Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 316 of 777 (748982)
02-01-2015 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Jon
01-31-2015 8:36 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Jon, posted 01-31-2015 8:36 PM Jon has not replied

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


Message 317 of 777 (748984)
02-01-2015 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Jon
01-31-2015 6:33 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Jon, posted 01-31-2015 6:33 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Jon, posted 02-01-2015 11:29 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied
 Message 321 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2015 11:36 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 329 by xongsmith, posted 02-01-2015 2:21 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 318 of 777 (748986)
02-01-2015 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by RAZD
01-31-2015 3:20 PM


Re: to know and to know not but not to know not that you know naught naughty you
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2015 3:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2015 2:22 PM Tangle has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 319 of 777 (749033)
02-01-2015 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by xongsmith
01-29-2015 2:42 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by xongsmith, posted 01-29-2015 2:42 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 320 of 777 (749036)
02-01-2015 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
02-01-2015 3:53 AM


Re: Know Thyself
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 3:53 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 321 of 777 (749038)
02-01-2015 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
02-01-2015 3:53 AM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 3:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 322 of 777 (749041)
02-01-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by New Cat's Eye
02-01-2015 11:36 AM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2015 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2015 12:31 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 323 of 777 (749042)
02-01-2015 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Tangle
02-01-2015 12:03 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 12:03 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(1)
Message 324 of 777 (749043)
02-01-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Tangle
01-31-2015 1:11 PM


Re: Know Thyself
Tangle writes:
Belief is a positive position you either have it or not.
I don't think it is, as I've already pointed out. Juries deliberate because they don't know what to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Tangle, posted 01-31-2015 1:11 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 1:33 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 325 of 777 (749046)
02-01-2015 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by ringo
02-01-2015 1:14 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by ringo, posted 02-01-2015 1:14 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 02-01-2015 1:40 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 326 of 777 (749047)
02-01-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by New Cat's Eye
02-01-2015 12:31 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-01-2015 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 327 of 777 (749048)
02-01-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Tangle
02-01-2015 1:33 PM


Re: Know Thyself
Tangle writes:
Juries are required to make up their minds about facts. ie knowledge.
They are required to make up their minds what and whom to believe.
Tangle writes:
If there are no facts to choose between charges can not be brought.
"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.
Tangle writes:
You have already accepted this distinction by saying that you don't know that Bigfoot exists but you believe that he does.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 1:33 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 2:16 PM ringo has replied
 Message 331 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 2:35 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 328 of 777 (749052)
02-01-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by ringo
02-01-2015 1:40 PM


Re: Know Thyself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 02-01-2015 1:40 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 02-01-2015 2:32 PM Tangle has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 329 of 777 (749053)
02-01-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
02-01-2015 3:53 AM


Re: Know Thyself
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 3:53 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 330 of 777 (749054)
02-01-2015 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Tangle
02-01-2015 2:16 PM


Re: Know Thyself
Tangle writes:
That's an impossible, irrational position which removes all meaning from the word 'belief'.
Yes. Belief is irrational.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 2:16 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 2:47 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024