Dishonest Philosophy

I'd say you're right.

Yes, that (probably unconscious) bias, and primarily rhetorical, argument-winning-no-matter-what, purpose seems to always be present in metaphysical discussions. That just seems to be the way it is.

When I hear arguments against something I've said, I take them seriously enough to say, with as many words as necessary, how I answer it. ...to explain why I hadn't considered it a problem, &/or now don't.

But I don't want to give a rhetorical, trial-lawyier-like answer, playing to convince an audience, if there isn't a sincere reason why I really don't consider the objection a problem.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I get the impression from discussions on the internet and reading philosophers that people are not being honest or honest about their biases.

What if they don't know what their biases actually are? They might not be dishonest -- they might not have adequately examined themselves. Biases, like a lot of other influences, operate subconsciously.

For instance, I have a bias in favor of theism; not just any old theism, but mainline Protestant theism. I am probably never really objective when it comes to the topic of God. Even though I claim to be an atheist, that theistic bias is still ticking away down there in level 93 of the subconscious, and I can't keep track of what all it's influencing, at any given moment.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

they are not given equal weight to all arguments

Not all arguments deserve equal weight.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

For example I think discussions about the nature of mind can be influenced by peoples metaphysical commitments and to some extent they have ruled out alternatives and or are committed to rejecting alternatives.

Sure, but what if there's good reasons for one's metaphysical commitments?

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I suppose the difference is between looking for evidence of black swans

But what would the black swans look like in the case of God? Would it look like the show Supernatural?

Quoting Andrew4Handel

But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view.

A similar issue is with God debates. I think some people are so committed to favouring gods non existence that they are not given equal weight to all arguments (but they don't explicitly state this)

Yes I'm surprised sometimes by the unrecognized, or at least unacknowledged, presuppositions people bring to the philosophical party.

But there are commitments one develops in one's life. I realized in a chat on the #metoo topic that I'm very committed to supporting a rather pedantic, anti-wishy-washy but pro-feminist viewpoint. I've loved and been loved by feminists, spent much of my working life among more women than men, read a lot in the subject area...so I find myself with baggage. Could I retrace my steps back to first principles in such debates? I believe I could, but it would take quite a long essay not a snappy forum response. And honestly, I've had such debates in the past, now I'm interested in other things.

So I move on. Gods are another case in point: I was brought up in an agnostic household so arguments in favour of a single capitalised God come to me as very much an intellectual exercise. I am interested in religious feeling, and I realize now I'm old that's partly because my parents had such feelings: but my Dad had lost his Catholic faith over the Pope's actions in the war and after, and my Mum's religion was one of practice rather than belief. So I can't help, because of my life, being 'committed to favouring gods non existence', at least compared to someone who was brought up with monotheism, or who thinks monotheistic 'belief' is something I should take more seriously. These things are dialectical rather than absolute, I suggest.

The areas I'm interested in, where I have less baggage - like philosophy of language, epistemology, and virtue ethics - there I have tried hard to strip away my presuppositions and be 'open-minded'. But one can't be vacuous in being open. One brings one's experience and understanding from elsewhere to bear on new topics. Open-mindedness then involves entertaining novel ideas, or new evidence, or challenges to one's preconceptions from surprising angles. But there must be qualifications to get through the gateway of open-mindedness. If other people show prejudice, or show what looks like a dodgy attitude to evidence, or adopt a bullying or self-justifying tone (I find that happens too much), then I'm liable to switch off and turn away. Unless I fancy the challenge!

Reply to Andrew4Handel

Perhaps this is useful. You seem to be fretting about (or just objecting to) an impure source of ideas. The biased though-factory outputs bad ideas, you seem to be saying.

But we could also focus on criteria for testing ideas independent of their source. Popper comes to mind. With philosophy as opposed to science that is perhaps more difficult. For how are these criteria themselves justified?

On the other hand, why are we biased against bias to begin with? We probably think bias leads to an output that already fails a functioning if imperfectly articulated criterion.

If we want things other than unbiasedness, then we can just ideas roughly as more or less successful ways to get these things. We might also question whether we value unbiasedness directly or only secondarily. If the point is to make the world nice, then we might only care about accurately modeling the world so that we can effectively modify our experience or model of it. (This is admittedly tangled stuff, but I think looking at motives thins the fog a little bit.)

Reply to mcdoodle (Y) Great post.

Reply to Andrew4Handel To a very large extent Western academic philosophy is more of a game than an inquiry into nature the nature. Course work mundane relying mostly on studying the same philosophers over and over and use using the same game of logic to find "Truth", which of course everyone disagrees about.

Philosophy has lost its purpose because it has left itself no purpose. It has ceded all rights to inquire into the nature of nature to "science", having been taught (force fed) that only science has the real tools and knowledge to understand life. Hogwash. Science has the worse tools and the greatest biases, yet there is no one left to watch the hen house, while philosophers play their logic games. What philosophers should be doing is studying life, all of life, with a critical eye and revealing new ideas and thoughts about the nature of life. The Mind is constantly evolving. Where are the new thoughts? Suppressed?

There is inquiry going on here and there (e.g Stephen E. Robbins, Jimena Casales, Rupert Sheldrake) but it is quickly marginalized or quashed by the materialist police leaving philosophers only to play the game "Does God Exist?".

Quoting Andrew4Handel

A similar issue is with God debates. I think some people are so committed to favouring gods non existence that they are not given equal weight to all arguments (but they don't explicitly state this). I suppose the difference is between looking for evidence of black swans and looking for evidence black swans don't exist (confirmation bias).

The difference is the only evidence for God's existence are the words of human beings that have an emotional stake in their belief being true. Why don't we give equal weight to the positive claims of the existence of Thor, unicorns and Elvis being alive?

Quoting Andrew4Handel

But a lot of debates or enquiries are not like this...... and so I think biases can be disguised. For example I think discussions about the nature of mind can be influenced by peoples metaphysical commitments and to some extent they have ruled out alternatives and or are committed to rejecting alternatives. But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view.

A position, a belief, is not a bias. A gun rights activist is not rationalizing a bias, she is defending a position.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

But a lot of debates or enquiries are not like this...... and so I think biases can be disguised. For example I think discussions about the nature of mind can be influenced by peoples metaphysical commitments and to some extent they have ruled out alternatives and or are committed to rejecting alternatives. But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view.

Of course discussions about the nature of mind are influenced by people's metaphysical commitments. That's what metaphysical commitments are for, they provide an intellectual foundation on which our understanding of the world can be supported. The whole point of reason is to provide a place where we can all meet and lay our thinking out to be examined. That's why clarity is as important as truth.

Something I've been thinking about a lot - In my experience, the primary place where bias comes into play is in the choice of questions rather than the answers. Within a discussion of a particular issue, we can use reason to expose faulty assumptions and biases. A particular choice of an issue to be discussed is not generally examined in the way our positions are.

Quoting Marchesk

But what would the black swans look like in the case of God?

I didn't say that there was a black swan equivalent of gods but I was using that example of how the evidence in that case was misleading and favoured confirmation bias.
Also although the Black swan comment was attached to the gods comment I didn't intend it only to refer to that.This is hard for me to articulate as I would like to. However I'll try.

Because white swans existed that suggests that black swans (or green swans) are not a metaphysical impossibility. But every new white swan that appeared increased peoples certainty that being white was the hallmark of being a swan. It would have been hard for people to imagine any other type of swan because of over familiarity with one model.

In terms of evidence of gods. I think evidence of creation/creativity in human culture and volition, sentience and intelligence raise the possibility of an intelligent sentient volitional creator. If you only look for certain types of evidence or concept is it is going to rule our the possibility of gods. In short I don't think the evidence is transparent. (It is like looking for evidence of meaning in physics as opposed to a novel)

But overall I don't think it is healthy to approach an investigation attempting to only support, defend and prove your own preference. I am a kind of natural devils advocates who seems naturally contrary & not prone to revel in agreement.

Quoting T Clark

A position, a belief, is not a bias. A gun rights activist is not rationalizing a bias, she is defending a position

I feel that gun activists are rationalising a bias.

I don't think you could come to a position in a gun debate in the context of the United States culture simply on reason alone. If someone owns several guns which they have easy access to that does not seem to put them in a very objective position.

I am sure we all have to rationalise our biases. A bias may simply be personal experience but then you have to defend the applicability of generalising from personal experience.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I don't think you could come to a position in a gun debate in the context of the United States culture simply on reason alone. If someone owns several guns which they have easy access to that does not seem to put them in a very objective position.

Based on the standard you seem to be applying, I can't think of any opinion that would be considered rational rather than biased. It seems as if you're saying that taking any position on a question exposes your prejudices. I think that's a misuse of the word. Having an opinion is not a bias.

Quoting Harry Hindu

The difference is the only evidence for God's existence are the words of human beings that have an emotional stake in their belief being true. Why don't we give equal weight to the positive claims of the existence of Thor, unicorns and Elvis being alive?

There was no evidence of black swans in Europe but absence of evidence didn't mean evidence of absence. I am not talking about giving equal wait to basic claims but to arguments.Arguments for gods like fine-tuning and first cause do not apply to unicorns etc.

The equivalent evidence arguments would be a paw print in the snow which is indirect evidence. Indirect evidence creates a weaker commitment in my opinion but some atheists seem only to be looking for direct immediate evidence of gods when there are other forms of evidence.

I have not ruled out unicorns but nothing important hinges on their existence. I find the ambiguity of evidence and a lack of knowledge unsettling personality I feel that positions of certainty may be defence mechanisms.

Quoting T Clark

Based on the standard you seem to be applying, I can't think of any opinion that would be considered rational rather than biased. It seems as if you're saying that taking any position on a question exposes your prejudices. I think that's a misuse of the word. Having an opinion is not a bias.

I do think reaching a position involves biases that is why it is important to examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis.

I am not saying no one should have biases but that they shouldn't hide them and should also justify them.

As a Person living in the UK I have no vested interested in the American gun debates so it is hard for me to have a bias there because the outcome also doesn't impact me.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I do think reaching a position involves biases that is why it is important to examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis.

We are using the same words to mean different things. I like the way I'm using them. You probably like the way you are. There's nowhere for this to go.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis.

How does one examine without bias? Did you recognize your own in your OP?

Observing patterns allows for new insights into the nature of nature. We all carry our experiences (biases) into all inquiry. The trick is to observe them all.

Reply to Andrew4Handel The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

Quoting Starthrower

Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

Of course people can hold whatever beliefs they have, and even burning at the stake may not change them (apparently).

But if one wishes to learn more about life and nature it may be possible to do so by developing greater skills in observation (not logic). With observation, one can recognize patterns and become more connected to the nature of life and the nature of nature. It's like being a detective.

I am not precluding the possibility that someone might choose to be dormant in life and just hope some epiphany may materialize, and if someone tried it out and it's successful, it would be great to hear about it.

This is what I read that triggered me to make the opening post. It is an introduction to a podcast.

"He defends a perspective on human morality that he describes as an “oughtology” based in naturalism, gleaned from comparing Western, Chinese, and Indian moral traditions. Flanagan, a professor of philosophy at Duke University, considers how diverse moral traditions converge on some features basic to moral psychology, such as compassion, yet differ in other ways, such as whether anger is a justified and beneficial moral emotion or whether it should be extirpated. He also examines different views of the self, including the Buddhist view in which there is no self."

http://newbooksnetwork.com/owen-flanagan-the-geography-of-morals-varieties-of-moral-possibility-oxford-up-2017/

I felt exasperated reading that because it seems like prevarication and someone trying to support a quite rigid metaphysical position with superficial fusion of suggestively similar ideologies.

I am going to listen to the podcast now but I avoided it before after reading the blurb.

I think moral nihilism is the default position that evidence needs to be brought against in moral studies as opposed to assuming there is a morality to be had and sewing something flimsy together.

Reply to Andrew4Handel I would call this jumping to conclusions. I read the synopsis quite differently. It sounds interesting and explorative in nature, inquiring into the similarities and differences of cultures which might lead to interesting new observations. As I said, we all have our own experiences (biases) and beliefs and philosophy leads one to recognize their own as well as others.

Quoting Rich

I would call this jumping to conclusions. I read the synopsis quite differently. It sounds interesting and explorative in nature, inquiring into the similarities and differences of cultures which might lead to interesting new observations. As I said, we all have our own experiences (biases) and beliefs and philosophy leads one to recognize their own as well as others.

I will listen to it and get back to you.

But I think that the roles of gods in morality should always be considered because that is one of the biggest sources of moral influence. It gives the impression he is going to pick and choose fairly arbitrarily from moral ideas he likes from sources he respects based on his leanings.

To me morality does not need to be incorporated into naturalism but defended in its own terms. I don't think religious or secular moralities stand up to scrutiny personally, so I don't think the debate should be in terms of a dichotomy between theism and atheism. The failure of religious morality does not in my opinion add any support to the success of a secular morality.

Quoting Starthrower

The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

Yes but I don't feel people acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge.

For example I think freewill debates cannot be resolved until we have an explanation of consciousness which is the primary thing contributing to the notion of volition.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

But I think that the roles of gods in morality should always be considered because that is one of the biggest sources of moral influence. It gives the impression he is going to pick and choose fairly arbitrarily from moral ideas he likes from sources he respects based on his leanings.

I agree with you about the roles of gods. The speaker may pick and choose but it's of no matter. You aren't listening for indoctrination but rather to possible learn something new that will enhance your sense of nature. It is all about expanding ones own observations in all directions, not just the subject matter the speaker presents. My guess it will open paths into a new line of inquiry.

