When did WE decide that? I'm on a mission, I help people with knowledge and science. I'm not done, you forfeited.

A person who claims adherence to "atheism" will view the other side as lacking proof, but that doesn't instantiate "atheism" any more than God is proven true by claiming "atheism" lacks proof.

Wow...really tough to get rid of you and your "I am better than you" attitude — Frank Apisa

That's you interpretation of everything said, that's not the stance I'm at. Your wild and personal interpretation is irrelevant to what I actually wrote. And if you're in the position of "getting rid of people" like you say, then you're seriously just underlying how inappropriate you behave in a discussion. Seriously.

For the record, "the quality of my writing" has gotten me op ed pieces and op ed sized pieces published in major newspapers across the country...including the BIG one...The New York Times. It got me a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine. ALL of which were published without so much as a single comma being changed. — Frank Apisa

Then why are you writing in the way you do? I have never read anything written like the section you wrote just now, which is infantile at best in its rhetoric and I don't even write English as my primary language. I doubt any major publication would allow that type of writing. But if you're published, then please entertain the same level of respectful writing as you do in those publications, because you are seriously not doing it here. And for someone who gets angry about other people writing like they are superior; listing your publications in the manner that you just did is seriously just doing what you hate yourself; the bragging bully trying to claim superiority in the discussion. I'm not the one bragging in all caps here, you are. You.

So do not give me any of your "I am better than you" shit about quality of writing. — Frank Apisa

I'm not, I'm asking for a respectful writing within the discussion, you're the one who started saying "bullshit" and behaving rather disrespectful. Do not demand respect if you can't show it yourself, that's just pathetic.

I considered your comments above to be bullshit...and I so described them. It was a shortcut...a cut-to-the-chase kind of thing. — Frank Apisa

You considering something bullshit is not a valid philosophical groundwork for a counter-argument.

If you want to climb down off your high horse and actually discuss it with me...do it. If, instead, you want to continue to tell me that you are not going to have a discussion with me...BY HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH ME...have a ball. — Frank Apisa

I'm not the one on a high horse here. Your interpretation of a text does not equal me being on a high horse. You, however, brag about how good you are and how I should accept my argument to not hold water against you. I stick to the information I wrote, you actually place yourself on a high horse directly. A serious inability of self-reflection on your part.

I am enjoying this as much as I would a discussion on the actual topic. — Frank Apisa

I'm not enjoying it, I'm waiting for you to stop behaving like a bully. If you want respect and equality in the discussion, then stop behaving as you do. Respect is earned, you have not earned anything and can't demand respect if you come into the room screaming "bullshit".

A person who claims adherence to "atheism" will view the other side as lacking proof, but that doesn't instantiate "atheism" any more than God is proven true by claiming "atheism" lacks proof. — Daniel Cox

The interpretation of "atheism" is commonly about atheists demanding proof for something to exist. If you "do not believe in God", which is another interpretation of atheism, mainly made by theists, you need to accept that it is a belief and therefore the opposite, "there is a God", might be true. This would mean that it's rather an agnostic point of view.

How do you define the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? If there's no difference, there's no reason for there to be separate definitions really. A belief that there is no God will have to accept the idea that it is just a belief and therefore it becomes the same level of unknowable position as a belief in God. It, therefore, becomes more agnostic and is no longer different from atheism.

That's why atheism isn't really defined by a "belief", which means it's a method of looking at the world. Atheism is about accepting what is, not what is believed. Accepting what is, means you need to prove something in order for it to be accepted to be. That means if there's a theistic idea of a teapot in space between the sun and us, the agnostic will accept that we cannot possibly know if it's there or if it's not there, while the atheist will not even accept the concept before there's proven observations that might provide a hypothesis of there being a teapot. I would say that the definition of atheism is rather clear in comparison to agnosticism and theism.

Hi, if it really means something to you then let's talk about it.

My position, what I know emphatically is I'm being held in existence by an "Entity" and that "Entity" is holding me in existence. The definition of words can't gain any traction on the experience.

"I don't believe in god." Perhaps that person should internalize that in the first-person, and in so doing would never proffer it in the second-person to someone they know rejects that projection?

I'm not in charge of another's education. Someone here who holds an opposing view, Tim Wood I think is his name, was challenging me over the part about being held in existence by God. Claimed something about that being my nomenclature and didn't map onto reality.

The space exploring teapot is an unnecessary platonic idea. I'm leaving shortly, after my e-bike is fully charged, to Mt. Rubidoux where I will be passing out flyers for my soap ministry. Flyers with pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux April 4th, 1963 using Angel #7187. Is it an intrinsic necessity you are made aware of this fact? No. So it is with the teapot.

The interpretation of "atheism" is commonly about atheists demanding proof for something to exist. If you "do not believe in God", which is another interpretation of atheism, mainly made by theists, you need to accept that it is a belief and therefore the opposite, "there is a God", might be true. This would mean that it's rather an agnostic point of view. — Christoffer

Obviously you are having a bit of trouble with the language used in this kind of discussion.

