Atheism is a belief.

[Sarkus]

So you would not say I was being irrational.

Only if you come to the conclusion that an alternative explanation is more rational and refuse to accept it in favour of your existing one. Otherwise I would merely conclude that I find your conclusion irrational. Sometimes this might be worded: "I think you are being irrational" (which I can see is ambiguous and might be taken not as meant).

This assumes they know the nature of the experience. They know that if they had that experience - not simply one of a variety of experiences that might be described using similar words.

It relies on the one who has experienced it being able to adequately describe it to others.

Perhaps my spirits remark was a poor thing to toss in. What if they simply said: the ones who saw the whites were being fooled or were dreaming.

These are possible explanations that can not be ignored - and the consequence of being incorrect should be taken into account as well to assess the rational response.
If the experiencor (?) can not provide adequate evidence to others - the others position might be rational in their "being fooled" / "dreaming" - but I stress that one would need to weigh up far more than you have detailed here (propensity to lie, etc).
If the experiencor is still sure that their interpretation of their experience is as they first thought (i.e. they are sure it is not a hoax, not a dream) then they remain rational. They would only be irrational if they accepted a dream as the likeliest explanation, for example, but continued to act as though it was as first interpreted - but again the consequences need to be assessed in the response ("it is probably a dream, rationally, - but on the chance that it isn't, let's do XYZ etc").

Was the one guy who saw the whites irrational when he decided they were white humans in ships vastly larger than any seen before who smelled back wore strange cloths and so on?

No - I would think probably not. He knows what ships are, what humans are, I'm guessing he can tell if he's dreaming or not etc. He would be rational in his interpretation - given the information he has on which to base that interpretation. It will remain rational until further information becomes available.

You are shifting it to the persective of the other tribe, I think, above. I am talking about the experiencer. The experiencer cannot prove it and can be told that other phenomena are VASTLY more likely. Which they had been up until the period of contact.

Okay - let's stick to the experiencer... He would be rational. From the information you have stated, and the assumptions I have made concerning previous experience (e.g. knows what a boat is / does etc) - he would be rational in his interpretation.

But this is all besides the point. The point is the experiencer was not being irrational to trust their interpretation, despite dream and hallucination being vastly more likely.

It's a question of to whom the "dream and hallucination" are assessed as being more likely. If the experiencer himself thought that "dream" or "hallucination" was more likely - he would be irrational if he still believed the original interpretation as the truth rather than a mere probability/possibility.

Actually the whites could break the laws of physics that the natives knew with some of their technology. You are viewing the situation from here and now. Imagine some future scientist viewing looking at now and saying that psychic phenomena were not breaking any laws - which they know in that future time - and so people who believed were not making extraordinary claims, etc.

My comments still hold in determining rationality, as I know it is dependent upon what is understood at the time - hence I clearly state that rational interpretations are not necessarily correct - and one's interpretation should be considered whenever there is new evidence.
One can only assess rationality on the information available at the time.

I feel you are being slippery here. Not consciously, but in any case.

Apologies - I was anticipating your example being an analogy to God - and was merely trying to explain that the greater the claim, the greater the evidence required.
If you consider the observations as seeming to break the laws of physics - so be it - but to convince someone else in to rationally accepting your explanation would take additional effort.

More beliefs in your own ability.

No - an element of subjectivity, true, but based on a plethora of evidence that does need to be taken into account.

I am not concerned about the second tribes rationality or not. My point is that it can be rational to believe one's experiences and one's interpretation of them despite not being able to prove that interpretation and despite other people having 'more likely' interpretations.

Yes - but not if the experiencer ALSO holds other people's interpretations of his experience as "more likely".

I.e. if I see a "ghost" - but someone else, with additional info, knows that it was actually a deliberate attempt to trick me, and can explain it etc, (i.e. his interpretation is "more likely") and I agree with him... then for me to claim it was still a "ghost" that I saw is irrational (actually bordering on delusional in this example ).

That is assuming that you the non-experiencer really can get and understand all the subtle nuances of the experience via language. Some dreams are very mundane and accurate reality wise and yet I can tell these apart from memory. There are very subtle differences and to presume that you know I was not, in that instance capable of discerned between these differences, is presumptuous.

And that's the trick. It's not whether you, the experiencer, are being rational - it's whether someone else can rationally accept your interpretation.
Them saying "I think you're being irrational" is, admittedly, not the best means of explaining that, but it is the type of comment used when they really mean that they themselves can not be rational and accept your interpretation.

