|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It seems that even a "juvenile understanding" would be a step up for you....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
........double post........
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Watch your own lips: You claim to understand that knowledge and belief are two different things, so why do you ask for an explanation that conflates them into one?You do not believe in god, gods, God, Gods BUT you do not know whether they exist or not. Your belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. I feel that I'm in an Alice in Wonderland world where what is written is not what is read. Like whatever is in your head before you read it, just stays there no matter what is said. I'm not complaining about you and Jon and RAZD disagreeing with me, that's fine - it's this continuous misunderstanding and misrepresentation that's a little bewildering. No matter - bored again now.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
|
There is no god. Ok? Cool, you're an atheist. As I've been saying, I only have a problem with the people who go: "I simply lack a belief in god but I don't believe that god does not exist." Agnosticism, as coined by Huxley, is a better term to use to describe those people than atheism is.
Everyone is both! No-one can prove the non-existence of god, it's a logical impossibility. The term agnostic is utterly redundant That's why the technical definition of 'agnostic' is worthless and should be dropped. There's a better way to use the word. As you'd have it, everyone is agnostic and that word tells us nothing. Then if someone says they're an atheist, I don't know if they think there is no god, or if they simply lack a belief that there is but don't believe that there isn't. So that usage doesn't work well either.
The difference between knowledge and belief is *not* merely semantics - it's real. The semantics part is how we use the words atheism and agnosticism. You'd rather them be held to only their technical meaning while I'm saying that we can use those words in a better way - that is more informative and less confusing.
As I've said, belief in god is binary. I don't agree with that. You can maybe-believe or kinda-believe...
But I DO claim there is no god. I just do it from a belief position not knowledge. Surely this can't be this hard? Of course it isn't, I understand what you are saying. I just disagree with your usage of the terminology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Right. So he tells you that your stance equates to the logical fallacy of "If some then All" and that just because we know some leprechauns are fictional doesn't mean that they all are must be. I can't imagine why I should care... But we do know that all leprechauns are fictional - we can trace them back to a single culture's mythology.
He excitedly proceeds to draw a number of diagrams explaining to you why your "positive position" (your definition) that leprechauns don't exist and his positive position that they do are entirely equal in terms of validity of conclusion. Leprechauns are something that we have plenty of information to determine that they're fictional.
Given that you agree that you both hold a positive position do you think there is anything wrong with his approach, or is he correct that leprechaun-ism and a-leprechaun-ism are equal in terms of validity? Dude, its leprechauns... this is ridiculous. I don't care what he thinks about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me that there is a gray area between know and not-know, where information is incomplete and possibly contradictory? Ffs RAZ of course I agree, are you not reading or not understanding? Can I suggest you put aside all you predonceptions and think anew about this. Curiously I am trying to walk you through this in small steps so that you can remove the beam in your eye. So let's take another step: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that there is NO gray area between sure and not-sure, where information is incomplete and possibly contradictory? According to your position on belief/s I expect you to say that there is none, that any amount of unsureness means you are unsure ... if you are consistent in your logic ... am I right?
No. A hung jury is where a majority decision can not be made. In the UK is means that less than 10 say guilty or not guilty. Each juror has voted guilty or not guilty. They simply disagree. None of them say 'don't know' - or if they do, that becomes a not guilty verdict. In the US it can lead to a second trial if more evidence can be found or if some evidence can be invalidated. And any verdict can be appealed because such decisions are not always hard and fast solid evidence with no questions. Many convictions have been overturned when new evidence is presented. Or some said "not sure" whether guilty or not, that the evidence was insufficient to make such a decision. Certainly the jury as a whole has made that determination because the evidence was inconclusive or contradictory. Now think of that jury being a single person -- the evidence is inconclusive and contradictory, and thus they cannot be sure of their choice, whether they make one or not.
Instead of admiring your own writing, you could read mine and try to understand what I'm saying. If you did that, you'd see that I am saying precisely the same thing. Which just shows you are not paying attention to what I am saying.
Or I could simply use a word that means that they don't disbelieve god/s exist AND don't disbelieve that god/s don't exist ... like agnostic. Words are not always perfect descriptors, which is one of the reasons I have had some concerns about the term agnostic and prefer the phrase open-minded skeptic -- a person open minded enough to entertain the possibility either side of a question could be correct AND skeptical that each side could be correct. To my mind this is a better descriptor of the situation, and it is more universally applicable. To my mind it's simply someone who is understands that knowledge of god is impossible. Agnostic was specifically devised to apply to knowledge of gods - to get out of the theist/atheist problem. You can reinvent meanings if you like, but it doesn't resolve the problem of belief. Which is why I don't like the term -- there are too many people with different opinions of what it means, and so using it causes confusion between those meanings.
