Is it possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist? SPLIT from Terrorism is good

[Ms. Siv]

Everything has everything to do with language, Ms. Siv. Language is our only tool for communicating. Sure. But logic would be the same whether you use English or French or Tamil.

And one you are, if you don't mind my saying, rather adept at using if you are non-native English speaking earthling. I dont mind. And no, English isn't my "native" language - its Tamil. So, thanks !

As to your contention that one must either believe or not believe in deities,
well someday you and I must converse over that cup of chai I promised you.
There is a whole universe of understanding out there, Ms. Siv. And I would be more than delighted to share some of it with you. But I'm afraid it's beyond the scope of this venue.
But now I must retire for the evening. It is rather late here in the West. Right ho. But I still maintain that one can be either a theist or atheist. And its not logically possible to not belong to either of these categories :p

[skepticalbip]

............... Right ho. But I still maintain that one can be either a theist or atheist. And its not logically possible to not belong to either of these categories :p
Ahem, Please 'scuse me. Don't really mean to elbow in here but "atheist" is simply a non-belief. A lack of belief is not an "ism". I think you are going for "anti-theist" (an active belief that there is no deity, they have hijacked the term atheist) which is what the majority on this thread seem to be. For comparison think of the differences between moral, amoral, and immoral.

Now... back to your normal programming.

[Sultanist]

Ahem, Please 'scuse me. Don't really mean to elbow in here but "atheist" is simply a non-belief. A lack of belief is not an "ism".

I've always had a problem with that too, bip. Also with the concept of needing the term "secular".
When I hear the words atheism and secular, I can't help but carry that to it's logical conclusion. And I so badly want to invent some term like "asantacularism". I feel a word and a label and an ism name and a stigma is definitely needed to signify those who do not believe in Santa Claus.

[Ms. Siv]

Ahem, Please 'scuse me. Don't really mean to elbow in here but "atheist" is simply a non-belief. A lack of belief is not an "ism". I think you are going for "anti-theist" (an active belief that there is no deity, they have hijacked the term atheist) which is what the majority on this thread seem to be. For comparison think of the differences between moral, amoral, and immoral. On the contrary, its you who are confusing the two. :D

A-theism is lack of belief
Anti-theism is the "opposite" (anti) belief as theism - belief that god does not exist.

Exactly the opposite of what you said. :p

[skepticalbip]

On the contrary, its you who are confusing the two. :D

A-theism is lack of belief
Anti-theism is the "opposite" (anti) belief as theism - belief that god does not exist.

Exactly the opposite of what you said. :p
Not to be tedious here but, huh?
From my post: "atheist" is simply a non-belief. A lack of belief is not an "ism". How is this the opposite of: A-theism is lack of belief It sho-nuf looks like the same definition to me. Are you now interpreting "non-belief" as some sort of active belief? The meaning here of "non" is as in absence of, nil, nada, nothing to do with, nonexistant, a lack of, etc.

ETA:
WTF, might as well finish.

From my post:
I think you are going for "anti-theist" (an active belief that there is no deity) Sure looks to me like your definition :Anti-theism is the "opposite" (anti) belief as theism - belief that god does not exist. I'm afraid I am having a difficult time distinguishing between these characterizations.

[Octavia]

This thread has been split (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=131485) from the PD thread "Terrorism is good". It has also been shifted to the Philosophy forum as I feel it will probably get a better response there.

[Ms. Siv]

Not to be tedious here but, huh?
From my post: How is this the opposite of: It sho-nuf looks like the same definition to me. Are you now interpreting "non-belief" as some sort of active belief? The meaning here of "non" is as in absence of, nil, nada, nothing to do with, nonexistant, a lack of, etc.
.... {snip} ...
Sure looks to me like your definition I'm afraid I am having a difficult time distinguishing between these characterizations. Now I'm not sure what your position is ... maybe you should clarify.

My point was that there is a difference between anti-theism and atheism

Atheism is just a lack of belief (maybe you're calling this non-belief, I'm not sure). Its just the "rest of the universe" from theism ... if you take set theory concepts.
Theism - belief in deities/supernatural beings etc.
Atheism - All those not belonging to the above set ... those who dont believe in deities/supernatural beings etc.

Now whats anti-theism ? Its a belief too. A belief that gods do not exist.
Going by the same above set-theory concepts ... anti-theism must be a subset of atheism ... because anti-theists do not fall into the Theism set.
But over and above a "lack of belief" or "non-belief" in deities, they also have a hypothesis of their own ... that gods do not exist.

Am I clear now ?

Getting back to the OP (the "split OP, rather :) ) ... one can either belong to the theism set or not belong to the theism set. There can be (logically) no third alternative.

[James T]

I can see dreaming up a multiplicity of terms to describe at most three (four if you count those who think the whole issue is not even worth discussing) is a common past time. And very few of the additional terms are justified on the basis of any clear discrimination.

[Columbo]

Hello Ms. Siv.

one can either belong to the theism set or not belong to the theism set. There can be (logically) no third alternative.

I think there is IMHO, a third alternative.

There are people who believe in God, lack belief in Him, and there are those who neither believe nor disbelieve in him.

An example is a person who has never seen snow. She's heard of it from those who have seen it. She doesn't dismiss their accounts, nor does she by into them.

No offense, but you seem to represent this as a false dilemma.

Or atleast when you said;

But I still maintain that one can be either a theist or atheist

They can, but there are other options in my humble opinion.

[Ms. Siv]

Hello Ms. Siv. Hello Columbo :wave:

I think there is IMHO, a third alternative.

There are people who believe in God, lack belief in Him, and there are those who neither believe nor disbelieve in him.

An example is a person who has never seen snow. She's heard of it from those who have seen it. She doesn't dismiss their accounts, nor does she by into them. Thats not entirely a valid anology.

When you ask such a person ... Do you believe in X ... he/she either knows what X is or will clarify what it means ... and then answer yes or no.

[swamp]

Analogy aside, a person with no clear conception of God is neither a theist nor an atheist, correct?

[ex-xian]

Hello Columbo :wave:

Thats not entirely a valid anology.

When you ask such a person ... Do you believe in X ... he/she either knows what X is or will clarify what it means ... and then answer yes or no.
There are at least three positions, maybe more.

Theist - Believes in god(s),
Atheist - Does not believe in god(s), Believes in no god(s), whatever,
Agnostic - Believes that knowledge about god(s)' existence is impossible.

[Columbo]

:wave:


When you ask such a person ... Do you believe in X ... he/she either knows what X is or will clarify what it means ... and then answer yes or no.

Hah! Very perceptive. :) True, and also snow is a fact.

It's true that people know the concept of x and therefore either believe or don't. But what if someone said, "I neither believe nor disbelieve and it is irrelevant to me because I cannot deduce as to whether x is or isn't".

Surely the third option is to neither believe nor disbelieve.

People don't believe in other universes, yet they don't disbelieve in them. Essentially, they withold judgement preferring to see speculation as a futile endeavour.

[Ms. Siv]

Analogy aside, a person with no clear conception of God is neither a theist nor an atheist, correct? Not really ... and the following explanation is for Columbo as well ...

See, disbelief can be a passive position but belief cannot be. For eg. if someone has no idea of a hypothesis X, by default he does not believe. The analogy of orbiting teapots courtesy Dawkins, remember ? There are a zillion "possible" things ... by default we dont believe in them. We start off with a default of a minimum set of beliefs and add one by one depending on evidence.

[swamp]

Disbelief can be passive, belief cannot. I disagree. If disbelieving something is to believe in the negation of the proposition in question, this leaves three states: A believes in X, A disbelieves X/believes ~X, and A is uncertain.

A belief is an opinion about a thing. It is an attribute associated with an idea. X is an idea. We can believe in X or we can disbelieve X. But if X is NOT an idea (whether God is an idea in my mind or not is another debate, I think) then neither belief nor disbelief can apply, because there is no idea to which they can be ascribed.

Of course, I started this with "if disbelief is belief in the negation." If disbelief is simply the absence of a belief, then I would have to agree, ignorance is equivalent to disbelief. "I am in disbelief!" This is open to both our interpretations, I think, but when I use it and see it used, I would almost always take from/give it a negative connotation.

I will edit this post as many times as I please:

No, I think I'll not be so compromising, and will stick to my guns. Belief is secondary to the idea. The proposition, therefore, of "believes or not" does not exist without the idea to begin with.

[James T]

Two propositions: -

a) God exists.
b) God does not exist.

If you apply a single criteria to these two propositions and say the criteria does or does not apply then as everyone ought to know there are only four possible combinations.

WRT Belief the four possibilities are: -
Withhold belief from god exists.
Without belief from god does not exist.
Have belief in god exists.
Without belief from god does not exist.
Withhold belief from god exists.
Have belief in god does not exist.
Have belief in god exists.
Have belief in god does not exist.
Clearly 4) is incoherent and can be dropped. 3) is obviously atheism, 2) obviously agnosticism and 1) theism.

With respect to belief and god there are no other options. There is no other rational assignment.

[Ms. Siv]

Disbelief can be passive, belief cannot. I disagree. If disbelieving something is to believe in the negation of the proposition in question, this leaves three states: A believes in X, A disbelieves X/believes ~X, and A is uncertain. Uncertain about what ? Thats crucial. For eg. if the hypothesis is that a personal god exists and can be prayed to ... and you need to visit church/temples/mosques once or twice a week ... blah blah ... then "belief" will mean the person follows those activities. If the person does not follow any of them ... there is no belief, period. A person cannot both visit and not visit a church. A person cannot pray and not pray ... get my point ?

A belief is an opinion about a thing. It is an attribute associated with an idea. X is an idea. We can believe in X or we can disbelieve X. But if X is NOT an idea (whether God is an idea in my mind or not is another debate, I think) then neither belief nor disbelief can apply, because there is no idea to which they can be ascribed. Lets be a little more precise, shall we ?