Yes, and...?
I do believe that actions are beliefs. I am not interested in what a Platonic atheist would do given the definition of atheism. The ideal form of the atheist.
For example, you and I could get into an argument, in person say, about God. It starts with you saying you are an atheist in answer to me asking. I say, Oh so you think there is no God. You go through all the explaining about what an atheist is as you have in this thread. We go back and forth. And then the next day I overhear you say to another person: there is no God.

I can not really respond to this. I wouldn't do it (at least I hope I haven't). It would be frustrating.

sorry. I shouldn't have used the second person in the above.

Taken as an example only, no worries.

Anyway. That is a bit of my experience of atheists as a group. If we have a discussion about the definition and nature of atheism, well nobody believes there is no God. However if we are talking about theists beliefs, the snide and missionary approaches of atheists does not fit, for me at least, with this more humble position.

My point is that on the sociological level atheists bear responsibility for non-atheists taking them as strong atheists as a group. As discussion go right now, atheists seem to think the theists are simply stupid for thinking atheists have a belief.

Stupidity or not can only be ascertained when a "simple" explanation has been given and not been understood.

A suggestion cannot be more rational. A process is more rational. I think drawing conclusions, even those that go against current knowledge, for oneself, can be rational based on personal experience. I do not think this would constitute proof for others.

"Rational suggestion" in terms of the suggestion being the logical conclusion from the more rational thought process.

And I do believe that language is limited and you as the non-experiencer as not privvy to the facets of experiencers experience that can constitute evidence - or often lack of reasons to doubt, for example that they are actually dreaming - and so the non-experiencers lack evidence. And they certainly lack the ability to know if their alternatives fit as well as they seem to FROM THE OUTSIDE. In some ways your position seems to me to assume the problem of other minds does not exist.

All an outsider can do is offer suggestions that to them (and based on what they have been told and understood) seem more rational.

More rational for you, but not necessarily for the experiencer. It is as if having the experience has zero affect. It can offer no evidence to the experiencer. And I find that absurd. I actually cannot see the difference above between my wording and yours. Mine is more blunt.

I am starting from the assumption that both experiencer and the outside person have the same info to work from, or at least reach agreement on a more rational position. If the experiencer assesses this new suggestion and still holds to his, they need to explain the additional info they have.

Both can be rational in their own mind, and both think the other irrational. One can only work on the info they personally have.

It was not individuals. It was a systematic resistance to accepting the patients' own interpretations.

But this is systematic in any organisation / body, and is unrepresentative of the method / rationality.

The disease had bascially not been discovered yet. I am sure some doctors said 'I don't know' but the general, rational, objective alternative presented was that the patients were suffering psychosomatic ailments or were malingerers/hypochondriacs.

Ok - but this is where I say that the response should be considered in conjunction with the risks... the "rationally it's probably pyschosomatic, but given the seriousness, let's do more tests..." approach.
Also, don't confuse the rational interpretation with the subsequent actions taken based upon that. As I've said - "rational" is not the same as "correct".

My point is the patients were rational. They believed they had an illness and were not 1) malingering (a common charge) or 2) suffering psychosomatic symptoms. They ransacked and evaluated their experience accurately. They were rational. Even though they could not convince doctors - for quite a number of years - or the medical community.

Yes. Not disputed. But unfortunately they needed to convince someone else of there rational position, and they couldn't.

My point is that it is absurd to see her as having been irrational even though she based her conclusion on personal experience and alternatives that were deemed and in fact were statistically incredibly more likely were pointed out to her.

I do not judge her as having been irrational but as it turns out coincidentally correct.

Your point, expressed many times , is one I agree with. Rationality isn't black and white - and has little bearing on right or wrong - merely on probability of accuracy given the current information at hand.
You are more arguing around the subsequent actions taken based on rational positions. And unfortunately, where money / cost is concerned, those with the purse-strings generally get to try their rational conclusion first.

An excellent point. Not one I am focusing on. I do, however, think that rationalists overestimate their ability to guess the liklihood or extraordinariness of phenomena and their own cultural and psychological biases. And often forget the fact that we are simply in a certain period of history where we have managed to prove fairly solidly these things and that later many more things will be included, some perhaps as strange as Einstein's theories first were or some of the wild things they have found so far in QM.

But until we get to the point of discovery - why jump to conclusions and claims of absolute truths?