And you miss the point on how you can best constrain your beliefs with what knowledge you do have and with rational choices ... Do stop the egg sucking. Of course I know all this rational stuff and practice it day in day out. Try to get beyond the machine idea of people and understand that the irrational (no-rational) is a large part of us and very, very useful. But it's a postive state - 'I'm not sure but I believe there's an axe murderer behind that door so I'm not going to go in'. And I notice that you failed to comment on the little graphic ... let me repeat it for you and then review your "axe murderer behind that door" scenario:
Message 368: And you miss the point on how you can best constrain your beliefs with what knowledge you do have and with rational choices ...
Now I submit to you that (a) and (c) are rational decision paths, while (b) and (d) are non-rational. Would you agree? Now you can argue that this is a decision you need to make every day, due to the possible impact of impending death should the axe murderer actually exist behind the door, and that threat puts you in the (B) category, yes?
Because you perceive a certain level of possible imminent personal threat, you are forced into making a choice for your behavior, and whichever path you take is governed by your worldview on the existence of axe murderers behind doors in your neighborhood. But note that in (A) the person does not really think they are in imminent danger -- they actually proceed to the (D) position, based on their worldviews regarding axe murderers behind doors. AND that doesn't include the condition where you do NOT perceive a certain level of possible imminent personal threat and you are not forced into making a choice on your behavior, and so we again end up at (C) or (D): Instead of an axe murderer lets posit a surprise party is waiting behind the door. Do you ...
IF there IS a surprise party (a) and (c) are happy and (b) is surprised, butIF there is NOT a surprise party (b) and (c) are happy and (a) is disappointed ... Do you ask yourself the question and then go through this decision process every day? Now I submit to you that if you don't actively ask that question every day, that you are effectively acting as though a decision is not necessary ... would you not agree? AND if a decision is not necessary, then why make one? Do you make a decision to a question you do not ask? Do you have a pathological impulse\compulsion to make decisions about everything? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : mo Edited by RAZD, : replaced tan graphic with flowchart Edited by RAZD, : ..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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
RAZD writes: Curiously I am trying to walk you through this in small steps so that you can remove the beam in your eye. So let's take another step Curiously, your patronising language doesn't make me feel much like reading further. But let's see how much of it I can stomach.
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that there is NO gray area between sure and not-sure, where information is incomplete and possibly contradictory? According to your position on belief/s I expect you to say that there is none, that any amount of unsureness means you are unsure ... if you are consistent in your logic ... am I right If, whilst doing the work of a juror, you are unsure, the verdict is notguilty. But the test is to the standard of reasonable doubt. People argue to eternity exactly what that means. But all this is beside the point, all these analogies do not work - the question is unique - hence the claim of special pleading. 'Do you belive in God?' If you can't answer 'yes' to that, then quite obviously you don't.
the US it can lead to a second trial if more evidence can be found or if some evidence can be invalidated. Ditto
And any verdict can be appealed because such decisions are not always hard and fast solid evidence with no questions. Many convictions have been overturned when new evidence is presented. Ditto - except that not guilty is subject to double jeopardy law which in the UK is reserved for only very serious crimes.
Or some said "not sure" whether guilty or not, that the evidence was insufficient to make such a decision. Certainly the jury as a whole has made that determination because the evidence was inconclusive or contradictory. Now think of that jury being a single person -- the evidence is inconclusive and contradictory, and thus they cannot be sure of their choice, whether they make one or not. So the verdict is not guilty - he's not sure. To condem, the juror must be sure. What's the point of this?
Which is why I don't like the term -- there are too many people with different opinions of what it means, and so using it causes confusion between those meanings. Well that's just too bad, Huxley defined its meaning and I and others - including you I believe - have used it throughout this thread. Agnostic is a scientific, evidence based concept. If you and Cat Sci now wish it to mean something different, you need a different word. re. Axe-murderer diagram etcWe're talking about beliefs in god or not - these silly analogies don't cut it. If you'd like to re-work it starting with the question 'do you believe in god? It might be more relevant. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Our leprechaun-ist (let’s call him Sam) rolls his eyes and tells you that you are being a typically closed minded a-leprechaun-ist. Sam again points out that the evidence you cite showing that some leprechauns are fictional logically fails to support your position that no leprechauns can exist.