Quoting T Clark

Of course discussions about the nature of mind are influenced by people's metaphysical commitments.

I don't have any metaphysical commitments I am agnostic on a lot of things admitting insufficient knowledge to draw broad conclusions.

Quoting T Clark

We are using the same words to mean different things. I like the way I'm using them. You probably like the way you are. There's nowhere for this to go.

What I was saying about the gun debate is that peoples positions are fairly transparent. If someone defended gun ownership you would not be surprised if the owned some guns.

But in philosophy people should be rigorously examining arguments and evidence. A purely philosophical debate about gun control would be undermined if someone turned out to have a hidden cache of weapons (or had lost someone to gun violence and not revealed this.)

I am gay so if I am debating homosexuality I am happy to make that transparent and cite personal experience. So that people could challenge me on potential biases.

If I was religious (which I'm not) I would be really interested in the counter arguments to my position.

Reply to Andrew4Handel

I am in favour of gun rights, and do not own a gun.
I am in favour of gay marriage, and I am not gay.
I am in favour of marijuana legalization, and do not use marijuana.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. Owning guns likely means you're in favour of gun rights, but being in favour of gun rights does not likely mean you own guns.

But to the question at hand: nobody can be completely objective in their reasoning, it's not humanly possible, but some people try much harder than others to be as objective as possible. It all comes down to the attitude you choose to approach philosophy (or any discussion) with. Some people go into it with the intention to convince others their position is correct; to "win". Others go into it with the intention to learn. I choose the latter, and it helps me to be much more objective than those who choose the former.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I don't have any metaphysical commitments I am agnostic on a lot of things admitting insufficient knowledge to draw broad conclusions.

I think saying "I don't have any metaphysical commitments" is meaningless. You can't communicate, think, without them. Here are some common and plausible general examples.

• The world exists independent of consciousness.
• I exist. I have an identity which persists.
• Other people exist independent of me.
• What I perceive more or less represents the nature of reality.
• There is an absolute standard of morality.
• The scientific method is a valid way of obtaining knowledge about the world.
• Humans are basically good.
• There cannot possibly be nothing. The concept is meaningless.
• Everything that happens is caused by something else.
• There is free will.
• The universe is made up of physical entities - matter and energy. That's it.

That's just a beginning. I don't necessarily buy into all of these. They're just examples. I'll lay out the most general metaphysical framework I use that I am aware of - There is no objective reality. Existence is an interaction between the unspeakable [ ] that is out there and our human minds. All concepts are a reflection of human values. Morality is also a reflection of human values. We were created as social animals and our values reflect that.

Not asking you to agree with that and parsing it out is not consistent with the original post. I'm only going through it to try to demonstrate that you can't get away from metaphysics. You can't be agnostic.

At the same time, a metaphysical position is not necessarily a bias. Let me think about that. Do I really think it's true? I'll think some more.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

What I was saying about the gun debate is that peoples positions are fairly transparent. If someone defended gun ownership you would not be surprised if the owned some guns.

But in philosophy people should be rigorously examining arguments and evidence. A purely philosophical debate about gun control would be undermined if someone turned out to have a hidden cache of weapons (or had lost someone to gun violence and not revealed this.)

I don't get this. When we lay our philosophical cards on the table, why does it matter why I believe what I do? Seems to me my argument should stand on it's own. If it's wrong, show me. Don't tell me "You just believe that because you were shot once."

I'm liberal. I don't own guns. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on guns. On the other hand, we hunted when I was young. I'm comfortable with guns and don't think focusing a lot of attention on gun ownership will solve many problems. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution specifically protects personal gun ownership. I acknowledge the courts decision and it's authority to decide.

Reply to Andrew4Handel Until we can explain them, however, it’s still fun to theorize.

Quoting T Clark

you can't get away from metaphysics. You can't be agnostic.

Sure, I'd say that most people who claim to reject metaphysics actually espouse the metaphysics of Materialism.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Sure, I'd say that most people who claim to reject metaphysics actually espouse the metaphysics of Materialism.

That sort of misses my point. A philosopher saying he doesn't believe in metaphysics is like a fish saying she doesn't believe in water.

The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

— Starthrower

Why should metaphysics depend on physics, scientific information about this physical universe?

Definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting T Clark

That sort of misses my point. A philosopher saying he doesn't believe in metaphysics is like a fish saying she doesn't believe in water.

Quite so.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting T Clark

You can't be agnostic.

Take the issue of God. I genuinely don't know whether a god exists or not. I don't have a desire for gods to exist and I don't have desire for gods not to exist. I don't think arguments, desires or beliefs have any bearing on whether something exists or not.

I just don't reality is unambiguous enough to form a valid world view/metaphysics.

If someone doesn't believe in gods and if someone only believes the physical exists I want to know how they reached that conclusion. I don't want to have another bog standard dichotomous debate about tired stereotypical positions.

I am an antinatalist and I find discussions about life's problems and morality are flawed or presumptious if you don't scrutinise the issues/ethics surrounding the creation of new life.

Another topic is nationality, Countries and borders. I find the notion of land ownership dubious and I feel trying to resolve conflicts is dubious if you can't justify the underlying assumptions required for the claims made in a debate

Reply to Andrew4Handel There are other options. I, for example, don't believe in gods but rather the creative impulse of the human mind, the physical being but a manifestation of the mind.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

In terms of evidence of gods. I think evidence of creation/creativity in human culture and volition, sentience and intelligence raise the possibility of an intelligent sentient volitional creator. If you only look for certain types of evidence or concept is it is going to rule our the possibility of gods.

Dialogue and the dialectic are to me a better ground than 'open-mindedness' as I said in an earlier post. To me this section of this post of yours, for instance, demonstrates a lack of open-mindedness on your part. I am aware that believers in monotheism make the sort of causal link you describe in 'raising the possibility'. Starting from a clean slate, though, what would the case be? Compared to the evolutionary case? It seems pretty thin to me. I'm interested in a third way, that there is some intrinsic meaningfulness in Being, but that doesn't involve 'an intelligent sentient volitional creator' - who, to an atheist like me, is probably just the brain-child of some people in quite a small part of West Asia 2-3000 years ago.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

There was no evidence of black swans in Europe but absence of evidence didn't mean evidence of absence. I am not talking about giving equal wait to basic claims but to arguments.Arguments for gods like fine-tuning and first cause do not apply to unicorns etc.

The equivalent evidence arguments would be a paw print in the snow which is indirect evidence. Indirect evidence creates a weaker commitment in my opinion but some atheists seem only to be looking for direct immediate evidence of gods when there are other forms of evidence.

I have not ruled out unicorns but nothing important hinges on their existence. I find the ambiguity of evidence and a lack of knowledge unsettling personality I feel that positions of certainty may be defence mechanisms.

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of god is not obvious. The Bible even states "truly, you are a god who hides himself". If there is a god, where is he, she or it? Some say that the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. I disagree. If something is truly non-existent, then the only evidence we could possible have for it's non-existence would be the absence of evidence for it's existence. While the absence of evidence is not proof, it is certainly evidence. If god is obvious, if god does exist and there is evidence for him, then why are we having this debate? We don't debate the existence of gravity, or the existence of our president, or if Saudi Arabia exists as a country. We know these things by evidence. If there is evidence of a god, then why are there unbelievers, why are there atheists? The existence of atheists is evidence that a god does not exist. It is not obvious to us atheists that such a god exists.

Another problem you have is that black swans are easily definable. We both would recognize a black swan if we saw one without ever having seen one before. Now try that with God. God hasn't been defined clearly and we've had 4000 years to do it. How would we know if we experienced God or not? What would be the evidence. Indirect evidence can be skewed to support one's own delusions. This is why you also need direct evidence. Without it, it would be illogical and unreasonable to change one's life or world view based on indirect evidence. I'd rather say, "I don't know." simply because that would be more accurate than to say that I do know that God exists.

That is the problem with most theists. They find it disconcerting to say, "I don't know." That is why they fill the gaps in their knowledge with God. I don't seem to have that fear of the unknown. I actually find the notion that we don't know exhilarating. It leaves room to make discoveries, which is what life is about.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I get the impression from discussions on the internet and reading philosophers that people are not being honest or honest about their biases.

For example, imagine a guns right activist making an argument about the right to bear arms, it is clear that they are going to favour arguments that support their position.You would expect them to select certain lines of evidence and use certain arguments.

It's called having an opinion.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

Take the issue of God. I genuinely don't know whether a god exists or not. I don't have a desire for gods to exist and I don't have desire for gods not to exist. I don't think arguments, desires or beliefs have any bearing on whether something exists or not.

I wasn't saying you can't be agnostic about any particular thing, the existence of God for example, only that you can not be agnostic about metaphysics in general. There is no discourse or thought without metaphysics, even if you are not aware of the metaphysical assumptions you have made.

Quoting Harry Hindu

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of god is not obvious.

The existence of atoms is not obvious either, they were postulated thousands of years ago by Democritus but proof of the them was given thousands of years later.

The black swan is famous because it was used as a metaphor for impossibility. It shows that however unlikely something seems at the time it may not be impossible.

I think it is problematic to build a world view based on certainty of Gods non existence because there is no way to validate this assumption. I also think basing a world view on Gods existence is flawed, but building a world view on acknowledging a lack of knowledge seems unproblematic.

My issue is that if someones worldview is based on a strong atheism they should make that transparent. it maybe that we can't have discussions because we are never starting from shared premises.

I think the notion of a creator god is non trivial and not simply a superstition. Causal explanations and other explanations are radically effected by the presence or absence of creator deity.

For example you would need to invoke an intelligent creator to explain a computer or car. Evolution is an attempt to explain numerous species without invoking intelligent intervention.

Things like morality and meaning in language and purpose were easier to explain when you invoked a creator who imbued words/symbols with meaning or who gave moral laws or who created things with an innate purpose.

I left a strict religious cult at 17 and from then on I have been a nihilist unable to recreate meaning or coherence to my life. My first question on leaving was "where do morals come from?" because I had had to obey many obscure restrictive moral rules and also "how did reality get here?"

Reply to Andrew4Handel The reason I embrace Mind as First Cause it's because it is right there, within everyone. There is no need to develop or appeal to outside causes such as God, gods, Laws of Nature, or a Big Bang.

It is interesting though that people do attempt to downplay or eliminate their own minds in favor of some active outside force that hypothetical it's guiding them or determining every action. I often wonder why? I can only think that people are more comfortable with outside forces guiding them, a la parents.

Reply to Andrew4Handel Cherry-picking my post doesn't help your argument. When you decide to respond to my whole post, we can continue.

Quoting Harry Hindu

If something is truly non-existent, then the only evidence we could possible have for it's non-existence would be the absence of evidence for it's existence.

You could decide something was non existent because it was totally dispensable, or illogical.
You could for example say that a square circle couldn't exist or you could say a law of nature ruled out flying pigs etc. You don't need to believe in a tooth fairy for instance when you know it was a parent that took the tooth.

I think the point at which you could say there was no need for a god, was when everything was causally explained including things like semantics and mental representation and laws of nature etc.

I think explanatory gaps do allow for positing new entities. I just think that some hidden assumptions in philosophers works are insufficiently justified.

Quoting Rich

The reason I embrace Mind as First Cause it's because it is right there, within everyone. There is no need to develop or appeal to outside causes such as God, gods, Laws of Nature, or a Big Bang.

It is interesting though that people do attempt to downplay or eliminate their own minds in favor of some active outside force that hypothetical it's guiding them or determining every action. I often wonder why? I can only think that people are more comfortable with outside forces guiding them, a la parents.

What it amounts to is that you're just espousing Anti-Realist metaphysics, as do many of us, including me, ...a metaphysics that is about individual subjective experience, and takes it, and us, as primary.

I describe it as the individual's life-experience possibility-story, which, consisting of inevitable abstract if-then facts, doesn't need any explanation.

I feel that brute-facts or assumptions are to be avoided in metaphysics.

Your positing of Mind as something separate from body is problematic. You've explained it in terms of quantum-field, but that would mean that you're saying that a brute-fact physical world is primary.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Anti-Realist metaphysics

There is something real which the Mind observes. Each Mind will necessarily see something different since all is in continuous flux (evolving as duration).

Aggressive public-arguing Atheists tend to be devout believers in the religion of Science-Worship, and in the metaphysics of Materialism (though, according to the vagaries of fashion, they might call it "Naturalism" or even "Nominalism");

But aggressive Atheists have another attribute: They need to compare themselves to someone else, to whom they can claim superiority. That's a common feature of human nature, maybe related to the aggressive chimpanzee heritage.

But, unless they're only talking about Biblical-Literalists (...and if they are, they need to say so), they're criticizing beliefs that they don't know, and can't define. As an Atheist, as you criticizing the belief of every Theist? You don't know every Theist. Did you know that they aren't all Biblical-Literalists?

So, Atheism is a peculiar belief, a belief that is a denial of...something that that belief's adherents don't specify or know.

...as exemplified below:

Quoting Harry Hindu

God hasn't been defined clearly

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.

I must admit that I have no idea why you feel a need to evaluate what you don't understand. I know this sounds trite, but it's alright to mind one's own business.

and we've had 4000 years to do it. How would we know if we experienced God or not? What would be the evidence. Indirect evidence can be skewed to support one's own delusions. This is why you also need direct evidence. Without it, it would be illogical and unreasonable to change one's life or world view based on indirect evidence.

Then Harry says:

I'd rather say, "I don't know." simply because that would be more accurate than to say that I do know that God exists.

