Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 14, 2019, 07:52:16 AM
-
I actually am not sure what the statement true for me but not anyone else means".
But for those who do a) can you tell us and b) tell us if atheism is just a "true for me" thing.
-
No one can say with certainty no god exists. It think it is improbable that if there is such an external entity it is anything like the ones humans have created.
-
No one can say with certainty no god exists. It think it is improbable that if there is such an external entity it is anything like the ones humans have created.
Thanks for your reply
And yet people are happy to call themselves atheists so is that a "true for me position" would you say?
-
Thanks for your reply
And yet people are happy to call themselves atheists so is that a "true for me position" would you say?
My husband is a convinced atheist. As I have mentioned before he claims to have had some sort of experience whilst in a coma, which convinced him beyond all doubt that no god or afterlife exists. I don't give his 'experience' anymore credence than I do of those who claim the opposite, and god came through for them.
-
I actually am not sure what the statement true for me but not anyone else means".
But for those who do a) can you tell us and b) tell us if atheism is just a "true for me" thing.
It is not a claim.
It is a rejection of the claim that gods exist, because they have not met the burden of proof.
Atheism is the default position until you accept the theistic claims.
-
It is not a claim.
It is a rejection of the claim that gods exist, because they have not met the burden of proof.
Atheism is the default position until you accept the theistic claims.
How does that not imply a naturalistic universe?
Since you are saying the universe or more properly existence Has nothing like a god in
It?
-
My husband is a convinced atheist. As I have mentioned before he claims to have had some sort of experience whilst in a coma, which convinced him beyond all doubt that no god or afterlife exists. I don't give his 'experience' anymore credence
If you describe your self as an atheist then how do you say you are giving it less credence.
That question needn't be rhetorical.
-
How does that not imply a naturalistic universe?
Since you are saying the universe or more properly existence Has nothing like a god in
It?
Atheists do not say that there is no god.
-
Atheists do not say that there is no god.
Then you are suggesting thatLittleroses husband isn't an atheist? He sounds profoundly atheist to me
-
Then you are suggesting thatLittleroses husband isn't an atheist? He sounds profoundly atheist to me
If someone says there is no god, then they are an atheist, but they then have the burden of proof.
I do not believe the is a god, and I do not believe there is not god
-
Feeding time!
-
If someone says there is no god, then they are an atheist, but they then have the burden of proof.
I do not believe the is a god, and I do not believe there is not god
That makes absolutely no sense.
-
That makes absolutely no sense.
My lawn has either and even or odd number of blades of grass.
Do you believe the number is even?
If not does that mean you believe it is odd?
The correct response if to accept that I do not know, and have no reason to believe either.
Does this make sense now?
-
My lawn has either and even or odd number of blades of grass.
Do you believe the number is even?
If not does that mean you believe it is odd?
The correct response if to accept that I do not know, and have no reason to believe either.
Does this make sense now?
No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other. There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know) depends on which you find persuasive.
-
I've just done a google in the hope of discovering that grass blades always grow in pairs, so that I could go ner-ner-na-ner-ner at you, but it appears not to be the case. Damn. >:(
-
No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other.
It is knowable: you could count them all, that you don't know prior to counting doesn't mean the number of blades of grass can never be known (if you could be bothered that is).
There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know depends on which you find persuasive.
That isn't the point. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't claim as an item of knowledge that there is no god but that there are no good reasons to think so. On the other hand a gnostic theist would say that they know (as an item of knowledge) that there is no god, and you'd be entitled to ask them to demonstrate their claim that there is no god.
-
It is knowable: you could count them all, that you don't know prior to counting doesn't mean the number of blades of grass can never be known (if you could be bothered that is).
That isn't the point. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they don't claim as an item of knowledge that there is no god but that there are no good reasons to think so. On the other hand a gnostic theist would say that they know (as an item of knowledge) that there is no god, and you'd be entitled to ask them to demonstrate their claim that there is no god.
How are you distinguishing " good reason" from "reason".
-
How are you distinguishing " good reason" from "reason".
'Good' reasons would involve reasoning that on review aren't fallacious or incoherent.
-
'Good' reasons would involve reasoning that on review aren't fallacious or incoherent.
Can you Give an example relevant to this forum.
-
Can you Give an example relevant to this forum.
Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).
-
Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).
I think you have misread me I asked for an example of good reasoning pertinent to this forum.
Can you explain the what is unreasonable about that request?
-
I think you have misread me I asked for an example of good reasoning pertinent to this forum.
Can you explain the what is unreasonable about that request?
The context of my 'no good reasons', which you reacted to, was in relation to arguments offered in support of theism (the usual suspects) - but you know this already, Vlad, so your attempt to change the context of my remark is a big fail for you.
-
Gordon,
Nope: you know what they are anyway, Vlad - after all they've been mentioned often enough (unless you haven't been paying attention).
Quite. He knows perfectly well (or has no excuse for not knowing given how often it’s been explained to him) that logic is objectively verifiable – an argument is logically sound or it’s logically false. He also knows that atheism entails only finding arguments made for “god” to be logically false, for exactly the same reasons he’d find them to be logically false too if they were used to argue for something else.
If someone believes sincerely that there is a god (or anything else with no validating logic) that’s a subjective truth just for him, but that’s all it is.
What Vlad hopes to get from this is anyone’s guess – attention presumably – but it just pollutes this mb.
-
No. The number of blades of grass is unknowable, and there are no arguments one way or the other. There are arguments for and against God, and whether you believe in God's existance (not know) depends on which you find persuasive.
Can you count?
-
Gordon,
Quite. He knows perfectly well (or has no excuse for not knowing given how often it’s been explained to him) that logic is objectively verifiable – an argument is logically sound or it’s logically false. He also knows that atheism entails only finding arguments made for “god” to be logically false, for exactly the same reasons he’d find them to be logically false too if they were used to argue for something else.
If someone believes sincerely that there is a god (or anything else with no validating logic) that’s a subjective truth just for him, but that’s all it is.
What Vlad hopes to get from this is anyone’s guess – attention presumably – but it just pollutes this mb.
Like the universe Hillside is infintely regressing his refutations of the reasons for theism. His previous post is how the refutations are in a previous post and this has gone on and on hence his inability to produce the refutations.
-
As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?
What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.
-
I cannot understand after all this time, why some people assume that all atheists make the claim that god(s) do not exist.
Do they really not get it, or just like to keep repeating this daft assertion from time to time?
-
As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?
What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.
Lets see the falsification of theism then.
-
For me, my atheism consists of not believing in any gods. Obviously it is true for me that I don't believe in any gods. The fact that others may say that they actually believe in god X means that it can't be true for them. So, in such cases, it simply means that it is true for me but not necessarily true for others.
-
BR,
I cannot understand after all this time, why some people assume that all atheists make the claim that god(s) do not exist.
Do they really not get it, or just like to keep repeating this daft assertion from time to time?
I think they must get it as the point is so simple - I for one have explained it to this particular poster 4,687, 471 times already by my count. Just yer basic attention seeking maybe?
-
I cannot understand after all this time, why some people assume that all atheists make the claim that god(s) do not exist.
Do they really not get it, or just like to keep repeating this daft assertion from time to time?
Who said all do?
-
Me:
As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?
What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.
Vlad:
Lets see the falsification of theism then.
QED
Why the difference between falsifiable and falsified is so challenging to this poster is anyone's guess. Mine is that it's not challenging at all, he's just attention seeking. I could be wrong about that though.
-
Who said all do?
You think because I am an atheist I therefore believe there is not god.
Do you accept that I do NOT believe there is no god or gods?
If you get that, then progress has been made.
-
BR,
You think because I am an atheist I therefore believe there is not god.
Do you accept that I do NOT believe there is no god or gods?
If you get that, then progress has been made.
Never gonna happen. If he got past that, he'd lose half his bait.
A better way to put it by the way perhaps is that atheism (rather than atheists) does not require the statement "there are no gods".
-
You think because I am an atheist I therefore believe there is not god.
Do you accept that I do NOT believe there is no god or gods?
If you get that, then progress has been made.
Not necessarily since several people self identified as atheist have said that they dont know if there is a god but that is there opinion that there isnt.
I dont believed Ive ever given you a label.
-
Not necessarily since several people self identified as atheist have said that they dont know if there is a god but that is there opinion that there isnt.
I dont believed Ive ever given you a label.
Do you understand that atheism is NOT the claim that gods do not exist.
You need to understand that.
-
Do you understand that atheism is NOT the claim that gods do not exist.
You need to understand that.
Ok You say that that is what it is not.
What do you say it is?
-
Ok You say that that is what it is not.
What do you say it is?
It is not believing that a god or gods exist.
How is it after all this time you do not understand this most simple concept?
-
It is not believing that a god or gods exist.
How is it after all this time you do not understand this most simple concept?
If you don't believe that a god or gods exist, you believe, and therefore claim, that no god or gods exist. You're the one complicating the simple.
-
If you don't believe that a god or gods exist, you believe, and therefore claim, that no god or gods exist. You're the one complicating the simple.
NO NO NO NO NO.
Do you believe my lawn has an even number of blades of grass.
If you say No, does that mean that you believe it has an odd number?
Do you not understand the very simple concept that you accept neither.
I do not believe there are an even number AND I do not believe it has an odd number.
I cannot accept claim as there is no evidence. I know it MUST be one of them, but until evidence is produced it is logical to not accept either claim.
Do you understand?
This is logic 101.
-
That is bollocks 101. There are arguments for the existance or non-existance of God. There are no arguments for the evenness or oddness of the blades of grass.
-
That is bollocks 101. There are arguments for the existance or non-existance of God. There are no arguments for the evenness or oddness of the blades of grass.
It is a simple example to make the point.
Why is this so hard.
Do you believe my lawn has an even number?
if not, can I then conclude that you think it has an odd number?
Do you understand the statement "I DO NOT BELIEVE X"
Does NOT "I BELIEVE X IS FALSE"
If you cannot understand that, then all logic will fail for you.
-
Sigh.
TTFN.
-
If you don't believe that a god or gods exist, you believe, and therefore claim, that no god or gods exist. You're the one complicating the simple.
I don't understand your logic. Why can't I simply lack the belief that a god exists without having to move to a position that I am claiming that no god exists?
-
Sigh.
TTFN.
Sigh also, logic is not your thing?
-
Sigh also, logic is not your thing?
Yes, logic is my thing. Your nonsense about blades of grass is just ridiculous. There are either an even number or an odd number of blades of grass; the chance of either is 50%. There is no default position, and therefore no burden of proof. God either exists or does not exist, but here the non-existsance claim is the default; the burden of proof is on the believer to demonstrate that God's existance is more likely than not, other wise non-belief wins, because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Can we therefore please hear no more nonsense about lawns?
-
Yes, logic is my thing. Your nonsense about blades of grass is just ridiculous. There are either an even number or an odd number of blades of grass; the chance of either is 50%. There is no default position, and therefore no burden of proof. God either exists or does not exist, but here the non-existsance claim is the default; the burden of proof is on the believer to demonstrate that God's existance is more likely than not, other wise non-belief wins, because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Can we therefore please hear no more nonsense about lawns?
So, if logic is your thing, I repeat, Why can't I simply lack the belief that a god exists without having to move to a position that I am claiming that no god exists?
-
So, if logic is your thing, I repeat, Why can't I simply lack the belief that a god exists without having to move to a position that I am claiming that no god exists?
Because it's nonsensical. "I do not believe that x exists" = "I believe that x does not exist".
-
Because it's nonsensical. "I do not believe that x exists" = "I believe that x does not exist".
FALSE.
That is completely wrong.
I do not believe X is true, IS NOT THE SAME AS I believe X is false.
If you cannot understand this, please never try to use logic.
-
I give up. ::)
-
Because it's nonsensical. "I do not believe that x exists" = "I believe that x does not exist".
I'm saying that I lack the belief that x exists. I have no belief that x exists. It might well exist, I do not dismiss it, I simply do not have the belief that it exists. I submit that it is entirely logical.
-
GHG,
To borrow an example from Bertrand Russell if I were to say that there is a teapot orbiting Earth just beyond the range of our instruments to detect it, would you say:
A. That you have been given no coherent reason to think I’m right about that; or
B. That there certainly isn’t a teapot?
Statement A is objectively true. Statement B cannot be objectively true because you have no means of validating it.
A-teapotism/a-theism is statement A, but not statement B (regardless of Vlad's endless attempts to elide the two).
-
I give up. ::)
I am with you to an extent on this.
Functionally there is little difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". If we were forced to lay a bet with the choices "god"/"no god" we would all put our money on "no god".
The only reason people are bending over backwards on this one is the point about burden of proof. The statement "there is no god" is an assertion and it demands evidence. The only evidence there is for it can only be that nobody has ever found any evidence that there is a god. In this respect, it is no different to trying to demonstrate that there are no leprechauns or mermaids or any other imaginary thing that humans have dreamed up.
