• Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Yes, but you deciding to make a decision based on a lack of evidence is knowledge, not belief. — Philosophim

    What? No it isn’t. That’s entirely non sequitur. It’s a lack of knowledge of the existence of God/s. It is neutral. It is not a decision. It is in fact NOT making a choice abs living with uncertainty; awaiting further evidence. The agnostic doesn’t believe that evidence could exist

    , I know there aren't. Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon. — Philosophim

    No. You don’t “know”. You simply don’t believe it. This conception seems counter to all reasonable takes on “knowledge” or “belief”. Seems to conflate them for specifically the task of messing with the terms to fit your ideas. Again, suffice to say you are flat-out wrong about the two positions in question.

    Are you a theist?

    I’m sorry but repeating definitions that aren’t correct doesn’t help the position. I do believe this is now not a worthwhile discussion. You are merely repeating your incorrect definitions to support a fairly oblique point.

    Agnostic: believes we can’t know whether God exists.
    Atheist: does not believe God exists due to a LACK of evidence; (not believes God doesn’t exist.

    You are describing anti-theism. It’s not fair to do this. Atheists do not agree with your shoehorned definition.
  • Arab Spring
    I was in Egypt for a few weeks almost immediately after this. April/May 2011.

    Peaceful as all heck. Despite the burned out buildings
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    from belief is because you rely on knowledge. To rely on belief is because you abstain from knowledge. Atheists know that God does not exist because there is no evidence for it. Just like I know magical unicorns don't exist, there's no evidence for it.

    An agnostic is a person who remains unconvinced that there is enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make an assertion one way or the other.     — Philosophim

    Suffice to say you are wrong here and just repeating the incorrect descriptions. Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. It is precisely a lack of knowledge that leads one to abstain. No evidence? Ignored.

    And as noted, an agnostic believes we cannot know if God/s exist.

    If you don’t take these definitions, I’m unsure this is a worthwhile discussion. It seems to me you’re just in bad footing and proceeding badly just so

    As Tom helpfully provide earlier in the https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

    You’ll note that this position is neutral.
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    ↪noAxioms


    :ok:
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
    Atheist - Denies God's existence entirely     — Philosophim

    No. THIS is the misunderstanding of the terms.

    An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist.

    An agnostic believes/thinks we can’t know if God exists.

    They can co-exist in one entity.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    I don't think that "atheist about" is even something grammatically correct. — Lionino

    Fully agree. A-Abrahamic makes more sense I just take it to be a shoddy enumeration of the position I noted. Z
  • All that matters in society is appearance
    Objectification is alive and well. And it's okay. I think it's the term itself that offends people. — 3017amen

    Amen. I also think this goes for (perhaps entailed by the above situation) discrimination too. We do it all the time with great success
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    ↪Lionino
    I always take this to mean the person has assessed the claim for that God and rejevted it for lack of evidence - other Gods are next in line for assessment
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    Time doesn't exist in the physical world like space does. — Corvus

    I agree with this, as a Kantian definition. But I do think there must be an actual “something” from which our senses infer a consistent ratio of change from moment to moment. I suppose whatever that medium is, is what I refer to as “time”. Perhaps it’s something not perceptible which is why we’ve evolved “time” as a figure of mentation.

    Do you claim that change is the same thing as time? — Corvus
    I am leaning toward “no”. Time being immaterial, change being material in some sense or another. The “previous states of affairs” may obtain somehow, though I can’t answer the how.

    o what is your own definition of time, and time travel? Can you travel in time physically, or is it in some other way? — Corvus

    Unsure precisely but I view it similarly to the Tesseract in Interstellar to use a visual metaphor. All change occurring in tandem - but, and this is the important part - in order of appearance (as such). Appearance “in time” doesn’t necessarily speak of duration. Our position in it requires duration - hence developing the mental faculty for it.

