Baden
9.8k
What 180 said. :100: — Baden

So you also are saying that you use "atheist" as a descriptor, but you do NOT "believe" there are no gods...and you think that the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist.

Wow!

Okay...now I have met two people who are of that opinion.

:wink:

180 Proof
991
I say an atheist is simply someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor.
— Frank Apisa
So you say ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Yup, so I say.

And I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NEVER!
Wrong. :lol: — 180 Proof

No it is not wrong. I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Have you?

Inductive fallacy (i.e. hasty generalization). Proof:

... I don't. :scream: — 180 Proof

Okay...let's talk about that.

You are saying you "do not believe there are no gods"...and you are saying "the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist...yet you use the word "atheist" as a descriptor.

Mention that to someone in the street...and they will laugh at you, because it is absurd.

ATHEISM...is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM. — 180 proof

Correct.

From my very first reply to you months ago, Frankie, I pointed out that it didn't matter what you or I call ourselves, only what our respective positions presuppose and entail. Your position - assertions without argument (i.e. Luther-like auto-da-fé, or tantrum-like CRIS DE CŒUR :cry:) - consists of fallacies such as argument from popularity (re: use of "descriptors"), argument from ignorance (re: "guesses" that ignore evidentiary claims), & hasty generalizations (or ad hominem projections?) as well as incoherently insisting that you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED', conflating belief IN belief THAT & know THAT, & confusing 2nd order meta-statements with 1st order object-statements. :monkey: You were wrong then, Frankie, with the OP "About This Word, "Atheist" and you're still wrong, incorrigibly moreso, today as my plainly stated position (above) shows and most (@Baden, DingoJones et al) who've engaged you on several threads can attest. — 180 Proof

Right!

From a guy who claims he uses the word "atheist" to describe himself...but who does not "believe" there are no gods...and who says "the likelihood that at least one god exists is equal to or greater than the likelihood that no gods exist."

I must be terribly frustrating having to defend that...but I admire you attempting to do so.

TheDarkElf
41
↪Frank Apisa
Are civilization and true democracy really such lofty ideals?{/quote]

Yes!


— TheDarkElf

Secondly anarchism is the polar opposite to fascism so it hardly seems reasonable to be so opposed to both policies. — TheDarkElf

Yes, again.

I didn't dodge it. It's a false claim considering the definition of atheism is (for the very last time since I've said the same thing in different ways about five time already):

"Atheism for Beginners

Atheism is the Absence of Belief in Gods: The broad, simple definition of atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; atheism is not the absence of beliefs generally. Normally called "weak atheism," this definition is attested to in most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries, and specialized references. Disbelief in gods is not the not the same as a belief or as the denial of gods. The lack of a belief isn't the same as having a belief and not believing something is true isn't the same as believing it is not true.
...
Atheists use this broad definition not simply because it's what we find in dictionaries, but because the broad definition is superior. The broad definition helps describe a broader range of possible positions among both atheists and theists. "

That's what the word means and that's the way I'll continue to use it, your ideologically based aversion notwithstanding. — Baden

One...you did dodge it...and continue to do so.

Two...okay, we'll leave. The next time I bring it up with someone else, I will be able to make the same statement...no person using "atheist" as a descriptor will respond to the question.

The notion of anarchy...and the notion of libertarianism (which inevitably will lead to anarchy)...are both abominations to civilization and to true democracy. Both should be fought with the intensity we would bring to a fight against fascism.

Following that logic, agnosticism is the belief that there's not enough evidence to justify a belief in gods or a disbelief in them. Agnostics are at least as likely to be aware of gods as atheists are, so their orientation towards them is also based on beliefs about the probability of their existence. — Baden

I cannot speak for every Agnostic, but for me...that is not so at all.

There are people who "believe" there is a GOD...at least one god. i am not one of them. I do not "believe" there is at least one god.

There also are people who "believe" there are no gods. I am not one of them. I do not "believe" there are no gods.

There also are people who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one....and others who "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none. I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE EITHER. I do NOT "believe" it is more likely in either direction.

Here is the way I say that (which I have posted many times:

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.

So your "logic" does not hold.

Quoted you from the other thread as it's more relevant here. Though still not very on-topic re anti-theism, so I might leave it soon. — Baden

I cannot force you to stay, but I can ask as respectfully as possible that you do, Baden. Nothing being discussed between the two of us here...is so off-topic as to be proscribed in any way.

This is important stuff we are hashing.

