Belief in nothing?
In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God. Doesn’t this essentially equate to a belief in “nothing?” If so, isn’t that self-defeating? A belief requires an object, that is, something as opposed to nothing. If there is no object your “belief” is referring to, then you don’t have an actual belief. You can have beliefs about the premises leading up to the conclusion that there is no God (Theists haven’t provided evidence, it isn’t logical, etc.), but that isn’t the same thing. So, my question would be ”What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism?”
Comments (424)
Yes this thing exists which created us, you know nothing about it's face unless you find a trace. 1. You cannot call it by name. 2. You can because you have found evidence. You cannot describe it as with a face, and this would counter Christianity.
Think about it, it isn't worshipped this way. We are playing who done it, we don't have an answer. The real God would tell us to worship more our environment.
Strong atheists have the same kind of belief about gods as you (hopefully) do about stegosauruses in your room. (Weak atheists just lack belief that there is).
They also believe, like you probably do, that there are trees outside and that the midday sky is blue and that Paris is the capital of France, and all kinds of other things, so they definitely don't believe in nothing, and their beliefs aren't even all negative like your belief abut stegosauruses in your room are.
No. Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is a television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv.
Like the pseudo-question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" can be reformulated more coherently as "Why anything at all?" (or less speculatively "How did the universe come-to-be, does it continue-to-be, and will it (ever) cease-to-be?"), positive / strong / explicit atheism's "belief there are no g/Gs" can be reformulated e.g. "disbelief that there are any g/Gs".
I prefer anti-theism to atheism (of any flavor), which I understand as a 2nd order objection to 1st order theism, or defeasible claim that theism is not true (because predicates attributed by (philosophical or religious) theism to any g/G are either easily falsified or conceptually incoherent and/or inconsistent with one another). The essential question concerns, as I see it, the truth-value of what we (can) say, or has ever been said, about a theistic g/G - as it was for the apophatics - and not 'whether or not any g/G exists'.
I would say that I don’t believe that there is a stegosaurus in my room.
Agreed.
The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"...that they start arguing from a position of weakness.
On the question of "Is there at least one god...or are there no gods"...the best anyone can do is to make a blind guess. There is no way whatsoever that one can get to a "yes there is at least one" or "no, there are none" using logic, reason, science, or math. It just cannot happen that way right now.
So any theist saying, "I believe (in) God"...is merely making a blind guess in that direction...and disguising the fact that it is a blind guess by using the word "believe."
But it has become VERY OBVIOUS to me that the reason ANYONE uses the descriptor "atheist" is doing so because that person HAS MADE A BLIND GUESS that no gods exist...or a blind guess that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does. (An assertion that one is more likely than the other...is also a blind guess, not a result of logic, reason, science, or math.)
So, in effect, people who proclaim themselves atheists...do have a belief.
The bullshit that atheism is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hair color...is just that...bullshit.
Just sayin'!
I'm confident God doesn't exist.
It is also a stance on the God topic, no person is born an Atheist in the same way we're not born a Theist.
Meaning that, in a way off is right, but it's contrary to an on, a on and off which are, if a strong Atheist, needless.
People will be people, the atheist guise never fooled me, but the Theist one did when I was young. Even though I was atheistic, I felt concern for the amount of evil in the world.
What I believed was more kin to a Theist, and it led me to study esoteric sciences.
Yeah, I went hook, line, and sinker for religion earlier. Raised Catholic. Goes with the territory.
Literally? We are Theist too, but God is not good.
Would you rather be this clean body or the tormented one (theism).
People take the easiest imagination of friend and call it Jesus.
I prefer to call it something more than the bigger term psychology, schizophrenia, visualization and so forth...
You at least hold me back in your current formation.
There are all sorts of things we believe did not happen do not exist. You must have some have some yourself. FAiries, ghosts, ufo abductions, vampires whatever, or perhaps global warming. Everyone has things about which it is perfectly logical to say I do not believe X exists. And by the way my above possible examples are not a list of things I am saying are real or not. Just choosing some things that many people do not believe are real.
Yeah.
So long as we are clear that a person saying, "I do not 'believe' X is real"...does not mean that person is saying "I 'believe' X is not real."
It is totally reasonable and LOGICAL to say, "I do not 'believe' X is real...and I also do not 'believe' X is not real."
That is a very important proviso.
I think Frank nailed it. Here's the problem. When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God's, that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.
Therefore, from 180's metaphor, the best thing an Atheist can do is niether show interest in TV to begin with, nor comment on same. In other words when topics of EOG rear their heads, simply say nothing and walk away. I think in that way, it would prove their belief system is strong.
( Otherwise, per OP, what's the point about talking about nothing?)
If I say that I do not believe that any God exists, that isn’t a false statement. There’s no pretending. Conversely, couldn’t it be said that the issue actually is non-Atheists trying to define Atheism in a way that better serves their needs? Also, wouldn’t those people who identify as Atheists be the people best suited to define what Atheism is in the first place? I am not a Theist. Therefore I have no right to try to tell people who identify as Theists that actually they are defining Theism wrong. I have to accept whatever definition they provide.
I think saying it is a blind guess is exaggerated. Atheists and Theists alike both have reasons for their stance. Something must have convinced them one way or the other.
The problem is not non-atheists trying to define atheism in a way that better serves their needs...but rather with atheists trying to define it in a way that better serves their needs.
Atheists are defining "atheism" in a way that requires people like me to be considered an atheist. They are defining "atheism" in a way that requires every newborn baby, every infant, every toddler...to be considered an atheist.
That is abject nonsense, Pinprick.
My guess is that EVERY person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor DOES "believe" that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
THAT is the reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor...not because of a lack of belief in any gods.
I LACK A "BELIEF" THAT ANY GODS EXIST. I ALSO LACK A "BELIEF" THAT THERE ARE NO GODS. There is absolutely no way I should be considered an atheist just because atheists want to define atheist in a way that better serves their needs.
Can you truly not see that?
My guess is that you have NO TROUBLE understanding that if a theist says "I am confident that a GOD does exist"...he/she is just expressing a "belief."
There is the possibility that using "blind guess" is stretching things a bit...but I have searched diligently for years myself for any unambiguous evidence to persuade me "there is a GOD" or "there are no gods"...and have not found ANYTHING remotely edifying.
My opinion (guess) is that every statement of "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...is nothing but a guess. I use "blind guess" because it more closely explain my feelings.
I think you've muddled up ontology and epistemology. It is true that a statement of what does not exist doesn't say anything much about what does exist. But it's an indirect way of saying something like:
Let E = the set of all existing things.
God is not a member of E. E is the "object of belief".
On the other hand epistemology deals directly with beliefs, and it is meaningful to simply say that atheism entails the belief that the following proposition is false:
[I]God exists[/i]
Perhaps. But don’t Atheists have the right to define Atheism however they choose? If not, then who gets to define it?
That’s how categories work. If you fit the criteria established for that group, then by definition you are a part of that group. It’s that way with political affiliations, sex, nationality, economic status, etc. If the shoe fits...
I think it’s at least debatable whether or not infants are even capable of forming a belief. Especially a belief about an abstract concept that requires abstract thought.
Yes, but only because their belief has an object; God. I’m debating that without an object there is no belief.
Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."
Would that be reasonable in your opinion?
If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"
No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.
It is not debatable at all. THEY CAN'T!
But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.
That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense.
I can see that there is precious little chance that we will ever agree on a proper definition of “atheist” or “atheism.” I will try to avoid using them without modifying statements.
I am saying this, though: Anyone who asserts “There are no gods” or “It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…
…is simply making a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.
That same thing holds for anyone asserting “There is at least one GOD” or “It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are none.”
BOTH are nothing more than blind guesses. And each, if made an assertion, bears the burden of providing proof.
Ummm...when I suggest "gods" may or may not exist, I mean any of several things…all of which can be considered a GOD.
1) For instance (but not limited to)…an eternally existing creator of all the stuff we humans consider “the universe.”
2) Beings that have specialties…creators of individual items in this thing we humans consider “the universe.” A creator of living things…of animals...of plants...of inorganic matter...of space...of time.
3) Beings like those (perhaps invented by primitive peoples) with the qualities those primitives envisioned. Ya know, the likes of Zeus, Yahweh, Aton, and that ilk.
So...what do those who doubt the existence of any gods mean when they use the word"god" in sentences like, “There are no gods?”
I'm not exactly sure.
For one thing, I doubt I would ever use that pronoun in describing what I mean...despite the fact that so many of the examples I gave were of male gender.
By "beings" I mean to denote "existence." I often mention that I never use that "supernatural" designation in my (rather pathetic) attempts to define what I mean. If any gods exist...they are not "supernatural," but rather are a part of what exists...which to me means...a part of nature.
Discussing gods (I try always to use that plural form) for me is mostly about trying to understand what "existence" is all about. "Being" is so mysterious...I sometimes recoil from trying to think too deeply into it. It "scares me" for want of a better way to express it. (Fills me with awe, might work.)
Anyway...the entire of the "There is a GOD"/"There are no gods" works best with a simple...I do not know and cannot meaningfully guess.
When pressed in a forum for a guess...I use Mr. Coin...a Sacajawea coin my wife and I use during football season to settle disputes about who to choose in our Pool. Heads - I guess there is at least one god...tails - I guess there are none. (For the pool, it is heads - Home Team...Tails - visitors.)
Says everything I want to say about "choosing" on the issue.
Great. Now would you also say you believe there is not a stegosaurus in your room, or are you undecided about the existence of stegosauruses in your room?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Not necessarily. I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that.
It's just that someone who does not believe either way still does not believe there are any gods, and so still counts as an atheist. There are different shades of atheism, weak and strong. I'm a strong atheist, but weak atheists are atheists too.
Quoting Frank Apisa
In your opinion. The position you're espousing is called "strong agnosticism", which is the view that not only is it not known to oneself (as in weak agnosticism), but it cannot be known to anyone, whether or not there is a god.
That's far from proven though, and many if not most people think differently, including myself. I was raised in a theist household and so grew up just inheriting a nominal belief in God from my parents, then grew up and realized that the picture of God they held didn't accord with what I had since learned of the world, tried for a long while to figure out some other "better" picture of how God could still exist, for a while even thought I had "proven" that he "must" (in what I now look back on as laughably bad arguments about how we must be in a simulation, basically), eventually ended up identifying God with the universe itself (after proving to my satisfaction that nothing within the universe could count as God and nothing outside the universe can exist) and calling myself a pantheist, before eventually deciding that that was a uselessly confusing label and that nothing I believe differed from the things atheists believe, and just calling myself that instead.
To cut a lot philosophical arguments short, my current position is that while it is possible that (a) very powerful, very knowledgeable, and very good being(s) could exist somewhere in the universe (but only in the universe, because physicalism; including in some layer of reality outside of what we falsely think is the universe if we are in something like a simulation, for instance), what you're talking about there now is basically an alien, and there is evidently (because Problem of Evil) no such being sufficiently powerful, knowledgeable, and good to fulfill the role of "God" here on Earth. So sure, I'm (weakly) agnostic about the generic existence of nice, smart super-aliens somewhere, but there is definitely no God in the usual sense around these parts.
Outright rejection of specific theistic claims and simply-withholding belief in the divine in general aren't mutually exclusive. Believe (not (theistic claim X) ) vs not (Believe (theistic claims of class Y) ), why not both? EG: "There is no transcendent god" vs "I don't believe in any immanent god".
I don't think they're exclusive when X and Y are the same either. One way of being absent belief in X is to believe in X's negation ("not believing in X" is true when it is not assented to, and assenting to its negation is a way of not assenting to it).
Hi Forest!
Just curious, how would you defend your belief system? For instance, which domain would you draw from ( logic/deductive or inductive reasoning, cosmology, phenomenology/consciousness, metaphysics, existentialism, cognitive science/psychology).
I would be happy to debate the EOG based upon all of the above disciplines, if you want to start a thread. Up to you. I'm just wondering how an Atheist thinks, since I'm obviously not one.
Likewise, people who proclaims themselves 'agnostic' ... are, in effect, atheists in practice. Just sayin'. :smirk:
So, Frankie, what do you call it when a person knows - can demonstrate - that belief-T is false? Or simply rejects belief-T because either its claims lack sufficient evidence or it is inconsistent with demonstrably true belief-N?
Also, how do you differentiate "belief in", "belief that" & "know that"? Or do you often conflate them just because, in your incorrigibly addled, feeble mind, they're all the same "bullshit" to you? :sweat:
If I’m not an Atheist it wouldn’t matter if I thought it was reasonable or not, why would it? Anyway, my question still stands as to who gets to define Atheism then?
The alternatives being Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism. The issue is understanding the definitions of each of those and based on that deciding which one you fall under. Not having the expectation that these groups change their definition in order to oblige you.
Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as. Secondly, if I’ve done anything in this thread, it’s been ask questions. I haven’t insisted on anything. Thirdly, and this applies to everyone involved in the discussion, my main interest is determining the criteria for belief. The definition of Atheism was just an example of the possible implications of belief requiring an object. I take no issue with discussing these implications, but would first like get the issue of what constitutes belief out of the way. I think beliefs require objects. I may be wrong, I don’t know.
I don’t feel a need to start a thread of my own just to defend my own view, but I’m happy to explain myself if you want to start one to question it. I gave a brief summary of my view and some brief reasons for it at the end of the post you replied to, if you’d like to quote that in the OP of a new thread or something. I’ll quote it here again for ease of reference:
Quoting Pfhorrest
I answer "I think, no." But I am not sure of what you are actually asking. Would you reword it please.
Good for you.
I suspect MOST (perhaps, ALL) people who use the descriptor "atheist" also "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.
I object to defining "atheism" as simply lacking a "belief" that any gods exist. That requires agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers to be included as atheists. It seems to me more sensible to define "atheist" as someone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...and possessing a "belief" that no gods exist or a "belief" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.
I do not see the reason for the objection to what I suggest here.
I'm an agnostic...and I am not an "atheist in practice."
I'd love to have you explain why you say that I am an "atheist in practice." I think it will help my argument.
I would call it "someone demonstrating that a particular "belief" is wrong."
What would you call it?
If you want to ask this question without the childish insults...do so. I'll respond.
If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person.
Quoting Pinprick
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.
I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.
Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.
I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting.
Quoting Pinprick
Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify?
Quoting Pinprick
As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists.
THAT is what I see as "belief" on this issue.
What do you see as unreasonable about that?
Awesome. Under this logic I get to define what physics, biology, law, chemistry, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is as they all are applied to me. Surely you’re emotional response to this topic is making you say things you don’t mean, right? After all, Atheism could apply to me too, so I get to define it.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Again with the babies... I don’t consider those incapable of forming a belief as anything. They are excluded because they cannot meet the requirements necessary to have an opinion. That is like calling rocks Atheists. Also, I am not concerned with who identifies as an Atheist, nor with the IQ level of Atheists. Couldn’t Atheists use that descriptor simply because they do not believe there are any Gods?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Depends on how you define Atheism :lol: Quoting Frank Apisa
So do guesses require objects?
Getting unwieldy here.
Let's deal with this one item at a time:
Atheists want the word "atheist" to include anyone/everyone who lacks a "belief" in any gods. That requires agnostics, babies, infants, toddlers...ALL to be considered atheists.
There is absolutely no reason to have atheist be defined that way...except that it allows atheists to claim FALSELY that they have no "beliefs." The actual reason atheists use the descriptor is NOT because of a lack of "belief", but BECAUSE of "belief." They "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (My experience indicates that almost no one who does not possess one of those two "beliefs" uses the descriptor "atheist.")
I consider that gratuitous, self-serving description to be unacceptable.
You seem to think I am being unreasonable in that regard.
If I am correct that you think I am being unreasonable...please explain to me why you feel that way.
If I am incorrect, please correct me and explain, if you can, why you are giving me so much grief on the issue?
My position is that I am correct.
When discussing the question "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess.
Not sure what you mean by "requiring an object"...but if it negates that or requires that to be "incorrect"...it is wrong.
If the notion you are attempting to assert here is that X is an object and not-X is not an object (in the context of your comments)...you are wrong. Not-X is as much an object of "belief" as is X.
I notice you side-stepped the essentials of my last post, Pinprick. I wish you hadn't. I am interested in what you have to say .
Question??? I did not see any questions (or question marks) in the post to which i was replying.
Beats the piss out of me. I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object. Not-X does not equal NOTHING.
The part that began with the word "Getting"...though the word, "...issue?"