    As always, these are vague, young, naive ideas I’m having. I’m not trained or anything yet
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    ↪mentos987
    no issues with you whatsoever my friend :) we’re all just asking questions!
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    Time is a concept in mind. — Corvus

    If you’re a Kantian or similar about time. Not everyone is. Beside this, time as a concept describes a pattern which actual does obtain among material and bodies. Just move through the pattern of materials.

    Unless you deny the external world entirely, changes exist. Choose your “point in time” based on the “previous state of affairs” you’re after. No need for dates - but would require a more god-like knowledge of history
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    And time travel? What do you mean by time travel? Does time exist? In what form does it exist? Travel? what do you mean by travel? Are you physically going somewhere? Where is the destination? — Corvus

    1. Travelling to another point in time from the one you started from.
    2. That precedes the rest so will leave aside.
    3. Doesn’t matter. Time might not exist but the concept of another point in history remains. Problems remain to be solved but it’s not as if a normal person can’t grok this concept easily.
    4. Travel means point A to point B or further. The actual medium is dependent on the medium through which you’re travelling. In this case it may well be zero(seen Event Horizon?). But who knows.
    5. ………1776. I didn’t get any impression there was a geographical element to the travel discussed.

    Unsure why you’re having so much trouble. I don’t personally think this is going to happen. But your impossibility claim seems more to be you having trouble with holding a few different things together in the idea (location, medium, dimensionality etc..
    But hey I could be wrong. I just had no issue understanding the argument.
  • Spontaneous Creation Problems
    , then nothing should stop it from occuring at random. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Along with your possible solution - I agree with the above and would posit that if that’s true, we are merely seeing the result of that randomness being only one instance of SC. I don’t see an issue there it’s just super unsatisfying to me
  • Guest Speaker: Noam Chomsky
    It seems im a serious minority but - gross lol
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Great last bunch of posts.
  • Bannings
    hat there are textbooks teaching argumentation in law that instruct lawyers to use what in philosophy is known as informsl logical fallacies. — baker

    This is somewhat implicit for criminal defence lawyers lmao
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    . To me it seems like arguments that god does not exist are weak, and arguments that it does exist are even weaker. — mentos987
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    I am guessing you haven't been bullied enough to form cracks yet, or that you have an iron will. — mentos987

    Ooof. A lot to unpack here. Suffice to say: I have attempted my life several times.
    But that has never been due to constant bullying which I have experienced up to and including several serious assaults. I just don’t care.

    The things that hurt me are few and far between. Repetition of something that doesn’t hurt me isn’t one.
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    My opinion is that no words are inherently bad or harmful,only bad actors. I agree with Churchill. — GTTRPNK

    I’ll take that.

    I am openly not straight and being insulted for it doesn’t bother me because I’m not ashamed.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    I wasn't aware of their definition until recent years. — Tom Storm

    I have always assumed that since the two words are used separately and that they have separate etymologies that they would carry particular and different meaning. My intuitions there worked out to be pretty much spot on.

    I think that’s true that a usage-symbolism is good in some sense because it ultimately doesn’t matter what one labels oneself with over what they do. But discussing th Le positions requires a little more precision and that’s where the notion of belief vs knowledge is super clear abs helpful to me. In any case it seems to solve the problem of rhe OP if the definitions are shared.
  • Currently Reading
    Just given Letters from a Stoic for Xmas. Diving in.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Haven’t read comments but to OP:

    Agnostics believe we can’t know whether God exists. This doesn’t preclude faith. It’s just not justified true belief. So no knowledge of God - just belief.

    Atheists cannot make that leap as they can only belief something justified and true. That precludes God.

    So they are well-delineated to my mind. Has that delineation failed somewhere?
  • Divine simplicity and modal collapse
    Maybe He just wants you to think you are…
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Hey @Count Timothy von Icarusare you actually Tim De Mey? Lol
  • Would you live out your life in a simulation?
    Yes/no but slightly confused.

    Yes to forgetting entirely and having a commensurate memory scheme installed for the new life to make sense - and yes If the bridge memory is inserted but I can’t forget my own life.