You would? Then why don't you? That might be less irrational than evaluating what you don't know.

That is the problem with most theists. They find it disconcerting to say, "I don't know."

But you don't know most Theists, though you seem to claim to know enough about them to evaluate them.

Maybe admit that you don't know? ...and maybe concern yourself instead with your own beliefs, investigations, study, etc.

Why this need to evaluate others?

That is why they fill the gaps in their knowledge with God. I don't seem to have that fear of the unknown. I actually find the notion that we don't know exhilarating. It leaves room to make discoveries, which is what life is about.

Quoting mcdoodle

but that doesn't involve 'an intelligent sentient volitional creator' - who, to an atheist like me, is probably just the brain-child of some people in quite a small part of West Asia 2-3000 years ago.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Why this need to evaluate others?

I'm not clear why your post, which ends for some reason with a quote from me, has as its final remark the one above, after you have spent quite a few paragraphs claiming to evaluate others. I don't see how we would have reasoned discussion without commenting on others' evaluations, and responding with evaluations of our own. That's surely what you are doing?

I hope I'm not an 'aggressive atheist'. I usually find myself disagreeing with Harry Hindu about materialist and scientific matters, though we're both atheists. I was educated without any belief in gods or God, and my 69 years haven't brought me any closer to such a belief. But old gits have a tendency to waver on this front when the man with the scythe approaches, so I'm not forecasting my future.

My atheism, looked at in this way, seems more an absence of belief, rather than anything stronger. There isn't a god-shaped hole in my mental universe, which is packed to the brim with thoughts of one kind or another. I do think I have religious feelings, as I presume nearly everyone has, though they may define them differently. I remain eager to understand how others think and feel, though I'm weighted with my 69 years of baggage.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the [I]thing[/I] that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible. We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

You could decide something was non existent because it was totally dispensable, or illogical.
You could for example say that a square circle couldn't exist or you could say a law of nature ruled out flying pigs etc. You don't need to believe in a tooth fairy for instance when you know it was a parent that took the tooth.

I think the point at which you could say there was no need for a god, was when everything was causally explained including things like semantics and mental representation and laws of nature etc.

I think explanatory gaps do allow for positing new entities. I just think that some hidden assumptions in philosophers works are insufficiently justified.

According to your own "black swan argument" there could still be a tooth fairy even though you know the parent took the tooth.

Ever since we started to use science to explain nature and our places in it, the prior religious explanations of weather, crop failure, diseases, etc. have been replaced with better explanations. Science continues to relegate religious explanations. Scientific explanations have provided us much more useful knowledge that we can use to better our lives.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

Let me say again, that I used to be a believer AND I have asked these questions to more believers than I can count because they are my family, most of my friends, and people who I don't really know but engage them on the internet in religious discussions. I have met pretty much every flavor of theist/spiritualist and asked them these questions and it's all the same. They fear questioning their beliefs for fear of being punished, or what happens after they die, or what happened to their loved ones who have passed on. All of you seem to act as if I was born yesterday. For the record, I wasn't. I'm probably older than most of you and have probably asked these questions of more theists than most of you. Theists don't tend to ask these questions of other theists.

If someone can't clearly define something, why would you believe in it?!

The fact is that any definition of God is preposterous and inconsistent. Why could it no be that highly intelligent aliens had a hand in our evolution on this planet, by playing "god"? How do we know that what believers call "God" is really a god? What makes one a god?

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.

Exactly. Religion isn't about truth. It's about making one feel better in the face of all life's unfairness. Who would you believe more, or who would you say has a better case - the prosecutor that uses evidence and logic to find the criminal, or the prosecutor that uses "impressions"? That is part of my point - that theists use logic and reason for pretty much figuring out everything else, but throw that out the window when contemplating god. Why is that and why the inconsistency?

You're totally wrong about religion not being about convincing or teaching. Proselytizing is part of the religious playbook.

And I'm not the one starting threads attacking theists. They are the ones starting threads questioning atheists and the use of logic itself, as if they never used it and found it useful in finding truths!

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

But you don't know most Theists, though you seem to claim to know enough about them to evaluate them.

Maybe admit that you don't know? ...and maybe concern yourself instead with your own beliefs, investigations, study, etc.

Why this need to evaluate others?

Of course I can evaluate them. Like I said, I was one and am surrounded by them. You don't know most atheists and yet you make these blanket accusations, as if you do. Take some your own advice.

And if we should worry ourselves about our own beliefs, then why participate in a philosophy forum. What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - a symptom of being delusional.

Reply to Andrew4Handel I think it's true that there are biases in philosophical debates, and also that this has always been the case and will likely always continue to be the case. A lot of our beliefs depend on how we interpret the perceptual data given to us. It is not the case that we can just open our eyes more and the world will give each and every one of us the exact same thing. So when people disagree about things in philosophy, a lot of the time it has to do with simply a difference in assumed principles and axioms. If you don't agree with my position, you can always just assume different principles and therefore hold a different position, and there's nothing I can really do about that unless your principles are logically incoherent.

Take the skepticism debate. Most people seem to want to preserve or validate scientific knowledge of the world. Why? It's not a rational reason but a desire to see scientific knowledge vindicated. And while later on we might come to a pragmatic conclusion that seems to validate this knowledge, it's fundamentally the values and desires we have that seem to constitute our orientation to philosophical positions. Someone who doesn't care about science as much, or likes to go against the status quo, or whatever, is more likely to adopt a skeptical position about science or epistemology in general.

Someone may object that this may be the case for some people, but others (coincidentally themselves) have the psychological type or drive to pursue truth without any desire for what the truth ends up being. How convenient and question-begging. The idea that philosophers and scientists are somehow pursuing pure and untainted knowledge is a form of magical thinking. Objective knowledge isn't derived from the pure pursuit of it. It comes as a side-effect of a battlegrounds of competing wills-to-power. Positions are held because people like them, and they only let go (if ever!) when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and reasons against it. Hence why people we disagree with seem to not let go of positions even when we think we have conclusively shown it to be false (and they think the same of ours'). A good example of this, I think, is the continual interest in the ontological argument for God. It's been disproven so many times in the past and it still keep cropping up. Some people just don't want to let go of it. They hope one day there will be a form of the ontological argument that actually does work. And maybe they're right, who knows.

Reply to mcdoodle


You said:
.

I'm not clear why your post, which ends for some reason with a quote from me…

.
I quoted part of your post because, along with Harry’s post, it was what I was replying to.
.

…, has as its final remark the one above [I said that I don’t understand the need to evaluate others], after you have spent quite a few paragraphs claiming to evaluate others.

.
Please note that I didn’t evaluate your beliefs, and I have no inclination or interest in doing so. I was merely evaluating the manners and presumption of aggressive Atheists.
.

I don't see how we would have reasoned discussion without commenting on others' evaluations, and responding with evaluations of our own. That's surely what you are doing?

.
I wasn’t evaluating your beliefs regarding religion. My criticism was of the manners and presumption of aggressive Atheists.
.
My point was that it’s irrational to “evaluate” what you don’t know. Aggressive Atheists want to lump all Theists together, for a blanket criticism of their beliefs. The aggressive Atheist’s One True God is the God of the Biblical-Literalists.
.
If the evaluation and criticism were explicitly limited to Biblical-Literalism, then that would be more rational.
.
Certainly there are certain Theists who are aggressively promoting and pushing their Biblical-Literalism on you, when they go door-to-door, show up at your door, and get rude and bullying. I’d be glad to hear you criticize their rudeness and aggressiveness, and I’d agree.

I don't like aggressive bad-manners from any persuasion.
.

I hope I'm not an 'aggressive atheist'. I usually find myself disagreeing with Harry Hindu about materialist and scientific matters, though we're both atheists. I was educated without any belief in gods or God

.
I was raised Atheist. Later I questioned and eventually abandoned that faith.
.

, and my 69 years haven't brought me any closer to such a belief.

.
…as is your right. I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to believe.
.

My atheism, looked at in this way, seems more an absence of belief, rather than anything stronger.

.
Then you aren’t an Atheist. You’re an Agnostic. It’s very typical now for people to call themselves “Atheist”, while espousing Agnosticism. Nearly always, such “Agnostic Atheists” will soon be making Atheist claims, having evidently forgotten that they’ve just finished expressing an Agnostic position.
.
But when someone claims to know better than Theists, and imply that they’re illogical or irrational to not feel as he does, then he isn’t being very Agnostic. Saying that one knows better is different from saying that one doesn’t know.
.

There isn't a god-shaped hole in my mental universe, which is packed to the brim with thoughts of one kind or another. I do think I have religious feelings

.
Then I’d say you’re religious. You can be religious without showing up on my doorstep and trying to bully me into joining a denomination.
.

…, as I presume nearly everyone has, though they may define them differently. I remain eager to understand how others think and feel

.
Sure, but we just can’t evaluate what we don’t know. And I suggest that, if you want to open a discussion with Theists, you don’t start with premature evaluation. That will likely put them off from talking to you.

You said "...though they may define them differently." Exactly. And that's why one can't validly lump them together for a blanket evaluation.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Reply to Pseudonym

I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

.
You replied:
.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

.
Not clearly defined to you. You’re criticizing an action/activity without a definition of what is believed.
.
If someone is promoting a religion or religious denomination to you, then they should define it for you. The door-to-door denominational-promoters do that, of course. But no one else is obligated to.

.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK

.
Believing in something that isn’t clearly defined to you is definitely ok.
.

, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible.

.
It’s irrational to make that claim about beliefs that you don’t even know. ...or to presume to evaluate its defined-ness, merely because you yourself don't have a definition of it.
.

We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

.
You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?
.
Maybe you’re saying that you want to understand other people’s beliefs. If so, you need a better approach.
.
Michael829

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

Where have I said in my post that theism is undefined? All I have said is that it is perfectly rational to argue that belief in that which is undefined is not sensible. I did not once provide any examples at all of "things which are undefined", let alone presume that 'all of theism' is one such thing.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle. This has happened with literally every theist (bar one professor of theology) that I've ever conversed with.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

I do not need to know all of their beliefs to draw conclusions about the beliefs I've so far been exposed to, It is a perfectly normal part of human rational investigation. We draw conclusions about the colour of Swans based on all the swans we've ever seen, we draw conclusions about the movement of objects in space based on all the objects we've ever tested, you are presuming that your communication system will work based on all the people you've ever communicated with.

No-one ever suggests that the person wary of Tigers is being ludicrous because their opinion is only based on all the Tigers they've ever heard of, rather than on all the Tigers that exist.

Harry Hindu says:
.

What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - a symptom of being delusional.

.
I quote that first, because it establishes Harry’s politeness-level, and behavioral-level. …a behavioral-level that’s common among aggressive Science-Worshippers.
.
But I’ll reply to it later in the post, where it occurs.
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.
.
Realistically, in such a situation, the best you can say would be that you disagree with the Biblical Literalists, and that you don't understand what other Theists believe. Does your pride prevent you from admitting that there might be people whom you don't really know?

.
Harry replied:
.

Let me say again, that I used to be a believer AND I have asked these questions to more believers than I can count because they are my family, most of my friends, and people who I don't really know but engage them on the internet in religious discussions. I have met pretty much every flavor of theist/spiritualist and asked them these questions and it's all the same. They fear questioning their beliefs for fear of being punished, or what happens after they die, or what happened to their loved ones who have passed on.

.
No doubt that describes the beliefs of Harry, when he was religious, and the beliefs others like him that he refers to.
.
But Harry wants to insult all Theists by implying that they’re like he was.
.

If someone can't clearly define something, why would you believe in it?!

.
If someone is promoting a belief to you, but refuses to define it, then there’s no reason to believe it.
.
In fact, what it would it mean to speak of believing it when you don’t know what it is? :D
.
That would be almost as stupid as criticizing it when you don’t know what it is.
.
Maybe there are Theists who don’t know Harry, and, for some reason, haven’t gotten around to defining their religion to him. :D
.
Evidently Harry lacks the modesty to not presume to evaluate what he doesn’t know.
.

The fact is that any definition of God is preposterous and inconsistent.

.
My, aren’t we authoritative and all-knowing! :D
.
Well, what Harry knows is that his definition of God was preposterous an inconsistent, and likewise his friends’ definition of God.
.

Why could it not be that highly intelligent aliens had a hand in our evolution on this planet, by playing "god"?

.
There are those who believe that. Believe it if you like.
.

How do we know that what believers call "God" is really a god? What makes one a god?

.
Harry doesn’t know what all Theists call “God”. He’s using his former religious self as the poster-child.
.
I’d said:
.

Here's a hint: Religion isn't about proof, argument, logic, convincing or teaching. It's more a matter of impressions, and not everyone's impressions are the same as yours. And no, that doesn't make your impressions superior.
[quote]
Exactly. Religion isn't about truth. It's about making one feel better in the face of all life's unfairness.

.
Well, Harry can speak for what religion was for him, when he was religious. And maybe for his friends and others with whom he’s talked.

.
[quote]
Who would you believe more, or who would you say has a better case - the prosecutor that uses evidence and logic to find the criminal, or the prosecutor that uses "impressions"?

.
Evidently Harry thinks that logic describes and governs all of Reality.
.
Evidence?
.
We’re getting ahead of ourselves, Cowboy. Evidence for what? Harry doesn’t know what Theists (other than the one that he was, and his friends, and other dogmatic Biblical-Literalists) believe, much less whether they have evidence for it.
.

That is part of my point - that theists use logic and reason for pretty much figuring out everything else, but throw that out the window when contemplating god. Why is that and why the inconsistency?

