One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time.
— Frank Apisa

That's how words are defined, by how we use them. There is no other authority beyond us to define them. Etymology might lead one to believe X about the meaning of a word, but if we no longer use it that way, then it means something else. And the word atheist has a few meanings. We have to live with that, since language is a flexible tool or set of tools. That flexibility and often ambiguousness being both positive and negative. So, if one wants to be clear about something one may need to add other clarifying terms or words to make sure the meaning is clear. But one cannot say that others are wrong if they are using the word as defined by us and via dictionaries. One can suggest, of course, that we should move the word back to original meanings or have one meaning. And make a case for why this is a good idea. — Coben

Please see my comment above.

There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"?
— CeleRate
I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. This is a statement that I have read at times with no one to back it up. Would anyone like to explain it to me? Thank you.

I suppose that coining the word atheism is useful so as not to have to repeat "person who does not believe in the existence of God" or "person who believes that God does not exist". These are very long expressions. If belief in fairies were as common as belief in gods we would surely have a term similar to "fairist" and "a-fairist". It is a matter of usefulness. — David Mo

The problem with your analysis is that atheist does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' in a god) = without a 'belief' in a god. Atheism came into the English language BEFORE theism. It cannot have that meaning...and for most of its existence, DIDN'T. Atheism, until the mid to late 20th century meant "a belief that there are no gods" or "a denial that there are any gods."

Atheists of the mid-20th century decided they did not want to be saddled with a burden of proof for their "beliefs"...and decided to change the meaning of the word.

Its use does not derive from its "usefulness" as you outline it. It derives from the usefulness of people who use the word to be absolved from having to defend a position that cannot logically be defended.

It is my opinion that our language would be better if it were to eliminate the use of the words "believe" or "belief." I acknowledge that others may be of the opposite opinion.

Janus
8.8k
↪Coben :up:

Every guess I make is subject to change.
— Frank Apisa

The above statement: is it a belief, a judgement, a guess, an assessment, a stipulation or something else? Whatever you may call it, is it subject to change? — Janus

My statement "Every guess I make is subject to change"...

...is simply a statement of a truth about myself. I am telling you point blank that anytime I make a guess...that guess is not only labelled a "guess"...it IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

It certainly is not a guess...any more than the statement, "My first name is Frank" is a guess.

Not sure what you are getting at?

Janus
8.8k
None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.
— Frank Apisa

Are those two "guesses" themselves subject to change? — Janus

Every guess I make is subject to change.

Not sure of what you supposed I was guessing about...but if you want a particular considered...tell me what the particular is.

We can know with certainty that very few things can be known with certainty. Most of the things that are regarded as being known for certain (outside of mathematical conventions) are probably not known for certain.

As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence."

For instance:

"I 'believe' (in) God"...is the way most people say, "It is my blind guess is that at least one god exists."

"I 'believe' there are no gods" is the way most people say, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."

Are your "guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like" unshakeable? Is your attitude against the idea of belief unshakeable? Or are you merely "paying lip service"? — Janus

None of my guesses are unshakable...if "unshakable" means "not subject to change."

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change...as the circumstances that caused the guess, supposition or estimate...change.

My comment had to do with the use of "believe"...particularly in the context of questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Meh...I don't hate anyone. Not even people who might hate me.

Not sure why anyone would hate me as you define it, but I guess there might be one or several.

I do not have to "trust" you Monist.

I also have no "unshakable beliefs." In fact, I go you one better. I do not do "believing" at all.

I make guesses...which I properly call "guesses." Some people make guesses and call them "beliefs."

I make suppositions...which I properly call "suppositions." Some people make suppositions and call them "beliefs."

I make estimates...which I properly call "estimates." Some people make estimates and call them "beliefs."

The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise.

Yup!

Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.

You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not.

What do you mean by "belief"...and what do you mean by "unshakable?"

If you are talking about whether gods exist or not...

...just choose one...and stick with it. "Belief" in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess...using the word "belief" as a disguise.

Best way to do that is to toss a coin. Heads=there is at least one GOD. Tails=there are no gods.

Refuse to budge...and you have "unshakable belief."

Punshhh
1.4k
↪csalisbury
↪Frank Apisa
I don't think any country will be able to prevent the epidemic spreading through their population. They might be able to slow it. But they don't want to shut their borders, which is what they will need to do. — Punshhh

Agreed!

