Janaya

galiel

No and yes. I don't see them as mutally exclusive. A theist by definition must believe in the supernatural, at least in respect to their god belief. An atheist could theoretically not accept the god claims of the world and still believe in something like ghosts. I do not accept either, at least so far.

My definitions are what I use for myself in my own mind. I believe they are accurate. Again, I do not usually debate with people what they call their beliefs or lack thereof. They can call themselves whatever they wish. (BTW, I was not responding specifically to your post but to the topic of this thread - Atheism defined.)

I do believe that the definition of agnoticism does apply to everyone equally. Either none of us are or we all are. Either way makes it an irrelevant position. And we are left with just theism/atheism.

Peace,
Janaya

P.S. Thanks for clearing up my misimpression.

Goliath

Brian,

First of all, sorry for not responding sooner. I'm absolutely swamped at school.

Hmmmmm.... I'm not sure that those two responses are identical, but I'm willing to go along with you here (for now).

Agreed.

I honestly don't know how to clarify. I hold absolutely no beliefs regarding the supernatural. My set of beliefs regarding the supernatural is empty. ........how else can I phrase it so that it makes more sense to you? I have no idea.

Most certainly! To hold no beliefs regarding elves is merely to answer "No" to every question of the form "Do you believe that X is true?" where X is a propositional statement regarding elves.

I'm afraid it is quite possible. See above.

I hold no beliefs regarding anything supernatural. You are therefore demonstrably wrong.

You are wrong. I am under no such obligation. I may simply have no belief regarding whether or not X is true and say "can you please prove that X is true?" or "can you please provide evidence to indicate that X is true?"

No. I am a living, breathing, counterexample.

Absolutely incorrect--or can you read my mind and prove otherwise?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Edited to say: looking over this thread, you seem to regard me as an agnostic. Fine. What is your term for one who asserts that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists?

(Edited again to fix UBB code)

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Brian63

I'm driving out to the March tonight, and won't be able to respond until early next week probably, unless I get Internet access down in D.C. somehow.

Brian

Goliath

No problem, Brian. Take as much time as you need. Have fun at the march!

I'd be there myself, but I don't have the money to fly to D.C., and I don't have the time to drive there.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Back.

I certainly understand. This past week has been a tiresome one for me too, hence my later than expected reply.

Luckily for us, I do. I will repeat the question that I asked you before that will (I believe) make it crystal clear:

"Is it true that a supernatural realm exists?"

Again, the possible answers that I see that are exhaustive of all possibilities are the ones I provided earlier: more likely yes/more likely no/completely unsure/question isn't intelligible as stated.

When I asked this question before, your answer was "Unknown." I then explained why this answer was vague/not specific enough, and it seems that you agree that it is, since you later said "Agreed" when I pointed out that you can still *believe* in the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural without *knowing* it. You can still hold a belief either way without knowing either way. What I am trying to get to is what you believe, not really what you know. Yes, I know you would respond with "I hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural." However, as I have been attempting to show, such a position is not even a viable option (in my opinion).



So, if I asked that question where X=the proposition that elves do NOT exist, the question would read,

"Do you believe that [elves do not exist] is true?" Your position, as I understand it, is that a person can answer "no" to each question sincerely and honestly. I think otherwise. That is, a person will have an inclination to either believe elves exist or believe elves don't exist. We can't remain "beliefless" on it because, for most of us, the idea that elves exist is a silly idea contrary to everything sensible about the world around us, while for a few others it is actually sensible. Either way, we garner some kind of general reaction to it, either in the positive or the negative. I really don't know how to "prove" this in any way, but I am making an appeal to your own intuition and experience. If you do and still disagree with me, I think we are just at a stalemate.



The very issue under question is whether or not it is actually possible to "hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural." I believe it is not, and so you simply asserting otherwise does not demonstrate that I am wrong. In other words, I believe you do hold beliefs regarding the supernatural, but you are claiming that you do not. I believe this because, again, I believe humans are going to generally garner some feeling of agreement or disagreement with the proposition "The supernatural exists." You may say you do not, and say it a million times, but simply saying it does not demonstrate that I am wrong in any way. I may be wrong, but simply saying that I am does not demonstrate that I actually am.