In practice, for obvious reasons, people who call themselves atheists are generally aware of at least some gods and other religious concepts And therefore do have beliefs about them. But none of that is necessary to be an atheist. Intelligent extraterrestrials who had never visited this planet nor heard of our gods and had none of their own could accurately be described as atheists. — Baden

As I said (and which you dodged)...

...a "belief" that there are no gods...or a "belief" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...is an essential to cause anyone to use "atheist" as a descriptor.

Handle THAT, Baden...and we can talk.

That was supposed to read, I also acknowledge there is nothing wrong with "believing" (or blindly guessing) in either direction.

We all know what this is about.

Here is what I have to say about it:

ATHEISM is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM.

Theists "believe" there is a God...or "believe" it is more likely there is a God than that there are no gods.

Atheists "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I repeat: Both ATHEISM and THEISM are the product of "belief."

I also there is nothing wrong with "believing" (or blindly guessing) in either direction.

Baden
9.8k
Atheists claim that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods
— Frank Apisa

I'll write it for you again:

"Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods."

Are we there yet? — Baden

Nope. Not even close.

You still haven't answered the questions. NO ATHEIST ever does...because the answer is apparent. EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one.

ATHEISM...is as much a product of "belief" as is THEISM.

There is nothing wrong with "belief", Baden. But atheists want to pretend they do not do it. And to maintain that pretense, they have to insist that agnostics and new-born babies and infants and toddlers are all atheists...because they lack a "belief" in any gods.

It is an absurdity. You are an intelligent guy, Baden. You realize what I am saying makes sense...much more sense than "Atheism is only a lack of 'belief' in a god." Why do you not just acknowledge that?

Out of context quote. That's just one example of atheism.

"An atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; the absence of belief in gods; disbelief in gods; or not believing in gods.

The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists. Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist. All that is required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others." — Baden

I have mentioned something on several occasions here in the forum...that I have mentioned in many other forums (fora) where I have participated...to which I have never have gotten a reasonable refutation. Let me try it with you directly...as it applies to you:

First the comment: Atheists claim that an atheist is simply someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods. I say an atheist is simply someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor. (Ultimately, that is what it is: Someone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor.)

And I have never known or known of ANY person who uses the descriptor "atheist" who did not either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NEVER!

So I am saying that "believing" there are no gods or "believing" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...IS AN ESSENTIAL to using "atheist" as a descriptor.

I ask you, Baden (IF YOU USE "ATHEIST" AS A DESCRIPTOR)...do you either "believe" there are no gods...or do you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

I'd like to discuss the implications of your answer if you answer NO to that last part.

By no means is Biden even close to perfect.

But unless something very unfortunate happens, it will come down to a choice between Trump and Biden...and anyone choosing Trump in that match-up is just not thinking about the welfare of our country or the world in general.

Stop with all the labels and descriptors, because all that ever happens when labels/descriptors are used are endless argument about what the label or descriptor means.

State your position without using a label. Then there is no ambiguity.

Rather than merely saying I am an Agnostic, I say, "Here is my position...which obviously is AN agnostic position":

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.

Stop with the, "I am an atheist" or "I am an antitheist." State your actual position...and, if you feel like it, mention you consider it to be AN "atheistic" or "antitheistic" position. Mine will not be the ONLY agnostic position...and I seriously doubt yours will be the ONLY atheistic or AN antitheistic position either.

But if you state your position thoroughly, we at least know where you stand.

Hanover
5.4k
"That guy" (Joe Biden) will "run the country" 1000 times more effectively than the classless incompetent now attempting to do so.
— Frank Apisa

Biden had no idea where he was. Isn't that cause for some concern, even if Trump is classless and incompetent? Why should either get a pass? — Hanover

He was finishing a TV bit. Have you ever done TV? The end of one of those things usually requires a fade out of some sort...and the "talent" is told to hold still. Which is what he was doing...even if the camera was stationary and unmanned. Then his wife came up and he kissed her.

The nonsense that Joe "had no idea where he was" is an absurdity.

In any case, I would take him over Trump any day of the week.

In November, that will be the choice.

I'm not sure I'd trust this guy to watch my cat when I'm away, much less run the country. — Hanover

"That guy" (Joe Biden) will "run the country" 1000 times more effectively than the classless incompetent now attempting to do so.