This will be a bad one. Not the final one...not the end of humanity or anything like that. But it will be a huge kick in humanity's ass.

Maybe it will wake us up. Maybe we will continue to be jerks and only deal with crises when they are upon us.

I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but what the heck is going on here? None of the other affected countries seem to be having any trouble at all administering tests. — csalisbury

It is not "conspiratorial" to have those thoughts in the US these days. It is prudent! Some people have worried that China is not being forthcoming with figures because of its possible impact on President Xi. We ought be even more worried about whether the US will be forthcoming with figures, because Trump seems much more interested in the possible impact of the numbers on his re-election bid...than their use by the rest of the world for containing the possible epidemic.

Your personal logo, in my opinion, is much classier and appealing.

Relativist
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa OK, but that definition of "miracle" doesn't seem very useful. It's useful to have a term that distingushes between events that are physically possible (consistent with the actual laws of nature), and those that are not. — Relativist

There is a significant problem with that in the context of our present discussion, Relativist...one that should be obvious to everyone.

You essentially are saying, "Let us define "a miracle" as as something that is not physically possible...

...and then have a debate about whether miracles are possible.

Do you see the incongruity with that?

Relativist
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa Yes, I see that I made an error when I asked, "Why think miracles" possible? " and then shifting to "live" possibility. Sorry. But personally, I lean toward physicalism - which would imply miracles are not possible. I'm not committed to physicalism - I'm willing to consider miraculous explanations, but strong evidence would be needed.

So, let me change the question to: Why do you suppose miracles are not a "live possibility"...whatever that means?
— Frank Apisa
A live possibility is one that you include in your epistemic analysis, particularly in abductive reasoning - identifying the best explanation for a set of facts.

I don't consider miracles a live possibility because I think physicalism is probably true. I admit to an anti-miracle bias, but I'm willing to reconsider if a good case can be made. — Relativist

A quick comment or two here...then I'll got to your further question to me.

The "miracle" is a weird word...and needs lots of context. A simple thing like a flashlight would be considered a miracle if viewed in the context of a 5th Century setting.

Penicillin and its uses would have been considered a miracle in the context of 19th Century medicine. During Civil War days, Propofol would have been considered the greatest miracle of all time, both by surgeons and soldiers getting damaged limbs amputated. Ryan Newman surviving his crash at Daytona...is referred to as a miracle.

Enough...my point is that one man's "miracle" is another's product of physicalism.

Enough about me, tell me why you think a miracle should be given serious consideration with respect to anything associated with Jesus. — Relativist

I think none of those supposed "miracles" should be given serious consideration. Most of the so-called miracles associated with the ministry of Jesus sound like bullshit to me. But it is bullshit that makes many people happy...so I would say, FINE! Let them live with it...no need for me to burst any bubbles that are helping people be happy.

i.e. explain why you think miracles are possible, identify when you should consider a miraculous explanation (i.e. it's a live option), and then tell me what sort of evidence would be needed to establish any specific miracle.

I am of the Richard Feynman school of what it takes to "establish" any facts that can be used in a discussion of this sort. (It takes a hell of a LOT!)

If every newspaper on planet Earth received a mysterious letter-to-the-editor saying, "I am GOD...and to prove I am, I intend to cause the planet Jupiter to disappear from the Solar System for 24 hours beginning at 8:00 AM Greenwich Mean Time, June 1st, 2020 and ending at 7:59:59 AM on June 2nd...

...AND IT HAPPENED...

...I would NOT consider it a miracle.

To me, it would just be something that happened.

Same thing holds for other things that seem "mysterious"...which mostly means that we cannot explain them. I have no problem accepting that humans cannot explain EVERYTHING...and that there occasionally will be things that happen which no human will ever be able to explain.

I also have no problem with using the term "miracle" to denote such events.

You originally wrote: "Why think miracles are possible?"

In response I posed the (appropriate) question: "Why think anything not conclusively established as impossible...not to be possible. — Relativist

Now you are saying, "Not impossible, just not a live possibility."

I'm not sure if you are just kidding around...or if you realize you made a mistake and are trying to avoid acknowledging the mistake by beating around the bush.

So, let me change the question to: Why do you suppose miracles are not a "live possibility"...whatever that means?

Why think miracles are possible? — Relativist

Why think anything not conclusively established as impossible...not to be possible.