.
See above. Harry thinks that logic describes and governs all of Reality.
.
That’s part of Science-Worship, the pseudoscience that tries to apply scientific principles beyond science’s legitimate range of applicability.
.

You're totally wrong about religion not being about convincing or teaching. Proselytizing is part of the religious playbook.

.
…part of Harry’s playbook, when he was religious. But not everyone is like Harry. Oh, his friends are? Ok.

.

And I'm not the one starting threads attacking theists. They are the ones starting threads questioning atheists

.
This thread wasn’t about religion, but it was hijacked to express the usual pseudoscientific Science-Worshipper line, regarding religion.
.
It always sounds the same, word-for-word.
.
Do you all get it from the same hymn-book?
.

and the use of logic itself, as if they never used it and found it useful in finding truths!

.
See above.
.
I’d said:
.

Why this need to evaluate others?

.
Harry says:
.

Of course I can evaluate them. Like I said, I was one and am surrounded by them.

.
I never meant to imply that Harry can’t evaluate himself, his friends, his co-religionists, and other dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, whom he knew and knows very well.
.
But, as I said, he wants to insult all Theists, by claiming that they’re like he was.
.

You don't know most atheists and yet you make these blanket accusations, as if you do. Take some your own advice.

.
But I know what the loud Atheists say, and that they say it from ignorance, with the astounding presumption that they know the beliefs of all Theists.
.
There’s no need to speculate on what the loud Atheist believes—he shares it most willingly. …such as the belief that logic describes and governs all Reality, and his belief about the beliefs of others whom he doesn’t know.
.
Harry says:

And if we should worry ourselves about our own beliefs, then why participate in a philosophy forum.

If Harry wants to participate in a philosophy forum, then it would be better to do so rationally.
.

What it seems to me is that you simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints

.
I merely mention that Harry’s “viewpoints” are unsupported.
.

- a symptom of being delusional.

Namecalling is always the eventual resort, for people who have no better argument or support for what they say.

Loud, irrational forum-participation, usually arrives at namecalling. The pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers are a common example.

Incompetence is commonly associated with namecalling behavior.

By the way, before Harry Hindu became an Atheist, was he (at least in his opinion) a Hindu?

Is (or was) Harry really a (self-declared) Hindu? I’d expect that if Harry shared his opinions with Hindus, he’d be laughed off the stage.

…or is this just the usual log-in-name role-playing?

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Harry Hindu

According to your own "black swan argument" there could still be a tooth fairy even though you know the parent took the tooth.

I was responding to a different argument by you and arguing that alternative causal explanations would count as evidence against gods.
Every time you discovered a parent had taken a tooth from under a pillow that would be evidence that a tooth fairy was not involved there.

However white swans were not evidence against black swans but they were taken to be..... It was a misinterpretation of evidence. It is actually easier to find evidence against a notion of God (ironically?). I think philosophers who invoke science against God are using a smoke screen as if everything counts as evidence for their perspective but without an explicit argument so that it is more liking using white swans as counter evidence..

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable. By causally here I am referring to the deist conception of gods which translates more as a cause, an intelligence, a motive, a reason, law giver and so on.

Personally I don'think the scientific paradigm is adequate to answer every question. It is this rather than the god issue, I am attacking. I also want a world that is more based on uncertainty rather than dogmatism and where uncertainty is acknowledged.

I’d said:
.

You have the astounding presumption to judge the defined-ness of other people’s beliefs based on the fact that they haven’t been defined to you.
.
There are many Theists, of many descriptions. Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

.
Where have I said in my post that theism is undefined?
.
Just here:
.
I’d said:
.

Yes, Harry, and admittedly without a definition, you still argue against &/or presume to evaluate what you don't have a definition of.

.
You commented:
.

I don't see anyone is arguing against or evaluating the thing that is undefined, what is being argued against or evaluated is this action/activity of believing in a thing that is not clearly defined.

.
So you were referring to an “act” of believing in something not clearly defined. There was exactly one belief that Harry had alleged wasn’t clearly-defined. That was the topic of that exchange that you were replying to.
.
So you weren’t referring to that? :D
.
You continued on the same subject:
.

Now you could justifiably make an argument that believing in a thing that is not clearly defined is OK, but it is not unreasonable in the way you claim to argue that believing in a thing that is undefined is not sensible. We may not know what the thing is, but we know what 'believing' means and we know what 'undefined' means, so all the terms in the statement "believing in things that are undefined is not sensible" are fully understood by the person making the claim.

.
I answered that comment in my previous reply to you. As I said, for something to not be defined to you doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined. …especially when there are diverse completely different “definitions”, and the diversity is so great that it’s presumptuous for you to even think you know what “believe” means in all those varied contexts.
.

All I have said is that it is perfectly rational to argue that belief in that which is undefined is not sensible.

.
You’re repeating yourself. You already said that, and when you did, I pointed out that your not knowing what someone else believes doesn’t make their belief undefined. Did those people, who don’t know you, forget to define their belief to you? :D
.
So, that explains why you attribute to all Theists, the anthropomorphic beliefs expressed by the heavily-proselytizing, promotional, evangelistic Biblical-Literalists—the Theists that you’re familiar with.
.
Overgeneralizing about people is scalled bigotry..
.

I did not once provide any examples at all of "things which are undefined", let alone presume that 'all of theism' is one such thing.

.
As I said, in that discussion, exactly one Harry was claiming undefinedness for exactly one thing, saying that Theist belief, in general, is undefined. That was the topic of that discussion.
.
If you weren’t referring to that, then how odd that you’d post your statement at that point in that discussion.
.
But I’m not going to debate that. That’s enough on that subtopic.
.
But this thread-topic is “Dishonest Philosophy”, and so, in a funny way, your protestation here is appropriate—right on topic :D

.
Pseudonym says:
.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle. This has happened with literally every theist (bar one professor of theology) that I've ever conversed with.

.
…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?
.
….people who uniformly characterize a large and diverse group of people as all Biblical Literalists, or believers in anthropomorphic allegory, identifying all Theists with the more familiar and numerous dogmatic Biblical Literalists.

You know, the ones whose God is your One-True-God.
.
…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined (otherwise how else could you not know them :D )
.
And, though that behavior is common, I don’t usually say anything—It’s so common that there wouldn’t nearly be enough time to always, or even often, answer it. But once in a while, I like to say something.
.
I’d said:
.

Do you really presume to know all of their beliefs or positions, or what they mean in their communications with eachother (but not with you)?

.
Pseudonym’s answer:
.

I do not need to know all of their beliefs to draw conclusions about the beliefs I've so far been exposed to

.
Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

Hey, there’s a new idea! :D

You know, evidence-based :D
.

, It is a perfectly normal part of human rational investigation.

.
Yes, and it’s common. It’s called bigotry.
.
“Rational”? Well, maybe not :D Drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve heard about.
.
Well, but what other Atheist activity is there? :D
.

. We draw conclusions about the colour of Swans based on all the swans we've ever seen, we draw conclusions about the movement of objects in space based on all the objects we've ever tested, you are presuming that your communication system will work based on all the people you've ever communicated with.

.
Yes, classical mechanics was written as a generalization from experience. Though reasonably valid and useful under some conditions (like the conditions of the observations from which it was generalized), it turned out to be not generally correct.
.
Yes, overgeneralizing is a common error, and, in its more repellent form, it’s called bigotry.

.

No-one ever suggests that the person wary of Tigers is being ludicrous because their opinion is only based on all the Tigers they've ever heard of, rather than on all the Tigers that exist.

.
The fact that all tigers are primarily carnivores is well-established. Not all tigers are man-eaters, and you’d be wrong if you assumed that they all are. But the mere fact that some of them sometimes are, is a good reason why prudence dictates avoiding them.
.
Likewise sharks and alligators don’t usually attack people. But, because they sometimes do, it’s probably best to not swim with them.
.
It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.
.
Maybe personal pride motivates some people to somehow convince themselves that they understand, and can categorize, everyone.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Andrew4Handel

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable

Obviously we should try to explain as much as possible in verbal, discussable terms. Metaphysics is the verbal discussion-topic that takes verbal description to its limit of validity.

I don't use the name "God", except when answering others who do. (Here, they're overwhelmingly Atheists). When I say God, without quotes, I'm referring to the God referred to by people who more or less agree with me.

But when people who more or less agree with me use the name "God", the God that they're referring to isn't an element of metaphysics. And, to say that the God they're referring to is a "being", would be anthropormophic.

There's no reason to believe that logic, physics or metaphysics describes or governs all of Reality.

The devoted belief that science and logic are all-encompassing and universally applicable is a presumptuous article of faith of the usual typical pseudoscientist Atheist.

By the way, the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?

I didn't speculate on their motives, only reported their actions.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined

Again with this? Show me where I claimed that theist beliefs are all undefined. I claimed that it is a reasonable conclusion (among other equally reasonable conclusions) that to believe in something that is undefined is not sensible. I've made no claims at all about whether each and every theist's belief is or is not undefined.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

Show me where I have not admitted that my conclusions are drawn from a limited source.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Yes, and it’s common. It’s called bigotry.

No, bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." it has nothing to do with drawing conclusions based on a person's experience so far. I have not advocated intolerance on the basis that someone's belief is different to mine, not ever.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve heard about.
.
Well, but what other Atheist activity is there?

Unbelievable. Literally in the same couplet you criticise the conflation of 'all theists' and then immediately make a presumption about 'all atheists' do you even know what hypocrisy means?

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.

It's easy to simply state an analogy is sloppy and irrelevant without actually presenting an argument as to why... apparently.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I was responding to a different argument by you and arguing that alternative causal explanations would count as evidence against gods.
Every time you discovered a parent had taken a tooth from under a pillow that would be evidence that a tooth fairy was not involved there.

However white swans were not evidence against black swans but they were taken to be..... It was a misinterpretation of evidence. It is actually easier to find evidence against a notion of God (ironically?). I think philosophers who invoke science against God are using a smoke screen as if everything counts as evidence for their perspective but without an explicit argument so that it is more liking using white swans as counter evidence..

Gods could become causally unnecessary but still exist. The disputed claim is whether they are really causally dispensable. By causally here I am referring to the deist conception of gods which translates more as a cause, an intelligence, a motive, a reason, law giver and so on.

Personally I don'think the scientific paradigm is adequate to answer every question. It is this rather than the god issue, I am attacking. I also want a world that is more based on uncertainty rather than dogmatism and where uncertainty is acknowledged.

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. It simply explains phenomenon in the most basic, simplest way. It doesn't complicate things by creating explanations of the supernatural and god. If we ever get around to finding evidence of god, science would gladly change it's mind. Science is open to the idea of god, just as it is open to any other hypothesis, but we need evidence before we can even start down that fork in the road of proving it.

What would evidence of god look like?

Quoting Harry Hindu

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence.

I am not making a commitment about the method of science I am attacking the notion that it is the only explanatory framework and that problems will all eventually be solved.I don't agree with your characterisation of science. It may attempt to explain things but it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity or causal closure.

Philosophy is not asking questions about things that have already been solved. Again you seem to be basing your paradigm around the successes of science which is like only focusing on white swans to draw conclusions about black swans.
I feel you are just ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of what I said. I have been explicit that the problems which may invoke gods are explanatory gaps and unsolved problems.

I think something like consciousness should be explained in its own terms and not explained in a way to preserve physicalist or scientific claims. I am attacking people who assuming the nature that an explanation will take before a solution is in sight.

I am not advocating any god based explanations but atheism has gone beyond mere disbelief in gods to favouring fairly rigid metaphysical paradigms.

I think science definitely imposes assumptions on evidence because that is unavoidable. We would not need science if the evidence spoke for it self.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I am not making a commitment about the method of science I am attacking the notion that it is the only explanatory framework and that problems will all eventually be solved.I don't agree with your characterisation of science. It may attempt to explain things but it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity or causal closure.

What would another explanatory framework look like if reason and logic aren't the only one's to get at the truth?

Quoting Andrew4Handel

Philosophy is not asking questions about things that have already been solved. Again you seem to be basing your paradigm around the successes of science which is like only focusing on white swans to draw conclusions about black swans.
I feel you are just ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of what I said. I have been explicit that the problems which may invoke gods are explanatory gaps and unsolved problems.

Then you don't know philosophy. Philosophy tends to especially question our deepest held solutions.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I think science definitely imposes assumptions on evidence because that is unavoidable. We would not need science if the evidence spoke for it self.

That is what science does, but you just said that it doesn't have to be committed to simplicity.

Again, what would evidence of god look like? Stop avoiding the questions.

Reply to Pseudonym

I’d said:
.

…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?

.
You said:
.

I didn't speculate on their motives, only reported their actions.

.
Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.
.
I’d said:
.

…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined

.
You replied:
.

. I claimed that it is a reasonable conclusion (among other equally reasonable conclusions) that to believe in something that is undefined is not sensible.