That is impossible. How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=?
BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why.
No...it is not impossible.
Beats the hell out of me. But this is a digression from the the issue. ON THE QUESTION "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess.
Let's deal with that.
Okay.
You explained: "My assumption is that when people say things like “I believe that no Gods exist” it is either 1) a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence, 2) an oxymoron, such as stating that you feel numb (numbness is defined as the absence of feeling), 3) a logical contradiction, as a belief implies possession and you cannot possess “nothing,” or 4) some other reason I might have missed."
My assumption is that that is incorrect for the reasons I have stated several times already.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation
Quoting Frank Apisa
If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. And actually, the majority of your posts are a digression from the OP I posited. I couldn’t care less about solving whatever beef you have with defining Atheism. I’m interested in whether or not beliefs require objects. I believe they do. The consequence of this certainly affects how Atheism is defined, but that is only a side-effect, not the actual issue at hand.
Not sure how you can say that. On this particular issue...a "belief" is just a disguise word for a blind guess. How more particular can one get?
Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe there are no gods" is anything but a blind guess?
And to meet this arbitrary need for an object, let me restate that: Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe that the assertion 'there is at least one god'...is incorrect?"...is anything but a blind guess? (The "object" being the assertion "there is at least one god."}
It has stopped being a question for you, P...it has become an assertion...and in my opinion, a not very satisfying assertion.
Let's bring Geraldo Rivera into this. At some point, he was going to open Al Capone's safe. You seem to be saying that a person asserting, "I 'believe' there is nothing (other than air) in that safe"...is making a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence (that is not necessarily a grammatical error); stating an oxymoron; or stating a logical contradiction?
The "belief" (or guess) "There is nothing in the safe (except air)" is as good as a guess that there are guns or money or a dead body in it.
P, the first sentence of your OP read, "In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God." How the hell can discussing the definition of atheism be a digression from it?
Perhaps, but I’m not just talking about a belief in this particular instance. I mean belief in general; all beliefs. I want to know if the statement “all beliefs require objects” is true or false. For example, if you were to try to make the case that there are different types of beliefs; some that require objects, and some that do not, that would be a valid argument to make opposing my position, and we could discuss that. Are you wanting to say that all beliefs are blind guesses? If not, that point is irrelevant to what I’m trying to find out.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Possibly, but that is an entirely different can of worms.Quoting Frank Apisa
Correct
Quoting Frank Apisa
Correct
Quoting Frank Apisa
I was simply using that as an example. That discussion is what prompted me to start this one. Apologies for any confusion.
It is my contention that EVERY use of the words "I believe..." can better be stated using "It is my opinion..." "I estimate..." "My guess is..."...or something like that.
As far as the "object" thing is concerned...I have no problem with you requiring an object...but I think not-X is as valid an object as X.
Obviously you are exploring something that does not interest me as much as it does you...so I will bow out.
If you want to discuss the possibility of "gods" that we can do.
As far as "gods" are concerned, my position is:
[i][b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b][/i]
Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate?
There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing.
Not so with gods.
Then, with as much respect as possible, Kant is all wet.
Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not. Not sure what Kant's problem with that would be, but there is no way I can debate him on the point for obvious reasons.
What does that mean, Tim?
There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
There is abundant unambiguous evidence against the existence of your "magic Hippopotamus."
That is a fairly significant difference...wouldn't you agree?
There is no fence sitting in saying "I do not know if any gods exist or not"...and there is no fence sitting in acknowledging that "any guess made is about as meaningful as a coin toss."
If the Pyrrhonists were to demand a decision other than the decision not to make an up or down decision on the issue...I would gladly flip the coin.
How can you say that atheism isn't a belief? It is. Beliefs are propositions held to be true and "god doesn't exist", aka atheism, is a proposition.
Unless, of course, one claims 'no theism' because its claims are false or nonsense - instead of 'no g/G' because g/G does not exist - in which case one is not making an object-statement of "belief" (re: g/G-Token) but rather a meta-statement of critique (re: g/G-Type), as I pointed out in my prior post (and elsewhere), which is demonstrable and not "precarious and untenable" in the least.
Quoting Pfhorrest
:up: :smirk:
Quoting Frank Apisa
And therefore YOU LIVE AS IF "there are no gods" which makes you an atheist in practice, even though not in theory. Of course, Frankie, you're entitled to your own self-definition, but not to your own implications thereof. So suck it up, Humpty - definitions don't only mean whatever you say they mean. :razz:
Quoting tim wood
I take issue with a g/G-Type (re: theism) not a g/G-Token (e.g. Allah). By 'theism' I understand the belief that, at minimum, there is at least one Ultimate Mystery that Created existence and Intervenes (Causes Changes) in the universe. This g/G-Type covers the Abrahamic (JCI) deity, pagan-totemic (anthropic) pantheonic deities ... as well as any philosophical tri-omni (absolute) deity, however they are defined within their respective traditions are nonetheless members of the Mystery-Creator-Intervener (i.e. theism) set.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat:
Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. Insofar as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it.
To wit (as per tim wood's "magic hippopotami"): Absence of any evidence entailed by a g/G predicates is evidence of the absence of a g/G so predicated.
Quoting TheMadFool
Easily. Atheism, as I understand it, is a meta-statement about the truth-value of theism, or what is said / believed about g/G, and therefore not an object-statement about g/G. I.e. There's nothing but nonsense on tv so I turn it off, which is not me watching (i.e. suspending disbelief in) another show on another channel ...
NB: But I'm also an antitheist (scroll up), so what do I know?
I do not live as though there are no gods...any more than I live as though there are gods.
But, you are determined to suppose I am an atheist. I guess having people like me in the atheist camp would increase the IQ level of the group...but you gotta do without me. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.
Yes...you are wrong again.
And to think...you people pretend that you are basing your arguments on logic and science..a laughable assertion if ever there was one!
There is absolutely NO UNUMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE for...or against...the existence of gods.
Of course, that does not stop theists from laughably asserting there is unambiguous evidence that at least one GOD exists...nor does it stop atheists from laughably asserting there is unambiguous evidence that none exist.
Atheists/theists...two sides of one coin!
Well, atheist or not, you certainly ain't no thinker, Frank.
Happy Friday the 13th!
It is not about how you can rig the translation of Atheist to make it say what you want it to mean. In fact, this is precisely the problem with the word. The Greek prefix "a" can translate to the following: no, not, is not, non, un, without, cannot be; for instance, for the word atom (a-tom) the translation is read as such, "cannot be cut". for the translation of Atheist you must apply all possible logically sound variations of "a" to the an accepted definition of "theism". Since the vast majority of the people in the world are not scholars the definition usually chosen to work with is the colloquial definition (theism colloquial definition: belief in a god). Then you make the translations and any of these is valid: "no belief in a god", "Without belief in a god", "cannot be belief in a god". The other translations of "a" are grammatically unsound, but there is one of these unsound translations that many atheists seem to be constantly drawn towards: "non", however, it is not grammatically sound to define things in terms of exclusion, just as one would not define a civilian as a non-military person. As for all of the valid translations (no, without, cannot be) these are all claims of disbelief, or a belief of the negative persuasion.
Ok, now I have shown you the valid definitions of atheism, but this dose nothing to stop people from doing silly things like using the "non" translation, or claiming the grammatically invalid "no theism", and that is on top of the people using the word to express a disbelief in god. All of this confusion because the average person is not a scholar or genius. To me this word is far to confused to be of any real use.
Agnostic is a much better word, which basically means: No Permanently occulted/esoteric knowledge, or in other words: present the evidence and reason for your claims, otherwise why should we even listen to you.
Life has changed so much over the last week...I feel like I'm in another world...one created by Stephen King.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Colloquial is as colloquial does ... :yawn:
I grok what you are saying here, SoaG, but the problem with your argument is that the word "atheism" came into the English language before "theism"...by almost 100 years...
...so it could not possibly have derived that way.
It is not an ad populum. It takes into account how people understand the word on a large scale. Also there is nothing false about that definition. Many people take it to mean just that.
Looked it up this isn't true
Atheism is a meta-statement on theism? Well, in a sense, atheism is claiming the statement "god exists" is false but if it were left to that alone I would agree with you; however, to say "god exists" is false , is to imply "god doesn't exist" is true. It's this inference, "god doesn't exist", which is a proposition, that constitutes a belief and is what atheism truly is; atheism may be a claim on the truth value of theism's central claim but that is done with an objective - to claim god god doesn't exist which is a belief if ever saw one.
according to google, etymology of theism places its origin in the mid 17th century and atheism in the 18th century.
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."
(As you can see...from about 1580.)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=atheis
theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.
(As you can also see...from about 1670)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theism
Those are not referring to the the same thing. the first is a Greek to middle french translation of "godless", and has no relevance to the current understanding of the word theist. Also one cannot possibly create an opposition without something to oppose. so theos or the middle french théisme must first already be understood/understandable.
Its about how people interpret/understand the word and use it just as you are doing now. many people have many interpretations of the word and use it in various ways, very few of which are actually correct. and this causes communication problems.
Hey 180!
Not sure I follow that completely. If an atheist makes any kind of positive statement or proposition or judgement that says, " God does not exist ", therein lies your paradox. You may certainly question the EOG in normal discourse, but as an atheist you just can't make any declarative/sentence or oral statements.
If you did, you would have to defend it just like a theist. Am I missing the obvious?
Yah, but belief in an empty set does not constitute belief in nothing. Maybe they believe in fairies. What? There is nothing stopping them from believing in fairies.
An "empty set" adjust for the existence of the rest of reality.
Yo...
...the word ATHEISM came into the English language BEFORE the word THEISM...
...so it does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' that a god exists) = without a 'belief that a god exists.
It derives from the Greek, through the French...and means "without a god"...NOT without a "belief" in a god. Most people realize that until VERY RECENTLY...the word "atheist" was always used to denote a godless person...someone who denies the existence of any gods.
Now...if you want to dispute the etymological dictionary entries I offered...be my guest.
But do not expect me to agree with doing that.
K?
That is not the current definition of Theism man, don't know how to simplify it for you any more than that man. As well, concept of theos predates athéisme. with out the concept théisme having already been understood/understandable you cannot have the opposing atheism. you cannot just make up anything you want to put an opposition to "I am aparforial" it doesn't mean anything man. at best they came into existence at the same time and then your athéisme doesn't even refer to the current ENGLISH WORD and usage. for the love of Oden's beard man.
You were suggesting an incorrect etymology of the word "atheist"...and I corrected you. Seems to me a "thank you" is in order...not all this bullshit.
Yes, I agree with you that debating atheists have managed to get the meaning of the word "atheist" changed from what it SHOULD mean...a person who supposes there are no gods...or who supposes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...to anyone lacking a "belief" in any gods.
But doing that forces agnostics, babies, infants, and toddlers to accept the descriptor "atheist" to be considered atheists. I cannot speak for all agnostics or babies or infants or toddlers...
...but I will not accept that. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.
Not sure why that argument bothers you so...but you certainly are entitled to be as bothered as you chose to be.
I have no problem with the stated entomology, only the interpretation and being told that I am wrong, when, through the course of logic, I have shown my reason to be sound.
1. your entomology doesn't refer to the English usage
2. it is impossible to oppose something that does not already exist.
aside from that, your authoritative use of the word Yo kinda pissed me off. You should deal with my arguments rather than your current strategy.
I have no problem with the stated entomology, only the interpretation and being told that I am wrong, when, through the course of logic, I have shown my reason to be sound.
1. your entomology doesn't refer to the English usage
2. it is impossible to oppose something that does not already exist.
aside from that, your authoritative use of the word Yo kinda pissed me off. You should deal with my arguments rather than your current strategy.
Sorry for the doubble message. Forgot to quote.
If I only confuse things further, please explain ...
My position - anti-theism - consists only in the positive statement that 'theism is not true' (which, if true, then entails that there aren't any theistic g/G's). In other words, I'm confident I can demonstrate (beyond a reasonable doubt) that whatever is said about - whatever precisely theistic predicate has been ascribed to - any g/G is false or unfalsifiable (i.e. nonsense). I only talk about 'theistic talk about g/G' and defend evaluative meta-statements about theism (i.e. what 'theists claim' g/G is) without making any (of my own) object-statements about g/G.
For example: Monster & Dragon - the latter is a member and the former is a set to which the latter belongs. I claim that the properties of the set Monster are false or unfalsifiable; thus, the set being fictional, and by implication it's members e.g. Dragons are also fictional.
I don’t understand this. I’m not making any claims about the rest of reality. There’s only two options: a box with at least one God in it, or a box with no Gods in it. A box with no Gods in it is an empty box because it contains nothing. There’s no need to try to make claims about what other things could be in the box, if that’s what you’re trying to say.
Great, thanks 180. I would invite you then over to the new existence of God thread that Forest created, and I would be happy to debate you.
We're just starting with all the semantics stuff, meaning of terms, words, paradigms, and so forth... . Just as a highlight, there might be some interesting exploration of Spinoza's pantheism and such...
An empty box, does not contain "nothing". Even if you were to draw a perfect vacuum in the box and seal it in complete darkness it still contains space, virtual particals, and time. So I don't know where you are coming up with this box filled with nothing from. it is not possible: nothing. At least as far as we know. You can have a box with no god in it. That is perfectly fine. Don't know how you are going to prove that though.
Obviously that’s true, but when we use the term “nothing” in everyday speech we exclude the properties you mentioned. Also, I hope you realize I’m not discussing physics in this thread. Space, particles, and time are only relevant to this discussion if they are used to represent something metaphorically. So in the context of the requirement for beliefs to have objects, what would those things represent?
Quoting SonOfAGun
Metaphorically speaking, if you have a box with no Gods in it, then what do you have in the box?
Your use of the word in question is not typical of everyday speech. You say that there is nothing in the box, therefore, atheists believe in nothing, as an attempted philosophical argument, however, "nothing" in philosophical terms, where logic is applied, the term nothing has a very specific meaning, which is why we use the term "empty set" in reference to what you are talking about.
Quoting Pinprick
I am not concerned with metaphor. One could just as easily claim that metaphorically the box contains the fundamental physical properties of the universe, therefore, atheists believe in the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and who even knows if that is the truth. Has anyone even bothered to simply ask an atheist what they believe?
Set Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/
My assertion: Belief is not a valid approach to logic in the first place, so why are you trying to shoehorn it in here. The true test of of the truth value of a thing/concept is can it's existence be proven or can it be practically applied in reality. Whether or not humans believe something is entirely irrelevant.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(Fun fact: I once wrote a paper for a philosophy class about Descartes' conceivability argument, wherein I argued that the argument is sound but Descartes misconstrues what "conceivable" really means, which I titled "Inconceivable: or, You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means". The TA who graded it got a big laugh out of it.)
haha damn you atuocorrect
Yah, is one of the all time greatest movies, I really do know the difference between the words, I swear.
If being unconvinced that god exists is atheism then what is being convinced that god doesn't exist?
A subset of atheism, called "strong atheism".
There are only four possible propositions that can be subject to belief in re god:
1. god exists
2. god doesn't exist
3. god may or may not exist
4. I don't know what god means. Never heard of god
1 is theism, 3 is agnosticism, 4 is lack of belief in god
Ergo 2 must be atheism
If you're unconvinced that god exists then you're denying 1 is true or claiming 1 is false. The remaining options are 2, 3 and 4. 3 is agnosticism and 4 is false for the atheist, leaving only one option viz. 2, the belief that god doesn't exist: atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist.
Agreed.
Furthermore, however, whether or not I/we "believe" ...
(A) To the degree the sine qua non claims of theism (i.e. a mystery (1) that created existence (2) and intervenes - causes changes - in the universe (3)) are falsified, Theism's Negation is true (re: anti-theism);
(B) therefore, by implication of Theism's Negation being true, every Theistic g/G's Negation is also true. (re: atheism)
Quoting SonOfAGun
I/we believe (i.e. assent) that theism is an empty concept and every 'theistic g/G' is, therefore, imaginary.
NB: As for non-theisms (e.g. [s]animism[/s], pandeism, [s]gnosticism[/s], acosmism), I(we) tend to find them either insufficiently evident (ágnôsis) or intrinsically undecidable (epoché).
Of particular note: all soft atheists are agnostics of some kind (5 & 8), but not all agnostics are soft atheists, some soft agnostics are theists (4) or hard atheists (6). But all hard agnostics (8) are also soft atheists. Sorry Frank.
