The USA has an armed populace.
— AmadeusD

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I was thinking what Schop said. I don't think ownership of guns is a vaccination against fascism.

Don't leave us hanging, tell us why. :wink:

Not much I can say except that I hope Jan 6 isn't Turmp's equivalent to the Munich Putsch of 1923.

So people are thinking about fascism, one way and the other. — BC

Sure are. Us included...

When I read this 1998 Richard Rorty quote in 2016, I wondered the same thing.

[M]embers of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.

At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

Richard Rorty Achieving Our Country 1998

:up:

...our consciousness acts in the way it does and why we experience things as we do, but this basic reason has evolved into such a complex form that we've basically become lost in that complexity and produced this illusion that is our qualia, our inner experience of life.

We are highly advanced prediction machines, driven by emotions that guide our survival. Those are the strings we don't see and which gives us the illusion of complex experience. — Christoffer

Are your notions here based on work by Daniel Dennett or Thomas Metzinger?

The thing is I don't find such allegories (shall we say abstractions?) helpful. I would like to see an articulated social policy strategy, along with a specific a plan for implementation in the real world. Sorry, but when it comes to dealing with human disadvantage I am a concrete thinker.

For instance -

**Existence:**
Nothing on Earth existed in the past, and nothing will persist in the future.
Throughout time, only the universe or heaven endures.
Consequently, everything on Earth shares the same transitory nature. — YiRu Li

So what? I take this as a given. But it is not a helpful frame in dealing with a homeless woman and child on the street who are starving. I can't see how this is any different to the economist Keynes' often misused quote, "In the long run we are all dead".

When viewed from outer space, everything on Earth appears minute.
Similarly, considering the expansive timeframe from the beginning of the universe until now, everything on Earth virtually exists within an infinitesimally small span.
In this context, everything on Earth is alike, as each entity is extremely small or exists for an exceedingly brief period. — YiRu Li

A very unhelpful frame when dealing with a man who is dying of cancer in a deserted building, unable to get medical treatment and any type of assistance owing to poverty. How do we apply the above: "Don't worry, Sir. Your suffering doesn't amount to anything significant when measured against the infinity of space and the tininess of our planet?" As an approach to the matter of human suffering, I would call this sociopathic.

In most instances inequality and injustice equate to suffering and exclusion. These can be addressed with practical support and resources. We also know from history and current interventions around the world that the suffering and inequality can be alleviated.

There is no question that there are some people who think poverty is merely a fact of life (some may even misuse a Bible quote from John, "For the poor always ye have with you...") and therefore can be safely avoided. This is generally a variety of right wing thinking that I personally find abhorrent and sociopathic.

No wonder. Ever notice how who you think the other person in your relationship is changes over time, and who they and you are changes through being affected by the reciprocal interaction of the growing relationship itself?
— Joshs
Thank you for formulating this so eloquently! — baker

Interesting. I've never really felt anyone around me has changed much over time. Certainly not my partner or significant friends or long term colleagues. If anything people seem to be remarkably consistent. If by change we mean one is no longer being able to anticipate reactions and choices made by the person we think we know. As to how well we 'know' anyone, well that's a matter for a range of interpretations.

Some (like George Lakoff, the cognitive linguist and philosopher) might say this is his brilliance in framing - in recognizing that consistency doesn't count if you want to dominate discourse where it matters. He 'cuts through' regardless. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bullshit - as we used to say.

:up:

:up: Good point.

I hear you and thanks for the talk. I am interested in your perspective.

These people are agnostic atheists. They don't consider the limits of knowledge, but refrain from belief in God/s. I do not think you're being accurate in that their view precludes God. It just doesn't include it, because there is no evidence for it. It's not an ideological position - its a lethargic one. — AmadeusD

Got ya. Yes, my point is more that their sense making of the world precludes god (functionally) when they work to explain anything at all (from creation to morality) the god hypothesis is precluded from their repertoire. If someone has determined that gods are irrelevant to their experince, then gods can never be incorporated in any account of any state of affairs. That's all I meant.

In some ways this is merely about the meaning of words. — Leontiskos

That's true. I often come down on the side of usage rather than definitions. This does not mean that I consider every word can be used however we like (Humpty style), it simply means recognition that language is dynamic, words change meaning over time. My English teacher in the 1970's tried fighting against the use of the word 'gay' for homosexual. He was appalled that he was unable to describe himself as a gay man, because the usage had changed.