We need a "hypothesis" first.
What is the god hypothesis ? Complete will all specifications, falsibiability clause etc.

James_T, you will be answered then as well. "God exists" is certainly not a valid hypothesis at all ... its not formulated properly, as a hypothesis should be. You need to define god first. And there are no verifiability/falsibiability clauses in your hypothesis either.

[Barbarian]

There are people who believe in God, lack belief in Him, and there are those who neither believe nor disbelieve in him.
I do not think every god allows the third, agnostic variant. Some god propositions are package deals, complete with fire and brimstone hell for even doubting their existence. Let us consider one such god and call it Allah. An agnostic must state that Allah has a non-zero and non-unit probability of existing, even if he does not specify the probability or even holds that this probability cannot be specified ever. However, getting into Allah's hell is to be considered an infinite cost, so all people who are not his firm believers are in fact assigning a zero probability to his existence, IOW all people who are not believers of Allah are atheists and not agnostics wrt. Allah.

Now, agnostics may argue that they nonetheless just know for sure they do not reject Allah but withhold judgment or even consider judgment to be impossible. I suggest these people simply did not examine their stance thoroughly enough. Another category may claim that fire and brimstone hells are surely nonexistent, but Allah still may exist, thereby starting to speak about a totally different god, who indeed allows agnosticism.

[seebs]

However, getting into Allah's hell is to be considered an infinite cost, so all people who are not his firm believers are in fact assigning a zero probability to his existence, IOW all people who are not believers of Allah are atheists and not agnostics wrt. Allah.

This presupposes that you can decide to hold a belief based on a perceived outcome. I'm not sure I accept that.

[Ms. Siv]

I do not think every god allows the third, agnostic variant ... {snip} ... We're not bothered about what he/she allows. Just about posible philosophical/logical stances.

[swamp]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]For eg. if the hypothesis is that a personal god exists and can be prayed to ... and you need to visit church/temples/mosques once or twice a week ... blah blah ... then "belief" will mean the person follows those activities.

For me, a "belief" is not a description of actions, it is a psychological state. Actions would demonstrate the results of one's belief system. Ergo your example of a "hypothesis" does not constitute a belief, but a complex of beliefs.

1. I believe in God
-To validate this premise, one must answer the question: what is God? If such a question cannot be answered, then the proposition ("Does God exist?") is just nonsense. Nonsense is not something to be believed or disbelieved, because it is that which cannot be conceived. To disbelieve, with negative connotation, is first to understand a proposition, then to reject it.

The rest of the hypothesis would be

2. I believe that God requires me to visit one of his temples
3. "blah blah blah"

A person cannot both visit and not visit a church. A person cannot pray and not pray ... get my point ?

I'm afraid not, because one can visit a church and not believe in God. This does not necessarily contradict my earlier point, that actions demonstrate a complex of beliefs, because the motivation for entering a church is not determinately a belief in a higher power.

You said yourself "God exists" is not a valid hypothesis, because one would have to define God. If one cannot define God, then there is no hypothesis.

Uncertain about what? How about: uncertain about whether or not there is a well-formed concept in which to believe or not believe? A so-called proposition is presented to me: "God exists." If I cannot understand the proposition, I am uncertain about it. I do not "disbelieve it" because I can see nothing there to which to assent or not assent. There is simply nothing there. One cannot derive a psychological state ex nihilo. That is why there must be a sensible proposition before us before belief can even be considered. I do not believe in unicorns. I cannot make sense of square circles. There is a difference.

I think I could have been more clear, but I await your rebuttal to help me clarify.

PS, thanks for the lively response!

A way-later edit:

To further bolster my point:

Hypotheses do not exist on their own, we create them. Therefore, I do not "disbelieve" the infinite set of hypotheses which it is possible to create, I only disbelieve the hypotheses that I actually construct and examine.

[Barbarian]

This presupposes that you can decide to hold a belief based on a perceived outcome. I'm not sure I accept that.
I do not accept that either. I do not imply anything about how the person gets into one of the believer or disbeliever positions wrt. such a god. As far as I am concerned, he just simply ends up being one or the other, but not the third, agnostic, variant.

[Barbarian]

We're not bothered about what he/she allows. Just about posible philosophical/logical stances.
Erm, what the text meant is that not every god hypothesis makes it possible to occupy a consistent agnostic position. That was pretty clear from the rest of the post, I hope.

[Columbo]

See, disbelief can be a passive position but belief cannot be. For eg. if someone has no idea of a hypothesis X, by default he does not believe. The analogy of orbiting teapots courtesy Dawkins, remember ? There are a zillion "possible" things ... by default we dont believe in them

This is a good point. Yet I must refute Dawkins with logic, which I'm sure he'll agree he isn't above. :p ;)

Although you suggest that because people apparently disbelieve by default, infact orbiting teapots are highly improbable and absurd. So we can see why an agnostic might not believe in this example straight away. While s/he might not believe in this example, she would apply the same consistency to God. She could essentially not disbelieve in God nor believe in him yet she could still say he is under the same position of knowability, if that is a word. :)

So she would say that God is unknowable aswell as the teapot, but disbelieve in the teapot.

Ofcourse, there are many religions that an agnostic doesn't know about. By default she cannot believe in them if she doesn't know about them, as you said. But not being able to believe in them, doesn't mean one disbelieves in them either. How can a man disbelieve in something he's never heard about?

If you say "hey, do you disbelieve in Christ?", and untill that point he didn't know Christ existed. If the man said "no", then his unbelief started when I asked him the question, as previously, it was just a lack of knowledge. To prove this logically, if you asked the man as to whether he did not believe previously, he would say, "I had never heard of Christ previously, that I may have disbelieved". So the man unwittingly, neither believed nor disbelieved in that which he knew not of.

Infact, he is not "able" to have believed or disbelieved.

BUT, an agnostic does know about God.

This is all that is required to prove a third option, that there are people who neither believe or disbelieve in my humble opinion.

Remember, it only takes one person of the agnostic position, to say they neither believe or disbelieve in God, to show that people take this position.

I think your claim is that agnostics are really atheists.

PS> Dictionary.com said;

Disbelieve - To refuse to believe in; reject

I propose one cannot reject or refuse to believe in, that which he does not know about.

[swamp]

I am enjoying this discussion, but I guess I should clearly acknowledge that I grant this point of yours:

"Atheism is just a lack of belief (maybe you're calling this non-belief, I'm not sure). Its just the "rest of the universe" from theism ... if you take set theory concepts.
Theism - belief in deities/supernatural beings etc.
Atheism - All those not belonging to the above set ... those who dont believe in deities/supernatural beings etc."

However, the common-use definition of atheism is as follows:

"1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

That, combined with my above points, is why I define myself as agnostic and not atheist. In strictly literal terms, in abstract language terms, I think you are correct. With respect to common usage, I continue to disagree.

[Columbo]

Hey Swamp, there's no way that's a viable definition of atheist. If it is, then the percentage of actual atheists would be so small as to not register.

Most atheists wouldn't define themselves this way. I find the definition insulting and I'm not even atheist.

[swamp]

Sorry, which definition? Ms Siv's, or the one that I pulled from m-w.com and called common-use?

If you say the latter, here's dictionary.com:
1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Here's the Cambridge online dictionary:

noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

I was granting Ms Siv her definition to make sure that we were arguing the same point.

[Minnesota Joe]

Neat topic Ms. Siv!

James T, ex-xian and I have discussed this in the past (here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2479506&highlight=fully+consistent#post2479506)) although I have changed my position and corrected some mistakes I made since then.



..."God exists" is certainly not a valid hypothesis at all ... its not formulated properly, as a hypothesis should be. You need to define god first. And there are no verifiability/falsibiability clauses in your hypothesis either.
This is a good point. The word 'god' (or 'God') is ambiguous. We need to know what is meant by the word before we can assent to belief or nonbelief--perhaps we are noncognitivists to the idea until then. But surely by 'god' James T means a placeholder for whatever god a theist may define.

Anyway, I like this topic so I'd thought I'd throw in my two cents and give you my generalized version. I think it is dangerous to use dictionary definitions here--it is better to try state this symbolically.

Consider the appropriate proposition and its negation,
g = god exists
~g = god does not exist
Here, 'god' is a placeholder for whatever definition is supplied. Then with respect to the proposition g, there are four possible and coherent states (here I disagree with James T...perhaps cosmetically):


I believe god exists. I'm a theist (T). Symbolically, B(g).
I do not believe god does not exist. I'm a non-atheist (NA). Symbolically, ~B(~g).
I do not believe god exists. I'm a non-theist (NT). Symbolically, ~B(g).
I believe god does not exist. I'm an atheist (A). Symbolically, B(~g).


Notice that there are two states of belief and two states of nonbelief. Allegedly, there can be mixtures of these four states. Indeed, a human being could assert that they hold any number of these states (one, none, all). But there are two questions that come up immediately and the second one relates to the OP:


Which states are independent?

In particular, is non-theism (NT) different from non-atheism (NA) or should they both be called agnosticism?
Temporarily, let us call the combination of non-theism (NT) and non-theism (NT), 'agnosticism' (K).

What states can be consistently (rationally) combined?


The second question is answered fairly easily by adopting a criteria for consistent belief,
For any proposition P, do not combine believing P with believing ~P
This just prevents contrary combinations. For example, I would not consistently believe if I believe god exists and I believe god does not exist. We can make another observation,
For any proposition P, if I believe P, then I do not believe ~P
That is,


I believe god exists B(g) entails I do not believe god does not exist B(g)->~B(~g)

But the converse is not true!

I believe god does not exist B(~g) entails I do not believe god exists B(~g)->~B(g)

But the converse is not true!



This allows us to make a table for belief combinations. Here, 'XXX' means you should not combine these beliefs.