 

[Sarkus]

To sum it up:
What you are saying means that you, the non-experiencer, are in as good a position to judge the accuracy of the experiencers interpretation as the experiencer in all cases.

Woooah!
Not at all.
I am saying that the non-experiencer can only make their rational conclusion based on the information that THEY have - as told to them by the experiencer.
If the experiencer is unable to convey the full extent of their experience - differences of opinion will arise - but both might still be rational in their own respective conclusions.

I think that is hubris and also not very practical. I think it is also naive about the limits of language.

But initially it is a flawed summation of my comments, and thus a flawed conclusion. Sorry.

Again, the issue for me is not to blame the professionals of the time, but to point out that it can be rational to believe in personal experience despite seemingly good alternatives and the lack of evidence for you, the non-experiencer.

Notice the lack of disagreement on this matter??

And I realize that my examples are from situations that you are going to consider the claims likely to be true or certainly true in some cases. But that's point. I am trying to convince you that your system is fallible by using example that fit, I think, your criteria, but are much harder to say the experiencers were irrational but randomly correct.

Let me sum up for you:
- One can only come to a rational conclusion based on the information they themselves have.
- Different information available might lead to different conclusions.
- A conclusion being rational is no guarantee of being correct.
- A rational conclusion is merely a possible conclusion that satisfies Occam's Razor, but still based on the available information.
- Rational conclusions should not be the be-all and end-all of a response - especially where potential consequences are serious.

Your "experiencer", if unable to provide all the information to someone else, will possibly reach a different conclusion. Both might still be rational.

When someone says "your conclusion is irrational" - they generally mean "Your conclusion is irrational TO ME".


Hope this clarifies matters somewhat.

 

[iceaura]

This does not mean that they belief there is no God,
but it does seem to mean they believe
currently all belief in God is irrational and based on insufficient evidence.

I rarely see an atheist who leaves open the possibility that someone could be making a rational decision to believe in God based on their own experiences and the atheist is simply is pointing out that these experiences cannot be used to prove the existence of God to the atheist.

Abstractions do create room for possibilities, in the real world. You are dealing with atheists who argue the matter - a subset.

The question of whether the judgment that all belief in God is irrational and based on insufficient evidence, is itslef a belief, as a matter of real world behavior , is complicated. It depends on which God is really present in the argument, for one thing. It also combines "irrational" too closely with "insufficient evidence" - it is not irrational to hold a belief with insufficient evidence, necessarily. But it is sometimes.

My judgment that an omnipotent being cannot exist, and belief in one is irrational, and therefore cannot be based on sufficient evidence, is not the same as my belief that certain kinds of anthropomorphic personifications derived from spiritual reality are mistakes for some cultures, and literal belief in them not only irrational but dangerous.

In introducing the first sight of the Europeans for discussions of irrational belief given insufficient evidence, the nature of a belief in a God should not be forgotten. The Indians who rejected assertions that Gods had arrived on the shore, and should be worshipped, were correct and should have been heeded.

That is so regardless of what they did believe had happened, rather than just suspending judgment, if anything in particular - it may have varied by sceptic.

 

[Frud11]

Beliefs are irrelevant in comparison to the objective truth.
...

Belief in A: the positive assertion that A is the truth;
Belief in not-A: the positive assertion that A is not the truth;
Non-belief in A: no positive assertion regarding A as truth or not.

Three separate positions regarding A.

The first statement looks a bit sweeping, you're sure "objective truth" isn't related to what anyone believes?

The last in that list: "Non-belief", does not exist. You have constructed it out of an argument that isn't actually logical. You're arguing its existence by affirming its precedent.
There are only two things in your list: A is true, and A is not true. Belief cannot have an inverse (or a zeroth element).

You believe, no doubt, that you need to breathe. If you don't believe it, and hold your breath, you'll quickly discover (in a minute or so), that your "non-belief" is an invalid one. Especially if you happen to be in a locked trunk, bound with heavy chains, at the bottom of a swimming pool.

Non-belief simply does not exist. Your claim that it's a lack of positive assertion regarding the truth or falsity of some explanation (of observed phenomena) is only actually possible if you know nothing at all about it.

A tribesman living at this moment in Amazonia somewhere, whose people have avoided (like the plague) Western contact, probably doesn't know about television. He can't form any belief (assign any kind of meaning or theory of its existence), because he hasn't seen a TV, ever. He has heard nothing about TVs (and could well be ignorant of elephants).