I would recommend reading the Reddit article I linked earlier, written by an atheist — Leontiskos

Thanks. Read it. I see the argument but I'm not sure it matters. I still believe there's something interesting and useful in the agnostic atheist category. I'll mull over it.

Why would anyone go to Reddit to learn of all places? — Lionino

That may be a good question. I'm new to Reddit.

Speaking of spurious sources of knowledge I asked ChatGPT for a view on agnostic atheist.

...someone who identifies as an "agnostic atheist" is expressing a lack of belief in gods (atheism) while also acknowledging the limits of human knowledge on the matter (agnosticism). This combination is quite common, as many people find that the labels capture different aspects of their stance on the question of gods.

I'll continue to consider this matter.

Want to check something with you. The average atheist is not philosopher and probably (like most people) not all that interested in this recondite subject. I wonder if this means that conventional philosophical nomenclature and categorization are not as useful in trying to understand what people believe and why. When an atheist says, "I don't believe in gods, have no faith and hold gods to be mythological creatures" I don't see this as incompatible with agnosticism for reasons we have explored ad nauseum.

Here's the thing. Most atheists are practical atheists, they are not theorists and do not really care about the philosopher's arguments for or against gods. They simply don't see the need for gods or believe in them. The way they make sense of the world precludes gods. They are certainly atheists, but they don't aspire to any knowledge claim at all in this space. Many of them are not even aware of the arguments in defense of gods. They are simply 'without gods". Does this shed a different light on the matter to you or are these folk, as one theist I know says, 'ignorant dogmatists?'

when they don't have any burden of proof, and thus there was a popular attempt to redefine the word 'atheism' to connote a mere lack of belief. It is a superficial but also an uninteresting position. — Leontiskos

Ha! I see why you might say this but I think that’s an uncharitable view. As an aside, New Atheism was just a publishing gimmick, it didn't amount to a movement (as David Bentley Hart points out). Most atheists I know found the famous four fairly underwhelming as thinkers, more like good polemicists. But most of us are not philosophers either.

I personally think the idea that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe the proposition that gods exist is a vast improvement on those who say, There Is No God. It seems less militant and more open to discourse.

I hold the same position on morality and beauty. I don’t believe them to be objective (outside of contingent human experience and communities of shared values). I am happy to hear arguments that might change my mind. I am open. I like theists and have as good friends a Catholic priest and a Sister. I harbour no hatred towards all religions or people of faith.

I think if someone says they are an atheist we should be fine with their self-identification. Just as I am fine with anyone identifying as Christian, even in those instances where they might be following a prosperity cult of grotesque bigotry which ignores Christ. People in most cases should be allowed to choose their preferred appellation.

I am in no doubt about my lack of belief. I am certain/confident that the gods I am aware of don’t exist. The Abrahamic, the ancient and the Hindu. But I cannot talk to versions of God I have not heard of yet. I dislike the word atheist as it comes with significant baggage.

I would like to see more collaboration and goodwill between theists and atheists. The spiritual hollowness of consumer capitalism needs addressing, as does fundamentalism and its penchant for violence and division. We can only tackle this together.

For anyone that thinks computers are (or someday will be) conscious, what do you say to Bernardo Kastrup's argument here: — RogueAI

I was wondering if this was going to come up. I'm curious too.

:up: Overall I've had good and bad experiences in both.

I can sum it up like this.

Private work is driven by profit.

Public work lack drive. — mentos987

I have worked in both sectors, here in Australia, and I have spent significant time working with senior executives in banking and law, along with years spent working in media and some television. And advising government on social policy.

There doesn't appear to be much difference in motivation, wastefulness or competence in both sectors from what I can see. Humans sometimes take short cuts, settle for easy, get things wrong and make lazy choices in both sectors. Public work is often driven by immense scrutiny and rigorous KPI's that make the private sector look tame. Private work is often about friendships and alliances that support sloth and complacency. Overall I think both sectors will suck unless they are overseen by leadership dedicated to transparency and continual improvement.

Thank you, I appreciate the effort, but I am unable to make sense of any of this. Perhaps some others will find it useful.

I'd probably call you an atheist but I see why you say agnostic deist.

I believe a God of religion does not exist. — Relativist

I'd go along with this too.

We can't have knowledge of very many things, because knowledge is strictly defined as belief that is justified, true, and the justification is adequate to eliminate Gettier problems. But we can (and should) strive for justified beliefs. — Relativist

I thought JTB was not much held to these days in epistemology circles - we have competing approaches such as reliabilism; defeasibility theory; constructive empiricism, epistemic contextualism, virtue epistemology? I'm no expert in epistemology, but it would seem to me to be a contested space, with various competing approaches.