.
So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable. :D
.
But let me guess: You didn’t mean that either :D
.
Either that, or you have a strong belief in the all-encompassing applicability of language and description to all of Reality.
.
But I agree that anyone asserting to you should supply definitions needed for you to know what he’s saying.
.
There are Theists who don’t assert to you, and so it’s unsurprising if they don’t define for you either.
.
The fact that a meaning isn’t defined to you doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined.
.
As I said, someone asserting to you should supply definitions needed for you to know what he’s saying.
.
That’s what’s missing from the assertions of typical loud pseudoscientists: a consistent definition of what Theism or what Theists they’re referring to.
.
Such pseudoscientists (but not you, of course) typically quote the anthropomorphic allegory of the more dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, and attribute it to all Theists.
.
By the way, those dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, the ones who go door-to-door, amply define their God and their religion. They define it at great length. Speaking for myself, I don’t agree with their denominational doctrine..
.
If you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying, then I don’t know what your point was, in saying those things that none of us disagree on. But, if we don’t disagree, that’s fine too.
.
…but I don’t agree what’s undefinable (and therefore undefined) is somehow “un-sensible”. But there are Theists who don’t assert un-definable things.
.

I've made no claims at all about whether each and every theist's belief is or is not undefined.

.
Then your remark about the sensibleness of what’s undefined has no relevance to or bearing on the discussion that you joined. As for sensibleness and definedness, see above.
.
I’d said:
.

Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

.
You replied:
.

Show me where I have not admitted that my conclusions are drawn from a limited source.

.
But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.
.
Alright, you’ll say you didn’t. The assertive Theists define their beliefs to you at length. The ones who don’t, don’t assert to you either.
.
But now you say you weren’t referring to them, and so it’s anyone’s guess what you were talking about with your comments.
.

No, bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." it has nothing to do with drawing conclusions based on a person's experience so far.

.
Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.
.
…drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve actually heard from or about.
.
I’d said:
.

Well, but what other Atheist activity is there?

.
You replied:
.

Unbelievable. Literally in the same couplet you criticise the conflation of 'all theists' and then immediately make a presumption about 'all atheists' do you even know what hypocrisy means?

.
I didn’t say that Atheists don’t do anything else, but not everything that they do is a specifically Atheist activity.
.
Well, what else would constitute a specifically Atheist activity? Alright, there could be discussion and activities dealing with discrimination, if there still is any. There could be weekend potlucks. So yes, there could be non-aggressive specifically Atheist activities. But evidently there must not be enough anti-Atheist discrimination to provide enough activities (admittedly that's speculation), because it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.
.
How often do Theists start forum discussions by evaluating the judgment of, or proclaiming the wrongness of, what Atheists believe or don’t believe?
.
When I was an Atheist (I was raised Atheist), I often argued with Theists (as is usual, they were always people who believed anthropomorphic allegorical Theism, usually outright Biblical-Literalism), usually with me starting the argument. It was always amicable though, and I didn’t express any evaluative criticism of the Theists that I argued with. That rudeness would have been inconceivable for me. That’s the difference between me, when I was Atheist, and the aggressive loud pseudoscientists that I’m referring to, and talking to here.
.
Even when no longer Atheist, I continued talking to door-to-door denominational-promoters for a while, until I got tired of their arrogance and rudeness, and their unwillingness to have an open discussion.
.
I’d said:
.

It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.

.
You replied:
.

It's easy to simply state an analogy is sloppy and irrelevant without actually presenting an argument as to why... apparently.

.
As I said:
.
1. It’s well-established that all tigers are carnivores. Large mammalian carnivores typically eat mammals that are smaller than they are. Humans are smaller (in weight) than tigers, and are sometimes eaten by them. In that regard, tigers are less diverse than Theists, and are better known than non-asserting Theists are to Atheists.
.
2. Though tigers, sharks and alligators don’t always prey on humans, the mere fact that tigers, alligators, and some species of sharks might, necessitates the precaution of avoiding them all. We therefore avoid tigers, alligators and sharks, even without saying that they all always prey on humans.
.
But loud pseudoscientists habitually assert, without qualification or justification, about the beliefs of Theists in general. …without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.
.
Maybe there was a time when Theists were more often the aggressors in the Theist/Atheist criticisms, but now it’s more usual for Theists to mind their own business, and for aggressive Atheists to be the ones who are on the attack.
.
There are notable exceptions, like the rude door-to-door dogmatic denominational-promoters.
.
Sure, in earlier history (and even sometimes currently, but rarely in this country), Atheists have endured physical persecution by dogmatic Theists, and that was wrong. But, even during those persecutory historical periods, the main victims of dogmatic persecutory Theists were other Theists of different denominations.
.
For example, the Inquisition was directed at minority denominations, and falsely-accused alleged witches or Satanists, rather than Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Harry Hindu

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. It simply explains phenomenon in the most basic, simplest way. It doesn't complicate things by creating explanations of the supernatural and god.

No, because genuine science limits itself to the study and description of the physical world, the relations and interactions among the components of the physical world.

To want to apply science to matters of religion or metaphysics shows a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

...and amounts to practicing pseudoscience.

If we ever get around to finding evidence of god, science would gladly change it's mind.

Incorrect. Genuine science says nothing about God, one way or the other. See above.

Science is open to the idea of god, just as it is open to any other hypothesis

No, it isn't. Nor should it be, because the "idea of God" is quite outside the legitimate range of applicability and area of study of science. See above. Science is the study and description of this physical world, and the relations and interactions among its physical components.

God isn't a science issue.

Harry is espousing the religion of Science-Worship.

Science-Worship isn't science. It's pseudoscience.

, but we need evidence before we can even start down that fork in the road of proving it.

Science doesn't need evidence regarding issues or questions that aren't in its legitimate range of applicability.

What would evidence of god look like?

That would be an excellent question to ask someone who is asserting God to you. Is anyone here asserting God to Harry?

Maybe Harry would like to ask that question of a promotional Theist who asserts his religion to Harry.

There certainly are such promotional Theists, and it wouldn't be difficult to find one. Harry's could get an answer if he'd take his question to the right people.

Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Harry Hindu

What would another explanatory framework look like if reason and logic aren't the only one's to get at the truth?

I don't know how we have gone from discussing science to the topic of reason and logic. Reason and logic do not rely on an external object. Science intends on explaining the nature of existing empirical phenomena.

You claimed

Quoting Harry Hindu

Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence.

I am not sure if you have changed your mind on this but anyhow reasons and logic are extra assumptions on top of evidence.
The assumption that entities respond to logic and reason is a metaphysical position that science doesn't have to make. If science does make metaphysical assumptions then these can be philosophically challenged. You seem to be diluting and expanding the meaning of science which is a common tactic so that people can claim things are part of science and give science credit for them when that assumption is questionable.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Then you don't know philosophy. Philosophy tends to especially question our deepest held solutions.

I don't see any evidence that philosophy disputes the majority of factual type claims made by science. If it does criticise aspects of an established theory it will be attacking conceptual ideas or what may be considered unwarranted assumptions.
But the issues that I have been discussing as attached to the God hypothesis are not areas in which philosophy is competing with science But some philosophers are claiming the ground for science prematurely or for the physicalist/materialist metaphysics.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Again, what would evidence of god look like? Stop avoiding the questions.

I have already answered this. I said things like sentience, intelligence, creation and design as found in humans are possible indirect evidence for the god hypothesis.

I have also been saying gods are being ruled out based on a limited paradigm of the physical sciences which are not appropriate means for finding evidence of meaning, design and sentience etc.

I am agnostic because I don't think you can disprove God's existence and as I have said a few times now I think the best evidence against God would be a causally complete picture of everything in reality.
The problem is that it is easy to give the impression that the natural sciences have triumphed and that there are no explanatory or conceptual gaps. But things like consciousness causality, first cause, infinite regress, cognitive features like qualia, semantics and metal representation in general form substantial explanatory gaps.

I am not interested in defending the existence of gods but rather attacking the default atheist materialism assumption.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Science-Worship isn't science. It's pseudoscience.

I think a pseudo science can get an air of credibility by frequently citing the successes of science per se.

It seems that a dubious scientific idea or weak claim is more easily masked when it is permitted under the aegis of respectable scientific speculation.

Examples might be Multiverse, string theory, personality science, Evolutionary psychology and others.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Genuine science says nothing about God

I agree with this to an extent. Science does not appear to be asking the question of whether gods exist or not.
This relates to what I have been saying about how finding more and more white swans compounded the belief black swans were implausible. It was a mistaken interpretation of evidence.

Some theists see complex cell structures and intricate chemical reactions as evidence of a god.

Before I heard of blacks swans I never imagined they existed and was surprised to find out about them. It is hard to imagine how you might discover something new like this through reasoning through your current knowledge.

My verdict on dishonest philosophy is this, that to constitute being philosophy in the first place one`s contribution must be genuine. I consider this to be the total answer, and obviously, the more condensed an answer is the more punch it carries, short being functionally clever,or at least it would do in a godless environment, one not locked door institution led..

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.

Show me. Either quote me the passage from my posts that offered an explanation for their actions or stop making convenient straw men because you've nothing else to say on the matter.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable

If you read my sentence with any honesty you will see it clearly states that it is reasonable to argue that believing in something un-defined is not sensible. I have made no claims whatsoever about the set 'all that is sensible'. The set I'm making claims about is 'all that is believed'. You really need to learn how to parse object-subject distinctions in normal sentences.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.

So when stepping out in front of a moving train, you wouldn't get out of the way because your conclusion about what will happen next is only drawn from a limited source, after all, the proportion of the trains you've seen is tiny compared to the group of 'all trains'?

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.

No it is not. That's why I provided you with a dictionary definition of 'Bigotry', so that you can stop misusing the word.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.

And again, it's OK for you to make generalisations about atheists based on the ones you've experienced, but not for me to draw conclusions about theists based on exactly the same metric. I can't believe the level of hypocrisy.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.

No, they think there is a necessity, you just don't agree with them. Most atheists that I have heard the arguments of think Theism is harmful because of the rejection of critical thinking that goes along with it. You may not agree, but it's disingenuous suggest they don't have a reason.

I have no objection to theistic metaphysics, it is an entirely reasonable option. What I do object to is the deception that the possibility of such metaphysics somehow justifies a particular religion, and the suggestion that atheists have no right to act on their sincere feelings that certain theistic beliefs could cause harm.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I don't know how we have gone from discussing science to the topic of reason and logic. Reason and logic do not rely on an external object. Science intends on explaining the nature of existing empirical phenomena.

Nonsense. What form does your reason and logic take? How do you know that you're being reasonable and logical? Science isn't only about being empirical. It is a blend of empiricism and rationalism. I don't understand why there would be two camps of empiricists and rationalists because they both work together and are necessary for the acquisition of knowledge.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

You seem to be diluting and expanding the meaning of science which is a common tactic so that people can claim things are part of science and give science credit for them when that assumption is questionable.

No, I'm trying to get at what alternatives there are to science that lead us to truth as well as science has. You seem to think there is a better way, but haven't said what that way was, or explained how it might look.

Quoting Andrew4Handel

I have already answered this. I said things like sentience, intelligence, creation and design as found in humans are possible indirect evidence for the god hypothesis.

This is like saying that the design found in the weather or diseases is indirect evidence of god, when we already have better explanations that don't impose more than what the data informs us of. We have the theory of natural selection which is a better explanation than "God did it." It doesn't impose anything more on the data other than assembling it into a logical, consistent manner to produce information about how we came to be. Why would science be just as good an explanation as religion if they both don't seek truth in the same way? Is "god" a scientist? Is "god" an alien? How does god create, and why? By imposing the God answer on everything, you still have to answer how god has a causal effect on the rest of nature, and by doing so, so you'd be providing a scientific explanation.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Science isn't only about being empirical

I don't see how you could do science without objects of the senses and I don't see what the point of science would be with no objects to explain.

I don't see how reason and logic lead to science especially when there are no objects concerned.

At the same time I see no reason why logic would lead to the entities science finds.

What is logical about a gene or atom (and its quantum properties) ? And what is logical about unexplained entities like consciousness?

Quoting Harry Hindu

I'm trying to get at what alternatives there are to science that lead us to truth as well as science has.

Unfortunately you have unjustifiable claimed reason and logic equal science. Reason and logic maybe applied in the sciences but that does not make them scientific. They are also not clearly physical but conceptual.

Once again we are not focusing on things that science hasn't explained. It is not clear that science can explain mental states ( partly because of their private subjective nature) or morality or political claims etc.

It is dishonest in my opinion to ask me for an alternative paradigm because I can legitimately question a claim without needing to produce a counter claim.

This tactic can be used by theist as well where they say if you can't explain X then that supports their claim.

It`s a straight forward question, so the only answer with any hope of genuine headway must be equally as straight forward. No more than two to three lines of prose are required in achieving the perfect answer.

Quoting celebritydiscodave

It`s a straight forward question, so the only answer with any hope of genuine headway must be equally as straight forward. No more than two to three lines of prose are required in achieving the perfect answer.

Tell us your perfect answer.

Anyway, with any metaphysical proposal, there are numerous questions and objections, from various people, to be answered. Your 3-line perfect answer won't do.

But you want a 3-line answer?

1. There inevitably are complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-thens about hypotheticals.

2. Inevitably, one of those has the events and relations of your experience.

3. There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.


Michael Ossipoff:

Make your mind up, first you ask me for the answer, easy enough, then you tell me that the answer, so the actual answer, that this is not of value in its own right.. That which is/the actual genuine answer owes no explanation beyond a normal healthy level of intellect to realize when clearly, and I do stress clearly, placed before one, it is a job done in itself. For every argument there exists a counter one, but meanwhile that which actually is, so the correct answer, does quite independently of argument exist. Philosophical affirmations, the correct ones, so let`s call them affirmations in philosophy then, have far more than no value, and once in print acknowledgment tends to run close behind. For philosophy to be of value answers must be clear, so brief. .

