The example is specific.
Non acceptance(rejection) includes Ps that we are not convinced of and Ps~ that we think they are false. — Nickolasgaspar

Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner.

You didn't. I was responding to this:

you are the one who needs to provide evidence. — Relativist

You were not...since you said :"'ll defend Hillary (a bit). He is free to hold irrational beliefs"
No were in my statement I limited his freedom to accept a claim. I only pointed out that he is the one who needs to provide evidence for his claims (not me to falsify a Universal Negative).

I was explaining why he doesn't "need to" do anything. You come off as overly aggressive. You can ask him to justify his beliefs, you can express skepticism that his position is justifiable. You can ask him to explain his reasoning. I just think you should soften it up, a bit.. — Relativist

-No you were promoting a no True Scotchman fallacy. When he is arguing and debating for his beliefs,all over the place so he needs to justify them. His excuse "its not a scientific claim so I get a free pass" is not acceptable....I am sorry if you can not see that.

Point me at a work of epistemology that uses the term "reject" in such a manner. — Relativist

Am I going to do this with you too? Really. After many months I got back in this forum and I had people denying the role of wisdom in philosophy, the role of knowledge in wisdom, the role of knowledge in soundness, the role of logic in Philosophy.....
Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary...or better see whether you accept a claim while you withhold judgement and how reasonable would be if you did that!

-"Yes. But Im not trying to convince you."
-Hillary ...first be honest to your self and then to others. You act like a child.
You are all over the place exposing your irrational beliefs.
When I ask you what are your evidence and that a claim has a burden to meet in order to qualify as a rational one...your answer is "its not a scientific one...so It doesn't have a burden".

If you weren't trying to convince people you wouldn't be whining about other scientists not listening to you...and you wouldn't be claiming that you will win a Nobel Prize for these ideas....
The arguments you use for your beliefs and for the excuses you use to avoid exposing your beliefs are ridiculous.
You are a dishonest interlocutor and unfortunately there are many magical thinker in here that reward this dishonest behavior. This is really sad.!

Hillary ...first be honest to your self and then to others. You act like a child. — Nickolasgaspar

I am honest. With myself and with you. Children are honest.

If you weren't trying to convince people you wouldn't be whining about other scientists not listening to you — Nickolasgaspar

That's gotta do with science, not gods. If they don't wanna belief in gods, it's completely up to them. But as they claim to be interested in science and the material universe, I thought it would be nice to offer them a new cosmology (which the gods made me see!). But they won't answer or help me refine it. Or even give a simple reply. Except for Haim Harari.

Now you deny that the act of Withholding judgment means that you don't accept a claim and non acceptance isn't synonymous to rejection?
And now you ask for a "work of epistemology that uses the term reject.....in such a manner".
Dude...open a dictionary. — Nickolasgaspar

I complained earlier:

Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"

Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. — Relativist

You responded:

Did I???...in fact I didn't point to a dictionary at all. — Nickolasgaspar

But you had. And now you're doing it again.

You're arguing semantics, and insisting that your usage of the word "reject" is (somehow) required. You're wrong. I explained what I meant (and I believe my terminology is consistent with published epistemology), so we should be able to communicate. But you seem to insist I use your non-standard definition. I don't understand why this is so important to you. We seem to agree on almost everything else.

Is English not your first language?

The arguments you use for your beliefs and for the excuses you use to avoid exposing your beliefs are ridiculous. — Nickolasgaspar

The point is, I don't use arguments. A belief is not based on argument. It's based on reason.

Listen,the Freddie chip replaced most on board logic enabling the production of cheaper boards. Also all daughter boards where remove in the previous update. The SIO connection was an early implimentation of the USB protocol allowing hot swap and daisychain of peripherals. The architecture consisting of one cpu and many co processors was adopted by the industry and it its the standard to this day!

Listen,the Freddie chip replaced most on board logic enabling the production of cheaper boards. Also all daughter boards where remove in the previous update. The SIO connection was an early implimentation of the USB protocol allowing hot swap and daisychain of peripherals. The architecture consisting of one cpu and many co processors was adopted by the industry and it its the standard to this day! — Nickolasgaspar

I couldn't agree more! Do you need a chip replacement?

