Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 196 of 777 (748360)
01-25-2015 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Tangle
01-25-2015 8:49 AM


To Know Or Not
Tangle writes:
It's a plain assertion; confusing knowledge with belief - conflating science with an emotion. To say that you can't know if you believe or not is, obvious, tosh. Just ask Faith.
So by this you mean that we either know we believe or know we don't believe in_______________?
  • For some, evidence is the prerequisite to belief. They would assert that without evidence we surely must know that there is no substance to test.
  • For others, subjective evidence (or what they would claim to be evidence) has convinced them of the validity of their belief.

    Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
    It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
    If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 195 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 8:49 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 197 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 10:26 AM Phat has not replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 197 of 777 (748372)
    01-25-2015 10:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 196 by Phat
    01-25-2015 9:26 AM


    Re: To Know Or Not
    Phat writes:
    So by this you mean that we either know we believe or know we don't believe in_______________?
    Yes. And also, if we don't know whether we believe or not, then we don't believe.
    For some, evidence is the prerequisite to belief. They would assert that without evidence we surely must know that there is no substance to test.
    With evidence there is no reqirement for belief. If there was evidence we would know.
    For others, subjective evidence (or what they would claim to be evidence) has convinced them of the validity of their belief.
    Subjective evidence in this context is just another term for belief.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 196 by Phat, posted 01-25-2015 9:26 AM Phat has not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    (1)
    Message 198 of 777 (748401)
    01-25-2015 1:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 191 by Tangle
    01-24-2015 7:04 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    Tangle writes:
    RAZD writes:
    So now when I say "I don't know......."
    ... You don't believe.
    I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I believe it does.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 191 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2015 7:04 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 199 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 1:43 PM ringo has replied
     Message 203 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 5:41 PM ringo has replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 199 of 777 (748403)
    01-25-2015 1:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
    01-25-2015 1:29 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    Ringo writes:
    I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I believe it does.
    Exactly. I don't know whether god doesn't exist, but I believe he/she/it, plural, lower and uppercase, doesn't.
    It's not knowing ie. having enough evidence, that matters, it's whether you believe it or not. If you don't know if you *believe* or not, then you don't believe.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 198 by ringo, posted 01-25-2015 1:29 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 200 by ringo, posted 01-25-2015 1:58 PM Tangle has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    (1)
    Message 200 of 777 (748404)
    01-25-2015 1:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 199 by Tangle
    01-25-2015 1:43 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    Tangle writes:
    If you don't know if you *believe* or not, then you don't believe.
    That's like saying if you don't know if you have cancer or not then you don't have cancer.
    You can believe you have cancer whether you do or not. You can believe you DON'T have cancer whether you do or not. At the moment, many of us don't KNOW whether we have cancer or not. We are agnostic.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 199 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 1:43 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 201 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 2:58 PM ringo has replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 201 of 777 (748407)
    01-25-2015 2:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 200 by ringo
    01-25-2015 1:58 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    Ringo writes:
    That's like saying if you don't know if you have cancer or not then you don't have cancer.
    Nope. You're confusing knowledge with belief.
    You can believe you have cancer whether you do or not.
    Correct
    You can believe you DON'T have cancer whether you do or not. At the moment, many of us do
    Correct.
    But like everyone else, you're asking the wrong question. The question that doesn't work with your cancer analogy is 'do you believe you have cancer?' (aka, do you believe in God?). The answer of 'I don't know', can only mean 'no'. People know what they believe.
    You believe in Bigfoot only because you don't know. If you knew, you wouldn't need belief.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 200 by ringo, posted 01-25-2015 1:58 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 218 by ringo, posted 01-26-2015 10:53 AM Tangle has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 202 of 777 (748413)
    01-25-2015 5:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 192 by Minnemooseus
    01-24-2015 7:56 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    The ancestors and ghosts would seem to be of god like nature, so I say theist.
    So ghosts are now gods in order to make your logic work.
    My weak understanding of Buddhism is that it is a life philosophy and not a religion. Atheistic.
    Again forcing the issue to fit your boxes. Buddhism includes reincarnation -- does that mean that the spirit of a person is now a god-like entity per your response on ancestor ghosts? Everyone is now a god?
    Even in binary electronics, there is that state between 0 and 1. But that doesn't make it a trinary system. It's a binary system with a transition.
    And a coin can land on the edge. The question is not that there is an edge but how big it is. Now you are counting angels on the head of a pin ...
    It's at least part of the definition of agnosticism (seemingly dwise1's, if not yours). dwise's fuller version is along the lines of "The belief that you don't know and can't know if god/s exist". The "can't know" is an unprovable (but disprovable) hypothesis. Certainly, if one can't know, then one doesn't know. The Tangle/Moose position is that one doesn't know, but that doesn't rule out that later one can know. Disproving agnosticism is to prove gnosticism (at least if you consider gnosticism to be "one can know that god/s exist".
    The full position is that agnostic-gnostic values are on an axis perpendicular to theist-atheist axis values.
    Whether or not you recognize there is, or is not, a zero position on the theist-atheist axis values has no effect at all on the agnostic-gnostic values.
    To my mind the silly distinction is between atheist and theist rather than the one betweend agnostic and gnostic. You either know or don't know, belief is irrelevant.
    Enjoy