As a young USAF officer, I was sent to the U of Chicago to qualify me as a meteorologist. All expenses paid plus a decent salary at the time. I knew of MDs and one lawyer who had been entirely supported as I had been. The lawyer remained in the Air Force and retired a Colonel - he's now the district attorney where I live. The others put in a few years and left the service, as I did.

That was in the 1950s. I assume such programs still exist. Actually, I'm in favor of free education all the way, provided the recipient is serious and studious and not simply sponging off the US government. As a former professor I have unfortunately seen that happen. — jgill

Yes to everything you said here but especially the notion that ANY government supported education should require very good grades from a recipient.

I also was in the USAF during the 1950's. I processed many officers into the service at Sampson AFB in 1954 through 1956. I then transferred to a small SAC support base in England.

I use eye-drops for glaucoma. Two-and-a-half milliliters, .005%(!) solution. Retail USD$70. Assuming the medicine is where the cost is, and packaging and delivery non-material, the medicine itself - the active ingredient - per liter (slightly more than a quart), works out to 400 x 20,000 x $70 = $560,000,000 / liter! Or about 2.25 billion dollars per gallon. Do the math yourself. And that's just eye-drops. When I asked my doctor about this, he gave me the same look a pet dog would give - interest without comprehension. And nothing at all unusual here.

And doctors? Next time you go, determine the cost of the visit against time spent with the man (or woman). Rates near two thousand dollars per hour are not unusual and go up from there. All of which reassures me that you very likely will get exactly your wish, although at your professed age it will be your children and grandchildren who get the benefit. — tim wood

Yeah, at my age...I'm not going to see it. I hope future generations do...and that it happens soon. It is long over-due in America.

I use ear-drops that cost about the same as your eye-drops. The price is outrageous.

We gotta handle it...SOON.

My own view is that Joe Biden might just be the second worst possible candidate, but he's running against the worst, and between them there's no comparison. — tim wood

My own view is that Joe Biden is the BEST possible candidate TO BEAT TRUMP. There are several other candidates who far better meet my personal criteria for where I want a leader to lead us...but to be honest, they just do not have a chance of being elected.

A younger Bernie Sanders type would be my preference...but I am convinced a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is unelectable in today's America. Our country is just not ready for that hard left lurch...although I suspect dealing with all the crap that came up due to the pandemic might just push our nation much further left.

If I had my wish, America would turn its entire healthcare system totally socialistic within 2 - 3 decades. I would love to see all medical training, for doctors, dentists, nurses, aides, and all other healthcare workers to be 100% paid for by the government...with a healthy stipend for people entering the field. he price of the free education would be a commitment to work for government hospitals and clinics for a period of 10 -15 years...at a very decent pay.

We ain't gonna get that...but that would be my wish.

"Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism ." — Baden

My experience indicates that anyone and everyone who uses the word "atheist" to describe him/herself...REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS DEFINED IN SOME DICTIONARIES...either "believes" that there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

The notion that "atheism" is simply "the absence of belief" is an absurdity...a fraud atheists attempt to perpetrate on everyone else in an attempt to pretend their "atheism" is not the product of BELIEF.

Both religion and atheism have "belief" (guesses about the unknown) at their core.

ztaziz
14
Atheism is God denial, no religion involved.

Yes people claim to be Atheist who misrepresent it.

If that's conflated to mean lack of any belief or void of belief, I don't agree. — ztaziz

I suspect I agree with you strongly, but the wording was a bit ambiguous.

I suspect what you are saying is that the atheistic claim that atheism IS JUST A LACK OF BELIEF...is bullshit...then I agree completely.

It is almost certain that anyone and everyone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

One of those "beliefs" is an absolute necessity for anyone who uses "atheist" to describe themselves.

Any chance I can cop a baggie of your stuff?

Sounds to me like dynamite shit.

Baden
9.7k
I guess you're American and afraid of the word "atheism" because, well, America. Even, I, being Irish, feel a twinge. But it ain't nothin' scary really. — Baden

I am not afraid of atheism...AND I DO NOT CONSIDER IT SOMETHING NEGATIVE.

I meet several times each year in NYC with a group of 7 people...all of whom I met in another forum (Abuzz, the now defunct forum of the NY Times)...and all 6 of the others are atheists...strong atheists. I love 'em...I have no negative thoughts about them because of their atheism. My annoyance with atheists has nothing whatever to do with anger, fright, or opposition to atheism. I just am NOT an atheist...and I will not have those atheists who insist that I am...do it without fighting it.

