H'm. Surely what your diagram means is not just a detail? — Ludwig V
Do you have a background in logic, specifically the truth-functional calculus? — Ludwig V
You can say that it is not a sentence or a malformed sentence (not a wff) and hence no truth-value can be assigned or that it belongs in some third class (truth-value). But you cannot say or believe that it is true and you cannot say or believe that it is false. The same applies to the contradictory - "Colourless green ideas do not sleep furiously" in this case. — Ludwig V
I don't think philosophers are comfortable with irrational belief. But many beliefs have emotions attached to them. We're not machines. — Ludwig V
Something that sometimes happens is a bad basis for generalizing about the concept. — Ludwig V
What do you mean "discarded"? If I come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that my spouse is cheating, the emotion doesn't disappear. Most likely, it will be reinforced. — Ludwig V
I've no problem with you unfolding the fan. But it wasn't clear to me that you think that the strength or weakness of belief is proportional to the evidence, - or perhaps you mean "should be" proportional to the evidence? — Ludwig V
One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the idea that some propositions have a special status in that they are foundational and more or less immune to refutation. This is the category of what used to be called a priori or "analytic". — Ludwig V
I will also say that some beliefs X are more certain than others W exactly because W depends on X. Perhaps when we talk about the strenght of belief we don't have something in absolute terms, like "X is 95% sure" and "Y is 15% sure", but a hierarcy or relation, where the surest propositions (if there are such things) are defined as 100% and the most evidently false (a bachelor is a married man) as 0%, and every other belief is measured in reference to those two. I prefer the latter.I would say "A bachelor is a single man" is very close to 180º degrees (belief with certainty), while "A bachelor is a married man" to 0º degrees (disbelief). If we wish to talk about synthetic propositions, we could use "A square has four inner angles", very close to 180º also. The law of identity could be said to be 180º degrees, as it is the basal rock that every other belief depends on. — Lionino
Opposition shouldn't be read to mean "denial of" — Hallucinogen
Antitheism means opposition to the existence of a God — Hallucinogen
No, to me you either believe it or you know it. Knowing is stronger than believing. — mentos987
Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — mentos987
There's a binary distinction between certainty and uncertainty — Hallucinogen
Not to me. The term “uncertain” would indicate 5-95% certainty. — mentos987
Opposition shouldn't be read to mean "denial of" — Hallucinogen
Well, you said it yourself:
Antitheism means opposition to the existence of a God — Hallucinogen — Lionino
Yes, so "opposition to something" doesn't mean "to deny". It means moral opposition. — Hallucinogen
This entails that saying you know something means you don't believe it, which is absurd. — Hallucinogen
Uncertainty and certainty are both scales 0-100%, inversions of each other.You said the opposite of this in your previous comment. — Hallucinogen
"I am opposed to the pilot-wave", everybody understands that as thinking that pilot-wave is a bad theory — Lionino
Opposition to the existence of something is clearly denial of existence. — Lionino
Because you're talking about an object in that case, not a being. — Hallucinogen
The kind of opposition indicated by the "anti-" prefix is moral. See: — Hallucinogen
If someone asks me "Do you believe you need oxygen to survive?" then I answer, "No, I know I need oxygen to survive". — mentos987
"I believe it will snow". — mentos987
Being certain is a step on the Certainty scale: 95-100% — mentos987
Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — mentos987
But this isn't a case of you not believing that oxygen is needed to survive. You believe it because of what you know. — Hallucinogen
Not necessarily, I can be unsure about it. However I probably have some experience that suggests that it will snow. But yes, I can know some things and use that to form beliefs about something else. The belief is weaker than the knowledge though.And you believe it because you know something. — Hallucinogen
My bad, it is supposed to read "Being uncertain indicates that you are not certain".Not to me, uncertainty indicates that you are not certain. — Hallucinogen
The relationship is not temporal but one of dependency. If we're rational, belief depends on knowledge.