The default position has to be non belief, otherwise when I start talking about the purple nosed snoot, you'd have to accept it exists (got any evidence it doesn't?).
-
jeremy,
I am with you to an extent on this.
Functionally there is little difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". If we were forced to lay a bet with the choices "god"/"no god" we would all put our money on "no god".
The only reason people are bending over backwards on this one is the point about burden of proof. The statement "there is no god" is an assertion and it demands evidence. The only evidence there is for it can only be that nobody has ever found any evidence that there is a god. In this respect, it is no different to trying to demonstrate that there are no leprechauns or mermaids or any other imaginary thing that humans have dreamed up.
The default position has to be non belief, otherwise when I start talking about the purple nosed snoot, you'd have to accept it exists (got any evidence it doesn't?).
Functionally there may well be little difference - I live my life as if I think that god(s) do not exist - but epistemologically there's all the difference in the world. That matters because by trying to elide the two meanings some people will immediately divert the conversation to, "OK, prove that god does not exist then" as if they were making a legitimate point.
-
I give up. ::)
I think you should as you do not understand the first thing about logic.
-
I am with you to an extent on this.
Functionally there is little difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". If we were forced to lay a bet with the choices "god"/"no god" we would all put our money on "no god".
The only reason people are bending over backwards on this one is the point about burden of proof. The statement "there is no god" is an assertion and it demands evidence. The only evidence there is for it can only be that nobody has ever found any evidence that there is a god. In this respect, it is no different to trying to demonstrate that there are no leprechauns or mermaids or any other imaginary thing that humans have dreamed up.
The default position has to be non belief, otherwise when I start talking about the purple nosed snoot, you'd have to accept it exists (got any evidence it doesn't?).
And then for some of us, the statement 'There is/are god(s)' doesn't seem to be on the basis of what each individual says about it, yet seem to have enough coherence to allow be to say I have no belief in such a thing, as the lack of a logically coherent definition so far means the sentence makes no sense, and that also buggers up the idea of 'evidence'
-
GHG,
To borrow an example from Bertrand Russell if I were to say that there is a teapot orbiting Earth just beyond the range of our instruments to detect it, would you say:
A. That you have been given no coherent reason to think I’m right about that; or
B. That there certainly isn’t a teapot?
Statement A is objectively true. Statement B cannot be objectively true because you have no means of validating it.
A-teapotism/a-theism is statement A, but not statement B (regardless of Vlad's endless attempts to elide the two).
Is Statement A 'objectively true'? Surely the you/I in the sentence makes that impossible?
-
To go back to the OP, is anything that doesn't have something that has a methodology to at least intersubjectively be tested amount to anything more than 'in my opinion'?
-
NS,
And then for some of us, the statement 'There is/are god(s)' doesn't seem to be on the basis of what each individual says about it, yet seem to have enough coherence to allow be to say I have no belief in such a thing, as the lack of a logically coherent definition so far means the sentence makes no sense, and that also buggers up the idea of 'evidence'
Yes, quite We've talked about this before - when someone says "god" the initial response can only be, "I have no idea what you mean by that word and nor it seems have you so any discussion about its existence is redundant". That's ignosticism.
For ordinary dialogue though there's generally a sort of unspoken contract - "OK, let's both work on the basis that "god" has an agreed meaning, so now let's look at the arguments you attempt for its existence".
-
NS,
Is Statement A 'objectively true'? Surely the you/I in the sentence makes that impossible?
Yes, it's objectively true.
The statement is: "That you have been given no coherent reason to think I’m right about that". "There's an orbiting teapot..." etc has no argument to support it, so necessarily statement A is true. Even if some arguments had been attempted though, their coherence or otherwise would also be objectively verifiable.
-
NS,
Yes, it's objectively true.
The statement is: "That you have been given no coherent reason to think I’m right about that". "There's an orbiting teapot..." etc has no argument to support it, so necessarily statement A is true. Even if some arguments had been attempted though, their coherence or otherwise would also be objectively verifiable.
But my own reasoning could be faulty so how is that an objective statement?
-
NS,
Yes, quite We've talked about this before - when someone says "god" the initial response can only be, "I have no idea what you mean by that word and nor it seems have you so any discussion about its existence is redundant". That's ignosticism.
For ordinary dialogue though there's generally a sort of unspoken contract - "OK, let's both work on the basis that "god" has an agreed meaning, so now let's look at the arguments you attempt for its existence".
But we're not really talking about this in just 'ordinary dialogue', and since we are talking about 'evidence' then without moving beyond 'ordinary dialogue', it's a worthless discussion as we have no agreed concept of evidence.
-
NS,
But my own reasoning could be faulty so how is that an objective statement?
By reference to codified models of these things. The argumentum ad consequentiam for example isn’t an objectively bad argument because I rely on my (potentially faulty) reasoning to find it so. It’s a bad argument because anyone can look it up and test it for themselves.
This incidentally is something I always look askance at. Those who would argue for “god” using logical fallacies already know them pretty much to be logical fallacies. They know this because they know that using the same reasoning for something else fails when they try it. Thus, say, using “you can’t disprove god, therefore it’s true” would also apply to anything else they think not to be true.
But we're not really talking about this in just 'ordinary dialogue',…
Yes we are. We have ordinary dialogue here all the time. If every OP was met with, “I have no idea what you mean by “god” so there’s nothing to talk about” there’d be no discussion at all.
…and since we are talking about 'evidence' then without moving beyond 'ordinary dialogue', it's a worthless discussion as we have no agreed concept of evidence.
As you’re fond of reminding us, “evidence” is itself a naturalistic concept so applying it to claims of the supernatural would seem to be misplaced. The complaint that “but all you’re considering is naturalistic evidence” is particularly otiose I find because it just assumes that there’s a non-natural version of it. What would that even entail I wonder?
-
NS,
By reference to codified models of these things. The argumentum ad consequentiam for example isn’t an objectively bad argument because I rely on my (potentially faulty) reasoning to find it so. It’s a bad argument because anyone can look it up and test it for themselves.
This incidentally is something I always look askance at. Those who would argue for “god” using logical fallacies already know them pretty much to be logical fallacies. They know this because they know that using the same reasoning for something else fails when they try it. Thus, say, using “you can’t disprove god, therefore it’s true” would also apply to anything else they think not to be true.
Yes we are. We have ordinary dialogue here all the time. If every OP was met with, “I have no idea what you mean by “god” so there’s nothing to talk about” there’d be no discussion at all.
As you’re fond of reminding us, “evidence” is itself a naturalistic concept so applying it to claims of the supernatural would seem to be misplaced. The complaint that “but all you’re considering is naturalistic evidence” is particularly otiose I find because it just assumes that there’s a non-natural version of it. What would that even entail I wonder?
Im not sure naturalism is established by naturàlistic methodology.
-
jeremy,
Functionally there may well be little difference - I live my life as if I think that god(s) do not exist - but epistemologically there's all the difference in the world. That matters because by trying to elide the two meanings some people will immediately divert the conversation to, "OK, prove that god does not exist then" as if they were making a legitimate point.
Yes, I thought my post explained that, but clearly not.
-
Im not sure naturalism is established by naturàlistic methodology.
Is supernaturalism established by supernaturalistic methodology?
-
I am with you to an extent on this.
Functionally there is little difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". If we were forced to lay a bet with the choices "god"/"no god" we would all put our money on "no god".
The only reason people are bending over backwards on this one is the point about burden of proof. The statement "there is no god" is an assertion and it demands evidence. The only evidence there is for it can only be that nobody has ever found any evidence that there is a god. In this respect, it is no different to trying to demonstrate that there are no leprechauns or mermaids or any other imaginary thing that humans have dreamed up.
The default position has to be non belief, otherwise when I start talking about the purple nosed snoot, you'd have to accept it exists (got any evidence it doesn't?).
At last - sanity!
-
NS,
By reference to codified models of these things. The argumentum ad consequentiam for example isn’t an objectively bad argument because I rely on my (potentially faulty) reasoning to find it so. It’s a bad argument because anyone can look it up and test it for themselves.
This incidentally is something I always look askance at. Those who would argue for “god” using logical fallacies already know them pretty much to be logical fallacies. They know this because they know that using the same reasoning for something else fails when they try it. Thus, say, using “you can’t disprove god, therefore it’s true” would also apply to anything else they think not to be true.
But it's the individual that decides the argument is a specific fallacy, and their reasoning, or understanding of the statements may be faulty so it cannot be declared objectively true.
Your idea that those arguing for god actually somehow know that they are making fallacious arguments, that they are fallacydodging as opposed to goddodging, reads to me as an argument from incredulity, in that you cannot believe that they don't see what you see. You will no doubt disagree so how can we state things objectively about arguments?
Yes we are. We have ordinary dialogue here all the time. If every OP was met with, “I have no idea what you mean by “god” so there’s nothing to talk about” there’d be no discussion at all.
We have some ordinary discussion but I would suggest that ordinary discussion sort of runs out after
'I believe in God, do you?'
'No.'
'Are you sure?'
'Yes'
'Oh well do you want a cup of tea?'
If we are in the world of discussing epistemology, and logical fallacies, we are necessarily going to have to ask 'What is your definition of god?'
As you’re fond of reminding us, “evidence” is itself a naturalistic concept so applying it to claims of the supernatural would seem to be misplaced. The complaint that “but all you’re considering is naturalistic evidence” is particularly otiose I find because it just assumes that there’s a non-natural version of it. What would that even entail I wonder?
Which illustrates both that we aren't just have 'ordinary discussion' in that the point is being made, and we aren't just accepting a simple idea of evidence, and my point that if you want to have any worthwhile discussion you need to agree terms in more detail.
-
Im not sure naturalism is established by naturàlistic methodology.
This reads as a non sequitur to the post it was replying to, in that I don't think the claim is that naturalism, and by that I presume you mean philosophical naturalism, is established by the naturalist methodology. Can you point out where you think bhs's post says that?
-
This incidentally is something I always look askance at. Those who would argue for “god” using logical fallacies already know them pretty much to be logical fallacies. They know this because they know that using the same reasoning for something else fails when they try it. Thus, say, using “you can’t disprove god, therefore it’s true” would also apply to anything else they think not to be true.
Give me a quotation from any Christian using that fallacy to defend God. I remember reading it once in a stupid book aimed at stupid people, but never since. Incidentally, that fallacy supports what I've been saying - that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion.
-
I am with you to an extent on this.
Functionally there is little difference between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god". If we were forced to lay a bet with the choices "god"/"no god" we would all put our money on "no god".
The only reason people are bending over backwards on this one is the point about burden of proof. The statement "there is no god" is an assertion and it demands evidence. The only evidence there is for it can only be that nobody has ever found any evidence that there is a god. In this respect, it is no different to trying to demonstrate that there are no leprechauns or mermaids or any other imaginary thing that humans have dreamed up.
The default position has to be non belief, otherwise when I start talking about the purple nosed snoot, you'd have to accept it exists (got any evidence it doesn't?).
Would you say that logically I do not believe X, means I believe X is not true.
I do not think you would, as to understand logic you must accept that these are not the same.
-
Of course they're the same.
-
Of course they're the same.
Does 'Not Guilty' mean you think someone is innocent?
-
Of course they're the same.
NO they are absolutely NOT.
Did you not understand the blades of grass example.
Just because I do not believe (as i have not reason to) that the number is even, THAT DOES NOT mean that I believe it is not even.
I have no idea whether is is even or odd, and until I have evidence I am justified in not accepting either claim of odd or even.
Note, I accept it MUST be one or the other, but I cannot tell which.
This is really really simple, and if you cannot get this, then logic will fail for you.
-
"I do not believe that there is an even number of blades of grass" does indeed mean "I believe that there is an odd number of blades of grass", because you're mis-using the word "believe". What you mean is "I do not know whether the number is even or odd". In the case of God, you should ssy "I do not know whether God exists or not". "Believe" puts you definitely on one side of the question, even if you acknowledge, as you should, that you might be wrong.
-
"I do not believe that there is an even number of blades of grass" does indeed mean "I believe that there is an odd number of blades of grass", because you're mis-using the word "believe". What you mean is "I do not know whether the number is even or odd". In the case of God, you should ssy "I do not know whether God exists or not". "Believe" puts you definitely on one side of the question, even if you acknowledge, as you should, that you might be wrong.
NO.
I do not believe, I do not accept the claim that the number is odd. If I did accept it I would believe.
When you know something you just really really really believe it. If you know it you must also believe it.
I do not believe X DOES NOT MEAN I believe X is false.
If you cannot move past this, you need to STOP and go and read up some more.
-
Oh ffs. This is ridiculous. I'm out of here, because you're doing my head in. Have you ever admitted you are wrong about anything?
Also, the verb is "read", not "read up".
