Frank Apisa wrote:Implicator wrote:
So would you refer to yourself as an unbeliever in god(s), as opposed to a disbeliever? (I am guessing that as an agnostic you not only claim to lack knowledge "one way or the other", but you even claim to lack belief).
I do not like the word "believe"...mostly because it seems to have different meanings to different people...and I never use it to describe anything about how I feel, think, opine, suppose, guess, suggest, or the lot. I'm not sure what "unbeliever" or "disbeliever" mean either.
I've give[n] a fairly concise statement of my agnosticism.
Yes, you have - yet I am a bit confused as to your hesitancy to use the term "belief" while describing yourself. Belief is a rather straightforward thing, I think. I suspect you already know the common meaning of the word - if not, it is readily available in the dictionary. And although
you may not choose to use the word "belief" while describing your "thinking, opining, etc., you shouldn't be surprised when other people choose to do so.
The word "belief" has a fairly clear definition, and so any person (including myself) can and probably will take your particular "concise statement of agnosticism", and interpret it to mean that you are one who lacks a belief in the existence of any gods.
Think of it this way. I can ask you "Frank, do you believe that any gods exist?" You could answer "yes", which it seems fairly clear you wouldn't do, based on your description of your agnosticism. Or, you could answer "no", which would be what I would have expected you to say, based on your description of yourself. Those are really the only two answers to the specific question I ask, unless you want to argue that it is a category error to ask you about your belief about gods in the first place.
Your concise statement of agnosticism
logically translates to an answer of "no" to my specific question of "do you believe that any gods exists?" Even if you say that you "hold no beliefs about the existence of any gods" (which is what it seems you are trying to say), this logically translates to an answer of "no" to my question.
Although an answer of "yes" to the question "is it true you do not believe any gods exist" may be
inadequate, as it seems you want to say more than just that, it is still a truthful answer to the question.
I am not spending so much time on this single point because I want you to use the word "belief" when talking about the existence of gods - I can logically conclude that you are, in essence, claiming to not have any belief. Rather, I want you to understand I will probably use the term
unbeliever or
unbelief while referring to you - and here is why.
Unbelief - a lack of belief in something (e.g. "I do not believe there are any gods" and possibly even "I also do not believe there are NOT any gods").
Disbelief - a belief in a lack of something (e.g. "I believe there are no gods").
The fact that you do not claim to have a belief about the existence of gods would indicate that you are an unbeliever (a lack of belief in gods), as opposed to a disbeliever (one believing that no gods exist).
With that said, I am interested to see how you respond to my comments.
===
Quote:In any case, I would NEVER refer to myself as an "unbeliever" or "disbeliever"...whatever those words mean. I think it would be better if I described what I am and feel...as opposed to labeling it...and possibly giving a wrong impression. That is, after all, why I explain my agnosticism...as opposed to simply calling myself an agnostic.
See above as to the definitions of these terms. And I really do appreciate your concise definition of agnosticism.
===
Quote:In religious discussions, it is my opinion that the word "believe" is used to disguise the fact that the person is making a guess about the unknown.
I can hold to a belief in something completely on faith (with insufficient information) - you might possibly equate that to guessing, but even if that is the case, it doesn't change the fact that I have a belief in something. This is true whether the object in question is a god, or a piece of cheese.
In short, I can hold to a belief either as the result of a guess, or not. One does not preclude the other.
===
Quote:I decline to make guesses for or against the existence of God or gods...for reasons I've already stated.
You said you have never seen evidence which was non-ambiguous enough to warrant a guess - is that what you are referring to?
===
Quote:Quote:I think we can move beyond this point, as you have sufficiently clarified your point for me. Also, I hope you forgive my propensity to wax Socratic, but I have another question for you, one that seems (at least to me) to be the logical next step.
You claim you have been presented evidence for the existence of a god, yet at the same time you state that such evidence has been insufficient to move you from unbelief to belief.
I never said anything of the sort....and short of being tortured or threatened with death, I doubt that I ever will say anything like that.
But it seems to me you
have said this, although not using the concise wording I chose to use. Your position can accurately be described as one who is in a state of unbelief when it comes to the question of a God or gods, as I outlined above. You have also stated you have seen no evidence which is clear enough to get you to make a guess in either direction. Therefore, I see nothing inaccurate in my portrayal of what you are telling me. Even if I have chosen to use different terms, the terms still seem to be consistent with your stated position.
===
Quote:Quote: I wonder have you ever considered that there may be nothing wrong with the sufficiency of the evidence, but rather with how you evaluate ("process") it? Let me illuminate what I am trying to say.
I consider there to be three elements to reviewing evidence and reaching a conclusion. There may be more ways to slice this up - I happen to take the following approach. First, there is the evidence itself. Second, there is the person evaluating the evidence. Third, there is the process the person uses to evaluate the evidence - the glue that holds the first two elements together.
You have been presented with evidence for the existence of a god, yet you find it to be less than compelling. The conclusion you reach is based not only on the evidence, but also on the process you employ to evaluate that evidence. Do you feel it is possible that your process is wrong, which entails that the conclusions you come to based on the evidence may also be wrong?
Of course it is possible. Anything that is not impossible is possible.
Well since it
is possible, and the question of the existence of any number of specific gods could potentially have a major impact on both your present and your future, I wonder if this feeling that it is possible your process could be wrong has ever turned into thoughtful consideration - "serious thought", if you will?
===
Quote:That having been said, however...I have considered the evidence for the existence of God (and I have considered the evidence that there are no gods)...and I find that evidence to be pitifully short of being convincing.
I have no idea of why anyone else would consider the evidence available sufficient to guess that there is a God....or why anyone would consider it sufficient to guess there are no gods...
...but I do not.
Are you saying no person has ever tried to explain to you why they are convinced either way, or are you saying their explanations just don't cut it?
===
Quote:Give me some idea of how you want to proceed with this line of discussion...and I will be happy to go further.
Well, I am really hoping to press the issue of "process" at this point, if you are willing to continue this.
