|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Contentless gibberish is very much how I would describe many uses of the term 'god/GOD'. Specifically those instances where the concept is so ambiguous and evasively undefined as to be entirely meaningless. We see lots of cases of that here at EVC.
Anyway 'contentless gibberish' is very much the point with regard to ignosticism so your comment would suggest agreement with mine, and ultimately Tangle's, point here. Well done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: But it wasn't. You have basically been accusing people of not actually holding the positions they say they hold for the last several pages of posts. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm simply trying to discuss the meaning of two words, belief - which is a positive and binary position on something which can't be proven, and knowledge which is something we can have proof of. I'm pointing out that *despite* what people say, if they do not know whether they believe in something or not - eg. the nggard which didn't exist at all until I made it up - then they do not believe and they are atheistic about it. You've proven this by saying that you don't even know what the word means and probably never will. You know nothing whatsoever about it so you can't possibly believe in it. If you don't actively believe something you are atheistic about it. Belief is an active, emotional state, like anger, hate, love, happiness - you either have these states or you do not. You could, however, be agnostic about knowledge of the nggard - in which case you logically can't believe in it - but now that I've told you that it's a totally invented word you also have full knowledge of it's non-existence. But you still need the two part model - you still have to say that the nggard is a fantasy AND that You do not believe in it. Knowledge and belief - different words with different meanings.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes: Would you not agree that beliefs in general are irrational -- in that they are not based on evidence -- and that they can sometimes be silly -- because they may not be true -- AND I trust we can agree that we can eliminate some beliefs based on knowledge. Not only do I agree, but I have also said this over and over in this thread. That's why have two different words to denote two different states.
To hold such beliefs would not only be irrational, or silly, it would be delusional. Flat earth believers have knowledge that the earth is not flat but believe it anyway. We call those people delusional, but it makes no difference to the reality of their own beliefs. If you look back over what I have written you will see that I call both belief and disbelief in god delusional because we have no actual knowledge either way. That's probably too strong a word for it as delusional implies that there IS knowledge which is being denied, rather than no knowledge. I would demote delusional/deluded to irrational and will happily accept that atheism is irrational.
The agnostic says the tops side looks like it could be a heads or it could be a tails, and I so there is insufficient evidence to disbelieve the downside is a heads and there is insufficient evidence to disbelieve the downside is a tails, so I believe the downside possibly might be heads" and possibly might be tails" Your heads and tails analogy is just the same as the Jets and Rangers (or whatever the sport names where). It's the wrong analogy. The correct one is to ask 'do you believe that the coin has landed heads up?' If you answer 'I don't know' then you do not believe it landed heads up. You can have all sorts of other rationalisations about states of knowledge, but the answer to that question is binary, you're forced to commit to a belief/non-belief position. (Obviously, the coin analogy ultimately fails because there is no emotional committment to it - active belief or not in gods is an emotional state, not a rational one.) If it helps, you could call someone who say he doesn't know whether he belives in god or not, a passive atheist, I suppose. Belief is not knowledge, it's an active, positive state of mind that deals only in irrational choices. By trying to make it fit an artificial rational model, you miss the entire point of what belief is. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
xongsmith writes: not not-believing in god is not the same as believing in god. ...and this the issue, methinks. You're only talking about one of the terms (atheist). We're not talking about just one term on it's own. We're talking about using both terms at the same time. The is from the message you replied to where I tried to explain about using both terms, I'll say it again:
Stile writes: We're talking about being agnostic and not being an atheist at the same time. Agnostic = "I don't know if I believe in God or not."Atheist = "I do not believe in God." Let's take it slow and see where you don't agree: 1. I am agnostic, therefore: I don't know if I believe in God or not.2. Since I do not know either way... 2a. - then it's possible that I do believe, it's possible that I'm a theist 2b. - then it's possible that I'll never know, it's possible that I'm agnostic 2c. - then it's possible that I do not believe, it's possible that I'm an atheist 3. I am not an atheist. This is the confusion. Do you agree that an honest agnostic really does not know if they believe or not (1)?Do you agree that possibly-being-an-atheist (2c) is part of an honest interpretation of being agnostic (1)? Do you agree that possibly-being-an-atheist (2c) is in direct contradiction with claiming to not be an atheist (3)? xongsmith writes: not not-believing in god is not the same as believing in god. Do you see the issue now?I agree with your above statement, it aligns with 2 of the 3 possibilities of being agnostic (actually believing, or remaining agnostic forever). But what about the last one? I only think your above statement is relevant if the "agnostic" has already decided that possibly-being-an-atheist (2c) is no longer a part of their agnosticism (1). If that's true... then are they really still agnostic? Are you actually agnostic if you're adamantly against one of the possibilities? It seems to me that you are not... you no longer "don't know" what your belief is. You do, actually, know that a certain side of your belief has been set as impossible (you are stating that you cannot possibly be an atheist (2c)). Remember, I'm talking about being agnostic and atheist at the same time. If you're not actually talking about being agnostic... then your comments do not make any sense as they do not encompass the entire situation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
I'm pointing out that *despite* what people say, if they do not know whether they believe in something or not - eg. the nggard which didn't exist at all until I made it up - then they do not believe and they are atheistic about it. Which is not true. Plenty of people in this thread have told you what they actually believe, don't believe, and don't know enough about to make such a determination. You are arguing about what people believe, and those people are telling you what they believe. You need to take that at face value and not dismiss it simply because doing so fits your narrow worldview. When someone believes, doesn't believe, or doesn't know whether they believe; then they believe, don't believe, or don't know whether they believe. It's not your place to make up other people's minds and decide what's in them.