There is no duty of lengthy explanation, for that which is has not got built into it any requirement for further explanation, it stands alone.. In any event, the production of the answer, that which actually is, takes some considerable effort, come good instinct, but realizing it as correct when put before one for the first time often takes no more effort than that said same effort concerned of waking up. Most that study philosophy are quickly programmed into this institutionalized misconception that the more long winded an explanation is the better job that it does.. It does on every day practical levels of course, it`s creating jobs, paying mortgages, and providing degrees Like any institution though it can only be influenced from the inside, and never mind even should the answers exist elsewhere.

Reply to Pseudonym

I’d said:
.

Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.

.
You replied:
.

Show me. Either quote me the passage from my posts that offered an explanation for their actions…

.
Alright. You’d said:
.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle.

.
That’s your interpretation, explanation, of the objections that you’ve heard from Theists—their objections to the common speculations of Atheists , regarding others’ beliefs.
.
Your “fragile construct” is a construct in your mind. You presume to know what others believe, and that’s what the objection is about
.
“Fly off the handle” translates to “express an objection”.
.
I’d said:
.

So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable

You replied:

If you read my sentence with any honesty you will see it clearly states that it is reasonable to argue that believing in something un-defined is not sensible.

.
What a coincidence. That’s what I thought you said.
.
If it is reasonable to argue that it is not sensible to believe in something that is un-defined, then it must be reasonable to argue that all that is sensible to believe in is definable and defined.
.

I have made no claims whatsoever about the set 'all that is sensible'.

.
See above.
.

The set I'm making claims about is 'all that is believed'. You really need to learn how to parse object-subject distinctions in normal sentences.

.
Only a mind-reader could “parse” or interpret your sloppiness.
.
Two separate things:
.
1. You’re saying it’s reasonable to argue that only what is defined is reasonable to believe in.
.
You’re thereby expressing a belief that it’s reasonable to argue that language, words, description apply to, cover, describe all of Reality.
.
That’s a typical thing to be said by a pseudoscientist of the Science-Worshipper variety.
.
2, You presumptuously believe that whatever hasn’t been defined to you must be undefined.
.
Anyone asserting their religion to you has a responsibility to define it for you. There are many Theists who don’t assert to you, and therefore haven’t defined to you, and have no reason to.
.
You don’t know anything about them or what they “believe”.
.
Because assertions need definitions, I merely point out that the loud pseudoscientists are spouting assertions without definitions (of the Theists or Theisms they're referring to when they make their their blanket assertions).
.

But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.

.
You replied:
.

So when stepping out in front of a moving train, you wouldn't get out of the way because your conclusion about what will happen next is only drawn from a limited source, after all, the proportion of the trains you've seen is tiny compared to the group of 'all trains'?

.
We’ve just been over that. I’ve just answered that fallacy.
.
If even about half of all trains might be dangerous to stand in front of, then it would be prudent to not stand in front of any train.
.
There are well-established physical laws that predict damage from standing in front of a train.
.
Your knowledge of the beliefs of all Theists has nothing approaching the reliability of those physical laws.
.
I’d said:
.

Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.

.

No it is not. That's why I provided you with a dictionary definition of 'Bigotry', so that you can stop misusing the word.

.
Oops! You forgot to share with us the name of the dictionary in which you found your definition :D
.
Here’s Merriam-Webster:
.
Bigot:
.
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices
.
[end of broad-definition-quote]
.
I’d said:
.

it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.

.
You replied:
.

And again, it's OK for you to make generalisations about atheists based on the ones you've experienced

.
Yes, because I’m merely saying that something is common.
.

, but not for me to draw conclusions about theists based on exactly the same metric.

.
No, not exactly the same “metric”.
.
I spoke of what’s common. That doesn’t require or imply a detailed knowledge of all Atheists.
.
On the other hand, when aggressive loud pseudoscientists express their blanket assumption about Theists in general, they’re making an all-inclusive claim.
.
I’d said:
.

without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.

.
You replied:
.

No, they think there is a necessity, you just don't agree with them. Most atheists that I have heard the arguments of think Theism is harmful because of the rejection of critical thinking that goes along with it.

.
(…based on your assumptions about all Theisms, and your belief in the universal applicability of your allegedly critical thinking.)
.
…so you’re saving people from something harmful. Then you aren’t just a pseudoscientist, You’re a fanatical evangelical pseudoscientist.
.
Oh wait, you didn’t say that—You’re just quoting others who say that. …and of course you don’t agree with them. :D
.

You may not agree, but it's disingenuous suggest they don't have a reason.

.
In their mind they might very well have a fanatical “reason”.

I have no objection to theistic metaphysics

.
.
My metaphysics isn’t Theistic.
.
It’s better to explain things verbally when possible. Of course not all of Reality is discussable or describable, but I regard metaphysics as the limit of what is discussable and describable.
.
As I define metaphysics, there are Theists who don’t regard God as an element of metaphysics.
.
Though it probably isn’t usually said, it’s my impression that it’s usually meant that metaphysics is a verbal topic. …about what is that is describable and discussable. It’s my impression that it’s understood that philosophy is discussable, and that metaphysics is philosophy.
.
So then, it seems to me that religion isn’t covered, described or governed by metaphysics (or physics or logic).
.
It seems, to me, to make more sense to not call religion part of metaphysics.
.
But I don’t object if you believe in Theistic metaphysics.
.

…, it is an entirely reasonable option. What I do object to is the deception that the possibility of such metaphysics somehow justifies a particular religion

.
…then you should be telling that to someone who is promoting a particular religion. It isn’t relevant to sweeping-statements about all Theists.
.
(Maybe you don’t make such statements, but many loud pseudoscientists do.)
.

, and the suggestion that atheists have no right to act on their sincere feelings that certain theistic beliefs could cause harm.

.
…their fanatical evangelical need to save others from wrong-belief.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Reply to Michael Ossipoff

You're consistently repeating the same nonsense over and again;

1. Atheists are not allowed to draw any conclusions about theists because they have not met them all, nor listened to the exposition of every single one of them, whereas you are allowed to draw conclusions about atheists, psuedo-scientists, any group you don't like, based solely on your prejudice. 'Common' is still an unwarranted conclusion, by a long way. There are an estimated 500,000,000 atheists, at a standard 95% confidence, you would have to have experienced 9604 of them just to get a statistically significant sample. You have definitely not met enough atheists do define what is 'common', not even statistically, let alone accurately.

2. You keep insisting that drawing conclusions based on a small sample is unnecessary because there is no harm in holding theistic beliefs of the type that I have encountered (my sample). This is subjective, if you want to argue about the potential harms from the theistic beliefs I have so far encountered, then lay out that argument. Just presuming that your conclusion on that matter must be right and so defeats my right to draw conclusions in unjustified as yet.

3. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using the word 'bigot'. It doesn't matter how you define it it never covers any of my behaviour. I am only obstinate in your opinion, because you think I should be adopting your views, it is only prejudice in your opinion, because I see it as a legitimate and necessary conclusion. Using the word 'bigot' is therefore an unnecessary personal attack, not an objective fact.

I can already tell you have no interest in using this discussion to refine your arguments, but simply to engage in a bit of atheist-bashing. I'm not going to indulge you any further.

Short is best, and infinitely more adequate, so then, dishonest philosophy cannot exist because philosophy embraces only which constitutes the search for that which actually is. This is the full answer.. when one is short changing with the truth one is doing something else, certainly not philosophy. We are all of us already well aware why false information is deployed in our society, or should be, thought control being number one, so no philosophy left to be done here?

Pseudo, yes, prejudice is everywhere over seemingly near everything, and a particular nature/target of prejudice is seldom discovered in isolation. For instance, how many significantly older folk even make interaction with young people unless there is a practical imperative, I`d suggest very few. The arguments parallel with those arguments which were deployed for social segregation from dark skinned persons, those pertaining to them being somehow different. It is no wonder that social prejudice runs high in both directions.. One has only to take a genuine interest in them and to treat them for what they are, equals, to discover that beneath it all, the social conditioning, there is no prejudice.

Reply to Pseudonym

Pseudo says:
.

You're consistently repeating the same nonsense over and again;

.1. Atheists are not allowed to draw any conclusions about theists

.
Pseudo can draw conclusions about (specified) Theisms that he’s heard stated or asserted,. …but should tell specifically whom or what he’s talking about. That’s hardly too much to ask.
.

…because they have not met them all, nor listened to the exposition of every single one of them

.
See above.
.

…, whereas you are allowed to draw conclusions about atheists, psuedo-scientists, any group you don't like, based solely on your prejudice. 'Common' is still an unwarranted conclusion, by a long way.

.
But I’m not expressing criticisms, assumptions or evaluations of the beliefs of all Atheists. I’m not evaluating Atheism, as a belief, in general. And no, I’m not even evaluating the behavior of all Atheists. …just the loud aggressive no-manners ones who are so common at Internet forums. (Yes, common.)
.
That’s the difference that Pseudo is missing.
.
I’m not saying that all Atheists are loud, aggressive and rude. I wasn’t when I was an Atheist.
.

There are an estimated 500,000,000 atheists, at a standard 95% confidence, you would have to have experienced 9604 of them just to get a statistically significant sample. You have definitely not met enough atheists do define what is 'common', not even statistically, let alone accurately.

.
Well, “common” isn’t really a very precise term :D
.
Loud, aggressive, rude Atheist pseudoscientists pop-up continually at Internet forums. Not common? What else would Pseudo call that?
.
1. Only a small fraction of car-trips result in a car-accident.
.
2. Car-accidents are common.
.
What? How can that be?!!
.
Answer: Car-trips are even more common.
.
I didn’t speculate about what percentage of Atheists are the loud, aggressive, rude ones.
.
Merriam-Webster:
.
Common:
.
Occurring or appearing frequently.
.
[end of quoted definition]
.

2. You keep insisting that drawing conclusions based on a small sample is unnecessary because there is no harm in holding theistic beliefs of the type that I have encountered (my sample). This is subjective, if you want to argue about the potential harms from the theistic beliefs I have so far encountered, then lay out that argument.

.
Harm? Pseudo must go forth and save the multitudes from wrong-belief! :D
.
a) The person claiming the danger of harm is the one who needs to tell people what exactly he’s warning them about, and what is danger is.
.
b) If you’re referring to a particular limited sample, then specify, in particular, who your sample are, what beliefs it is whose danger you’re warning us of. Is that too much to ask of Psuedo? If he isn’t prepared to specify what he’s talking about, then he isn’t ready to warn us about it.
.

Just presuming that your conclusion on that matter must be right and so defeats my right to draw conclusions in [is?] unjustified as yet.

.
Yes, Pseudo’s conclusions are unjustified, because he doesn’t justify them by telling us specifically what he’s talking about.
.

3. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using the word 'bigot'.

.
I used the word “bigotry” once, but then mentioned it again, when quoting a (specified) dictionary-definition of it, when Pseudo said that I’d mis-used that word.

It doesn't matter how you define it it never covers any of my behaviour.

.
…unless Pseudo presumes to speak for others about what they believe, or consistently fails to limit or specify to whom his blanket evaluations are intended to refer.
.

I am only obstinate in your opinion, because you think I should be adopting your views

.
I’ve never said that Pseudo should adopt my views. I’ve merely pointed out that aggressive Atheists need to be a lot more specific about what views they’re criticizing.
.
And I acknowledge that Pseudo renounces and disowns all of the statements, claims and positions that he’s been defending.
.

I'm not going to indulge you any further.

.
I agree that Pseudo has said (at least) enough. He’s had his say.
.
Conclusion:
.
Isn’t the solution obvious?:
.
Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.
.
For example, if Pseudo, or anyone else, wants to criticize Biblical-Literalism, then he needs to express that that’s what he’s referring to. How hard would that be?
.
But, though I don’t agree with the anthropomorphic allegorical literalist beliefs of many Theists, in particular the fully Biblical-Literalist ones, I don’t feel a need to criticize or evaluate them or their beliefs.
.
That’s something about the aggressive, on-the-attack, rude Atheist pseudoscientists, that I don’t understand, and which is entirely alien to me.
.
Nor do I feel a need to evaluate, criticize or attack the personal beliefs of Atheists. Their beliefs are their business, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff\

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." (OED).

Theists must either have no definition for this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are believing in something simply by name, which I find to be ludicrous; or they claim some knowledge about the properties of this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are making knowledge claims. In this second case they have either postulated the existence of an entity which cannot be falsified where no such entity is required to explain the phenomenon we experience; or they have accused atheists of lying and presumed that we all have experiences which require explanations not yet covered by existing observable forces. Either way is an inefficient means of obtaining knowledge.

All three of these exhaustive options require the suspension of efficient critical thinking. The absence of effective critical thinking allows all sorts of false and harmful political messages to gain popularity.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to criticise all theists, be cause all theists share some common features otherwise they would not be classifiable as a group.

You may well disagree with these criticisms, but it's ridiculous to suggest that I should enquire as to the nature of every single theistic belief in order to make any judgements about them with sufficient certainty to post on a philosophy forum. I can reach perfectly logical conclusions, with sufficient certainty to talk confidently about them simply from the fact that all theists believe in a god or gods. If they don't, they're not theists.

Reply to Pseudonym

I’d said:
.

Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.

.
You posted a definition:
.

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." (OED).