I admire your efforts to try to get these good folks to think clearly, but you must realize just how extraordinarily hard it is for someone to change these deeply held beliefs.

It's not merely a case of correcting some non-essential belief (e..g. "Gee, I was certain that it was going to rain today - I guess I was wrong").

For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy.

But don't let me discourage you. :wink: You may be planting some seeds that will bear fruit some time in the future.

BTW I don't believe Hillary et al are trolls, nor are they stupid.

For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy. — EricH

It is a joke, but true. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
Discussions about religion and theism are mostly futile.

Nick: "our dictionaries provide the opposite of that action"
-No they don't ,that is a claim you use to avoid being exposed by dictionaries.
Dictionaries provide common usages of words. We as thinkers need to decide which usage covers all our needs and addresses all aspect of a concept(philosophy). — Relativist

Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy.
No that is a false statement. Any usage that doesn't much the one I suggest and resembles yours is problematic for the reason I demonstrated before (logical fallacies, non direct logical negations etc).

Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic,
-ITs not! When the justification of a usage is verified by its ability to avoid ambiguities and fallacies(as I explained many times) and exists in the dictionary then its not problematic(btw do you know that dictionaries include more than one definition?)
. After all I didn't point to a specific definition of a dictionary, but to the facts of our actions pointing to a specific one .
The actions we take are two.
We are convinced for the truthiness of a claim....we ACCEPT it.
We are not convicted thus we reserve judgment ....we don't accept it
We are convinced the claim is wrong....we don't accept it.
But you dishonestly avoid to acknowledge these fact and you will do that again.

since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy.
Sure....I just listed you the facts that force this word to describe non acceptance...

But you had. And now you're doing it again. — Relativist

-I just pointed out where you can look up for synonyms of non acceptance.
The definition of this word is produced by our needs to describe the action of the non acceptance of a claim either due to withholding judgment or believing to be false.

-"You're arguing semantics,"
No you dishonest sophist!!!!!! I pointed out that if it was a simple semantic issue I would accept your usage..BUT IT ISN'T AND YOU KEEP DODGING TO ACKNOWLEDGE your position has with my questions.
Your definition is lead you to a logical fallacy(Strawman) and your arbitrary assumed reason for a rejection to a non Direct Logical Negation.

AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST TIME.

WHEN you withhold judgment, do you accept it as your belief?????????
WHEN YOU believe the claim to be false, to you accept it as your belief????
Now ANSWER HOnestly with a yes or no or you are done!

I admire your efforts to try to get these good folks to think clearly, but you must realize just how extraordinarily hard it is for someone to change these deeply held beliefs.

It's not merely a case of correcting some non-essential belief (e..g. "Gee, I was certain that it was going to rain today - I guess I was wrong").

For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy.

But don't let me discourage you. :wink: You may be planting some seeds that will bear fruit some time in the future.

BTW I don't believe Hillary et al are trolls, nor are they stupid. — EricH

-I appreciate your input. The real problem is not individuals like Hillary, but guys like Relativist who are almost there but they will spill the milk when they are challenged to correct their views or defintions according to objective facts and our needs to describe them .
Hillary is a lost cause in my opinion and this is why I only use him as the medium to communicate ideas to undecided by-standards that happen to read the thread and posses critical thinking
I will admit, this doesn't happen often but I had a fair amount of hits in the past on other platforms.

Hillary is a lost cause in my opinion — Nickolasgaspar

:lol:

Well, at least you make me laugh! Gnight!

I couldn't agree more! Do you need a chip replacement? — Hillary

Not really....one front fork ,some tubes a shorter stem and a rear derailleur

If you like laughing....just read your claims!:wink:

Before I made my first complaint about your semantic nonsense, I searched a number of sources (SEP. IEP, Blackwell,...) to see if your usage was common. It's not. I gave you the opportunity to provide such a source. You had nothing. You even lied by claiming you weren't appealing to a standard dictionary, right after doing so. You are hell-bent on playing semantic policeman based on the semantics you like. I'm not interested in spinning my wheels on such bullshit, so I'm done arguing with you about it.