:up:

I agree. The impact of words on people can be significant, so word choice can be a moral act. If we believe that morality is largely about trying to reduce harm or suffering, then being mindful of how words are experienced remains an important ethical consideration. The old joke is probably true: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words do permanent damage.

:up: No problem. I would also add that I never know who a person really is. This would seem to require some divine attributes. :wink: . All I can do is go by experience of how people present and what they do and say.

Maybe I am totally wrong. But the problem today is that I am afraid to learn. We live in a world where we are taught to suppress all thoughts that are not politically correct. — Eros1982

Really? Where do you live? Seems to me racism, bigotry and even hatred are frequently expressed in mainstream culture.

I have generally found that there is almost no correlation between a person's appearance and who they are. But it is true that people who scowl and frown a lot may well be unpleasant or preoccupied...

I think it's fine for people to hold different views on this matter. As an atheist, I'm not significantly concerned about definitions and I know there are a range of strongly held positions. This might be why many people prefer to talk about weak and hard atheism. For them, it is a question of how confident you are in your disbelief in god. I feel the best I can say in this space is that I do not believe and that the existence of a god seems unlikely to me. To me the arguments in favour of the proposition are unconvincing.

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your perspective and understand why you are arguing for your position. I like your idea about finding a different word.

Seems like an unnecessary distortion of agnostic and atheism that causes confusion for someone who's not comfortable saying what they know. — Philosophim

It's ok by me if you have problems with this. As an atheist, I find it useful. :wink:

Perhaps we need a new word. — Philosophim

You may be right about this.

Agnosticism as long as I've heard it has mean that you don't know enough to determine one way or another where there is a God or not. An atheist asserts there is no God. — Philosophic

Like many atheists I do not say there is no god since that is a positive claim which requires demonstration. I find agnostic atheist to be a useful formulation for me but in general I am happy to be called an agnostic an atheist or a freethinker. As long as the idea that I have no belief in gods is understood.

"Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system" Ah, ok, so its knowledge then. — Philosophim

Amusing. No, it's not a belief system it's about one belief: Gods. There are atheists who are into reincarnation, astrology and all kinds of New Age stuff. So it doesn't always directly correlate with the secular humanist belief system - which is often the assumption.

From the American Atheist website:

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. — Tom Storm

But I don't understand when an atheist say I don't believe in "God". Because it already presupposes there is only one singular definition to which they refer. Their own one.
But this doesn't apply to everyone's concept of it. — Benj96

This is inaccurate and atheists don't say that unless they are in America, say, and dealing with the presumption of the single Christian god. They tend to respond in kind: so an atheist in a monotheistic country will tend to respond to that brand of monotheism.

As an atheist I (and most atheists I have met over 30 years) have generally put it thus: I have heard no reason to believe the proposition that any gods exist. AC Grayling an atheist philosopher puts it like this - "I do not believe that gods and goddesses exist."

I have generally also added that I do not find any arguments for any of the gods I have had described to me convincing. Whether the arguments come from Aquinas, Cornelius Van Til, Paul Tillich or Alvin Carl Plantinga . That's all there is to it.

I think he is suggesting that our conventional understanding/description of the world is based on premises as contestable as those of idealism. It is us who organise and interpret the world, so when we arrive at a model of reality this itself is like a form of idealism. But I have asked for more to check on how this tracks with Joshs.

So, you detest materialism? Post herein a picture of your right index finger after you’ve chopped it off.
— ucarr

If you feel that crude metaphor conveys anything about the point at issue, perhaps it is because you don't understand it. — Wayfarer

Perhaps this is the Tarantino inspired version of Johnson's, "I refute it thus!"

As long as an organizing contribution of a subject can be detected in the description of physical phenomena, then a species of idealism is at work. — Joshs

I think I follow - can you say some more?

Okay ... if you say so. — 180 Proof

Ha! I agree. The point they are making is shaky.



From the American Atheist website:

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

I wasn't aware of their definition until recent years. But this construction has generally made sense to me.

The hallmark of trouble for me is often when people get bogged down in definitions and marooned in the words. Usage is much more efficacious. I am happy to be an atheist or agnostic or freethinker (the term I used to use) as long as people understand that I do not accept the proposition that god's exist. I have encountered no reason why I should believe in them and a lack of belief fits with my overall sense making.

