Why I am neither Theist or Atheist, but an Agnostic.

[Zen0]

The root of gnosticism is -gnosis, i.e. knowledge. Where is knowledge addressed in your "textbook" definition? Which "textbook" did it come from, anyway?

Which of these resembles your definition?

Merriam Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

The above poster I quoted said he used Oxford.

 

[HumblePie]

You are changing the definition. I am textbook agnostic: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. "

the definition is not

1) a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

per your quote of the dictionary but

1) a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


Learn to read. The semi-colon in that sentence structure is a quantifying statement to the actual definition of:

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

Learn your English clauses. You are picking up part of the definition you want to reassign to be the definition and that is not correct. The whole of the definition is that Agnostic literally mean without knowledge. Look up the root and etymology of the word to get how the current definitions as listed in dictionaries are assigned.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Merriam Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

The above poster I quoted said he used Oxford.

In other words, you cherry-picked a small fragment of the definition. Good work. 🙄

Regardless, even the fragment you cited does not conflict with my argument. If one is not committed to the existence or non-existence of god, it still still true that he is not a theist, so he is an atheist.

Atheism is not "I believe zero gods exist"
Atheism is "I do not believe 1 or more gods exist"
Please do not make the mistake of thinking the fact that many atheists hold the first statement to be true means that the second is not a necessary and sufficient condition to qualify atheism.

 

[HumblePie]

Merriam Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

The above poster I quoted said he used Oxford.

Even in that link, there is a "broadly" term usage, meaning people have broadly assigned a new definition to the word from it's original definition. Learn how the dictionary works.


Yes, the English language is a "living" language and new words are constantly added to the dictionary while older words that aren't used anymore are removed. Many people, including yourself, are trying to assign the definition of Agnostic in regards to the question "Do you believe in God(s)?" as the "I don't know" or the "i refuse to answer" answer. Many of us call that hogwash.

 

[Zen0]

In other words, you cherry-picked a small fragment of the definition. Good work. 🙄

Regardless, even the fragment you cited does not conflict with my argument. If one is not committed to the existence or non-existence of god, it still still true that he is not a theist, so he is an atheist.

Atheism is not "I believe zero gods exist"
Atheism is "I do not believe 1 or more gods exist"
Please do not make the mistake of thinking the fact that many atheists hold the first statement to be true means that the second is not a necessary and sufficient condition to qualify atheism.

Very simply,

you: "I do not believe 1 or more gods exist"
me:"I believe god possibly exists"

hold very different beliefs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Very simply,

you: "I do not believe 1 or more gods exist"
me:"I believe god possibly exists"

hold very different beliefs.

They aren't comparable positions. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I also believe god is possible. I just don't believe it is true that he exists.

 

[HumblePie]

Very simply,

you: "I do not believe 1 or more gods exist"
me:"I believe god possibly exists"

hold very different beliefs.

Two different statements on two different planes of questioning.

Time for a logic flow diagram!

Question 1: Do you believe god(s) exist? -> Yes? -> Question 2: Do you believe in the possibility of no god(s) existing?
|
V
No?
|
V
Question 2: Do you believe in the possibility of god(s) existing?




Again, two separate answers for two different questions.

 

[Zen0]

They aren't comparable positions. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I also believe god is possible. I just don't believe it is true that he exists.

OK, I believe god is possible. I just believe it is about as probable as it is improbable that he exists.

 

[Zen0]

Question 1: Do you believe god(s) exist?

Hmmm... Part of me believes God exists, Part of me does not.

Question 2: Do you believe in the possibility of no god(s) existing?

Yes.

Question 2: Do you believe in the possibility of god(s) existing?

Yes.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK, I believe god is possible. I just believe it is about as probable as it is improbable that he exists.

Your evasion of a direct question is not evidence that the question does not have a direct answer. Nobody is asking how probable you think the truth of your belief is. Your belief-set either includes or excludes the belief that God exists. If it includes both -- whatever the probabilities you assign to them, respectively -- you are congnitively dissonant, which is irrational.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Hmmm... Part of me believes God exists, Part of me does not.

It is not the fault of rigorous language that it does not describe irrational people.

"Part of me believes circles have corners, and part of me believes circles are round. Therefore the definitions of circle and square are inadequate."

Marvelous. 🙄

 

[Zen0]

Your evasion of a direct question is not evidence that the question does not have a direct answer. Nobody is asking how probable you think the truth of your belief is. Your belief-set either includes or excludes the belief that God exists. If it includes both -- whatever the probabilities you assign to them, respectively -- you are congnitively dissonant, which is irrational.

It is not cognitively dissonant, nor irrational.

