So far as I can tell, a conception along these lines is compatible with many varieties of theism, atheism, agnosticism, idealism, materialism, skepticism, and so on.

Moreover, it offers a rational basis for a sort of conceptual closure, and for regulative principles of harmony and unity that may inform the rational imagination in practices of meditation, prayer, and worship -- for instance in keeping with Dewey's talk of "natural piety" in the first section of A Common Faith. — Cabbage Farmer

Since I didn't follow what you said before, I have no idea how to respond to this. You should try again.

SonOfAGun
106
— SonOfAGun
What do explanations have to do with it? A belief is not an explanation. Perhaps you're conflating beliefs with explanations?
— Cabbage Farmer

What the h*** are you talking about. If you have a true/factual/tested physical explanation for a phenomenon YOU NO LONGER NEED TO BELIEVE what ever it was that you believed about the phenomenon. YOU NOW KNOW FOR A FACT. belief is no longer required. — SonOfAGun

This is further evidence of the corruption of the word "believe."

I'm not faulting, Cabbage Farmer, about it...just commenting on how the corruption manifests itself.

The word has almost lost any usefulness, because it just does not do a decent job of communicating an idea.

That is why those others have been so bothered by me saying, "I do NOT 'believe' I am Frank. I KNOW I am Frank."

They see that as illogical...where, in fact, IT IS LOGICAL.

I've stopped using the words "believe" and "belief" except when discussing the words as we are doing here. And when someone uses one of them in a comment to me, I merely paraphrase it...and ask if that is what they meant.

On the first page of this thread, there is a comment, "They also believe, like you probably do, that there are trees outside and that the midday sky is blue and that Paris is the capital of France..."

That is a conventional use of "believe." It is a convention...and does not impart what really is meant.

There ARE trees outside; the midday sky IS blue; Paris IS the capital of France. One doesn't have to "believe" them...they are facts (of a sort.) (The midday sky in Beijing and San Francisco often is grey these days.)

The use of the word "believe" there is a convention...and serves to corrupt the word.

The use of the word "believe" there is a convention...and serves to corrupt the word. — Frank Apisa

I agree with everything you've said here. I dealt with this sort of thing so much in other places that I basically have the responses prescripted now. Because it is basically always the same.

What post of mine are you referring to?

No, not at all. I’m not trying to discredit science as a pathway to knowledge. I was just pointing out that science isn’t the only pathway that achieves valuable results. — Pinprick

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?

Well, I consider this to be a scholarly discussion, so I think the consensus of scholars would be appropriate. It may not be true, and I’m aware of the Gettier problems and other criticisms of it. At the very least it is flawed, but still the best we have at this point according to experts. — Pinprick

I thought we were looking for truth not authority. My bad.

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

I have no problems with i or ii. I see i and ii as meta-beliefs, as they are referring strictly to a statement/proposition. Whereas iii is referring to the nonexistence of a real world object.

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

You may not have knowledge of these internal states reliably, but if your belief about these states is accurate then I think it counts as knowledge. When I cut myself I know that I experience the sensation of pain. When my stomach growls I know I am hungry. These beliefs are true and justified if they correspond to reality, and therefore count as knowledge.

I thought we were looking for truth not authority. My bad. — SonOfAGun

Is it not appropriate to look towards the consensus of scholars/experts as a starting point to find the truth? What definition of knowledge should I have assumed if not the one the experts generally agree on?

When I cut myself I know that I experience the sensation of pain. When my stomach growls I know I am hungry. — Pinprick

Sensory perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions.

Is it not appropriate to look towards the consensus of scholars/experts as a starting point to find the truth? What definition of knowledge should I have assumed if not the one the experts generally agree on? — Pinprick

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.

Scenery perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions. — SonOfAGun

Ok, maybe it wasn’t included in my original examples, but the point still holds that it is valuable knowledge obtained independent from science. Science can certainly explain it, but I don’t need to consult a medical/science apparatus to know I’m hungry or in pain.

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

No problem. Appreciate your good manners.

What post of mine are you referring to? — Pinprick

The one that I replied to. You can click your own name at the start of my reply and it will take you back to the post I'm replying to. I'll quote the whole exchange here for convenience anyway.

