Unfortunately, even the most intelligent of us suffers from the myopia of human-chauvinism. We humans tend to think that what we can sense...is what can be known. We also seem to think that humans...particularly modern humans...KNOW a great deal.

But "know a great deal" is an ambiguous term...and is referential. Referring it to "all that is"...shows that it can be VERY LITTLE indeed. We humans may know very little more about the totality of the REALITY of "everything that is"...than does an ant in our backyard.

We really have to shrug off the notion that we are a truly intelligent species. Mind you, we may be...but we may also be something slightly above the level of an amoeba in the grand scheme of things.

Much of what ancient "philosophers" and "scientists" have offered is now considered passe'...for good and compelling reasons. There may come a day...not too distant...where what we suppose to be advanced science and philosophy will be seen as primitive.

In the meantime, it is fun to explore. We should continue to do it. But we should regard it in greater proportionality than I see being done here right now.

If I use the grid-based definition (a)theist/(a)gnostic, then of course you are an atheist under that definition. I — Dawnstorm

That MISTAKE is the entire reason for the controversy...a reason you seem willing to simply disregard, Dawn.

(a) theist, resulting in a meaning of "without a belief in any gods" IS A MISTAKE. It never happened. It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge."

I am NOT an atheist under any reasonable definition of "atheist" and neither are any babies or toddlers.

Mostly this doesn't come up outside of Internet discussions, because most people not intent on pretending they are not doing "believing" (a pretense apparently necessary to atheistic life on the Internet)...realize the significant difference between "agnosticism" and "atheism" has to do with "belief"...NOT with knowledge.

Anyone using the word "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS A BELIEF (or a guess) that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods." The former fancy themselves "atheists"...the latter prefer "agnostic atheist." But the function of the "atheist" is to inform of a "belief" or guess that there are no gods or that it is more likely that there are no gods....which, of course, is merely a blind guess in the opposite direction from theists who blindly guess in the opposite direction.

The true agnostic does not share that "belief."

Yeah. I'm thinking about attacking some of the problem through education.

I know one could argue a slippery slope here, but having a class in public school that covers atheism, theism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I think would be very helpful. — 3017amen

Right you are. One thing that should happen as soon as possible is: All comparative religion courses (there are tons of them) should include agnosticism and atheism as part of the comparisons.

At the same time it's worth noting the virtues (and vices) of Christian philosophy are practiced subconsciously. One virtue being the Golden rule. — 3017amen

Agareed!

I would love to see atheism and agnosticism given a MUCH greater spotlight than either now gets.

Tough hope, though...particularly with the "atheist" aspect.

We tend to get locked into negativity on words like liberal, socialist, communist, atheist, and the like. We need some small steps forward...and then a lurch toward them.

Luckily, we see more and more of that here.

Perhaps an "openly" non-theist candidate can come forward an make a splash.

Always a good idea to start at the beginning. You wrote:

There may be a "God" but none of the current religions are right. — Nils123

For sure...there MAY BE a "God." In fact, there MAY BE many "gods."

Which, of course, demands that there MAY BE no gods.

With that out of the way...

...on what do you base your assertion, "...but none of the current religions are right"...whatever that means?

We all can get angry at times...and "being angry" seems to be part of the American DNA sequence.

But to be lectured about that by O'Reilly is like being lectured on weight control by Chris Christie.

Sorta agree...in part.

But anyone who asserts that they come to any of these four things through science, logic, reason, or math...is full of soup:

1) There are no gods
2) There is at least one god
3) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one
4) It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

Those things are nothing but blind guesses about the REALITY of existence.

A big part of the problem we are dealing with here...is the seeming reluctance of so many people who just will not utter or write the words "I do not know" in any meaningful form.

It may be the result of a common gene that I just do not possess...or it may be that I am an idiot. But there are many things that I do not know for sure...and have no problem acknowledging that I do not know.

Posting on the Internet often leads to comments being made that look like certainty, but for the most part, they are not.

"Justified true 'belief'"...IS BELIEF.

And "belief" is nothing more than accepting something without sufficient, unambiguous evidence. Any supposed JtB that enters a conversation about whether or not gods or ghosts or invisible things exist or not...is just plain blind guessing.

One can say, "I 'believe..." or "I truly 'believe'... or "I firmly 'believe'..."...

...and all one is doing is making guesses and refusing to acknowledge them as guesses.

The greater, more adamant the modification...the less willing the person making it is to acknowledge the "belief" is just a blind guess.

Fair enough.
Thanks, P. That was nice of you.

In that paragraph, Sam says, "I believe that..."...and in so doing, says everything that has to be said.

Sam is a "believer"...every bit as much as the Pope.

Science is never going to "destroy" religion. If anything, science is going to call into question all assertions about whether gods exist or do not exist.

That is the ultimate function of science...agnosticism on damn near everything until established to be something other than "possible"...i.e. "actual" or "impossible."

