My position on god(s) and the supernatural.

[Hitsumei]

To oversimplify, the closest philosophical position to the position that I hold is ignosticism. Taken to be separate and distinct from all forms of theism and nontheism. I hold the position that I have not heard an intelligible, coherent, consistent nor meaningful description or definition of either god, the supernatural, or any incarnations of either. So any propositions regarding such concepts I consider to be noncognizant. So I neither deny nor affirm any positions that presuppose them as meaningful. They are merely words, with no intelligible, coherent, nor meaningful referents, neither conceptually, nor actually -- to me.

From this, I take things on a case by case basis, and require strict, consistent, coherent, intelligible, and meaningful descriptions and definitions of controversial stipulations, and reject or accept them on a case to case basis.  If they manage meaningful, and intelligible, but not coherent, nor consistent, then I'll reject them as false, if they cannot manage meaningful, nor intelligible, then I'll dismiss them as noncognizant.

This is why I am neither atheist, theist, nor agnostic. I thus far do not consider the proposition meaningful, so I cannot take a position on it.

With regards to propositions I find meaningful, but unsupported, I take a position of philosophical scepticism, but not to the extent of universal, or Cartesian scepticism. I doubt, only when it is reasonable to doubt -- not merely when it is possible.

A few people seemed to be confused about what position I take on the issue, so I thought that I should outline at least a close approximation for clarity's sake.

[PipeBox]

Very well written.  Couple questions.  I'll ask one at a time.

Do you find the word "believe" to be intelligible, coherent, and possess a meaningful reference?

[Hitsumei]

Very well written.  Couple questions.  I'll ask one at a time.

Do you find the word "believe" to be intelligible, coherent, and possess a meaningful reference?

Both physically and conceptually, yes. Conceptually it is the mental state by which one is willing to behave in a way that assumes the truth of something. Physically it corresponds to a specific brain state, and can be chemically, and physically determined through the examination of the brain during such a state.

Neurology right now is studying the neurology of belief, and although we do not yet have a full picture of what constitutes a physical belief state of the brain, we are working on it, and I see no reason to suppose that we will not ascertain the knowledge in the near future.

[PipeBox]

OK.  Do you personally hold a belief in anything that you would describe as a god?  For our purpose, it doesn't matter what your concept of this god is.  If it entails all the details of a hammer, I won't argue, but I'll think it a bit weird.  If you find the concept impossibly nonsensical, then you, by definition, cannot hold any belief in it.

[Hitsumei]

OK.  Do you personally hold a belief in anything that you would describe as a god?  For our purpose, it doesn't matter what your concept of this god is.  If it entails all the details of a hammer, I won't argue, but I'll think it a bit weird.  If you find the concept impossibly nonsensical, then you, by definition, cannot hold any belief in it.

I think you need to read my OP again.

[PipeBox]

I suppose I did need to read it again, I'm a little dense from time to time.  You refuse to say you don't believe in any gods because the word is an abstract.  Does this mean if we nail it down with a certainty, even if it is internally inconsistent, but defined, that you can acknowledge that you don't believe in a given concept?  Right now, I see you as more at odds with the lexicon, where god has a general meaning as well as inferred meaning based on one's religion's more thorough description of god, than with disclaiming a belief in any given god.  Is this correct?

[Hitsumei]

You refuse to say you don't believe in any gods because the word is an abstract.  

I didn't say that. Mathematics are abstractions, but formulas that are meaningful, intelligible, consistent, coherent, and contain truth condition are plentiful.  

I said that I cannot take a position on a issue that is not meaningfully, intelligibly, consistently, nor coherently outlined. Such an issue lacks truth conditions.

Tantamount to the question "is glarganflogoer true or false?" One can't reasonably take a position with regard to something that is meaningless, and lacks truth conditions.  

Does this mean if we nail it down with a certainty, even if it is internally inconsistent, but defined, that you can acknowledge that you don't believe in a given concept?  