_________B(g)_____~B(~g)_____~B(g)_____B(~g)
|B(g)....|......T................T..............XXX...........XXX..|
|~B(~g)|......T...............NA.............K.............XXX..|
|~B(g)..|....XXX..............K..............NT..............A...|
|B(~g)..|....XXX.............XXX.............A...............A...|


(T=Theism,NA=Non-atheism, NT=Non-theism, K=Agnosticism, A=Atheism)

The second question, "Which states are independent", is more difficult to answer. Clearly theism (T) is independent of atheism (A) and vis versa, but is non-theism (NT) independent of non-atheism (NA) or should they both be called agnosticism (K)? Are there really five different belief states? The 'non' in non-atheism and non-theism could be interpreted in the 'anything but' sense. I suspect that James T would say there are only three taking NA=NT=K in the table, as would ex-xian. As for myself...I'm not sure, but I believe there are at least three states.

Finally, it seems plausible that the existence of all these categories we hear about--atheism, weak atheism, strict agnosticism, fideism, theism--is explained by something like the reasoning above.

So, to answer the question in your OP, I would respond that there is at least three positions because "logical" belief just forbids believing or disbelieving inconsistently. At least, that is my point of view this week :D.

Regards,

Joe

P.S. And Columbo, thanks for having the decency to be insulted by the archaic version of that definition. I have heard too many Christians use 'atheist' in a sneering manner not to be offended by it.

[James T]

Minnesota Joe, I recall the past thread. I've revised my expression of things a little since then.

I'm a little wary about using the function ~B(), as it too strongly implies a meaning of NOT BELIEF or BELIEVE NOT, which I don't really think is valid, human belief is a little more flexible. The other issue is that in expressing belief in god and disbelief in god as g and ~g you subsume two separate premises where the belief in each may be held independently into a single one.

This is why I now think it is preferable to express in the form I did. Doing this in a mathematical appearance ... g=belief in god, ng=belief that god is not, W() being the function of withholding belief, B() being the function of believing, and the rules being that it is invalid to apply both B() and W() to the same premise then the options are ...

1) W(g), W(ng), agnostic
2) B(g), W(ng), theist
3) W(g), B(ng), atheist
4) B(g), B(ng), idiot

[Minnesota Joe]

Minnesota Joe, I recall the past thread. I've revised my expression of things a little since then.

I'm a little wary about using the function ~B(), as it too strongly implies a meaning of NOT BELIEF or BELIEVE NOT, which I don't really think is valid, human belief is a little more flexible. The other issue is that in expressing belief in god and disbelief in god as g and ~g you subsume two separate premises where the belief in each may be held independently into a single one.

This is why I now think it is preferable to express in the form I did. Doing this in a mathematical appearance ... g=belief in god, ng=belief that god is not, W() being the function of withholding belief, B() being the function of believing, and the rules being that it is invalid to apply both B() and W() to the same premise then the options are ...

1) W(g), W(ng), agnostic
2) B(g), W(ng), theist
3) W(g), B(ng), atheist
4) B(g), B(ng), idiot
:rolling:

O.K., that is interesting, I'll have to look at it more closely later on. I use ~B() because the belief logic texts use it. However, I believe (no pun) that I dealt with your concern about two seperate premises by the introduction of the consistency axioms...still, give me a bit to digest what you have written.

Joe

[James T]

How do you justify doxastic consistency?

[swamp]

I do not believe in unicorns. I cannot make sense of square circles. There is a difference.

Strike that, it is fatally flawed and not essential to my arguments.

[Minnesota Joe]

How do you justify doxastic consistency?

The same way you justified calling someone an idiot if they believed both g and ~g. :D The first rule,
Do not combine believing god exists with believing god does not exist: ~[B(g) & B(~g)]
follows from the fact the propositions are either true or false. Notice however that this rule is much weaker than the ones you and I discussed in the past (which was more like, ~B(g) -> B(~g)). The second rule,
B(g) -> ~B(~g)
comes from the fact that if I believe a proposition P, then I at least do not believe its negation--this rule follows logically from the consistency axiom. Some of this fixes the earlier problem I was having because now it is consistent for someone to have the "weak atheist" (or "agnostic" in your case) position because,
~B(g) -/-> B(~g)
That is, if I lack belief in god, then it does not follow that I believe that god does not exist. Looking at your new method, I think we are saying essentially the same thing. In my system, withholding belief is nonbelief. Where we probably differ--as I mentioned in my long post--is that you don't break down things down into more categories (and I lean your direction on that).

Regards,

Joe

[James T]

Yes, taking as axiomatic that B(g) & B(ng) where g and ng are opposing propositions is exactly what I am doing. However I feel that this is reasonably evident and not inconsistent with they way that we actually consider belief.

Doxastic consistency, which we have discussed in the past, is a much more stringent requirement that ~B(g) == B(~g). The difficulty with this is that justifying it is contradictory to the way that we consider belief. I was discussing this with seebs when I noticed the error in thinking of belief as probabilistic confidence levels.

While assigning a confidence of 1 to a premise is essentially the same as believing the premise, assigning a confidence of 0 to a premise is fundamentally different from withholding belief from the premise. In this sense doxastic consistency narrows the range of problems it can consider to only those where we are prepared to assign belief or disbelief, and useless where we wish to also address cases where belief is withheld.

So ... we are definitely not saying the same thing.

[Witt]

Dictionary.com:

Theist-- n : one who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheist--n : someone who denies the existence of god.
Agnostic--n: one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.


Theists...those that believe God exists is true.
Non-theists..those that do not believe God exists is true.

Everyone is ..theist or non-theist.

Atheists...those that believe God exists is false.
Non-atheists..those that do not believe God exists is false.

Everyone is ..atheist or non-atheist.

Agnostics...those that believe God exists is neither true nor false.
Non-agnostics..those that do not believe God exists is neither true nor false.

Everyone is ..agnostic or non-agnostic.

Theists are included in non-atheists.
Theists are included in non-agnostics.
Theists are not included in atheists.
Theists are not included in agnostics.

Atheists are included in non-theists.
Atheists are included in non-agnostics.
Atheists are not included in theists.
Atheists are not included in agnostics.

Agnostics are included in non-theists.
Agnostics are included in non-atheists.
Agnostics are not included in theists.
Agnostics are not included in atheists.

There are no:
Theistic atheists,
Theistic agnostics,
Atheistic theists,
Atheistic agnostics,
Agnostic theists,
Agnostic atheists.

[Minnesota Joe]

While assigning a confidence of 1 to a premise is essentially the same as believing the premise, assigning a confidence of 0 to a premise is fundamentally different from withholding belief from the premise. In this sense doxastic consistency narrows the range of problems it can consider to only those where we are prepared to assign belief or disbelief, and useless where we wish to also address cases where belief is withheld.

So ... we are definitely not saying the same thing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean be "confidence" but if you mean "probability" then I would indeed disagree with you. Assigning a probability of 0 to a proposition is equivalent to assigning a probability of 1 to its negation. This follows directly from the axioms of probability, not belief. If an agent assigns a probability of 0 to P, then they are claiming that P is impossible--at least mathematically. (The question of infinitesimal assignment would be a separate case.)

Doxastic consistancy is used only to prevent belief in a proposition P and its negation ~P simultaneously. What it does not do: if I do not believe the proposition "God exists", then it does not follow that I believe the proposition "God does not exist". Disbelief is a different beast.

Regards,

Joe

[James T]

I'm not quite sure what you mean be "confidence" but if you mean "probability" ...Yes, I do.
...then I would indeed disagree with you. Assigning a probability of 0 to a proposition is equivalent to assigning a probability of 1 to its negation.Yes, I agree. Which is why I was highlighting the difference between a confidence of 0 and withholding belief. I am thinking that a proposition one has no evidence for one may choose to not have a belief, to not assign any probability at all. Is there a logic of withheld belief?
Doxastic consistancy is used only to prevent belief in a proposition P and its negation ~P simultaneously. What it does not do: if I do not believe the proposition "God exists", then it does not follow that I believe the proposition "God does not exist". Disbelief is a different beast.Actually, that's precisely what doxastic consistency does imply. Say: -
B(P) <--> ~B(~P)
Then define P as equal to ~Q you have what you say doxastic consistency does not do.

[Minnesota Joe]

Actually, that's precisely what doxastic consistency does imply. Say: -
B(P) <--> ~B(~P)
Then define P as equal to ~Q you have what you say doxastic consistency does not do.

No, your formula differs from mine in the all important biconditional. According to my formula, if I believe P, then I necessarily don't believe its negation, but the converse is not true (necessarily).
B(P) -> ~B(~P)
If I define P = ~Q and then replace Q by P I obtain,
B(~P) -> ~B(P)
I think I mentioned this before but it is a much weaker version than we talked about in the consistency thread--it is important that it is not a biconditional.

Regards,

Joe

[James T]

Hmmm, it's as if we should say ~B() but rather D() since ~ implies something about B() that it is not. OK, so it is a convention issue but it does mean that ~B() cannot be considered simply NOT B() and one has to be careful about making mistakes with boolean logic where it applies and does not apply. Yuck.

That sort of makes my set ..

1) W(g), W(ng), agnostic
2) B(g), W(ng), theist
3) W(g), B(ng), atheist
4) B(g), B(ng), idiot

become

1) ~B(g) & ~B(~g) agnostic
2) B(g) -> ~B(~g) theist
3) B(~g) -> ~B(g) atheist
4) B(g) & B(~g) idiot

where the reasoning is that both premises are required for 1), and doxastic consistency has nothing to say against it. 2) and 3) being obvious and 4) wrong by virtue of the fact that it contravenes the doxastic consistency axiom.

[kennethamy]

Minnesota Joe, I recall the past thread. I've revised my expression of things a little since then.

