the world.
As for the thing I wrote, what I especially like about it is flexibility - it can be adapted easily to different questions. Debates of scientific realism, antirealism and pragmatism find themselves in need of justifying their points of view as well, and where one accuses the other of having an unfounded faith in a certain scientific principle, the issue of belief comes up again. And here, the monkey-in-a-box reduction is even more difficult, as we rely on knowledge of certain imperceptible entities (such as electrons) to do many of the things we do in the modern world. The positioning is not easily avoidable (though some philosophers do avoid it, and justify their mu-position with only moderate success).
Girlfriend says it's dinner time - I'll check out your link later tonight :)
Quote from: NWC on February 15, 2012, 06:14:00 PM
Simply put, there are unexplainable things in the world which the belief in a higher power explains. We can only go back so far in our retracing of the big bang, we can't find that first cause. There are things which physics, especially on a quantum level, cannot explain with any degree of certainty. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and hoping that science will one day answer those questions is tantamount to having faith in science: positing a belief in its future triumph.
I think that's known as the "god in the gaps" gambit, where "God" is the name for the shit we haven't figured out yet. The beauty (or failure) of this argument is that there will
always be stuff we haven't figured out yet. As soon as we figure out, say, the first cause of the big bang, you can say, "well, what about dark matter?
That's where God is." And when we figure that out, you can simply retreat just beyond the latest frontier of our knowledge.
And the "faith in science" argument is also specious -- the belief that we can usually figure things out stems from the fact that we
have figured things out. Faith is belief without proof, and the belief that science progressively solves the mysteries of reality is proved by the history of science.
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.
Agnostics are fence-sitters. Me, I KNOW there's a God, so faith has nothing to do with it. And there's none of this "God of the Gaps", business, either. It's more like "Hannibal Lecter is hiding, and you can't see him." Remember the Canaanites? Neither do I.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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.
There is an argument for agnosticism that simply says that God is not a scientfically testable concept, so it cannot be proved true or false; making it "scientifically meaningless" -- however, just because you can't test for God's existence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, either. You
literally can't prove or disprove it. And you can't say "because I can't prove it, it's false," nor can you say "because I can't disprove it, it's true".
However, the inability to test for God does imply that it's
functionally disproven. But that's more of a philisophical argument.
Indeed, but along those lines there's no real way to disprove the existence of Leprechauns or MHADJICKQUE or the Boogeyman.
I mean, at some point you just have to say "OK, that's so preposterously fucking STUPID that whether or not it can be proved or disproved is beside the point".
I like your proposal, and I particularly appreciate your alignment of "refusing to state that there is, conclusively, no God" with science. People have a really, really hard time with uncertainty, and a particularly hard time reconciling the idea that it is often scientific to refrain from stating a conclusion. They tend to push "I have no evidence or reason to believe that this exists, so my default is that it does not exist until there is evidence that it does" into a box labeled "DEFINITELY DOES NOT EXIST" or a box labeled "I SECRETLY BELIEVE IN GOD". They simply cannot accept the scientific position of "no evidence means no evidence".
If God does exist, he waited an AWFULLY long time after the development of human language to make his presence known. :lulz:
"Theism" and "atheism" are nice and simple. I find it strange that people who actually don't believe in the existence of deities want a labyrinth of definitions for positions on something that no one knows anyway, but if that's what we gotta do to avoid being intellectually and socially foolish then realistically we need as many as possible. The more overlapping and vague the better.
i keep reading this thread title as "Proposition of New Terminology Concerning Beef"
What if the idea of God, certain conversations with random unfortunates aside, just isn't something that enters my mind? If someone else doesn't bring it up to me, what should compel me to think about God at all? If I don't then how can I believe or disbelieve?
I just don't care if there's a God any more than I care about a monkey I don't have anything to do with and never will. It's like I was carrying this puzzle for years, twisting it over in my head, looking for cracks and clues. Then I put the fucker down started taking care of things that had an actual impact on how I live my life.
I don't care what Penn Gillette thinks about God, or what he thinks people who think about God think about, either.
Relevant, if silly: http://uctaa.net/
Quote from: Alty on February 16, 2012, 04:10:47 AM
What if the idea of God, certain conversations with random unfortunates aside, just isn't something that enters my mind? If someone else doesn't bring it up to me, what should compel me to think about God at all? If I don't then how can I believe or disbelieve?
I just don't care if there's a God any more than I care about a monkey I don't have anything to do with and never will. It's like I was carrying this puzzle for years, twisting it over in my head, looking for cracks and clues. Then I put the fucker down started taking care of things that had an actual impact on how I live my life.
I don't care what Penn Gillette thinks about God, or what he thinks people who think about God think about, either.
Something that I have found very interesting is how many people, particularly atheists, are unsettled by the idea that the existence or non-existence of god might simply be irrelevant to someone.
I find Discordianism to be a perfect example of how that works.
"What? You don't give a shit about my made up joke religion I take seriously. HUH. HOW ABOUT THAT. YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCK. OH THAT's actually ok fnord."
Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:22:09 AM
Quote from: Alty on February 16, 2012, 04:10:47 AM
What if the idea of God, certain conversations with random unfortunates aside, just isn't something that enters my mind? If someone else doesn't bring it up to me, what should compel me to think about God at all? If I don't then how can I believe or disbelieve?
I just don't care if there's a God any more than I care about a monkey I don't have anything to do with and never will. It's like I was carrying this puzzle for years, twisting it over in my head, looking for cracks and clues. Then I put the fucker down started taking care of things that had an actual impact on how I live my life.
I don't care what Penn Gillette thinks about God, or what he thinks people who think about God think about, either.
Something that I have found very interesting is how many people, particularly atheists, are unsettled by the idea that the existence or non-existence of god might simply be irrelevant to someone.
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.
I like your putting the whole thing on a spectrum, NWC. With all the fast-paced anxiety people seem to be going through these days it's almost like they're (we're?) REALLY looking for something to hold on to...quick and easy prepackaged belief for the masses...whether it's a Belief or a Non-Belief it's a still "thing."
After being around these parts of the internet, I enjoy taking on the creative process that goes with having a flexible belief system. Perceiving the relativity of my perceptions affords me the option of not taking things too seriously.
If a person is hell bent on believing in God or not believing in God, that's really up to them, but I think, at the same time, shows a lot about where they might be attached...if they, of course, take it to that extreme where they fall into pure "belief." Knowing where someone stands sort of shows where a person is vulnerable and controllable.
I kinda found a sense of comfort about not /really/ knowing for sure. There's a certain mystery about that. Maybe that's where the dead center is on your chart. Maybe it's not knowing what the fuck is going on and just being cool with it....Enjoying the ride.
Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 04:22:09 AM
Quote from: Alty on February 16, 2012, 04:10:47 AM
What if the idea of God, certain conversations with random unfortunates aside, just isn't something that enters my mind? If someone else doesn't bring it up to me, what should compel me to think about God at all? If I don't then how can I believe or disbelieve?
I just don't care if there's a God any more than I care about a monkey I don't have anything to do with and never will. It's like I was carrying this puzzle for years, twisting it over in my head, looking for cracks and clues. Then I put the fucker down started taking care of things that had an actual impact on how I live my life.
I don't care what Penn Gillette thinks about God, or what he thinks people who think about God think about, either.
Something that I have found very interesting is how many people, particularly atheists, are unsettled by the idea that the existence or non-existence of god might simply be irrelevant to someone.
THIS, to the power a million! Funnily enough it's where I stand. Either there's a god or there isn't. Means slightly less than fuck all to me until such a time as god approaches me and asks for or offers me something.
I've argued both sides against believers and rampant atheists enough times to have worked out that they are actually both exactly the same - evangelical believers in something that can't be proven.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 04:48:48 AM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism) and Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Oh, I never heard those terms before! Thanks Cainad!
Those are really good terms, and useful! Usually when people ask me if I believe in god I like to act like I don't understand them, and then look surprised and confused and say "I... gosh, I've never really thought about it".
People really don't like that at all, is what I've noticed.
Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2012, 10:17:19 PM
Those are really good terms, and useful! Usually when people ask me if I believe in god I like to act like I don't understand them, and then look surprised and confused and say "I... gosh, I've never really thought about it".
People really don't like that at all, is what I've noticed.
:lulz: I shall have to try this sometime.
I'm glad I could contribute something useful to the thread. Sadly, both of those terms are uncommon enough that you'll probably still have to do a little explaining for most people. Agnosticism remains the go-to word for "here's your answer, now can we talk about something that I don't hate talking about with most people?", at least in my case.
Those words might be useful to me if I was in the business of explaining to people where I stand on god but the truth of the matter is, if someone brings it up, you can pretty much guarantee I'm going straight into troll-mode. It's the nature of the beast. :lulz:
It makes sense, P3nt. I mean, what does someone expect when they bring up the possibility of god's existence IRL conversation? If you're already friends, it's a weird topic, and I suppose it could be a fun discussion, because you're already friends (for example, this thread). But if they're relative strangers and they bring it up, then... that's more of a litmus test, isn't it? They don't want to listen to your ideas, they want you to answer the right way. Which means it's kind of our duty to fuck with them.
Dunno of "duty" is the right word. Is it my "duty" to hold my breath when I suddenly find my head underwater? No. It's just something that naturally happens :lulz:
On a related note (meaning the subject of bringing up the subject), I find it a fascinating indicator of the relative maturity level of a group. You see this a lot in school children. Around six years old they start asking one another about this topic as a way of dividing everyone it neat little "us" and "them" categories. Since I'm never an "us" or a "them" (not being plural, you see), I take offense to such propositions. So if it ever comes up, say, at the workplace I quickly realize I'm dealing with a bunch of immature twats (and we all know what to do with twats). Let the hilarity ensue.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 17, 2012, 01:32:15 PM
They don't want to listen to your ideas, they want you to answer the right way. Which means it's kind of our duty to fuck with them.
I'm afraid if I agree with this anymore I'll give myself whiplash.
Although, living in the bible belt, I find it is also my duty to
not get the shit kicked out of me.!rB>C's comment about people seperating each other is also fairly excellent. Unfortunately, religion is sort of devised to seperate the "good" and "bad", but ends up creating assholes on every conceivable side of the issue.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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."
