↪Frank Apisa

1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.

2 im asking you that because you are lost in semantics, so I was walking you through the semantics. We can just focus on what the most sensible definition of atheism if you want instead if you like, these are two separate counter-points to your current position. — DingoJones

I've got to leave right now...I have an aunt in intensive care that I have to tend to. But I just read this...and I suggest you get off the condescension. I guarantee I have discussed these issues with people more credentialed and informed than you...and I am not about to have you suppose you are "walking me through any semantics."

Now I'll leave and come back...I hope a bit cooled off. This can be a good discussion if we treat each other as equals...rather than you as a scholar attempting to school me.

Okay ?

Show my position some respect
— Frank Apisa

I respect you. I respect your position. It's your intellect that sucks. — god must be atheist

Whoops...here you are again.

I was correct above.

Anyway...I thank you for your respect of me. I thank you for your respect of my position. I could not care less that you think my intellect sucks. My intellectual achievements are many...and you are just out of control.

Calm down...and try to discuss rather than school. You might be better at the former than the latter.

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.
— Frank Apisa

I am an asshole and you are CLEARLY a theist. Not even a closet theist, but a full-blown, all-out theist. — god must be atheist

Out of courtesy for you, I will agree that you are an asshole...but I am not a theist of any sort.

Sorry you made that mistake, but considering your immediate concession, I can understand it.

There are many wrong things in your post that merely concern meaning and nothing else. I have pointed out many times before in other threads by other closet theists, similar to you, where their mistakes, identical to yours, CLEARLY lie.

Calm down, GMBA...you are gonna blow a gasket.

I am not a theist...and I suspect many of the people you imagine you schooled are not either.

If you feel I have made any mistakes...name them rather than generically saying I have made mistakes.

I am just fed up with the theists who think every discipline of thought is a religion.

Okay...and you must be mistaking me for someone who cares what you are fed up with. That may be our problem here.

I shan't touch your thread, because you will learn nothing from it.

You already have...and my guess is you will again.

Like many others, Frank A, you confuse yourself about "atheism" by conflating its meta-statements (re: theism) with theism's object-statements (re: g/G). :point:

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa
I'm an atheist insofar as I claim that 'theism is false'.

And if this claim is warranted (which, at minimum both conceptually & physically, it is), then every theistic g/G is necessarily an empty name - cannot refer (like e.g. five-sided triangles, a fish ice-skating on the sun, the Great Cthulhu, etc).

In other words, I neither "believe" that there exists nor "believe" that there does not exist a g/G; but rather assert that the theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. Thus, "YHWH", "Ahura Mazda", "Shakti", "Zeus", "Quetzalcoatl", "Aten", "Vishnu", "Mithras", "Wotan", "Allāh", etc are merely (ritualized) fictions. For atheists like me, theistic-talk is nothing but (occasionally placebo effect-inducing) babytalk, or fetishistic gibberish (e.g. WOO-of-the-gaps); and, in this sense, I follow the via negationis of the apophatic tradition. — 180 Proof

One...I am not confused. This is a topic I have discussed with very learned people for decades now.

Two...if you are saying you are an agnostic, but do not want to describe yourself as an agnostic for some reason...fine with me. I support your position.

Three...THERE ARE AGNOSTICS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE TOLD BY INSISTING ATHEISTS THAT BECAUSE THEY LACK A "BELIEF" IN ANY GODS, THEY ARE PERFORCE, ATHEISTS.

I am one of them. Show my position some respect.

Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god” (not being without a “belief” in a god)…and that was the use of the word throughout history. (Until debating atheists got hold of it.)
— Frank Apisa

Of course it was always about belief. Wait, unless there are KNOWN god(s) I haven't been told about?

Just because people in the past KNEW there was a god(s), doesn't mean we can't KNOW that their knowledge was actually just belief. — ZhouBoTong

Sounds like part of this was satire. Not sure how much, so I'll just leave it be.

This nonsense (insistence by some atheists) that anyone lacking a belief (in) god is an atheist…is an insult to reason and logic.
— Frank Apisa

Wait, so someone who lacks belief is a theist? Whatever else we add to "atheist", "not a theist" seems accurate, no?

You seem to think their is a dichotomy that breaks down to "either theist or atheist."

That is not the case.

IF THERE MUST BE A DICHOTOMY (I do not think there has to be)...it could just as easily be:

a) Those who make a guess (have a 'belief') in one direction or the other...

b) Those who do not.