    No, if I cannot forget.
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    In the body doesn't in some way "produce" the mind, then why does ingesting certain chemicals so radically affect our cognition? Aren't traumatic brain injuries and dementia powerful demonstrations of this fact? — Count Timothy von Icarus

    The brain-as-receiver or brain+consciousness=mind models would solve this as the changes are occurring in hardware/wetware receiving “mind” data from elsewhere; the experiential changes are in many senses not related to the consciousness per se but the representative exprience of it which can be devolved to an ersatz experience because of damaged or aberrant hardware/wetware
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    I was waiting until after Xmas to reply to several responses but this one has drawn me in.

    I love it when people put 'fact' after their statement. "Ohh, if you put fact, well now, clearly, it must be true...." — Tobias

    It’s my knowledge of what constitutes a legal entity at play here.

    In a court of law you are not really of concern. "Hey I solemnly promised to kill my father in law at the Christmas table, but you see the promise does not really exist so sentencing me for threatening murder is not warranted". A judge will make short work of that defense. — Tobias

    This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and anyone who thought this even constitutes a defense or a sensible thing to say regarding a charge around threatening to kill isn’t thinking, or has no clue what they’re talking about.

    Ignoring the glibness of your other responses, this one shows I may not even need to address them.

    Well, I suggest not dealing with a Dutchman as you might well find yourself paying indemnification because of your rather outlandish views on promises and obligations. — Tobias

    You’ve described a constructive trust. Consists in different facts and requirements than a “promise”. “Promise” may be the problem here. Promissory estoppel for instance relates to a provable, recorded promise on which one relies. You’re discussing hearsay. “A judge would make short work of that defense”.
    If your claim relies on a mere oral promise and you have no record of it, you will be ordered to pay costs. Having credible witnesses is a record. Best to read thoroughly ;)
    Here this utter materialistic view of law reverts to an idealist view. — Tobias

    You then address a view unrelated to the law, and not the view actually put forward.

    Promises don’t exist; they occur. Obligations can exist. But I do not think a promise confers any. Can’t see any argument here from either yourself or Banno that gets close to satisfactory
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    There's more than the paperwork. There's the actions and intents that form it and are formed by it. — Banno

    Oh, i readily accept that these things are either motivated by, or done in respect of, the contract/s in question. But the resulting obligation consists in the contracts terms.

    This isn't the case with plain promises though. AS far as im concerned, promises don't exist in an of themselves and confer no obligation.
  • A Case for Moral Subjectivism
    No one would ever say, "Oh, well if you believe it, then I surely must accede." — Leontiskos

    it is true — Leontiskos

    ...because i believe it is true

    Is the best we've gotten, though. Im unsure you caught what i was trying to say.
    I agree with you, in principle, but there has not been any account which does what you're positing to establish the truth of any moral statement.

    No one would ever say, "Oh, well if you believe it, then I surely must accede." — Leontiskos

    I should say, this isn't true, and to the high, high statistical degree in which is does consist, it's mainly people pretending that they understand the work an expert has done, to accede to the expert's belief without saying as much.

    Which is odd - as this is basically how children acquire what their parents think is knowledge (particularly cosmological and philosophical knowledge - religious indoctrination being a prime example).
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    You made the claim that they are physical. I pointed out that they are more than just physical. — Banno

    Ok. Amend to “physical records”. Which is my position.

    But the promise which informs a mortgage is not a mortgage. Careful.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    If you have time, could you tell us if a contract, marriage or mortgage ceases to exist if the documents on which it is written are destroyed? — Banno

    No. This needs to read "any record of it whatever, is destroyed" which is the case i made.

    I literally work in law firm dealing with solely mortgages. IN New Zealand. So, i doubt this is going to be any help. If there is literally no record of an agreement it will not be accepted by a court.