I just can't imagine we are the result of coincidental quantum fluctuation leading to an evolving universe. — Hillary

"Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental.

Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.

Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose?

There has to be something unexplainable in the universe ...

There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known, but this is a reflection of our limitations. So I don't see how one can draw conclusions from this.

"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme. — Relativist

I don’t understand why you say the classifications are post hoc? I suppose you are saying that I (or someone) waited until after your claim was made to reveal atheistic diversity?? There are various ways in which atheism can be while still retaining its fundamental shape (not theist). When I speak of “form,” I am referring to the way in which a thing is. Since there are various ways a view could be atheistic, it follows that there are multiple forms. I use the term “system” as in a collection of interrelated parts which together make up the whole of a thing. A “belief system” is simply a collection of many beliefs that are held particularly by a person, or more generally by an ideology. It is from this concept, and the specificities thereof, that diversity emerges from amongst atheistic beliefs.

An example of two very clearly divergent, though very clearly still atheistic beliefs include the division between “strong” and “weak” atheism. In its weak form, atheism is more a psychological state lacking a belief in God, likewise neither committing to the disbelief (perhaps it’s meaningless). The strong form of atheism are those which lack a belief in God, and furthermore deny the proposition “At least one God exists” is true. Strong atheism however also affirms the truth of the negating proposition “At least one God exists is false” (in other words, a psychological state which HAS a belief—not just lacking one—and that belief is that NO God exists). You see, atheism must be defined in relation with theism. Theism holds a belief that there exists at least one God, whereas with atheism it is necessary only to lack that belief and isn’t necessary to hold position at all. I think this makes sense given that i find definitions of God either meaningless or to entail a contradiction (to define something is to describe how it is distinct from everything else, though some definitions of God seem to be describing both a distinct and interdependent part of the world).

Coincidental"? Please identify the things upu consider coincidental. — Relativist

I mean the random distribution of the momenta of real particles that are inflated from the vacuum. Well, maybe not all random as they all inflate alike. But still... The real particles, out of which you and I are formed, started to inflate. I think a previous universe is the trigger for a new inflation, but that still doesn't explain where this eternal triggering comes from. There just has to be intelligences behind it. Or not, who knows, but I feel more comfortable, in the knowledge that there is such reason behind it. It doesn't provide moral or any other religious BS. Only a reason. If the heavenly gods got bored with eternal live I can imagine they created a material copy of heaven. And since there are a lot of god kinds, we should be carefull with creation. It's not meant for us only. That's maybe the only moral...

Or that we are the result of evolving life whose only purpose it is to pass on genes or memes.
Notice that you assume there is a "purpose". If I flip a coin and it comes up tails, does that fulfill a purpose? — Relativist

The standard view on evolution, genes or memes trying to replicate, says the purpose of life is to do exactly that. Replicating genes or memes (which, btw, is based on an unproven dogma). But in the light of gods it gets a different shine.
If you flip a coin it might have a purpose. It depends. The coins flipped near the big bang have no purpose. The flipped particles will always develop in a universe with life. However they flip. It's a different universe every time. But life in it will be the same every time. Like that the gods can be entertained eternally.

There's a lot that isn't explained today, and I see no reason to believe humanity will ever explain everything. The actual nature of reality may never be known — Relativist

That depends on it's actual nature. I think everything can actually be known. Why not? From the big bangs to the mind. But why should we want to? The mystery of the eternal gods never can be known. It's nice to have a material explanation for the universe though...

Propaganda:



It's the higher power that gives mass. Litteraly. The God particle is just ordinary matter. A hyperstrong hyper
color force is the higher power.



Ohooh...

Before I made my first complaint about your semantic nonsense, I searched a number of sources (SEP. IEP, Blackwell,...) to see if your usage was common. It's not. I gave you the opportunity to provide such a source. You had nothing. You even lied by claiming you weren't appealing to a standard dictionary, right after doing so. You are hell-bent on playing semantic policeman based on the semantics you like. I'm not interested in spinning my wheels on such bullshit, so I'm done arguing with you about it. — Relativist

-What is my usage lol?????Where do you expect to find entries about the action of non acceptance of a claim when belief is reserved
The meaning of the word is defined by your ACTION. The dictionary only provides to which words it is synonym with.