I guess then we are just arguing whether all non-theists are atheists...so, then we are just arguing whether there is room for a third option (and once we admit a third we should probably admit an infinite spectrum of possibilities). And this will just boil down to semantics and our interpretations of words.

Not necessarily.

The totally unnecessary insistence that if one lacks a "belief" in any god...one is an atheist...can be discarded. (It actually makes no sense and should be discarded.)

Atheists would leave the agnostics alone if they didn't often sound like theists who are just unsure of which god(s) to believe in :razz:

That is because some atheists are assholes.

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.

Babies are very much the perfect atheists. For them, the question of God(s) - like every other question of course - is simply unintelligible. As it should be. The tragedy of it is that most are brought up to believe that the very question makes sense at all. Shame. — StreetlightX

I respectfully disagree.

Babies are very much the perfect agnostics. Not only do they not know...they don't even know they don't know.

As for how they are brought up...

...almost all of the atheists I have known (ALMOST ALL, not all) have been raised to be theists. We learn...and I tend to suppose that those of us who cease being theists are the better for it having been a choice of maturity.

0 P
An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa
What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? — Relativist

I would call him/her..."a person who 'believes' it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists."

I would not assign a descriptor...unless there is a descriptor that is particular to that. (I can think of none that is.)

A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).

Okay.

Since you have specified it to yourself...I would suggest that you use what I said in the preceding paragraph....with the understanding that the descriptor "agnostic" might be appropriate for the greater question of, "Has everything always existed on its own, or was there a initiating force that could reasonably be call "god(s)?"

My point is that "God" is a fuzzy term.

It is, indeed.

And while I maintain that there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about "that great unknown"...there certainly seems to be enough evidence upon which to base meaningful guesses about the gods of Olympus, Valhalla, and Abraham.

Its etymology CLEARLY indicates it was meant to denote “being without a god”
— Frank Apisa

The α is certainly privative. But the word you need to attend to is the ό θεός. Of course even if atheist were only just an English word, you'd still have to account for the meaning of its parts - if you're serious. But like everyone, you take the understanding of the meaning of the word "God" for granted, and that means that you can make all the noise you like, but based on your beginning, you're not saying anything. — tim wood

Sorry you feel that way, Tim, but thank you for sharing it.

Where B is the operator for belief, you can be without or with beliefs for proposition p:

1. someone does not believe p: ¬Bp
2. someone believes not p: B[¬p]
3. someone does not believe not p: ¬B[¬p]
4. someone believes p: Bp

Those are the possibilities in doxastic logic.

2 and 4 contradict (with). 1 and 3 do not contradict (without). 1 and 4, 2 and 3, contradict (with and without). 2 entails 1, and 4 entails 3 (with belief entails without belief in the contrary, and the converse does not hold). Each can be exemplified, they're jointly exhaustive of belief and the proposition, and no two are identical.

Differentiating a couple categories:

the elaborate religions with scriptures and stories of supernaturals, rituals, commands, fate designations, fulltime professional advertisers, often apologists earning a living from writing thereof, mutual inconsistencies, etc
unassuming deism, non-descript panpsychism, some varieties of Buddhism, entertaining some sort of (unknown) superbeing(s), etc

The latter is typically of less concern, and epistemically more on par with The Matrix, Bostrom's hypothesis, Zhuangzi's butterfly, Māyā of Indian fame, deus deceptor, dream thought experiments, Kafkaesque silent hidden superbeings, perhaps even solipsism, you name it. (Maybe Spinozism?)

"Whereof one cannot speak ..." and all that? — jorndoe

Sorry, but I have no idea of what you are talking about here. Assume I am stupid...and dumb it down if it is important for me to understand your position.

Seems the term atheism is commonly used about someone technically agnostic towards the latter, and with doubt/disbelief in the former.

As I see it...everyone is "agnostic" about the unknown. That is a tautology of sorts. It seems agnostics come in two varieties...those who acknowledge they do not know the unknown...and those who sorta acknowledge it, but go with their guesses.

Are you saying that there are no gods?
— Frank Apisa

I was suggesting that absence of theism and doubt/disbelief therein does not comprise a belief system (any more than disbelief that Santa is real does).

Okay...the absence of "belief" DOES NOT comprise a "belief" system. I agree totally.

I have the absence of "belief" on this question. I do not guess either way...which really is all a "belief" is.