Miracles may not be "miracles."

But if they are...why are you so certain they are not possible?

IF there are any gods (I am not suggesting or asserting there are)...but IF THERE ARE ANY GODS...

...they are not paranormal nor supernatural.

They are as much a part of nature as apples...and they are as normal as roses.

If I am reading you correctly (difficult read)...your subtext includes the notion that "the likelihood" estimates of theists and atheists are more a function of their biases or inclinations than actual probability functions.

If that is an accurate reading of your thesis...I agree, wholeheartedly. (IF it is not, we may have a disagreement.)

It is my contention that there is no way to arrive at any of the following conclusions/assertions using logic, reason, science, or math:

a) There are no gods
b) There is at least one GOD
c) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one
d) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are none

All are nothing more than guesses about the REALITY of existence...

...and all essentially are BLIND GUESSES.

I'm invisible.

I am an 83 year old, white male in America. Other older, white males talk to me as though I am invisible, because they assume every older, white male must be an American conservative.

I am not.

It reminds me of an essay I read many years ago. It was by an American working in Saudi Arabia...a decidedly non-Arab looking American who could speak and understand Arabic as well as a Saudi. In restaurants and tea houses...people said things around him in Arabic that were completely unguarded.

My conservative friends sorta do the same.

Easy to do.

Click MEMBERS above. In new window...click staff.

Then choose one of the staff.

This is a guess...ONLY A GUESS...

...but chances are humans are kidding themselves in thinking they have an inkling of what actually IS in the REALITY of existence.

We sit here on this tiny rock circling a not especially impressive star in a not especially impressive galaxy...supposing our musings about the REALITY...are of great value.

If all that can be known about what exists were a yardstick...what we humans know may be nothing more than the first atom on that stick.

Fun to muse. We all do it...and probably should be encouraged to do more of it.

But to suppose that we are even close to "proving" anything like "infinity does not exist" or "infinity does exist"...is laughable.

The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems. — Tzeentch

That is what you wrote...and I told you I never said those things.

Not only did I never say them...I never intimated them.

But you apparently are not ethical enough to simply acknowledge that I did not say them...and apparently now think it inappropriate for me to mention that I did not say those things.

You apparently feel that asking you to quote me...and deal with what I actually wrote is playing "ring 'round the rosie."

Okay...I get that.

So go play with yourself...and leave serious discussions to adults.

If you decide to grow up...let me know and I will defend everything I actually have written.

[

For some reason this thread is not coming up on the forum page for me. — jgill

Not coming up on mine either.

Not sure what is going on, but I'll try to check on it and report back here.

Thank you, Christian, but I'm not into the Bartering apps thing. At 83, I still sometimes marvel at lights going on at the flick of a switch.

I've been writing about Universal Basic Income for almost 4 decades now...from long before it became a popular thing.

Gonna happen, but like you, I'm not sure when.

Yo, BC.

The reason I "object" to the "one must earn one's living"...is because it simply isi not necessary...and it is counterproductive.

People forced to work NEVER do as good a job as people who WANT to work.

We have enough people who WANT to work...and there are jobs being taken up by people who do not want to work...but are working because they have to.

Any, I don't so much "object" to it...I merely would like to see it changed to a more appropriate protocol for this day and age.

It is complicated. Mostly has to do with opinion.

If you think requiring work is a better way to operate...okay with me. If you think that humanity would not be better off with more leisure time...okay with me.

You may be right. I may be wrong.

My comment on this may seem an aside.

I am reading the latest of the Lisbeth Salander novels (The Girl Who Lived Twice)...and there is lots of talk about mountain climbing...especially Everest.

Your comments really struck home with me.

Thanks, Anthony.

I certainly agree with the thrust of your comment, "In an age where work really isn't related to survival,,,"...at least on an individual basis.

There is plenty of work that pretty much has to be done by humans. Humans do a better job at bartending than most machines, although some machines do help a human bartender with his job. Dealing out comfort and companionship to someone in need of both is almost certainly something humans will do better than machines.

And while there are machines capable of doing some physician and nursing jobs, the TLC of a human is hard to replicate.

No machine will ever make a hand-made silk tie.

But most jobs will be done by machines and will be done more productively than humans...including, at some near point, the making of machines to do those jobs.

The notion "that one must earn one's living" is at the heart of my thesis here...and seems to be getting short shrift...if that.