I find the position IMPOSSIBLE to not beleive in both Strega-etcs exist in your room, and that they don't exist in your room. That is a huge logical error, because it contradicts the law of the excluded middle. That you beleive in neither, is impossible.
That was the entire point of my "agnosticism" thread that was shredded by the religious, for some reason or another.
B(not-G) entails not-B(G), so if B(G) then not-B(not-G), but you can not-B(G) and not-B(not-G) at the same time with no contradiction.
In plain English, you can't believe both something and its contradiction, or believe both the negations of those two things, but you can not believe both things so long as you don't believe not either of them.
I believe the following (not proven facts, but items of belief):
- supernatural forces don't exist, supernatural beings don't exist
- matter and energy can't be created or destroyed
- laws of nature can't be bridged or short-circuited or acted against
- humans (and all other living creatures as well) are the products of natural evolution
- life started naturally and arising on its own by natural forces, and is based on chemistry
- life forms (sentient, feeling beings) other than our carbon-based chemical lives are possible
- in the unassailability of the law of the excluded middle
- in the ability of reason to come to better conclusions than the ability of believing and obeying dogma
What I don't know and therefore refuse to speculate on, and refuse to accept claims by others on these things:
- if matter is infinite in amount in the entire universe (not just in the known universe)
- if god exists or not (I choose to believe he does not)
- if the soul survives the body and there is an afterlife or not (I believe it does not)
- if there is an afterlife, I don't have any clue what it's like for the soul (IFF souls live outside the body, before and after occupying a body, I believe it may be horrible, and therefore we, as souls in the non-physical world, strive to get into a living body, any body, and we fight tooth-and-nail with each other to do so)
- whether the world I experience is real, or else is how I perceive real, or else I live in a state of solipsism (But I choose to believe that it is how I perceive real)
- whether others around me have souls and feelings (but I choose to believe they do)
What I know for sure, and which knowledge items are in the realm of empirical knowledge:
- I exist
- space is infinite (3D space) and is here to stay, forever since infinite past
----------------------------
So far so good. Maybe I left out a few things, essential ones, too, but this should do for the time being.
Check your proof again. It is not right.
1. You say you can't believe in both God and Not God.
2. You say you can beleive in not (both god and Not God.)
3. not changes the god to not god and the Not God into God, while cancelling out not.
4. This (3.) changes your claim to "it is possible to believe in not god and god both".
5. You claim 2 is possible. But it is not, since it claims the same as 1, which you declared true, and because it has been shown in (3) and (4) that (1) and (2) are equivalent. One can't claim the equivalent of itself and declare that one is possible and the other isn't.
It's not a proof, just an explanation.
Quoting god must be atheist
Nope, I say you can not-believe in both God and Not God.
You can't "believe both something and its contradiction" = believe in God and Not God
You can't "believe both the negations of those two things" = believe in Not God and God
You can "not believe both things" = not believe in God and not believe in Not God
There's a difference between not-believing something and believing not-something. That's why I used functional notation, to make that clear.
B(not-G) is different from not-B(G). The former implies the latter, sure, but not vice versa.
:death: :flower:
Quoting Pfhorrest
:up:
You can believe in something not god, is different from not believing in god? It only means that in the first instance you make no claim about the existence of god. The claim and god don't intersect.
Proof I proposed mentions "beleiving in not god". I meant to say "not believing in god" is equivalent to "believing not in god." I will re-write my claim, because the way I wrote it, is not the way I meant it. You are right, and Proof180 is right. Right now I am naked, going into the shower, just having woken and gotten up from bed. Wait a few hours, please, for my response. I give you round 1.
0. "I don't believe in god" is equivalent to "I believe not in god".
1. I believe (in god and not in god).
6. Therefore, since (1) is necessarily false, and because we never changed its truth value in the proof, "I believe not (in god and not in god)" is also necessarily false.
Off to the shower.
Your wording was confusing, BUT...if you were asserting that
a) I do not "believe" any gods exist...and
b) I "believe" no gods exist...
...are equivalent...you are dead wrong.
They are not the same thing at all.
One can logically say, "I do not 'believe' any gods exist and I also do not 'believe' there are no gods." (Some people 'believe' at least one god exists and some people 'believe' there are no gods...and I am not a part of either of those groups.)
One CANNOT logically say, "I 'believe' no gods exist...AND I 'believe' at least one god exists.
If the term “empty set” suits you better, so be it. I think my point remains valid regardless.
Quoting SonOfAGun
I’m not trying to determine the truth of anyone’s belief. I’m trying to determine if believing that there are no Gods is logically possible. I feel that believing in an empty set is equivalent to lacking belief. Therefore, Atheism (and possibly other terms such as Nihilism) are better defined as a lack of belief in X, as opposed to believing that not-X, when not-X implies an empty set. Believing that not-X, when doing so implies an empty set, is actually not a belief at all. That is my claim.
Quoting TheMadFool
Being unconvinced that a God exists is Agnosticism.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Agree 100% with this as long as you aren’t equating “thinks” with “believes.”
No matter that you "feel" that way, "believing" (guessing, supposing) that an "empty set" is an empty set...is not equivalent to "lacking 'belief.'"
If you "believe" (guess or suppose) that there is (something) in a box...that, you agree, is a "belief" (guess or supposition).
If you "believe" (guess or suppose) that the box in question is empty (except for space and air)...that is as much a "belief" (guess or supposition) as the former.
Your arguments that it is not...apparently based on an insight you suppose you have had...seems contrived. The fact that X is emptiness (except for space and air)...is no different from (something/anything) when a guess that X is what the box contains.
Or so it seems to me. At 83, I am far removed from the philosophical arguments you seem to be presenting in what does appear to me to be contrivance.
True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.
I may ponder:
If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If deities are non-physical entities then deities don't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the conclusion of deities not existing as true or in other words, I believe deities don't exist.
Someone else may ponder that God exists:
Deity exists.
If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If the deity in question is a non-physical entity then it doesn't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the assertion of deity existing not true or in other words, I don't believe deity exists.
...one would have to make the unwarranted assumption that "physical entities" are those thing that homo sapiens, the puny prime species of this tiny rock in space...is capable of detecting all entities that are physical!
Why would anyone do that?
You're right in implying it's a bold assumption. I adhere to the metaphysical doctrine of physicalism and do so based on my experiences and my rationalization of it all. It is not a belief denoting certainty because it isn't something that I could fully know. This is why I set my arguments as conditionals.
I am, because they mean the same thing. To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more.
Pfhorrest: In your diagram you make a distinction between "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist". This is mere wordplay.
:up:
Quoting TheMadFool
Yeah, I agree, but as an implication of believing that theism is not true, the truth-value of which being demonstrable, whereas the truth-value of any "belief about the ontology of g/G" is not directly demonstrable.
Quoting 180 Proof
My position - a-theism entailed by demonstrable anti-theism.
Beliefs must be about propositions in that believing only works if there are propositions to invest belief in. What concerns us here are two propositions:
1. God exists
2. God doesn't exist
There are two epistemic "positions" we may take:
1. Certain that a proposition is true
2. Unsure that a proposition is true
Combine the propositions and the epistemic positions and we get:
1. Certain god exists = theism
2. Unsure god exists = agnosticism
3. Unsure god doesn't exist = still agnosticism
4. Certain god doesn't exist = A
I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain.
You want to bring out that old canard? That is just Russels orbiting teapot again.
Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence.
"God" undefined - sans definite predicates (i.e. what type of g/G? or what differentiates g/G from non-g/G?) - renders these statements incoherent (i.e. nonsense).
Rather:
1. Theism is true.
2. Theism is not true.
:yawn:
You maybe right you know but let's see what amounts to disbelief? The dictionary defines "disbelief" as "mental rejection of something as untrue". Let's suppose that atheism is disbelief of the proposition "god exists". As per the definition then that is equivalent to saying the proposition "god exists" is untrue or false. If a proposition, here "god exists", is false then its contradiction, viz. "god doesn't exist", is true.
Either the above or you must mean that negating "god exists" also must factor in another possibility viz. "we don't know" the truth value of both propositions "god exists" and "god doesn't exist" but that's agnosticism.
So, either atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist or atheism is agnosticism. Since atheism isn't agnosticism, atheism is the belief that god doesn't exist.
No, that does not follow. A rejection of a claim does not imply a belief in the opposite of the claim. For example if I claim that there is intelligent life in the outer Nebula, I do not claim that there is none. I simply reject your claim because we are talking about something that is unknowable. Clearer?
I think that a frequent misunderstanding of the two terms. However, ...theism refers to a belief, while ...gnosticism refers to knowledge. So agnosticism is not a weak form of atheism, as is often misunderstood, it is a differnt concept.
Indeed, essential to every argument is a good definition but the discussion has strayed into the notion of belief and the nature of belief and what exactly god is isn't important. To say atheism is simply disbelief is tantamount to saying every act of rejecting a proposition is, in your terms, simply a meta-statement or nothing more than a pronouncement of the truth value of beliefs. Not so in my humble opinion because to reject a belief can mean negating a possibility in a disjunction and forces an acceptance of the possibility or possibilities that aren't/weren't negated and these possibilities in re beliefs are other beliefs. So, saying that the proposition "god exists" is false entails that you accept either that such a proposition is unknown/unknowable or that the proposition "god doesn't exist" is true and that is a belief in itself. Since to say the proposition "god exists" is unknown/unknowable is agnosticism, it follows that atheism must be the position that god doesn't exist.
That would be being agnostic about life in outer Nebula.
No. Agnostic would imply that I think life in the outer nebula is unknowable, whch I do not.
Lets go back to your claim: You claimed that when an atheist rejects your claim about a god, he automatically implies a belief in something else. But that is not the case.
or unknown. The idea behind agnosticism is simply that the truth value of a proposition can't be determined. Whether it is unknowable or unknown or there exists other reasons for that is secondary.
It's ok. Thank you for engaging with me though. You seem to be someone who's already been to and traveled on from where I am right now. Thanks again.
Anytime.
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph...but disagree with these two sentences completely.
You haven't thought this through if you think "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist" is merely word play. They represent two completely different thoughts.
Are you saying that being unconvinced that gods exist AND being unconvinced that no gods exist...
...are not agnostic positions.
Or are you just shooting off your mouth?
Bullshit.
Anyone using the descriptor atheist is using it because he/she either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
ATHEISM is as much a product of "belief" as theism.
No. This is old and tired talking point. Disbelieving a claim is not a belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
You are correct..."disbelieving" IS NOT A BELIEF.
But is not what I said.
I said "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
And both of those things ARE "beliefs."
How about listing all the people YOU know who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...who DO NOT "believe" there are no gods...or who do NOT "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
My guess...you cannot name even one, because my further guess is that there are none.
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that.
But what does that have to do with what I said?
Nothing...that's what.
I did not think it necessary to remind people of that in a Philosophy Forum...but...I guess I had to.
If it's true that x doesn't think god exists it means that for x the proposition "god exists" is not true but that would mean x has to think god doesn't exist unless you're claiming atheists = agnostics.
No, this is the crux of the whole issue. To believe to the contrary of something is also to not believe in the thing, but to suspend belief entirely is still to not believe in it, even if you’re not also believing to the contrary.
What I said was that "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist"...saree two completely different thoughts.
If you assert they say the same thing...you are wrong.
You did assert they were the same. You were wrong.
I think we are talking past each other.
What do you mean? Prove it to me, if you care.
Okay...so let's stop doing that.
We'll start over again.
Here is my comment:
"People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
You took issue with that. If you still take issue with it, tell me why you do...and make your argument for why you do. I'll defend what I said, because it is true.
Prove that they are not the same thing???
Is that what you are asking me to do?
I can not generalize about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor", since I personally know only a limited number and I have not seen a large opinion poll about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor".
I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply.
So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?
Okay...unusual, but it could be.
So...just to be sure we are on the same page...tell me...do you think it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist...or do you think it is about a 50/50 proposition.
And if either of those are so...why do you choose to use the descriptor "atheist?"
I have no opinion on that, just as I have no opinion on the existence of pink walrusses on Mars.
I simply do not believe the claims made by theists.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Define "god" first, then I can try to answer.
By the way, I am not a against religion per se. I think non-political, contemplative religions can have a great merit for societies. Just to get that out of the way.
True, but can both be correct, or only one?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Right, but wouldn’t you agree that not all thoughts are beliefs? If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief.
I think what we are missing is that beliefs imply the possession of some object. A belief is something you have. If what you “have” is nothing/an empty set then you don’t actually have anything, because there is no thing to possess.
Example:
X doesn’t have any money. This means X has money is false. But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. This sentence is nonsensical. X can’t “have” no money. Rather, X doesn’t have any money. You either have something, or you do not have something, but you can’t have nothing. Nothing/an empty set is impossible to possess, therefore it is impossible to believe that/in.
I’d say all thoughts to the effect that something exists or not constitute beliefs. There are also thoughts that are not about what does or doesn’t exist, which are not beliefs, but we’re not talking about those here.
Ok. What justification can you provide for excluding thoughts about existence?
Yes
Excluding them from what? I’m not excluding them from beliefs, I’m limiting beliefs to just them. I think you misread me.
I don't know how serious you are about this issue but what I'd like for you to do is distinguish between disbelief in god and belief that god doesn't exist. You seem to be claiming that the former position is atheism; for me the latter is atheism. Also, in your money example, beliefs correspond to "money" and since "god doesn't exist" is a belief, it can be possessed unlike nothing.
Fuck religion...and fuck atheism.
Nob...you may be a decent person. No way I can know.
But your arguments seem out of whack.
If you truly call yourself an atheist simply because you do not "believe" the claims of theists...you are a weak person. You also do not "believe" the claims of people who "believe" no gods exist, but you do not call yourself a theist.
Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable. You will be more comfortable than if you challenge that nonsense.
The "thought" "no gods exist" is nothing but a blind guess about the reality . Most theists and atheists call their blind guesses..."beliefs." So in a way...the "thought" "no gods exist" IS a "belief."
Easy enough.
First, here are the statements: "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist,."
Let's try it the easiest way possible. I'd like to see how you react to that.
One is a statement about what John "DOES NOT think exists." It is a negative statement...telling what John does not "think."
The second is a statement about what John "DOES think does not exist."
The condition being assessed is, "god does not exist." It is a positive statement.
In the first rendition, John is negatively assessing it. He is not saying it does not exist...he is saying he does not think it exists. He MAY think it does not exist...but that is not what is being said with the thought. He may also think its opposite...he may think it exists and he may think it does not exist.
In the second rendition, John is expressly saying that he DOES think it does not exist.
The sentence structure sucks...and this can be more easily understood if it were reworded. Essentially what is being said are these two things"
1) Jack "believes" (guesses, supposes) that no gods exist.
2) Jack does not "believe" (guess, suppose) that any gods exist.
The first is like granite...it cannot logically be modified by "Jack also 'believes' the opposite (that gods do exist.)
The second does nothing of the kind. It can easily be said that Jack does not "believe" that any gods exist...AND its opposite...Jack does not "believe" that no gods exist.
He can easily do both at the same time...with the second rendition.
I do. Personally.
I do not "believe" any gods exist.
I also do not "believe" that no gods exist.
There are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them.
There also are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them either.
I do not "believe" no gods exist...AND...I do not "believe" there are no gods.
Not a play on words...or a semantic exercise. Merely stating a truth.
Have you looked into Ignoticism? That seems closer to what you are saying that atheism.
Disbelief that any Gods exist means that you do not possess the belief that any Gods exist. Belief that no Gods exist means you possess the belief that no Gods exist. My claim is that the latter makes no sense because that is an empty belief, because there is no object for that belief to refer to. Therefore, Atheism cannot be defined as belief that no Gods exist. A belief is an affirmation of a statement, not a negation of it. If you negate the statement, then you also negate the belief. Here is my example explained:
X doesn’t have any money. (X doesn’t have a belief in God)
This means X has money is false. (X believes in God is false).
But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. (Doesn’t imply that X believes no Gods exist)
This sentence is nonsensical.
X can’t “have” no money. (X can’t believe no Gods exist)
Rather, X doesn’t have any money. (X lacks belief that any Gods exist).
:rofl: :up: Great!
Your questions are nonsensical.
Thanks. I did not know that word. But yes, anybody who asks me about belief in god needs to define first what he/she means by god.
They are NOT nonsensical.
They show your assertions are baloney...so you have to avoid them.
If you truly use "atheist" as a descriptor...you do suppose there are no gods...or suppose it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
You saying that does not make it so.