Baden
9.7k
↪Frank Apisa

I don't care what you call yourself or whether someone calls me agnostic, atheist, non-theist etc because of the fact that I don't believe in gods. I don't see what substantial difference it makes. I'm just explaining the meaning of words and drawing logical conclusions, one, a very obvious one, which is that being an atheist does not necessarily entail having an ideology. It could, if you were also an anti-theist, but it's not part of what defines atheism. That's just reality. — Baden

The reality is that I do care that SOME atheists insist I am an atheist by dint of an inconsistent and self-serving "definition."

I will not accept it.

And I continue to maintain that "atheism" has at its core "belief" just as much as does theism.

Baden
9.7k
If you're looking for an ideological version of atheism, try anti-theism. — Baden

I, for one, am not. looking for that.

I realize there are theists (people who assert they "believe" there is at least one god or who assert they "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none)...

...and there also are non-theists (people who do not "believe" there is at least one god and who do not "believe" it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none).

Of the non-theists...there are some who not only reject the "belief" that there is at least one god or that it is more likely that here is...but who also assert that there are no gods...or who assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. THOSE PEOPLE most often designate themselves as ATHEISTS.

A second group of the non-theists reject the "belief" that there is at least one god or that it is more likely that here is...but who do NOT assert the opposite, that there are no gods....or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. That second group is willing to acknowledge that it is impossible to logically assert "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"....and that it is absurd to suppose one can calculate which is more likely. They most often designate themselves as AGNOSTICS.

Some Agnostics (I AM ONE OF THEM) resent the hell out of atheists insisting that we are atheists.

Frankly, the only reason I see for atheists insisting that anyone who lacks a "belief" any gods exist IS AN ATHEIST...is because they want to pretend that they do not have the two "beliefs" that usually lead to someone designating him/herself an atheist. They want to pretend there is no "belief" involved in using that descriptor.

They ought to get over that fiction.

Baden
9.7k
Not that even if I have one apple, I still don't have a basket. Either way, your claim fails. — Baden

My claim (that I am NOT an atheist) does not fail.

But you are dug in...and nothing can be done about it.

I'll just laugh at the need of atheists to include agnostics in their ranks...although I do understand. It would increase the intellectualism of atheism considerably.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8]

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

Bottom line: I personally know of NO person who uses "atheist" as a descriptor who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I am convinced THOSE TWO "BELIEFS" are the reason they use atheist as a descriptor...NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY LACK A "BELIEF" IN ANY GODS.

I lack a "belief" that there are any gods. All atheists should lack that "belief." I also lack a "belief" that there is at least one god." All agnostics should lack that "belief."

To insist that because I lack the former "belief" I must consider myself an atheist is absurd.

Baden
9.7k
↪Frank Apisa

:yawn:

"Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

https://www.google.com/search?q=atheism&oq=atheism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3j69i60.2443j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 — Baden

Yeah...and that does NOT negate anything I have said. Nor does it make anything I have said "embarrassing myself."

But you refusing to acknowledge that...and continuing to dig deeper...should be embarrassing to you.

Baden
9.7k
↪Frank Apisa

That makes no difference. A belief system is a network of beliefs. You qualify as an atheist both if you lack any belief concerning gods or with the following one belief, "gods don't exist". One belief is not a network of beliefs, so one belief is not an ideology. It's simple English. — Baden

The words "belief system" is easily understood to be correct as used in my comment, but if you want to take exception to the inclusion of "system" to the point where you suppose I am "embarrassing myself" by doing so...okay. I guess you have decided to dig deeper.

So let's say that ATHEISM is built on just one, tiny "belief." And that "tiny belief" is that the person identifying as an atheist "believes" is that among all the things that possibly exist in this vast universe...the one thing that does not...is a god or some sort. We'll put aside all the other "beliefs" that deal with the supposed stupidity and naivety of people are who "believe" in the other direction on the issue; we'll put aside those that deal with the many problems that "believers in the other direction" cause humanity; we'll put aside all the other ancillary "beliefs" that cause people to assign "atheist" as a descriptor to self.

That initial "belief", Baden, is about as tiny as the tiny "belief" at the core of theism...which, at least, the theists are ethical and truthful enough to acknowledge as "belief"...that they KNOW that a GOD does exist in the REALITY of existence.