There is belief, or there is no knowledge of anything to believe (or disbelieve). There is no third man.

 

[Sarkus]

The first statement looks a bit sweeping, you're sure "objective truth" isn't related to what anyone believes?

I'm saying beliefs are irrelevant when next to the objective truth - i.e. your belief could be correct, wrong, nearly right - it is the objective truth that is important.

The last in that list: "Non-belief", does not exist.

So you keep saying - and so I have explained to you again and again and again.

You have constructed it out of an argument that isn't actually logical. You're arguing its existence by affirming its precedent.

Not at all - I am merely stating the 3 situations that arise regarding the belief in existence of something.

There are only two things in your list: A is true, and A is not true. Belief cannot have an inverse (or a zeroth element).

I agree - belief cannot have an inverse IF YOU HAVE A BELIEF.
NOT HAVING A BELIEF is NOT the inverse of having a belief - it is the ABSENCE of belief.
But there are 3 things in that list - belief in A, belief in not-A, and no-belief.

You believe, no doubt, that you need to breathe.

No need to believe it at all - it is a fact - beyond doubt. Analogy is thus irrelevant.

Non-belief simply does not exist. Your claim that it's a lack of positive assertion regarding the truth or falsity of some explanation (of observed phenomena) is only actually possible if you know nothing at all about it.

Rubbish.

You have even stated yourself in an earlier reply:
ME: "You stand outside a house... You CAN NOT SEE THE KITCHEN.

Can you honestly say that you believe there is a cake on the table?
Can you honestly say that you believe there is NOT a cake on the table?"

YOU: "I can't say anything about what's on a table in a kitchen, or anywhere else, if I can't see that there is a table."

You stated this.
You know what a table is.
You know what a cake is.
Yet you openly admitted that you can not say anything about what's on a table in a kitchen, or anywhere else, if you can't see that there is a table.

You are thus unable to positively assert / believe that a cake is on the table or a cake is not on the table.

By your own admission this is the position you would hold.
And yet now you are arguing that you are unable to hold this position of "non-belief" in this matter?

There is belief, or there is no knowledge of anything to believe (or disbelieve). There is no third man.

Yet you happily take that position despite knowledge - in the above "cake / chair" example.

Why can you not see that this position IS viable, logical and acceptable, when you yourself are prepared to take it in an analogous situation (and remember: analogy is "God = cake-on-a-table", not merely "God = cake").

 

[Frud11]

you openly admitted that you can not say anything about what's on a table in a kitchen, or anywhere else, if you can't see that there is a table.

Yes, I can't see there is a cake inside the house or the bakery I'm standing outside of: this is an objective reality, fact, or truth.

You are thus unable to positively assert / believe that a cake is on the table or a cake is not on the table.

Quite. However, this has no effect whatsoever on my belief that cakes exist, that people who live in houses produce them in kitchens (or maybe they dig a hole in the backyard and use an earth oven), and in bakeries.
Nor does it have the slightest effect on my expectation of finding a cake in a house or a bakery. Not seeing a cake means squat.

By your own admission this is the position you would hold.
And yet now you are arguing that you are unable to hold this position of "non-belief" in this matter?

There is no "non-belief" for me to hold.

Why can you not see that this position IS viable, logical and acceptable, when you yourself are prepared to take it in an analogous situation (and remember: analogy is "God = cake-on-a-table", not merely "God = cake").

What position? This is rubbish.

P.S. I made an error with the contents of your "belief list": The two things it should have in it are: "belief" and ("no experience of", or "no knowledge whatsoever of").
There is: 1) belief/disbelief, and 2) no belief (due to zero experience).

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I can't see there is a cake inside the house or the bakery I'm standing outside of: this is an objective reality, fact, or truth.

Quite. However, this has no effect whatsoever on my belief that cakes exist, that people who live in houses produce them in kitchens (or maybe they dig a hole in the backyard and use an earth oven), and in bakeries.
Nor does it have the slightest effect on my expectation of finding a cake in a house or a bakery. Not seeing a cake means squat.

And this is the point... which I will tell you again:
The question of your information regarding cakes determines whether you are AGNOSTIC or not.
In this case - your understanding of cakes, of bakeries etc - lead you to be NOT AGNOSTIC on the matter.

YOU CONFUSE BEING AGNOSTIC (OR NOT) WITH BEING ATHEIST OR NOT.
THE TWO ARE DIFFERENT POSITIONS - ONE OF BELIEF, ONE OF KNOWLEDGE.