We'll see how things work out as more people stop by to comment...and others get a chance to revise the ones they've already made.

'Deserving' is a rather empty concept, but lets put that aside for now. — Tzeentch

No it isn't an empty concept at all, but sure...let's put that aside for now.

The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems. — Tz

You are not especially adept at paraphrasing, Tz. These two distortions are particularly terrible attempts. I doubt I ever used the comment, "There are enough resources for everyone"...and if I did and you can point to it, I will withdraw it and apologize to you. I doubt you could do that, however.

Your second comment is so far away from anything I have ever said anywhere, I am embarrassed to have to deal with it.

In fact, I won't.

Now...how about you go back...pick out something I have actually said...tell me why you disagree with it...and we can have a discussion about it.

If you are just going to create straw-men and then argue against your own straw-men...you are going to win. Your straw-men are incredibly fragile.

If we discuss things rather than do that, though, we will both win.

Ball in your court.

Bernie would certainly make a MUCH better president than this guy Trump.

But, considering Pinocchio would make a better president than Trump, I guess that is not a rousing endorsement.

My argument, BC...is NOT with work. It is with "having to EARN a living."

If one has to walk more in order to help with the environment...then those who can "walk more" should walk more.

When I drive to a supermarket or department store...I always park as far away from the entrance as possible. I enjoy walking...enjoy it a lot.

I'm 83 now, and I probably do less walking than I should to keep in shape. I use a cart on the golf course, mostly because it is one of my perks.

But even in my late 70's I would walk 50 or more blocks in The Big Apple...dodging pedestrian traffic and walking at as brisk a pace as possible.

I truly do not understand the argument you are making, Anthony. Assume I am not all that bright...and dumb it down for me.

Give me the single most compelling argument against the notion that we all deserve more leisure time...and that we all can obtain it if we put our minds to it.

I will respond with as much depth as I can muster for your argument.

.

These ideas of utopia always seem more like a prologue to dystopia to me. — Tzeentch

Yes, I can see that. You share that with many people...unfortunately for the world.

In any case, I am not advocating for a Utopia. A world of more leisure will not be any closer to a Utopia than what we have now...BUT IT WILL BE A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE MORE LEISURE TIME.

And I think that is a good thing.

It is past time for everyone who wants to push the "Bernie cannot win and will hurt the down ticket" meme...to get the hell out of the way.

Trump absolutely HAS TO BE DEFEATED...and if Bernie is the guy the Democrats select, HE MUST BE THE GUY WHO DEFEATS HIM.

I was such a person. During the last election...and up until just a few weeks ago, I was an "Anyone but Bernie" person.

Things can change quickly, but if Bernie continues down the path he is on, he will be the nominee...and I will support him with every ounce of strength I can muster.

I hope all of you out there can, too.

Thank you of sharing from your journal. Excellent food for thought...although I see much of it as an unnecessarily negative diatribe against using a wondrous state of affairs as a reason to bemoan that state of affairs.

More leisure time does not mean less work...for those who want to work. It simply means that the "work" can be directed toward other things than just as a means to "earning a living."

I'll get into that more at some point.

The last thing in the world I think...is that the people in this forum are stupid.

YOU just are unwilling to think outside the box, Tz.

Surely you can see that we are inundated with billions of willing, productive mechanical slaves...slaves that our technological evolution has gotten for us.

Good grief, man...with this influx of slaves...MOST OF US should be working much less.

That is the absurdity I am calling to your attention.

We have got to come up with a way to use this blessing...rather than turn it into a catastrophe.

Why are so many people efforting to create MORE WORK...MORE JOBS...rather than devising a way to break away from the notion that one HAS to work in order to live?

Think outside the box.

I think you are too wedding to thinking inside the box to even consider anything on the outside.

If the suggestion that our technological advances has set the stage for ALL humans to work less and enjoy more leisure (with needs and wants being met)...if that bothers you...so be it.

If you think the totality of our needs and wants requires that everyone continue to work the kinds of hours most still work...while receiving such a small part of the total product of the work as their reward...

...that is your right. And if there are enough people who take that attitude...nothing will change. The system will stay and humans will continue to toil and "more leisure" will not come to pass.

The only word I can think of as adequate to describe that kind of thinking, though, is a word I try seldom to use. The word is STUPID.

But as Albert Einstein once said, "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."