CS writes: But we do know that all leprechauns are fictional - we can trace them back to a single culture's mythology. Absolutely wrong. Duende, sprites, goblins, elves, fairies, gremlins, nisse, lutin, brownie, kobold etc. etc. etc. In fact there is barely any culture that does not have some equivalent. Furthermore lots of people have had subjective experiences involving magical events and, if we view leprechauns and their other cultural equivalents through the prism of the blind men and the elephant story, these can clearly be viewed as positive evidence in favour of Sam's beliefs.
CS writes: Leprechauns are something that we have plenty of information to determine that they're fictional. Sam makes it clear that he most definitely is not talking about the obviously fictional strawman examples that a-leprechaun-ists tirelessly cite.
CS writes: Dude, its leprechauns... this is ridiculous. I don't care what he thinks about them. You seem to view leprechauns very much as I view gods. Whilst Sam views small magical beings very much as you seem to view gods. Anyway - Sam delightedly takes your inabilty to provide further justification as to why your a-leprechaun-ist positive position is any more valid than his own pro-leprechaun positive position as a clear sign that his argument regarding the two positive positions being neither more valid than the other is entirely sound. From this point on he will ceaselessly assert that any denial of this equality is a sure sign of a-leprechaun-ist fundamentalism on your part.
CS writes: I can't imagine why I should care... So both you and Sam hold positive positions (according to you). Both you and Sam claim to have positive evidence supporting your position. But you can’t conclusively show that no leprechauns exist and Sam cannot conclusively show that any leprechauns do exist. When he says that both a-leprechaun-ism and leprechaun-ism are both positive positions neither one any more conclusively proved than the other — Is he correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Duende, sprites, goblins, elves, fairies, gremlins, nisse, lutin, brownie, kobold etc. etc. etc. Those aren't leprechauns...
Sam delightedly takes your inabilty to provide further justification as to why your a-leprechaun-ist positive position is any more valid than his own pro-leprechaun positive position as a clear sign that his argument regarding the two positive positions being neither more valid than the other is entirely sound. From this point on he will ceaselessly assert that any denial of this equality is a sure sign of a-leprechaun-ist fundamentalism on your part. "That's neat. Have a nice day, Sam."
When he says that both a-leprechaun-ism and leprechaun-ism are both positive positions neither one any more conclusively proved than the other — Is he correct? No, as I said: We know that leprechauns are fictional.
your position that no leprechauns can exist. Not can't but don't.
You seem to view leprechauns very much as I view gods. I don't understand why you care. I couldn't care less about leprechauns and I wouldn't waste my time discussing them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
If you and Cat Sci now wish it to mean something different, you need a different word. No I don't. Agnosticism works just fine in describing someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in gods. To demand that its usage be limited to knowledge claims is just semantics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Cat Sci writes: As I've been saying, I only have a problem with the people who go: "I simply lack a belief in god but I don't believe that god does not exist." And so you should, it's gibberish. The person saying it obviously doesn't believe in god.
Agnosticism, as coined by Huxley, is a better term to use to describe those people than atheism is. Well, no. Huxley forbids people to form an opinion either way without evidence - which makes using the word 'belief' pointless when referring to god and turns everyone into his imaginary agnostic.
That's why the technical definition of 'agnostic' is worthless and should be dropped. Well we can agree on that.
Then if someone says they're an atheist, I don't know if they think there is no god, or if they simply lack a belief that there is but don't believe that there isn't. You can take it for a fact that is someone says he's an atheist, he doesn't believe in god.
I don't agree with that. You can maybe-believe or kinda-believe... Then you'd be a theist.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
|
And so you should, it's gibberish. The person saying it obviously doesn't believe in god. And obviously doesn't disbelieve in god, like atheist do. It makes sense to separate those groups.
You can take it for a fact that is someone says he's an atheist, he doesn't believe in god. But it would still be unknown if they disbelieve in god. That's why my way is better: it clears it all up.
Then you'd be a theist. By maybe-believing? Nah, you're just trying to force your usage again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And still you are evasive on the questions ... So I will have to repeat them:
Message 441: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that there is NO gray area between sure and not-sure, where information is incomplete and possibly contradictory? According to your position on belief/s I expect you to say that there is none, that any amount of unsureness means you are unsure ... if you are consistent in your logic ... am I right? This is a simple agree or disagree question, it does not relate to the jury issue ...