-
Oh ffs. This is ridiculous. I'm out of here, because you're doing my head in. Have you ever admitted you are wrong about anything?
Also, the verb is "read", not "read up".
I am wrong about lots of stuff, been wrong 10 minutes ago in something I am doing for work. Changed it, tested it, found I was wrong, then corrected it.
I am not wrong about this. Perhaps because my job is programming some bits of logic come more easily?
I will find a link to the blades of grass or not believing is means I believe X is false, and Matt Dillahunty explains it far better than I can.
Logic really is his thing!
-
And another thing: knowledge is not just a stronger form of belief; they are two different things. I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, but I don't merely believe that London is the capital of the UK; I know it is. You are terminally confused, but too pig-headed to admit it.
I came across a reference to this Dilahunty character in googling in relation to this thread. He's an idiot, as well.
-
And another thing: knowledge is not just a stronger form of belief; they are two different things. I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, but I don't merely believe that London is the capital of the UK; I know it is. You are terminally confused, but too pig-headed to admit it.
I came across a reference to this Dilahunty character in googling in relation to this thread. He's an idiot, as well.
Watch this 5 minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHbE3-4p30
You think Matt Dillahunty is an idiot. wow.
-
"I do not believe that there is an even number of blades of grass" does indeed mean "I believe that there is an odd number of blades of grass", because you're mis-using the word "believe". What you mean is "I do not know whether the number is even or odd". In the case of God, you should ssy "I do not know whether God exists or not". "Believe" puts you definitely on one side of the question, even if you acknowledge, as you should, that you might be wrong.
But the actual position is 'I do not believe your claim that there is an even number blades of grass.' BeRational does not believe the claims made that god exists. This does not mean that he believes that no gods exist. Just that the claim has not met the burden of proof. This isn't saying that you believe there to be no gods.
-
This is all just a polysyllabic cop-out.
-
This is all just a polysyllabic cop-out.
In what way? If I find someone not guilty, I don't need to believe they are innocent.
-
And another thing: knowledge is not just a stronger form of belief; they are two different things. I believe that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe, but I don't merely believe that London is the capital of the UK; I know it is. You are terminally confused, but too pig-headed to admit it.
I came across a reference to this Dilahunty character in googling in relation to this thread. He's an idiot, as well.
Belief is effectively a subset of knowledge. You seem to be thinking that you have absolute knowledge of things but given hard solipsism that's untrue.
-
Belief is effectively a subset of knowledge. You seem to be thinking that you have absolute knowledge of things but given hard solipsism that's untrue.
Not being funny but I thought knowledge was a subset of believe?
You do not need to know something to believe it, but anything you know you must also believe?
Is that right?
-
Not being funny but I thought knowledge was a subset of believe?
You do not need to know something to believe it, but anything you know you must also believe?
Is that right?
No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.
-
Not being funny but I thought knowledge was a subset of believe?
You do not need to know something to believe it, but anything you know you must also believe?
Is that right?
Yep, you're right. I miswrote.
-
No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.
Surely the OP sets it up about use of words?
-
Yep, you're right. I miswrote.
That's okay I just watched the vid from Matt Dillahunty and he just explained it, so that even I could understand it.
-
Give me a quotation from any Christian using that fallacy to defend God. assertion.
Assuming you mean "you can't disprove God", several Christians have argued that on this very message board.
-
Would you say that logically I do not believe X, means I believe X is not true.
That depends on how you you are using the word "believe". Is it fair to say "I do not believe in God, therefore everything I do is predicated on the assumption that there is no god". Functionally, in every day life, there is no difference between that and "I believe there is no god". The distinction only becomes important in discussions like this.
I'm quite comfortable, by the way, to say "I believe there is no god" and I would justify that belief on the grounds that it is the most parsimonious explanation for the fact that theists have never produced any credible evidence that there is a god.
-
Watch this 5 minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHbE3-4p30
You think Matt Dillahunty is an idiot. wow.
That was a very interesting video. I've added it to favorites.
-
That was a very interesting video. I've added it to favorites.
Thanks, I find him easy to understand.
He can use fruity language when he gets frustrated
-
[
quote author=Genial Harry Grout link=topic=16437.msg761107#msg761107 date=1547639553]
No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.
[/quote]
One of the reasons I post so rarely on this Forum these days is NR's pedantry, he takes nit-picking to a degree that is beyond the ken of most normal folk, and YES YES YES it frequently does come down to I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS and he can deny it all he likes but that will not change my view on the subject, hence my lack of posts.
-
[
quote author=Genial Harry Grout link=topic=16437.msg761107#msg761107 date=1547639553]
No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.
One of the reasons I post so rarely on this Forum these days is NR's pedantry, he takes nit-picking to a degree that is beyond the ken of most normal folk, and YES YES YES it frequently does come down to I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS and he can deny it all he likes but that will not change my view on the subject, hence my lack of posts.
NR?
-
NR?
Nearly Rational ;)
-
Nearly Rational ;)
I do no think I am being pedantic, it is logic 101.
Is it pedantic to say that 2+5 <> 5?
-
I do no think I am being pedantic, it is logic 101.
Is it pedantic to say that 2+5 <> 5?
Whatever! What you do is take "dotting the I's and crossing the T's to the farthest strectch of the imagination.
Apologies to NR, obviously I meant NS - YOU obviously knew what I meant but you just had to make the point didn't you - hence pedantry!
-
Whatever! What you do is take "dotting the I's and crossing the T's to the farthest strectch of the imagination.
Apologies to NR, obviously I meant NS - YOU obviously knew what I meant but you just had to make the point didn't you - hence pedantry!
I am still a bit lost, as you replied to my post, but then mention NS.
Is it NS or me that you think is pedantic.
Sorry for the confusion
-
I do no think I am being pedantic, it is logic 101.
Is it pedantic to say that 2+5 <> 5?
I think quite often it's a case of different perspectives. I think that some post in an 'ordinary discussion', and jeremyp's point is that in day to day conversation, saying that you don't believe in god or whatever reads in that you think no god exists. If you are then looking at the more abstruse idea of logic then your replies won't make much sense to somehow insisting on the 'ordinary' approach.
It's similar to the idea that Dr Johnson refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone as they were effectively taking part in 2 different conversations. It was one of the few things I agreed with Hope, once of this parish, in that a lot of conversations on here are just talking past each other.
-
[
quote author=Genial Harry Grout link=topic=16437.msg761107#msg761107 date=1547639553]
No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.
One of the reasons I post so rarely on this Forum these days is NS's pedantry, he takes nit-picking to a degree that is beyond the ken of most normal folk, and YES YES YES it frequently does come down to I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS and he can deny it all he likes but that will not change my view on the subject, hence my lack of posts.
He's not the only one Owl!
-
No. See my earlier comment. This thread has descended into a debate about the correct use of words.
One of the reasons I post so rarely on this Forum these days is NR's pedantry, he takes nit-picking to a degree that is beyond the ken of most normal folk, and YES YES YES it frequently does come down to I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THUS and he can deny it all he likes but that will not change my view on the subject, hence my lack of posts.
I'm glad it's not just me that thinks so!
-
He's not the only one Owl!
He may not be, but he is the worst that I have encountered.
-
It seems that way because he is on here every day, more than the others.
:D Are your ears burning NS? No 'fence.
-
It seems that way because he is on here every day, more than the others.
:D Are your ears burning NS? No 'fence.
Not really
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16443.0
-
Excellent.
-
If someone says there is no god, then they are an atheist, but they then have the burden of proof.
I do not believe the is a god, and I do not believe there is not god
So is atheism a question of avoiding saying there is no God.........
Or is it the belief there is no god rather than the knowledge that there is no god?
And if it is merely the belief there is no god......thensurely atheism is just another true for me position.
-
Given the above then I shall now retire from the forum and begin the long and painstaking process of searching through the posts to see if anyone has claimed atheism as more than a true for me thing..oh..it seems it was Bluehillside.
As Vlad has just run away from the explanation for why atheism isn't just a personal truth (because the logic attempted for theism is objectively falsifiable) as fast as his little legs could carry him I think we're done here are we not?
What those individual arguments happen to be is of course a different matter entirely.
-
So is atheism a question of avoiding saying there is no God.........
Or is it the belief there is no god rather than the knowledge that there is no god?
And if it is merely the belief there is no god......thensurely atheism is just another true for me position.
Or none of the above.
-
Or none of the above.
What is your definition of atheism then? Belief in or knowledge of?
-
What is your definition of atheism then? Belief in or knowledge of?
Simply an absence of beliefs about claims of supernatural agency.
-
Simply an absence of beliefs about claims of supernatural agency.
No you believe they are not true. Otherwise you would believe they at least might be true.So no absence of belief about god here.
-
The definition of atheism is, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods."
-
No you believe they are not true. Otherwise you would believe they at least might be true.So no absence of belief about god here.
Wrong: I don't 'believe they are not true' in that I find nothing in claims of 'God' that gets me that far: all I see is an incoherent mess that is, as they say, no more than meaningless white noise.
-
I have asked many times, 'if god/gods exists, why do they hide away?'
-
Wrong: I don't 'believe they are not true' in that I find nothing in claims of 'God' that gets me that far: all I see is an incoherent mess that is, as they say, no more than meaningless white noise.
If you say you dont believe they are not true then you either believe they are true or they might be true..........unless of course you are posting while holding on to your lucky rabbits foot.
-
The definition of atheism is, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods."
And the definition of disbelief is?
-
I have asked many times, 'if god/gods exists, why do they hide away?'
Gods plural is a ridiculous notion as far as i'm concerned
I dont find God hidden but then I dont expect to see God with my eyes.and thats all I want to say rather than get diverted from the logical nonsense of evasive atheism.
-
Gods plural is a ridiculous notion as far as i'm concerned
I dont find God hidden but then I dont expect to see God with my eyes.and thats all I want to say rather than get diverted from the logical nonsense of evasive atheism.
Humans worship many different gods, so they are in the plural. How can you know for a fact your version of a god exists, when you can't see, feel or hear it, so therefore it is hidden. My dear it is you who is spouting evasive nonsense. ::)
-
Humans worship many different gods, so they are in the plural. How can you know for a fact your version of a god exists, when you can't see, feel or hear it, so therefore it is hidden. My dear it is you who is spouting evasive nonsense. ::)
Wrong.
This thread is about whether Atheism is a true for the individual thing or true for everyone.
There are numerous threads covering what you want to talk about which is not wether atheism is objectively true, proven or even logical.
-
Wrong.
This thread is about whether Atheism is a true for the individual thing or true for everyone.
There are numerous threads covering what you want to talk about which is not wether atheism is objectively true, proven or even logical.
Unless it can be proved that god/gods exist, it is reasonable to be a non believer. The existence of the Biblical god is as credible as the existence of leprechauns (Happy St Patrick's Day).
-
Unless it can be proved that god/gods exist, it is reasonable to be a non believer. The existence of the Biblical god is as credible as the existence of leprechauns (Happy St Patrick's Day).
It may be reasonable to be an agnostic but is it reasonable at any stage to be atheist...And does that bring you any closer to stating whether atheism is a true for you thing?
-
If you say you dont believe they are not true then you either believe they are true or they might be true..........unless of course you are posting while holding on to your lucky rabbits foot.
You're not reading for comprehension: I didn't imply that I 'don't believe they are not true', 'are true' or 'might be true' - I said I have no beliefs about 'God(s)' because I think the notion of 'God(s)' is an incoherent mess that is inherently meaningless despite the enthusiasm of such as yourself.
-
You're not reading for comprehension: I didn't imply that I 'don't believe they are not true', 'are true' or 'might be true' - I said I have no beliefs about 'God(s)' because I think the notion of 'God(s)' is an incoherent mess that is inherently meaningless despite the enthusiasm of such as yourself.
The statements"I have no beliefs about God" and"I think the notion of godsis an incoherent mess etc" are not compatable and contradict each other.
-
The statements"I have no beliefs about God" and"I think the notion of godsis an incoherent mess etc" are not compatable and contradict each other.
Don't be silly: I have no beliefs about God(s) because there is nothing meaningful to engage with in the first place.
-
Don't be silly: I have no beliefs about God(s) because there is nothing meaningful to engage with in the first place.
Gordon you are blatantly claiming no beliefs about God and expressing them as well!
You patently are no apatheist since you claim to have weighed up the notion of God and found it wanting.
But even that doesnt settle wether atheism is a true for you thing or true for eeryone.
I think the trouble is thinking that the statement 'merely the lack of belief in gods covers it since that includes all kind of differing claims as well as your unconvincing "non claim"
-
Don't be silly: I have no beliefs about God(s) because there is nothing meaningful to engage with in the first place.
No you claimed that "the notion of god was something....a mess" That is a claim.
Also can you demonstrate it as absolute?
And if you cannot establish that as knowledge then it is belief...............and is it thence a belief about God?