I'm a little wary about using the function ~B(), as it too strongly implies a meaning of NOT BELIEF or BELIEVE NOT, which I don't really think is valid, human belief is a little more flexible. The other issue is that in expressing belief in god and disbelief in god as g and ~g you subsume two separate premises where the belief in each may be held independently into a single one.



A ~Bg does not imply A B~g, but:
A B~g implies A~Bg

A ~Bg is "weak atheism"
A B~g is "strong atheism"

Weak atheism is true of a Martian who has never heard or thought of God. and if animals have beliefs, of them too. But strong atheism is true of (say) Ralph Ingersoll who before an audience, dared God (if he existed) to strike him dead. (He wasn't struck dead).

[James T]

kennethamy, my reluctance to accept the use of weak/strong atheism is the lack of sufficient distinct groups. With theist, agnostic, athiest and only three distinct positions that I can see the need for further distinction is dubious. Unless of course you can show 4 valid distinct positions.

[Minnesota Joe]

Weak atheism is true of a Martian who has never heard or thought of God. and if animals have beliefs, of them too.
Unlike some (Richard Carrier I think), I don't consider it perverse to call a child or animal an atheist, I just don't think it is accurate. Instead, I would call them noncognitivists. Rather than lacking belief, they would have no concept of 'god' in my opinion.

[kennethamy]

kennethamy, my reluctance to accept the use of weak/strong atheism is the lack of sufficient distinct groups. With theist, agnostic, athiest and only three distinct positions that I can see the need for further distinction is dubious. Unless of course you can show 4 valid distinct positions.

Sure:

1. Atheist;
A. weak
B. strong

2. Agnostic

3. Theist.

[James T]

kennethamy, that was hardly what I meant.

One could equally generate a list that included blue, pink and purple atheists as three additional divisions.

You are simply making distinctions without a difference so far.

[Ms. Siv]

I am enjoying this discussion, but I guess I should clearly acknowledge that I grant this point of yours:

"Atheism is just a lack of belief (maybe you're calling this non-belief, I'm not sure). Its just the "rest of the universe" from theism ... if you take set theory concepts.
Theism - belief in deities/supernatural beings etc.
Atheism - All those not belonging to the above set ... those who dont believe in deities/supernatural beings etc." Thank you :)

However, the common-use definition of atheism is as follows:

"1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity"

That, combined with my above points, is why I define myself as agnostic and not atheist. In strictly literal terms, in abstract language terms, I think you are correct. With respect to common usage, I continue to disagree. Well, as I've told many people on many other discussions on IIDB, dictionaries are useful for language purposes, translations etc ... but thats about it.
To discuss deep philosophical topics, dictionaries can often be too simplistic and misleading.

"Common usage" is not a legitimacy by itself ... its just that - "common usage" :)

And considering that dictionaries are likely to have impressions of theists more than atheists ... dictionary one-liners are really quite worthless.

[Ms. Siv]

Although you suggest that because people apparently disbelieve by default, infact orbiting teapots are highly improbable and absurd. So we can see why an agnostic might not believe in this example straight away. While s/he might not believe in this example, she would apply the same consistency to God. She could essentially not disbelieve in God nor believe in him yet she could still say he is under the same position of knowability, if that is a word. :) Um ... not exactly. Let me explain further.

See there are literally infinite "possibilities" in this universe that one cannot "disprove".
One cannot be "undecided" w.r.t all of them. The term "neither believes, nor disbelieves" becomes quite meaningless when you consider those infinite possibilities. Whether or not he has heard about them or not is not the point. Obviously if one hasn't even heard about X, then its pointless to even talk of belief or disbelief in X.

But that position (when he is not even aware of X) is not a "neither disbelieves nor believes". Thats simply an invalid question w.r.t that person.

Knowing about X and saying " Er ... I'm not sure if I believe or disbelieve" is quite different from not having heard of X at all.

And for those who claim that there may be people who know of X (god, in this case) and are still uncertain, I'd claim that its an easy enough position to refute. If someone believes in a personal god who interferes with the fate and actions of humans ... then if he/she will act accordingly - pray, follow rituals etc. These are not things you can do and not do, if you get what I mean :)

Also, as I've explained multiple times, agnosticism really isn't the middle ground. Agnosticism is a position w.r.t knowledge levels. Atheism/theism deal with positions based on today's level of knowledge.

[James T]

ms, you fail to found your distinctions.

[Ms. Siv]

ms, you fail to found your distinctions. I have no idea what "failed to found your distinctions" means, but I assume its something similar to "justify your distnctions".

I have done so, multiple times, but you may still choose to deny that, upto you :huh:
I've realized (the hard way), that if you're hostile towards a poster, that kind of clouds your judgement considerably ;)

[James T]

Found as in provide a foundation for.

[James T]

I've realized (the hard way), that if you're hostile towards a poster, that kind of clouds your judgement considerably ;)You are being condescending. It seems odd, your tone is such that you know it all, yet ... In any case I am not feeling hostile toward you at all.

It is just that agnosticism, atheism and theism all relate to belief in a premise. These are only two elements. There are only so many ways they can go together that are valid.

You can show my position as incorrect by showing that there is more than just belief (given, withheld or against) in the premise (god exists). Unless you do this you are simply building castles in the air.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

Distinct epistemological categories seem a little much; the inaccuracy of language and the multiplicity of the interpetation of the text seem to preclude an effective representation of non-theism.
There are really an infinite number of definitions- Meaning of belief is subjective- Language is necessarily a product of deduction not induction. This si problematic when communicating belief with Others because of the lack of a picture apart from experience.
Look a christianity- there are a diverse number of religions that rely on the reading and practices of one (or two they have different versions) book, we're not even considering the number of completely different religions including islam, judaism, Eastern and new wave religions.

Divisions would seem to decrease the political power of non-theism. In order to stop the usurpation of rights or the expansion of religion into the public life non-thiests need to unify as a voting block (in most cases as they compose a minority at least in the US) to keep god and government separate.

[James T]

Epistemological categories expressed distinctly does not preclude people holding the belief, disbelief and withholding belief to varying degrees.

Language is absolutely not a product of deduction, how absurb. It is far more inductive in comparison, though I wouldn't call it inductive either. Language is adaptive and pragmatic.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

Epistemological categories expressed distinctly does not preclude people holding the belief, disbelief and withholding belief to varying degrees.

is the goal of these categories to be representative of belief? I think so.... and thus unless we can agree on some brightline for categories (which I'm not sure is possible) then there can never be an accurate representation.

Finding concensus on distinct categories seems almost impossible (which is necessary in order for these categories to have any meaning or recognition) unless there are groups of people who have common experiences with the lack of god. even then these will cause a fracturing of the political will of non-theism.


Language is absolutely not a product of deduction, how absurb. It is far more inductive in comparison, though I wouldn't call it inductive either. Language is adaptive and pragmatic.

The meaning of language is a product of deduction more than a product of induction. for instance knowing when an other signifies X via language the subject will remember and identify the signifier with X as it has experienced it.

I agree that language is adaptive (more reflexive) and pragmatic. The problematic is when we engage in signification of the non-physical world. Because there is no objective reality to refer to ie; its pretty easy to describe and communicate the physical world but there is a problematic when considering words like "God" even if there is some descriptors given.

[Doron Shadmi]

Is it possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist?

In Boolean Algebra there are 3 states:

0

1

Don't-care.

Can we use 0 for does not believe, 1 for believes and Don't-care for does not care?

The common thing here is: all 3 of tham are aware of their position.

[Ms. Siv]

You are being condescending. It seems odd, your tone is such that you know it all, yet ... In any case I am not feeling hostile toward you at all. Ironic ... since it is my distinct impression that you have been condescending, patronising and rude ever since we started debating (not only on this thread, but others as well). Which is why I generally refrain from replying to your posts now-a-days. :huh:

It is just that agnosticism, atheism and theism all relate to belief in a premise. These are only two elements. There are only so many ways they can go together that are valid. Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with a different proposition than Theism and Atheism.
One deals with a belief or absence of belief in deities/supernatural entities given today's level of "knowledge" ... and the other deals with knowledge levels per se.

I have explained this to you multiple times but again ... :)

[Ms. Siv]

In Boolean Algebra there are 3 states:

0

1

Don't-care.

Can we use 0 for does not believe, 1 for believes and Don't-care for does not care?

The common thing here is: all 3 of tham are aware of their position. My argument is that there are only 2 possible states :)

Dont care is, in effect, non-belief ... because it is an absence of belief.
Belief is not a passive state because it leads to several activities based on that belief.

[Doron Shadmi]

My argument is that there are only 2 possible states

Only if you ignore the undefined state, which is Don't-care.

But my point of view is:

0 = Does not believe.

1= Believes.

Don't care = Undefined.

Please be aware that any included-middle state is undefined form an Excluded-Middle point of view.

In other words, the Don't-care state is actually a superposition between at least two options, for example, please look at this binary system:


1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_

Superposition (undefined)

0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)

[Ms. Siv]

Only if you ignore the undefined state, which is Don't-care.

But my point of view is:

0 = Does not believe.

1= Believes.

Don't care = Undefined.

Please be aware that any included-middle state is undefined form an Excluded-Middle point of view.

In other words, the Don't-care state is actually a superposition between at least two options, for example, please look at this binary system .... {snip} ... All thats fine, Doron ... but practically ... one cannot not care and still be neutral as re: the god hypothesis.
Because if you believe, there are certain things you would be doing (praying, customs, rituals etc) which if you dont do, means you dont really believe. Get my point ?

[Ms. Siv]

To put it in a better way (I've done so earlier, but repeating it ...) in Set Theory terms.

Let C be the set of all people who believe in deities/gods/fairies ....
C' is the set of all atheists.

And your "dont care" category would be a part of C'.

[ex-xian]

To put it in a better way (I've done so earlier, but repeating it ...) in Set Theory terms.

Let C be the set of all people who believe in deities/gods/fairies ....
C' is the set of all atheists.