The people who use the descriptor "atheist" however, seem to make a guess. (Perhaps not all of them, but the vast majority of them.) Those who have not made the guess (have the "belief") avoid using that descriptor.

Thanks for your interest in the discussion, Jorndoe.

Frank Apisa

Ya, thats just theistic semantics, calling a lack of belief a belief to draw a false equivalence so they can shift the burden of proof. You aren’t doing that, but you are making the same error.
What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons, and/or who are anti-theists and atheists but fail to make the correct distinction between the two. Those people are just one kind of atheist, and there are all kinds of different atheists...what they have in common is a lack of belief in god/gods, thats it. Thats what defines atheism. You want to change the definition because you do not want to be in the same category as people I imagine you find obnoxious about thier atheism.
Anyway, if I lack a belief in god then the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is “no”, correct? — DingoJones

First of all, thank you for continuing the conversation, Dingo. Gonna just deal with two things you mentioned here:

One...I do not want to be defined as "an atheist" simply because of a self-serving definition. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. In other fora I am often called a Democrat because many of my positions comport with the positions espoused by Democrats. BUT I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. I am a registered Independent.

That is the reason I do not want those descriptors (unnecessarily) assigned to me.

Two...if you lack a belief (in) (any) god(s)...YES, the answer to the question "do you believe in god" is NO.

What is your point with that?

Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion
— 3017amen
Atheism is NOT a religion...but for the most part it IS a "belief system."
— Frank Apisa

Like disbelief that Santa is real is a belief system?
Like a clean bill of health is a disease?

• absence of theism: newborns, the Pirahã people, some pygmies, ...
• doubt/disbelief in theisms: some pagans, some panpsychists, Hitchens, Russell, ... — jorndoe

Are you saying that there are no gods?

↪Frank Apisa
Here's my thoughts.

Over the years, I've seen many pointless debates about the meaning of the term "atheist". For example, I've encountered Christians who insist that to be an "atheist", one must hold the belief:no god(s) exist, and argue that "lack of belief in god" doesn't mean much (they counter: "I'm a theist because I lack belief in God's non-existence"). Their motivation seems to be a desire to argue against a strawman.

I therefore think the the term should be only be used to convey a general, vague sense of a person's position. One should make no specific assumptions about what any self-labelled atheist means. It's fair to assume he probably doesn't think there is a God, in the traditional sense of the term. If you want to know more specifically what he believes, set the label aside and ask.

BTW, as a point of trivia, the Roman empire labelled Christians as "atheist", because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. — Relativist

I agree...hence my feelings that the words "atheist" and "atheism" are useless as descriptors.

↪Frank Apisa

I asked what YOU think atheism means, not anything about atheists you know and how they may or may not describe themselves...or about how you choose to describe them using theistic semantics
I would like a clear, concise definition for atheism from you. Im asking you that because I want to know if I agree with your definition and to keep this from going into the weeds. Please, just give me a short, concise definition without reiterating your problem with some peoples use of the term.
My second question may have been a bit clumsy, so lets just start with my first one. It will be easier to communicate if we keep things short and to the point, dealing with one thing at a time. — DingoJones

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

Atheism is a belief...not a lack of "belief."

My personal agnosticism is a true lack of belief:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Hi Frank!

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but thought that the quoted definition was intriguing. Having a belief that no Gods exist translates into a belief system much like Religion. — 3017amen

You are correct. It would. Which is almost certainly the reason that debating atheist decided to change the definition of "atheist." They wanted to avoid that.

So, if someone says: Atheism is just another Religion, would they be incorrect?

No...at least, not in my opinion. Atheism is NOT a religion...but for the most part it IS a "belief system."

Atheists seem to abhor that...so they pretend the only reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor is because the lexicographers demand that they do.

Such an emotionally charged issue I know. However, the irony for the Atheist is that if emotive phenomena is metaphysical in nature, they need to reconcile the paradoxical nature of their own said emotional belief system from the lack thereof.

BINGO!

You havent demonstrated a very deep understanding of the word, certainly your use of “CLEARLY” Is erroneous here. — DingoJones

Interesting sentence! Interesting way to start a conversation..with what amounts to a gratuitous accusation.

Its etymology does clearly show how it was meant to be understood. To be without a god. And one cannot be "without a god"...unless there are no gods. If there are (something we do not know)...you are with a god no matter what you "believe."