You've proven this by saying that you don't even know what the word means and probably never will. You know nothing whatsoever about it so you can't possibly believe in it. A non sequitur. Just because I don't understand the word, doesn't mean I don't believe in the concept. You need to give me some actual information. And maybe, just maybe, if you give me enough information and it is the right kind of information, I can make up my mind. Until then, "I don't know what I believe about nggards" is the most sensible and honest position for me to take.
You could, however, be agnostic about knowledge of the nggard - in which case you logically can't believe in it - but now that I've told you that it's a totally invented word you also have full knowledge of it's non-existence. Perhaps true in your fantasy. But not in mine. By your reasoning, we should claim full knowledge of the non-existence of everything, since all words we use to talk about the world were at one time simply invented. No one is going to do that, though, since even the simplest-minded folks realize that words are not things.
Knowledge and belief - different words with different meanings. Yes, meanings. That's the part of words that matters. Now apply that to the rest of your argument and you'll see where you've gone ridiculously wrong.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm simply trying to discuss the meaning of two words, belief - which is a positive and binary position on something which can't be proven, and knowledge which is something we can have proof of. I'm pointing out that *despite* what people say, if they do not know whether they believe in something or not - eg. the nggard which didn't exist at all until I made it up - then they do not believe and they are atheistic about it. You've proven this by saying that you don't even know what the word means and probably never will. You know nothing whatsoever about it so you can't possibly believe in it. If you don't actively believe something you are atheistic about it. Belief is an active, emotional state, like anger, hate, love, happiness - you either have these states or you do not. You could, however, be agnostic about knowledge of the nggard - in which case you logically can't believe in it - but now that I've told you that it's a totally invented word you also have full knowledge of it's non-existence. But you still need the two part model - you still have to say that the nggard is a fantasy AND that You do not believe in it. Knowledge and belief - different words with different meanings. All you are doing is insisting that people conform to your usage of the words. How's that working out for you? After 90 posts in this thread, how many people have you convinced? Obviously it doesn't work that way. People get to use words how they want to use them. You don't get to make that decision for them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Cat Sci writes: All you are doing is insisting that people conform to your usage of the words. Not my definitions - the ones in the dictionary.
How's that working out for you? After 90 posts in this thread, how many people have you convinced? It's working out just fine. Several people get it. Those that don't seem happy enough to have the argument regardless.
Obviously it doesn't work that way. People get to use words how they want to use them. Sure, people can say what they like. It doesn't change much. If you don't belive in god you're an atheist - no matter how much you protest.
You don't get to make that decision for them. You seem to be confused. I'm not making decisions for anybody. I'm simply pointing out the staggeringly simple point that if you don't believe in god you're an atheist, regardless of what people would like to call themselves.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Not my definitions - the ones in the dictionary. I've quoted you dictionary definitions that contradict your position and agree with the contrary.
I'm simply pointing out the staggeringly simple point that if you don't believe in god you're an atheist, regardless of what people would like to call themselves. Well, yeah, that's one usage of the word. Other people use it differently. They're not wrong as you are insisting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
I don't think it is, as I've already pointed out. Juries deliberate because they don't know what to believe.
Belief is a positive position you either have it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes:
I don't think it is, as I've already pointed out. Juries deliberate because they don't know what to believe. Juries are required to make up their minds about facts. ie knowledge. If there are no facts to choose between charges can not be brought. If a member of a jury simply states that they believe someone did without teference to facts, they don't understand their job. You have already accepted this distinction by saying that you don't know that Bigfoot exists but you believe that he does.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Cat Sci writes: Other people use it differently. They're not wrong as you are insisting. Says you!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 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
They are required to make up their minds what and whom to believe.
Juries are required to make up their minds about facts. ie knowledge. Tangle writes:
"Facts" in a legal context are not "knowledge" the same as they are in a scientific context. Juries are required to come to a consensus on what they believe "the facts" are.
If there are no facts to choose between charges can not be brought. Tangle writes:
Because I don't know whether Bigfoot exists, I am agnostic. Whether I believe anything on the subject is irrelevant to my agnosticism on the subject.
You have already accepted this distinction by saying that you don't know that Bigfoot exists but you believe that he does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
You're in a right old tangle aren't you? You say you don't know whether Bigfoot exists but you say you believe it does - but still claim to be agnostic? That's an impossible, irrational position which removes all meaning from the word '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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Tangle un-entangles on:
I'm simply trying to discuss the meaning of two words, belief - which is a positive and binary position on something which can't be proven, and knowledge which is something we can have proof of. However, in my mind "belief" is NOT binary, being either 0 or 1. So I don't accept that premise right from start. For me, "belief" is a whole continuum between 0.000 and 1.000. Any value in between therefore includes some agnosticism of that kind., and therefore your whole argument is useless to me. It's ok though, because others here have found it useful. Also, knowledge doesn't imply we have "proof", if your talking about "scientific proof", which at best can only be considered the closest we have to proof at this point in time. Edited by xongsmith, : But 2 So- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Yes. Belief is irrational. That's an impossible, irrational position which removes all meaning from the word 'belief'. When there is no rational answer, when we don't know, when we don't have the facts, we believe. I don't know whether Bigfoot exists. I am agnostic about the existence of Bigfoot. That's why I have to fall back on belief. I only have a belief because I'm agnostic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024