And your "dont care" category would be a part of C'.
The problem with this is that you're distributing the negation across belief. It isn't as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

[Doron Shadmi]

All thats fine, Doron ... but practically ... one cannot not care and still be neutral as re: the god hypothesis.
Because if you believe, there are certain things you would be doing (praying, customs, rituals etc) which if you dont do, means you dont really believe. Get my point ?

All you did is to force 2 options on your framework.

In that case you get what you forced, which is a circular reasoning.

[UncleJim]

Sure. But logic would be the same whether you use English or French or Tamil.

I dont mind. And no, English isn't my "native" language - its Tamil. So, thanks !

Right ho. But I still maintain that one can be either a theist or atheist. And its not logically possible to not belong to either of these categories :p

Both theism and atheism are philosophical ideas. They each depend on the idea of a theistic God for their existence. Eliminate the idea of the theistic God and both theism and atheism vanish.

However provide real physical evidence that properly identifies the word god and now both atheism and theism vanish but god does not.

It is not only possible to speak of god outside both theism and atheism but is it proper (even necessary) to do so.

[swamp]

"Common usage" is not a legitimacy by itself ... its just that - "common usage" :)

As a strict grammarian, I can only agree. I granted you that point in the hopes of preemptively avoiding lingual squabble that might have risen in the course of the discussion. But having ceded that point, I still have a difference of opinion regarding the nature of belief/disbelief, which I felt was the heart of our disagreement. Did you have any response to some of my other points in #21 (save that silly thing about unicorns that I dropped)?

[Ms. Siv]

The problem with this is that you're distributing the negation across belief. It isn't as simple as you're trying to make it out to be. Whats not simple ? Tell me what the problem is.

I dont understand what you mean by "distributing the nagation across belief" ...

I do think that it is as simple as that - philosophically speaking.

C - belief in gods/deities.
C' - Absence of belief in gods/deities.

C' could include beliefs in multiple other things. Belief that god does not exist, for eg - anti-theism. Or belief in alt med. Or in astrology ... or n number of other things. But no belief in deities.

[Ms. Siv]

All you did is to force 2 options on your framework.

In that case you get what you forced, which is a circular reasoning. I'm not forcing anything.
I'm just using Set theory to describe the theism vs atheism position and showing (what lots of philosophers have been saying for a while anyway!) that there can be only 2 positions.

Whats wrong with what I described ?

C - belief in gods/deities.
C' - Absence of belief in gods/deities.

C' could include beliefs in multiple other things. Belief that god does not exist, for eg - anti-theism. Or belief in alt med. Or in astrology ... or n number of other things. But no belief in deities.

[ex-xian]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]Whats not simple ? Tell me what the problem is.

I dont understand what you mean by "distributing the nagation across belief" ...
Well, if we are going to use set theory, we must be more precise when we negate belief.

Let xBy denote that x believes in y, let g=god(s), etc

Let C={x| xBg}. Then the complement of C would be C'={x|~(xBg)}. When I speak of distributing the negation across belief I mean that you are assuming that ~(xBg) <=>x~Bg (which may be the case) and that ~B is equated to total lack of belief. But belief logic is modal--there are more than two possibilities. The thread that James T referenced before has a short discussion that some of us had on the issue.

Unfortunately for me, my own study of modal logic has been cursory as best. I think James T could explain the possibilities of belief logic better than I could.

[Ms. Siv]

Sorry, swamp, I missed this post of yours. But I think at least some of it has been responded to in my later posts.

Anyway, here goes ....
For me, a "belief" is not a description of actions, it is a psychological state. Actions would demonstrate the results of one's belief system. Ergo your example of a "hypothesis" does not constitute a belief, but a complex of beliefs. Sure.
My point was that belief is not a passive psychological state. It results in lots of proactive actions. And one cannot claim to believe or be indifferent and not do any of those actions.

1. I believe in God
-To validate this premise, one must answer the question: what is God? If such a question cannot be answered, then the proposition ("Does God exist?") is just nonsense. Nonsense is not something to be believed or disbelieved, because it is that which cannot be conceived. To disbelieve, with negative connotation, is first to understand a proposition, then to reject it. I agree. Which is why I've said, multiple times, that the god hypothesis needs to be defined first before we can even start forming positions such as atheism/theism.

I'm afraid not, because one can visit a church and not believe in God. This does not necessarily contradict my earlier point, that actions demonstrate a complex of beliefs, because the motivation for entering a church is not determinately a belief in a higher power. You're arguing the converse, aren't you ?
My point was that belief cannot be passive. I dont deny that there can other motivations for visiting a place of worship, but thats just one criteria.
A god/theism hypothesis has to come with certain parameters. The actions will depend on that. Probably an occasional visit to the temple can have other motivations but regular prayers/rituals etc may not.

You said yourself "God exists" is not a valid hypothesis, because one would have to define God. If one cannot define God, then there is no hypothesis. Absolutely.
Then, technically, there is no theism/atheism either, right ?! :D
When we began discussion on this thread, we implicitly assumed that there exists a valid theist hypothesis. We're most likely wrong right there ... but it was a fun discussion anyway ;)

A way-later edit:

To further bolster my point:

Hypotheses do not exist on their own, we create them. Therefore, I do not "disbelieve" the infinite set of hypotheses which it is possible to create, I only disbelieve the hypotheses that I actually construct and examine. Great point.
We need a hypothesis to be able to discuss. A well-formed hypothesis in terms of precise unambiguous formulation - verifiability/falsifiability clause etc.

[Ms. Siv]

Well, if we are going to use set theory, we must be more precise when we negate belief.

Let xBy denote that x believes in y, let g=god(s), etc We can specifically take just belief in gods/deities. There is no need to complicate things with beliefs in astrology/alt med/gender equality ... or whetever.

This thread is only about atheism/theism, right ?

[Doron Shadmi]

Whats wrong with what I described ?


0 XOR 1 is a partial point of view of some binary sytem.

The full binary system is not less then

1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_

Superposition (undefined)

0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)


Since you ignore Superposition, you limited yourself only to 0 XOR 1 case, and this is exactly your conclosion.

Therefore you are using a circular reasoning in this case.

Let me explain it by using sets.

{x,x} multiset is a superposition, where {{x},x} set is your limited point of view in this case.

Ms. Siv.

Please do not ignore India's amazing Veda wisdom, where 'neti , neti' is one it's logical reasonings.

The western logic is no more than a particular and trivial case of the Veda wisdom of the upanishades.

[ex-xian]

We can specifically take just belief in gods/deities. There is no need to complicate things with beliefs in astrology/alt med/gender equality ... or whetever.

This thread is only about atheism/theism, right ?
By "god(s), etc" I was referring to your own "Let C be the set of all people who believe in deities/gods/fairies ... ."

[kennethamy]

The western logic is no more than a particular and trivial case of the Veda wisdom of the upanishades.

Jiminy! I didn't know that! Thanks!

[Doron Shadmi]

You welcome dear kennethamy.

[James T]

is the goal of these categories to be representative of belief? I think so.... and thus unless we can agree on some brightline for categories (which I'm not sure is possible) then there can never be an accurate representation.

Finding concensus on distinct categories seems almost impossible (which is necessary in order for these categories to have any meaning or recognition) unless there are groups of people who have common experiences with the lack of god. even then these will cause a fracturing of the political will of non-theism.There seems to be difficulty in getting some people to event consider basing their definitions on categories of belief. I don't see a need to make them distinct, provided the positions they vary between are clear.

The meaning of language is a product of deduction more than a product of induction. for instance knowing when an other signifies X via language the subject will remember and identify the signifier with X as it has experienced it.You might struggle to actually demonstrate this. Deduction has premises and a set of rules, where are these in language? They are not.

I agree that language is adaptive (more reflexive) and pragmatic. The problematic is when we engage in signification of the non-physical world. Because there is no objective reality to refer to ie; its pretty easy to describe and communicate the physical world but there is a problematic when considering words like "God" even if there is some descriptors given.Along the lines of metaphysics being an exercise in making sounds without meaning? No, if it has meaning it can be expressed clearly, otherwise - how Wittgenstein say it? - we should pass over in silence.

[James T]

All you did is to force 2 options on your framework.

In that case you get what you forced, which is a circular reasoning. :thumbs:

[WarrenandTrumbull]

There seems to be difficulty in getting some people to event consider basing their definitions on categories of belief. I don't see a need to make them distinct, provided the positions they vary between are clear.

I dont see a reason to have definite categories in the first place. Tell em why again we should have categories of belief?


You might struggle to actually demonstrate this. Deduction has premises and a set of rules, where are these in language? They are not.


Um It's not strict deduction but it does rely on a deductive principle... But it's not to hard to believe that your conceptions of the meaning of language are contigent on your experience.


Along the lines of metaphysics being an exercise in making sounds without meaning? No, if it has meaning it can be expressed clearly, otherwise - how Wittgenstein say it? - we should pass over in silence.

thats an interestign non-argument. why did wittgenstein say that? Of course it has some meaning but there is no way to ever know if my conception of god or non-belief coincides with yours so really trying to represent these things is just messy. A good example of this (whihc you seem to ignore) is the proliferation of different religious sects and new age religions.

BTW... You conceded that its probably A bad idea to do this for political reasons
Divisions would seem to decrease the political power of non-theism. In order to stop the usurpation of rights or the expansion of religion into the public life non-thiests need to unify as a voting block (in most cases as they compose a minority at least in the US) to keep god and government separate.

[James T]

I dont see a reason to have definite categories in the first place. Tell em why again we should have categories of belief?Let's define all words as "duh" then shall we.