If it was clear from the epistemology alone you wouldnt need to bring it up.

If someone is screwing with the word in order to make it mean something it did not mean...then one would either have to concede the point...or "bring it up."

I choose to bring it up. Don't necessarily "need" to...but I can, and do, choose to.

You also fail to justify claims you make, such as that defining atheism as lacking belief in god is an insult to reason and logic. How?

Since the distortion of what the word means results in someone like me (an agnostic without a "belief in any gods") being included because of the distorted meaning...it is an insult to reason and logic.

If the word means "a belief that there are no gods"...I stay excluded from the group...which is what I want...TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THAT GROUP.

And children and toddlers would also.

And to what end is that not the case?

The dichotomy, according to atheists, is "either one believes at least one god exists" or "one does not believe that at least one god exists." I suggest that (if there must be a dichotomy) it is: "either one believes at least one god exists" or "one believes no gods exist."

Frankly, the issue does not resolve to a dichotomy.

In my case for instance...

...I do not "believe" any gods exist...and...

...I also do not "believe" there are no gods.

Even if you think thats the wrong definition, that doesnt mean its an insult to logic and reason. Anyway, I have some questions if your actually interested in a discussion.

One, thank you for sharing that...

...and two, I am very interested in a discussion.

First, you didnt provide a definition of what you think atheism is, so lets hear that.

Most people I know who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...lack a "belief" (in) God (lack a "belief that any gods exist.) Almost all of them ALSO "believe" (guess, think, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.

That is what the word "atheist" should be used to describe. Those of us who do not "believe" (guess or suppose) that any gods exist and also do not "believe" (guess or suppose) that at least one does...(which more accurately aligns with a lack of knowing on this scale)...can continue using agnostic as a descriptor without having the "then you are an atheist" nonsense thrown our way.

Also, What is the difference, in your mind, between “being without a god” and “being without a belief in god?”. Im curious to know what being without god would even mean if not being about belief.

Think about the difference between "no life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to our Sol"...and "a belief that there is no life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to our Sol"...and that should answer your question.

Democracy is s seed.

Anarchy is what happens when it germinates and grows.

Too bad, that!

A large problem with "democracy" is that as people get the additional freedom that a democratic styled government allows...they start to want more and more. In effect, they start to want license.

In a perverse way, a democratic styled government seems eventually to lead to anarchy.

We have this republic only insofar as we keep it.

Advocating for anarchy is not a good way to "keep it."

↪Frank Apisa That whole anthropological legend is apocryphal. — Banno

What anthropological legend is apocryphal?

I'm always annoyed at people who say infinity is not a number but a "concept." For one thing, that is way too broad and says absolutely nothing; I cannot think of anything in mathematics or logic that is not a concept. I say it is a number for if it is not then one divided by infinity would not equal zero anymore than one divided by a cat is a number. Here's my definition of infinity, and for simplicity I'm only referring to positive infinity: infinity is a number, but it has a characteristic that all real numbers do not possess. Namely, it is a number that is greater than any particular real number. All the rules of arithmetic applicable to real numbers do not carry over to use of infinity. Examples: infinity plus a real number is infinity: infinity divided by infinity is not equal to one: infinity subtracted from infinity is not equal to zero. — Michael Lee

The problem that arises for me is...IF "infinity"...why do we only look at things for "here" out infinitely (whatever that is). IF truly infinity...then the concept should begin at "nothing"...perhaps not even the thought or the notion/concept.

Also, did you know that our ancestors could count only upto to 2? Look below:
Cardinal - Ordinal
1 - first
2 - second
3 - third
4 -fourth
.
.
.
n - nth

Notice that the names for ordinal numbers of the first two cardinals (1 & 2) are distinct viz. "first" and "second". All other ordinal numbers can be constructed from their respective numbers simply by adding "th". This is claimed to be be evidence of counting ability being limited to 2 and after that, 3, 4, 5,...,it was simply "many". So ancient counting looked like this: one (first), two (second), many. The many corresponds to the modern concept of infinity. As you can see, many and infinity represent a limit to quantification i.e. it spills over into the domain of quality - a concept and not a number. — TheMadFool

That is interesting...and I have often wondered about that kind of thing. But I suspect it is a lot more complicated than that.

If an ancient had 5 hens...and one went missing, I suspect he would not just say..."I had many yesterday and I have many today, so no problem."

