Topic: Richard Dawkins declares himself agnostic?

[Shibboleth]

I would call it being an atheist even though he didn't base it on ideology of a set of beliefs.

FTFY

Right which was my point. Now it is important to realize that just because something is that way doesn't mean that that is the only way.

Without writing a big predicate logic statement this gets into a basic fundamental understanding of epistemology with the idea of tabula rosa.

When there were discussions on the possibility of tabula rosa there was talk about the differences in mental states between an infant and an adult in regard to belief and disbelief.

Once again without getting into predicate logic the idea is this...

An infant is at 0. They have they have not experienced something so they have no knowledge of a thing. Once they learn of something they are at a 1. To get back to a zero you have to introduce a -1. This is disbelief which is different than an infant's unbelief.

A person that is witness to an idea and rejects an idea is in a different mental state than someone that does not hold an idea because they are naive to it.

[Vincegamer]

Without writing a big predicate logic statement this gets into a basic fundamental understanding of epistemology with the idea of tabula rosa.

What does a red backgammon game have to do with anything?

But being less silly...

A person that is witness to an idea and rejects an idea is in a different mental state than someone that does not hold an idea because they are naive to it.

Do you recognize a distinction between "rejecting an idea" and "not accepting an idea"?

[Shibboleth]

Do you recognize a distinction between "rejecting an idea" and "not accepting an idea"?

It is the same distinction between rejecting eating broccoli and not accepting eating broccoli. That is to say that other than linguistics they are one and the same with this difference.... Until you are offered broccoli you can only not accept it.... Once you are offered broccoli you can only reject it. This is why an infant is at zero and an adult is at 1. The only way an adult can get back to zero is to introduce a negative.

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

When there were discussions on the possibility of tabula rosa there was talk about the differences in mental states between an infant and an adult in regard to belief and disbelief.

Once again without getting into predicate logic the idea is this...

An infant is at 0. They have they have not experienced something so they have no knowledge of a thing. Once they learn of something they are at a 1. To get back to a zero you have to introduce a -1. This is disbelief which is different than an infant's unbelief.

A person that is witness to an idea and rejects an idea is in a different mental state than someone that does not hold an idea because they are naive to it.

I disagree with this. For me, this is where the word "agnostic" is useful - the person who has heard the arguments and seen the evidence might not actually be in a different position to the person who has never considered the question. Beliefs are not equivalent to numbers and shouldn't be expected to obey axioms about the existence of an additive inverse, or "rules of addition" or whatever. Look 1 + 0 = 1, therefore if I believe an idea and then at the same time I disbelieve the idea this clearly equates to believing the idea! Proof that atheism is the one belief that when added to a pre-existing belief in theism leaves the theistic belief unchanged!! (Utter nonsense of course.)

[Eternally Learning]

Getting back to Dawkins for a moment; I see his scale as a declaration from him that he sees "atheism" as being strictly about unequivocally believing no gods exists.  With this definition, atheism can legitimately be called a belief as it asserts a fact about the universe in direct opposition to the basic fact which any form of theism asserts.  His rating himself at a 6.9 is meant to describe that he lacks such a atheistic belief.

The definition of atheism that I've become comfortable with I describe like this: "The only thing that every single atheist on earth shares universally is that they lack a belief in any god(s)'s existence."  Honestly though, I think that quibbling over what atheism is most legitimately defined as is not only impossible to objectively determine (as language is constantly changing), but ultimately useless.  We know what Dawkins means as plain as day, and whether he describes his stance in the same way we would makes no difference to that reality.  If I ever get into a debate with a theist who tries to base their arguments on people's labels rather than their actual positions, then I try to move the conversation back to the substance.  People who refuse to debate on substance are not interested in having an honest debate, and thus I'm not interested in debating them.

[Shibboleth]

I disagree with this. For me, this is where the word "agnostic" is useful - the person who has heard the arguments and seen the evidence might not actually be in a different position to the person who has never considered the question. Beliefs are not equivalent to numbers and shouldn't be expected to obey axioms about the existence of an additive inverse, or "rules of addition" or whatever. Look 1 + 0 = 1, therefore if I believe an idea and then at the same time I disbelieve the idea this clearly equates to believing the idea! Proof that atheism is the one belief that when added to a pre-existing belief in theism leaves the theistic belief unchanged!! (Utter nonsense of course.)

In all cases a person that has seen or been witness to something is different than a person that has not.

My ones and zeros example is flawed because I do not want to get into the really nasty logic involved in the proof. It is the whole "chair in the other room" thought experiment. I think by the end philosophers had come up with somewhere around 15-20 with differing mental states over whether they believed there was a chair in the other room.

Due to being confronted with bad coffee shop philosophy some atheists try to avoid the label "belief". I have no problem with that... from here on out I am going to use the word "thought". I have a thought of a God and I have a thought that that God is real.

It should also be noted that the default is not always the best. Infants do not know that the world is round. That doesn't mean that the thought that the world is not round is more or less legitimate.

I have more to say on this but I work with someone that has their masters in philosophy with an emphasis on epistemology. I want to get his take on this subject.