.
Very good. That’s an improvement, because you’re saying that OED’s definition is your definition of Theism.
.
Let’s look at that definition:
.
“Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods…”
.
On the Internet, you can find articles by Theists who don’t believe that the word “existence” applies to God.
.
Existence is for beings and things. On the Internet, you can find articles by Theists who refer to God, but don’t consider God to be a being or a thing.
.
Some, but not all, Theists, and evidently all loud, aggressive Atheists, share the anthropomorphic belief that God is a being, and an element of metaphysics, subject to the distinction of “existence” vs “nonexistence”.
.
Martin Buber, for example, is a well-known writer who said that God isn’t described by that distinction.
.
I sometimes say that, for humans to debate whether God exists, is like for mice to debate whether humans gnaw hardwood or softwood.
.
Well, the God who is a being, and is described by that distinction, that’s your God.
.
Continuing the quoted definition:
.
“…, specifically of a creator…”
.
“Creation” is an anthropomorphic notion—a notion belonging to the more dogmatic, doctrinaire literalist Theists, and to Atheists.
.
Your God, the God that you believe in disbelieving in, is the God of the Biblical Literalists.
.
Continuing the quoted definition:
.
“…who intervenes in the universe."
.
Ah yes, the distinction between “Theist” and “Deist”.
.
That distinction is meaningless unless you believe that God is within time.
.
I take it, then, that your God is a being who exists within time.
.
Well, thank you, Pseudo, for clarifying about your God.
.
I don’t believe in your anthropomorphic God.
.
Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.
.
By your definition of “Theist”, I’m not a Theist, and neither are a number of self-declared Theists.
.
But it’s a definite step, your defining your God and your Theism.
.

Theists must either have no definition for this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are believing in something simply by name, which I find to be ludicrous

.
…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.
.
Of course all Theists who speak of God will also speak of what they mean.
.
But, as for a “definition”, if that’s what you want, then I’ll just refer you to the Biblical-Literalists (…whose God and whose Theism seem to be your God and your Theism).
.
I don’t speak of God, unless I’m talking to people who do, but I sometimes, at some threads of this forum, have discussed what I mean by Theism.
.

; or they claim some knowledge about the properties of this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are making knowledge claims. In this second case they have either postulated the existence of an entity which cannot be falsified where no such entity is required to explain the phenomenon we experience;

.
…and they’re the Theists whose God is your God.
.
or they have accused atheists of lying and presumed that we all have experiences which require explanations not yet covered by existing observable forces.
[/quote]
.
Only you know your experiences.
.

All three of these exhaustive options require the suspension of efficient critical thinking.

.
You believe too much in your “critical thinking”. I’ve been reminding you of some uncriticalness of some of your thinking.
.

The absence of [what Pseudo calls] effective critical thinking allows all sorts of false and harmful political messages to gain popularity.

.
Undeniably, willingness to uncritically believe what we’re told or taught, whether it be Biblical-Literalism, Atheism, Materialism, or Science-Worship, tends to also be found with uncritical belief in what we’re told or taught politically.
.
But there’s no justification for saying that religion, of whatever kind, causes political gullibility. Belief in dogmatic religion, and belief in dogmatic politics have a common reason, but that doesn’t mean that one causes the other.
.
Are you referring to the political conservatism promoted by some religious evangelists? Sure, religion is commonly used for that purpose. That’s been well-discussed ever since 1847 or 1848.

.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to criticise all theists, be cause all theists share some common features

.
…certain common features by your definition that you got from OED.
.

otherwise they would not be classifiable as a group.

.
…and now you’ve better-specified what group you’re referring to.
.
But, even within your OED definition, there are plenty of progressive Theists and progressive churches, and a rejection of gullible politics.
.
So even your criticism of your Theists, on political grounds, lacks validity.

.

You may well disagree with these criticisms, but it's ridiculous to suggest that I should enquire as to the nature of every single theistic belief in order to make any judgements about them

.
We definitely disagree about what it takes to justify sweeping claims. :D
.

with sufficient certainty to post on a philosophy forum. I can reach perfectly logical conclusions, with sufficient certainty to talk confidently about them simply from the fact that all theists believe in a god or gods. If they don't, they're not theists.

.
…and you will confidently do so, without knowing what they mean when they speak of God.
.
But, as you clarified (Thank you for clarifying it), you’re referring to a specific group defined by OED.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.

People can't just declare themselves something and insist that the world changes its definitions to suit them. If you do not believe God 'exists' in the normal sense of the word, you are an atheist. That may be because you are a materialist and have no room for 'god', or because you are a strong dualist and so believe in a realm outside of material existence. Either way, you do not believe 'god' exists. That is the definition of an atheist. You can't just change it because you'd prefer to be called a theist.

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.

No, it's because I consider it a logical nonsense to say you believe in something but be unable to define what it is. It simply doesn't make sense. If you cannot define what it is, what you have is a feeling or a sensation, not a belief. I suggest you look up belief in the SEP, you will find that pretty much every definition requires some form of proposition, either verbal or in action, to be defined as a belief.

You are misusing the words 'theist' and 'belief' simply to dodge having to admit that you don't really believe in God. A 'theist' is someone who believes in the existence of god, a 'belief' is a propositional statement or functional attitude. If we can't stick to normal English how do you expect to maintain a discussion?

By your definition of 'Theism', I'm a theist too because I definitely don't think we've discovered every form of existence (there are probably at least seven more dimensions for a start), and so other things are bound to 'exist' in ways we can't perceive. But so is just about every scientist and atheist I know, the word becomes pointless.

By your definition of 'belief', I have beliefs that I can't define because I definitely have feelings and sensations that are not the result of logical thought, but again I don't know a single person who claims not to have. The word becomes pointless.

If you're just going to make up definitions to suit your argument, then it's going to be impossible to discuss anything with you.

Reply to Pseudonym

I’d said:
.

Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.

.
You replied:
.

People can't just declare themselves something and insist that the world changes its definitions to suit them.

.
Dictionaries report common usage. No one believes dictionaries to be the ultimate authority on right and wrong usage.
.
In fact, I’ll remind you that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define all of its words. …or any of them, for that matter.
.
I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.
.
…though, as I said, I don’t use the name God unless I’m talking to, quoting, or referring to someone who does, and though I agree with those Theists who say that “exist” applies only to things and contingent beings, elements of metaphysics.
.
OED is useful as a general guide that reports the most common usage.
.

If you do not believe God 'exists' in the normal sense of the word, you are an atheist

.
“Exist” doesn’t even have a definite, consensus, metaphysical definition.
.

Either way, you do not believe 'god' exists. That is the definition of an atheist. You can't just change it because you'd prefer to be called a theist.

.
According to OED, I’m not a Theist. I’m glad that you’ve clarified your definition, because it means that your criticism isn’t about all whom I consider Theists. And I assume that many Atheists probably agree with you.
.
I don’t contend that one definition is more valid than another. It’s just a matter of clarifying definitions for communication purposes.
.
I’d said:
.

…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.

.
You replied:
.

No, it's because I consider it a logical nonsense to say you believe in something but be unable to define what it is. It simply doesn't make sense.

.
I agree that it doesn’t make any sense to try to apply logic and definitions to all of Reality. I and a lot of people at these forums believe that logic doesn’t describe, cover, or govern all of Reality, and that not all of Reality is knowable or definable.
.
That’s a belief about a Reality that isn’t definable.
.
If you believe otherwise, then you take a minority position at these philosophy forums.
.
But I pointed out that all Theists discuss what they mean by Theism, and all Theists who refer to God discuss what they mean by God.
.
I don’t know where you get the notion that Theists are unable to say what they’re talking about.
.
As for “define”, see above.
.

If you cannot define what it is

.
I’ve stated my Theism at other discussion-threads at these forums. I haven’t been secretive. I’ve told what I mean by Theism, as do all Theists.
.
What I said at those threads was very brief, because, as I’ve said, I believe that it’s not a knowable, describable or discussable topic.
.
But I’m not at this thread to advocate or present a religious position, or to convince anyone about Theism vs Atheism. To take this thread in that direction would be inappropriate and un-aesthetic.
.
But, to give you a better idea of what I’m talking about, without departing from the scope of this thread, I’ll just refer you to a thread of a few months ago. It was called something like “Hegel’s religious writings”, and it was at the Metaphyisics & Epistemology subforum, or at the General Philosophy subforum.
.
It won’t be difficult to find it. You’ll have to look at just a few back pages of those two subforums.
.
Additionally, that thread has links to web articles that will tell you more.
.

, what you have is a feeling or a sensation, not a belief.

.
I agree that feelings aren’t as easy to discuss as science, or Literalist religion.
.
I admit that not all of Reality lends itself to words.
.
I don’t have beliefs that oppose or contradict the feelings and impressions.
.
We’re talking about a region of Reality where it isn’t so easy to specify belief with logical precision, or sometimes even a clear-cut distinction between belief and impression or feeling.
.
I’d be glad to go into it more, to clarify my Theism (…as I have at other discussion-threads), but that would be outside the scope of this thread. This thread isn’t the place for such discussion. Check out the Hegel’s religious writings thread, and its links.
.

You are misusing the words 'theist' and 'belief' simply to dodge having to admit that you don't really believe in God. A 'theist' is someone who believes in the existence of god, a 'belief' is a propositional statement or functional attitude. If we can't stick to normal English how do you expect to maintain a discussion?

.
Certainly definitions need to be well-specified.
.
Now that you’ve specified the OED definition, I know what religions you’re referring to. Most likely other Atheists mean similarly by what they say.

I, too, don’t agree with all the details of those Theisms that OED refers to, though I find kinship with the sentiment behind them, which, to me, seems more relevant than those people’s allegorical beliefs--hence my self-designation as Theist.
.
(But I also realize that religion is sometimes just a social matter, often used (maybe subconsciously) as an “us-vs-them” way of achieving social cohesion by villainizing or excluding others. And of course religion has long been used as a cynical, dishonest social-control device. …as was pointed out by a famous Atheist in 1848. I don’t criticize Atheists for being Atheists, though I don’t agree with their Atheism.)
.

By your definition of 'Theism', I'm a theist too because I definitely don't think we've discovered every form of existence (there are probably at least seven more dimensions for a start)

.
No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.
.

By your definition of 'belief', I have beliefs that I can't define because I definitely have feelings and sensations that are not the result of logical thought

.
But if you say they aren’t beliefs, then they probably aren’t. Not if you have beliefs that supersede them.
.
Anyway, as I suspected, the Atheism/Theism disagreement is largely just definitional, meaning there’s a lot less disagreement between Atheists and non-literalist Theists than there might seem to be.
..
I think that we should, to the extent possible, find discussable, describable (physical or metaphysical) explanations.

Regarding Theism, I consider that to be meta-metaphysical rather than metaphysical. …because it seems to me that metaphysics is meant as the limit of what is explainable, discussable, describable, arguable, provable.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Quoting Michael Ossipoff

I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.

So what do you have in common then? You've talked a lot about definitions, and I've read with interest your exposition of your theism on the thread you indicated, but whilst it has given me a clearer understanding of your beliefs, it has not explained why you think they're closer to biblical-literalists than atheists. It seems a bizarre, and incredibly arbitrary use of the word 'theist' to say that the common feature is that you all use the word 'God' to define the non-material force/entity/experience of widely differing properties. Scientists could just as easily have decided that the Higgs-Boson was what they call 'God' (in fact I think it was even called the god particle for a while), making all scientists theists as well.

I'm unaware of any other proper noun where normal use is for the speaker to simply apply it to whatever they wish to fall into that definition, rather than have it define some collection of things already found in human discourse. We don't decide whatever we think falls into the category 'tree' and get to talk with others expecting that definition to mean something to them. 'God' is already a word that defines certain propositions, it's quite a wide definition, and certainly takes in some non-material aspects, as well as the very anthropomorphic version, but that doesn't mean we can just apply the word to any metaphysical proposition and expect to be understood. You said "No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.". So how come you're able to apply the word 'god' to whatever metaphysical (or meta-metaphysical, if you like) position you see fit, but say with absolute certainty that I can't apply it to unknown forces in physics? What aspect of the definition of 'god' are you invoking to make such claims?

This whole thread is about dishonest philosophy and I find this kind of language game to be an example of this. As you said, quite rightly, it's all too easy for disagreements to arise simply out of poor definition of terms - 'god', 'belief', 'theist', but the way to avoid that is not only to define your terms first, it is to make some attempt to stick to previously agreed definitions, to not deliberately stray too far from the fuzzy boundaries that previous language use has defined for a word.

Reply to Pseudonym

Sorry about the delay, but I wanted to be more specific this time.
.
I’d said:
.

I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.

.
You replied:
.

So what do you have in common then?

.
The feeling that’s behind the allegory.
.
(…a feeling felt by some, but not all Theists)
.
But of course I don’t deny that there are plenty of Theists, of the door-to-door aggressive, abusive, arrogant variety, whose only feeling is their feeling of dogmatic superiority. We’re all familiar with them, and have encountered their rudeness. I have nothing in common with them.
.
Call it “cherry-picking”, but it’s some, but not all, Theists that I have something in common with.
.
Many or most, but not all, Atheists are Materialists, and believe that science covers, describes, and applies to, all of Reality. In contrast, I claim that the workings of the physical world isn’t all of what’s discussable, describable and arguable, much less all of Reality. Metaphysics is about what else is discussable and arguable, regarding what is.
.
I know I’ve already said this, but I don’t think that physics and metaphysics cover all of Reality, because not all of Reality is explainable, describable, discussable, definable, arguable or provable.
.
As I mean that word, Theism is a type of felt conclusion, attitude, feeling, impression or belief about that non-describable aspect of Reality. But, regarding what isn’t arguable or provable, “belief “ can be a misleading word.
.
It isn’t possible to be clearer about what I mean without more detail. Somewhere in this posting, I’ll be more specific. I’ve looked for that Hegel thread that I spoke of, but haven’t re-found it yet, so I don’t know exactly how much I said there, and so I might repeat some of it here.
.