Another thing in play here is the discussion that led to all of this. (You can read about it early in the thread.)

The question ended up being: Which is the more sensible, more useful definition of the designator “atheist”…

a) EVERYONE who lacks a “belief” that any gods exist (including agnostics, newborn babies, toddlers, and people who not only lack a “belief” that any gods exist, but who also lack a “belief” that no gods exist…or...

b) Just people who lack a “belief” that gods exist AND who either assert that no gods exist…or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists.

As far as I am concerned, option “b” wins that one hands down. Using “b” makes the word MUCH more functional…and allows people who do not assert that no gods exist or that it is more likely that no gods exist…to be relieved of having that designation applied to them.

That seems a reasonable topic for a Philosophy forum. Unfortunately, when they realized they were about to be blown out of the water in that argument…the EVERYONE people abandoned ship.

If I may!

The "solution" you mentioned is the one I use...I describe my position rather than rely on a descriptor. This argument has just come up because some people in this forum are INSISTING that I...all other agnostics...and all babies and toddlers...

...must accept the descriptor ATHEIST, because some dictionaries describe it that way.

Here is the description I use for my personal agnosticism. No reasonable person would ever consider it to be an atheistic position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

But since they are insisting...I am insisting back.

↪Frank Apisa
Trump’s insufficiencies are too numerous and various to name. Without you offering a particular characteristic, or number of them, that qualifies voting for him as irresponsible I’ve nothing to reply. — Pinprick

Aha.

A response telling me that you are not going to respond.

Interesting.

In your reply to Dingo...you wrote:

He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred. — Coben

Thank you.

I've tried explaining that to Dingo...but it became obvious that his user name was not an accident, and was probably a corruption of something similar.

Figure it out. If it has to be explained, you won't get it.

Go ahead...give it a try. Work on it.

Then what does irresponsible voting look like? — Pinprick

Allow me to answer that by fully quoting the post from which you took that partial quote:


If YOU decide to vote or not vote...it is a "responsible" vote.

No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...

...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible.

If YOU decide to vote or not vote...it is a "responsible" vote.

No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...

...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible.

Hoped that helped.

The threat I am referring to, is the inability for human beings to find activities that suitably pass the time. Such as, if we start to stagnate in the area of computing, then a programmer will no longer have a job, or a designer if we stagnate also in the visual arts. This is a threat, because people put out of their jobs would have to find something else to do, or to occupy themselves with, and if we stagnate as a race, then we are left only with functional jobs, or supply/maintenance jobs. There would be virtually no intellect remaining, and there would be great numbers of useless people without any real work to do, as the jobs would already be filled. — Jhn4

Plenty to do. Play golf, tennis, tend to the lawn and garden, clean the streets in the neighborhood, write, read, watch television, take walks, do art, investigate problems, do crosswords or Sudokus, paint the porch, and....so much else.

Not having a job is NOT a problem. Having lots of free time to fill is NOT a problem.

Not having enough money to buy the things we need and want...is.

Question: Are you sure your previous thread was deleted?

So, yes, you are arrogant and ignorant in claiming that the JtB doctrine would be "bullshit". — alcontali

As I said, if considering me to be arrogant and ignorant helps make your life more livable and enjoyable...please continue. I want you to be as happy and content as you can manage.

That does not diminish in any way that calling the JtB doctrine "bullshit", makes you arrogant and ignorant. Furthermore, JtB is not my doctrine. Therefore, anybody with even just moderate knowledge on epistemology will simply have to objectively conclude the same as I did about you: arrogant and ignorant. — alcontali

If you want to think that I am arrogant and ignorant...

...and further want to think that others will agree with you...

...be my guest. I am sure it helps you cope with something...and I am all for you coping with whatever you have bothering you.

Fair enough!

And I will repeat my assessment of your assessment. It is BULLSHIT. All of it!

(Except perhaps for the second "the" in your first sentence.)

Punshhh
1.4k
↪Frank Apisa I agree with you when it comes to questions about the unknown. I don't use the word believe, for the same reasons you give. However I have no issue with the philosophy of epistemology. Jtb is appropriate for philosophies which address human issues, humanities, politics etc.

But this thread is not about that, it is about certainty, the certainty of reality. So jtb is irrelevant and we both have to rely on logic and a kind of thinking which ignores human issues, beliefs and ways of thinking. — Punshhh

Thank you, Punshhh.

The indiscriminate and careless use of "believe/belief" is annoying in most forums (fora), but in a forum devoted to philosophy, it goes way beyond annoying for me. That is the reason I raised the issue. Apparently the point is lost on those who prefer not to see it.

This leaves me at the position expressed in this phrase. "I know, therefore there is something" — Punshhh

That is also where I am with regard to the Cogito, ergo sum suggestion, P. I am astonished it is not seen and acknowledged as readily and as widespread as it should be.

