|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Stile tries with
Removing the double-negative BUT
not not-believing in god is not the same as believing in god.
...and this the issue, methinks.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
BUT not not-believing in god is not the same as believing in god. ...and this the issue, methinks. Indeed. Except for the false black and white dichotomy folks ... IFPerson doesn't believe in god/s -- because the case has not been made for this, Tangle\Moose say atheist AND Person doesn't disbelieve in god/s -- because the case has not been made for this, Tangle\Moose say theist. But how can you be both at the same time? Ergo it is a false dichotomy. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Yes, I see the false dichotomy.
quote: The real situation is this: 1) Person believes that no god/s exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist 2) Person does not believe that god/s do exist or do not exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist. 3) Person does believe that god/s exist. Tangle/Moose say theist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes:
Person doesn't believe in god/s -- because the case has not been made for this, Tangle\Moose say atheist Ffs, how many times. I have to think that you are now deliberately misrepresenting the argument. Belief and knowledge are NOT the same. This is not a belief position, this is a knowledge-based, not belief-based position. This situation is agnostic.
But how can you be both at the same time? Because you've misrepresented the argument.
Ergo it is a false dichotomy. Ergo, for some reason you can't make yourself think through this. At least have the grace not to misrepresent it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
2) Person does not believe that god/s do exist or do not exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist. Not quite ... you replaced "and" with "or" ... which changes the meaning. 2) Person does not believe that god/s exist AND does not disbelieve they exist (neither case has been made). Tangle/Moose say atheist\theist at the same time: a contradiction, ergo false dichotomy. Person is an agnostic no contradiction. Another way to say it: I am skeptical of the position that god/s exist (theism)I am skeptical of the position that god/s to not exist (atheism) Based on the evidence I am aware of, it appears equally possible that god/s could exist or not exist ... and I am equally open to both positions If being skeptical of theism makes you an atheistand IF being skeptical of atheism makes you a theist then being skeptical of both creates a contradiction if there truly is a dichotomy but if being skeptical of both makes you an agnostic the contradiction goes away (and with it the false dichotomy)
quote: Now let's look at this again: If being skeptical of theism means (theist) is a false descriptionand IF being skeptical of atheism means (atheist) is a false description then being skeptical of both does not create a contradiction because both theist and atheist are false descriptions. SO being skeptical of both makes you an agnostic, not theist and not atheist, and there is no contradiction. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Actually it doesn't change the meaning. And Tangle and Moose do NOT say theist for that case so no false dichotomy either. Here's the real dichotomy that Moose and Tangle are getting at: Having the belief that one or more gods exist: Theist Not having the belief that one or more Gods exist: Atheist Agnostics are a subset of atheists since they do not have the belief that one or more Gods exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Amusing.
This is not a belief position, this is a knowledge-based, not belief-based position. This situation is agnostic. So when I say "Person doesn't believe in god/s" it is now knowledge based ...
Ergo, for some reason you can't make yourself think through this. At least have the grace not to misrepresent it. Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that you would call someone who is skeptical of believing in gods, who says: "I see no compelling reason to believe in god/s," an atheist? Would you AGREE or DISAGREE that you would call someone who is skeptical of disbelieving in gods, who says: "I see no compelling reason to disbelieve in god/s," a theist? What happens when you are skeptical of both? Because there is no compelling reason to either believe or disbelieve? If I don't believe AND I don't disbelieve because I am skeptical of both ... and thus neither the theist nor the atheist position describes my belief ... then what am I? If my reasons are knowledge based (if a lack of compelling evidence is knowledge based), then does that mean that I actually believe one or the other in some convoluted Tangled Moose fashion? Or does it mean that I have evaluated\tested those beliefs against the evidence and found a lack of compelling information one way or the other. Beliefs can sometimes be tested against evidence -- that is why we know that a young earth is a false belief: it is contradicted by evidence, so there is compelling reason to disbelieve it. However, belief in an old world is not contradicted by the evidence, so there is no compelling reason to disbelieve that. SOif belief in X is not contradicted by evidence - there is no compelling reason to disbelieve it AND if belief in notX is not contradicted by evidence - there is no compelling reason to disbelieve it THEN there is no compelling reason to disbelieve either ... agnostic ... belief Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes: Amusing. I wish it was. I'm actually quite angry and also disappointed. You are normally capable of understanding contrary arguments. You claim to be a skeptic and pontificate regularly about cognitive dissonance as though it was your own invention. And yet you are portraying all the signs of dissonance - denial, misrepresentation, partial reading and lack of self-awareness that is the norm in dogmatic thought. Here's the evidence. Apart from ignoring all my previous posts about how people actually think and behave instead of the automaton you imagine is the way we are, you have edited the phrase I quoted to make it mean what you want it to mean, rather than what it actually says.
Person doesn't believe in god/s -- because the case has not been made for this, Tangle\Moose say atheist becomes
So when I say "Person doesn't believe in god/s" it is now knowledge based ... Totally ignoring the qualifier that "the case has not been made for this" - which is the knowledge based, rational case and therefore absolutely the opposite of belief. You continues to use knowledge and belief as synonyms, which is the source of all your confusion. The following is entirely beside the point and gives me some hope that you are still misunderstanding the argument and not just behaving like an arse.