Until you appreciate that difference there is no point in continuing.

There is no "non-belief" for me to hold.

You are getting caught up in terminology of "holding" and "non-belief" or "no belief".
The absence of belief is non-belief / no belief.
If I do not hold any beliefs regarding a matter then I am deemed not to have beliefs. This is what is referred to as "non-belief" - the ABSENCE OF BELIEF.
I don't "hold" an absence of belief - I just do not hold belief.
The same way as I don't hold an absence of $millions in my bank account.

What position? This is rubbish.

The position of non-belief - i.e. holding no beliefs.
This is the weak atheist position.
Which you seem to feel is a matter of belief.

P.S. I made an error with the contents of your "belief list": The two things it should have in it are: "belief" and ("no experience of", or "no knowledge whatsoever of").
There is: 1) belief/disbelief, and 2) no belief (due to zero experience).

And your "disbelief" (although I disagree with that term) and "no belief" are both positions of atheism (strong and weak respectively), although the "no belief" position might not necessarily be "due to zero experience". It might merely mean "insufficient experience".
The "due to zero experience" is part of agnosticism.

Thus we can conclude that those who have no belief (or "hold a position of non-belief"), for whatever reason, are atheist.
And this, as defined, is NOT a position belief - it is a position of absence of belief.



So again:
3 alternatives....

A) To believe God exists: - a positive belief that God exists.
B) To believe God does not exist: - a positive belief that God does not exist.
C) To not believe (i.e. to hold a position of non-belief): - to neither believe God exists or does not exist.

A is Theist... agreed?
Anyone is not a theist is an atheist.... agreed?

B and C are both ATHEIST by the very fact that they ARE NOT THEIST.
The only thing in common between B and C is that they do not hold the specific belief that God exists.

Thus atheism is NOT about belief - it is about the LACK of a VERY SPECIFIC BELIEF.

[Strong atheists (B above) DO have a belief - that god does not exist - but this is not necessary for them to be termed "atheist".]


How much simpler can I make it for you?

 

[Frud11]

But your last two list items are, in fact, two aspects of the same thing. Your list, really has only two things in it.
And those two things, are also the same thing. Your conjecture, that there are three aspects is correct, in a limited sense. To complete it, you need a fourth item: to believe that God either exists, or does not exist.
But this is the same as the first, or a "weaker version". Ultimately, there is no possibility of any of the four, if nothing is ever seen, or heard, or experienced in any way. In the case that there isn't any information, and there isn't any knowledge of its possibility.

You can reduce the entire list (it's four possible ways to "believe") to one item. So my earlier claim stands, there's only belief/disbelief, or there's none at all. Simply put.
1. cake exists
2. cake does not exist
3. cake does not exist neither does it not exist..? (if you say cake doesn't not exist, doesn't this mean you believe it does?)
4. cake either exists or it doesn't exist

Kant defines a lot of different ways we believe/disbelieve, and what ontology/epistemology is supposed to be. But it's all detail, really.
For me, the atheist/agnostic or apostate labels, are to do with belief and its converse: disbelief; or what is called sometimes "lack of belief"--which implies insufficiency, not absence. Absence of belief is, again, because of absence of information or a channel that might deliver any. Not too concerned about the atheist vs agnostic debate TBH.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

The question of whether the judgment that all belief in God is irrational and based on insufficient evidence, is itslef a belief, as a matter of real world behavior , is complicated. It depends on which God is really present in the argument, for one thing. It also combines "irrational" too closely with "insufficient evidence" - it is not irrational to hold a belief with insufficient evidence, necessarily. But it is sometimes.

I could marry you for that last point, thank you. As I am sure you got, I am further arguing that it is very hard for the non-experiencer to know what the experiencer experience, regardless of how articulate the person is about those experiences. Everyone should have experienced how another person's explanation for even mundane experiences they've had can SEEM to fit the words, but is ludicrous and does not fit the experience. 'Yeah, I guess you might be right' we sometimes say when we see the conversation is dead. We have no other way to word it and yet their explanation does not fit.

In introducing the first sight of the Europeans for discussions of irrational belief given insufficient evidence, the nature of a belief in a God should not be forgotten. The Indians who rejected assertions that Gods had arrived on the shore, and should be worshipped, were correct and should have been heeded.