The fact that is IS so...is what makes it so.
You are not ducking my questions because they are nonsensical, Nob. You are ducking them because you are afraid of them for some reason.
Wonder what that is?
I am not "ducking" anything, and you might want to stop mind-reading.
You are ducking my questions...and attempting to "justify" ducking them by calling them nonsensical. Don't bother to justify...just duck 'em.
I originally wrote: "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
Nob replied with: "I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply."
So to be sure I understood him/her, I asked: " So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?"
Apparently Nob realized he was in over his head, and characterized the question as "nonsensical."
Now you are up-to-date.
I can´t help you with your reading comprehension problems, sorry.
I do not have a reading comprehension problem.
Are you really going this far to justify your ducking my question?
Jeez
It is, that there is no God.
What is?
What is the "it?"
I’m asking why thoughts about existence must be beliefs. Why do those types of thoughts warrant the designation of “beliefs” when others do not?
Why are atheists like this? Why do they buy into their own bullshit?
Okay…let us say it is not bullshit and that an atheist is someone who “simply does not ‘believe” that at least one god exists.”
But everyone should be able to agree that there are SOME PEOPLE who “believe” there are no gods…or who “believe” it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are none.
And, with not too much trouble, we should be able to agree that MOST of those people identify themselves as “atheists.”
Now the last step is not asking for agreement with a proposition, but rather, it involves making an estimate. And as with most estimates, it will almost certainly involve a range.
Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods…
…and what percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” figure it is, at best, a 50/50 chance that at least one god exists versus no gods exist?
Any takers?
How about you, Pinprick?
"I think it is true that X is not true." How about that.
It's not a question of buying into anything. It is a question of not buying into some other type of bullshit.
I'm 28 percent the former, and 59 percent the latter.
The rest of the missing percentages are due to rounding.
Okay...so you are close to 100% one or the other.
I expect that EVERY person who uses atheist as his/her descriptor (or part of his/her descriptor) will be close to 100% also.
My point is that even if one uses the "an atheist is someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods"...the actual reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor...has to do with that close to 100%.
I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods. I am not part of the group who "believes there are no gods or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods." My percentage is ZERO. I do NOT use atheist.
The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT.
Your math is incorrect. Aside from that, my percentages change daily.
This quote is so "begging the question" or "begging the answer." I said something that is not what you stated later I said; and you took your own answer erroneously as truly what I had said.
You can convince yourself this way very easily, but your fallacious thinking and mechanism of putting together an argument is very apparent.
Ok, then belief is defined as something you either think is or isn’t true?
Did you just assert that your position is firmly planted on BULLSHIT?
You did say (see quote, please) that the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT,
and you did say that you lack a belief in all possible cases of gods' existence.
:rofl: :clap:
Three possibilities: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism
1. X thinks god exists = theist (neither atheist nor agnostic)
2. X doesn't think god exists = not theist (either agnostic or atheist)
3. X thinks god doesn't exist = atheist (neither theist nor agnostic)
4. X thinks god may/may not exist = agnostic (not theist and not atheist)
5. X doesn't think god may/may not exist = not agnostic (either theist or atheist)
If X adopts position 1 then he is a theist. If X adopts position 2 (doesn't think god exists) then X is either an agnostic or an atheist and if X adopts position 3 (thinks god doesn't exist) then he's an atheist. The probable reason why I called it out as "word play" is because Pfhorrest lumps both 2 and 3 under the athetist banner when it actually includes agnostics too.
Thanks.
You mean to say that it doesn't make sense to say something like "I have NOTHING" since NOTHING is, by definition, not anything and so can't be had or possessed.
You're right but where I think you err is in conflating what to me seems like a phraseology "I have nothing" with its meaning. When someone says "I have no money" fae means fae doesn't have money and not that "no money" is "some money" and that fae possesses that amount.
Likewise, when someone believes that "no god exists" it doesn't mean that there exists such a thing as no god. All that that someone means is that god doesn't exist.
THAT is the reason you use "atheist" as a descriptor.
No, I did not. Anyone who can read with comprehension would not even ask such a foolish question.
No, I did not. Anyone who can read with comprehension would not even ask such a foolish question.
I understand. But I disagree with Pforrest on much of what he asserts...and I certainly disagree with his (and many atheists) putting agnostics in the same category as atheists. Fact is, a better case can be made that atheists are more related to theists than agnostics, because both atheists and theists do "believing" (although in opposite directions)...and agnostics, for the most part do not.
Therefore, they do not actually believe, they just phrase it that way. Right? Also, I don’t think it’s an error to expect people to say what they mean. If “I have nothing” actually means “I don’t have anything,” then that is what should be stated. Likewise for “I believe that no Gods exist” and “I don’t believe any Gods exist.”
Agreed. I think the confusion here can be chalked up to the difficulty in understanding nothing and also linguistic convenience: the ease of saying "I have nothing" instead of the longer sentence "I don't have anything" indicates, in line with your thoughts on the matter, what could be a fundamental misunderstanding of nothingness.
This is a misconception. It is not to think something is TRUE or NOT. It is only to make the claim that something IS. It is like the misconception around natural selection and artificial selection when arguing with Christians: the mechanism is "selection" artificial or natural is irrelevant.
Yah, that is not what an agnostic is. Literally: No gnosis/No "knowledge of spiritual mysteries". This includes both the claims to knowledge for or against the existence of any god or gods. In other words prove your claims or shut up, as defined by the person who coined the term Thomas Huxley.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief? To me, saying that something “is” implies that it exists. If you mean something different than that, please explain.
Yes, truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief. One can believe something that is objectively false if they are absent the requisite facts needed to "know", and sometimes people can even believe the opposite in spite of knowing the facts, or they can even lack the capacity to fully comprehend the facts.
Truth statement/claim: God IS not real
Truth statement/claim: God IS real
^^^They cannot both be true. Facts are required to settle the mater. Yet none that can settle the mater currently exist.
As opposed to a Claim of uncertainty for instance.
God may not be real
God may be real
Or a claim to knowledge
I don't know that god is real
I don't know that god is not real
I know that god is not real
I know that god is real
For both the knowledge claim and the truth claim, facts and reason are required to claim objective truth, because facts and reason rule the domain of objectivity.
If you stick to subjectivity anything is fine. The problem comes when you claim that you know what is true for other people as well.
I agree with everything except the first sentence. How can you believe something you don’t think is true? Notice, I’m not suggesting that it must be objectively true, only that you must think it is.
There is "what is true": uranium 235 has an atomic weight of 235.044 g/mol, and then there is "what is true to you": god does/doesn't exist. The only truth that actually maters, for ALL practical purposes, is the former: That which can be shared among all as "Truth". What you personally believe is relevant to only you and those you can convince to believe the same. Jumping off the empire state building with a set of aerodynamically unsound wings kills all people.
I cannot tell you how happy I am to see this edit (correction).
Some of the posts lately have got me wondering if some super brand of new pot is going around. When I read your post as originally written...I thought, maybe pot has nothing to do with it. Maybe I have gone bat-shit crazy.
But...here I have a reprieve...at least a temporary one.
How did you come up with this question?
Care to show your work? What is the reasoning by which you start from "no God" and wind up at "nothing"?
Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"?
What happens when we deny the existence of other putative or conceivable things? Does any denial of existence, i.e., any belief in the non-existence of some putative or conceivable thing, entail "belief in nothing" on your view?
Quoting Pinprick
Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster....
Do you agree these count as beliefs, even though these beliefs have a negative form, even though they have the form of denying the existence of a conceivable thing or state of affairs?
Your wording is wrong. Believing that no god or gods exist is not "believing in something that you don't think is true." It is believing in the truth value of the claim that "there is/are no god/gods.
In hindsight, that was poorly phrased on my behalf.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Yes
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Actually, I would say that a denial of existence cannot be a belief. If you deny that something exists, you lack belief in its existence.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
No.
Why would you need to believe in any of these things? Their existence is demonstrable.
Why in the would you bother your brain with all of these beliefs?
Ok, I can accept that. I think that’s the point that @180 Proof was making. That denying that any Gods exist is a meta-belief in the truth value of the claim. But that isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to me to be, what @Frank Apisa and others are insisting.
It is the same with theists. They believe that the claim "their is a god" is true.
But what you said can be expressed in terms of god beliefs as neither accepting the existence of god nor accepting the nonexistence of god. Where does that land you? God may/may not exist, right?
If one doesn't know the truth value of a proposition, here "god exists", then the proposition may/may not be true/false. In my humble opinion, agnosticism is the epistemic state describable with respect to a proposition p as "not true that p and not false that p, but still possible that p". Possibility can be phrased in terms of "may/may not" right?
Thanks for letting me know Thomas Huxley coined "agnosticism" and I loved the part "prove your claims or shut up", although sometimes perspectives seem more valuable than actual proofs.
Now, what would be beyond that sphere, is what is not contained in in the "everything" sphere, and we could call it "Nothing".
EveryThing would be "the group that contains all groups that do not contain themselves (Russell's paradox), and NoThing, would be the outher layer of it, indefinite and indefinibile, because from the moment that a definition is made out of this "NoThing", it becomes "SomeThing", thus making it part of the group "EveryThing".
No matter how many "SomeThings" are defined out of "NoThing", "NoThing" will always be indefinite and indefinable, and endlessly so by such property.
"Everything" would instead be evergrowing and indefinitely "bigger".
What if God is actually the combination of "Everything" and "Nothing" watching itself from both perspectives while just Being what it is, indefinitely trying to know itself?
Now there is a reasonable view point. If God by its very nature incorporates the entire thing, then yes, God must incorporate both. The real question is, how do we understand "nothing". We could say, this is God manifested in the dichotomy (polar opposites). One pole is "everything", the other pole is "nothing". Unity of them both = God / Creator / First Cause.
I would say that nothing is very much like the origin of Everything, but before everything, nothing wasn't even a concept that could be grasped, because only something con realize that nothing is actually a concept.
Would then be deducible that nothing may need everything, as everything needs nothing to have an "understanding" of what each other is.. I would dare say that if there was a creation, that creation is nothing more than the "introspection of nothing", if you get what I mean.
that would translate in "The All" (nothing+everything), looking into itself, and that might mean that all consciousness is but an eye of the All, learning about himself from many different perspectives.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Do you mean to suggest that all beliefs are beliefs about things or propositions or states of affairs that are "not demonstrable"? Or perhaps you mean only that all useful beliefs are beliefs about things or propositions or states of affairs that are "not demonstrable"?
That would sound like an extraordinary abuse of the term "belief" to me, not at all in keeping with the customary uses I'm aware of. Do you know of any precedent for this usage, or is it something you've invented? Or have I misunderstood you?
What does it mean for a thing or a proposition or a state of affairs to be demonstrable?
On what sort of grounds should we affirm or deny claims that entail the existence of nondemonstrable things or states of affairs, or claims that entail the truth of nondemonstrable propositions?
Quoting SonOfAGun
For the same reason an atheist bothers to express denials of the proposition that God exists: To make a point in conversation.
In this case the point is to demonstrate that denials of the existence of a putative thing do not entail "belief in nothing".
I thought this was quite clear the first time around.
What do you suppose we're doing here, nattering on like this in a philosophy forum about the logical form of beliefs about things thought not to exist?
Quoting Pinprick
Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?
Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept.
It's instructive to consider the way the conventions of elementary predicate logic enable us to analyze the form of propositions at issue in such beliefs. For instance (feel free to substitute another conception of the deity):
There is an x such that x is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent creator of the world. I suppose a belief that God exists, or an affirmation of the claim "God exists", may entail some such claim.
There is no x such that x is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent creator of the world. I suppose a belief that God does not exist, or a denial of the claim "God exists", may entail some such claim.
When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."
The use of "I blindly guess..." seems to bother some people, so they use, "I believe..." instead.
Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".
Is it only a guess of yours that they are guessing? What evidence can you provide for your claim?
I am however inclined to agree that many of those theistic and atheistic arguments involve speculation beyond the horizon of evidence. As a skeptical naturalist, I aim to train my power of belief or expectation away from such speculative claims.
I don't see how that is any different than what I said.
I recognize that they provide bullshit rationalizations for their blind guesses that either "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."
Some people have an allergy to "I do not know."
Okay.
I do not post only when I disagree...but sometimes call attention to comments of agreement.
Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. They are objectively real. They are practically demonstrable. Yes you can believe in these things, but in our current highly technological environment, I don't know why you would need to. I have personally confirmed the existence of every item you have on your list there, including personally operated telescopes to confirm planets and stars, as well as, personally being able to comprehend the physics involved with telescopes.
PRECISELY!
That is part of the problem I have with the word "believe"...especially when used in the "believe in" form. It is used carelessly and inappropriately WAY TOO OFTEN.
Again, we will try another approach. While you are technically correct, and can believe in everything you have listed there, this is not how the human brain works. If the human brain were forced to consider all of these things every time it looked at a table, or anything else for that mater, it would quickly overload and become nonfunctional. It would not be the proper tool we require to navigate the universe.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Another "blind guess" (i.e. assertion without corroborating evidence or sound argument), Frankie? :roll:
If it is not a "blind guess", present your evidence and we will resolve the mater.
Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist.
No. A blind guess about whether or not there is a god...IS a blind guess.
Calling it a "blind guess" is not a blind guess. If it makes you feel better to consider it to be an informed guess...fine with me.
You have evidence for the nonexistence of god! I got to see this.
Can you give me a page number. Yes I am good at comprehends.
I seem to be getting under your skin.
Usually not this easy to do.
Are you new to Internet discussions?
:wink:
I wouldn't call all such rationalizations "bullshit". Ordinarily I reserve that term to characterize discourse in which a speaker does not seem to give a damn about the truth or falsity or reasonableness of their claims. This usage may be in keeping with Frankfurt's flirtatious little essay on the subject.
Consider his distinction between honest speakers, liars, and bullshitters:
I aim to follow this admirable terminological convention in my use of the term "bullshit".
I like to reserve the term "horseshit" as an upgrade: For instance to characterize the desperate flailing of a narcissistic bullshit artist who has been cornered by reasonable discourse, and proceeds to kick up a cloud of horseshit in an attempt to avoid accountability for the bullshit he has already released in conversation.
Stop trolling.
Sounds reasonable to me, CF. In fact, I might even borrow that quote after checking it out independently.
But this all refers back to something you said earlier: "Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".
Okay...I appreciate that you are not inclined to call that "guessing."
I, however, DO...in spades and in capital letters.
And I am inclined, at times, to calling it bullshit.
(After reading your post, I acknowledge I may have to revise that last part.)
If facts are not believed to be true are they still facts? Seems to me facts require belief in order to be facts. Facts can obviously be not believed in (i.e. flat Earth society), do doesn’t that mean they at least can be believed in too?
Facts do not REQUIRE belief. They can be practically applied in reality. But yes you are correct one can believe facts. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing that.
Why do you say that we do not "believe" matters of fact? It seems to me these are paradigm cases of belief, and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates.
How could we perform ordinary actions if we did not have ordinary beliefs about ordinary matters of fact?
How will I get from here to the grocery, if I do not believe I know the route, and if I do not expect the grocery is in the same place it was last time I went shopping?
How will I answer a child who asks, "What color is the sky", if I don't believe the sky is blue?
Why do I change my clothes before heading outside, if I don't believe it's raining?
The fact that I don't need to engage in sophisticated discourses and investigations in order to persuade myself that these beliefs are true is no reason to claim that I don't believe them. To the contrary, the fact that I am already persuaded shows the firmness of my belief in such cases.
Quoting SonOfAGun
Human beings cannot, do not, and do not "need" to consider every possible conception of things that don't exist. But on some occasions it turns out to be, or at least initially to seem, useful to consider one or more specific conceptions of things that don't exist. Most often, to claim or to suggest that a prior claim -- one's own or someone else's -- that some conceivable thing exists was false.
Once such a conception is considered, and the proposition that some such thing exists is considered, we may affirm or deny the proposition. And if we affirm or deny sincerely, our belief follows the affirmation or the denial.
This is not a miraculous feat. It's no big deal. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. It seems to me you're not acquainted with ordinary use of the term "belief" in the discourses of epistemologists and in ordinary conversations.
In that case: What is it, on your account, that we do in fact believe? What kinds of things are the things our beliefs are actually about, according to your unusual custom of speaking about beliefs?
Sorry will respond later. Right now I'm doing 180 Proof. I'm taking my time to, doing other things also, so may be a while.