It started with this post where I posted this image:



Then you replied:

Agree 100% with this as long as you aren’t equating “thinks” with “believes.” — Pinprick

I am, because they mean the same thing. To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more. — Pfhorrest

Right, but wouldn’t you agree that not all thoughts are beliefs? If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief. — Pinprick

I’d say all thoughts to the effect that something exists or not constitute beliefs. There are also thoughts that are not about what does or doesn’t exist, which are not beliefs, but we’re not talking about those here. — Pfhorrest

Ok. What justification can you provide for excluding thoughts about existence? — Pinprick

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’m asking why thoughts about existence must be beliefs. Why do those types of thoughts warrant the designation of “beliefs” when others do not? — Pinprick

Because... that’s what a belief is? A thought to the effect that the world is such-and-such way. I have no idea what you’re on about here. — Pfhorrest

Ok, maybe it wasn’t included in my original examples, but the point still holds that it is valuable knowledge obtained independent from science. Science can certainly explain it, but I don’t need to consult a medical/science apparatus to know I’m hungry or in pain. — Pinprick

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.

Sensory perception is pretty well understood already by science and does not fall into the category of needs, desires and emotions. — SonOfAGun

Fixed this^^^ changed scenery to sensory. Damn you autocorrect.

Ok, so you’re claiming that not all thoughts are beliefs, but all thoughts regarding the existence of an object are beliefs. Did I get that right? If so, then it seems that there is something special about existence that causes all thoughts regarding it to be classified as beliefs. What is that special thing? Also, if you’re claiming, and I don’t know that you are, that thoughts about the nonexistence of an object are beliefs, then you’ve contradicted yourself.

If A = B, then A cannot = ~B.

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

Well, I think you’re using a looser definition of science than I thought, but either way I disagree that I was taught pain or hunger. It also depends on how you’re using the term “mean.” I consider meaning to be subjective, and I’ve never had to interpret data to know I’m in pain, and that pain was meaningful to me. If I cut myself I react automatically without having to hypothesize or interpret anything. It is a subconscious process. I react before I even know what I’m doing.

66

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


Yes. But I want to make the distinction that believing a proposition is false is different than believing something doesn’t exist.
— Pinprick

At an unconscious and subconscious levels, belief is experienced differently.
The basic level of belief is what makes us decide if something exists at the inmost level, the instinctive one.

We have sets of conscious truths that, in time, influence us to the point that they become part of our deepest levels of belief, through indoctrination, discipline or life experience.

Often times our conscious definition of what God, a creator, an origin, a source, or a set of them is, (may it be chaos or nothing at all) is very contradictory from the definition our inmost beliefs have:
You may think you are atheist for example, but in a terrifying situation, you may find yourself praying, because an instinctive belief in some god made you do it.

The subconscious level links our beliefs to our bodies so that we feel emotions: all glandular, endocrine, lymphatic and neurological related sensation in general, acting under unconscious and conscious collaboration.
Subconscious mind beliefs that translate into body reactions would explain many religious ecstasy phenomenons, in witch the “believer” feels like touched by divinity, and his whole body fills up on a cocktail of all best hormones the body can produce to justify the experience.

Pointing out here that is the relationship between your conscious and unconscious mind that decide if are guilty or innocent, exited or afraid, “cry smiling nostalgic” or “sad crying nostalgic” in your own personal set of beliefs.

The existence of something that we may call “God”, no matter the vessel we use for it, is arguably the base of what makes us who we are and what set of actions and thought patterns are the most efficient to live by.
The inmost definition each one of us have of our own unique image of what or who Is God , our primary source, and what’s it’s point, might well be the base of our personal belief system, that is full of personal considerations

Reality itself is perceived differently from each individual point of view, that might very well be extremely different to each other, even if all are sharing the same “existential environment”, so we might consider everyone having a different true unconscious definition file of what is “The Truth of Existence...for now” and keeps updating it constantly.

Each one would then have it’s on God, and probably when the great philosophers tell you to know thyself, maybe they’re speaking about that relationship with your own Inmost truth, or God (Observer), and your conscious mind (Intender )

Ok, so you’re claiming that not all thoughts are beliefs, but all thoughts regarding the existence of an object are beliefs. Did I get that right? If so, then it seems that there is something special about existence that causes all thoughts regarding it to be classified as beliefs. What is that special thing? Also, if you’re claiming, and I don’t know that you are, that thoughts about the nonexistence of an object are beliefs, then you’ve contradicted yourself. — Pinprick

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying in two ways.

One is that I am just reporting the function the word “belief” as I understand it as a native English speaker, not making an argument that some things rise (or stoop) to the level of “belief” in some already-agreed-upon sense of the word.

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.

To believe something is to think something about how the world is or is not, about what is real or not, what exists or not, etc. As opposed to, say, thinking something about what is good or bad, what ought or ought not be, etc. Or other kinds of thoughts about different kinds of things.

