|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: So by this you mean that we either know we believe or know we don't believe in_______________?
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. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I believe it does.
RAZD writes:
... You don't believe. So now when I say "I don't know......."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
That's like saying if you don't know if you have cancer or not then you don't have cancer. If you don't know if you *believe* or not, then you don't believe. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... 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 by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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:
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. 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..... 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Here's some cud to chew on from Ed Babinski's Facebook postings.
Mike Huckabee: ‘God’s blessing’ will make me president to stop the atheist ‘secular theocracy’ The Christian right wants civilization to collapse
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024