When presented with facts, evidence, and logic that supports conflicting theories, it is only dissonant and irrational to fail to acknowledge the merits of both, and to wholeheartedly commit to one.

You are stuck in your Aristotelean form of boolean logic. I suggest you read up on Many-valued logic that I listed above, and also Constructive logic that irrelevances "Truth" over "justification".

This limited obsession of binary logic (0 an 1) is the basis of False Dichotomies.

 

[Zen0]

It is not the fault of rigorous language that it does not describe irrational people.

"Part of me believes circles have corners, and part of me believes circles are round. Therefore the definitions of circle and square are inadequate."

Marvelous. 🙄

How about, The "complete me" has studied the arguments and evidences presented before me on the existence of God and find merit in both sides, therefore, it would be irrational and irresponsible to champion one over the other as a matter of absolute fact or truth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is not cognitively dissonant, nor irrational.

Believing two contradictory things is exactly what cognitive dissonance is, and cognitive dissonance is irrational.

When presented with facts, evidence, and logic that supports conflicting theories, it is only dissonant and irrational to fail to acknowledge the merits of both, and to wholeheartedly commit to one.

I haven't committed to anything. You still think that atheism means "I believe no gods exist." It only means "I do not believe gods exist."

You are stuck in your Aristotelean form of boolean logic.

There's no reason why I wouldn't be. It is perfectly adequate, and you haven't shown it to be inadequate.

I suggest you read up on Many-valued logic that I listed above, and also Constructive logic that irrelevances "Truth" over "justification".

I'm quite familiar with trivalent and fuzzy logics. They do not negate my argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

How about, The "complete me" has studied the arguments and evidences presented before me on the existence of God and find merit in both sides, therefore, it would be irrational and irresponsible to champion one over the other as a matter of absolute fact or truth.

Nobody is requiring you to "champion" anything. You still think that atheism means believing that zero gods exist. It simply means "I do not believe that a god exists." Put another way, it means "I have not been convinced that it is true a god exists."

Are you convinced that the statement "God exists" is true?

 

[Zen0]

Believing two contradictory things is exactly what cognitive dissonance is, and cognitive dissonance is irrational.


I haven't committed to anything. You still think that atheism means "I believe no gods exist." It only means "I do not believe gods exist."


There's no reason why I wouldn't be. It is perfectly adequate, and you haven't shown it to be inadequate.


I'm quite familiar with trivalent and fuzzy logics. They do not negate my argument.

You are clearly not a scientist. :|

Bivalent logic is not adequate in all circumstances, and science is one of them.
In Physics and Chemistry, an electron can not be described to have an exact location in its orbital. We use probability distributions.

You are asking me about the electron - are you in A orbital or the other orbital. If you're not in A orbital, you must obviously be in the other orbital.

I can then give you a probability distribution - 50/50 for example.

You are telling the scientist that this is equivalent to an evasion of the question, when the scientist is plainly telling you a poignant and meaningful one.

What if he said, part of him believes the electron is in orbital A, and part of him believes the electron is in the other orbital?

As a matter of probability, we can not give you a (0) or (1) answer, it is a probability distribution of 50/50. Sorry.

 

[Zen0]

Nobody is requiring you to "champion" anything. You still think that atheism means believing that zero gods exist. It simply means "I do not believe that a god exists." Put another way, it means "I have not been convinced that it is true a god exists."

Are you convinced that the statement "God exists" is true?

Well, I'm more convinced that a God exists than you do, probably. How about, I'm halfway convinced that a God exists, but halfway still not convinced.

So what probability would you ascribe to God existing vs Not existing?

 

[zanejohnson]

Your evasion of a direct question is not evidence that the question does not have a direct answer. Nobody is asking how probable you think the truth of your belief is. Your belief-set either includes or excludes the belief that God exists. If it includes both -- whatever the probabilities you assign to them, respectively -- you are congnitively dissonant, which is irrational.

lol that's exactly the way i think too.. i think it is about 50/50 that god exists.... varies about 10 percent based on events on the rollercoaster i call life..

 

[HumblePie]

You are clearly not a scientist. :|

Bivalent logic is not adequate in all circumstances, and science is one of them.
In Physics and Chemistry, an electron can not be described to have an exact location in its orbital. We use probability distributions.

You are asking me about the electron - are you in A orbital or the other orbital. If you're not in A orbital, you must obviously be in the other orbital.

I can then give you a probability distribution - 50/50 for example.

You are telling the scientist that this is equivalent to an evasion of the question, when the scientist is plainly telling you a poignant and meaningful one.

What if he said, part of him believes the electron is in orbital A, and part of him believes the electron is in the other orbital?