I said: "If they manage meaningful, and intelligible, but not coherent, nor consistent, then I'll reject them as false." If it does not cohere with established knowledge and understanding, or is internally inconsistent, and self-refuting, then I will take the position that it is false. I will say that I believe it to be false.

Right now, I see you as more at odds with the lexicon, where god has a general meaning as well as inferred meaning based on one's religion's more thorough description of god, than with disclaiming a belief in any given god.  Is this correct?

I'm not at odds with anyone. I hold simply that I have yet to hear a definition or description of any supernatural, and theistic postulate that was meaningful, intelligible, coherent, or consistent.

[PipeBox]

Hrm, OK, guess I'm a simpler person.  I'll inspect any religion that falls into my lap until I find a problem with it that cannot be surmounted by myself or its followers then say I do not believe in it.  I'll not say it's impossible, just that the problems seem insurmountable so that I do not believe in it.  It seems easy enough to evaluate for me.  Your truth condition example was faulty, though, me thinks.  Equivalent to asking "Is 1 true or false?" to which the reply, I think, should be "In what way?" rather than claiming it to be incoherent or unintelligible.  In this case, the question is what is broken, not the concept of 1.  Similarly, asking whether you believe in gods, as you've yet heard them described to you, sounds quite a bit different to me than "Does God enjoy flossing with the reverse salad?" or "Does the reverse salad enjoy thinking about God?"

To me, the concept of God as a supreme being having the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence, who desires a personal relationship with every human being, who provided divine inspiration to a chosen few on Earth who wrote holy books describing God and its works has yet to verified.  Ergo, I do not believe in it.  It seems cut-and-dried enough for me to make that statement.

Sorry, maybe I just don't grasp the thought process.  
It seems reasonable enough, but I've never seen the idea of gods as being so poorly defined as to warrant the statement that I cannot make any claims, not even the claim of lacking enough knowledge to answer, in regards to it.  But in the event that this is the case, you're clearly in the right, as I could never make claims of the reverse salad.

[Hitsumei]

Hrm, OK, guess I'm a simpler person.  I'll inspect any religion that falls into my lap until I find a problem with it that cannot be surmounted by myself or its followers then say I do not believe in it.  I'll not say it's impossible, just that the problems seem insurmountable so that I do not believe in it.  It seems easy enough to evaluate for me.  Your truth condition example was faulty, though, me thinks.  Equivalent to asking "Is 1 true or false?" to which the reply, I think, should be "In what way?" rather than claiming it to be incoherent or unintelligible.  In this case, the question is what is broken, not the concept of 1.  Similarly, asking whether you believe in gods, as you've yet heard them described to you, sounds quite a bit different to me than "Does God enjoy flossing with the reverse salad?" or "Does the reverse salad enjoy thinking about God?"

You still don't grasp what I'm saying. "1" holds meaning, supernatural, and theistic postulates do not. They are vacuous, nebulous, empty, meaningless. I know what "1" means. We both do. When I say "1" you, me, and pretty well everyone who reads it will know what it means. The meaning is not controversial.  

To me, the concept of God as a supreme being having the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence, who desires a personal relationship with every human being, who provided divine inspiration to a chosen few on Earth who wrote holy books describing God and its works has yet to verified.  Ergo, I do not believe in it.  It seems cut-and-dried enough for me to make that statement.

That is because you go directly from what "god" is suppose to be, to its purported attributes. You just accept it without definition or description. I don't.

Humans beings have an inclination to think they understand and know something, when they do not. So regardless of whether or not what they are talking about makes any sense at all, or holds no actual meaning, it does not stop them from talking about it.

I could go on and on telling you all about what glarganflogoer thinks feels, wants, does, and its abilities without having given you the slightest idea about what it is suppose to actually be.

Both god and the supernatural are always defined in negatives when you asked for a description, or definition for what it is. They are not natural, not material, not physical, not of this universe, not A B and C -- never what it in fact is. Negative definitions are meaningless, and merely play into the cognitive bias that supposes a contrast and opposite to everything. So it holds meaning to people on an intuitive level because they suppose that all of those things ought to have something to contrast with them.