Neither do agnostics, so you need more reason than that to call yourself an atheist. — Hallucinogen

I will continue to use atheist as my own personal label since it is more useful. The agnostics I know do not say they do not believe in gods they typically say they can't answer the question of belief since they do not know. Odd to me and as a consequence I consider most agnostics to be atheists. But I fear we will continue to disagree on this so I am happy to move on and let common usage amongst atheists determine where this one heads.

No, I don't believe in gods, I consider myself an atheist. You don't get to tell me how I identify. :cool: Mind you, the word probably doesn't matter. I am happy to skip both agnostic and atheist and just say I don't believe in gods. I just takes more time to type. I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot either but I don't say they do not exist. How could I, when it can't be demonstrated? Does this mean I am a Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot agnostic? Maybe I have to say I don't believe in either and skip the contentious terms.

I think you may be confused.

I am an agnostic atheist - a fairly common term these days in freethinking circles. Atheism goes to belief, agnosticism goes to knowledge.

I do not believe there are gods. But I do not know that there are no gods. Yet I can't help what I believe. My intuition is to say there are no gods. None of the reasons I have heard are convincing. But I cannot make a positive claim that there are no gods since that would require a demonstration. That's my take.

As I have stated elsewhere, I don't think arguments for or against gods are as significant as some think. You either believe or you don't and this seems to me to be similar to one's sexual preferences. You can't help what you are attracted to. And yes, just as people may change sexual preferences, they might move from belief to disbelief. I suspect people form their views of gods through sense making and intuition more than the arguments we keep rehashing.

The American public glorifies crudity and ignorance -- so is it any surprise they love a leader who is like them? I have been reading some of Trump's latest tweets, and they have grammatical and spelling errors, and random capitalizations. They look like they were written by a 7th grader with ADHD. Can you imagine a president or ex-president from 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or any other time in our history, who would write like that? Even if you agree with the tweet -- you have to admit it just looks sloppy, careless, and unprofessional. Each Trump tweet is like a proud celebration of incompetence: "Look, I can tweet without the least bit of proof-reading or care!"

It may seem petty of me to point this out, and indeed it is the least of my concerns about Trump. But he does seem barely literate and to have the emotional maturity of a middle school kid whose favorite thing to do is come up with novel insults and name-calling. You can call him a liar and he doesn't care, but if you say he stinks he flips out. He's like a little kid. But his base seems to love it, because they also are like little kids. — GRWelsh

Interesting. I've been wondering about this. There was a time when people seemed to want more lofty personalities for high office. But I guess populism in the current era has embraced an aesthetic nadir. It seems to me that we are at a point in history where people in many cultures are sick of intellectuals and fed up with the complexities and ambiguities that seem to be required from public life and citizenship. We don't want to be lectured at by technocrats and professors and politically correct celebrities. So there's a kind of counterreformation. A retreat back to old certainties and comfortable prejudices and leaders who give us permission to be unsophisticated, regressive and proud to be so.

he surprising effectiveness of mathematics in making accurate, sometimes unexpected predictions about the natural world suggests a deeper connection between mathematical structures and physical reality. This view opposes the idea that mathematics is just a tool invented for practical purposes, instead hinting at some intrinsic relationship between mathematical concepts and the fabric of the universe. — Wayfarer

Could it be that maths, like space and time are part of our human cognitive apparatus in some way?

What is the motivation for westerners to do equality?
I think the most basic motivation for Taiwanese and Chinese to do equality is for health. — YiRu Li

Preventing suffering and promoting flourishing - often based on a human rights or sacredness of the individual frame.

If people do inequality things or abusing others, we'll think that person will be short life or unhealthy. — YiRu Li

I'm known many abusive, nasty people who lived very long lives. Hence the well known expression 'only the good die young.'

But I think we don't need history to prove it.
Modern Greeks can also prove Chinese medicine is correct.
Please check this guy's picture in this interview video at 12:20.
He is 104 years old and still looks young ! — YiRu Li

No. I'm not going to accept the example of one guy or even 100 guys. My grandfather lived to 98 and was healthy as a horse. He smoked two packets of cigarettes a day and drank half a bottle of gin a day. He died in his sleep, having had very few sick days in his life.

Would I argue that cigarettes and gin were the secret of his longevity?

I would need a mountain of good scientific evidence to accept any claims of alternative medicine.

Even if the term were not obsolete, most people who refer to antisemitism either are not aware of the inclusion of Arabic-speakers, or don't care: they just mean 'discrimination against Jews' either as an ethnic minority or as a religion, usually both, they never include the anti-Arab sentiment so prevalent today in various countries. — Vera Mont

Exactly. It's in the usage.