Um It's not strict deduction but it does rely on a deductive principle... But it's not to hard to believe that your conceptions of the meaning of language are contigent on your experience. This is not a strong argument for saying that language is deductive.

thats an interestign non-argument. why did wittgenstein say that? Of course it has some meaning but there is no way to ever know if my conception of god or non-belief coincides with yours so really trying to represent these things is just messy. A good example of this (whihc you seem to ignore) is the proliferation of different religious sects and new age religions.Actually it's a damned important one. Left me find the precise quote ... <JT looks> ... verbatum from the introduction to tractatus: -
The whole sense of the book might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

BTW... You conceded that its probably A bad idea to do this for political reasonsWhat you had in the QUOTE section after this statement was not mine but yours. I didn't respond to it.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

James, I'm sorry you fail to answer my arguments. really, is it that hard? I mean after all someone who has set out to map all non-thiest beliefs should be able to answer the arguments of a third year rhetoric student...

Let's define all words as "duh" then shall we.

this is again a non answer... it doesnt even qualify as sophistry. I'll give you one more chance. why should we schematize all non-thiest beliefs?



This is not a strong argument for saying that language is deductive.


and you dont have an arg as to why its inductive. you're being silly.


Actually it's a damned important one. Left me find the precise quote ... <JT looks> ... verbatum from the introduction to tractatus: -
The whole sense of the book might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.


well again failing to answer my arguments.... My warrant by your logic would mean that we shouldnt try to represent non-thiesm. quoting wittengstein does not answer my arguemnts as to why it is problematic in this instance. way to go.


What you had in the QUOTE section after this statement was not mine but yours. I didn't respond to it.

So, youre busy contemplating belief and engaging in formalistic logical discussions without ever hearing of the burden of rejoinder. you should have just told me ahead of time that I was talking to a wall... after all at least I would know that the wall wouldn't respond in the first place.

You should probably justify dividing belief before you go about mapping it in a formalistic sense and you seem unable to provide warrants as to why it is a desirable endevor.

[James T]

WarrenandTrumbull, your question was essentially, why do we have words with different meanings?, hence the "duh" answer. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, in which case you might make your point more clearly.

You made the claim language was deductive. Inductive is better but I don't really like it either. You made the original claim, you failed to back it up, now you want me to show it. I'm not buying.

My warrant by your by your logic ... your meaning is unclear. You asked if why Wittgenstein said this, I hunted out the precise quote to provide more context. Was this not enough for you? There is quite a history of discarding metaphysical discussion as essentially meaningless. I was alluding to this.

You used the QUOTE tags around a piece of your own writing and seemed to be claiming it as my QUOTE, or is it that you felt your description so awe inspiring that you needed to QUOTE yourself :huh:.

[Ms. Siv]

0 XOR 1 is a partial point of view of some binary sytem.

The full binary system is not less then

1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_

Superposition (undefined)

0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)


Since you ignore Superposition, you limited yourself only to 0 XOR 1 case, and this is exactly your conclosion. Give me the atheism/theism equivalent of these ... otherwise I dont understand what you're saying.

Ms. Siv.

Please do not ignore India's amazing Veda wisdom, where 'neti , neti' is one it's logical reasonings.

The western logic is no more than a particular and trivial case of the Veda wisdom of the upanishades. I have read them all.
I find them all vague, nonsensical and unfalsifiable ... just like other religious texts.

The only text (and thats not a religious one) I find a little useful is the Tirukkural - written by Tiruvalluvar.

[premjan]

The Tirukkural begins with an ode to God:

A is the first and source of all the letters. Even so is
God Primordial the first and source of all the world.

I saw one commentary of the Tirukkural state that the reason it deals with more secular topics (Dharma Artha Kama) is because it assumes these to be a necessary precondition to achievement of God realization (Moksha).

[Doron Shadmi]

I have read them all.
I find them all vague, nonsensical and unfalsifiable ... just like other religious texts.

There is no problem to understand the deep wisdom of the six Darshanas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darshanas) by leaving outside the primitive religious aspects of this profound wisdom.

Give me the atheism/theism equivalent of these ... otherwise I dont understand what you're saying.

0 = Atheism

1= Theism

The full binary system is not less than


1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_

Superposition (undefined)
( the signiture of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman )



0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)


This deeper point of view is based on the Darshanas.

[WarrenandTrumbull]

WarrenandTrumbull, your question was essentially, why do we have words with different meanings?, hence the "duh" answer. Perhaps I am oversimplifying, in which case you might make your point more clearly.

You made the claim language was deductive. Inductive is better but I don't really like it either. You made the original claim, you failed to back it up, now you want me to show it. I'm not buying.


My question or rather the problem in this case (we can address the totality of language in another thread) is that when we discuss "God" there are an infinite number of stances that encompass the answers yes or no.
a)People have different conceptions of God. For instance I remember reading somewhere that when Einstein talked about "God" he literally meant awe of the universe. so, how do we classify this form of spiritual stance?
b) Having 3 categories or however many anybody proposes will never capture the peticularity of peoples beliefs. after all my stance as an agnostic that we can never know the truth is distinct from somebody who is indifferent and thus an agnostic. This becomes problematic when we want these categories to become actually representative... Thus enter the religion example.

Now, the logical extension of most my arguments is that we cannot accurately represent any belief about god or as you point out metaphysics. we can have a good idea (thus enter the millions of threads defining "free will" and whatever) but if you are going to schematize and categorize the beliefs of all non-believers you should probably be able to do so with certainty which language prevents you from doing.


You used the QUOTE tags around a piece of your own writing and seemed to be claiming it as my QUOTE, or is it that you felt your description so awe inspiring that you needed to QUOTE yourself :huh:.

no, I just think that there needs to be a metadiscussion (which cant necessarily be done via logical proof) about whether or not we want to represent and categorize belief in the first place.

[swamp]

Warren, your arguments sound a lot to me like arguments favoring particulars over universals. Your "brightline" argument can be applied to virtually any category which is possible to construct, and seems ultimately self-defeating for that reason.

[Sultanist]

Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm just now noticing this split-off.
I'm the individual who Ms Siv told "you have to be either a theist or an atheist, there is no other alternative". And since this all arose on the political forum, I told Ms Siv that if she needed me to teach her, I would do this on the appropriate forum. And here we are.

Firstly, I suppose we need to desribe what is routinely around here referred to as
"one's worldview". Although for me that term is so trite that it doesn't do justice.
But we'll just make do with it.

Sultanism's "worldview" is, in a nutshell, that human beings have an "unknown".
We've always had an unknown. We today have an unknown. And possibly, even likely
maybe, we will continue to have an unknown until we cease to exist as a species.
This ultimately is the very definition of a human being. We exist in a state of unanswered, and possibly even unanswerable questions. If you do not understand this, and I would be surprised if you do not, I will be happy to explain. But since I presume that explanation is not necessary, we will proceed.

Since there is this unknown, anything is possible. Both the conceivable and the inconceivable. The human intellectual concept "a deity" is not even comprehensible to me. But since the definition of the unknown includes everything we do not know,
I of course cannot exclude anything no matter how improbable I perceive it to be.
If indeed anything in our unknown can even be conceived and described in the human mind at this point, it can only be described as an "unknown quanity". That unknown quantity can be anything. Again, anything conceivable. Anything inconceivable. Anything.

I pray daily. Prayer for me may be considered somewhat of an enigma to most, but
it is perfectly rational to me. I pray to an "unknown quanity". I pray because it is
in my genes to pray. It is probably the most rational of all human behaviour to pray
to an unknown, when we ourselves are defined by that unknown. That unknown
is at the heart of our very existence as sentient beings. So I pray. And often.

You may choose to label me an "agnostic", Ms Siv. But traditionally that concept is reserved for one who is undecided about the existence of a "deity". But you see I don't even have a concept of a deity and I do not even contemplate that question, Ms Siv.
Neither am I an "atheist" nor am I a "theist".
I am a Sultanist.

[Doron Shadmi]

Dear Sultanist,

I'll be glad to know you notions about:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2591435&postcount=69

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2593497&postcount=81.

Thank you.

[Ms. Siv]

The Tirukkural begins with an ode to God:

I saw one commentary of the Tirukkural state that the reason it deals with more secular topics (Dharma Artha Kama) is because it assumes these to be a necessary precondition to achievement of God realization (Moksha). Sure, all ancient texts assume a god ... and start with a prayer. But the Tirukkural isn't really a "religious" text, if you know what I mean ;)
It has a lot of worldly wisdom that has nothing to do with god/religion. A lot of it is just behavioural ... and cute.

[Ms. Siv]

There is no problem to understand the deep wisdom of the six Darshanas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darshanas) by leaving outside the primitive religious aspects of this profound wisdom. I disagree. But lets not discuss that here ... maybe you should start a separate topic about it.

0 = Atheism

1= Theism

The full binary system is not less than


1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_

Superposition (undefined)
( the signiture of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman )



0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)
Maybe I'm a little slow today (I can see James_T nod vigorously ;) :D) ... but I dont follow you.

I explained my set theory explanation, right ?

C = set of people who believe in gods/deities/supernatural entities etc
C' = set of people who do not believe in gods/deities/supernatural entities etc

C is the set of theists. C' is the set of atheists.

Similarly, point out what you're saying.

[Doron Shadmi]

I disagree.

In that case you did not find the way to do that.


Similarly, point out what you're saying.

You ignore multiset {x,x} and use only {{x},x}.

[Ms. Siv]

Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm just now noticing this split-off.
I'm the individual who Ms Siv told "you have to be either a theist or an atheist, there is no other alternative". And since this all arose on the political forum, I told Ms Siv that if she needed me to teach her, I would do this on the appropriate forum. And here we are. Indeed :)

Sultanism's "worldview" is, in a nutshell, that human beings have an "unknown". We've always had an unknown. We today have an unknown. And possibly, even likely maybe, we will continue to have an unknown until we cease to exist as a species. Hold on.
Define what you mean by unknown ... do you mean that which we do not know ? If thats so then I agree.
Although that can exist for a species and an individual.