If, whilst doing the work of a juror, you are unsure, the verdict is notguilty. But the test is to the standard of reasonable doubt. People argue to eternity exactly what that means. But all this is beside the point, all these analogies do not work - the question is unique - hence the claim of special pleading. 'Do you belive in God?' If you can't answer 'yes' to that, then quite obviously you don't. Abstaining means neither guilty nor not guilty. It really is a simple issue: some people are not convinced by the evidence one way or the other -- that doesn't make the person on trial guilty and it doesn't make them not guilty. Hung juries happen all the time, the person may be released but not because they are innocent but because they were not found guilty. If you are going to make the analogy to atheism then you need to look at three possible outcomes:
In both (1) and (2) cases the evidence was sufficient to determine guilt or innocence. In case (3) the evidence was not sufficient to determine guilt or innocence. If the person is released it is because our legal system requires that it err on the side of the person on trial -- that they are considered innocent until proven guilty. Being released does not mean that they aren't guilty but that there was not sufficient evidence to determine guilt. Because innocent is not a verdict choice both innocent and indeterminate are lumped together into the not guilty verdict. This is like lumping agnostic and atheist together -- a lumping you like to label atheist (while arguing that atheists are agnostic), but just as the not guilty verdict does not mean innocent, your lumping fails to mean denial of faith, it just means that you are begging the question. We can come back to this once you have answered whether -sure- and -not-sure- make a true dichotomy ...
re. Axe-murderer diagram etc We're talking about beliefs in god or not - these silly analogies don't cut it. If you'd like to re-work it starting with the question 'do you believe in god? It might be more relevant. Well I was not the one that introduced the axe murderer behind the door meme, it was in your post that I replied to. Glad to see you back away from a silly argument. So:
Now I trust you will agree that there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence to know that god/s exist nor to know that they don't exist, so we can eliminate (A) from the list, leaving us with:
The (C) category are the agnosticson belief in my book: they don't disbelieve god/s exist and they don't disbelieve god/s don't exist -- they see no reason to form an opinion at this time. Now I find the (D) category fascinating: there is no rational need to form an opinion\belief, but some people do anyway ... as if they have a pathological compulsion\drive that pushes them to make irrational and baseless decisions\opinions\beliefs. Curiously, I note that when people who are confronted with information contrary to beliefs that the cognitive dissonance leads them to "double-down" -- to become more adamant and committed to their (unreasonable) position, rather than recognize they are wrong. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : code Edited by RAZD, : fix Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : tan graphic still not right - it looks okay in preview ... ???gray yes should be over grey text (A Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : replaced tan table chart that was acting up with picture graphic Edited by RAZD, : last one ... ?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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Cat Sci writes:
And obviously doesn't disbelieve in god, like atheist do. I think we may finally getting somewhere.
It makes sense to separate those groups. In principle I disagree with this - it allows those that actually don't believe to pretend. But I accept that a very great number of people are in this position and what Huxley did was give them a halfway house - the 'don't know' position that is now in normal useage is not what Huxley meant at all but it caught on like wildfire because people needed a way out. Confusion, deflection and distraction is probably a necessary step away from superstition. In practice I think there are active and passive, or default, atheists. Those like me who have taken the extra step and a much, much bigger number of people who no longer buy into the story, but prefer not to think about it or are too busy or it never crosses their minds. But atheists they are nevertheless.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 |
In principle I disagree with this - it allows those that actually don't believe to pretend. I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that?
But I accept that a very great number of people are in this position and what Huxley did was give them a halfway house - the 'don't know' position that is now in normal useage is not what Huxley meant at all but it caught on like wildfire because people needed a way out. No, people didn't lack a way out before Huxley coined agnosticism. The halfway house was there all along, Huxley just made up a term for it. As far as what Huxley meant, he explicitly said that he wasn't an atheist - atheism was a positive position that god did not exist. It was not simply a lack of belief in god. He wanted a term for people who didn't fall into either the theist or atheist camps.
In practice I think there are active and passive, or default, atheists. And it helps to have different terms for those positions.
Those like me who have taken the extra step and a much, much bigger number of people who no longer buy into the story, but prefer not to think about it or are too busy or it never crosses their minds. But atheists they are nevertheless. Well, the "less" part comes into play as soon as you realize that atheists were people who took the position that god did not exist rather than being people who just lack a belief in god. If you can ever get around to getting that, then maybe you can see why "atheism" isn't the best word to describe the weak/passive position. Agnosticism simply works better.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024