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAmerican☆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)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 192 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-24-2015 7:56 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 203 of 777 (748414)
    01-25-2015 5:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
    01-25-2015 1:29 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    ringo writes:
    I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I believe it does.
    Sadly, Huxley, says youre not allowed to believe that.
    Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
    Luckily, and I'm sure you'll now agree, he's wrong.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 198 by ringo, posted 01-25-2015 1:29 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 219 by ringo, posted 01-26-2015 10:56 AM Tangle has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 204 of 777 (748415)
    01-25-2015 5:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 191 by Tangle
    01-24-2015 7:04 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    hmm ... lost the reply I wrote out so I will recap
    Or is your position silly.
    So far you've failed to demonstrate why.
    Well that part is easy.
    Your claim is that your insistence on a black and white distinction between theism and atheism means that agnosticism does not exist.
    This is silly because agnostic-gnostic values are on an axis perpendicular to theist-atheist axis values. You have been told this several times. Ignoring information that is counter to your belief is irrational (see delusion).
    This is silly because whether or not you recognize there is, or is not, a zero position on the theist-atheist axis values, that has absolutely no effect at all on the agnostic-gnostic values. Opinion cannot change reality.
    This is silly because, if you insist on getting rid of irrelevant distinctions, it should be the distinction between atheist and theist rather than the one between agnostic and gnostic that you should be talking about: you either know or don't know, your belief is irrelevant, your opinion is irrelevant.
    So to your superstitions and so on. Ancestor worship, ghosts, spirits etc etc. Whatever you care to mention. For what it's worth, my position on *all* this irrational nonsense - including beliefs in so called gods - as I've said before, is that there should be no word for a lack of belief in them. There is no word for a lack of belief in fairies, ancestor worship, etc etc so what's so special about another made up superstion called God? (god, gods, Gods).
    And I don't care what you believe -- I want to know what you know -- do you KNOW that " *all* this irrational nonsense - including beliefs in so called gods " is false? Belief is irrelevant.
    Or are you an agnostic ... whether you like it or not?
    I know you're fond of logical falacies - try special pleading.
    That would be you.
    Curiously, you are the one claiming to eliminate agnosticism by talking about something else ... and when it comes to agnosticism it's a simple question: do you know or not?
    Let's take ringo's example -- Do you know you don't have cancer? I know that I do have cancer so I'm gnostic on that. I know several people that do, so they are also cancer gnostics. I also know people that know they do not have cancer, and I know people that do not know if they do or not.
    Now according to your logic I should lump those that don't know whether or not they have cancer with those that know they do not have cancer: is that logical? rational?
    Does belief change any of these people from having cancer or not having cancer or not knowing if they have cancer? Which would you rather have -- belief or knowledge?
    So yes, your position is silly.
    If I had to choose between using either atheist or agnostic (which I don't see any need to do) I would choose agnostic as it is the more logical position, the more rational position, the more evidence and information based position, and thus the more rigorously scientific position, because it relies on knowledge, information and evidence rather than on belief.
    My personal preferred terminology, however, is "open-minded skeptic" -- skeptical of anything not proven or evidenced, open-minded to anything not disproven or invalidated.
    So tell me where and how that fits on your theist vs atheist scale.
    Show me your position is not silly.
    Enjoy