Sure. And I believe most North Americans above what is now Mexico took them as very strange humans. My point there was merely that seeing them and believing they were real figures and not hallucinations, despite whatever technology they had, their skin color, their horrible hygiene, pallor and unhealthy posture and demeanor, their strange clothes was rational. Even though 1) other Natives who did not see them would be quite rational to question their assurance they saw humans and 2) the inability of the experiencers, at certian points, to provide evidence beyond testimony.

I did not raise the issue to bring in Native spiritual beliefs or, for example, the confusions of the Aztecs.

Simply how experiencers of anomalous experience can be rational despite inability to prove.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Let me sum up for you:
- One can only come to a rational conclusion based on the information they themselves have.
- Different information available might lead to different conclusions.
- A conclusion being rational is no guarantee of being correct.
- A rational conclusion is merely a possible conclusion that satisfies Occam's Razor, but still based on the available information.
- Rational conclusions should not be the be-all and end-all of a response - especially where potential consequences are serious.

Your "experiencer", if unable to provide all the information to someone else, will possibly reach a different conclusion. Both might still be rational.

When someone says "your conclusion is irrational" - they generally mean "Your conclusion is irrational TO ME".


Hope this clarifies matters somewhat.

I am content.
The two highlighted areas led me to this state more strongly than the others above them, though I also agree with the others above them.
I congratulate us for having reached agreement. Not to say I assume we showed equal skill getting there. It might have been more you.
That's fine.

 

[Sarkus]

But your last two list items are, in fact, two aspects of the same thing.

They're both aspects of atheism, true, but one requires belief, the other doesn't. The ONLY common aspect is the lack of belief in the existence of God.

Your conjecture, that there are three aspects is correct, in a limited sense. To complete it, you need a fourth item: to believe that God either exists, or does not exist.

WTF???
Are you serious?
How on earth do you claim it is a "belief" to hold that either something exists or not? This isn't a belief - IT IS FACT - SOMETHING MUST EITHER EXIST OR NOT EXIST? It can not do both at the same time - nor can it do neither.
So to "believe" it?
I hope you reread your "fourth item" and appreciate how ludicrous you are sounding.

But this is the same as the first, or a "weaker version". Ultimately, there is no possibility of any of the four, if nothing is ever seen, or heard, or experienced in any way. In the case that there isn't any information, and there isn't any knowledge of its possibility.

And in this case, would you say that there is a lack of belief in that thing's existence?

You can reduce the entire list (it's four possible ways to "believe") to one item. So my earlier claim stands, there's only belief/disbelief, or there's none at all. Simply put.

Yes - you can sum it all up - if you put "belief" in front of everything. But to do so is to utterly miss the differences that you are keen to paper over.
I have tried, and others have tried, time and time again to explain the very simple difference - and show how atheism, at its most general level, is NOT a belief (although "strong" atheism is) - but an absence of the positive assertion / belief that God exists.
There is nothing more to it than that simple concept.

Not too concerned about the atheist vs agnostic debate TBH.

Clearly - because you are confusing the two and don't seem capable of appreciating the difference.
As such it is now pointless to continue this debate with you.

 

[Frud11]

In the case that there isn't any information, and there isn't any knowledge of its possibility.

And in this case, would you say that there is a lack of belief in that thing's existence?

Sure. In the sense of absence of any belief.

This debate, is about belief. I said I'm not so concerned about "missing the differences" between what I perceive as an essentially prosaic argument.

Either you believe something, or you don't.
Playing with words like neither and believe, and thinking there might be a difference, of some subtle kind, doesn't appear all that useful to me.

If you claim to be saying you neither believe in the existence, or non-existence of God, fine.
I'm saying that you're saying you don't believe in the non-existence of something, which, logically, can only mean you believe it exists.

SOMETHING MUST EITHER EXIST OR NOT EXIST

Really? Why must it? If you know nothing about it, why must it exist?

 

[Sarkus]

If you claim to be saying you neither believe in the existence, or non-existence of God, fine.
I'm saying that you're saying you don't believe in the non-existence of something, which, logically, can only mean you believe it exists.

And your logic is flawed.
Anyone can tell you that.
"To not believe in X" is not logically the same as "to believe in not-X".

Why oh why oh why is this so hard for you to comprehend???

Really? Why must it? If you know nothing about it, why must it exist?

I'm not saying it must exist - I am saying it must either exist or not exist.
You said: "Your conjecture, that there are three aspects is correct, in a limited sense. To complete it, you need a fourth item: to believe that God either exists, or does not exist."
The bit in bold is saying that there is an option to believe that "God either exists or not". Do you not find this an odd statement?
If not - name something that does not either exist or not exist?