I am unsure of how to label you, because your stated views I believe are untenable, and we have not gotten to your actual views. So I remain an "agnostic" on whether you are an agnostic or not.



Strong agnostic, objective agnostic, or something similar. I remain an agnostic on whether you actually fit under this definition, but I'd guess you believe you do.

Brian

Goliath

Brian,

I will again answer "unknown."

As it still is.

Uhhh...where was that? How can the answer of "unknown" be vague? It means that I do not know whether or not anything supernatural exists. How can I make such an answer more specific?

I did no such thing. Either I misunderstood what you said, or you put words in my mouth.

Edited to add: Looking back on the thread, I did misunderstand. Just because my answer is "unknown," I do not see why it must follow that I can hold a belief without knowing it. You must still prove that such a thing can happen, and then prove that such a thing has happened to me with regards to the supernatural.

I'm not convinced that this is true.

It is. I hold absolutely no beliefs.

This is true.

Please back up this claim.

And for a possible other few, the idea of the existence of elves is neither silly nor sensible.

I'm not convinced that this need be the case.

My intuition and experience tell me otherwise.

So be it.

Okay, what would you have me do to demonstrate the fact that I hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural? How could Helen, for example, demonstrate that she is a xian? How could a Muslim demonstrate belief in Allah?

Until you gain the ability to read people's minds, wouldn't it be wise to take someone at their word when they say that they believe or don't believe something?

I'm not trying to be facetious when I say that I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding anything supernatural. The principle of the excluded middle dictates that a person must either hold a belief or not hold a belief regarding any specific proposition. Said principle does not say that one must believe that a proposition is true or believe that a proposition is not true.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Brian63

Well, I tried to make clear when I originally asked the question and again later when I responded to your answer of my question that I was trying to get to what you believe, not necessarily what you know. Yes, I do see a difference, and I will provide an example down below.



When we rely on induction, we are relying on evidence and observations in nature to form beliefs. With induction, absolute certainty in knowledge is a luxury we do not have. We are limited to varying degrees of confidence in our beliefs, but fall short of certainty. To borrow the textbook example, you probably believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, but you cannot know it with certainty.

It is unclear in your answer of "unknown" to my question whether you meant that you, in addition to not knowing if the supernatural exists, also do not hold what you consider to be inductive evidence for the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, i.e. whether you believe it without knowing it.

It is important to keep in mind that in this context, I am interpreting "know" in a very strict sense that far exceeds what our inductive experiences can provide. If we are to interpret "know" in a more lenient sense, it will closely resemble the meaning of the term "believe."

As I have maintained throughout, much of this relies on personal experience and intuition. I also do believe that others will observe the same as I have, if they look at it as objectively and sincerely as possible. You obviously hold the contrary position, probably based on your own personal experiences. My own claimed experiences will not convince you, and your own claimed experiences will not convince me. It appears we cannot go any further on this then.

I'll just try and tie up a few loose ends then.



I have tried, but cannot think of anything that would succeed. In other words, you are limited to just claiming that you hold no beliefs, and no action that you could perform would be evidence that that is actually the case. That is not to say that you are wrong, but that it would be impossible to provide convincing evidence to show that you are right to someone who disagrees with you.



These are completely different questions than the one you had just asked, and I am unsure why you grouped them together as if they all belonged together. You are the one claiming that you hold NO beliefs regarding the supernatural, but a Christian and a Muslim obviously would claim that they DO hold beliefs regarding the supernatural, namely that they exist. I would most likely take them at their word for it, because I agree that a person can indeed hold beliefs regarding the supernatural. It is your own position that I differ on.



If such a claim contradicts other evidence, no I would not take them simply at their word. That is the case here.

Actually, no it does not say that (according to my understanding of it). The principle of the excluded middle says (basically) that a state of affairs must be either A or not-A. It says nothing about what a person believes or does not believe.

I agree that a state of affairs must be either A or not-A. I do not agree that humans can adhere so cleanly to such a distinction. We add values, emotions, desires, biases, etc. into our decision-making, and as a result cannot but help but to form opinions and beliefs about various issues. There are no completely objective value-independent beliefs, and all theories about the world are value-laden and subjective.