Two...if you were, you would be terrified of Biden...JUST AS TRUMP IS.
— Frank Apisa

There's no evidence of this at all. Again, gut feelings isn't political analysis.

Biden would be a terrible candidate. Just more establishment Democrat bullshit -- exactly like Hillary.

Maybe Trump fears him, maybe not. We have no idea. Trump's an imbecile anyway, so who cares? — Xtrix

Well...I think Trump's actions with regard to Biden IS evidence of his fear of the man, but I agree so completely with your last statement about Trump being an imbecile, that I will leave that as a final comment.

Well...you may not be bored...but for certain you are not telling it as a fact.
— Frank Apisa

I am telling it as certain as being a solipsist. — Wallows

Now you are just being silly.


Either explain yourself...or establish your assertion as a fact.

If you persist in asserting "it is so simply because I say it is so"...I just abandon the conversation, because it truly is not a conversation.

Well...you may not be bored...but for certain you are not telling it as a fact.

You are asserting it...and you have that right. But unless there is some underlying motivation, you would be doing a bit more to substantiate it.

Just wondering what this drama is all about.

A "wealth tax" makes sense to me...although I would exempt a fairly large amount. And while praxis is correct, the laws can be written in a way that penalizes hidden money to the point where it would be foolish to hide much. AND ANYTHING HIDDEN CAN BE DISCOVERED.

Was Dingo correct? Are you just bored?

If I were Trump I would love nothing better than to have Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee thanks to his 40 year career as a non-progressive establishment Democrat, his deteriorating brain which disallows him to speak for more than several minutes without digressing in an incoherent blob.

Further, Joe Biden's support among the youth is abysmal and his nomination would lay bare the disdain the Democratic party's establishment has for the concerns of its Millennial/Gen Z constituents who are inheriting the mistakes made by their parents and older generations.

And according to a Lev Parnas leaked audio, Trump claimed, "If Bernie would have been VP it would have been tougher...I got 20% of Bernie vote [note, this is not true, it was ~12%] because of trade. He's a big trade guy...Had she picked Bernie Sanders it would have been tougher. He is the only one I didn't want her to pick." — Maw

One...you are not Trump, Maw.

Two...if you were, you would be terrified of Biden...JUST AS TRUMP IS.

Three...Bernie stands for many of the things I see as essential to a more reasonable system...but I think Bernie would be a disaster as the candidate. Despite the fact that I agree with many of his "proposals" (wishes)...I hope he is not the Democratic Party candidate. I WILL ENTHUSIASTICALLY VOTE FOR HIM IF HE IS...because I would vote for Satan rather than Trump.

Why are you saying that solipsism denies the existence of other minds?
— Frank Apisa

It says so in the wikipedia entry on solipsism:
Denial of material existence, in itself, does not constitute solipsism.

A feature of the metaphysical solipsistic worldview is the denial of the existence of other minds
— Wikipedia — TheMadFool

Actually, it doesn't.

Here is the entry:

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/: from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.

Solipsism suggests that the only thing one CAN BE SURE of is self...or more particularly, one's own mind. Everything else MAY NOT exist.

And of course, that is a possibility. I know "there is something going on" which I call "my thinking" or "my mind."

But how can I possibly be sure that you exist...or anyone else?

Scary as hell!

If I were all that exists...the first thing I would do is to create an illusion world where I would be just a tiny cog in a great OTHER. The idea that "I" being all that exists is the ultimate horror. Being GOD would be the ultimate terror.

I'm not going by polls...but rather by the inference of just one man...Trump.

There is one person in the Democratic Party campaign contingent who obviously scares Trump...Joe Biden. He is the one Trump most fears as an opponent.

Good enough for me. Biden will be my guy...although I'll have to wait for the General Election, because I am a registered Independent. I get no vote in the Primary Election. But at this point, I would vote for Satan rather than Trump...so I will be voting for the Democratic Party candidate no matter what.

I acknowledge that Trump will very likely win a second term.

↪Frank Apisa I think we are indebted to the Chinese. If they initiated a run on the dollar, we'd be in bad shape. — frank

We would, indeed.

I suspect they own a lot more of us...than appears publicly to be the case. And what "appears publicly to be the case"...is already a hell of a lot.

↪Frank Apisa One barrier to a socialist agenda in the US is that it would require drastic fiscal restructuring: a progressive property tax probably. No president can do that. Think about how far to the left all three branches of govt would have to be.