You bet your sweet bippy it is.
But with regarding this thread....does it show that atheism is just a true for me thing" since that is what the thread is asking.
-
No you claimed that "the notion of god was something....a mess" That is a claim.
Also can you demonstrate it as absolute?
Still being silly I see: all I need do is reject the arguments offered for 'God(s)' as being fallacious and/or incoherent, which I'd say can be paraphrased by the term 'mess'.
But with regarding this thread....does it show that atheism is just a true for me thing" since that is what the thread is asking
No: atheism is simply a rejection of something.
-
Still being silly I see: all I need do is reject the arguments offered for 'God(s)' as being fallacious and/or incoherent, which I'd say can be paraphrased by the term 'mess'.
No: atheism is simply a rejection of something.
First how does this post address the question posed by the thread title.
Secondly, how are you with arguments against God?
Thirdly do the failure of the arguments for lead you to believe God is likely to exist or unlikely to exist ?
With regard to point three. Have you never considered it?
Will you never consider point 3?
Will you ever reveal your opinion if you do?
-
First how does this post address the question posed by the thread title.
The implication is that your thread title, in which you imply that atheism is a 'thing', is wrong since it is based on your misrepresentation of atheism.
Secondly, how are you with arguments against God?
No idea, since I don't know any: it is the arguments in support of 'God' that I reject.
Thirdly do the failure of the arguments for lead you to believe God is likely to exist or unlikely to exist ?
I'd say the failure of the arguments 'for' lead me to conclude that 'God' is an inherently spurious claim and that, as such, there is nothing to engage with to the extent of having any basis whatsoever to consider 'God' as being likely or unlikely.
With regard to point three. Have you never considered it?
Will you never consider point 3?
See my previous answer.
Will you ever reveal your opinion if you do?
Most certainly, should I ever encounter an argument 'for' that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent.
-
Wrong.
This thread is about whether Atheism is a true for the individual thing or true for everyone.
There are numerous threads covering what you want to talk about which is not wether atheism is objectively true, proven or even logical.
Atheism is not a truth claim.
It is the rejection of the various God claims as they have not met the burden of proof
-
It may be reasonable to be an agnostic but is it reasonable at any stage to be atheist...And does that bring you any closer to stating whether atheism is a true for you thing?
Agnostic is not so e half way house between theism and atheism.
I cannot believe you do not already know this.
-
The implication is that your thread title, in which you imply that atheism is a 'thing', is wrong since it is based on your misrepresentation of atheism.
No idea, since I don't know any: it is the arguments in support of 'God' that I reject.
I'd say the failure of the arguments 'for' lead me to conclude that 'God' is an inherently spurious claim and that, as such, there is nothing to engage with to the extent of having any basis whatsoever to consider 'God' as being likely or unlikely.
See my previous answer.
Most certainly, should I ever encounter an argument 'for' that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent.
Feel free to justify your first point that the thread title asserts that anything IS a thing. How can it? It is of course a question.
Secondly I will leave it up to readers to decide if they find beliefs about god in your post. Hint. They will.
So far your answer seems to be atheism isnt a thing i.e. it isnt anything and so I suppose it is not a just for me thing.
-
Agnostic is not so e half way house between theism and atheism.
I cannot believe you do not already know this.
Completely non sequitur.
-
Completely non sequitur.
What to you mean?
What do you think an agnostic is?
-
What to you mean?
What do you think an agnostic is?
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.
-
Feel free to justify your first point that the thread title asserts that anything IS a thing. How can it? It is of course a question.
Tell me something that characterises atheism other than an a lack of a belief in 'God(s)'. You see if atheism is a 'thing' then so is agoblinism and acentaurism - so other than not holding beliefs about these mythical creatures is there anything else 'thing-like' involved?
Secondly I will leave it up to readers to decide if they find beliefs about god in your post. Hint. They will.
Super - hopefully one or two may amble along and venture an opinion.
So far your answer seems to be atheism isnt a thing i.e. it isnt anything and so I suppose it is not a just for me thing.
For me atheism is no more than my rejection of arguments claiming 'God(s)'.
-
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.
No.
-
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.
Exactly and has nothing to do with atheism.
The default position for everyone is to be an atheist.
You move from this position because you find claims of some god to be convincing.
I have not seen any evidence to support the claim of a god.
You have, so what was it that made you move from atheism to theism?
-
An agnostic is someone who doesn't know if there is a god or not.
Not exactly: an agnostic is someone who holds the view that the claim 'God' is not amenable to knowledge: hence an agnostic atheist is someone who has no beliefs in 'God(s)' but doesn't claim that there are no 'God(s)', since to do so would be a claim of having knowledge confirming that there are no 'God(s)'.
I'd have thought you'd have understood this by now.
-
Not exactly: an agnostic is someone who holds the view that the claim 'God' is not amenable to knowledge: hence an agnostic atheist is someone who has no beliefs in 'God(s)' but doesn't claim that there are no 'God(s)', since to do so would be a claim of having knowledge confirming that there are no 'God(s)'.
I'd have thought you'd have understood this by now.
Yes.
-
Exactly and has nothing to do with atheism.
The default position for everyone is to be an atheist.
I d like to see you demonstrate that that is the case.
In fact I cannot wait.
I was reading an anglican writer on the dodginess of the atheist claim to have no belief in Gods.
He described moments of christian doubt as atheism but whether that is any kind of default position Im sure you will cover in your exposition of proof.
Ladies and gentlemen......I give you Be Rational on why atheism is the default position.......
-
I d like to see you demonstrate that that is the case.
In fact I cannot wait.
I was reading an anglican writer on the dodginess of the atheist claim to have no belief in Gods.
He described moments of christian doubt as atheism but whether that is any kind of default position Im sure you will cover in your exposition of proof.
Ladies and gentlemen......I give you Be Rational on why atheism is the default position.......
Simple.
When you are born you have no beliefs!
Your beliefs come later as you become convinced of whatever it is you eventually believe in.
This is basic stuff that you should already know
-
I d like to see you demonstrate that that is the case.
In fact I cannot wait.
I was reading an anglican writer on the dodginess of the atheist claim to have no belief in Gods.
He described moments of christian doubt as atheism but whether that is any kind of default position Im sure you will cover in your exposition of proof.
Ladies and gentlemen......I give you Be Rational on why atheism is the default position.......
Bearing in mind that you've just demonstrated that you don't understand what agnosticism is, as well as previously demonstrating that you've misrepresented atheism, perhaps you'd best do some homework before you throw out too many more challenges.
-
Tell me something that characterises atheism other than an a lack of a belief in 'God(s)'. You see if atheism is a 'thing' then so is agoblinism and acentaurism - so other than not holding beliefs about these mythical creatures is there anything else 'thing-like' involved?
Supe7r - hopefully one or two may amble along and venture an opinion.
For me atheism is no more than my rejection of arguments claiming 'God(s)'.
Unfortunately lack of belief in gods can cover a belief that there are no gods as well as a host pf things. It is not as they say irreducible conceptually.
-
Simple.
When you are born you have no beliefs!
Your beliefs come later as you become convinced of whatever it is you eventually believe in.
This is basic stuff that you should already know
How do you know what a new born baby believes in?
-
How do you know what a new born baby believes in?
Babies have no beliefs about Gods or maths or who is prime minister etc.
These things all come later
-
Babies have no beliefs about Gods or maths or who is prime minister etc.
These things all come later
How do you know what they believe in? Maths,PM etc is knowledge not belief.
-
How do you know what they believe in? Maths,PM etc is knowledge not belief.
Same thing. Knowledge is just something you really really believe.
-
Same thing. Knowledge is just something you really really believe.
Belief isn't knowledge.
How do you know what new born babies believe in?
-
Not exactly: an agnostic is someone who holds the view that the claim 'God' is not amenable to knowledge: hence an agnostic atheist is someone who has no beliefs in 'God(s)' but doesn't claim that there are no 'God(s)', since to do so would be a claim of having knowledge confirming that there are no 'God(s)'.
I'd have thought you'd have understood this by now.
Not being amenable to knowledge is separate to not being amenable to belief so when BR suggests it has f all to do with atheism I can agree.
So an agnostic atheist
Doesnt know whether there is a god or not unless he is in conflict with himself but behaves or believes as if god doesnt exist.
-
Unfortunately lack of belief in gods can cover a belief that there are no gods as well as a host pf things. It is not as they say irreducible conceptually.
I've just set you straight on that: what you describe would be a gnostic atheist, and I've yet to encounter one of those posting here.
Methinks you don't know what you are talking about: although, to be fair, I came to that conclusion yonks ago.
P.S. given your last sentence, I think your random word generator is working again (unless you intended a very bad pun).
-
Belief isn't knowledge.
How do you know what new born babies believe in?
Yes it is.
It is just something you are really really convinced about.
The speed of light in a vacuum is about 186000 miles per second.
I believe that to a degree and it is knowledge.
We really really believe it to be true and so we call it knowledge, but it is a subset of belief.
-
Not being amenable to knowledge is separate to not being amenable to belief so when BR suggests it has f all to do with atheism I can agree.
So an agnostic atheist
Doesnt know whether there is a god or not unless he is in conflict with himself but behaves or believes as if god doesnt exist.
Nobody knows if there is a god or not.
-
Nobody knows if there is a god or not.
I believe that is true.
I cannot claim certainty of course, perhaps someone has brilliant evidence for a god. I just know that I have never seen it.
-
Yes it is.
It is just something you are really really convinced about.
The speed of light in a vacuum is about 186000 miles per second.
I believe that to a degree and it is knowledge.
We really really believe it to be true and so we call it knowledge, but it is a subset of belief.
That's not a belief. It is what we accept based on the current evidence.
-
Not being amenable to knowledge is separate to not being amenable to belief so when BR suggests it has f all to do with atheism I can agree.
So an agnostic atheist
Doesnt know whether there is a god or not unless he is in conflict with himself but behaves or believes as if god doesnt exist.
You do realise the post of mine you quoted was my response to your mistaken description of agnosticism.
If you like you could describe me as an agnostic atheist and I'm not in any conflict and nor do I behave as if 'God' doesn't exist: remember I think the claim is fallacious and/or incoherent, so it isn't a serious prospect that causes me any more concern than the risk of encountering a dragon in my garage tomorrow.
-
That's not a belief. It is what we accept based on the current evidence.
Yes I know!
The current evidence is so overwhelming we call it knowledge. That just means you are really really convinced by the evidence.
It might have been knowledge at one point that the world was flat due to the available evidence.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
-
I believe that is true.
I cannot claim certainty of course, perhaps someone has brilliant evidence for a god. I just know that I have never seen it.
No, can't claim certainty,that's true. Same as when claiming atheism is the default position really.
-
Not being amenable to knowledge is separate to not being amenable to belief so when BR suggests it has f all to do with atheism I can agree.
So an agnostic atheist
Doesnt know whether there is a god or not unless he is in conflict with himself but behaves or believes as if god doesnt exist.
I do not believe a god does not exist
-
Great rapping with you guys but cocoa calls have a good rest of the evening.
Bon nuit.
-
Great rapping with you guys but cocoa calls have a good rest of the evening.
Bon nuit.
Good night, Vlad.
-
Great rapping with you guys but cocoa calls have a good rest of the evening.
Bon nuit.
As long as you take it on board and do not repeat the mistake about what an atheist is, then progress has been made.
-
As long as you take it on board and do not repeat the mistake about what an atheist is, then progress has been made.
It seems though that their is more than one kind of atheist and so atheism is not just a matter of a lack of belief in Gods.
This thread though is about whether atheism is a true for you thing though but on the way I still maintain thay Gordon has expressed beliefs about Gods, your position on the distinction between knowledge and belief has become more confused and the issue of agnostic atheism has cropped up.
-
You do realise the post of mine you quoted was my response to your mistaken description of agnosticism.
If you like you could describe me as an agnostic atheist and I'm not in any conflict and nor do I behave as if 'God' doesn't exist: remember I think the claim is fallacious and/or incoherent, so it isn't a serious prospect that causes me any more concern than the risk of encountering a dragon in my garage tomorrow.
Well you need to explain where the atheism in agnostic atheism comes in then since you have gone hell for leather here to explain it away.
-
If you are agnostic then you dont know whether God exists.
He might not or might. You imply that the idea of Gods though cannot be serious. That has no warrant in what you know or dont know in your agnosticism. What then, if not the extent of your knowledge, is it that makes you an atheist ....and if that is not knowledge is it not then belief?
-
Well you need to explain where the atheism in agnostic atheism comes in then since you have gone hell for leather here to explain it away.
The atheism is a statement of the individuals position on whether they currently believe in God or gods or not. Someone doesn't hold a belief in God or gods so is an atheist. Seems quite simple really to me.