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAmerican☆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)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 191 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2015 7:04 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 205 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 6:42 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 205 of 777 (748417)
    01-25-2015 6:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by RAZD
    01-25-2015 5:53 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    it's educational watching you - and others - totally miss the point, time after time, simply because you've been taught to think of things only rationally. Which is weird considering the time you spend here arguing with the irrational. But in life we all do both.
    Huxley's position is like yours - we can only know that which we have evidence for. The tool we use to decide what we know is the scientific method. This is also my position - how could it be otherwise? I do not, nor can I ever, know that god does not exist. Huxley - and you - therefore conclude that I am an agnostic. Well I'm here to tell you that I am not - I am an atheist. The black swan proves that the all swans are white hypothesis is wrong. The reason I can say that I'm an atheist is because, just like theists, I go further than knowledge to belief. Just as ringo believes in Bigfoot without knowledge.
    We're human which means that we routinely go beyond what we know to what we intuite or believe. I'm sure you also know people that believe they have cancer but subsequently find they do not. They have that belief, erronious or otherwise, without evidence.
    It really doesn't matter that Huxley tells us that we can't believe without proof because we quite plainly can and do. Not only that, without irrational belief, plus knowldge, virtually nothing that matters would have ever been achieved.
    So people know whether they believe in god or not. If they say they don't know because they have no proof, then they are atheist not agnostic. They are only agnostic about knowledge - as everyone is - not belief.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2015 5:53 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 206 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2015 8:04 PM Tangle has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 206 of 777 (748420)
    01-25-2015 8:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 205 by Tangle
    01-25-2015 6:42 PM


    Re: agnostic anyone? when "don't know" is the logical answer.
    ... I do not, nor can I ever, know that god does not exist. ...
    This is belief not knowledge, therefore -- by your own logic -- you are agnostic.
    ... Huxley - and you - therefore conclude that I am an agnostic. Well I'm here to tell you that I am not - I am an atheist. ...
    Yet by your own statements you are agnostic.
    Others have the same knowledge and believe in god/s ... because there is no evidence that disproves it ... so your choice is just opinion without foundation, no different than faith that god/s exist.
    Believing one way or the other is irrelevant when there is no evidence pro or con, its an arbitrary choice of no rational or scientific value.
    ... The black swan proves that the all swans are white hypothesis is wrong. The reason I can say that I'm an atheist is because, just like theists, I go further than knowledge to belief. ...
    Yes the a priori belief that "all swans are white" is disproved by acquiring the additional evidence and knowledge of black swans. Also the a priori belief that "NOT all swans are white" is validated by acquiring the additional evidence and knowledge of black swans.
    Until you have the black swans evidence you do not know, and neither the case that "all swans are white" nor the case that "NOT all swans are white" are supported by evidence or information. Believing one or the other hypothesis is irrelevant and equally silly until they are tested.
    But the swans say nothing about god/s, so it is irrelevant to what you believe ... rather they talk to whether you have knowledge of black swans or not.
    This example does not prove that no god/s exist either, so you still do not have any evidence for your opinion and fall back on belief. Belief that is curiously incapable of altering reality.
    Your belief -- according to your logic -- is a lack of knowledge and therefore -- according to your logic -- you are an agnostic, a non-knower. You either know or you do not know -- that's your black and white paradigm bed to sleep in.
    We're human which means that we routinely go beyond what we know to what we intuite or believe. I'm sure you also know people that believe they have cancer but subsequently find they do not. They have that belief, erronious or otherwise, without evidence.
    And there's that special pleading again. Being human has nothing to do with whether you know or do not know, it has nothing to do with whether god/s in fact exist or not. It has nothing to do with whether acting on belief is rational or correct. You are just using being human as justification for placing your belief above a proper rational conclusion based on facts and knowledge.
    Curiously, acting on belief does not make that action rational or correct. Acting on knowledge does make action rational. Taking action to determine whether you do or do not have cancer is no different than the rational agnostic that searches or waits for more information before making an evidence based decision.
    it's educational watching you - and others - totally miss the point, time after time, simply because you've been taught to think of things only rationally. Which is weird considering the time you spend here arguing with the irrational. But in life we all do both.
    No the point is that you are chasing imaginary butterflies during a baseball game.
    So learn to make distinctions of value rather than play silly games with words over an issue with no real meaning: belief is irrelevant to reality.
    Every time you act on belief (whatever it is) you are no different than any ardent theist acting on their unevidenced religious beliefs.
    It would be more interesting to distinguish between "beliefers" (those that act based on beliefs