Electing a socialist wouldnt be much more than an aesthetic victory. — frank

Actually, I can (and do) agree with that.

My position on the issue you raise is: There are defects in the kind of capitalism that now is the norm in America...and I think adjustments can be made to improve it. Socialist countries borrow from capitalistic countries in order to make their system better. China has done that to the point where, more than likely, it will surpass the US as the most robust economy during the next couple of decades. (Maybe sooner.)

We can borrow from them...to the betterment of capitalism...and at no significant cost to the underling capitalistic system.

I wish we would do it.

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (listen); from Latin solus, meaning 'alone', and ipse, meaning 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
— Wikipedia

How is solipsism, specifically the part where you deny the existence of other minds, tenable when cogito ergo sum can be used to confirm the existence of all thinking beings?

If I can say the mind of an other is uncertain then that other may say the same thing of my mind, and so on, making every mind of uncertain existence and yet anyone, everyone can say, truthfully, "cogito ergo — TheMadFool

Why are you saying that solipsism denies the existence of other minds?

Read your definition (I've seen others which I consider much better)...and nothing in it suggests that solipsism denies the existence of other minds.

Can we be certain of more than just our existence?

My impulse was to answer, "No!"

But I realized I was certain of that...so the answer must be "Yes."

But then again, if it is "Yes"...then I was not actually certain of my original "no."

Which means the answer may be "No."

I'd offer my favorite answer (I do not know.)...but that seems to offend so many people I will refrain from doing so.

↪Frank Apisa Tally ho. Get that fox! — frank

It is not a fox...it is a pig.

Yeah...there's been lots of lipstick applied to that pig...

...but it is still a pig.

I am NOT on a space station...which is the reason I used the conditional subjunctive mood "if I were" in my statement.

I am here on Earth...seeing the Republic (temporarily in our custody) being violated...and speaking out against the violation.

Why not join me.

↪Frank Apisa The Democratic field is obviously weak. The economy is ok. The impeachment trial will be forgotten. Trump has fairly decent chance of winning a second term.

It's a good time to get philosophical about things. Deflate your passions and look at the situation as if from outer space. — frank

I think the Democratic field is not weak at all. And when compared with the Republican "field"...it looks positively powerful.

I do agree that Trump has a fairly decent chance of winning a second term...but that is faint praise indeed. Any president running for re-election with an "ok" economy...should be a prohibitive favorite for re-election...not just someone with a fairly decent chance.

I am being philosophical...but I also am being passionate. My feelings about Trump being our president are extremely negative...and I want very much for him to be out of office. I suspect I would feel that same way if I were on a space station.

What I hate hearing is 'how likely it is for Trump to win a second term'. This doesn't mean I don't believe it's possible, because I do. It's just that after all that has happened, after the many obvious disasters and malfeasance and constant barrage of lies, the fact that this can still be a prospect, even considered by otherwise intelligent people, makes by blood run cold. It's like, how can the world be this f***ed, that someone like that is even considered? — Wayfarer

Allow me a loud AMEN!

To each his/her own, but it is beyond me how any intelligent person can even consider voting to allow Trump to continue the carnage.

Great response. The kind I was hoping for when I posted the questions.

I can sympathize with this entirely. I am a non believer but my wife is, so I can sort of say that I celebrate for her. That way I can get my Christmas dinner.

Our tree sits in the corner of a bay window that goes around the corner of the house, and there is a part that sits behind the supporting post. My wife insists that the lights and decorations do not get interrupted and that that part looks just like the rest.
That is what we men love about women, the way they think. So entertaining. :wink: — Sir2u

Thank you, Sir. I gotta say that I laughed out loud while reading your great response.

We do love 'em!

Ahhhh...so this is what they mean when they say, "We are here discussing philosophy...and religion."

Son-of-a-gun!

A non-cognitive explanation for holding a belief describes a cause for it but is not a justification.
— fdrake
Who said it has to be justified? A belief is essentially a hypothesis. Justification goes beyond the hypothesis to its proof. Again, per Popper, the origin of a hypothesis doesn't matter. — Pantagruel

From what I see here in the forum, "a justified belief" is a "belief" being described by the person offering it...and an "unjustified belief" is the one his/her opponent is offering.

In a discussion regarding the existence or non-existence of gods...EVERY "belief" that "at least one god exists" or that "no gods exist" seems to be nothing more than a blind guess disguised by use of the word "belief."