SO if belief in X is not contradicted by evidence - there is no compelling reason to disbelieve it AND if belief in notX is not contradicted by evidence - there is no compelling reason to disbelieve it THEN there is no compelling reason to disbelieve either ... agnostic ... belief Why do you insist on attempting to logically explain belief? It is obviously not logical or rational. That's why it's called belief and not fact. And why the two are different and why it is possible to be atheistic about belief in god and agnostic about knowledge of god's existence.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
PaulK, in message 273, writes: The real situation is this: 1) Person believes that no god/s exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist 2) Person does not believe that god/s do exist or do not exist. Tangle/Moose say atheist. 3) Person does believe that god/s exist. Tangle/Moose say theist. 1) While this is probably true for most if not all atheists, it is not the essential definition of atheist. It is a belief. 2) This is closer to the essential definition of atheist, but I think the "or do not exist" is superfluous. 3) Agree. Now add a "not" between the "does" and the "believe" and you have the essential definition of atheist. A non-belief.
PaulK, in message 276, writes: Here's the real dichotomy that Moose and Tangle are getting at: 1) Having the belief that one or more gods exist: Theist 2) Not having the belief that one or more Gods exist: Atheist 3) Agnostics are a subset of atheists since they do not have the belief that one or more Gods exist. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 added by me. I absolutely agree with 1 and 2. They are the essential definitions of theist and atheist. 3 is fuzzy, and I offhand don't know what to say. RAZD has been using two different usages of the term agnostic (although he seems to be in denial about it): 1) The Huxley/Wikipedia definition, which I consider the true definition. "God is unknown and unknowable". To state that more clearly and precisely, "To science God is unknown and unknowable". Which, per the definitions of science and God, is absolutely true. God is supernatural and science only deals with the natural. For science to "know" God is for science to drag God from the supernatural into the natural. Which is to redefine what God is. The old supernatural God remains "unknown and unknowable". 2) The dominant RAZD usage - Agnosticism is that a person can be in a situation of confusion, where he does not know if he believed in any god(s) or not. He is unable to determine his state of mind. This is the most common usage of agnosticism, a useful but in my opinion technically incorrect. Now I do agree that "a person can be in a situation of confusion, where he does not know if he believes in any god(s) or not." BUT I find that to be an understandable but irrational position. And I think that the Moose/Tangle position all along, even if not explicitly stated, is the the #2 variety of agnosticism is NOT a valid RATIONAL alternative to theist or atheist. In an irrational state, a person might actually go so far as to believe there is a god AND believe there is no god, and maybe ever believe he is a god. But that is NOT a RATIONAL position. So, the whole RAZD vs Moose/Tangle thing comes down to irrational vs rational. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change a past tense into a present tense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So, the whole RAZD vs Moose/Tangle thing comes down to irrational vs rational. And the whole thread became extremely pedantic, and hence uninteresting, a couple hundred posts back.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is not intended as a definition, since it is incomplete, as can be seen. THis is an enumeration of cases to more clearly explain the point.
quote: In fact the "or do not exist" is essential, because it is a part of the case the point is meant to cover.
quote: Which is clearly illustrated if you take my points as intended and not as definitions.
quote: Taken in context it seems clear to me that I was using the common definition of agnostics as those who believe neither that a God does exist or does not exist. Using Huxley's definition it is possible to be an agnostic theist (and such people do exist) but it should be clear that I did not intend that usage. I am not sure that even RAZD really means the usage that you ascribe to him - I think rather that his confusion is based on his inability to understand your definition of "atheist" (which is, I grant, not the common definition but is certainly a valid definition that is used quite widely). Certainly so obvious an error - in the face of many explanations is bound to lead to problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Coyote writes: So, the whole RAZD vs Moose/Tangle thing comes down to irrational vs rational. And the whole thread became extremely pedantic, and hence uninteresting, a couple hundred posts back. But this rational/irrational human split is the entire point. It explains why belief exists in spite of evidence or lack of. Denying its existence is denying the way we are and why we behave. Changing the meaning of words to hand wave away an important distinction is intellectually dishonest.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
And the whole thread became extremely pedantic, and hence uninteresting, a couple hundred posts back. Yes, of course. But beating a dead horse constantly for page after page of posts is fun. Maybe not for the spectators watching the blood splatter with each blow but certainly for the participants who feel that emotional vested interest in making the other guy look wrong even though none of 3, 4, 12 different sides in this continuous bludgeoning are actually wrong. I do admit, though, I do like watching the personalities. Us people are fascinating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Most of the time.
Do you love your wife? Tangle writes:
What are the Jets?
Do you support the Jets? Tangle writes:
Sometimes.
Do you like cats? Tangle writes:
See, that's where your premise breaks down. A lot of people in a restaurant will look at the menu and say, "Hmmm.... What do I want?"
Do you want fries with that? Tangle writes:
I don't know.
Do you believe in god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I think the problem here is not that "agnostic" is a redundant term. It's that we don't have enough terms to describe the possible states:
Agnostic = "I don't know if I believe in God or not."Atheist = "I do not believe in God." "I believe in the God of the Bible." "I believe in a god." "I don't believe in any specific god(s)." "I believe that no gods exist." "I don't know what to believe." etc. Stile writes:
That doesn't make any sense to me.
We're talking about being agnostic and not being an atheist at the same time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024