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAmerican☆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)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 205 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2015 6:42 PM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 213 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2015 3:12 AM RAZD has replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 207 of 777 (748435)
    01-26-2015 1:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 178 by Tangle
    01-24-2015 3:25 AM


    Re: agnostic anyone?
    Do you want me to go back through this thread and point out to you all the posts I've made that say that an atheist does not believe in god or gods?
    Do you want me to go back through this thread and point out to you all the posts you've made where you say specifically, "believe in god"?
    As Straggler pointed out in Message 165:
    Straggler writes:
    If you ask the question verbally it won't be possible for people to read too much into, and get hung up on, any capitalisation or the lack thereof.....
    With that in mind, what you have repeatedly said refers specifically to belief in God, which is to say in one very highly specific god, YHWH. Oh, yes, what you actually mean to say refers to belief in any god, yet your verbiage repeatedly and consistently refers to only one very highly specific god, YHWH. Therefore, the words that you have written express something very different from what you imagine that you actually belief yourself.
    I have been taking you to task for saying something quite different from what you claim to believe. All we could possibly know about what you actually think is in what you write. If you write something that is completely different from what you actually think, then wouldn't that be a gross error on your part? I have caught you in just such a gross error, and yet you persist in embracing that gross error.
    Why specify disbelief in YHWH instead of disbelief in any god? That is what you persist in doing. That is what I repeatedly protest. And that is what you absolutely refuse to deal with.
    What the fuck is your problem?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 178 by Tangle, posted 01-24-2015 3:25 AM Tangle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 210 by Tangle, posted 01-26-2015 2:23 AM dwise1 has replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    (1)
    Message 208 of 777 (748436)
    01-26-2015 1:37 AM


    Really? What is the issue here?
    Here we have atheists of various levels arguing over the proper definitions of what a true atheist, and all the innumerable variations thereof, actually must believe. For this topic, none of that has any meaning.
    Why do so few known atheists hold public office in the USA? Do any of these arguments that we are currently engaging in have anything to do with that? No, absolutely not. As such, all such arguments are off-topic.
    Why do so few known atheists hold public office in the USA? Because their constituency will not vote for them. Why not? Oh, yes, why not? For the very reasonable reasons that our members have argued over? No, of course not! Rather, for the reasons that the voters have. Which have not been discussed.
    So why do people vote against atheists? What are their prejudices? What are the sources of their prejudices? Blind religious ignorance? Specific biblical sources?
    Really now, why do people not vote for atheist candidates?

    Replies to this message:
     Message 209 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2015 1:58 AM dwise1 has not replied

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 5930
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 5.8


    Message 209 of 777 (748437)
    01-26-2015 1:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 208 by dwise1
    01-26-2015 1:37 AM


    Re: Really? What is the issue here?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 208 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2015 1:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

      
    Tangle
    Member
    Posts: 9489
    From: UK
    Joined: 10-07-2011
    Member Rating: 4.9


    Message 210 of 777 (748438)
    01-26-2015 2:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 207 by dwise1
    01-26-2015 1:21 AM


    Re: agnostic anyone?
    I'm sure you've realised your mistake by now, so I'll just pass on further discussions about god, God, gods, & Gods.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 207 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2015 1:21 AM dwise1 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 216 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2015 10:33 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024