 

[Frud11]

...there is an option to believe that "God either exists or not". Do you not find this an odd statement?
If not - name something that does not either exist or not exist?

You should keep asking yourself that "why oh why?" question.

To believe something, is only a possibility if there is experience (even second-hand). So, of course, if you are told (without actually going and seeing it with your own two eyes), about some wondrous beast called a giraffe, that you have never seen or imagined could exist, do you, or can you form any belief about giraffes?

How about the belief that giraffes, though it has never crossed your mind previously, might actually exist, somewhere on the planet? Or outside the big forest you live in (the one you haven't ever seen any giraffes in, despite wandering around in it your whole life)? The belief that giraffes either exist, or they do not exist, is the belief that giraffes may exist, natch.
This would be quite a logical (though conditional, or contingent) belief to have, after being told about giraffes. Maybe after someone drew a picture of a giraffe.

The strange bit is: "To not believe in X" is not logically the same as "to believe in not-X".

Aren't you claiming that this belief, that atheists or agnostics are supposed to have, is a non-belief? That it's "the position", that there is neither a God, nor is there not a God?
That looks illogical. If you believe that a thing neither exists, nor that it does not exist, or you neither believe that it exists, or does not, what exactly are you believing, or rather, what are you "non-believing"? Sorry Jim, but this is not logical, Captain.

Maybe you should go find this Anyone person, perhaps they'll know how to explain it to me...?

 

[Sarkus]

To believe something, is only a possibility if there is experience (even second-hand). So, of course, if you are told (without actually going and seeing it with your own two eyes), about some wondrous beast called a giraffe, that you have never seen or imagined could exist, do you, or can you form any belief about giraffes?

Not rationally, no.
Hence the agnostic atheist position is not a belief - but the lack of belief.

How about the belief that giraffes, though it has never crossed your mind previously, might actually exist, somewhere on the planet? Or outside the big forest you live in (the one you haven't ever seen any giraffes in, despite wandering around in it your whole life)? The belief that giraffes either exist, or they do not exist, is the belief that giraffes may exist, natch.

There is no "belief" regarding whether giraffes may or may not exist. This is a fact.
It is a fact that anything "may or may not exist". No belief required.
Name anything that neither exists nor doesn't exist - or both exists and does not exist.

And religious belief is not a question of probability.
Of course God "might" exist. I do not have the belief that God DOES exist.
Of course God "might not" exist. I do not have the belief that God DOES NOT exist.

This would be quite a logical (though conditional, or contingent) belief to have, after being told about giraffes. Maybe after someone drew a picture of a giraffe.

But there is no "belief" when considering something "might" exist when you have zero or insufficient information on which to make the assessment. It is a FACT that something "might" exist if there is not conclusive evidence to discount it. It is also a FACT that something "might not" exist if there is not conclusive evidence to accept it.

The strange bit is: "To not believe in X" is not logically the same as "to believe in not-X".

Aren't you claiming that this belief, that atheists or agnostics are supposed to have, is a non-belief? That it's "the position", that there is neither a God, nor is there not a God?

It's NOT a belief. It is the absence of a specific belief.

I don't know how many other ways to explain that it is NOT a belief, yet your statement "Aren't you claiming that this belief..." clearly shows you are not listening.

That looks illogical.

Only if you don't understand logic.

If you believe that a thing neither exists, nor that it does not exist,...

No, we do not "believe"...

...or you neither believe that it exists, or does not...

THIS is the position we hold.

...what exactly are you believing, or rather, what are you "non-believing"?

We're not "believing" anything! That's the point. We have NO BELIEF concerning God.
We consider God a possibility - just like anything for which there is insufficient evidence to discount totally has a possibility of existence.
We consider the non-existence of God a possibility - for the same reason.

Sorry Jim, but this is not logical, Captain.

On the contrary - it is the ONLY logical position when there is insufficient evidence to support either the "existence" or "non-existence" of something.

Being a "possibility" is NOT a belief - but FACT - unless you can prove otherwise.



Until a coin lands on one side or the other, it is FACT that it can "possibly" land on heads or tails (or on rare ocassions, the far more unlikely edge).
Do you "believe" that it WILL land on heads?
Do you "believe" that it WILL land on tails?

Or do you merely accept the FACT that all options remain a possibility - due to insufficient of evidence to support any one conclusively.