Thank you for your considerations of my intelligence and knowledge. I disagree with you about that, but I stand by what I have posted thus far.

Janus
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa So according to you not every thought you have about yourself and the world is a guess? Apparently there is at least one which is not. Are there others? — Janus

I can engage in a conversation about the value of a nihilistic or solipsistic perspective...but they invariably leave me cold. Just not my cup of tea, so to speak.

I apologize for the tenor of my previous post, but I am not interested in further discussion in that direction. I was just answering what I thought to be an interesting question.

Janus
8.8k
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?
— Frank Apisa

Your statement expresses what you think is the truth about yourself; you could well be mistaken. Thus it is either a belief about yourself or a guess. The question is whether it is subject to revision. — Janus

WHAT THE FUCK DOES "EVERY GUESS I MAKE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE" MEAN TO YOU?

I know that every guess I make is subject to change. That is not a guess. And it is not a "belief"...which is nothing more than a GUESS in disguise.

alcontali
1.3k
In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

Well, you would first have to be familiar with the discussion that has been going on for at least since 369 BCE. Socrates was certainly asking all the right questions. He became even famous for that. In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief. — alcontali

Bullshit.

Knowledge and "belief" are two different things. And I am becoming more and more convinced that the words "believe" and "belief" should be banned in intelligent discussions.

In any case, it appears as though I am never going to get an answer to the question I have asked in several different forms.

Lemme know when you decide to answer it.

I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming text
Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, — Coben

Doesn't sound all that absolutely certain to me.

Perhaps you've got that "someone on the Internet is wrong" disease.

I"m told it is very bothersome. Is it?

, that is without qualitifications. — Coben

"for the most part" is a qualification.

Perhaps you meant to write, "Without qualifications that meet MY standards."

So another strategy is, don't use 'I believe', but rather imply an argument and dismiss a couple of hundred years of thinking.

So, the two strategies, here at least, to avoid using the potentially misleading I believe, is to just state things are the case and to imply vast swathes of conclusions without supporting them.

In both strategies we avoid the word believe, so all is peachy.

Of course, people are often quite correct. They believe what they are saying, whether it is based on guesses or a significant batch of evidence. And they are kind enough, those who know the distinction, to be making it clear they do not 'know' what they are asserting is the case. But, yes, it is what they think is the case. And this correct use of the word is bad, since people have different epistemologies for arriving at beliefs, for some reason.

So they start off a conversation with what is likely a true statement: a belief they have about some facet or purported facet of reality. From there one can ask them 'on what grounds'? We all know that people believe things that are not the case or are believed in on what we consider the wrong grounds. But now we know their position.

Is there anyone who hears the phrase 'I believe' and assume that what comes next must be strongly supported information? I don't think so. I am never misled by this beginning, unless they are lying about what they believe - but that would hold for 'guesses' also, as a possibility. I don't feel like I have been told the slightest bit about the rigor of their epistemology in general or in this particular case. I do feel informed about what they believe. What they think is the case. And this is useful information. Or, if it isn't, it doesn't become more useful if they use the suggested alternative phrases.

I certainly don't feel compelled to bow down to the solidity of their epistemology because they used the word 'believe'. And they don't when encountering other beliefs, positions, opinions. It's letting us know what they have decided is the case. If I want to know the grounds, well, now we have a conversation on that. — Coben

Here is how I originally wanted to respond to this argument, if that is what it is:

Ahhh...okay. Ummm...yes. Or if you really do not like that...no.

I am willing to offer, maybe, if you prefer that.

That would have been smarmy...so I will forego it.

Instead...

...Coben...what are you saying?

My statement was: "In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess."

Are you saying that is wrong; are you saying it is right; are you saying you agree or disagree.

What?

alcontali
1.3k
Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century.
— Frank Apisa

It is much older than that:

In the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief "with an account" (meaning explained or defined in some way). According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have a good reason for doing so.[17]
— Wikipedia on where JtB comes from

The more precise date is 369 BCE:

The Theaetetus (/ˌθiːɪˈtiːtəs/; Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge, written circa 369 BCE.
— Wikipedia on the Theaetetus dialogue — alcontali

Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe.

In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.

The more honest version of "I 'believe' (in) God"...is, "It is my blind guess that at least one god exists...and that god is the GOD I worship."

The more honest version of "I believe there are no gods"...is, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist.

Really think about it...and you will see I am correct.

alcontali
1.3k
If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it.
— Frank Apisa

JtB -- knowledge as a Justified (true) Belief -- is a long story. Epistemology in general, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is a long story ... — alcontali

Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century.

When someone uses "I believe..." in a post to me...I usually ask what they mean by it. The nonsense that comes up is mind-boggling. And some people use it several times in one paragraph.