This conversation you are having with several people stems from the corruption of that word "believe" that I have talked about.
Some of these people think it would be absurd for me to say:
I know I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard...and I do not "believe" I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard.
But that is absolutely the truth.
I KNOW I am here...sitting at my desk...typing on my keyboard.
There is NO "believing" involved in the essence of that statement...which is merely to identify the fact that I (Frank) am sitting on a chair pulled up to the well of a desk in my den typing a response to an Internet forum.
But the use of the word "believe" has gotten so corrupted...the people you are debating think it must be used to identify that situation. They see that bolded comment above to be a contradiction of some sort.
It is not.
Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. You seem to be saying that belief isn’t required for knowledge. How then would you define knowledge?
Facts.
Definition of knowledge
1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2): the range of one's information or understanding
answered to the best of my knowledge
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge
knowledge ????
?NOUN
US
?
/?n?l?d?/
DEFINITIONS2
1
SINGULAR/UNCOUNTABLE all the facts that someone knows about a particular subject
The teacher’s comments are designed to help improve your knowledge and understanding.
knowledge of/about: Lawyers should possess detailed knowledge of certain aspects of the law.
Candidates for the job must have a working knowledge of at least one European language.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/knowledge
Quoting 180 Proof
Found it!
Sorry that took so long. Unexpected IRL distractions.
"God" is a malleable philosophical argument. The things that are ascribed to any entity labeled "god" by any theistic religion are not the end all be all of what can be ascribed to the characteristics of god. Philosophy is in a constant state of flux with new advances being made here and there and many particular arguments rising to or falling from prominence. Take metaphysics for example: many recent advancements in the science branch of philosophy have lent new prominence to many ideas that metaphysics deals with. So a change in science precipitates a rise to prominence for metaphysics.
Theists do not have a monopoly on "what is god." the argument can be simplified to "any entity with omniscience and omnipresence" the "physical being nature" and "intervention nature" that is ascribed to god by the Abrahamic religions is not required. An example of a god that is only omniscient and omnipresent can be found in the ideas of "universal consciousness/universal mind" - and this does indeed meet the criteria of a god. On the other hand, another prominent argument these days is that the universe is a simulation. Now, I did recently read arguments on this forum (don't know if they were from you or not) that a simulation/programmer do not meet the qualifications of a god due to a proposed universal substrate. But this is not necessarily true. The physical properties of reality prime may be entirely different. And then there is the deistic god who does not intervene. And and then there is spinoza's god.
Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm still looking for other "proofs" I'll let you know If I find any.
You won't.
There are none...although that will not stop some people from insisting there are.
True - in the abstract. But that's not my argument. If you're genuinely interested - not just in trolling (like Frankie) or scoring points against strawmen, keep looking, Son.
Premise 1 : All beliefs have referents.
Premise 2: Theism is a belief.
Conclusion: The referent of Theism exists, and therefore theism is true.
Personally, I find this argument acceptable, because the idea that a non-existent object can cause belief-behaviour is scientifically unacceptable, leading me to the conclusion that all beliefs are vacuously true in the epistemological sense of truth-by-correspondence of language to something. Hence any substantial notion of truth cannot be in terms of "truth by correspondence" of language to reality, but in terms of ethics and cultural convention.
A mistake of atheists is to assume that the object of theistic beliefs is universal, for there are many potential physical causes of religious behaviour and speech.
TRUE...period. Unless you are an atheist who wants to pretend possession of a proof that simply does not exist.
I am finished looking 180 Proof. I didn't find anything else that I thought was worth responding to. I am not trying to be mean here, score points, or trolling. I am always genuine.
If you have any arguments that you think I should consider closer/further please quote them here, and I will be happy to consider them and give my critique. Or make an argument, that is fine too.
Or perhaps this?
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knowledge
You don’t believe you are Frank? Then who do you believe you are?
You are working with an old definition of knowledge. Currently there is only one universally acknowledged method for the acquisition and categorization of knowledge - objectively recognized to be a producer of truth/knowledge - and that is science (this includes the math this used to conduct science and the philosophy that trickles down to become science. You might argue that not every person in the world believes in science, but this is irrelevant because they all in some form or another at least tacitly or indirectly benefit from or accept the benifits of scientific knowledge. There are different types of knowledge, but only science produces anything of tangible/measurable/actual value.
It is an old definition, but I was under the impression that it was the accepted definition throughout epistemology and philosophy through consensus. Perhaps I’m wrong?
Regarding
Quoting SonOfAGun
I would state that knowledge of things like your emotions, desires, needs, etc. have actual value and aren’t known through science. Knowing those things are valuable to me. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by value.
I did not say that. I said that facts do not require belief: they can be practically applied.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
I don't think that the epistemological field is as unified as you claim. What about epistemologists who are scientific realists? Perhaps they are not the majority, but exist non-the-less.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Again facts can be practically applied with invariable results. They do not require belief.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Since you know the route belief is not required.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
The color of the sky is explainable via basic physics facts.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
The fact that you are already persuaded demonstrates the power of the deceleration
Oops. accidentally pushed the post button will continue in next post.
If someone wants to think that "knowledge" is "belief"...fine with me. If they want to think it is a cheese sandwich...that is also okay with me.
I'll stick with facts.
Correct. I KNOW I am Frank.
I KNOW WHO I AM.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
The fact that you are already persuaded demonstrates the power of the decimation of facts throughout the population you are a member of via science. It is a testament to the shear amount of verifiable truth produced by science. And here is the kicker: If you believe that something in science is not true, you can go and verify it yourself because all accepted science is practical/verifiable.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
My comments were directed at the absurdity of your initial question "do you believe that these count as beliefs." I do not, because the claims to belief that you asserted, are in fact observations of demonstrable facts. You can believe these things but, the human brain works as it does precisely to avoid having to deal with such interference.
The assertions you were responding to are of a different caliber entirely. People actually believe/disbelieve in god. and have real world reasons for doing so.
The type of reasoning that you are talking about is called counterfactual reasoning, but that is not what you are doing because your alternatives are not grounded in the reality of the subject.
A good deal is known through science, and more is being discovered all the time. Given an effectively infinite amount of time to study these subjects, do you think that they will remain a mystery forever?
An appeal to tradition? Simple observations of the world will tell you that this is no longer true. Though I am sure that this is still the accepted definition among scholars. Doesn't make it true. I'll rely on my arguments to determine the truth of the mater, given that my opposition is more arguments.
Forgot to comment on "ordinary speakers". This is an argument from popularity. Just because it is popular to use the word belief in the way that the masses do does not make it correct. The vast majority of people are also not intellectually equipped to wrestle with the problem.
Yah, this is not how I see it. It would be the position that proposition p has no current relevant value. Either "mays", the affirmative and the negative currently lack value. This is because none of them are actually knowledge of any kind. They are just baseless suppositions, including "may/may not." Produce some facts regarding the mater, then we can take a practical approach to the subject. But that is just the problem, there are currently no facts regarding the mater.
But do you believe you are Frank?
No, not at all. I’m not trying to discredit science as a pathway to knowledge. I was just pointing out that science isn’t the only pathway that achieves valuable results.
Well, I consider this to be a scholarly discussion, so I think the consensus of scholars would be appropriate. It may not be true, and I’m aware of the Gettier problems and other criticisms of it. At the very least it is flawed, but still the best we have at this point according to experts.
For me guessing is, first and foremost, a method of acquiring knowledge. That said, it isn't the preferred, ergo best, method for knowledge acquisition; the distinction of the best method to gain knowledge goes to rationality/critical thinking. Only when it's impossible to use critical thinking are we justified to guess the truth.
Such a situation may arise not because rationality is inapplicable to an issue but because of a lack of information for rationality to work on. Guessing games children and adults play are primarily based on witholding critical data for rationality to process as a means of getting to the truth, whatever that maybe.
Yet there maybe problems to which rationality is completely useless, for example quantum mechanics: If I'm correct no amount of rationality will help us determine the location of an electron since quantum systems are probabilistic in nature. At such moments then, paradoxically, the only rational thing to do is guess.
Which type of guessing "game", missing information or intrinsically probabilistic nature, does the god issue fall? In my humble opinion, it's the former - we lack information to logically determine the truth of the matter. However, in a situation where the critical defect is a lack of adequate information, the best, i.e. the rational, decision is to suspend judgment and refrain from making any sort of claims, including those arrived at by guessing.
However, are atheists and theists actually making guesses re their beliefs? Not really; after all they have arguments that purportedly back up their claims whatever those maybe. In other words, both sides are being rational. However, a case could be made that their reasoning is faulty and that the rationality they profess is not up to the mark or even illusory. In that case then it's double jeopardy for both atheists and theists: not only are they using poor reasoning, their beliefs also can't be distinguished from mere guesses.
No...I do not "believe" I am Frank. I KNOW I AM FRANK.
You truly are having trouble understanding that concept, aren't you.
First of all, let me mention that "guessing" is an absolute necessity to almost every scholarly or scientific endeavor. I am NOT bad-mouthing guessing in any way. (Sometimes that gets lost in the rhetoric. Just wanted to be sure I put it out there solidly.)
My problem is not with guessing...but with disguising the guesses using the words "believe" or "belief." Scientists often use "hypotheses" or "theories" for guesses...and then go on to test those hypotheses or theories to come as close to verification as possible. (They seldom "prove" things...they just get as close as possible.)
A person saying/asserting "I 'believe' (in) God" is disguising that a guess is being made...and is not interested in testing or challenging that guess in any way. In fact, most religions teach that questioning the guess (belief) is sinful and dangerous. (Figures!)
A person saying/asserting "I 'believe' no gods exist" is also making a guess and disguising that it is a guess. Any testing of that guess...is so distant from "scientific/logic/reason" that assertions to that effect are laughable.
Yeah, I agree. Guessing is a means of acquiring knowledge. BUT NOT IN THIS AREA.
Knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you know, you believe.
That might fit on a tee shirt, but I would not try it on a hat or bumper sticker.
With reference to Francis Galton's Wisdom of the crowd,
1. Imagine someone accosts you in a fair, presents a jar full of marbles and asks you, "how many marbles does this jar contain?"
2. Now, imagine someone else, with a similar jar approaches you and says, "the jar alone weighs approximately 200 grams, each marble is roughly 1 gram and the jar with the marbles is about 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"
3. Then consider a third person, who comes to you and says, "the jar without the marbles weighs exactly 200 grams, each marble weighs exactly 1 gram and the jar together with the marbles weighs exactly 600 grams. How many marbles does the jar contain?"
For me, scenario 1, if we are to answer the question, is what I feel can be handled only by guessing for zero information is available; there's no possible means to logically deduce the actual number of marbles in the jar.
As for scenario 2, we have what can be termed, fuzzy data and although logical deduction of the number of marbles is possible, it wouldn't be accurate. There's no guarantee that the calculations will lead to the exact figure.
In secnario 3, we have all the information we need to deduce the exact number of marbles in the jar.
Which of the 3 scenarios would be a guess for you? The essence of guessing appears to be randomness i.e. when every possible answer in the scenarios I described is equiprobable. The moment the probability for any one answer is higher than the rest or the answer can be logically deduced then it's not guessing.
Both scenario 2 and 3 can't be guessing; after all in scenario 2, a particular answer's probability is higher than others and in scenario 3 we can actually determine the correct answer.
God beliefs, atheism or theism, correspond to scenario 2 - deductions based on insufficient data and so, in my humble opinion, doesn't amount to guessing for the least that can be said is that the relative probability of god's existence either increases/decreases with the strength of their arguments.
However, if an agnostic ever decides to choose between god existing or not, fae, because fae presumes the data is insufficient, would be guessing.
We are 5 by 5 at this point. I agree completely.
Correct.
1 can only be obtained by guessing. 2 has a bit more information, but a guess still is in order. I grant that I would not use "blind guess" for either...because enough information IS available to make a (sorta) informed guess. (I've made guesses at charity events...with marbles and with jelly beans.)
3 can be determined exactly...if the information is exact. One could argue that a guess would have to be made about the reliability of the information...but I am guessing that is not what you were getting at.
Now we diverge a bit.
2 is a guess. because of the type of information given. I suspect a decent guess could be made...but it would still involve some guessing. But in the interest of moving along...allow me to (with minor reservations) agree that it is NOT a guess.
Here we diverge so completely that I am not sure we can reconcile.
For the last four decades I have assiduously attempted to find any reasonable way to do a probability estimate for "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"...and the best I could come up with was a coin toss.
Honestly. People who identify as atheists use the same "evidence" as theists to come up with probability estimates in favor of "there are no gods"...that theists use to come up with "there is at least one god."
Cannot be done any better than a coin toss, TMF. Please, if you can show me differently, do it. I wouldl love to put this problem behind me. I've gone over this with at least one Bishop...and with some of the smartest atheists I've ever known.
Sorry, TMF...I just do not know what fae means...and was not able to find out from Google.
Fae is a term for mystical creatures like fairies (also spelled "faerie"), gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc
Try typing into google "the fae" rather than just fae.
Edit>>> Well it actually pulls it up both ways. I thought you said you already tried.
I cannot speak for all agnostics, but if it were I making that decision, I would do it by flipping a coin. I am not being flip (pun intended) here...I cannot think of a better basis for a guess. I have done this several times while discussing the topic with others. It does nothing for the conversation.
Ahhh...for "at least one god exists" or "there are no gods"...the coin flip gu ess makes sense.
For fairies, gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc...not so much. There is enough information to make one of those "informed guesses" I mentioned. My guess on things like these (AND I WOULD CALL IT A GUESS) would be that they do not exist here on this planet.
What do facts "require"?
Who "applies facts" in practice without "believing" the facts they apply?
It seems likely that what you're calling "practical application of a fact" is the same or nearly the same thing I am calling "belief".
Quoting SonOfAGun
I haven't claimed that epistemologists all give the same account of belief. But I have claimed that the way I am using the term is consistent with ordinary use among them, and that the way you are using the term is unprecedented in my experience.
Do you have an example of a "scientific realist" using the term "belief" in the way you have been using it here?
Quoting SonOfAGun
Forget about the results:
What are the conditions of "application"? How do you "apply facts" without belief?
I knowingly and intentionally reach out for a glass of water. What are the facts that I have applied? Whatever they are: Isn't it ordinarily correct to say, and incorrect to deny, that beliefs like these factor among my beliefs at the time I reach for the glass: I believe that there is a glass before me, I believe there is water in the glass, I believe water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, I believe getting a hold of the glass and raising it to my lips is a way to put water into my mouth...
Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with thoughts in which beliefs are expressed and affirmed? When I say "belief" I don't necessarily or ordinarily mean anything like an explicit "thought" in which a belief is expressed and affirmed. I just mean belief.
Quoting SonOfAGun
Do I also know that I know the route? Do I believe that I know the route? Am I aware that I know the route? Am I aware that I am heading to the grocery store? Do I expect that the route I am taking will lead to the grocery? Do I have a clear notion of why I am heading this way....
These are all conditions in which it's customary to say I "believe" this is a route to the grocery store.
It's not clear to me that you have provided any reason that we should refrain from this custom. It's not clear to me that you have made sense of an alternative to this custom.
Quoting SonOfAGun
What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations?
When I say "This is a glass of water", I believe this is a glass of water. That's not an explanation of what a glass of water is. It's just a belief that this is a glass of water.
Again it seems to me you're objecting to an ordinary use -- the most ordinary use -- of the term "belief" because you have some unusual -- and perhaps severely confused -- conception of what a "belief" is supposed to be or supposed to do. Perhaps we should change tack, and try to clear this up directly:
What is it that a belief is supposed to be or do, on your account?
What do you mean when you say "This is a glass of water"? What do you mean when you deny that you believe there is a glass of water in front of you when you say "This is a glass of water"? Do you also deny that you know there is a glass of water? Do you also deny that you perceive and see a glass of water?
How do you characterize your "cognitive state", how do you characterize what you know or believe or perceive, how do you characterize your cognitive relation to the facts, when you say "This is a glass of water" on the basis of perception and mean it?
I did.
But what I entered was "Definition of Internet FAE."
I thought it was one of those Internet acronyms.
I realize now that fae...is a term for fairies. Seems to me that it came up often in True Blood.
Only application. If you know the facts, you can apply them with invariable results. Have you ever studied chemistry? If not, you could think of it like instruction for putting together a desk. You don't need to "believe" that the instructions are true you only need to follow them. This is because they have already been proven to be actual facts/knowledge. So belief is not required.