There is no "belief" that it will possibly land on heads, or tails (or on the edge). This is FACT. No belief necessary.


God's existence IS a possibility.
God's non-existence IS a possibility.
No belief is necessary to accept these.

Belief is only necessary when you take one as truth and the other not.
Agnostic atheism is the choice NOT to believe either as truth.
It is the absence of such belief.
It is thus NOT a belief.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Name anything that neither exists nor doesn't exist - or both exists and does not exist.

The square root of -2.
Real communication.
Circles.
Free will.
Categories
Objects or nouns - as opposed to processes or portions of the whole that are not divided from it.
The self.
The unconscious mind.
Time
Simultaniousness.
Coincidence
The past
The future

 

[Frud11]

It's NOT a belief. It is the absence of a specific belief.

It is so a belief, you don't seem to see this. You cannot say "I don't believe", unless you also believe that there is a possibility of that which you disbelieve to actually exist.

It is a fact that anything "may or may not exist". No belief required.

Rubbish. You mean it is a fact that you can imagine anything that might possibly exist (which does not make it exist). It has to be seen. Or told about, suggested. There simply has to be some idea or other. If there is, you can't say "no there is no idea, and I have not formed any idea", because you also do have an idea of this God that you claim to have no belief in, and no not-belief in, or whatever it is.

Name anything that neither exists nor doesn't exist - or both exists and does not exist.

This is what I'm saying you're doing.

And religious belief is not a question of probability.
Of course God "might" exist. I do not have the belief that God DOES exist.
Of course God "might not" exist. I do not have the belief that God DOES NOT exist.

But you do have these beliefs, how could you possibly form any sort of opinion about what you believe about the truth of God's existence, otherwise?

We're not "believing" anything! That's the point. We have NO BELIEF concerning God.

But you do. You can't convince yourself that you don't, either. You are believing. You believe you have no belief in a specific, as you say, "subject", or thing, i.e. God.
I don't think God is actually a "thing", as we usually conceive of "things", so that's a bit of a conundrum, right there.

 

[Frud11]

Free will.
Categories
Objects or nouns - as opposed to processes, portions of the whole that are not divided from it.
The self.
The unconscious mind.
Time
Simultaniousness.
Coincidence
The past
The future

You left out meaning. Or I guess Categories sort of has it...

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Wasn't shooting for a complete list. Not even sure I can defend all of them. Just opening the door.

Meaning is a nice one.

Change - as opposed to, say, sequence
color
Imperfection
Any metaphor´s truth.
Literalness

(language in general offers a lot of options)
and since we are arriving here as words on a screen....

 

[Sarkus]

It is so a belief, you don't seem to see this. You cannot say "I don't believe", unless you also believe that there is a possibility of that which you disbelieve to actually exist.

There is no "belief" in possibility - "possibility" is a FACT until proven otherwise.

"God might exist, and God might not exist". This is NOT a "belief". This is a truth of anything whose state of existence can not be proven as fact.
Do you accept this?
If not you are incapable of

But since I DO NOT HAVE THE BELIEF THAT GOD DOES EXIST, I am an atheist.

Rubbish. You mean it is a fact that you can imagine anything that might possibly exist (which does not make it exist).

No - I mean that you can take ANYTHING - ANYTHING AT ALL - and it is a truth - a logical, undeniable truth - that this thing "either exists or does not exist".
i.e. there are two mutually exclusive sets that encompass EVERYTHING: (A) things that exist, (B) things that do not exist. Nothing can be in both (A) and (B). Nothing can be outside both (A) and (B). (A) and (B) have no overlap.

Unless there is proof (which removes it from the realm of "belief")...
It IS a belief to say that something IS in (A)... theists.
It IS a belief to say that something IS in (B)... strong atheists.

It is NOT A BELIEF to say that something is "either in (A) or it is in (B)".
This is what Agnostic (weak) Atheists say.

Do you understand?

This is what I'm saying you're doing.
But you do have these beliefs, how could you possibly form any sort of opinion about what you believe about the truth of God's existence, otherwise?

I don't believe ANYTHING about the "truth of God's existence".
To me, neither option IS TRUE! Both remain possibilities. And as I have shown above, it is NOT A BELIEF to say that both remain possibilities.
How many times do you have to be told!???

But you do. You can't convince yourself that you don't, either. You are believing. You believe you have no belief in a specific, as you say, "subject", or thing, i.e. God.

You really don't know how childish this line of argument is.