This ultimately is the very definition of a human being. We exist in a state of unanswered, and possibly even unanswerable questions. If you do not understand this, and I would be surprised if you do not, I will be happy to explain. But since I presume that explanation is not necessary, we will proceed. Explanation is not necessary.
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in the personal god as described by almost all religions (yes, thats not technically a hypothesis, but we'll make do with that).
I also do not believe that we humans, as a species, will ever know everything there is to know about the universe. Simply because every evolved species has a limitation - the limitation of its evolution. We evolved under certain circumstances for certain default objectives (again, I've said default ... so I dont mean "intentional" objectives/aims). We might stretch that a little bit and understand a bit of quantum mechanics and string theory and the big bang etc ... but a brain which evolved essentially to solve behavioural problems and problems related to living as groups of nomadic hunter gatherers, fighting predators, struggling to raise our position in the dominance hierarchy, mate and rear children etc ... cant really find a theory of everything !

Since there is this unknown, anything is possible. Both the conceivable and the inconceivable. The human intellectual concept "a deity" is not even comprehensible to me. But since the definition of the unknown includes everything we do not know, I of course cannot exclude anything no matter how improbable I perceive it to be.
If indeed anything in our unknown can even be conceived and described in the human mind at this point, it can only be described as an "unknown quanity". That unknown quantity can be anything. Again, anything conceivable. Anything inconceivable. Anything. Although worded crudely, that means you're an atheist. BTW there is no single human concept of a deity. It varies ... from religion to religion, person to person ... :)

I pray daily. Prayer for me may be considered somewhat of an enigma to most, but it is perfectly rational to me. I pray to an "unknown quanity". I pray because it is
in my genes to pray. It is probably the most rational of all human behaviour to pray to an unknown, when we ourselves are defined by that unknown. That unknown
is at the heart of our very existence as sentient beings. So I pray. And often. It might seem like the most rational of all human behaviour to you ... but its not to me. To the extent that religion seems to be an innate part of our species, you may be right. But humans are complicated enough not to do that too. Just as we now have sex with contraception ... thereby enjoying its pleasures but thwarting the default purpose for which they evolved.
So even though we may have an innate predisposition to religion, many of us can be and are non-religious.

You may choose to label me an "agnostic", Ms Siv. But traditionally that concept is reserved for one who is undecided about the existence of a "deity". But you see I don't even have a concept of a deity and I do not even contemplate that question, Ms Siv. Neither am I an "atheist" nor am I a "theist". I am a Sultanist. I'd label you a teenager ;)
Jokes apart ... you're free to label yourself anything. Going by philosophical definitions and reading between the lines from what you've said above - I think you're an agnostic atheist ... but I may be wrong.

[Ms. Siv]

You ignore multiset {x,x} and use only {{x},x}. :banghead:
Please tell that to me in terms of real world examples.
Replace x with 'person who does not believe' for example.

[swamp]

Ms Siv,

Thanks for all the thoughtful response. I feel like I was overly insistent on it, so here's one more from me.

I think my particular background has something to do with the different ways we approached this topic. I can't say anything of your background, but your methods seem more purely speculative than my own. "If you take these assumptions, this/that follows."

Personally, I probably define myself as agnostic because I was not, at first, given the option of taking up the set of assumptions. I was raised inside the assumptions, I was indoctrinated. For me, it is anything but a passive act to reject a decade of being dragged to church and pushed down on my knees to worship something I couldn't understand.

Our conclusion here has been a great help in showing me how my biases come through, even when I feel like I'm doing some level-headed arguing.

So thank you; it has been enlightening.

[Minnesota Joe]

It is true that either you believe in deity or you do not believe in deity. Ms. Siv has decided to call all those who believe 'theists' and all those who do not 'atheists', interpreting the 'a' to mean 'not' or 'non'.

Of course, this really just ignores the subcategories of the 'non-theist' category by redefining 'atheism' to be more inclusive. That is fine by me, but I know plenty of people who would object to the redefinition and we still need names for the subcategories--because people like to give a name to their positions. :)

Regards,

Joe

[Doron Shadmi]

Dear Ms. Siv.,

Please think from the information level itself.

The simplest case if no information at all and let us look at this state as the most symmetrical and "pure" form.

If we think about some information from of exactly two states (0=atheist,1=theist), then the next symmetrical state, which is not symmetrical and "pure" like no information at all, is a superposition between 0 AND 1, for example:


1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_
{x, x}
Superposition (undetermined state between 0 and 1)

You start to use these information form, after its symmetry is already broken,
for example:

0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
{{x},x}
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)

Since you chose to use only the broken symmetry, you get a conclusion that is based on a broken symmetry.

In other words, you cannot avoid the conclusion that Sultanist can be atheist XOR thesit.


Am I clear?

[swamp]

This is one of your lines of reasoning that I find oblique, actually.

Your definition of the "no information" case on the "information level." I would like to examine:

1. What are the conditions which describe the "information level." What is the importance?
2. Is the "no information" case salient to the conversation? Is it "real'?
3. Whence come the adjectives "symmetrical" and "pure"? Why is this not an arbitrary and contrived notion of the universe?

Models, or "Forms," at "information levels" comprising abstract occurrences of possible actualities ... are relevant how?

Note: will post more lucidly when feeling more lucid

[WarrenandTrumbull]

Warren, your arguments sound a lot to me like arguments favoring particulars over universals. [QUOTE]

yes... I literally think that we should have a multiplicity of non-representation

[QUOTE=swamp]Your "brightline" argument can be applied to virtually any category which is possible to construct, and seems ultimately self-defeating for that reason.

Why is it that categorization is a good thing? I don't necessarily make an ethical judgement but If we want categories to be representational we might have to recognize that that will never be possible

[swamp]

You are using a category to define what a 'category' is. Every sentence you construct depends implicitly on categories. It's not an ethical judgment, it's an epistemelogical judgment, and with serious implications.

The conditions that you deem unfulfillable in order to make a category 'adequately' representational, these conditions can themselves be said to constitute a 'category.' It's one thing to say that we should be more cautious in how we formulate our categories. But it seems absurd to say we should ignore categories altogether.

[ex-xian]

I disagree. But lets not discuss that here ... maybe you should start a separate topic about it.

Maybe I'm a little slow today (I can see James_T nod vigorously ;) :D) ... but I dont follow you.

I explained my set theory explanation, right ?

C = set of people who believe in gods/deities/supernatural entities etc
C' = set of people who do not believe in gods/deities/supernatural entities etc

C is the set of theists. C' is the set of atheists.

Similarly, point out what you're saying.
I still think that you're describing the complement of C incorrectly. Did you see what I had written in http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2591264#post2591264 ?

[Sultanist]

Hold on.
Define what you mean by unknown ... do you mean that which we do not know ? If thats so then I agree.
Although that can exist for a species and an individual.

I mean the species. However, I cannot rule out that some part of the unknown which exists for the species, has not made it's presence known in some fashion or other to any given individual. And neither can you.
To be sure, I am aware of no evidence to convince me of that. However,
my unawareness is not the be all and the end all.



Explanation is not necessary.
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in the personal god as described by almost all religions (yes, thats not technically a hypothesis, but we'll make do with that).
I also do not believe that we humans, as a species, will ever know everything there is to know about the universe. Simply because every evolved species has a limitation - the limitation of its evolution. We evolved under certain circumstances for certain default objectives (again, I've said default ... so I dont mean "intentional" objectives/aims). We might stretch that a little bit and understand a bit of quantum mechanics and string theory and the big bang etc ... but a brain which evolved essentially to solve behavioural problems and problems related to living as groups of nomadic hunter gatherers, fighting predators, struggling to raise our position in the dominance hierarchy, mate and rear children etc ... cant really find a theory of everything !

Aha. This is precisely what defines you as a practioner of scientism, as we
discussed earlier in the thread.
You are bound and determined to believe that only our own exploration can reveal these answers. But there is no reason to accept that.
Mohammed is not limited to going to the mountain. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the mountain, or parts of the mountain, may come to Mohammed. In other words, we cannot know that the unknown (or at least some facet of it) will never make it's presence known. It may well be
that to penetrate very far into the unknown is not even within the intellectual capacity of a human being. But we do not know that either.
Just as surely that the Sun will rise tomorrow, the possibility remains equally certain that the unknown could be revealed to us tomorrow.
If you say no to that, I say you're wrong. Simply because, by definition, there is no way to know what is unknown.


Going by philosophical definitions and reading between the lines from what you've said above - I think you're an agnostic atheist

You have every right to label me any way you wish. Just as many once labeled the earth to be "flat".


It might seem like the most rational of all human behaviour to you ... but its not to me. To the extent that religion seems to be an innate part of our species, you may be right. But humans are complicated enough not to do that too.
I will agree with you to this extent. Yes, human beings are perfectly free to put no value in prayer. But that is only because those human beings have neither knowledge of nor familiarity with Sultanism.
And that likely will remain the case. Because Sultanism is not only the World's first discount religion, it also does not proselytize.

I'd label you a teenager ;)
Why thank you once again, Ms. Siv. As when you characterized me as such once before, I am very flattered to know that I exhibit such a youthful ardor for one my age. I only wish I could get carded at the package store.

[Sultanist]

Dear Sultanist,

I'll be glad to know you notions about:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2591435&postcount=69

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2593497&postcount=81.

Thank you.

I will be more than happy to try, Doron. But while Sultan is the wisest man in the world, I'm afraid he's having difficulty comprehending this. I will need more input.

[Doron Shadmi]

Your definition of the "no information" case on the "information level." I would like to examine:

Very simple:

Emptiness (notated as {}) is too weak to be used as an input for any formal or informal language.

Fullness (notated as {__}) is too strong to be used as an input for any formal or informal language.

So the two available information forms that can be available (can be manipulated by a language) are no less that a point (size=0 that notated as {.}) and a segment (size not= 0 that notated as {._.}).