I call your attention to the fact that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist

...is not the same as...

b) I "believe no gods exist."

They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.

The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.)

ASIDE: The singular is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. It should be "gods" or "at least one god." The use of "God" as you used it seems to be pointing to one particular god. And the use of "believe in" is off the charts.

Anyway..."believing" when used about gods...really is just a disguise for "blindly guessing."

My position, what I know emphatically is I'm being held in existence by an "Entity" and that "Entity" is holding me in existence. The definition of words can't gain any traction on the experience. — Daniel Cox

Not sure how to respond to this other than that it's hard to use that as a philosophical foundation for any philosophical argument. Philosophical arguments need to be rationally constructed.

I don't believe in god." Perhaps that person should internalize that in the first-person, and in so doing would never proffer it in the second-person to someone they know rejects that projection? — Daniel Cox

Not entirely sure what you're saying here, so before I answer it, maybe clarify what you actually mean?

I'm not in charge of another's education. Someone here who holds an opposing view, Tim Wood I think is his name, was challenging me over the part about being held in existence by God. Claimed something about that being my nomenclature and didn't map onto reality. — Daniel Cox

Also not sure about your point here? Need more clarification on your perspective first.

The space exploring teapot is an unnecessary platonic idea. I'm leaving shortly, after my e-bike is fully charged, to Mt. Rubidoux where I will be passing out flyers for my soap ministry. Flyers with pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux April 4th, 1963 using Angel #7187. Is it an intrinsic necessity you are made aware of this fact? No. So it is with the teapot. — Daniel Cox

I'm not sure how this relates to Russel's Teapot? The example I gave is an extension of his analogy, showing different points of view from theists, agnostics, and atheists, in order to exemplify a more defined overview of atheism.

Obviously you are having a bit of trouble with the language used in this kind of discussion. — Frank Apisa

Unnecessary attack on language skills, which is easily countered by the fact that I hold the highest degree of English language skills within my community of non-English speakers. It's also easily countered by the fact that I don't fall back on using emotionally charged rhetoric when my viewpoints are challenged.

But I appreciate that you finally step back from the way of writing you did before.

I call your attention to the fact that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist

...is not the same as...

b) I "believe no gods exist."

They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.

The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.) — Frank Apisa

Please explain how the difference between A and B is more than just in their phrasing. They both refer to a "belief" in the non-existence in God or Gods.

My point was that agnosticism and theism both adhere to a belief, while atheism, by the definition I gave to Daniel Cox is detached from theism and agnosticism through the concept that it does not even acknowledge a question that doesn't have any rational foundation. That atheism needs the question in itself to be a rationally valid concept first before even entertaining the idea of an answer. I.e having a supported hypothesis as a question, not asking something out of thin air. Both theism and agnosticism rely on an acceptance of some kind before holding a position, atheism doesn't hold any position before its a valid question.

ASIDE: The singular is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. It should be "gods" or "at least one god." The use of "God" as you used it seems to be pointing to one particular god. And the use of "believe in" is off the charts. — Frank Apisa

That's a rather semantic pedantry. It doesn't change lines drawn between theism, agnosticism, and atheism within my argument. "Belief" is what it is, the acceptance of something as true with limited support of it being true. Belief is never true in itself and when it's true it's no longer belief. The term defines itself and cannot be changed into anything other than what it is.

But I appreciate that you finally step back from the way of writing you did before.

I call your attention to the fact that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist

...is not the same as...

b) I "believe no gods exist."

They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.

The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.) — Frank Apisa


Please explain how the difference between A and B is more than just in their phrasing. They both refer to a "belief" in the non-existence in God or Gods. — Christoffer

I'll take this first...and we can cover the other stuff in your post after hashing this out.

I am astonished that you do not see the significant difference between the two statements. It happens to be at the crux of "strong atheism" and "weak atheism"...so it has gotten more than its fair share of play.

Take (b) first: I "believe" no gods exist.

THAT is a statement of "belief" (or guess)...that no gods exist. It IS a "belief" as much as the "belief" "I 'believe' at least one god exists." It simply is a "belief" in the opposite direction.

One could not logically say: I "believe" no gods exist...and I "believe" gods do exist.

But with (a): I do not "believe" any gods exist...we are not dealing with a "belief." We are dealing with a lack of a "belief." The person is saying essentially, "There are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them." Or..."gods exist" is NOT one of my "beliefs."

A person could easily say, "I do not 'believe" any gods exist" (meaning I am not one of the group who "believe" gods exist"...and could logically follow that up with, "I also do not 'believe' there are no gods"...meaning "There are people who 'believe' no gods exist. I am not one of those people."

(b) is a statement of "belief."

(a) is a statement of a lack of "belief."

Full stop for now...

...your comments, please.

Yes, you are correct about the grammars. But taking things out of context like this is not very linguistically pragmatic. The semantics, as I mentioned, does not erase the core of how I classify between different standpoints.