…but whilst it has given me a clearer understanding of your beliefs, it has not explained why you think they're closer to biblical-literalists than atheists.

.
Not all Biblical-Literalists. It depends on their attitude. But, regarding some of them, their anthropomorphic allegorical beliefs don’t seem so important, compared to their feeling about indescribable Reality.
.

It seems a bizarre, and incredibly arbitrary use of the word 'theist' to say that the common feature is that you all use the word 'God' to define the non-material force/entity/experience of widely differing properties.

.
It isn’t the use of the word “God” that gives them something in common with me. The aggressive Theists that I mentioned above use that word too, as do many scientists and science-writers discussing things in physics (as you mentioned).
.
It’s just that what’s said by some Theists, even allegory-believing ones, about their impressions, sounds familiar, rings true.
.

Scientists could just as easily have decided that the Higgs-Boson was what they call 'God' (in fact I think it was even called the god particle for a while), making all scientists theists as well.

.
Sure, now I agree that we should call them that when they say that. Should the word “Theist” be interpreted broadly enough to include the scientists and science-writers who want to apply the word “God” to something in physics? Why not? If the rude, abusive and arrogant door-to-door Biblical-Literalist promoters are called Theists, when why not the science-writers too? I’d be agreeable to that.
.
…though neither are what I really consider Theists.
.
Definitions are a MF.
.

I'm unaware of any other proper noun where normal use is for the speaker to simply apply it to whatever they wish to fall into that definition, rather than have it define some collection of things already found in human discourse.

.
A widely used and misused word. To me, the valid use of the word God, is its use by what might be called Philosophical (or non-allegorical/non-anthropmorphic)Theists (…though the word “God” is much used by Atheist philosophers too.). …even though I don’t usually use that word, because it seems to still have some anthropomorphic implication.
.

We don't decide whatever we think falls into the category 'tree' and get to talk with others expecting that definition to mean something to them. 'God' is already a word that defines certain propositions, it's quite a wide definition, and certainly takes in some non-material aspects, as well as the very anthropomorphic version, but that doesn't mean we can just apply the word to any metaphysical proposition and expect to be understood.

.
Of course, which is why I don’t use that word, except when replying to, referring to, or quoting people who use it.
.

You said
.
"No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.".
[quote]
So how come you're able to apply the word 'god' to whatever metaphysical (or meta-metaphysical, if you like) position you see fit

.
I don’t. Though I call myself a Theist, I don’t usually use the word God.
.
…though I realize that “Theist” is derived from a word for God. I feel that there’s validly something behind what some people mean when they refer to God.
.
It’s true that I’m using “Theist” in a way different from how it’s usually meant. But I’m using it for what I feel is what’s valid behind what’s usually called “Theism”. To me, Theism isn’t the dogmas and allegories.
.
I and others like me don’t promote or proselytize, and so the only “Theism” that is well-known is that of the preachy allegory-promoters. …and so they get to define the words.
.

, but say with absolute certainty that I can't apply it to unknown forces in physics?

.
I shouldn’t say that.
.
Well, it would have a different meaning, but sure, why not? It already has overbroad meaning. As I mentioned, I wouldn’t object to scientists and science-writers being called “Theists”, when they use the word “God” to refer to something in physics—as they sometimes do. Maybe then they’d be more careful about their language. The word “Theist” is already used so broadly as to lose its meaning, so why not broaden it further, in co-operation with people whose language calls for it?
.
So yes, the usage and definitions of “Theist” are mutually contradictory and not very useful, no doubt about it. I use “Theist” to refer to someone who expresses certain impressions or feelings about Reality beyond physics and metaphysics. But that’s just my usage.
.

What aspect of the definition of 'god' are you invoking to make such claims?

.
I don’t usually use that word, and I don’t have an exact definition, but, to me, a valid meaning for God would refer to the subject of a certain kind of impression or feeling that some people express about Reality beyond physics and metaphysics. …an impression of gratitude for the Good-ness of what-is. … an impression of Good as the basis of what-is.
.
(As regards the latter, someone here quoted a well-known Greek philosopher, maybe Aristotle or Plato, as expressing that. I’ve heard that from a modern philosopher too, but I don’t remember his name.)
.
…though, as I said, I don’t usually use the word God, because I feel that it has some anthropomorphic implication.

.

This whole thread is about dishonest philosophy and I find this kind of language game to be an example of this. As you said, quite rightly, it's all too easy for disagreements to arise simply out of poor definition of terms - 'god', 'belief', 'theist', but the way to avoid that is not only to define your terms first, it is to make some attempt to stick to previously agreed definitions, to not deliberately stray too far from the fuzzy boundaries that previous language use has defined for a word.

.
I don’t intend any dishonesty. Admittedly I use “Theist” with a definition of my own, but only because I feel that it better expresses Theism’s valid element. It’s as if people were calling walnut-shells “walnut”, and dictionaries had begun to define “walnut” as walnut-shells, and all the discussion about walnuts were about the merits of eating walnut-shells.
.
There are times when we disagree with the dictionary and standard usage.
.
Anyway, “God” and “Theism” are already used super-broadly.
.
Well, when I describe my Theism, I try to avoid controversial or contradictorily-used terms.
.
(…other than the word “Theism” itself—It’s just that sometimes it’s necessary to choose between named categories, so you try to choose the closest one.)
------------------
As I was saying, I don’t know how much I said at the “Hegel’s religious writings” thread, and so I might repeat some of it here.
.
I’ve posted about my metaphysics in many thread-discussions, where metaphysical questions came up. Let me paste here my reply to someone’s objection to my metaphysics, in which I spoke of (my impression about) its meta-metaphysical implications.
.
I’m not saying that metaphysics is necessarily the only thing that leads to the good conclusion. And maybe the conclusion that I describe is already known to you.
.
Anyway, this pasted post is from the currently-active “What is Nothing?” thread:
.
Here’s the post with the objections and reply:
.
I’d said:
.

that end [the sleep at the end of lives] is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events.
[quote]
.
You replied:
.
[quote]

But how can it be more "natural" for us when we are not, or are no longer? I mean, death is when we cease being the entities that we are. We cease being an entity altogether. We are no longer.

.
No, I haven’t been talking about that time. The time when you’ve completely shut-down won’t be experienced by you. For you, there’s no such time. The time when you’re gone will be experienced only by your survivors.
.
You’ll never experience a time without experience.
.
I was referring to the sleep at the end of lives (or at the end of this life if you don’t believe in reincarnation).
.
What makes the sleep at the end of lives more natural and normal, is the fact that it’s your final outcome, your final state of affairs, and is timeless.

.
You continued:
.

And "Natural" surely only applies to living entities that are. Entities that are not, are no longer part of the natural world. Therefore death cannot be "more natural" for us since in death we are not entities.

.
See above.
.

Moreover, sleep is only ever something we do, or something that happens to us, when we are.

.
…and I was talking about sleep, when we still are.
.
Of course, it’s a time when we’re approaching Nothing. But we won’t know that, because, as I said, by then we won’t know that there ever were, or could be, such things as worldly life, body, identity, time or events. The impending gradual end will be quite meaningless and irrelevant, because we won’t know or care about it.
.

So I think it is misleading to use it as a metaphor for death. It could lead to unclarity.

.
I hope that, above in this post, I’ve clarified what I meant.
.
I’d said:
.

But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical?

.
You replied:
.

Sorry I think you have the burden of proof here, not me.

.
I think not. I’ve told why.
.
If, as I’ve discussed, our experience is consistent with a hypothetical system of if-thens, and if you could interpret it either way, then which interpretation requires the assumption of a brute-fact?
.
Here’s what I said about that:
.
“Among the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
“There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
“You’re in a life because you’re the hypothetical protagonist of one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. …complex systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts about hypotheticals.
.
“I can’t prove that the concretely, objectively, fundamentally existent physical world of Materialism doesn’t superfluously exist, as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, that system of inter-referring if-thens referred to above.”

.
It’s customarily agreed that brute-facts, unnecessary assumptions, and unverifiable unfalsifiable propositions are suspect."
.
You said:

.

The reason is that it is highly implausible that we experience life hypothetically and/or factually. Myself, and the people within my shared culture, experience the world in terms of familiarity and significance.

.
Of course. I didn’t mean to denigrate or deny suchness, presence, direct experience, etc.
.
You find out about the logical, factual matters when you check for them. …and, when you do, you’ll find that your experience is self-consistent. But I’m not implying that you spend all your time with logic, facts, etc.

.
I often emphasize that metaphysics is to experience and Reality, as a book on how a car-engine works is to actually taking a ride in the countryside.

.
Logic, and statements, descriptions or evaluations about facts, aren’t, and don’t describe, experience and Reality.

.
Logic, physics and metaphysics don’t cover, describe, or govern Reality.

.
But, though it isn’t all of Reality, and isn’t all of your experience, metaphysics is my topic here.

.
The fact that metaphysics isn’t everything doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t talk about it. I find it of interest.
.
Metaphysics is the limit of what can be discussed and described.
.
You said:

.

When I'm running for the train, for example, I do not think of a hypothetical or a fact. To do so I would first need to abstract from and reflect on the situation. There is never an experience like this. Instead I am completely caught up in the situation and this is grounded in my familiarity with catching trains. I know how to catch trains and know how to catch a train that I'm running late for. I am fully involved. I am the situation. In a sense there is no I, there is only the situation, when I am so fully involved.

.
Of course. No argument there. See above.

.
I’d said:
.
Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, then you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
.
You reply:
.

.
Again, this is not how we experience our world. Why? because the way you have expressed this, the roundabout is meaningless and abstracted from everyday experience. It has no significance. For example, someone who is lost and following directions does not go to 34th & Vine to encounter a roundabout, they go there only in order to get onto the road they need to get on to. It is significant to them for that reason. Or, someone who is familiar with the roundabout probably more readily experiences the frustrations of driving in traffic with idiots, or thinking about the discussion they had that morning with their partner, than their surroundings (including the roundabout) as such. Perhaps they are so utterly familiar with the roundabout and their drive to work that they don't even consciously notice it. This happens all the time for me in the flow of life. Notice that in this latter example the person went to 34th & Vine but didn't encounter a roundabout. At least not in a consciously aware factual manner (present-at-hand in Heidegger speak), which is what I take you to mean here by "encounter".

.
I have no disagreement with that. Sometimes you don’t experience the facts unless you’re looking for them. But, when you do, you’ll find facts that aren’t inconsistent with the other facts of your experience. That’s why your life is a possibility-story instead of an impossibility-story.

.
Philosophy, the topic of these forums, is about matters that are verbal, discussable, describable.
.
But I emphatically agree that Reality isn’t about logic, metaphysics or physics.
.
But explanations of the logical underpinnings and background of our lives are still of interest. …without any implication that they’re the complete explanation or background for Reality.
.
Whether or not any of us like it, we still deal with facts, states of affairs, situations. Their verbal explanation and logical factual background can be of interest. As humans, we deal with logical factual matters whether we like it or not. It’s only a matter of how we deal with it.
.
We can worry unnecessarily or excessively, when we take the facts too literally, believing in the “concrete” fundamental objective existence of the physical world. Obviously we must deal with the physical world, and take care of ourselves in that world, but we also tend to worry too much, unproductively, unnecessarily.
.
By the way, this protagonist that we are, of a life-experience possibility-story, is an animal, a purposely-responsive device designed by the events of natural-selection. Things can happen to us, and we all know that eventually something will happen to each of us. But we aren’t here for things to happen to. We’re merely designed to respond to our surroundings optimally for the goals set by natural-selection. So, if we’re doing our best, then that’s all that matters. So a Chinese writer once pointed out that anything is nullified if we do what we can to deal with it.
.
Subjectively, we do what we want, like or prefer. But, our choices and decisions aren’t really ours, or our problem, because (as one would expect for a purposefully-responsive device) those choices are determined for us by our wants, likes and preferences (inborn and acquired), and our surroundings,
.
I suggest that what I said in the two above paragraphs is relevant when events, choices or decisions erroneously seem a problem.
.
I’ve said this before, but let me say it again.

.
By the metaphysics that I propose, what is discussable and describable is insubstantial and ethereal. Of course we do our best, and, whether we admit it or not, we enjoy our lives. But this temporary life is insubstantial, so of course we just enjoy it while it lasts, while doing our best. Hence the Hindu emphasis on life as primarily “Lila”, play.
.

I suggest that this metaphysics implies an openness, looseness, and lightness. …in contrast to Materialism’s grim “objective” accounting.
.
So no, I don’t mean to say that you always live in logic, facts, verbal description, etc. But, when you visit them, they aren’t as bad as you’ve been taught. In fact they’re pretty good.
.
Metaphysics is a verbal discussion about what logically, factually is. What factually is, is pretty good.
.
[end of pasted reply from other thread]
.
So it’s the impression, of me, and some others, that what-is, is pretty good, and inspires gratitude.
.
An impression that the whole overall metaphysical what-is, is very good—Is that different from an impression that Good is the character or basis of what-is?
.
These are impressions, or the same impression. But if your subjective impression is that something is good, then isn’t there a real sense in which it is good, as far as you’re concerned? So the distinction between impression and belief isn’t really so distinct.
.
…because none of this has anything to do with convincing anyone else.
.
And, if there’s an impression is that Good is the basis of what-is, then isn’t that really just another way of saying an impression that there’s good intent behind what-is?
.
Michael Ossipoff