Well, I think you’re using a looser definition of science than I thought — Pinprick

I don't think that my definition of science is loose. I have studied the mater extensively.

but either way I disagree that I was taught pain or hunger. — Pinprick

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.

It also depends on how you’re using the term “mean.” — Pinprick

Well I guess I could demonstrate from a data perspective. If I have two apples and then I obtain two more apples that means that I now have four apples. I don't know how that is subjective. seems pretty objective to me. Data interpretation is not some kind or new concept. The interpretation of date is in fact required in the conclusions of scientific experimentation. It is also require in the formulation of a hypothesis.

I consider meaning to be subjective — Pinprick

I guess it can be. I don't know how that relates to what I am saying. Given the scope of any particular problem and a proportionately long enough time line, any subjective mistakes in interpretation should be corrected via the constant nature of the physical properties of reality. In the case of you coming to understand your own sense of pain, in the environment that you were likely raised in, the time line should be relatively short.

and I’ve never had to interpret data to know I’m in pain, and that pain was meaningful to me. — Pinprick

Yes you have, you just don't remember it.

If I cut myself I react automatically without having to hypothesize or interpret anything. — Pinprick

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?

It is a subconscious process. — Pinprick

Yes it is, and also not knowledge of any kind.

I think (suspect) by now that it is obvious to most people actually following the conversations here...that there are some people who use the descriptor "atheist" who want VERY MUCH to insist that they are not doing any "believing"...meaning "not doing any ACCEPTING AS TRUE without sufficient basis."

But equally obviously...THEY ARE.

I have never met or known of a person who designates him/herself an "atheist" who does not "believe" either that "no gods exist" or that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with "believing" either of those things. Every person who wants to be known as an "atheist" should simply embrace the notion that they do "believe" one (or both) of those things.

They do not want to do so.

Thought should be given to the contortions to logic that must be done to in order to maintain this pretense. Thought should be given to the notion that in order to maintain this pretense, atheists must insist that babies, infants, toddlers are atheists...and that even agnostics who insist they are not...must accept that they are atheists also.

I have my ideas about why all this bizarre contortions have to happen...which I have shared.

The above comment was addressed to you people.

To believe something is to think something about how the world is or is not, about what is real or not, what exists or not, etc. As opposed to, say, thinking something about what is good or bad, what ought or ought not be, etc. Or other kinds of thoughts about different kinds of things. — Pfhorrest

@pinprick, to underpin the above, think of this old adage from the nineteen-seventies, when religion was first challenged for its beliefs on a wider scale in North America:

@'Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.'

This ought to demonstrate the way the word "believe" has been adopted (and adapted) to many, many uses and meanings in English, and it has become so diverse, that a single, uncompartmentalized definition can't cover all its meanings.

↪SonOfAGun ↪Pfhorrest ↪Vinicius ↪Pinprick

The above comment was addressed to you people. — Frank Apisa

I am glad you left me out of the list. It would have been a direct insult to my intelligence to be instructed to read the same stuff you have written ten thousand times** already.

Then you are surprised why we call you a one-topic poster.

** Disclaimer: Not an exact count.

god must be atheist
2k
↪SonOfAGun ↪Pfhorrest ↪Vinicius ↪Pinprick

The above comment was addressed to you people.
— Frank Apisa

I am glad you left me out of the list. — god must be atheist

Actually, I left you off by mistake.

It would have been a direct insult to my intelligence to be instructed to read the same stuff you have written ten thousand times** already. — god must be atheist

I have to repeat it...the people who don't get it need lots of schooling.

And I have told you a million times, "Knock off the hyperbole."

Then you are surprised why we call you a one-topic poster. — god must be atheist

Oh, you think I am surprised? By someone attempting an insult in an Internet forum?

Okay...you must be new!

** Disclaimer: Not an exact count. — god must be atheist

No one is expecting you to be able to count.

Fae is a term for mystical creatures like fairies (also spelled "faerie"), gnomes, sirens, succubi, etc — SonOfAGun

:smile:

There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
— Frank Apisa
Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat:

Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. In so far as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it.

To wit (as per tim wood's "magic hippopotami"): Absence of any evidence entailed by a g/G predicates is evidence of the absence of a g/G so predicated. — 180 Proof

In others words, predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2020 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc

So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ... :yawn:

NB: Proof of 'proving a negative'.

Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. — SonOfAGun

Strawman. :clap:

My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating  any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)).

My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating  any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)). — 180 Proof

Fair enough. As long as you limit your claims to "theism is false" not "god is false."

Fair enough. As long as you limit your claims to "theism is false" not "god is false." — SonOfAGun

Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position.