It does make a difference, Baden. I am not embarrassing myself by making what amounts to a rational defense of agnosticism as a contrast to both theism and atheism.

jgill
402
I am 83, and from my perspective both Biden and Sanders are too old for the presidency. The Democratic choice for vice president is far more important. Biden may win the top job, but the VP will gradually take over behind the scene. So who might that be? :chin: — jgill

I, too, am 83...and I wish the Democrats had chosen someone younger. But in my opinion, Biden is fit enough for the job. And after the horror of the abomination now in office, he is the kind of personality I want to see in that job...someone who at least has a chance to appeal to our better natures.

His choice of VP will be monumental...and undoubtedly will disappoint at first. But she will eventually win over people after a bit of reflection.

What absolutely MUST happen is to be rid of the ignorant, uninformed, supercilious, CLASSLESS boor that now occupies the office.

Learn what words mean. You are both embarrassing yourselves.[/quote]

With that comment...YOU embarrassed yourself.

So how about digging out. Instead of just slinging mud, do you think I am wrong about...

1) SOME (not all) dictionaries describe it that way (lack of "belief" in any gods).

2) Dictionaries do not actually "define" words, but rather tell us how the word is used.

3) Most people suppose "atheist" means "denying that gods (or God) exists."

4) That I have NEVER met, nor do I know of, any person who describes him/herself as an "atheist" who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

5) That atheism IS a "belief system."


And while you are at it, I asked a question testing #4. Here it is again:

If you describe yourself as an atheist: Do you either "believe" (you may substitute "guess") that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?

Baden
9.7k
but it most assuredly is a "belief system".
— Frank Apisa

No, it's not. See above. — Baden

SOME dictionaries may describe it that way...but dictionaries do not actually define words, Baden=, they merely tell us how the word is usually used.

I'm saying that most people...the people out on the street...when using the word atheist...are supposing someone who is denying the existence of any gods...and even ASSERTING the absence of any gods.

In fact, I am saying that I have NEVER met, nor do I know of, any person who describes him/herself as an "atheist" who does not "believe" there are no gods...or who does not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. It IS a "belief system."

If you describe yourself as an atheist, I would ask: Do you either "believe" (you may substitute "guess") that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?

tim wood
4.1k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa

How about zero evidence and zero possibility? — tim wood

Zero evidence says nothing about whether gods can or cannot exist.

As for "zero possibility" ...why did you make that up?

On your criteria, you must accept the proposition that you owe me USD 1,000. And that the universe is run by the magic hippopotamus - after all, you have no evidence. Btw, what do you mean by "God"?

That is an absurd, and failed, attempt at logic.

Where did I make a case based on a lack of evidence, Tim?

Did you just dream that up?

Atheism is NOT a religion...but it most assuredly is a "belief system"...the "tails" side of the coin of which theism is the "heads" side.

Atheists like to pretend that the reason they use the descriptor "atheist" is because they lack a "belief" (in)any gods. But I suggest that the main reason anyone chooses "atheist" as a descriptor is because that person "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I do not "believe" there are no gods...but I am not an atheist.

All atheists lack a "belief" in any gods...but not all people who lack that "belief" are atheists.

In matters like this...

...we should all drop the labels.

The labels are worthless, because they mean different things to different people

It is okay to describe one's position and then say, "This is primarily an atheistic (or agnostic or theistic) position. BUT DESCRIBE IT.

My position is primarily an agnostic position. Here is how I normally describe it:

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.

Ending your claim that my argument is a false dichotomy by presenting one yourself doesn't bode well for your case.

EITHER I don't understand that it is OR I'm unethical? How unimaginative, Thank you for the laugh.

But I will happily let this conversation drop seeing you don't appear interested in actually responding with more than a repeated counter claim absent reasoning behind it.

By your logic, I can only conclude that's because you EITHER don't understand the argument presented...OR because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement. — Aussie

I did not say that you either do not understand or are unethical, Aussie. I said, "If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother." I purposefully left open the possibility that you are not acknowledging the false dichotomy for some OTHER reason...a reason which might allow for a continuation of the discussion.

But, you still will not acknowledge your false dichotomy even though it is staring you in the face. And you still have not presented a reason for you not being willing to acknowledge it.

Okay...I get that.

Some people just cannot acknowledge when they are wrong...whatever the reason.

Samuel Lacrampe
794
↪Frank Apisa
This is definitely a tangent, but... let's do it.
I think I have a clear enough understanding of the distinction between belief and guess, supposition, and estimate. But what is the difference between belief and opinion? Genuinely asking. — Samuel Lacrampe

You are still missing my point. I hope my answer to this question makes it clear.