Beliefs that we formulate without knowledge are usually predictions or estimations
I got involved in this because I'm interested in the debate about religion. We've ended up with the connection to epistemology, probability theory and so on. In a way, there's nothing wrong with that, and we could pursue our differences (which are many and radical) even on this thread. But I don't want to get absorbed in those subjects just now, and you clearly have a thoroughly thought through system in place, so that debate would be quite demanding. I expect you will get more out of a discussion with people who appear to be more on the same page, or at least the same book, as you. — Ludwig V
Not necessarily, I can be unsure about it. — mentos987
However I probably have some experience that suggests that it will snow. — mentos987
But yes, I can know some things and use that to form beliefs about something else. The belief is weaker than the knowledge though. — mentos987
My bad, it is supposed to read "Being uncertain indicates that you are not certain". — mentos987
This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be saying that we must have knowledge of X before we can believe X; but then you say it is atemporal: can you give an example? — Bob Ross
"Beliefs that we formulate without knowledge are usually predictions or estimations"
Isn’t this a temporal dependency? — Bob Ross
This also seems like you are saying that we just need to have knowledge of Y (as opposed to X) to believe X, which is compatible with the etymological schema. — Bob Ross
Nah, I can believe something based on other beliefs.some other fact that you know. — Hallucinogen
Experience is not the same as knowing. In my experience, the earth is flat.And the experience is what you know. — Hallucinogen
No, in this case, the beliefs derived from knowledge does not refer to the same thing. I know it snows now so I believe it will snow tomorrow.What you're now doing is acknowledging that belief coincides with knowledge, — Hallucinogen
Uncertainty and certainty are the scales themselves. Being certain and being uncertain, those are the actual levels of certainty, and they are separate. However, being certain can still contain a degree of uncertainty (0-5%).uncertainty together with certainty, which is a contradiction that I earlier pointed out. — Hallucinogen
I think linguists have done a good job showing that atheism in the ordinary sense means more than a mere lack or absence of belief. — Leontiskos
I believe it will snow because I believe someone said so to me earlier. Knowing is not a requirement for believing. — mentos987
Experience is not the same as knowing. In my experience, the earth is flat. — mentos987
No, in this case, the beliefs derived from knowledge does not refer to the same thing. — mentos987
Uncertainty and certainty are the scales themselves. Being certain and being uncertain, those are the actual levels of certainty, and they are separate. However, being certain can still contain a degree of uncertainty (0-5%). — mentos987
Every object is a being. — Lionino
'Anti-' means opposition, that is what the dictionary says. You ascribe this "morally" adverb to the word opposition when it is not there. There are countless examples of 'anti-' prefixed words without moral meaning.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-ageing
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-id
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-romantic
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anti-aircraft
The word anti-matter itself indicates reverse, instead of moral stance or counter-action. — Lionino
But I can experience that it is flat. I think it is a great case for experience not being knowledge.don't experience the roundness of the Earth, so it's not an appropriate example to prove your point. — Hallucinogen
Maybe to your definition of knowledge. If everything was based on what I call knowledge, there would be less mistakes all around.It still refers to knowledge. — Hallucinogen
“Uncertain” and “certain” does not overlap. “Uncertainty” and “certainty” are scales, they can overlap, they have no thresholds. A degree of uncertainty will always contain the inversed degree of certainty.This just doesn't make sense. They're separate but they overlap? — Hallucinogen
By dependency, I mean logical dependency
I have to know what the president of the United States is in order to have a belief about who will become president in the future.
This sort of “logical dependency” you described is not atemporal. — Bob Ross
Exactly, so you could believe that the next president will be Bob without knowing it: — Bob Ross
that’s exactly how agnostic atheism works. — Bob Ross
You have now conflated the knowledge used to formulate the belief in X with the need for knowledge of X to formulate the belief in X. — Bob Ross
atheism -- The theory or belief that God does not exist. — Oxford Reference
Let's see what the relevant dictionaries say: — Lionino
Let's see what the relevant dictionaries say:
A Dictionary of Atheism Stephen Bullivant and Lois Lee: "A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence".
A Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.) Simon Blackburn: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none."
A Dictionary of Psychology (4 ed.) Andrew M. Colman: "Rejection of belief in God. atheist n. One who rejects belief in God."
The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World: "The Greek for atheism is ‘not to recognize the gods’ or ‘deny that the gods exist’ or, later, ‘to remove the gods’." — Lionino
How are you deciding "relevant", other than as a way of describing the reference that supports your own view? — Hallucinogen
This authoritative dictionary draws on Oxford's unrivalled bank of reference and language resources in order to explore the stories behind names and sayings that can be found in classic literature or today's news. Questions it seeks to answer include: What are Anglo-Saxon attitudes? Who first tried to nail jelly to the wall? When was the Dreamtime? Would you want the Midas touch? Should you worry about grey goo? Answers cover a range of topics, such as classical and other mythologies, history, religion, folk customs, superstitions, science and technology, philosophy, and popular culture.
This bestselling dictionary is written by one of the leading philosophers of our time, and it is widely recognized as the best dictionary of its kind. Comprehensive and authoritative, it covers every aspect of philosophy from Aristotle to Zen. With clear and concise definitions, it provides lively and accessible coverage of not only Western philosophical traditions, but also themes from Chinese, Indian, Islamic, and Jewish philosophy. New entries on philosophy of economics, social theory, neuroscience, philosophy of the mind, and moral conceptions, bring this authoritative third edition up to date. It is the ideal introduction to philosophy for anyone with an interest in the subject, and it is an indispensable work of reference for students and teachers.
I should point out that appealing to dictionaries is going to be completely fruitless for your side of the argument, since dictionaries aren't reason-giving. — Hallucinogen
Therefore what should define atheists is claiming to know that God does not exist (or synonymous phrases such as denying God exists), and this goes together with believing that God does not exist, since belief and knowledge are coupled. — Hallucinogen
This whole argument references the sourced definition of atheism you used. I am saying your source for that definition is not a good source.But putting agnosticism together with atheism is contradictory, despite their shared lack of belief, because of what they know differently. Agnostics don't know whether God exists, while atheists know God doesn't exist. You can't be in two states about knowledge. — Hallucinogen
Which one seems more relevant to philosophy of religion's terminology? — Lionino
Correct me if I am wrong, but the OP mentions dictionaries and definitions at many points — Lionino
and some arguments seem to be based on these definitions — Lionino
This whole argument references the sourced definition of atheism you used. — Lionino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.