If the freedom to practice religion is a fundamental right, doesn't that mean religion is still prevalent in the general populace? — TheMadFool
So, while a nation is protected from devolving into a theocratic nightmare, it accomplishes only half the task because I'm sure the majority of the government officials are theists, guided, as it were, in their decisions by religious doctrine. — TheMadFool
I'm not sure I understand how that distinction is supposed to apply.
So far as I can tell, the sort of belief indicated in (iii) should be interpreted as a belief about the word "x" and about statements and propositions that use the word "x", and the like. I don't see much difference between (i)-(iii) in this regard. — Cabbage Farmer
I hope I've made it clear enough by now, on what grounds I suggest that a belief that "there is no God" should be interpreted as a belief about something like a conception indicated by the word "God".
That is the object you've requested. That is the sort of "thing" such beliefs are beliefs about. — Cabbage Farmer
I wonder, is it all beliefs that require an object, on your account? Might it be closer to the truth to say that true beliefs must be analyzable as having some "object", whereas some false beliefs turn out to be figments of confusion? — Cabbage Farmer
Because we're not guessing. We're inferring. Maybe fallibly. We might be wrong. But we generally think we have reasons to believe the things we do. — Pfhorrest
Nah...opinions are opinions. If you express an opinion as "I 'believe' such and such"...you are disguising the fact that it is an opinion. Much better to say, "My opinion is that...such and such."
I know, I know...the old "one trick pony!"
But this is incredibly important in almost every discussion of this sort...and you guys are just not getting it.
Really give it some thought.
And stay safe. — Frank Apisa
The other is that I’m not saying belief is about thing existing vs them not-existing, but rather it is about the topic of whether or not something exists. — Pfhorrest
You where taught how to interpret the data every time your mom shoved a boob in your moth to stop you from crying, when you where hungry, and had no idea what it meant. You also have conducted many experiments concerning how to interpret pain and where guided in this process by your parents, even though you may not remember doing any of this, it did happen. — SonOfAGun
You are moving the goal post again. Now we are talking about your reflexes, which ARE instinctive. This is not related to the current topic because reflexes are not any kind of knowledge. You seem to be drifting in this conversation. Are sure you are not loosing the through line here? — SonOfAGun
It is not obtained independent of reason and logic. Not everything requires a full on scientific investigation. You still have to interpret the data to mean something, and then we are back in the field of science. Unless you think that "external spirits are responsible for your pain and hunger" is a viable alternative. This knowledge is not instinctual in human beings. The knowledge is passed down from parent to child or, more generally, taught via science, because science has more information to give on the subject. — SonOfAGun
I'm considering this one closely. My first inclinations where to be snarky, but I don't want to do that. May take some time. — SonOfAGun
Scenery perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions. — SonOfAGun
I thought we were looking for truth not authority. My bad. — SonOfAGun
I don't know that your examples qualify as knowledge they are not consistent. Need and desire: Do heroin addicts need heroin? Is their desire for heroin a false desire? Emotion is an erratic and often illogical thing and difficult to understand even when they are your own. What about unjustified jealousy or anger, gluttonous satifaction, unrequited love, etc. Are you saying that these things meet the criteria of knowledge? — SonOfAGun
So far as I can tell, denial of the proposition "x exists" entails:
i) a belief that the proposition "x exists" is false,
ii) a belief that the proposition "x does not exist" is true, and
iii) a belief that there is no such thing as "x". — Cabbage Farmer
An appeal to tradition? Simple observations of the world will tell you that this is no longer true. Though I am sure that this is still the accepted definition among scholars. Doesn't make it true. I'll rely on my arguments to determine the truth of the mater, given that my opposition is more arguments. — SonOfAGun
A good deal is known through science, and more is being discovered all the time. Given an effectively infinite amount of time to study these subjects, do you think that they will remain a mystery forever? — SonOfAGun
There are different types of knowledge, but only science produces anything of tangible/measurable/actual value. — SonOfAGun
This conversation you are having with several people stems from the corruption of that word "believe" that I have talked about.
Some of these people think it would be absurd for me to say:
I know I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard...and I do not "believe" I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard.
But that is absolutely the truth.
I KNOW I am here...sitting at my desk...typing on my keyboard.
There is NO "believing" involved in the essence of that statement...which is merely to identify the fact that I (Frank) am sitting on a chair pulled up to the well of a desk in my den typing a response to an Internet forum.
But the use of the word "believe" has gotten so corrupted...the people you are debating think it must be used to identify that situation. They see that bolded comment above to be a contradiction of some sort.
It is not. — Frank Apisa
Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. — SonOfAGun
Would you agree that to deny the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is false? Just as to affirm the proposition that "x exists" is ordinarily to believe that the proposition "x exists" is true"?
Accordingly it would seem that to deny the existence of x is indeed ordinarily to have a sort of belief, though not a belief in the existence of a nothing. More like: belief in the existence of a false proposition, or of an empty concept. — Cabbage Farmer
Your wording is wrong. Believing that no god or gods exist is not "believing in something that you don't think is true." It is believing in the truth value of the claim that "there is/are no god/gods. — SonOfAGun
Care to show your work? What is the reasoning by which you start — Cabbage Farmer
Can't someone believe in stars and planets, rivers and oceans, plants and animals... and all sorts of things, without believing in God and without "believing in nothing"? — Cabbage Farmer
What happens when we deny the existence of other putative or conceivable things? Does any denial of existence, i.e., any belief in the non-existence of some putative or conceivable thing, entail "belief in nothing" on your view? — Cabbage Farmer
Right now I believe there is no unicorn on the table I'm sitting at. Also there is no pot of gold. Also there is no lobster....
Do you agree these count as beliefs, even though these beliefs have a negative form, even though they have the form of denying the existence of a conceivable thing or state of affairs? — Cabbage Farmer
Yes, truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief. One can believe something that is objectively false if they are absent the requisite facts needed to "know", and sometimes people can even believe the opposite in spite of knowing the facts, or they can even lack the capacity to fully comprehend the facts. — SonOfAGun
This is a misconception. It is not to think something is TRUE or NOT. It is only to make the claim that something IS. — SonOfAGun
You mean to say that it doesn't make sense to say something like "I have NOTHING" since NOTHING is, by definition, not anything and so can't be had or possessed.
You're right but where I think you err is in conflating what to me seems like a phraseology "I have nothing" with its meaning. When someone says "I have no money" fae means fae doesn't have money and not that "no money" is "some money" and that fae possesses that amount.
Likewise, when someone believes that "no god exists" it doesn't mean that there exists such a thing as no god. All that that someone means is that god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
"I think it is true that X is not true." How about that. — god must be atheist
Excluding them from what? I’m not excluding them from beliefs, I’m limiting beliefs to just them. I think you misread me. — Pfhorrest
I don't know how serious you are about this issue but what I'd like for you to do is distinguish between disbelief in god and belief that god doesn't exist. You seem to be claiming that the former position is atheism; for me the latter is atheism. Also, in your money example, beliefs correspond to "money" and since "god doesn't exist" is a belief, it can be possessed unlike nothing. — TheMadFool