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
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".
Quote from: Cainad on February 16, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 16, 2012, 04:48:48 AM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism) and Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
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.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 07:00:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:47:55 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
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.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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".
usb0008eci.php :fnord: (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb0008eci.php)
usb0008eb8.php :fnord: (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usb0008eb8.php)
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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".
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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?
Dear Nigel:
Ma'am, that was brilliant.
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 :lulz:
(post will self-destruct in five minutes per wish of the recently departed)
(bc. it maintained funny)
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 12:31:48 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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 INSIGHTTM 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".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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?
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 04:18:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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.
Quote from: LuciferX on March 10, 2012, 04:04:21 AM
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 :lulz:
(post will self-destruct in five minutes per wish of the recently departed)
(bc. it maintained funny)
I think you're right about faith having a more active requirement on the subject...but for maybe different reasons.
To me, faith is about trusting in the mystery.
Faith seems dependent on how much existential seriousness one has. If you feel that the world is serious place then it shows a degree is mistrust in the mystery. The idea that the bad stuff might win or that there's bad stuff at all. But if you look at it as a game, or a ride, then it's more playful and trusting...lighter. That even if the bad stuff wins, no matter.
As far as the rest of this thread goes...i'm clueless.
I just tried an experiment
1. believe there is no god
2. be unsure about the existence of that thing which is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of nor has a really clear definition
3. wiggle a bit back and forth between the two, note any differences (if any)
4. now try being atheistic about the christian god and agnostic about the islamic one
5. switch, see if they noticed
6. don't believe in Zeus, be agnostic about Vishnu, don't accidentally pray do Eris
7. agnostic about All is One but atheist about Everything is indirectly related to Five
8. BANG. YOUR. HEAD!!!! (I often turn to the wonderful advice from Atari Teenage Riot in these matters)
Trying out a bunch of different things and combinations I found the only Most Sacred Holy Concept that I could be neither atheist nor agnostic about is My Penis.
So I said, fuck it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 04:21:15 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 04:18:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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.
Sorry, that was dickish.
The analogy was pretty much saying that what Penn's saying is true, but only in exactly the same way as it's true that "I do not have a favorable opinion of cheese", "I'm not sure how I feel about cheese", and "Tuesday, December 21, 12:57pm" all share the trait of not being ways to express that you like cheese. In that narrow little area it's workable and true, but outside of there it gets real A != A = !A and "I feel very 48undkjn about 208fnju89asdfm".
A frontal lobotomy would be a way to make sure I never get stage fright again...but...
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 04:21:15 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 04:18:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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.
Sorry, that was dickish.
The analogy was pretty much saying that what Penn's saying is true, but only in exactly the same way as it's true that "I do not have a favorable opinion of cheese", "I'm not sure how I feel about cheese", and "Tuesday, December 21, 12:57pm" all share the trait of not being ways to express that you like cheese. In that narrow little area it's workable and true, but outside of there it gets real A != A = !A and "I feel very 48undkjn about 208fnju89asdfm".
A frontal lobotomy would be a way to make sure I never get stage fright again...but...
OK, I think I see what you're saying now, which is that Penn can be correct if everyone conforms to his fictional, binary constraints.
In other words, he's still full of shit.
Fact is, Penn Gillette has become a source of bad signal, which is disappointing.
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 04:21:15 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 04:18:57 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 10, 2012, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 08, 2012, 06:41:16 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on February 15, 2012, 07:25:40 PM
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.
Sorry, that was dickish.
The analogy was pretty much saying that what Penn's saying is true, but only in exactly the same way as it's true that "I do not have a favorable opinion of cheese", "I'm not sure how I feel about cheese", and "Tuesday, December 21, 12:57pm" all share the trait of not being ways to express that you like cheese. In that narrow little area it's workable and true, but outside of there it gets real A != A = !A and "I feel very 48undkjn about 208fnju89asdfm".
A frontal lobotomy would be a way to make sure I never get stage fright again...but...
OK, I think I see what you're saying now, which is that Penn can be correct if everyone conforms to his fictional, binary constraints.
In other words, he's still full of shit.
Yup...but I can see where that shit is easy to buy.
Oh, and fuck him right in his "We're not saying Global Warming is bullshit, just that everything you've ever heard about it is."
Quote from: Bu☆ns on March 10, 2012, 05:15:02 AM
...
To me, faith is about trusting in the mystery.
Faith seems dependent on how much existential seriousness one has. If you feel that the world is serious place then it shows a degree is mistrust in the mystery. The idea that the bad stuff might win or that there's bad stuff at all. But if you look at it as a game, or a ride, then it's more playful and trusting...lighter...
I agree with the requirement of being lighter - Italo Calvino makes a good point of that for us in "Lezioni Americane", which I usually keep on my person :). At the same time, Americans cannot always find a cultural point of reference and center of gravity that can actually benefit from moar levity. I mean now it is also important to be circumspect because people stand to profit from manipulating others with trust in the power of levity. There's some trope floating around on the board about being hoisted by ones own petard? :|