Interesting point. I think that statement (a) is not clear. It could be interpreted as a belief that no gods exist at all. I've tried to rephrase it below to make the distinction clearer:

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
a1) I do not have any beliefs in the existence of any particular gods.

b) I "believe no gods exist."
b1) I hold a belief that no gods exist.

So (a1) leaves room for some sort of agnosticism; there is no explicit belief that God does not exist, just a lack of belief that any particular god exists?

Whereas (b1) is an active believe that no gods exist at all.

Yes, your rewording is much clearer. He would benefit from a change of script. Or maybe not going by a script at all, as that's not a good example of creative writing. And definitely lose the ALL-CAPS. And the excessive use of ellipsis.

Then why are you writing in the way you do? — Christoffer

Very good question.

I doubt any major publication would allow that type of writing. — Christoffer

Very true. It would almost certainly go straight in the bin.

Christoffer
431
↪Frank Apisa


Yes, you are correct about the grammars. But taking things out of context like this is not very linguistically pragmatic. The semantics, as I mentioned, does not erase the core of how I classify between different standpoints. — Christoffer

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean...but my comment was important to what ou wrote.

The two statements are different...and essential to the difference between weak and strong atheism. And, the issue, as far as my experience shows, is raised more by agnostics than theists.

So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it.

Devans99
1.4k
↪Frank Apisa
Interesting point. I think that statement (a) is not clear. It could be interpreted as a belief that no gods exist at all. I've tried to rephrase it below to make the distinction clearer:

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
a1) I do not have any beliefs in the existence of any particular gods.

b) I "believe no gods exist."
b1) I hold a belief that no gods exist.

So (a1) leaves room for some sort of agnosticism; there is no explicit belief that God does not exist, just a lack of belief that any particular god exists?

Whereas (b1) is an active believe that no gods exist at all. — Devans99

Thank you.

I think I made it quite clear in what I said.

This is a point I have discussed hundreds of times over two decades of posting on the Internet.

I, personally, do not "believe" there are any gods.

I, personally, ALSO do not "believe" there are no gods.

I do not hold a "belief" in either direction.

Oh, come on now. Was a repetition of your point necessary?

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post.

Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post. — Christoffer

No, you should take a leaf out of his book and repeat your point in the exact same wording over and over again on the internet for the next twenty years. :lol:

I'm on a mission, I help people with knowledge and science. — Daniel Cox

Off-topic, I admit, but: not many people here need help with knowledge and science. :chin:

Christoffer
433

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa


Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post. — Christoffer

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly.

But, if it is not important enough for you to pursue...okay.

I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa

It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.

Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution).

Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not.

I think everyone does something similar, consciously or sub-consciously, we assign probabilities to inductive propositions.

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa

It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer to Daniel Cox. He brought up the same kind of question about my definitions of atheism as you did and I put forth an answer to why I define atheism in the way I do and why I don't agree on atheism to be defined in numerous vague definitions.

I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths — Devans99

This might be the most incoherent sentence of personal convictions I've ever read. :rofl:

Explain yourself...

Devans99
1.4k

I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa


It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.

Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution).

Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not.

I think everyone does something similar, consciously or sub-consciously, we assign probabilities to inductive propositions. — Devans99

I totally understand, Devans.

A few, if I may, though.

"Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution)."

NO "beliefs" are known with complete certainty. The moment you know something with complete certainty...there is no need for "belief."

So that sentence does not make sense.

"Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not."

You do NOT assign probabilities to them...you invent probabilities. 87.46% of all statistics are made up right on the spot, Devans.

You are doing that same thing with 94.75% of all the probability estimates you make.

86,9% of all your "probability estimates" are incorrect. And of the remaining 14.1%...almost 37% are questionable.

It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.

Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution). — Devans99

You also have a set of beliefs which you have such a high conviction in that your psychology prevents you from being conscious of the logical faults with your rationalisations, in spite of your high valuation of logic.

You also have a set of beliefs which you have such a high conviction in that your psychology prevents you from being conscious of the logical faults with your rationalisations. — S

I don't believe in very much as explained above. Eternalism for example, I hold a 50% conviction that it is true. That is not the same as a belief.

Christoffer
435

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa


It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer to Daniel Cox. He brought up the same kind of question about my definitions of atheism as you did and I put forth an answer to why I define atheism in the way I do and why I don't agree on atheism to be defined in numerous vague definitions. — Christoffer

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you.

That is why I've asked for the clarification.

No problem. We'll just let that be for now.

Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probability so you don't believe completely in some of the rest of the math?

Your statement about your convictions makes zero sense to your own convictions.
The house is blue while some of it is not red, but it's completely blueish.

You believe that there's a first cause, and that it is timeless and blah blah, and is God. That's a prime example of what I described.

The use of "belief" here is as useless as the use of the word "atheism."

Neither communicates what really has to be communicated for a reasonable discussion to occur.