Here is your change!
1. When you reserve judgment for a claim do you go on and Accept the claim.
Since you going to tap dance the answer is NO. You won't accept, you will reject the claim until you are ready to make that judgment.
2. When you think a claim is wrong, do you go on and Accept it?
The answer again is NO you dishonest tap dancer.
The answer on the above questions....and your tap dance around them proves to everyone to everyone that you here to pump your ego...not to acknowledge your misconceptions.
IF you were honest you would answer both questions and FOUND OUT YOURSELF that REJECTION is your reaction for a claim NOT THE REASON.
Why is so difficult for you to accept that you are making silly excuses lol....."I searched a number of sources..."...hahaha you are unable to understand basic concepts.

Here is your change!
1. When you reserve judgment for a claim do you go on and Accept the claim.
Since you going to tap dance the answer is NO. You won't accept, you will reject the claim until you are ready to make that judgment.
2. When you think a claim is wrong, do you go on and Accept it?
The answer again is NO — Nickolasgaspar

I will hold your feet in the fire....answer that and you will see that your objection is just your ego.

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument. — L'éléphant

I agree. Atheism is a rejection of a preconceived idea of god or gods. There is only “relative atheism” - atheism relative to say christian god or Hindu gods or allah etc. And seeing as anyone can posit at any time a more accurate and acceptable doctrine or description of any type of god whatsoever, of a possible god either to be discovered in the future or not, then true atheism would be to not believe in all possible things.

At most we can be agnostic. We simply don’t know yet.

That depends on it's actual nature. I think everything can actually be known. — Hillary

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle begs to differ. If you know the exact location of a particle you cannot know it’s velocity and vice versa. It’s like a dot verses a line on a piece of paper. If you have a dot you don’t know what direction it may make a line to and if you have a line you don’t know at which point along that line the original dot was drawn. It’s a simplified Illustration but mathematically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle appears to hold true. You cannot know all information simultaneously as information itself is change and change cannot stop even momentarily.

Furthermore the act of knowing all information simultaneously is additional information outside the original set. You can’t operate outside of the system from which the definition comes from - this is known as a circular definition.

For example time can only be defined by words from which time is implied: eg event, moments, sequences.

Heisenbergs uncertainty principle begs to differ. If you know the exact location of a particle you cannot know it’s velocity and vice versa. It’s like a dot verses a line on a piece of paper. If you have a dot you don’t know what direction it may make a line to and if you have a line you don’t know at which point along that line the original dot was drawn. It’s a simplified Illustration but mathematically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle appears to hold true. You cannot know all information simultaneously as information itself is change and change cannot stop even momentarily. — Benj96

Weel, that's according to one interpretation of QM.. There are other interpretations in which a partcle has determined values of all non-commuting observables. Take, for example, the z-direction of spin. It doesn't commute with Sx and Sy. Now, entangle two electrons. Measure simulataneously the Sz1 and Sz2. The components of the other, Sz2 and Sx1, are instantly known. So both S1z as S1x can be known at the same time.

An electron around a proton can, when in an s-orbital, have precise positions, with zero velocity, if it jumps instantaneously between all positions within the bounds of the wavefunction.

interesting. Perhaps something for me to read more on.

The standard view on evolution, genes or memes trying to replicate, says the purpose of life is to do exactly that. — Hillary

My issue is that "purpose" suggests intentionality, and intentionality implies an intelligence directing it. Theists often reply, "of course there is!", but that's not a deduction, it's an interpretation from a theist point of view.

A question popular among theists is: "why is there something rather than nothing?" But this assumes there is a reason - so to ask the question implies one assumes there is intentionality behind it all. Similarly, fine-tuning arguments assume there's a reason (or design objective).

Of course, I'm not going to convince you there isn't intentionality behind it all, but I'd like you to see that you can't prove (or justify) God's existence by assuming there is intentionality - that's circular.