-
The atheism is a statement of the individuals position on whether they currently believe in God or gods or not. Someone doesn't hold a belief in God or gods so is an atheist. Seems quite simple really to me.
I think we get that bit.
Belief in Gods is different from beliefs ABOUT god.....and Gordon is denying he has any and therefore is implying that he has not expressed views ABOUT god either implicitely or explicitly.
-
Well you need to explain where the atheism in agnostic atheism comes in then since you have gone hell for leather here to explain it away.
Nope: I explained this very clearly last night, and given the amount of time you've been posting here I'd have thought you'd have long since understood these terms.
-
I think we get that bit.
Belief in Gods is different from beliefs ABOUT god.....and Gordon is denying he has any and therefore is implying that he has not expressed views ABOUT god either implicitely or explicitly.
Have you ever tried thinking about what others write rather than just ranting: so, to make it easy for you;
1. I hold no beliefs about 'God(s).
because
2. I reject the arguments made in favour of God(s) are being fallacious and/or incoherent.
therefore
3. For me the term 'God(s) is no more that meaningless white noise, about which I can say nothing else.
-
Nope: I explained this very clearly last night, and given the amount of time you've been posting here I'd have thought you'd have long since understood these terms.
It may be that a lack of clarity and or skill in discourse might have obscured where your point and rendered it rather as a study in evasion to my viewing.
Could you please cite the replies where you think you have established your agnostic atheism, particularly the atheism part.
-
Have you ever tried thinking about what others write rather than just ranting: so, to make it easy for you;
1. I hold no beliefs about 'God(s).
because
2. I reject the arguments made in favour of God(s) are being fallacious and/or incoherent.
That might say more about you though than the arguments.
If you say you know the arguments to be wrong then that is not agnosticism.
-
It may be that a lack of clarity and or skill in discourse might have obscured where your point and rendered it rather as a study in evasion to my viewing.
Could you please cite the replies where you think you have established your agnostic atheism, particularly the atheism part.
Perhaps you can just acknowledge that you now know that atheists just do not believe in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems silly to not understand this simple term after all this time, so it would be good to put it to bed and move on.
-
The arguments for God are wrong.....and therefore........?
-
It may be that a lack of clarity and or skill in discourse might have obscured where your point and rendered it rather as a study in evasion to my viewing.
Could you please cite the replies where you think you have established your agnostic atheism, particularly the atheism part.
Vlad
What bit of 'I have no beliefs about God(s)', which I've clearly stated, and you having trouble understanding?
I'd have thought my position was crystal clear on this: so, once again 'I have no beliefs about God(s) and set this out very clearly in #169 a few moments ago, and may I also refer the honourable gentleman to my #'s 129, 127 and 113 in this thread.
Perhaps you should try reading and thinking about what others say to you instead of just reacting to your own misreading of posts.
-
The arguments for God are wrong.....and therefore........?
That argument cannot be used to demonstrate that a god exists.
You need another argument.
If the argument is logically fallacious, it does not show that the conclusion is wrong, but it does show that the argument cannot demonstrate that it is correct.
-
Perhaps you can just acknowledge that you now know that atheists just do not believe in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It seems silly to not understand this simple term after all this time, so it would be good to put it to bed and move on.
I thought I had.
What we are trying to get to the bottom of is beliefs about God which an atheist could well have eg. God does not exist,
God might exist but I wont worship him etc etc God might exist but I act as though he doesnt.
What I am trying to get to is.Is atheism just a matter of being true just for the person in that position?
-
That argument cannot be used to demonstrate that a god exists.
You need another argument.
If the argument is logically fallacious, it does not show that the conclusion is wrong, but it does show that the argument cannot demonstrate that it is correct.
I have no argument over this.
-
That might say more about you though than the arguments.
If you say you know the arguments to be wrong then that is not agnosticism.
I think you'll find that I said I 'reject' arguments for 'God(s)' as being fallacious and/or incoherent, and as such they are for me simply failed arguments: I haven't mentioned having knowledge, and clearly noted last night that I could be seen as being an agnostic atheist.
-
Vlad
What bit of 'I have no beliefs about God(s)', which I've clearly stated, and you having trouble understanding?
I'd have thought my position was crystal clear on this: so, once again 'I have no beliefs about God(s) and set this out very clearly in #169 a few moments ago, and may I also refer the honourable gentleman to my #'s 129, 127 and 113 in this thread.
Perhaps you should try reading and thinking about what others say to you instead of just reacting to your own misreading of posts.
You have said the notion of God is a mess and for me that is a belief about God. For it implies that God in your view cannot exist. Agnosticism unavoidably puts the holder into the position where he cannot say whether God exists or not and that too,unless it is knowledge is a belief concerning God.
-
You have said the notion of God is a mess and for me that is a belief about God. For it implies that God in your view cannot exist. Agnosticism unavoidably puts the holder into the position where he cannot say whether God exists or not and that too,unless it is knowledge is a belief concerning God.
I thought Gordon meant the arguments for god were a mess, as in logically bad?
-
Vlad
What bit of 'I have no beliefs about God(s)', which I've clearly stated, and you having trouble understanding?
I'd have thought my position was crystal clear on this: so, once again 'I have no beliefs about God(s) and set this out very clearly in #169 a few moments ago, and may I also refer the honourable gentleman to my #'s 129, 127 and 113 in this thread.
Perhaps you should try reading and thinking about what others say to you instead of just reacting to your own misreading of posts.
Your claim that you have no beliefs about God contradicts tyour claim that the notion of God is an incoherent mess.
-
You have said the notion of God is a mess and for me that is a belief about God.
You seem to be especially dense this morning: if I say a claim of '&%~we12**' is a mess does it mean that I hold a belief in '&%~we12**' OR might it mean that if I think any arguments to date in favour of '&%~we12**' are fallacious and/or incoherent I can simply dismiss '&%~we12**' until such times as an arguments is offered in support of '&%~we12**' that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent.
This isn't all that difficult, Vlad.
For it implies that God in your view cannot exist. Agnosticism unavoidably puts the holder into the position where he cannot say whether God exists or not and that too,unless it is knowledge is a belief concerning God.
Wrong: you really need to do some homework on what these terms mean in order that you can understand what other say to you when they use these terms: I thought I had explained clearly for you in #139 last night.
-
Your claim that you have no beliefs about God contradicts tyour claim that the notion of God is an incoherent mess.
See my #182.
I regard the various claims of 'God(s)' to date to be an incoherent mess because the arguments offered in support of 'God(s) all fail, by dint of being fallacious and/or incoherent.
Whether or not there are 'God(s)' is another matter entirely - but until such times as there is an argument in favour of 'God(s)' that isn't fallacious and is coherent, then 'God(s) isn't a serious proposition since there are no current arguments that pass muster.
Now, before reacting I suggest you read back and engage brain (albeit I am perhaps being over-optimistic).
-
See my #182.
I regard the various claims of 'God(s)' to date to be an incoherent mess because the arguments offered in support of 'God(s) all fail, by dint of being fallacious and/or incoherent.
Whether or not there are 'God(s)' is another matter entirely - but until such times as there is an argument in favour of 'God(s)' that isn't fallacious and is coherent, then 'God(s) isn't a serious proposition since there are no current arguments that pass muster.
Now, before reacting I suggest you read back and engage brain (albeit I am perhaps being over-optimistic).
Your position is very very clear
-
If I can claim a brief interlude here.
Unfortunately there are no good philosophers on this forum.Yes we have faithheads, Darth Evaders, Darth Avoiders, olympuc standard turdpolishers and yes New Atheists too....and they hate philosophy to the point that the brightest...Dr L.Krauss was easily tripped up on the Colbert show.
Gordon you start with the premise that God needs proving, needs arguing for otherwise there is nothing seriously there.
When you moan about not having evidence or crap arguments you unavoidably and inexorably start off from a belief position.
But even having exposed you as a beliefhead that isnt what I am looking for in this thread.Which is .........is atheism a matter of being true just for the person who is in that position.
-
If I can claim a brief interlude here.
Unfortunately there are no good philosophers on this forum.Yes we have faithheads, Darth Evaders, Darth Avoiders, olympuc standard turdpolishers and yes New Atheists too....and they hate philosophy to the point that the brightest...Dr L.Krauss was easily tripped up on the Colbert show.
Gordon you start with the premise that God needs proving, needs arguing for otherwise there is nothing seriously there.
When you moan about not having evidence or crap arguments you unavoidably and inexorably start off from a belief position.
But even having exposed you as a beliefhead that isnt what I am looking for in this thread.Which is .........is atheism a matter of being true just for the person who is in that position.
I will not answer for Gordon, but I think you are wrong.
The default position for everything is that it does not exist.
The time to believe something exists, is when there is good evidence for it.
I do not make a special stance for god, I do it for everything.
-
If I can claim a brief interlude here.
Unfortunately there are no good philosophers on this forum.Yes we have faithheads, Darth Evaders, Darth Avoiders, olympuc standard turdpolishers and yes New Atheists too....and they hate philosophy to the point that the brightest...Dr L.Krauss was easily tripped up on the Colbert show.
Gordon you start with the premise that God needs proving, needs arguing for otherwise there is nothing seriously there.
No I don't: I said that to successfully claim 'God(s)' needs an argument that isn't fallacious and/or incoherent, and I would never use the term 'prove' since it is fraught with problems.
When you moan about not having evidence or crap arguments you unavoidably and inexorably start off from a belief position.
Wrong, again.
But even having exposed you as a beliefhead that isnt what I am looking for in this thread.Which is .........is atheism a matter of being true just for the person who is in that position.
I clarified that for you last night - see #129.
-
I will not answer for Gordon, but I think you are wrong.
The default position for everything is that it does not exist.
The time to believe something exists, is when there is good evidence for it.
I do not make a special stance for god, I do it for everything.
The major flaw in your argument is the implication that things are proved into existence and are ontologically dependent on the argument which supports them.
As far as Gordon or anyone is concerned is it rules out agnosticism. Since the assumption or initial belièf is atheism.
I think you may have disproved Gordons claim to no velief since accordinfg to you he starts of with a point of view about God.
-
The major flaw in your argument is the implication that things are proved into existence and are ontologically dependent on the argument which supports them.
As far as Gordon or anyone is concerned is it rules out agnosticism. Since the assumption or initial belièf is atheism.
I think you may have disproved Gordons claim to no velief since accordinfg to you he starts of with a point of view about God.
Everyone starts with no belief about a proposition. You have to as you do not know every proposition!
You only form a believe when evidence is provided in favour of a proposition.
How else could you operate?
Do you just assume everything is true?
-
Everyone starts with no belief about a proposition.
And then forms one?
Like er, the notion of God is an incoherent mess.
Or God is not to be taken seriously.......for instance.
-
And the forms one?
Forms?
-
Forms?
Develiops, assumes, forms a judgement about.
-
The major flaw in your argument is the implication that things are proved into existence and are ontologically dependent on the argument which supports them.
Wrong.
As far as Gordon or anyone is concerned is it rules out agnosticism. Since the assumption or initial belièf is atheism.
Wrong, since I said I could be referred to as an agnostic atheist: did you not read that, or did you just not think about what I'd said.
I think you may have disproved Gordons claim to no velief since accordinfg to you he starts of with a point of view about God.
I suspect you are being free and easy regarding BR's point: to claim to have no beliefs about something you first need to encounter some form of proposal, claim, argument or speculation that there is 'x' - and then then have the capability to consider these arguments and respond accordingly.
That new-born babies are atheists about 'God(s)' or can't appreciate of the joys or motorcycling isn't all that useful since they clearly aren't in a position to consider either in any meaningful sense.
-
Develiops, assumes, forms a judgement about.
You do all this based on evidence.
But you do not believe things just because they are asserted.
-
You do all this based on evidence.
But you do not believe things just because they are asserted.
Non sequitur.
-
Wrong.
Wrong, since I said I could be referred to as an agnostic atheist: did you not read that, or did you just not think about what I'd said.
I suspect you are being free and easy regarding BR's point: to claim to have no beliefs about something you first need to encounter some form of proposal, claim, argument or speculation that there is 'x' - and then then have the capability to consider these arguments and respond accordingly.
That new-born babies are atheists about 'God(s)' or can't appreciate of the joys or motorcycling isn't all that useful since they clearly aren't in a position to consider either in any meaningful sense.
I may have misjudged BR since he went on to talk about the formation of beliefs which involved weighing up arguments and coming to an opinion......
And so after that any claim to having no opinion or belief becomes dubious........like er......claiming God is not to be taken seriously......or......The notion of God is a mess....are not opinions views or beliefs about god....for instance.
As for answering the question of wether atheism was just a matter of being a true for me. That reply#129 was IMV a tinee wee little Dodgkin.
-
Non sequitur.
No it's not.
I shows that you start out from a position of NOT accepting the claim.
-
No it's not.
I shows that you start out from a position of NOT accepting the claim.