If you are saying, "My opinion is..." or "My guess is..." or "I want to insist that..." or "I estimate that..." or "My absolutely blind guess is..."...

...why not just say it that way...rather than disguise it with, "I believe...?"

Huh?

According to its standard definition, knowledge is itself also a belief:

Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:

* P is true
* S believes that P P is true, and
* S is justified in believing that P is true — alcontali

Dictionaries do not actually "define" words. They merely tell us how they are used.

I stand by my comment: "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."

If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it.

Malice
6
It's linguistic evolution. How words are pronounced, spelled, and defined change over time. It's why we speak so many different languages. Words do not have intrinsic meaning.

I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable. I don't have to label it, I can just state it. I don't care if people call my position atheistic or agnostic or agnostic atheist. I only care that I've communicated my position.

Would I like to see the langua — Malice

Great. YOU do not care.

I DO!

I care when someone tells me (and insists, that I AM AN ATHEIST...simply because of a definition which came into being because of an error...and with which I do not agree.

So...I challenge it.

English is such a diverse language...it should easily have a word for those who "suppose there are no gods" / or "suppose it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...and another for those who do not make those suppositions.

We're just going back and forth to no avail.I thought there could be more substance.

My position is clear.

You seem to be agreeing with it...but making sure you do not specifically say, "I agree."

Whatever is causing that...you are entitled to it.

4
For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine.
— Frank Apisa

I think it's fine as long as people are careful to define their terms. I personally use agnostic to describe my position on topics beyond theism. Ex: do I think a person's motivation to behave in a given way is the one described by a third party? Without sufficient evidence I might reply by saying that I am agnostic about the person's motivation.

I also don't know how to justify a claim that a God does not exist; similar to Russell's teapot example. It's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and the sun, but I will remain skeptical and agnostic until such time as sufficient evidence has been presented. — CeleRate

Okay...we are 5 x 5 here.

But that does not address the fact that I, and many (perhaps MOST) agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.

Will you address that?

CeleRate
3
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
— Frank Apisa

This, to me, appears to be a position about knowledge. "I do not know" is a claim that you lack knowledge. I think it would be appropriate to say that you are agnostic about a theistic claim (i.e., a-without, gnostic-knowledge). This would be a common usage of the term, agnostic. — CeleRate

If one were to choose 1000 people at random...and put my take to them along with the questions:

Is this an agnostic position?

Is this an atheistic position?

...I dare guess 99% or more would respond "YES" to the first...and "NO" to the second.

Not sure of where you are going with your comments...or why you are going there...but do continue. I thank you for discussing the topic with me.

Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...

... practical atheist. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I agree!

I walk like an agnostic...I talk (or quack) like an agnostic...so I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

Every person I know who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor in any form and with any modification...DOES either deny the existence of any gods...or DOES "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Why do you think it appropriate that I be included in that group just because they insist?

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're good for providing spellings and usages of words. We can have a more meaningful conversation with an interlocutor provided that each party agrees on the use of the terms during a conversation.

As you point out, if what people mean by atheist is a-without, theist-person who believes in a God (one of the usages given in the Oxford dictionary), then it's more economical to use this word in conversation. — CeleRate

If that is what the person using it means...and what the person hearing it accepts...then it is a more economical use in conversation.

But for many...perhaps most of the world except for Internet atheists...use of the word "atheist" denotes and implies a denial that any gods exist.

It is not "more economical" if it misleads.

I'm not sure what you mean by "less useful". It seems that the usefulness of a word is in whether speakers and listeners can respond in ways that produces outcomes each party finds valuable. — CeleRate

If the word "atheist" were used to denote a person who denies the existence of any gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...no modification would be necessary....and that would be more useful. Not doing so...is less useful.

And it allows the reasonable refusal of people with my take to have the word erroneously applied to them...to not have to go through all this crap whenever atheists start that insistence.

For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. For those who perfer not to u ses it...they can simply explain their position each time.

Your lecture has been received and is being considered. I thank you for your take on the issue.

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist."

There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist."

Fact is, I DO lack the belief that any gods exist...but I am NOT an atheist.

I also lack the belief that no gods exist...but I am NOT a theist.

Here is my take on the issue:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I consider that to be a logical, reasonable, intelligent position to take on the issue. There is no logical reason whatever for that to be considered an atheistic position. If the atheists of the world were to adopt that position...I WOULD PROUDLY DECLARE MYSELF TO BE AN ATHEIST. I have nothing against the word...but I do not want it applied to me considering my stated position.

So...if you have any comments on that, Coben, I'd love to hear them. Thank you for discussing the issue with me.

Okay...but what if I use the word one way and someone else uses it another way. Do we put its "proper" use up to a vote next election?

Not being a wise ass here, Coben...just asking a way to resolve such situations.

There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods.

My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."

I've never heard an argument that effectively disputes that.

Do you have one? If so, let's discuss it.