There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between a "belief" and an "opinion"...EXCEPT for the use of the word "belief" rather than opinion. "Belief" HIDES the fact that it is an opinion...whether intentional or not.

Fact is, in most discussions of religion or philosophy...there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between belief and guess, supposition, or estimate either...EXCEPT for the use of the word "belief" rather than guess, supposition, or estimate. Using "belief" HIDES the fact that it is a guess, supposition, or estimate being offered...whether it is intentional or not.

Consider this: I "believe" there are no gods. That is a guess...a blind guess at that. But, if the person delivering it said, "I blindly guess there are no gods"...it becomes almost laughable.

Same thing in the other direction. I "believe" (in) God. That is also a blind guess. But, if the person delivering it said, "I blindly guess that God exists"...could you imagine that person (or anyone else) suggesting we should all "respect" other people's blind guesses.

Imagine this: I flipped a coin. If it comes lands "heads" I will guess there is a God; if it lands "tails" I will guess there are no gods. And I expect you to respect my guess.

It is the use of the words belief/believe that I am dealing with...not any difference that people pretend exist.

Aussie
23
I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy.
— Frank Apisa

Suggest it if you like, but one does not exist. What other option exists? Our senses either provide us reliable perceptions of the world around us (at least to some reasonable degree)...or they do not. — Aussie

You wrote: " Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood."

I suggested a false dichotomy.

Now I insist that to be a false dichotomy.

Let's deal with that first...and then go on to whatever else you said.

If you are not able to acknowledge the false dichotomy either because you do not understand that it is...or because you lack the ethical wherewithal to make the acknowledgement...let's not bother.

Now...the answer I would much prefer. Neither! I do not do "believing"...by which I mean I NEVER EVER say that I "believe" anything.
— Frank Apisa

This is an aside, but I want to say that your demand for certainty, all or nothing, is unreasonable for this world. Sure, this horse experiment is not consequential, but a lot of things are. We are not certain that Climate Change is real, but being agnostic is not a choice in this case. Either we fight it or we don't. And a 97% agreement among experts (let's assume that part is true) is sufficient to pick a side. — Samuel Lacrampe

You made an assumption on what I meant that was incorrect.

I am not looking for certainty in all things...even in questions about whether at least one god exists or not.

But when I make a guess about something (X)...I say, "I guess X. NOT "I believe X."

When I make a supposition about something (X)...I say, "I suppose X" NOT "I believe X."

If I estimate something (X)...I say, "I estimate X" NOT "I believe X."

If I have an opinion about something (X)...I say, "It is my opinion that X" NOT "I believe X."

I make guesses, I make suppositions, I estimate things, I have opinions just like everyone else...

...I just do not disguise my guesses, suppositions, estimates, or opinions by using "I believe..."

That is what I meant when I wrote, "I do not do "believing"...by which I mean I NEVER EVER say that I "believe" anything."

I hope that was clear.

As for the "climate change" example...I certainly see lots of reason (mostly from what the vast majority of climate scientists say)...that the danger "climate change" presents requires each of us to do as much as possible to get our elected officials to fight it with the same vigor they would use to fight an invasion from a foreign enemy.

That is not something I would say "I believe we should do it"...it is my opinion that we should do it.

Dawnstorm
95
Okay. But if you were saying, "So far no one has been able to convince you that World War II actually occurred"...where would that leave us?
— Frank Apisa

"World War II" is a valid value for "occurring". Even if we had no evidence, the meaning is fairly straightforward. "God", the creator god of the monotheistic religions at the very least, is different from that. If "God" created everything there is, then existance is a product of that process, and to say that "God" exists either sends me into an Escher painting equivalent of meaning, or it's an incomprehensible mystery for which I have no intution.

In any case, the logic for the empirical world, which I'd be prone to apply to things like "World War II" doesn't apply. If it did, most theists I know wouldn't be able to believe in God; as it is, when I outline what sort of God I don't believe in ("bearded man in the skay") then they say they don't either.

God concepts are manyfold, and Shintoist kami are very different beings from the monotheistic Gods, but there's also this spiritual, transcendental whiff to it that I have trouble understanding. I always end up at a point where there is no discenible difference between any one God existing or not. The only difference I can see is the word-behaviour of the believer. — Dawnstorm

Nothing you have said here impacts on the proposition, "Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist."

This has become discussion by scattergun.

Choose one thing...and we can discuss it.