Also we are talking about beliefs and not knowledge.
-
Also we are talking about beliefs and not knowledge.
So?
You do not believe an assertion until it meets its burden of proof.
Do you just believe everything?
-
No it's not.
I shows that you start out from a position of NOT accepting the claim.
One doesnt though go into a self diagnostic to judge whether one can start with non existence.
-
I may have misjudged BR since he went on to talk about the formation of beliefs which involved weighing up arguments and coming to an opinion......
Super
And so after that any claim to having no opinion or belief becomes dubious........like er......claiming God is not to be taken seriously......or......The notion of God is a mess....are not opinions views or beliefs about god....for instance.
So - if I claim I have a '&%~we12**' in my garage, and by way of justification offer only my personal conviction this is so, is that sufficient for you to form a belief or opinion regarding my claim of '&%~we12**' ?
As for answering the question of wether atheism was just a matter of being a true for me. That reply#129 was IMV a tinee wee little Dodgkin.
Not really since, as I implied, I suspect your thread title is yet another recruit from your army of straw men.
-
Since its gone a bit quiet round here I can lay my cards on the table.
If atheism were true it would be true for all.
If christianity were true it would be true for all.
The notion of a true for me in this context is therefore pretty dubious.
I thang you.
-
Since its gone a bit quiet round here I can lay my cards on the table.
If atheism were true it would be true for all.
If christianity were true it would be true for all.
The notion of a true for me in this context is therefore pretty dubious.
I thang you.
You've just confirmed that you are well out of your depth, Vlad: mind you, I suspect you'd be well out of your depth if you were standing in a small puddle.
-
Super
So - if I claim I have a '&%~we12**' in my garage, and by way of justification offer only my personal conviction this is so, is that sufficient for you to form a belief or opinion regarding my claim of '&%~we12**' ?
Not really since, as I implied, I suspect your thread title is yet another recruit from your army of straw men.
Again Gordon. Sorry but you have not only formed an opinion or view concerning God......youve stated.
I shall state the same about this thing as you have about God that you have in the garage and freely admit that is my opinion and belief about it.
-
You've just confirmed that you are well out of your depth, Vlad: mind you, I suspect you'd be well out of your depth if you were standing in a small puddle.
I could say exactly the same about you Gordon...couldnt I.
-
Since its gone a bit quiet round here I can lay my cards on the table.
If atheism were true it would be true for all.
How can a statement of an individual's lack of belief in God or gods be true to all?
-
How can a statement if an individual's lack of belief in God or gods be true to all?
What do you call a situation where there are no gods.
Perhaps I should be using that word.
Your chance to put me straight.
-
Again Gordon. Sorry but you have not only formed an opinion or view concerning God......youve stated.
I shall state the same about this thing as you have about God that you have in the garage and freely admit that is my opinion and belief about it.
Translation please, for those of us corresponding in English.
-
What do you call a situation where there are no gods.
Perhaps I should be using that word.
Your chance to put me straight.
A situation where there are no gods? Is that what you meant to ask or were you asking for a name for someone who states there are no gods?
-
Translation please, for those of us corresponding in English.
Thats usually a sign that youve raised the white flag so surrender accepted.
One wee point. I hope you arent suggesting that the amount of information you gave about the entity in your garage is in anyway equivalent to that which has been claimed fotr God in your experience.
That would be very foolish indeed.
-
A situation where there are no gods? Is that what you meant to ask or were you asking for a name for someone who states there are no gods?
Wrell I think the latter is ...er...atheist...as is the former.
If I am wrong please demonstrate.
-
Thats usually a sign that youve raised the white flag so surrender accepted.
It's a sign that you aren't expressing yourself very well.
One wee point. I hope you arent suggesting that the amount of information you gave about the entity in your garage is in anyway equivalent to that which has been claimed fotr God in your experience.
That would be very foolish indeed.
I take it you aren't familiar with Carl Sagan's 'The Dragon in My Garage'?
-
Wrell I think the latter is ...er...atheist...as is the former.
If I am wrong please demonstrate.
No. Atheist is having no personal belief in gods not a belief that there are no gods.
-
It's a sign that you aren't expressing yourself very well.
I take it you aren't familiar with Carl Sagan's 'The Dragon in My Garage'?
I am familiar with Carl Sagan not being an atheist.
-
I am familiar with Carl Sagan not being an atheist.
Whoosh
-
Since its gone a bit quiet round here I can lay my cards on the table.
If atheism were true it would be true for all.
If christianity were true it would be true for all.
The notion of a true for me in this context is therefore pretty dubious.
I thang you.
Atheism isn't a truth claim.
I am an atheist, that much is true.
I still think you do not know atheism is. IT IS NOT A CLAIM
-
I am familiar with Carl Sagan not being an atheist.
Let me ask you this.
I am an atheist.
Question.
Do you think I believe there are no gods.
Yes or No please, no need for any other answer.
-
Just for clarity, I'm wondering what Vlad thinks 'true for me' means?
-
Just for clarity, I'm wondering what Vlad thinks 'true for me' means?
For Vlad it seems to mean, if it's true for him then it must be true for everyone else.
Otherwise, God-dodging!
::)
-
For Vlad it seems to mean, if it's true for him then it must be true for everyone else.
Otherwise, God-dodging!
::)
To be fair, I think it's a generally unclear phrase. My liking for marmite is obviously in a simplistic sense true for me. It is also though effectively true for everyone i.e. That I like marmite.
Rather it would seem to be about whether I think it is important for others to agree with me. And that's not really saying it's true for me as opposed to in any sense not being true for others. I suspect in most cases when people say it is true for them, they are also saying they think it is true for others. Else why believe it at all.
Vlad seems to be unclear about what he's is meaning but to be honest, I think that's true of a lot of the time it's used. I don't really see the value in it.
-
To be fair, I think it's a generally unclear phrase. My liking for marmite is obviously in a simplistic sense true for me. It is also though effectively true for everyone i.e. That I like marmite.
Rather it would seem to be about whether I think it is important for others to agree with me. And that's not really saying it's true for me as opposed to in any sense not being true for others. I suspect in most cases when people say it is true for them, they are also saying they think it is true for others. Else why believe it at all.
Vlad seems to be unclear about what he's is meaning but to be honest, I think that's true of a lot of the time it's used. I don't really see the value in it.
If Vlad says he believes in God/Jesus because he has personal experience of them, then that is true for everyone as above.
However what I think is that Vlad says God/Jesus are fact, because he has personal experience of them, then that is true for everyone else God-dodging/crap flavour of the month philosophical arguements/New Atheists.
IMO
-
Yes, not experiencing God is as factual as experiencing God.
-
If Vlad says he believes in God/Jesus because he has personal experience of them, then that is true for everyone as above.
However what I think is that Vlad says God/Jesus are fact, because he has personal experience of them, then that is true for everyone else God-dodging/crap flavour of the month philosophical arguements/New Atheists.
IMO
But whenever I think that I have a personal experience that makes me believe something, then leaving aside that I may think it possible that I am wrong, what I believe to be true is what I believe to be true for everyone.
-
How can a statement of an individual's lack of belief in God or gods be true to all?
the fact is that I jeremyp do not believe in God. That is a statement that is true no matter who you are. It's a universal truth that jeremyp does not believe in God.
-
the fact is that I jeremyp do not believe in God. That is a statement that is true no matter who you are. It's a universal truth that jeremyp does not believe in God.
Yes, if course.
-
the fact is that I jeremyp do not believe in God. That is a statement that is true no matter who you are. It's a universal truth that jeremyp does not believe in God.
That, with all due respect is something you share with a car....or my flower bed.
Would you say then that atheism is a matter of being incapable of doing something or capable of doing something?
And if the latter is the statement "atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" inadequate?
-
That, with all due respect is something you share with a car....or my flower bed.
Would you say then that atheism is a matter of being incapable of doing something or capable of doing something?
And if the latter is the statement "atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" inadequate?
For me, to be an atheist you need to be capable of critiquing any arguments offered for 'God(s)': having done so, and having rejected them, there is then nothing else involved.
-
For me, to be an atheist you need to be capable of critiquing any arguments offered for 'God(s)': having done so, and having rejected them, there is then nothing else involved.
First of all this IMO makes the claim to then having no beliefs about God not credible.
Secondly Anyone.....even the Pope in Rome could criticise arguments for God and reject them.......or do you mean rejecting them all....a priori....ahead of hearing them?
-
For me, to be an atheist you need to be capable of critiquing any arguments offered for 'God(s)': having done so, and having rejected them, there is then nothing else involved.
Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.
-
Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.
You also need to take on board the albeit remote possibility that one could be wrong.
-
Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.
I agree.
I think you can not believe for good or bad reasons. If you have critically looked at the information and evaluated it, you are more likely to not believe for what you conclude are good reasons.
-
Seems to me there are two sorts of atheism: unaware and reasoned.
If someone living on a remote volcanic island somewhere is convinced that there’s a volcano god causing eruptions I’m an atheist in respect of that god because I’ve never heard of it. That is, I have no awareness even of the potential existence of that god.
On the other hand, if that islander (or any other believer in any other god) attempts to validate his claim with argument then I can investigate that and, when I find the argument to be logically false (as so far any I’ve ever seen have been), then I’m a reason-based atheist in the sense that I can dismiss the attempted validation.
The “true for me” thing is useful when the islander then says, “OK, I cannot make a cogent argument for my god but I believe it to be real nonetheless”. That’s a faith belief that for him is every bit as true as the moon orbiting the Earth is true for me. The difference between these beliefs though is that the former is specific to the islander whereas the latter has general application – by sending rockets to the moon for example – so we can call it a fact.
That’s pretty much how I view the claims of a Christian god too. I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who believe in such a thing, but (so far at least) I’ve seen no good reason to think them to be right.
-
Why do you need to be able to do that? You just need to not believe in God or gods.
That is why I added 'for me': in my case, not having had any involvement in religion as a child or during my school years, it was only as an adult that I wondered why other people got themselves involved in religion, so I decided to find out a little more.
I was generally interested in philosophy anyway and when I encountered philosophy of religion stuff, and gave it some thought, I concluded that the arguments offered in support of 'God(s)' were all spurious.
-
First of all this IMO makes the claim to then having no beliefs about God not credible.
Secondly Anyone.....even the Pope in Rome could criticise arguments for God and reject them.......or do you mean rejecting them all....a priori....ahead of hearing them?
See #233.
-
That, with all due respect is something you share with a car....or my flower bed.
Would you say then that atheism is a matter of being incapable of doing something or capable of doing something?
And if the latter is the statement "atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" inadequate?
You've totally missed the point of my post.
-
The “true for me” thing is useful when the islander then says, “OK, I cannot make a cogent argument for my god but I believe it to be real nonetheless”. That’s a faith belief that for him is every bit as true as the moon orbiting the Earth is true for me. The difference between these beliefs though is that the former is specific to the islander whereas the latter has general application – by sending rockets to the moon for example – so we can call it a fact.
I think that is a misuse of the word "true". The volcano god either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, no amount of people believing it does is going to change that.
There are subjective truths - it's true for me that Pirates of the Caribbean 1 is a great film, but it's false for Mark Kermode - but the existence of a deity is not one of those unless you want to deny objective reality, which you can if you like, but it's the nuclear option.
-
That is why I added 'for me': in my case, not having had any involvement in religion as a child or during my school years, it was only as an adult that I wondered why other people got themselves involved in religion, so I decided to find out a little more.
I was generally interested in philosophy anyway and when I encountered philosophy of religion stuff, and gave it some thought, I concluded that the arguments offered in support of 'God(s)' were all spurious.
Okay, so that's what was needed for you to be an atheist - a different question really.
-
Hi Jeremy,
I think that is a misuse of the word "true". The volcano god either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, no amount of people believing it does is going to change that.
There are subjective truths - it's true for me that Pirates of the Caribbean 1 is a great film, but it's false for Mark Kermode - but the existence of a deity is not one of those unless you want to deny objective reality, which you can if you like, but it's the nuclear option.
Depends what you mean by “true”, but it seems to me to be a probability game. The islander thinks – really, really thinks – that “volcano god” is an objective truth. That others don’t agree with him must be their mistake or their ignorance, but for him it’s still an objective fact about the world.
For me, the moon orbiting the Earth is an objective truth too. I think it’s a better supported claim of truth than the volcano god because I have various tools at my disposal to verify it that across the landscape have been shown through intersubjective experience to provide solutions, but that’s all.
I wouldn’t therefore make a claim of ultimate, certain truth – for all I know the moon is an illusion put there by Zarg, the pan-Galactic commander of the Milky Way star fleet – but I have no means to investigate such a possibility so I proceed on the basis of the only truth I can investigate, albeit provisionally.
-
Okay, so that's what was needed for you to be an atheist - a different question really.