The manipulated information forms of my framework are the associations among a segment and collection/sequence of points and/or sub-segments that are ordered by their internal symmetrical degrees.

One of these manipulated information forms is the binary system that can be shown in my previous posts in this thread.

I do not wish to hijack this thread so I limit myself only to the binary case:



Dear Ms. Siv.,

Please think from the information level itself.

The simplest case is no information (no input) at all and let us look at this state as the most symmetrical and "pure" form ({} "content" or {__} content).

If we think about some information from of exactly two states (0=atheist,1=theist), then the next symmetrical state, which is not symmetrical and "pure" like no information (no input) at all, is a superposition between 0 AND 1, for example:


1 1
0 0
. .
| |
_|__|_
{x, x}
Superposition (undetermined state between 0 and 1)

You start to use an information form, which is already broken,
for example:

0 1
. .
| |
|__|
|
{{x},x}
Excluded-Middle (broken symmetry)

Since you chose to use only the broken symmetry, you get a conclusion which is based on a broken symmetry.

In other words, you cannot avoid the conclusion that Sultanist can be atheist XOR thesit.




Am I clear?

(By the way, the unknown is anything that appears out of {} or {__} where {} and {__} are beyond any manipulation).

[Sultanist]

I now must take back what I said before. The part about my having no evidence to
believe that the unknown has presented itself to any individual. I think there's little
doubt that you may be that individual, Doron.
But to communicate this unknown to some of the rest of us, I'm afraid you're going to need to translate this into redneck concepts. Or as my friend Roger often tells me:
"Sultan, I'm going to dumb this down for you".

[Doron Shadmi]

The unknown is anything that appears out of {} or {__} where {} and {__} are beyond any manipulation.

[James T]

after all my stance as an agnostic that we can never know the truth is distinct from somebody who is indifferent and thus an agnosticI'll have to agree that denying it is possible to know is different from simply not knowing. Though both withhold belief, they withhold it for different reasons. I do think that they are both agnostic, as you say, but agnostic for different reasons. In a sense this is probably true of all the positions that all people hold. Everyone holds a particular belief, everyone has arrived at their particular belief through a different path, even if this difference is more tautological than a real difference.

[James T]

In part I think there is an effort to change the meaning of the labels, from the simple set, to say what is normally explained in a more long-winded fashion.
I am _____ because I consider that _______________ .
Is good enough for most issues. I don't see the harm in this approach here. Taking a theist as believing, an atheist as disbelieving and an agnostic withholding any belief my own version of this would be.
I am an atheist because I consider that it is more reasonable - based on the evidence - to believe that god does not exist.
An atheist with a less certain position than my own might express this in a less definite form. Agnostics, per WarrenandTrumbull points out, might withhold belief for a variety of differing reasons as well.

The danger with defining additional categories on the basis of how and why people consider a particular position to be correct is that it is difficult to find another clear cut point at which to stop. So I prefer to stop with the varieties of belief held not the much wider variety of reasons one might have for having the belief.

[Sultanist]

It is true that either you believe in deity or you don't

But it is also true that one may not even contemplate the question. And in that case I neither believe nor don't believe. I ignore.

On the other hand, I do contemplate the existence of unidentifiable aerial objects. And I neither believe nor disbelieve. But I have contemplated this, making me UAO agnostic.

[Doron Shadmi]

Sultanist,

Please look at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2593917&postcount=116 .

Thank you.

[Minnesota Joe]

But it is also true that one may not even contemplate the question. And in that case I neither believe nor don't believe. I ignore.

No, that just leaves you in the Do Not Believe set. I think the point of the OP is that either you believe or you do not believe. 'Do not believe' includes people who ignore (apatheist?), weak atheists, agnostics, etc. If you had never heard of 'God' then you would be in the Do Not Believe set as well (according to the OP). This is just relabeling in my opinion and I'm not sure it is useful.

[James T]

The OP is kind of hard to nail down in a split thread.

[Sultanist]

No, that just leaves you in the Do Not Believe set. I think the point of the OP is that either you believe or you do not believe. 'Do not believe' includes people who ignore (apatheist?), weak atheists, agnostics, etc. If you had never heard of 'God' then you would be in the Do Not Believe set as well (according to the OP). This is just relabeling in my opinion and I'm not sure it is useful.

My perspective required a more distinct label than either of the two suggested by the OP (the split-off OP).
I think it probably is fair to label Sultanism as being of the "apatheist" persuasion. Possibly even "apagnostic". Actually I think the latter is probably more suitable. Yes, I think I can live with that.
Whether Ms. Siv can live with that, however, remains to be seen.

[Sultanist]

No, that just leaves you in the Do Not Believe set.

No, not exactly. See that's why all this is a little too limiting.

[Sultanist]

Sultanist,

Please look at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2593917&postcount=116 .

Thank you.

I've tried my absolute best, Doron. But I'm afraid this is just escaping the Sultan. I can't understand how that can be. Sultan has never failed to grasp anything until now as far as he can recall. I'm rather flabbergasted. I will keep trying though. Sultan never gives up.

[Sultanist]

Let's try this approach. Can you, Doron, or can anyone try to put Doron's concept into
layman's language?

[Doron Shadmi]

Ok Sultan,

Let me ask you this: What do you think is the simplest thing that you can think about?

[Sultanist]

Hmmm. Well my knee-jerk reaction is "nothing". However the way our minds are constructed we apparently do not have that ability. To turn off our thoughts that is.
So I don't know how to answer that, Doron. Tell me what you believe the answer to be
and maybe we can start from that point.

[Minnesota Joe]

No, that just leaves you in the Do Not Believe set.

No, not exactly. See that's why all this is a little too limiting.
Hmm, it appears I have to defend the OP...I'm not sure what other alternatives you think there are.

Would you agree that every proposition is either true or false? Similarly, either something is a member of a set, or it is a member of its complement. Note that, if I do not believe X it does not follow that I believe its negation. So, if someone says, "I do not believe God exists" it does not follow that someone will also agree to, "I believe God does not exist". So, the Do Not Believe set actually has more structure than the OP implied...enough, I think, to describe your belief.

Regards,

Joe

[Sultanist]

I have no idea if diety(s) do or do not exist. So theist and atheist are out. I think that should be clear.
The question then becomes am I "agnostic"? And as I've acknowledged, I am I suppose
"agnostic", however I am also completely apathetic to the whole concept. Therefore
as I stated before, the best stigma to assign to me is probably "apagnostic".
What is not to understand about that?

[Minnesota Joe]

I have no idea if diety(s) do or do not exist. So theist and atheist are out. I think that should be clear.
The question then becomes am I "agnostic"? And as I've acknowledged, I am I suppose
"agnostic", however I am also completely apathetic to the whole concept. Therefore
as I stated before, the best stigma to assign to me is probably "apagnostic".
What is not to understand about that?

I think this is a somewhat trivial technical point. Either you are in the set of people who believe in God, or you are not. This does not commit you to actively believing that God does not exist. In fact, you don't have to be in that set either. All it says is that you lack belief in God. It does not mean that you believe God does not exist, or that you have made up your mind, etc. It just means that, if we take the 'active belief' idea of the OP, you currently do not actively believe. So the OPs redefinition just creates a broad category of people who do not actively believe in deity. This category includes atheists, apatheists, agnostics, noncognitivists, and people who have never heard of God.

Regards,

Joe

[James T]

If you are a Manchester United supporter do you require a different name based on why you chose to support Manchester United?

Similarly, if you are agnostic is it really necessary to have different names based on why you have no belief in either the for or against god propositions?

[Sultanist]

Let me splain it this way.

Sultanism yawns in the presence of God. How's that?

[Doron Shadmi]

Ok Sultan,

There is always a difference between a model of x and x itself, for example:


I ask you: What is silence?

If you answer, then you are not in silence.

If you are in silence, you do not answer.

In other words, there is a difference between some explanations about silence and silence itself.

You can adopt this notion for any concept that is naturally beyond any explanation.

Emptiness and Fullness are such concepts, and if we want to use them in some framework which is based on language, we immediately understand that any detailed explanation of these concepts cannot be given, and the best we can do is to say that these concepts cannot be used as an input that can be manipulated by any language.

In this case Emptiness and Fullness are the non-reachable limits of any language.

In other words, Emptiness is too weak to be used as manipulated information by any language, which is not silence itself.

Fullness is too strong to be used as manipulated information by any language, which is not silence itself.

Please tell me if I am understood, before we continue.

[Sultanist]

If you are a Manchester United supporter do you require a different name based on why you chose to support Manchester United?

Similarly, if you are agnostic is it really necessary to have different names based on why you have no belief in either the for or against god propositions?

It's not absolutely necessary. But outside of the context of what Sultanism's
fundamental philosopy is, it is misleading. The apathy part has an even greater emphasis than the agnostic part. Therefore I think there is real value in the distinction. And the label without that distinction, again, is misleading. So yes I would prefer a more specific label in the interest of successful communication.
You see, successful communication is paramount.

[Minnesota Joe]

Let me splain it this way.

Sultanism yawns in the presence of God. How's that?
Right, so your bordom indicates that you do not actively believe in God, therefore placing you in the Do Not Believe set.

[James T]

You can adopt this notion for any concept that is naturally beyond any explanation.From Wittgenstein's Tractatus what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

And Wittgenstein's private language argument, from Dale Jacquette, The Pennsylvania State University The implications of Wittgenstein's conclusion that there can be no private sensation language are examined, in light of claims that Wittgenstein by the private language argument also proves that there can also be no private mental objects.

[Sultanist]

Ok Sultan,

There is always a difference between a model of x and x itself, for example:


I ask you: What is silence?

If you answer, then you are not in silence.

If you are in silence, you do not answer.

In other words, there is a difference between some explanations about silence and silence itself.

You can adopt this notion for any concept that is naturally beyond any explanation.


If you ask me &qu