    A good eg to consider this issue, is promissory estoppel. You can be prevented from disposing a property under promissory estoppel if there is record of some intent which would have, if made 'official' prevented the sale (doesn't only apply to just.. just setting out an example). For instance, if there's say an email trail in which you agree, on certain terms, to sell a property to A, A then makes financial decisions based on that exchange, a court will (in some cases) stop you from disposing of hte property based on that promise. Because there's a record. It is extremely, extremely rare that a court will even entertain a verbal agreement on an application for promissory estoppel.

    and so on are much than the physical item: — Banno

    I assume you meant to say "much more" so will go with that.. The intention behind them is, for sure. The mortgage, which is merely a line on a page, will motivate someone to do certain things on the back of the agreement. Accepted. But those things aren't a mortgage. Those things are actions related to a subjective stance on whether or not to carry out hte recorded obligations that the mortgage carries.

    Wills are an obvious exception. — Banno

    Depends how you want to except them. Probate can be granted in what's called "solemn form" even with no written Will.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Those words were just used by you for the first time, and yet I'm somehow avoiding something that you've just now expressed. — creativesoul

    Which words?

    You haven’t answered either:

    What makes the statement true; or
    Where your confidence comes from.

    Neither of your answers are in any way adequate.

    Enforcing it is not the question. It's whether or not the agreement remains intact. The agreement is not physical. The record of it is. — creativesoul

    The agreement isn’t the contract/mortgage. Are you trying to say that in some form the agreement supersedes the legal requirement for a mortgage? Because it certainly doesn’t. A mortgage is a legal instrument.

    I would also suspect that’s his position - but the idea that a promise 'exists' is incoherent to me, so that explains that. A promise happened.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    I've no idea what you're on about. I think that you're misattributing meaning to my posts. — creativesoul

    Ok. My position is that this is another superfluous comment avoiding where you substantiate your confidence in the truth of moral statements.

    Im fine to leave it there, with our differing takes.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    You are mistaken. — Banno

    If there is no record of your company existing, it doesn't exist. Fact. When the company office burned down, there were still plenty of records for the vast majority of the involved entities to rely on for their existence where were not in that office. I can be sure of this, based on your claim that they remained on foot.

    Tell me how you would go about enforcing a property interest if there's no record anywhere of you having any interest in the property?

    Given I deal with this problem for my clients regularly - this should be quite interesting.
  • Anyone care to read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?
    Looked at this point again, but cannot quite follow what it means. Could you please elaborate with the CPR passage (if possible)? Thanks. — Corvus

    My understanding of this point is that, while we must infer something "in-itself" causes our phenomenal impressions, which in turn create our perceptions, our perceptions are not those impressions and cannot, in any meaningful sense, access them or the object which causes them.

    IN the preface to teh 2nd edition we get this :

    "The estimate of our rational cognition à priori at which we arrive is that it has only to do with phenomena, and that things in themselves, while possessing a real existence, lie beyond its sphere. "

    Among other passages, seems to indicate to me that Kant accepts that the thing-in-itself is necessary, but unknowable.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Did I claim anything about what - exactly - establishes a state of affairs? — creativesoul

    You seem to be trying quite hard to avoid this, which was why I changed the question.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    Burn the certificate, the marriage remains. Shoot all the bankers, the mortgage is still owed. — Banno

    That’s because they also exist in a register which is a physical thing also.

    But if the records are destroyed those things do not persist. They are the record of “promise” as you put it.

    Meh. Not my problem, except that it prevents you seeing the solutions to these philosophical issues. — Banno

    Suffice to say, no, it’s not. But it’s not my problem if you ignore things either. Such as the physical nature of a mortgage.
  • A Case for Moral Subjectivism
    “Because I believe it is.” — Leontiskos

    Is the only coherent justification for moral truth other than divine command presented, though.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    I know what they both mean. — creativesoul

    Ok. Accepted.

    But this doesn’t establish a state of affairs as claimed.
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    that they are physical? — Banno

    At base, they are physical objects in the world. How people behave as regards those facts is not.
Home » AmadeusD