If you can render yourself completely emotionless, biasless, and valueless then I will believe you that you can hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural. If you cannot, then I believe you will lean one way or the other. Obviously, I do not believe you can render yourself emotionless, biasless, and valueless and thus you cannot help but to form opinions and beliefs about the existence of the supernatural.

Brian

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Goliath

Brian,

Well, you had asked if it was true whether or not anything supernatural exists. Since I do not know, I answered "Unknown." If you had instead asked "Do you believe that the supernatural exists or do you believe that the supernatural does not exist," my response would instead have been "Neither."

Besides, why would you care about beliefs? Beliefs are boring. Knowledge is far more interesting, IMO.

All of the quote above assumes that beliefs on a certain topic are held by the individual in question.

Very good. You have finally hit upon something that I do happen to believe. This is a first for you.

Well, if you wanted to know whether or not I had any evidence of the supernatural, why didn't you ask that instead? Why be so seemingly misleading with your questions?

Just because one possesses evidence of something, that does not imply that one is obligated to believe in said thing.

And my personal experience and intuition defies nearly every argument that you've brought up on this thread. Where does that leave us, then?

Until we are able to probe each other's minds, then no, it appears that we cannot.

Nor can I.

While I would agree that I (for now) have no way of demonstrating that I hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural, I am not nearly convinced that there does not exist an action which would count as evidence that I hold no such beliefs.

I lumped the examples together because it is just as impossible for Helen to prove that she believes in the xian god as it is for me to demonstrate that I hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural.

(And no, I'm not trying to pick on you, Helen, just using you as an example).

You have not demonstrated that it is impossible to hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural, so why would you not take me at my word?

Absolutely incorrect. Replace A with "There exists a belief about the supernatural that Goliath holds." Then either A or not-A is true. From my vantage point, not-A is true. Since my mind is my own and not yours, and since there does not yet exist a way for you to enter my mind and see this for yourself, I don't see why you shouldn't just take me at my word (believe me, I'd love to prove that I hold no such beliefs, but how?).

Opinons? Yes. Beliefs? Not necessarily.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Unfortunately, I'm quickly losing interest in this thread. This will probably be my last post, unless something mildly stimulating comes up. Thanks for contributing anyway folks.



Well, I figured you would answer it that way, and it would then have gotten us nowhere. I asked the question the way I did because it tends to put more focus on the state of affairs of the world rather than the beliefs of a particular person about the world.



As you are so often driven to say, "Please provide proof or retract this claim."



Well Helen can provide (what I consider to be) convincing evidence that she believes the supernatural exists that does not in any way contradict other evidence (or at least what I consider to be evidence), by merely claiming to. The same cannot be said for you, as I indicated earlier. Your claim that you hold no beliefs regarding the supernatural contradicts other evidence (again, or at least what I perceive to be evidence).



I wasn't so much as incorrect as misinterpreting what you meant. I thought you were more defining the principle of the excluded middle when you were really trying to give an application of it.

Anyway, from my vantage point "A" is true, and not "not-A." That is really what this is all about, ins't it?



I would appreciate an elaboration on exactly what you mean by this. How can I form an opinion on an issue without having it constitute a belief?

Brian

[ November 08, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Goliath

Brian,

So then you intentionally warped your question to mislead me? How very dishonest of you.

I had said:

To which you replied:

Well, proof isn't necessary here, just a counterexample to the claim that possessing evidence of a claim implies belief in said claim.

The Goldbach conjecture says that given any even number greater than or equal to six, that number can be written as the sum of two odd primes.

6=3+3
8=5+3
10=5+5
12=7+5
14=7+7
16=11+5
.
.
etc.

Computers have tested this up into the billions. The fact that it holds for some numbers is evidence that the Goldbach conjecture might hold. However, I hold no belief one way or the other as to whether or not the Goldbach conjecture is true.

Therefore your claim that possessing evidence of a claim implies belief in said claim is absolutely, completely, demonstrably false.

And I should care about what you consider to be evidence because........................................... .................................................. .........?

Hmmm, now that I think about it, perhaps I spoke too soon. I guess there's a fine semantic line between opinion and belief.

However, you have yet to prove your claim that it is impossible not to believe on whether or not the supernatural exists. I'd also be interested in a proof of said claim where belief is replaced with holding an opinion.

Sincerely,

Goliath