Have you ever studied chemistry. You do a lot of application of facts to learn that they are facts.
It is not.
Christ man, you have got to be kidding me. This is not how the human brain works.
It's a breezy read on an important topic.
Quoting Frank Apisa
It seems likely you and I agree about the speculative character of many theistic and atheistic arguments, but differ in the attitude with which we engage some of our interlocutors, as well as in our evaluations of the reasonableness of some of their arguments.
I wonder, do you count yourself an agnostic or a skeptic?
Do you agree there are some conceptions of deity that are tautologically true and indifferent to many customary disputes between atheists and theists?
For instance, consider the Great Fact, the whole of existence, the eternal sum of whatever is in fact the case, across all time and all space or across whatever "dimensions" we should name alongside or instead of time and space, across whatever iterations of generation and decay of universes or multiverses there may be.... Isn't it a truism to say the World thus conceived as Totality is the "source" or "ground" and "home" of all things and all beings?
So far as I can tell, a conception along these lines is compatible with many varieties of theism, atheism, agnosticism, idealism, materialism, skepticism, and so on.
Moreover, it offers a rational basis for a sort of conceptual closure, and for regulative principles of harmony and unity that may inform the rational imagination in practices of meditation, prayer, and worship -- for instance in keeping with Dewey's talk of "natural piety" in the first section of A Common Faith.
No. You observe that there is a glass before you, you observe that there is water in the glass, you have tested - for however many years you have been alive now - that water is hydrating and thirst-quenching, you have tested holding the glass and raising it to your lips and KNOW that this is an efficient way to put water in your moth.
It is not a custom. Your 'knowledge" of the route is based on a lifetime of lived experimental data.
How would you account for this distinction and make it explicit, in the case at hand?
So far as I can tell, denial of the proposition "x exists" entails:
i) a belief that the proposition "x exists" is false,
ii) a belief that the proposition "x does not exist" is true, and
iii) a belief that there is no such thing as "x".
For ordinary purposes we don't need to fuss over the logical form of (iii). It's customary for people to say things like "x does not exist". That should only seem strange to logicians.
For some purposes we might want to unpack (iii) to show that it is not correctly analyzed as belief in an x that does not exist, but rather is belief in a conception of a thing that has no real thing corresponding to it in the way that real things normally correspond to our conceptions of them.
For instance, the way my dog corresponds to my conception of my dog.
What the h*** are you talking about. If you have a true/factual/tested physical explanation for a phenomenon YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BELIEVE what ever it was that you believed about the phenomenon. YOU NOW KNOW FOR A FACT. belief is no longer required.
No man people have run many test to identify the physical characteristics of glass and water, including yourself, over the course of your life time. If you don't trust your own experience you can always fall back on science it is rock solid concerning this mater.
This is just babbling to me. I have no Idea what this is supposed to mean.
Since I didn't follow what you said before, I have no idea how to respond to this. You should try again.
This is further evidence of the corruption of the word "believe."
I'm not faulting, Cabbage Farmer, about it...just commenting on how the corruption manifests itself.
The word has almost lost any usefulness, because it just does not do a decent job of communicating an idea.
That is why those others have been so bothered by me saying, "I do NOT 'believe' I am Frank. I KNOW I am Frank."
They see that as illogical...where, in fact, IT IS LOGICAL.
I've stopped using the words "believe" and "belief" except when discussing the words as we are doing here. And when someone uses one of them in a comment to me, I merely paraphrase it...and ask if that is what they meant.
On the first page of this thread, there is a comment, "They also believe, like you probably do, that there are trees outside and that the midday sky is blue and that Paris is the capital of France..."
That is a conventional use of "believe." It is a convention...and does not impart what really is meant.
There ARE trees outside; the midday sky IS blue; Paris IS the capital of France. One doesn't have to "believe" them...they are facts (of a sort.) (The midday sky in Beijing and San Francisco often is grey these days.)
The use of the word "believe" there is a convention...and serves to corrupt the word.
I agree with everything you've said here. I dealt with this sort of thing so much in other places that I basically have the responses prescripted now. Because it is basically always the same.
I don't know that your examples qualify as knowledge they are not consistent. Need and desire: Do heroin addicts need heroin? Is their desire for heroin a false desire? Emotion is an erratic and often illogical thing and difficult to understand even when they are your own. What about unjustified jealousy or anger, gluttonous satifaction, unrequited love, etc. Are you saying that these things meet the criteria of knowledge?
I thought we were looking for truth not authority. My bad.
I have no problems with i or ii. I see i and ii as meta-beliefs, as they are referring strictly to a statement/proposition. Whereas iii is referring to the nonexistence of a real world object.
You may not have knowledge of these internal states reliably, but if your belief about these states is accurate then I think it counts as knowledge. When I cut myself I know that I experience the sensation of pain. When my stomach growls I know I am hungry. These beliefs are true and justified if they correspond to reality, and therefore count as knowledge.
Is it not appropriate to look towards the consensus of scholars/experts as a starting point to find the truth? What definition of knowledge should I have assumed if not the one the experts generally agree on?
Sensory perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions.
I'm considering this one closely. My first inclinations where to be snarky, but I don't want to do that. May take some time.
Ok, maybe it wasn’t included in my original examples, but the point still holds that it is valuable knowledge obtained independent from science. Science can certainly explain it, but I don’t need to consult a medical/science apparatus to know I’m hungry or in pain.
No problem. Appreciate your good manners.
The one that I replied to. You can click your own name at the start of my reply and it will take you back to the post I'm replying to. I'll quote the whole exchange here for convenience anyway.
It started with this post where I posted this image:
Then you replied:
Quoting Pinprick
Quoting Pfhorrest
Quoting Pinprick
Quoting Pfhorrest
Quoting Pinprick
Quoting Pfhorrest
Quoting Pinprick
Quoting Pfhorrest
It is not obtained independent of reason and logic. Not everything requires a full on scientific investigation. You still have to interpret the data to mean something, and then we are back in the field of science. Unless you think that "external spirits are responsible for your pain and hunger" is a viable alternative. This knowledge is not instinctual in human beings. The knowledge is passed down from parent to child or, more generally, taught via science, because science has more information to give on the subject.
Fixed this^^^ changed scenery to sensory. Damn you autocorrect.
If A = B, then A cannot = ~B.
Well, I think you’re using a looser definition of science than I thought, but either way I disagree that I was taught pain or hunger. It also depends on how you’re using the term “mean.” I consider meaning to be subjective, and I’ve never had to interpret data to know I’m in pain, and that pain was meaningful to me. If I cut myself I react automatically without having to hypothesize or interpret anything. It is a subconscious process. I react before I even know what I’m doing.
At an unconscious and subconscious levels, belief is experienced differently.
The basic level of belief is what makes us decide if something exists at the inmost level, the instinctive one.
We have sets of conscious truths that, in time, influence us to the point that they become part of our deepest levels of belief, through indoctrination, discipline or life experience.
Often times our conscious definition of what God, a creator, an origin, a source, or a set of them is, (may it be chaos or nothing at all) is very contradictory from the definition our inmost beliefs have:
You may think you are atheist for example, but in a terrifying situation, you may find yourself praying, because an instinctive belief in some god made you do it.
The subconscious level links our beliefs to our bodies so that we feel emotions: all glandular, endocrine, lymphatic and neurological related sensation in general, acting under unconscious and conscious collaboration.
Subconscious mind beliefs that translate into body reactions would explain many religious ecstasy phenomenons, in witch the “believer” feels like touched by divinity, and his whole body fills up on a cocktail of all best hormones the body can produce to justify the experience.
Pointing out here that is the relationship between your conscious and unconscious mind that decide if are guilty or innocent, exited or afraid, “cry smiling nostalgic” or “sad crying nostalgic” in your own personal set of beliefs.
The existence of something that we may call “God”, no matter the vessel we use for it, is arguably the base of what makes us who we are and what set of actions and thought patterns are the most efficient to live by.
The inmost definition each one of us have of our own unique image of what or who Is God , our primary source, and what’s it’s point, might well be the base of our personal belief system, that is full of personal considerations
Reality itself is perceived differently from each individual point of view, that might very well be extremely different to each other, even if all are sharing the same “existential environment”, so we might consider everyone having a different true unconscious definition file of what is “The Truth of Existence...for now” and keeps updating it constantly.
Each one would then have it’s on God, and probably when the great philosophers tell you to know thyself, maybe they’re speaking about that relationship with your own Inmost truth, or God (Observer), and your conscious mind (Intender )
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying in two ways.
One is that I am just reporting the function the word “belief” as I understand it as a native English speaker, not making an argument that some things rise (or stoop) to the level of “belief” in some already-agreed-upon sense of the word.
The other is that I’m not saying belief is about thing existing vs them not-existing, but rather it is about the topic of whether or not something exists.
To believe something is to think something about how the world is or is not, about what is real or not, what exists or not, etc. As opposed to, say, thinking something about what is good or bad, what ought or ought not be, etc. Or other kinds of thoughts about different kinds of things.
I don't think that my definition of science is loose. I have studied the mater extensively.
Quoting Pinprick
You where taught how to interpret the data every time your mom shoved a boob in your moth to stop you from crying, when you where hungry, and had no idea what it meant. You also have conducted many experiments concerning how to interpret pain and where guided in this process by your parents, even though you may not remember doing any of this, it did happen.
Quoting Pinprick
Well I guess I could demonstrate from a data perspective. If I have two apples and then I obtain two more apples that means that I now have four apples. I don't know how that is subjective. seems pretty objective to me. Data interpretation is not some kind or new concept. The interpretation of date is in fact required in the conclusions of scientific experimentation. It is also require in the formulation of a hypothesis.
Quoting Pinprick
I guess it can be. I don't know how that relates to what I am saying. Given the scope of any particular problem and a proportionately long enough time line, any subjective mistakes in interpretation should be corrected via the constant nature of the physical properties of reality. In the case of you coming to understand your own sense of pain, in the environment that you were likely raised in, the time line should be relatively short.
Quoting Pinprick
Yes you have, you just don't remember it.
Quoting Pinprick
You are moving the goal post again. Now we are talking about your reflexes, which ARE instinctive. This is not related to the current topic because reflexes are not any kind of knowledge. You seem to be drifting in this conversation. Are sure you are not loosing the through line here?
Quoting Pinprick
Yes it is, and also not knowledge of any kind.
But equally obviously...THEY ARE.
I have never met or known of a person who designates him/herself an "atheist" who does not "believe" either that "no gods exist" or that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."
There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with "believing" either of those things. Every person who wants to be known as an "atheist" should simply embrace the notion that they do "believe" one (or both) of those things.
They do not want to do so.
Thought should be given to the contortions to logic that must be done to in order to maintain this pretense. Thought should be given to the notion that in order to maintain this pretense, atheists must insist that babies, infants, toddlers are atheists...and that even agnostics who insist they are not...must accept that they are atheists also.
I have my ideas about why all this bizarre contortions have to happen...which I have shared.
The above comment was addressed to you people.
@pinprick, to underpin the above, think of this old adage from the nineteen-seventies, when religion was first challenged for its beliefs on a wider scale in North America:
@'Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.'
This ought to demonstrate the way the word "believe" has been adopted (and adapted) to many, many uses and meanings in English, and it has become so diverse, that a single, uncompartmentalized definition can't cover all its meanings.
I am glad you left me out of the list. It would have been a direct insult to my intelligence to be instructed to read the same stuff you have written ten thousand times** already.
Then you are surprised why we call you a one-topic poster.
** Disclaimer: Not an exact count.
Actually, I left you off by mistake.
I have to repeat it...the people who don't get it need lots of schooling.
And I have told you a million times, "Knock off the hyperbole."
Oh, you think I am surprised? By someone attempting an insult in an Internet forum?
Okay...you must be new!
No one is expecting you to be able to count.
:smile:
In others words, predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).
E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2020 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc
So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ... :yawn:
NB: Proof of 'proving a negative'.
Quoting SonOfAGun
Strawman. :clap:
My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)).
Fair enough. As long as you limit your claims to "theism is false" not "god is false."
Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position.
I repeat: "There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods."
Like I said...there is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
I have to infer that you agree with me on that...or you would have provided at least one piece of unambiguous evidence that no gods exist...which you didn't.
What are your arguments against Jordan Peterson's interpretations of theistic divinity?
I only ask because there is a lot of apologetics you have to get through to claim that "every theistic-type of g/G is fictional" and Jordan Peterson makes some of the best of these arguments. In fact JP's interpretations might not even be apologetics.
Summarize please.
Quoting SonOfAGun
As my previous post points out: If set T is empty, then members of set T are, at most, fictions. True or not true? If true, then your statement above is a non sequitur. If, by your light, not true, please show why not.
Again (more precisely):
If ~Type g/G (e.g. theistic conception of divinity) is true, then ~Token g/Gs (e.g. YHWH, Zeus, Wotan, Allah, etc)
of ~Type g/G is necessarily true.
Given this argument, "apologetics" - preaching to the (wannabe) choir / converted (à la Tertullian, Aquinas, Pascal, G.K. Chesterson, C.S. Lewis, Plantinga et al) - are completely irrelevant and beg the question.
Basta! Go troll somewhere else ...
You've offered nothing of any substance or, for that matter, philosophical interest for some time now. Stop embarrassing yourself, Frank. I've no interest in humoring you any longer. Thanks for all the fodder you've left for me to use as examples of how NOT to argue (or philosophize). Buonanotte signore ...
:death: :flower:
To complex for my little brain to do. Or at least I have not spent a life time thinking about it as he has.
Quoting 180 Proof
He is definitely not working from an empty set. His God is defined.
This is him at his best. They do eventually get to god, but they work through a lot of definitions and first principals first:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
I am not sure what you mean? Serious about what?
Quoting 180 Proof
I have offered more of substance than you are able to digest.
Quoting 180 Proof
Horse shit.
If the definition of "god" is such a problem...why not change the question to what is actually being asked...because the question, "Are there any gods or are there no gods?"...is merely a way of asking, "Do YOU know EVERYTHING that exists in the REALITY of existence?"
So do you?
DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...which by extension mean "know what does not exist?"
DO YOU?
HINT: No you do not.
I don’t understand the difference between the two here. The topic of whether or not something exists consists of that thing existing, or not.
Quoting SonOfAGun
This is where I think I see science as something more strict than simply being taught something. I would probably say the same thing about your use of the word experiment. I know for a fact that I haven’t set up any legitimate scientific experiment on myself regarding pain. I haven’t made hypotheses, controlled for variables, etc. I don’t think experiment can be reduced to just experience, which is precisely what I have regarding pain. I have experienced pain, therefore I know pain.
Quoting SonOfAGun
My mistake. But, once I instinctively react I know why I reacted the way I did (due to pain), without having to know the “science” (biology, physiology, chemistry, or physics) behind it.
You seemed to be considering “thinking that something does not exist” as a different category from “thinking that something exists”. I’m considering the single category of “thinking about whether or not things exist”. Any answer (yes or no) to the question “does x exist?” is a belief. Which answer you give doesn’t make a difference as to whether thinking that answer constitutes a belief or not.
Oh, I see. So, then my question would be wouldn’t that mean we would have to define belief, at least when talking about existence, as X as well as ~X? X being “exists.” If so, that is an issue logically.
Having any opinion about the existence status of anything constitutes a belief. You can believe that something exist, or believe that it doesn’t exist, it’s still a belief.
Think of it in terms of categories. You have one category that consists of beliefs (B), and one that consists of it’s opposite, nonbeliefs (~B). If X (the thought that Y exists) falls under category B, then it’s opposite, ~X (the thought that Y does not exist), must fall under category ~B. X and ~X cannot both logically fall under the same category.
Consider, for analogy, thoughts about colors. You can have thoughts about red colors, or thoughts about nonred colors, but those are all thoughts about colors. Call thoughts about colors “coliefs”. You could, instead, have thoughts about something else entirely, not about color at all, and those thoughts would not be “coliefs”. But any thought about colors, whether it’s about red or nonred colors, is a “colief”.
Do I need to spell out the analogy?
So perhaps the concern you raise in your OP is not really so much of a concern after all?
You were in agreement so long as when I said “think” I didn’t mean “believe”. It’s clear now that zi obviously do, because to think something about whether or not something exists is to believe something, as I understand the word. (And I’d argue as ordinary English speakers understand it too, but that doesn’t really matter). If you import something else into the meaning of the word “believe”, that’s on you, and not part of what I meant (and I have no idea what more you might mean).