[McQ]

To oversimplify, the closest philosophical position to the position that I hold is ignosticism. Taken to be separate and distinct from all forms of theism and nontheism. I hold the position that I have not heard an intelligible, coherent, consistent nor meaningful description or definition of either god, the supernatural, or any incarnations of either. So any propositions regarding such concepts I consider to be noncognizant. So I neither deny nor affirm any positions that presuppose them as meaningful. They are merely words, with no intelligible, coherent, nor meaningful referents, neither conceptually, nor actually -- to me.

From this, I take things on a case by case basis, and require strict, consistent, coherent, intelligible, and meaningful descriptions and definitions of controversial stipulations, and reject or accept them on a case to case basis.  If they manage meaningful, and intelligible, but not coherent, nor consistent, then I'll reject them as false, if they cannot manage meaningful, nor intelligible, then I'll dismiss them as noncognizant.

This is why I am neither atheist, theist, nor agnostic. I thus far do not consider the proposition meaningful, so I cannot take a position on it.

With regards to propositions I find meaningful, but unsupported, I take a position of philosophical scepticism, but not to the extent of universal, or Cartesian scepticism. I doubt, only when it is reasonable to doubt -- not merely when it is possible.

A few people seemed to be confused about what position I take on the issue, so I thought that I should outline at least a close approximation for clarity's sake.

That is so sexy!  

[PipeBox]

Ooooh, I get it.  But I still say it's bad enough that I find its attributes to be in conflict, and wanting in comparison to reality.  It's enough that I could dismiss anything with those attributes, even if we made it glarganflogoer.  So, it's more that I hold no belief in the attributions of gods, rather than in the beings themselves.

So I'm something of an ignostic, attribute agnostic atheist.

[Hitsumei]

That is so sexy!  

Not too sure if I should take this as a complement or not. The fictional lawyer's Wikipedia page was not exactly flattering.

[McQ]

That is so sexy!  

Not too sure if I should take this as a complement or not. The fictional lawyer's Wikipedia page was not exactly flattering.

In all seriousness, it's a compliment. The Denny Crane reference was intended to mimic the pattern of the typical alpha male who finds himself irresistible to women. He likes their brains and intellect insofar as it gets him the opportunity to banter them into bed with him. It's pretty funny when you see it because he often gets cut off at the knees.

The reason I did the mimic is because I find genius in writing and it is a very attractive trait. Strength of wit, and the skill to elucidate a proposal or argument is something my wife has and I love it. I find it to be one of the things that attracts me to her.

Wanted to give you the compliment without coming off too creepy and icky. Well, maybe a little icky.  

Either way, I like what you wrote very much.

[Hitsumei]

In all seriousness, it's a compliment. The Denny Crane reference was intended to mimic the pattern of the typical alpha male who finds himself irresistible to women. He likes their brains and intellect insofar as it gets him the opportunity to banter them into bed with him. It's pretty funny when you see it because he often gets cut off at the knees.

The reason I did the mimic is because I find genius in writing and it is a very attractive trait. Strength of wit, and the skill to elucidate a proposal or argument is something my wife has and I love it. I find it to be one of the things that attracts me to her.

Wanted to give you the compliment without coming off too creepy and icky. Well, maybe a little icky.  :blink:

[McQ]

In all seriousness, it's a compliment. The Denny Crane reference was intended to mimic the pattern of the typical alpha male who finds himself irresistible to women. He likes their brains and intellect insofar as it gets him the opportunity to banter them into bed with him. It's pretty funny when you see it because he often gets cut off at the knees.

The reason I did the mimic is because I find genius in writing and it is a very attractive trait. Strength of wit, and the skill to elucidate a proposal or argument is something my wife has and I love it. I find it to be one of the things that attracts me to her.

Wanted to give you the compliment without coming off too creepy and icky. Well, maybe a little icky.  :blink:

Well, I guess it would be too creepy. Sorry. Jokes like that just never come off well in here.

It was still well written. Good job.