Indeed: others might consider themselves to be atheists having been involved with religion and, in response, rejected theism else they could have just conclude that the proposal 'God' doesn't even get off the ground and is no more than superstition - which would my position in relation to, say, fairies.
-
Hi Jeremy,
Depends what you mean by “true”,
"Accurately describes reality".
but it seems to me to be a probability game. The islander thinks – really, really thinks – that “volcano god” is an objective truth. That others don’t agree with him must be their mistake or their ignorance, but for him it’s still an objective fact about the world.
But if there is no volcano god, the islander is wrong and his belief is a falsehood.
For me, the moon orbiting the Earth is an objective truth too. I think it’s a better supported claim of truth than the volcano god because I have various tools at my disposal to verify it that across the landscape have been shown through intersubjective experience to provide solutions, but that’s all.
The fact that you can never be 100% certain of the truth does not alter the fact that "the Moon orbits the Earth" is either true or it isn't. You may be absolutely certain that the Moon orbits the Earth and 99% of the population may be certain that the Moon orbits the Earth but it does not alter the fact that the Moon does not orbit the Earth and your belief is false.
This "true for me" stuff really annoys me because it allows people to avoid dealing with reality. It lets the believers of nonsense off the hook. Why can't we just be honest and say "the Moon orbits the Earth is a simplification of the fact that the Moon orbits the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system and even that is also a simplification because you have to add in the effects of the Sun, planets and other mass in the Universe".
-
Jeremy,
"Accurately describes reality".
“Accurately” according to what metrics? Lots of things have been thought to be accurate descriptions of reality that have turned out to be no such thing. The most we can say is something like, “most congruent with the methods and tools available at this time to determine provisional accuracy”.
But if there is no volcano god, the islander is wrong and his belief is a falsehood.
And if the moon doesn’t orbit the Earth then we are wrong and our belief about that is false too. That’s the point – things are only as true as we can establish them to be, but no more.
The fact that you can never be 100% certain of the truth does not alter the fact that "the Moon orbits the Earth" is either true or it isn't. You may be absolutely certain that the Moon orbits the Earth and 99% of the population may be certain that the Moon orbits the Earth but it does not alter the fact that the Moon does not orbit the Earth and your belief is false.
Sort of, but the idea of “100% true” is a philosophical problem rather than an evidential one. Even if we thought we had every possible piece of evidence there ever could be for a conclusion, we have no means to eliminate the possibility at least of an unknown unknown that could show us to be wrong. That something “either is true or it isn’t” is fine conceptually, but that’s all it is.
This "true for me" stuff really annoys me because it allows people to avoid dealing with reality. It lets the believers of nonsense off the hook. Why can't we just be honest and say "the Moon orbits the Earth is a simplification of the fact that the Moon orbits the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system and even that is also a simplification because you have to add in the effects of the Sun, planets and other mass in the Universe".
I don’t think it need let them off the hook at all. If Fred says, “the moon orbits the Earth” and Jill says, “the Earth orbits the moon” Fred's claim can be shown probabilistically to be more likely to be true than Jill's within the context of the tools available to both Fred and Jill. And that’s enough for Fred’s claim to be accepted and Jill’s to be dismissed. The danger though is in Fred overreaching into claiming certainty for his truth.
-
Pretty much with jeremyp on this. The true for me declaration reads not about the belief in the claim but about the responsibility one is is willing to take about the claim. It isn't that people do not think it is true; just they think it is a pass to not justifying it.
-
NS,
Pretty much with jeremyp on this. The true for me declaration reads not about the belief in the claim but about the responsibility one is is willing to take about the claim. It isn't that people do not think it is true; just they think it is a pass to not justifying it.
That doesn't contradict most of what I said, but getting a pass for not justifying it is rather the point. People who can rationalise their beliefs will be circumspect about them - recognising that if further and better particulars arrive they could be shown to be wrong. The uncertainty of thinking you could be wrong tends to engender tentativeness, humility, caution.
By contrast, the person who believes as an article of faith knows – really, really knows beyond any possibility ever of being wrong – so can proceed with total confidence to act as his faith dictates. If the islander categorically knows that sacrificing a first born will stop an eruption that'd kill the whole village for example then he'll do it - and with a good heart and a clear conscience too. After all, he'll have just saved the whole village (minus one).
-
NS,
That doesn't contradict most of what I said, but getting a pass for not justifying it is rather the point. People who can rationalise their beliefs will be circumspect about them - recognising that if further and better particulars arrive they could be shown to be wrong. The uncertainty of thinking you could be wrong tends to engender tentativeness, humility, caution.
By contrast, the person who believes as an article of faith knows – really, really knows beyond any possibility ever of being wrong – so can proceed with total confidence to act as his faith dictates. If the islander categorically knows that sacrificing a first born will stop an eruption that'd kill the whole village for example then he'll do it - and with a good heart and a clear conscience too. After all, he'll have just saved the whole village (minus one).
As interesting as this is it is about theism and at best an obscure theism at that. This thread is about atheism and there are a hundred other theism threads covering this ground.
Given that and bearing in mind that Gordon has provided a view that an atheist not only considers theism using presumably reason and in the light of beliefs they already hold they also reject it in the light of those beliefs ...........I would rephrase the question Hillside raises. ........Could an atheist sacrifice others for any cause related to the beliefs they form in rejecting religion or for the sake of reason?
-
Jeremy,
“Accurately” according to what metrics?
Really? You're going down the dictionary bullshit route?
Lots of things have been thought to be accurate descriptions of reality that have turned out to be no such thing.
Indeed and we can therefore label them as false. What's your point?
The most we can say is something like, “most congruent with the methods and tools available at this time to determine provisional accuracy”.
There's what we can say and there is what is true. Because of the limitations of our perceptions and methods, we can never say with certainty that some statement about the real World is true, but that doesn't mean that the statement is not true.
And if the moon doesn’t orbit the Earth then we are wrong and our belief about that is false too. That’s the point – things are only as true as we can establish them to be, but no more.
Bollocks. Either the Moon orbits the Earth or it doesn't. The statement "the Moon orbits the Earth" doesn't suddenly change from being true to false just because our understanding of gravity improves. It was false all along. All that's changed is our understanding of it.
-
Given that and bearing in mind that Gordon has provided a view that an atheist not only considers theism using presumably reason and in the light of beliefs they already hold they also reject it in the light of those beliefs
What?
...........I would rephrase the question Hillside raises. ........Could an atheist sacrifice others for any cause related to the beliefs they form in rejecting religion or for the sake of reason?
What beliefs?
-
Given that and bearing in mind that Gordon has provided a view that an atheist not only considers theism using presumably reason and in the light of beliefs they already hold they also reject it in the light of those beliefs
No I didn't: I said that I had considered the various arguments offered by theists and found them to be fallacious and/or incoherent, which is all that is required to dismiss the argument.
Do pay attention, Vlad.
-
No I didn't: I said that I had considered the various arguments offered by theists and found them to be fallacious and/or incoherent, which is all that is required to dismiss the argument.
Do pay attention, Vlad.
You seem to speak the lingo. Can you translate for me?
-
You seem to speak the lingo. Can you translate for me?
I'll try, M; though when encountering Vladdish as uttered by himself, one can never be certain.
My guess is that Vlad somehow still thinks that being an atheist involves having beliefs that are somehow akin to theism, and that when an atheist rejects theism it is because they hold these beliefs. He's been told otherwise, and often, that atheists tend not to hold beliefs about Gods and that saying there are no good reasons to think that Gods are real, such as by rejecting certain arguments, isn't exactly the same as believing there are no Gods.
I think that is what he is getting at, though I can't be certain: it could well be that he's providing us with a recipe for scones.
-
I'll try, M; though when encountering Vladdish as uttered by himself, one can never be certain.
My guess is that Vlad somehow still thinks that being an atheist involves having beliefs that are somehow akin to theism, and that when an atheist rejects theism it is because they hold these beliefs. He's been told otherwise, and often, that atheists tend not to hold beliefs about Gods and that saying there are no good reasons to think that Gods are real, such as by rejecting certain arguments, isn't exactly the same as believing there are no Gods.
I think that is what he is getting at, though I can't be certain: it could well be that he's providing us with a recipe for scones.
Thanks Gordon.
-
I'll try, M; though when encountering Vladdish as uttered by himself, one can never be certain.
My guess is that Vlad somehow still thinks that being an atheist involves having beliefs that are somehow akin to theism, and that when an atheist rejects theism it is because they hold these beliefs. He's been told otherwise, and often, that atheists tend not to hold beliefs about Gods and that saying there are no good reasons to think that Gods are real, such as by rejecting certain arguments, isn't exactly the same as believing there are no Gods.
I think that is what he is getting at, though I can't be certain: it could well be that he's providing us with a recipe for scones.
No
I define belief as a position held which is not established as knowledge.
You have expressed such positions.
Also googles of agnostic atheism define it as a philosophical belief.
You did say though that the reason for yoù being atheist was for you.And therefore you have answered the thread title.
The question is now....is Bluehillside rìght in saying thete are two ttypes of atheist.Atheists through ignorance and atheists through reasoning where at some point beliefs must have been applied.
-
No
I define belief as a position held which is not established as knowledge.
OK
You have expressed such positions.
Such as?
Also googles of agnosticism define it as a philosophical belief.
So what?
You did say though that the reason for yoù being atheist was for you.And therefore you have answered the thread title.
Super - so I'm off the hook?
The question is now....is Bluehillside rìght in saying thete are two ttypes of atheist.Atheists through ignorance and atheists through reasoning where at some point beliefs must have been applied.
I probably qualify as the latter type, so what beliefs do you think I have about 'God(s)' when I've already explained that I don't have beliefs about 'God(s)'?
-
What?
What beliefs?
Any position held not established as knowledge
Gordon states that God is an incoherent mess.
He must reach that conclusion. Which is a belief based on at least one other belief or assumption and at least a belief in ones own grasp of the term logical coherence.
There are other beliefs that could result in the atheist conclusion scientism, materialism, naturalism etc.
-
OK
Such as?
So what?
Super - so I'm off the hook?
I probably qualify as the latter type, so what beliefs do you think I have about 'God(s)' when I've already explained that I don't have beliefs about 'God(s)'?
Such as God is an incoherent mess.
Are you denying you stated that belief?
Are you saying that your journey to that belief did not depend on assumptions not proven as knowledge.
Did you not declare your position as agnostic atheism and this is arrived at by reasoning based on such assumptions?
Id certainly like to discuss your statements on what I think atheist belief is like but since you have answered the thread title and I am but a mere theist on a thread about arse clenching atheism.this is perhaps more properly dealt with on another thread.
-
Such as God is an incoherent mess.
Which isn't a belief: it is a critique based on the rejection of arguments.
Are you denying you stated that belief?
Yes - I didn't state it as a belief.
Are you saying that your journey to that belief did not depend on assumptions not proven as knowledge.
I am: my 'journey' (which is unnecessary hyperbole) just involved thinking through and rejecting certain arguments - I've said this several times now.
Did you not declare your position as agnostic atheism and this is arrived at by reasoning based on such assumptions?
I'm not making assumptions: I'm just rejecting arguments. The 'agnostic atheist' just means I have no beliefs about 'God(s)' but I'm not claiming as an item of knowledge that there are no 'God(s)' - I clearly explained this a couple of days ago.
Id certainly like to discuss your statements on what I think atheist belief is like but since you have answered the thread title and I am but a mere theist on a thread about arse clenching atheism.
That you are 'a mere theist on a thread about arse clenching atheism' doesn't stop you from discussing your thoughts about how you view atheism.
-
Which isn't a belief: it is a critique based on the rejection of arguments.
Yes - I didn't state it as a belief.
I am: my 'journey' (which is unnecessary hyperbole) just involved thinking through and rejecting certain arguments - I've said this several times now.
I'm not making assumptions: I'm just rejecting arguments. The 'agnostic atheist' just means I have no beliefs about 'God(s)' but I'm not claiming as an item of knowledge that there are no 'God(s)' - I clearly explained this a couple of days ago.
That you are 'a mere theist on a thread about arse clenching atheism' doesn't stop you from discussing your thoughts about how you view atheism.
God is an incoherent mess is not a belief!
And I suppose then Christianity is not a belief sonce it is a critique on naturalism and moral relativism.
Dont make me laugh.
Not admitting to having beliefs about is really IMV paranoia and slippery slope fallacyious fear that you might be or end ul doing something 'religious'.
Put more diplomatically though well have to agree to differ then on what constitutes a belief.........
Although as Wilson has morc than adequateĺy demonstrated....new atheism is a stealth religion.
-
God is an incoherent mess is not a belief!
It is an observation based on critiquing certain arguments.
And I suppose then Christianity is not a belief sonce it is a critique on naturalism and moral relativism.
It isn't though: it is a belief in divine agency and stuff like dead people not staying dead being a historical fact.
Dont make me laugh.
Perhaps you are just easily amused.