Seems to me it would make sense to state what is being stated without characterizing it as "I belief" or "I think"...and just stating what is attempting to be communicated.
If you are speculating or supposing or guessing something...say , "I speculate/suppose/guess that..."
Wouldn't that clear things up?
Saying "I think such and such" is as much a disguise for "I suppose/speculate/guess such and such" as is "I 'believe' such and such."
Easy to understand why someone would suppose the two to be the same.
Nah...opinions are opinions. If you express an opinion as "I 'believe' such and such"...you are disguising the fact that it is an opinion. Much better to say, "My opinion is that...such and such."
I know, I know...the old "one trick pony!"
But this is incredibly important in almost every discussion of this sort...and you guys are just not getting it.
Really give it some thought.
And stay safe.
A guess is also a kind of belief.
A belief is a kind of opinion.
An intention is also a kind of opinion.
Beliefs and intentions are both kinds of thoughts.
Thoughts are kinds of opinions.
Feelings are also kinds of opinions.
Desires and perceptions are kinds of feelings.
You're really not getting some basic things like subset relations and modalities here.
No it isn't.
This may seem a diversion from the thread topic, but it is NOT.
If that is so, why do you suppose people who are making a guess...A PURELY BLIND GUESS...about whether or not any gods exist...
...almost NEVER use "guess" rather than "believe/belief?"
When is the last time you heard someone say, "I guess (in) God."
Or, "I guess there are no gods."
Or, "I guess it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
When is the last time you heard anyone say, "I VERY FIRMLY guess there are no gods?...or, "I VERY FIRMLY guess...in anything?"
Can you not see that most people think there is a substantial difference between "guess" and "believe/belief" in that area...and that it is reconcilable? Can you not see that most will never acknowledge the difference...nor will they acknowledge the subterfuge involved in using "believe/belief" rather than "guess?"
Do you not see that it is philosophically significant?
You evidently have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever. "Justified true belief" has been the standard definition of "knowledge" (only recently challenged) for the past 2400 years or so.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Because we're not guessing. We're inferring. Maybe fallibly. We might be wrong. But we generally think we have reasons to believe the things we do.
I have no issue acknowledging that my beliefs are opinions, unless they are facts. But I don’t consider anything I’ve said I believed or thought in this discussion as fact.
:up:
BTW, the distinction I make between “think” and “believe” is mainly a matter of confidence in whatever it is I’m saying being true. When I say I believe something, I mean that I am very confident that it is true. When I say I think something, I mean that I am somewhat confident that it is true, but not fully so.
So...because we disagree...that means I have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever???
And you think YOU have knowledge of philosophy!
If you understood philosophy, Pfhorrest, you would never make such an ignorant comment.
The term "justified true belief" is one of the bullshit philosophical pieces of garbage that are around and will always be around...right up there with Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor...the kind of drivel that people who cannot truly reason use.
They are essentially useless concepts.
Well it is obvious you are unwilling to acknowledge guessing when you are guessing and want to hide the fact that you are guessing.
And that is why "justified true belief" is NOT knowledge...because often...you are wrong.
If you are making a statement that "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist"...YOU ARE GUESSING...and the guess is a blind guess. Almost nobody ever making one of those statements ever uses "I guess..."...but instead uses "I believe... ."
What I asserted stands.
If you guess there is nothing (colloquial "nothing") in the drawer...and there is a box of tissues in the drawer...you are wrong.
Quoting Frank Apisa
:rofl:
“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.” ~Albert Einstein (1933)
"There never was a sounder logical maxim of scientific procedure than Ockham's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. That is to say; before you try a complicated hypothesis, you should make quite sure that no simplification of it will explain the facts equally well." ~Charles Sanders Peirce (1903)
Occam's Razor...along with Pascal's Wager...are two of the most absurd attempts at meaningful, philosophical principle.
Nothing Einstein and Peirce said makes that any less true.
If one looks for simple explanations one will eventually find one that fits well enough to be considered adequate.
Apply it to "the movement of the sun, moon, and stars across the heavens" or "cold in winter and hot in summer" and you will amazed at what you can come up with.
Occam's Razor sucks like a black hole...and is probably misapplied more than any other philosophical "principle."
Frank Apisa, 2020
It's not about popularity. Language can't do its work as a medium of thought and communication without standards, norms, conventions, rules of use.
I confess I'm influenced by common-sense and ordinary-language strands of our philosophical tradition. In my view this methodological tendency can help to minimize arbitrariness, confusion, obscurantism, and distraction by pseudoproblems in philosophical discourse, and is required for philosophy to achieve its purpose of promoting a common practice of reasonable discourse among the people.
Even laying that personal bias aside:
Divergence in philosophical discourse from ordinary use of terms can be careful, instructive, and motivated by philosophical insight. It can also be careless, misguided, and motivated by philosophical confusion.
You're welcome to use the word "belief" in an extraordinary way. But to understand what you're doing when you speak that way, you need to understand the ordinary use you're diverging from. And of course you should be prepared to justify the divergence, or to provide an account of the divergence, in conversation.
In the present case you're not merely using the word in an extraordinary way. You're persistently arguing that people who use it in the ordinary way are wrong to do so. This puts even more obligation on you to understand the use you're criticizing, as well as the use you're trying in your own idiom.
So far your arguments against ordinary use of the word "belief" seem based on nothing but the fact that you choose not to use that word in describing our grasp of facts, or our "application of facts".
But the fact that you choose not to use the word "belief" in your descriptions is no reason to suppose that everyone should follow your example, nor to suppose that everyone who persists in using the word "belief" in their descriptions of the same phenomena is wrong to do so. So I persist in claiming that your objections seem thus far unwarranted.
Perhaps the "scientific realists" you've mentioned include "eliminative materialists" who aim to "eliminate" from scientific descriptions terms they characterize as items of "folk psychology"? As I recall, those eliminativists don't necessarily deny that people "have beliefs" in the ordinary sense, nor do they necessarily advise that we avoid the term "belief" in ordinary language and in ordinary-language philosophy. Rather, they claim that an ideal science would refrain from using folk-psychological terms in its account of phenomena ordinarily accounted for in folk-psychological terms. Or do they perhaps claim that, even short of an ideal science, the best scientific psychology should always aim to avoid the terms in question, and to use other terms to account for the relevant range of phenomena?
It's been a long time since I've read such discourses. Please feel free to correct or extend my synopsis if it's relevant to our conversation, and don't be shy about citations.
How closely associated are these eliminativists with reductive physicalism?
Do some of them put their view more strongly than I have sketched it, perhaps by claiming that there are no phenomena corresponding to ordinary use of folk-psychological terms, like "belief"? Or perhaps they only say "there are no such things as beliefs"?
To say "there are no such things as beliefs" is not to say or to entail that there are no phenomena corresponding to ordinary use of the term "belief", nor is it to say or to entail that ordinary use of the term amounts to nonsense. It would seem absurd to claim that "there are no phenomena" corresponding to ordinary use of the term "belief".
As a skeptical naturalist, I have little use for philosophical ontology. I follow Rorty in repeating the slogan "There is no privileged ontology". The fact that one useful description of a set of phenomena arguably depends on a given "ontology" is no reason to suppose that no other ontology is useful or sound, even for providing another sort of description of the same phenomena. As free speakers, we may use various ontologies for various descriptive purposes.
Empirical investigation produces descriptions of the relation of the Sun and the Earth. These descriptions may be used to redescribe, and in this sense to "explain", the phenomena ordinarily called "sunrise" and "sunset". The fact that sunrise and sunset may be rightly and informatively described by an empirical account that does not use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" is no reason to go stomping around objecting to ordinary use of the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" in other discursive contexts.
Changes in scientific accounts of the relation of Sun and Earth don't make nonsense out of ordinary statements like "It's nearly sunset" or "The sun is rising". Nor do they change the truth value we assign to such statements on objective grounds. Nor do they change the relevance to those objective grounds of the observations and circumstances of observation ordinarily associated with such statements, for instance when we eyeball the sky while standing six foot two on the surface of the Earth.
I expect an analogous relation should maintain between ordinary use of psychological terms like "belief", and relevant scientific accounts of cognition that don't use such terms: Either fine-grained scientific accounts provide useful and informative redescriptions of the same phenomena we nevertheless correctly describe in such ordinary terms, or they are incomplete accounts of the phenomena in question. The informativeness of the scientific accounts is no reason to object to ordinary use of the ordinary terms. To the contrary, the applicability of the ordinary terms provides us with objective standards by which to assess the adequacy and completeness of the scientific accounts across a diverse range of cases.
For instance, your scientific realists may aim to avoid quaint terms like "belief" in redescribing the phenomena involved in situations in which people judge judgments involving some conception of misperceptions, mirages, lies, or sincerely intended false assertions. If their account fails to capture the distinctions ordinarily captured by talk about what people "believe" and what people "don't believe" when they make such judgments, then their account is an incomplete account of the relevant phenomena. If it does capture the relevant distinctions, I presume it provides a fine-grained description of relevant phenomena that is consistent with ordinary use of the term "belief".
Examples of the relevant generic distinctions an empirical account must capture:
When I say "That pond is a mirage", I believe there is no pond there. When I say "We're saved, a pond!" I believe there is a pond there.
When I seem to see out of the corner of my eye a cat on the floor near my foot, then look closely and see nothing but a plastic bag on the floor near my foot, I may judge that the initial perception was a misperception, in which case I don't believe (or no longer believe) there had been a cat there. Or, after the same sort of initial circumstances, I look closely and see a plastic bag, and wonder where the cat went -- or, heaven help us, wonder how the cat became a plastic bag -- in which case, I do (still) believe there had been a cat there.
When I sincerely make or affirm an assertion, I believe the statement I have asserted is true. When I sincerely reject or deny an assertion, I believe the statement I have denied is false.
When I say someone is lying, I believe that person intends to speak falsehood, to make false assertions, and does not believe what he says. When I say someone is speaking sincerely, I believe that person intends to speak the truth, to make true assertions, and does believe what he says.
And so on.
Show me the facts that are grasped and "applied" in each such case. If you can provide an adequate account in a given case, your account will be consistent with the ordinary use of the term "belief" -- and will thus provide no reason to object to that ordinary use.
We might say that in such discursive contexts, the term "belief" figures among the explananda, not the explanans. But you've been objecting to use of the term "belief" as if it were part of an explanation competing with your favorite scientific explanation of the relevant phenomena.
The range of examples I've selected may suggest that some set of epistemological concepts like the concept of belief are required for rational animals to make sense of the judgments of rational animals, by coordinating differences and conflicts of judgment in the same animal on a given occasion and over time, and among different animals on the same occasion and over time.
Quoting Pinprick
I'm not sure I understand how that distinction is supposed to apply.
So far as I can tell, the sort of belief indicated in (iii) should be interpreted as a belief about the word "x" and about statements and propositions that use the word "x", and the like. I don't see much difference between (i)-(iii) in this regard.
I suppose that's basically the point I've been making in our conversation.
The belief that is ordinarily expressed with a phrase like "x doesn't exist" or "there is no such thing as x" is not appropriately interpreted as having a logical form like "There is an x and x does not exist" -- which would be absurd, as you suggest. Rather, such beliefs are more appropriately interpreted as having something like the logical forms I've indicated in (i)-(iii).
Perhaps you're right to call these "meta-beliefs". I agree they are something like beliefs about beliefs, beliefs about judgments, beliefs about concepts or conceptions, beliefs about statements or propositions... beliefs about the way people's thoughts and speech relate to objective matters of fact.
Against that backdrop I return to your initial statement:
Quoting Pinprick
I hope I've made it clear enough by now, on what grounds I suggest that a belief that "there is no God" should be interpreted as a belief about something like a conception indicated by the word "God".
That is the object you've requested. That is the sort of "thing" such beliefs are beliefs about.
I wonder, is it all beliefs that require an object, on your account? Might it be closer to the truth to say that true beliefs must be analyzable as having some "object", whereas some false beliefs turn out to be figments of confusion?
I took “x” to mean an actual object, not a statement or word, so it was my misunderstanding.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Well, God is certainly only a concept, but I think that “I believe there is no God” refers more towards the non/existence of the concept, rather than the concept itself. If I say “I believe the shirt is not red,” I’m making a statement about a property (the color) of the object (the shirt), not about the object itself.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
I don’t know what a “false belief” is, so I don’t know. Is that just an untrue belief, like a lie that is believed?
Would you agree it seems we've homed in on the region of our disagreement?
I would not say "I believe there is no God" is a claim about the nonexistence of a concept. I might say the claim is "about":
---a concept: the concept of God indicated
---a belief of the speaker's: that there is no object in the world corresponding in the relevant way to the concept indicated
---the speaker: the one who makes the assertion in question and attributes the belief to himself
---the world: characterized both as containing the concept, the belief, and the speaker, and as not containing the object imputed by the relevant concept of God.
Quoting Pinprick
I would say "I believe the shirt is not red" is a statement "about a shirt" in much the way that the previous statement is a statement "about a concept of God".
I might agree that this statement is also about something like "the color red", or "the property of being red" or "the predicate 'is red'"... and about the relation of some such thing to the thing called a shirt. Accordingly I might characterize the speaker's belief as a belief that there is a thing called "this shirt" and that the concept or predicate "being red" does not apply, or is not correctly applied, to that thing.
In any case, we might provide a closer analogy to the initial statement: "I believe there are no shirts" or "I believe I have no shirt".
Quoting Pinprick
I suppose false beliefs and false judgments are called "false" in the same sense that false assertions are called "false".
That seems so regardless of whether one is said to be "justified" in having the belief in question. Truth value does not depend on justification, though assessment of truth value typically depends on justification.
I presume these are examples of false assertion: "Three is greater than five", "The moon is made of brie", "There is no water in Spain".
Typically the liar doesn't believe the assertion expressed in the lie is true, though others might believe the assertion is true when they catch wind of the lie.
Of course the assertion expressed in a lie might turn out to be true, unbeknownst to the liar. Just as an honest assertion might turn out to be false, unbeknownst to the honest speaker.
Hey, I’d still like to see what you think of this.
I think all beliefs require an object, whether true or untrue. To say you “believe” makes no sense without specifying what it is you believe, and if your specification turns out to be “nothing” or an empty set, then you actually lack belief, in my view at least.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Yes. I’m not exactly sure how to proceed since our difference seems to be fundamental to the topic at hand. But I would like to ask you what a belief about existence would be, since your claim that statements like “I believe God does/doesn’t exist” are actually about the concept of God, rather than existence?
Yah, I got sick man. Been sick for what seems like forever now.
Let's make this more concrete. A stranger tells me that he has millions in the bank. He just needs a little money (due to absurd circumstances) in the short term and will pay me back tenfold. Is it not sensible that I don't believe in his millions in the bank? An atheist doesn't believe that some invisible character from the good book is actually up there, watching every sparrow. He doesn't believe in a magical place that souls go when they die. He probably believes that personalities just vanish upon brain death. Just as he doesn't remember experiencing the world before birth, he doesn't expect to experience the world after death.
Because I find all of this obvious, I'm surprised at your linguistic objection.
I think atheists are typically denying a vague but typical image of God. It's like not believing that Mr. X has money in the bank. It's not a particular bank. It's the vague idea of lots of money in the bank. And I can believe that Mr. X is not in fact in such a situation. Yes it's all a bit vague, and so is much of our human communication. It's as if we employ only as much detail as necessary for reasons of economy.
I went to the doctor day before yesterday. They said it was bronchitis. They gave me antibiotics. I been sick 14 days now. :shade:
Horse hockey!
My guess is that damn near 100% of everyone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor..."believes" that no gods exist...or "believes" that it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that no gods exist than that at least one god does.
Theist, at least, are honest that the have the "beliefs." Atheists want to pretend they do not.
But they do.
I agree with this. It is misused and misunderstood.
However...Quoting Frank Apisathe idea is not to look for simple explanations. It is that if one is given a choice between two explanations, each of which fit the evidence equally well, it is better to go with the explantion that has less posited entities. That's useful for communal knowledge.
People often interpret this to mean that the simpler explanation is more likely to be true. Which is not the case at all, as any neuroscientist or particle physicist will happily tell you. But that is an incorrect interpretation.
And with Pascal's Wager people often assume he intended this as an arguement to start believing in God. This was not the case.