As a matter of probability, we can not give you a (0) or (1) answer, it is a probability distribution of 50/50. Sorry.

Sigh, you are trying to describe Schrodenger's Cat for a simple binary formula. Again stop assigning more complex formulas to a simple one. Just because OTHER things need complex formulas to find an answer does not mean everything needs a complex formula.

Just like you were cherry picking at the definition, and incorrectly I might add, of the word Agnostic from the dictionary, you are doing so now with math and physics to use as a defense. Schrodenger's cat is a definition example used to describe quarks. They are either tops or bottoms depending upon the direction they are spinning. All quarks come in pairs that spin in opposing directions. Until you actually MEASURE a quark to find the direction of how it spins, you have to assume it is spinning in both directions. This is because it really doesn't matter, not that because there isn't a right answer. Just like the cat is both dead and alive until you look at it. That doesn't mean there is not a finite and measurable answer. Only that the outcome of that answer in regards to other formulas does not need to be known.

Also, to give you a clue, an electron DOES have an exact location in it's orbital. Just because we, as human, do not currently possess the means to find it at any given moment does not mean it does not exist. We as human instead use a math formula to APPROXIMATE the answer for an electron orbital to give us working formulas for other aspects of an atom. The fact you don't know this means you really are not the scientist you claim to be either.

Also, the fact you stated part of you believes in god and part of you does is in fact cognitive dissonance. It is completely irrational. You can not believe both answers are right in mutually exclusive operation. To do so is insanity.

 

[disappoint]

That's like saying the dichotomy between symmetry and asymmetry is a false dichotomy.

Speaking of symmetry, why do so many believe symmetry must exist in the universe? Why can't the universe be asymmetrical?

 

[disappoint]

Also, to give you a clue, an electron DOES have an exact location in it's orbital. Just because we, as human, do not currently possess the means to find it at any given moment does not mean it does not exist.

Do you have any evidence that the electron has en exact location or is that just your belief?

 

[HumblePie]

Speaking of symmetry, why do so many believe symmetry must exist in the universe? Why can't the universe be asymmetrical?

Now there is an interesting philosophical question. An answer I do not know but can only guess at. This is because symmetry is how life works on this planet. Why symmetry? I do not know. But speaking biologically and from an evolutionary standpoint thing with symmetry typically survive and those without do not.

 

[HumblePie]

Do you have any evidence that the electron has en exact location or is that just your belief?

An electron has mass. Ergo, it has a location. Any scientist knows this.

The success of de Broglie's prediction led to the publication, by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, of the Schrödinger equation that successfully describes how electron waves propagated.[51] Rather than yielding a solution that determines the location of an electron over time, this wave equation can be used to predict the probability of finding an electron near a position. This approach was later called quantum mechanics, which provided an extremely close derivation to the energy states of an electron in a hydrogen atom.[52] Once spin and the interaction between multiple electrons were considered, quantum mechanics allowed the configuration of electrons in atoms with higher atomic numbers than hydrogen to be successfully predicted.[53]

It has mass but behaves as a wave pattern which makes it predictable with a mathematical formula instead of having to measure things all the time. It's easier to using a predictive algorithm sometimes, depending upon what the scientist is trying to accomplish, for doing science that making actual measurements all the time. The use of the former doesn't in anyway make the later not true though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are clearly not a scientist. :|

You're clearly not a philosopher.

Bivalent logic is not adequate in all circumstances, and science is one of them.

This is not science.

In Physics and Chemistry, an electron can not be described to have an exact location in its orbital. We use probability distributions.

Beliefs are not superpositioned quanta.

You are asking me about the electron - are you in A orbital or the other orbital. If you're not in A orbital, you must obviously be in the other orbital.

I can then give you a probability distribution - 50/50 for example.

You are telling the scientist that this is equivalent to an evasion of the question, when the scientist is plainly telling you a poignant and meaningful one.

Except your analogy is a false one, because God is not an electron. If you think you can make the case that God exists in superposition, then make it. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

What if he said, part of him believes the electron is in orbital A, and part of him believes the electron is in the other orbital?

Both of those beliefs would be false in trivalent and fuzzy logic.

As a matter of probability, we can not give you a (0) or (1) answer, it is a probability distribution of 50/50. Sorry.

The probable truth of a belief in the existence of God is not something that can be non-arbitrarily quantified, so this analogy does not apply.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, I'm more convinced that a God exists than you do, probably. How about, I'm halfway convinced that a God exists, but halfway still not convinced.

Let's see the calculations which justify the measurement of your confidence.

So what probability would you ascribe to God existing vs Not existing?

I don't. The idea is silly.