Not admitting to having beliefs about is really IMV paranoia and slippery slope fallacyious fear that you might be or end ul doing something 'religious'.
Put more diplomatically though well have to agree to differ then on what constitutes a belief.........
Although as Wilson has morc than adequateĺy demonstrated....new atheism is a stealth religion.
Of course, Vlad.
-
God is an incoherent mess is not a belief!
And I suppose then Christianity is not a belief sonce it is a critique on naturalism and moral relativism.
Dont make me laugh.
Not admitting to having beliefs about is really IMV paranoia and slippery slope fallacyious fear that you might be or end ul doing something 'religious'.
Put more diplomatically though well have to agree to differ then on what constitutes a belief.........
Although as Wilson has morc than adequateĺy demonstrated....new atheism is a stealth religion.
I am an atheist.
Do you think I believe there are no gods?
Yes or No please
-
It is an observation based on critiquing certain arguments.
And how are you "critiquing" here?
-
It is an observation based on critiquing certain arguments.
It isn't though: it is a belief in divine agency and stuff like dead people not staying dead being a historical fact.
Perhaps you are just easily amused.
Of course, Vlad.
Since resurrection is not held by all theists that leaves you with divine agency.
What is your position...or "critique" as youve taken to calling it on "Divine" and "Agency"?
-
Jeremy,
Really? You're going down the dictionary bullshit route?
Yes. In ordinary discourse we say things like, “this is a true statement” and people know what’s meant by it. In a discussion about epistemology though precision is essential. When you said that “true” means describing reality “accurately” the problem is that there’s no way to know what “accurately” means. We can say things like, “most congruent with explanations derived from the methods and tools available at this time” or some such but claiming accuracy in the sense of certainty is necessarily to overreach.
Indeed and we can therefore label them as false. What's your point?
My point is that those things too would have been thought to be true before they were falsified. Thor making thunder was “true” for the people who believed it inasmuch as it accorded with the best reasoning available to them.
There's what we can say and there is what is true. Because of the limitations of our perceptions and methods, we can never say with certainty that some statement about the real World is true, but that doesn't mean that the statement is not true.
No-one said that it does. Rather what I’m saying is that “true” isn’t the absolute you implied it to be. The statement “Thor” wasn’t false either for the people who believed it at the time they believed it. For them, it was perfectly true.
Bollocks. Either the Moon orbits the Earth or it doesn't. The statement "the Moon orbits the Earth" doesn't suddenly change from being true to false just because our understanding of gravity improves. It was false all along. All that's changed is our understanding of it.
Charming. Yes, either the moon orbits the Earth or it doesn’t. This discussion isn’t about that though – it’s about what we believe happens and why. How do you know that the statement “the moon orbits the Earth” couldn’t changes if our understanding of gravity improved? What if some hitherto unknown property of gravity was found that showed us that it creates the illusion of the smaller object orbiting the larger one when it’s actually the other way around?
What you have said here is equivalent to a geocentrist in ancient Greece saying, “Either the Sun orbits the Earth or it doesn't. The statement "the Sun orbits the Earth" doesn't suddenly change from being true to false just because our understanding of gravity improves”.
Bluntly, yes it does.
-
And how are you "critiquing" here?
I spent time thinking: you should give it a try.
-
I spent time thinking: you should give it a try.
He wont answer my simple question so I do not hold out much hope!
-
Since resurrection is not held by all theists that leaves you with divine agency.
What is your position...or "critique" as youve taken to calling it on "Divine" and "Agency"?
It is one of several synonyms: alternatives that could be used are; supernatural claims, religious superstitions, myths - take you pick.
My position is that arguments I've seen made for these to date are fallacious and/or incoherent, as seen by the ample use of a whole wheen of fallacies from certain theists who've posted here - Searching for God is a positive treasure trove for fallacy-spotters.
-
I spent time thinking: you should give it a try.
I think you should give up whatever you are calling thinking
as it is not working in your case.
-
I think you should give up whatever you are calling thinking
as it is not working in your case.
That is amusing coming from you, whose thoughts processes are definitely skewed! ::)
-
That is amusing coming from you,
If it's that amusing why aren't you giving it your usual ridiculous numbèr of smileys? ;D ;D ;D
-
If it's that amusing why aren't you giving it your usual ridiculous numbèr of smileys? ;D ;D ;D
I rest my case, you can't even count!
-
It is one of several synonyms: alternatives that could be used are; supernatural claims, religious superstitions, myths - take you pick.
My position is that arguments I've seen made for these to date are fallacious and/or incoherent, as seen by the ample use of a whole wheen of fallacies from certain theists who've posted here - Searching for God is a positive treasure trove for fallacy-spotters.
You are relying on your skill and understanding of fallacies here .
-
You are relying on your skill and understanding of fallacies here .
There is no shortage of study sources, Vlad, and it is usually worth the effort to spend some time reading up on stuff. We also have the advantage here of having some reliable deployers of fallacies, and also some excellent fallacy-spotters.
-
I think you should give up whatever you are calling thinking
as it is not working in your case.
One tries one's best: you should give thinking a go, Vlad, since new experiences are often beneficial.
-
One tries one's best: you should give thinking a go, Vlad, since new experiences are often beneficial.
Maybe, but that is a skill too far for poor Vlad! ;D
-
You are relying on your skill and understanding of fallacies here .
The thing is, if someone says it's a fallacy then should be able to name the fallacy. You can then rebut that, but only of course if you are familiar with logical fallacies.
There must be a link on Google
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
-
One tries one's best:
Keep trying!
-
We also have the advantage here of having some.........excellent fallacy-spotters.
Yes......... particularly in other people but not their own Ha Ha Ha
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes......... particularly in other people but not their own Ha Ha Ha
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The floor is yours, Vlad: cite some fallacies committed by, say, me and then we can critique your allegations of fallacies.
Go for it!
-
The floor is yours, Vlad: cite some fallacies committed by, say, me and then we can critique your allegations of fallacies.
Go for it!
Most of the usual atheist suspects are prone to:
Frequent use of appeal to ridicule. Certainly in most posts concerning my Good self which brings us to the various ad hominem, playing the man not the point.
This thread recently is a study in that. Your big thing though, in my opinion, is your apparent equation of atheism with logic and reason.
Circular argument is another biggy.
Certainly, argument from modernity. References to ancient books, bronze age, bronze age goatherders, Some of these are appeal to modernity and appeal to ridicule.
Then there was the NPF craze on this forum where there was a craze in accusation where in fact nobody was making it...nobody was actually saying 'you can't disprove it therefore it's true'. As I recall Bluehillside's coining of the phrase ''shaking hands with the NPF'' seemed the only thing that moderated the NPF accusation craze.
So Gordon as far as you are concerned.....if any of these caps fit......wear them.
-
Most of the usual atheist suspects are prone to:
Frequent use of appeal to ridicule. Certainly in most posts concerning my Good self which brings us to the various ad hominem, playing the man not the point.
This thread recently is a study in that. Your big thing though, in my opinion, is your apparent equation of atheism with logic and reason.
Circular argument is another biggy.
Certainly, argument from modernity. References to ancient books, bronze age, bronze age goatherders, Some of these are appeal to modernity and appeal to ridicule.
Then there was the NPF craze on this forum where there was a craze in accusation where in fact nobody was making it...nobody was actually saying 'you can't disprove it therefore it's true'. As I recall Bluehillside's coining of the phrase ''shaking hands with the NPF'' seemed the only thing that moderated the NPF accusation craze.
So Gordon as far as you are concerned.....if any of these caps fit......wear them.
You actually have to point out the fallacy used in an argument, not just claim so e people have used them.
-
Any position held not established as knowledge
Gordon states that God is an incoherent mess.
He must reach that conclusion. Which is a belief based on at least one other belief or assumption and at least a belief in ones own grasp of the term logical coherence.
I think he said that the arguments for the existence of God is an incoherent mess - which is not a belief about God but about the arguments for the existence of God.
There are other beliefs that could result in the atheist conclusion scientism, materialism, naturalism etc.
Yes, they may be part of an atheists 'world view' but they are not beliefs about God.
-
The question is now....is Bluehillside right in saying there are two types of atheist.Atheists through ignorance and atheists through reasoning where at some point beliefs must have been applied.
I don't think so. I don't think my lack of belief comes from either of those things.
-
Most of the usual atheist suspects are prone to:
Frequent use of appeal to ridicule. Certainly in most posts concerning my Good self which brings us to the various ad hominem, playing the man not the point.
This thread recently is a study in that. Your big thing though, in my opinion, is your apparent equation of atheism with logic and reason.
Circular argument is another biggy.
Certainly, argument from modernity. References to ancient books, bronze age, bronze age goatherders, Some of these are appeal to modernity and appeal to ridicule.
Then there was the NPF craze on this forum where there was a craze in accusation where in fact nobody was making it...nobody was actually saying 'you can't disprove it therefore it's true'. As I recall Bluehillside's coining of the phrase ''shaking hands with the NPF'' seemed the only thing that moderated the NPF accusation craze.
So Gordon as far as you are concerned.....if any of these caps fit......wear them.
Nice rant - so how about some examples where a fallacy has been cited and you contest that a fallacy was being committed.
-
Gordon,
Nice rant - so how about some examples where a fallacy has been cited and you contest that a fallacy was being committed.
Don't hold your breath – he never will. I've never worked out whether he genuinely doesn't know what fallacious reasoning entails or he does know but he gets something from misrepresenting it but either way it contributes nothing to this mb.
-
Jeremy,
Yes. In ordinary discourse we say things like, “this is a true statement” and people know what’s meant by it. In a discussion about epistemology though precision is essential. When you said that “true” means describing reality “accurately” the problem is that there’s no way to know what “accurately” means. We can say things like, “most congruent with explanations derived from the methods and tools available at this time” or some such but claiming accuracy in the sense of certainty is necessarily to overreach.
I'm sorry, but if you can't accept the normal use of the word "accurately" you have a problem.
My point is that those things too would have been thought to be true before they were falsified. Thor making thunder was “true” for the people who believed it inasmuch as it accorded with the best reasoning available to them.
No. Thor making thunder was never true. No amount of people believing it made it true. It doesn't matter how much the people who believed Thor made thunder or how certain they were, they were wrong.
You are conflating our ability to discover truth about the World with the actual truth about the World.
-
Jeremy,
I'm sorry, but if you can't accept the normal use of the word "accurately" you have a problem.
Not when the discussion is about the nature of truth I haven’t. Colloquial use of terms is fine when done in a colloquial context, but it fails quickly when the conversation is an epistemological one.
No. Thor making thunder was never true. No amount of people believing it made it true. It doesn't matter how much the people who believed Thor made thunder or how certain they were, they were wrong.
Yes. You’re not getting it. We know now it was never true because now we have more a robust explanation for thunder. Thus we can say with some confidence that a statement (“Thor”) that was true once for the people who believed it because it was congruent with the tools and methods available to them can now be shown to be false. There are also lots of things we think to be true now because they too are congruent with the tools and methods that we have, but that that does not mean though that people 500 years hence using the tools and methods they will have will not find some of those truths to be as false as Thor.
That’s the point. Your confidence about what you think to be true now can be no more certainly true that Thor was certainly true then. Truth is probabilistic, solution verified, malleable as new data and methods emerge – it’s not some sort of universal, out there quantity that we can be certain we have the means to verify.
You are conflating our ability to discover truth about the World with the actual truth about the World.
No I’m not. You’re conflating “the actual truth about the world” with our ability to identify it. All truths are narratives we derive – we don’t have some sort of unmediated access to reality, so we can’t ever be certain about them. “Best fit now” is the best we hope for, for the reasons I’ve explained.
-
Gordon,
Don't hold your breath – he never will. I've never worked out whether he genuinely doesn't know etc,etc
Hillside...………...
L is fine
Le is ok
Lep is borderline
Lepr is decidedly iffy
Lepre is argumentum ad ridiculum AKA appeal to ridicule AKA horse laugh fallacy.
-
Gordon,
Me:
Don't hold your breath – he never will. I've never worked out whether he genuinely doesn't know what fallacious reasoning entails or he does know but he gets something from misrepresenting it but either way it contributes nothing to this mb.
Vlad:
Hillside...………...
L is fine
Le is ok
Lep is borderline
Lepr is decidedly iffy
Lepre is argumentum ad ridiculum AKA appeal to ridicule AKA horse laugh fallacy.
QED
-
Hillside...………...
L is fine
Le is ok
Lep is borderline
Lepr is decidedly iffy
Lepre is argumentum ad ridiculum AKA appeal to ridicule AKA horse laugh fallacy.
All you've demonstrated here, Vlad, is that you probably know little of fallacies and are afraid to face up to this when pressed: the irony being that a post like the above, which you no doubt regard as clever, just confirms that behind all your buffoonery there is indeed a buffoon.