Bottom line: It is my opinion that Occam's Razor and Pascal's Wager are both misused in philosophical discussions...among amateur philosophers. Use of them tends to end up muddying the waters...rather than clearing them.
One other thought: I think most of us, unconsciously, use a form of Occam's Razor in day to day life. I know I do...and when I realize I have, I reflect on my very negative considerations of it.
They are denying any and all “images” of God.
Not so. Consider some of the German philosophers from Hegel on. In particular, consider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity
[quote=Feuerbach]
If my work contained only the second part, it would be perfectly just to accuse it of a negative tendency, to represent the proposition: Religion is nothing, is an absurdity, as its essential purport. But I by no means say (that were an easy task!): God is nothing, the Trinity is nothing, the Word of God is nothing, &c. I only show that they are not that which the illusions of theology make them,—not foreign, but native mysteries, the mysteries of human nature; I show that religion takes the apparent, the superficial in Nature and humanity for the essential, and hence conceives their true essence as a separate, special existence: that consequently, religion, in the definitions which it gives of God, e.g., of the Word of God,—at least in those definitions which are not negative in the sense above alluded to,—only defines or makes objective the true nature of the human word. The reproach that according to my book religion is an absurdity, a nullity, a pure illusion, would be well founded only if, according to it, that into which I resolve religion, which I prove to be its true object and substance, namely, man,—anthropology, were an absurdity, a nullity, a pure illusion. But so far from giving a trivial or even a subordinate significance to anthropology,—a significance which is assigned to it only just so long as a theology stands above it and in opposition to it,—I, on the contrary, while reducing theology to anthropology, exalt anthropology into theology, very much as Christianity, while lowering God into man, made man into God; though, it is true, this human God was by a further process made a transcendental, imaginary God, remote from man. Hence it is obvious that I do not take the word anthropology in the sense of the Hegelian or of any [xiii]other philosophy, but in an infinitely higher and more general sense.
Religion is the dream of the human mind. But even in dreams we do not find ourselves in emptiness or in heaven, but on earth, in the realm of reality; we only see real things in the entrancing splendour of imagination and caprice, instead of in the simple daylight of reality and necessity. Hence I do nothing more to religion—and to speculative philosophy and theology also—than to open its eyes, or rather to turn its gaze from the internal towards the external, i.e., I change the object as it is in the imagination into the object as it is in reality.
[/quote]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/47025/47025-h/47025-h.htm
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheism
Good luck finding an Atheist that would agree with Feuerbach’s quote.
You might proceed by rereading my previous reply to you. It contains an answer to the question you've just asked that should make it clear that you have just grossly misrepresented my "claim".
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
This seems to disagree with this:
Quoting Pinprick
However, this seems to agree with my quote above.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
Hence my confusion. I can’t tell whether you agree or disagree with me. And I think an example, provided by you, of a belief that is about existence would help me understand better what you mean.
“I believe that this doesn’t exist” becomes “I don’t believe that this exists.” Which means, to me at least, that by negating the object (exist) you actually negate the verb (believe).
You have got to be careful of this, Pinprick. What you are suggesting here is fine in idle conversation (used as a linguistic convention), but in a more structured discussion, it is not correct.
You should be able to see that by reversing the order you used. Here is the reverse order:"I don't believe that this exists" becomes "I believe that this doesn't exist."
It doesn't. Let me substitute "God" for the "that" in your suggestion.
As an agnostic, I can truthfully say: "I do not 'believe' that God exists." But that does not mean that "I believe that God does not exist. In fact, I do not.
I do not "believe" that God exists...
...AND I do not "believe" that God does not exist."
Both are true...and logical. Simply because I do not "believe" X does not mean I "believe" not-X.
Do you see what I mean there?
Speaking for myself, I believe THAT theism is not true (i.e. believe THAT theism's negation is true). I/we don't "believe IN" (i.e. "worship"; unconditionally (devotionally) "trust" or "submit to" or "hope for") any one/thing as e.g. theists do.
Yeah...that's about it.
Atheists think that what they "believe" and how they "believe" it...
...is much better than what theists "believe" and how they "believe" it.
And then atheists try to sell the idea that atheists are not "believers."
Two sides of one coin!
Right, I agree, because that type of belief is impossible to hold. It is empty. Let me give you an example. The statements “I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing, the absence of the possession of money. Unless you would argue that I actually do have/possess something if I say the latter. Maybe you would, because that’s what it seems you’re doing when the statements are about beliefs. I don’t see or understand what makes the term “belief” special to exclude it from following the same logic that’s used in the example.
I believe there is a feline, somewhere in the jungles or forests of the world, that has not yet been catalogued by scientists.
I do not believe there is a feline, somewhere in the jungles or forests of the world, that has not yet been catalogued by scientists.
IOW what would get called a 'new species' that might be discovered.
Neither of those fits for me. I lack BOTH beliefs. There might be. I would tend to guess we would have found one by now, but I am not sure.
I believe neither one of those statements.
I don't have any belief there is such a feline. I don't have any belief there is no such feline.
I have no belief there is such a feline. I have no believe there isn't such a feline.
I don't see what those two wording clarify or inform us or box someone in to differently from each other.
Well...then look more closely, because you are missing it.
I can tell you it is absolutely true that I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT GOD EXISTS.
And it is also absolutely true that I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. **
There are people who "believe" God exists. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.
There are people who "believe" God does not exist. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM EITHER.
So there obviously IS a difference.
Think about it...or you will have to assert that I am wrong or untruthful in what I am saying.
As for your "money" example "“I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing"...YES. I agree.
But let's substitute "a 'belief' that God exists" for money: I don't have a 'belief' that God exists" and "I have no 'belief' that God exists" MEANS THE SAME THING.
But that does not go to the point of what I was saying.
** I normally use "gods", but am using "God" for the purpose of dealing with your question.
“I have no money” is making the claim that something is in my possession. However, if taken literally, it is a contradiction because really I don’t have anything. There’s nothing that I am actually in possession of. That’s why it is incorrect to negate the object of a verb, whether the object is money or existence. Claiming that the statement “I believe no Gods exist” means that I have a belief is like claiming that the statement “I have no money” means that I have something.
You are trying to make this into the kind of thing attributed to Hollywood Producer, Samuel Goldwyn, who at the end of a complicated production negotiation exclaimed, "Gentlemen, include me out."
If it would make the notion any more acceptable to you, it could be rephrased to: "There are some people who have money, I am not one of them."
On the god variation, "There are people who 'believe' at least one god exists. I am not one of them."
Of course I accept this; it doesn’t imply belief in the nonexistence of God.
Okay...we'll leave that be.
But this started when you wrote, "You’re either misunderstanding me, or are wording things wrong. I agree that an Atheist doesn’t believe in God. I’m arguing that to say an Atheist believes God doesn’t exist is wrong."
I disagreed...and still do. My argument essentially was (and IS):
People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
If you disagree with that...let's discuss it because I consider it to be extremely important.
Which "people"? Certainly not weak/implicit/negative "atheists". Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know. :roll: (Oh, you don't, huh?)
People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor. I said that in the sentence you quoted. Pay attention.
I suspect they, too, either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
If they did not, they probably would not choose "atheist" as a descriptor. The could use non-theist, skeptic, doubter, or agnostic instead. They use the "atheist" almost certainly because of a "belief"...not because of a dictionary.
No they are not.
:monkey: :rofl:
:vomit:
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.
Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C.
For me the concept of God holds no meaning, so I reject A, B, and C as the same sort of alien stuff. I reject the topic itself as meaningless in both theory and practise, not the propositions as untrue.
Also, how you phrase things often determines what the negative is:
To use Cobens example (abridged because I'm too lazy to type it all):
A1: There is a feline that hasn't been catalogued by science.
B1: There is no feline that hasn't been catalogued by science.
C: There may or may not be a feline....
A2: Not all felines have been catalogued by science.
B2: All felines have been catalogued by science.
C2: All felines may or may not have been catalogued by science.
Can anyone here think of a way to phrase "God doesn't exist," as a positive, to which "God exists," would be a negative? I can't.
They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C.
Quoting Dawnstorm
You are supposing that A is a positive statement...and B is a negative one. But that is not so. Both are positive statements. If made as assertions...BOTH would bear a burden of proof from the person making the assertion.
Agreed, but qualified (from an old post):
Quoting 180 Proof
I think this because 'theism' is defined - definite - insofar as it's a 'conception of divinity' that consists of distinct truth-claims about g/G, and therefore, to my mind, are not "meaningless" ontologically, epistemically or ethically. g/G, I agree, is meaningless, but what we say about g/G - if it's proposition - is not. (Obviously, I exclude noncognitive theism, for instance, from consideration and give the mainstream / classical theists their cognitive due.)
I really don’t have a way to argue for or against this. It’s possible Atheists use that term to mean what you describe, but that doesn’t mean they’re using it correctly.
Perhaps?
All Gods are fictional.
No Gods are fictional.
I don’t understand this. If God is meaningless, then doesn’t that render Theism meaningless as well, since it is defined by one’s belief in this meaningless concept? BTW, when I use the term God, I mean any Theistic conception of the term.
Only if g/G is undefined as I point out in previous posts. Theism (as I understand it's sine qua non attributions) defines g/G with claims (1) there is at least one Mystery (2) that Created - and/or sustains - Existence & (3) Intervenes - causes changes - in the Universe (as per e.g. scriptures, prophesies, testimonials, theodicies, metaphysics, etc) which can be examined; if any or all of these claims are falsified or demonstrated to be not true, then theism is not true, and therefore every theistic g/G is merely fictional, no?
Makes sense to me, but when is God ever defined as something different than claims 1,2, and 3? I’m just not understanding why it is necessary to ask for a specific/formal definition of God every time someone uses the term. Isn’t it safe to assume the definition Theism provides is the one meant by whomever is using the term?
You’re saying God is a meaningless concept unless it is defined, but I think it is always defined, at least implicitly.
See wiki re: (e.g.) pandeism, gnosticism, animism, acosmism, etc. :fire:
It's not in most cases. Only when there is a truth-claim about g/G at issue (e.g. "g/G exists", "g/G did this or that", etc) and not when using nonpropositional (e.g. figurative, colloquial, avowal) expressions such "g/G is love".
So it's safe to assume the definition of Communism is the one meant by whomever is using the term? :roll: Like Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less"? Independent of context / community of usage, etymology, genealogy, etc? Does Witty's 'private language argument' means anything to ya, 'prick? :point:
So what? How does an "implicitly" defined g/G differ significantly from un-defined g/G in a purportedly propositional (i.e. truth-claiming/counter-claiming) discourse? For casual banter, the issue of explicit definitions is pedantically irrelevant; not so, however, in a technical, analytical, hermeneutical or critical discussion like we philosopherizers try to get up to every now and again (on & off these wily fora).
?
Quoting Frank Apisa
This isn't about the burden of proof. It's a negative statement, because it negates a positive statement. I brought this up precisely because the relation between the syntax and the semantics isn't as straightforward as it appears.
If I were to claim that the platypus doesn't exist, that would be negative statement, but the burden of proof would be on me. Whether or not a claim is positive or negative in syntactic structure doesn't really impact the burden of proof.
I'll demonstrate why I brought this up with my reply to Pinprick.
Quoting Pinprick
That may work. The question, then, is if "All Gods are fictional," are semantically tied together with "Gods don't exist," phrased once with a positive and once with a negative structure. If so, can you say that there is a "believe in nothing"?
I don't really have an answer to this myself, except that I think it pays to make a difference between intutive concepts, semantics tied to word structures, and the structures themselves.
Quoting 180 Proof
I tried to address this in a longer post, but I talked myself into a corner and got confused.
Basically, I view statements like "God exists," to have the structure of a statement, but its social function is appellative rather than referential. A complex of behaviours is tied to ritualistic verbiage. Except that's clearly not how the theists around me see it. And that's where my confusion enters.
Note that I make a difference between "undefined" and "meaningless". It's my impression that God being "undefined" (or "undefinable") is part of the mystery and thus meaningful to theist. I can't mine meaning that way. I don't know how that works. And that's what makes me an atheist.
You wrote:
A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.
Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C.
NO ONE has to "believe" C...because C is obviously absolutely true. Anyone with a brain KNOWS that C is true...even those who "believe" A and those who "believe" B.
I am saying that there is a significant difference between "know" and "believe."
I'll pass this over for now and read what else you write.
My point is that THE ASSERTION "There is (at least one) God" IS a positive statement. THE ASSERTION "There are no gods" (a form of 'God does not exist') IS also a positive statement...no matter the inclusion of the word "not."
This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition.
Ok, there are other ways God is defined, but it just seems like God is so commonly used in the context of Theism that that would be your default assumption. When someone says that “God exists,” I assume they believe in the existence of God as defined by Theism. Maybe that’s wrong of me to do, but if I assume wrong it usually becomes apparent that I did as the conversation progresses, at which time I can ask for clarification. But whatever, I wasn’t trying to bust your balls about this, I was just curious.
I’m going to say no. A lot of this question comes down to sentence structure and which words are used. “All Gods are fictional” and “Gods don’t exist” are synonymous, but add “I believe” to the front of each and (perhaps?) one negates itself, while the other does not. Hence why I say it comes down to sentence structure and essentially the logic behind grammar. Verbs make sense when their objects are phrased positively, but when they’re phrased negatively, the verb itself is what becomes negated. It may even be the same logic that’s applied to mathematics that’s being applied here, although I’m not sure. Consider that a positive times a negative results in a negative.
My entire point, though, is that so far, no-one's been able to convince me that "God" is a valid value for X in that instance.
Quoting Pinprick
Language isn't that logical, though, when used in the wild. If you insist on thorough grammatical logic within philosophy, you either have to be very careful how you phrase things, or you create a insulated bubble, where your conclusions have little to do with the world we live in.
Under the assumption that "All Gods are fictional," and "Gods don't exist," are synonymous (which is not a given in every context), you could lead someone to commit to the positive phrasing and thus have them have a belief. Intuitively, I'd consider that move a rhetorical trick rather than anything philosophically meaningful.
Okay. But if you were saying, "So far no one has been able to convince you that World War II actually occurred"...where would that leave us?
OF COURSE "the possible existence of at least one god" or if you prefer "the possibility that no gods exist" can be a valid value for X in that instance. A dedicated theist or atheist might argue otherwise, but it would be a contrived, self-serving argument.
Why do you suppose "God" does not fit into the general "either X or not-X"...where X and not-X are mutually exclusive?
"World War II" is a valid value for "occurring". Even if we had no evidence, the meaning is fairly straightforward. "God", the creator god of the monotheistic religions at the very least, is different from that. If "God" created everything there is, then existance is a product of that process, and to say that "God" exists either sends me into an Escher painting equivalent of meaning, or it's an incomprehensible mystery for which I have no intution.
In any case, the logic for the empirical world, which I'd be prone to apply to things like "World War II" doesn't apply. If it did, most theists I know wouldn't be able to believe in God; as it is, when I outline what sort of God I don't believe in ("bearded man in the skay") then they say they don't either.
God concepts are manyfold, and Shintoist kami are very different beings from the monotheistic Gods, but there's also this spiritual, transcendental whiff to it that I have trouble understanding. I always end up at a point where there is no discenible difference between any one God existing or not. The only difference I can see is the word-behaviour of the believer.
Nothing you have said here impacts on the proposition, "Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist."
This has become discussion by scattergun.
Choose one thing...and we can discuss it.
Not sure if I agree or not. Rules of grammar dictate the relationship between different types of words (i.e. verbs and adverbs), as well as things like punctuation; and as far as I can tell these rules are applied logically with very few, if any, exceptions. If you’re meaning that the rules of grammar aren’t adhered to very well, then I would agree, but otherwise I’m not certain.
Quoting Dawnstorm
True.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Yes, but then the issue becomes which statement is correct or accurate, and which one is a trick of rhetoric. How would you propose we distinguish between the two?
So people who believe in unicorns and those who don't are two sides of the same coin? The available proof for unicorns and an Abrahamic God are more or less equal, lots of mentions in books and story telling.
Not believing X? Believing ¬X
And it is not the case that one must either believe X or ¬X, for instance: just because I don't believe that the exact number of stars in the milky way is even, that does not mean I believe that it is odd. In this case, I believe neither claim and suspend judgement, since I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
For many atheists, however, who are not connoisseurs of fine philosophy, atheism is the denial of the existence of god, even if the more educated ones might describe it as a lack of belief identical to what you outline. In fact - most have no idea what Quoting Amalac even means. But yeah, you are right on. :point: