|
Who What Now posted:It depends on whether or not they would still say that yes, they do still have a positive belief in God. Yes, but what if they say they don't know
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
The Belgian posted:Yes, but what if they say they don't know I'd accept that answer and move on with my life because it's not all that important to me what this particular hypothetical individual person says. But the fact is is that they either do or do not believe, despite what they say or admit outwardly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'd accept that answer and move on with my life because it's not all that important to me what this particular hypothetical individual person says. But the fact is is that they either do or do not believe, despite what they say or admit outwardly. Do you really think that most people have such clear beliefs (in general)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Yes, but what if they say they don't know I think of it this way. Sisyphus: "I haven't stopped pushing this boulder uphill. I've just not decided if I want to continue trying." There is no net force pushing the boulder and there is no positive belief keeping you a gnostic theist. They are a agnostic Atheist if they are being honest with themselves and a agnostic theist if they play the "I don't know but I FEEL its true" cognitive dissonance emotional limbo. The Belgian posted:Do you really think that most people have such clear beliefs (in general)? I think there is a difference between beliefs and being able to clearly articulate beliefs. This poo poo gets exponentially more semantical and philosophical by the sentence. At some point people just hold on a pragmatic line in the sand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Do you really think that most people have such clear beliefs (in general)? For the most part yes. However there can be many reasons, like social pressures, why they might not want to admit some of their beliefs. Sometimes to a degree where they don't want to admit it to themselves. Basically: Berk Berkly posted:I think there is a difference between beliefs and being able to clearly articulate beliefs. This poo poo gets exponentially more semantical and philosophical by the sentence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
This is a remarkable amount of effort to accurately label a subset of people whose religious beliefs are basically, "eh, whatever"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:This is a remarkable amount of effort to accurately label a subset of people whose religious beliefs are basically, "eh, whatever" Some people are clearly trying to muddy the waters. There is already a well accepted and more descriptive way to use the words they are trying to redefine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Some people are clearly trying to muddy the waters. There is already a well accepted and more descriptive way to use the words they are trying to redefine. I agree. People who are trying to redefine atheism to mean "actively disbelieved in gods" and nothing else under any circumstances really are not helpful to discussions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
This always happens when we talk about this poo poo. We are discussing knowledge, beliefs, in addition to articulating and communicating said things, so any kind of sincere merit this usually turns into an online course in Etymology and Epistemology. Berk Berkly fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
So wait is this thread a semantic slapfight about the precise definition of a/theism and a/gnosticism or is there still room to talk about just how much volitional control we have over our own underlying assumptions (not that much it turns out)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:So wait is this thread a semantic slapfight about the precise definition of a/theism and a/gnosticism or is there still room to talk about just how much volitional control we have over our own underlying assumptions (not that much it turns out) Well you have to agree on semantics before you can argue in good faith given that language is the medium in which we are communicating our arguments. If you and some other people can already come to a gentleman's understanding concerning the meaning of the words you are using, by all means proceed onwards. I don't feel that this part of the discussion is pointless, however. Who What Now posted:I agree. People who are trying to redefine atheism to mean "actively disbelieved in gods" and nothing else under any circumstances really are not helpful to discussions. Again, your definition lacks the descriptive power of the one I am using. Whether the disbelief is active or passive, it is disbelief which my usage of the term atheism describes. There is already another term for those who don't believe or disbelieve. This is the core reason doing it your way would be dumb. In doing so we would lose communicative power and have to mince even more words to get across the distinction between agnostics and atheists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Again, your definition lacks the descriptive power of the one I am using. Whether the disbelief is active or passive, it is disbelief which my usage of the term atheism describes. There is already another term for those who don't believe or disbelieve. This is the core reason doing it your way would be dumb. In doing so we would lose communicative power and have to mince even more words to get across the distinction between agnostics and atheists. What do you mean when you say "active or passive" disbelief? You either believe, or you do not. Do you mean whether or not one claims to know that their belief is true? Because if so, boy howdy are you going to be happy when I tell you that there's a word I've been using that addresses whether someone makes that claim or not!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Does FBI Agent Fox Mulder truly believe, or does he just want to believe, enough to make it real? Is Agent Scully a skeptic because she needs all the evidence, or is it because she can't ever be 100% sure?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
*takes a gigantic toke* people can be like, whatever label they want to be, man
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What do you mean when you say "active or passive" disbelief? You either believe, or you do not. Do you mean whether or not one claims to know that their belief is true? Because if so, boy howdy are you going to be happy when I tell you that there's a word I've been using that addresses whether someone makes that claim or not! Again you're missing the very distinction I am arguing over. "Do you believe in god?" is a question with more than two acceptable answers, much like how sexuality is not a binary gay or straight dichotomy. Maybe someone just has not thought it through and doesn't hold a meaningful opinion, or doesn't consider the question important enough to answer. That second type might meaningfully be considered an atheist, as an example of what I'd consider passive disbelief. Quite often, you will come across people who consider themselves "spiritual" but who won't espouse any particular religious dogma. These can serve as an example of the possible inverse of that passive disbeliever by showing that the difference between an agnostic and a theist is the same as it is when considering an agnostic and an atheist: it is the difference between someone who has put a dog in the race and someone who has not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
I believe there is at least one god, but I don't know exactly how many and I don't know if Joseph Stalin is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Again you're missing the very distinction I am arguing over. "Do you believe in god?" is a question with more than two acceptable answers, much like how sexuality is not a binary gay or straight dichotomy. Maybe someone just has not thought it through and doesn't hold a meaningful opinion, or doesn't consider the question important enough to answer. That second type might meaningfully be considered an atheist, as an example of what I'd consider passive disbelief. I'm not sure you're aware, but people can have multiple descriptors to their set of beliefs. It doesn't just have to be one. This is why you're "you can either be theist, agnostic, or atheist, and never shall any of them overlap" definition is so poor, it leaves a lot of poorly defined area around each position. This is why it's better to break it down into multiple, more clear and concise categories to avoid that. Not everything fits on a single sliding scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:No, some people don't have much of that instinct. If you didn't see and hear people in your early life turn to supernatural explanations (other than the kid fantasy stuff like Santa) why would that habit necessarily take root? A modern human raised more or less without religion is substantially less likely to generate supernatural beliefs spontaneously than pre-modern folks, even without a conscious decision to be skeptical of the supernatural, since much less of the world is unexplainable, too. I think it depends what sort of supernatural thing. I believe that you're right that there isn't some instinct to believe in a specific type of god or specific cultural supernatural thing (like ghosts or something). But most people do seem prone towards some degree of magical thinking and have to actively resist the urge to think in certain irrational ways (for example thinking there must be some inherent meaning behind something someone notices due to confirmation bias). CountFosco posted:"Magical thinking" is a quality which is independent from raw intelligence. Skepticism is, I believe, a personality trait which is both inherent and inculcated through environment, as is magical thinking, it's opposite. You could also call it gullibility. I think it's more accurate to say that there are many different facets to intelligence. The ability to naturally "reason properly" (for lack of a better phrase) is definitely one form of intelligence, while the ability to quickly solve complex problems is something else entirely. People often criticize IQ tests because the actual IQ number isn't very useful (which is completely true), but IQ tests are composed of multiple parts which evaluate different types of intelligence, with the final score being based off of multiple subscores. Someone can be strong at one type of thinking and weak with another (with some learning disorders being defined as having a large discrepancy between these subscores; for example it's unusual for someone to be in the 95th percentile with most subscores and the 10th percentile with one or two of them). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Yes, but what if they say they don't know Bertrand Russell did not know if there was a teapot orbiting Saturn. He did not believe in it. I am an atheist, I don't know if there are any gods. I don't believe in them. If you don't know, you don't believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Bertrand Russell did not know if there was a teapot orbiting Saturn. He did not believe in it. Again, I'm talking about not knowing if you believe. Not just not knowing if a thing is true, which is something different. SedanChair posted:If you don't know, you don't believe. The Belgian fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Feb 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Again, I'm talking about not knowing if you believe. Not just not knowing if a thing is true, which is something different. If you don't know, you don't believe. If you can exist in some state where you don't know but would still be capable of belief, what are you? A pigeon? Sleepwalking through life? Would your mind even qualify as having thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Having your mind slowly destroyed by the cognitive dissonance is also an option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Most Christians are atheists, or they would be obsessed with staying out of hell and preventing their friends and family from going to hell. As it is, most people's engagement with church and religion appears to be a pastime, below the pursuit of wealth. I can only conclude that they don't fear hell because they don't believe in it. Of course, there are universalists, who believe everyone will be saved. Check back in six months and you'll find they've become atheists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If you don't know, you don't believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:So you're claiming that all mathematicians who believe in some unproven hypothesis are incapable of thought? "Belief" seems like an inappropriate concept to apply to mathematics. In math, things work and so you keep using them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Belief" seems like an inappropriate concept to apply to mathematics. In math, things work and so you keep using them. Do you have any experience in mathematical research?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Do you have any experience in mathematical research? I would be astonished if it is at all relatable to theology. If you haven't proven a hypothesis yet but believe your partial proof represents a general trend it's not that you "don't know if you believe" it's that you are working on the assumption that your belief is correct for the moment for the purpose of acquiring more information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
SedanChair, are you claiming that everyone who professes to hold a belief must also be able to claim that they know their belief is true, or that people know what their beliefs are?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would be astonished if it is at all relatable to theology. If you haven't proven a hypothesis yet but believe your partial proof represents a general trend it's not that you "don't know if you believe" it's that you are working on the assumption that your belief is correct for the moment for the purpose of acquiring more information. You're not disagreeing with me, SedanChair claimed that if you don't know something, you don't believe in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:You're not disagreeing with me, SedanChair claimed that if you don't know something, you don't believe in it. The part you quoted would appear to be in reference to knowing what you believe. If you can't profess to know if you believe in something you very probably don't believe in it. Any alternative would require an astonishing lack of self-awareness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
This thread has me officially off Poirot. Foyles War is much better anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:SedanChair, are you claiming that everyone who professes to hold a belief must also be able to claim that they know their belief is true, or that people know what their beliefs are? I guess I would not claim that everybody knows what their beliefs are. But if you get to the point of stating that you believe in something, how are you not claiming that it is true? There are matters of opinion held as beliefs, for example when bigots say that gay marriage is bad and when every logical argument is shot down, say "well that's just what I believe." Or when we talk about shared values that cannot be proven or disproven, but that nonetheless we believe are "true" in the sense that they are valuable and beneficial. When you talk about a god though, that's much simpler. It either exists or it doesn't. Your belief is either true or it isn't, and anything short of believing that god is as real as George Clooney is hard to defend as "belief."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The part you quoted would appear to be in reference to knowing what you believe. What he wrote doesn't sound like that to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I guess I would not claim that everybody knows what their beliefs are. But if you get to the point of stating that you believe in something, how are you not claiming that it is true? There are matters of opinion held as beliefs, for example when bigots say that gay marriage is bad and when every logical argument is shot down, say "well that's just what I believe." Or when we talk about shared values that cannot be proven or disproven, but that nonetheless we believe are "true" in the sense that they are valuable and beneficial. When you talk about a god though, that's much simpler. It either exists or it doesn't. Your belief is either true or it isn't, and anything short of believing that god is as real as George Clooney is hard to defend as "belief." I don't believe in a god, and actively believe that there are no gods, but I can't present any strong evidence to justify those beliefs such that I will claim to know that this is the case in the same way I claim to know the sun will still be around tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Dick Dorkins had a stroke. Guess he made the wrong choice. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't believe in a god, and actively believe that there are no gods, but I can't present any strong evidence to justify those beliefs such that I will claim to know that this is the case in the same way I claim to know the sun will still be around tomorrow. Right, atheism doesn't need to rise to the level of "belief."
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Right, atheism doesn't need to rise to the level of "belief." I think we're using "belief" and "knowledge" differently but otherwise are on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Dick Dorkins had a stroke. Guess he made the wrong choice. Smugness-related aneurysm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:So you're claiming that all mathematicians who believe in some unproven hypothesis are incapable of thought? I would imagine that if those mathematicians are intelligent people that they recognize that there isn't a 100% chance that they are correct and that they merely think something is likely given some set of assumptions. When people say "believe" colloquially they don't always mean "I know this to be true"; often it's just shorthand for "I find this to be likely given some list of assumptions I don't feel like explaining right now."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Additionally, if you try hard enough, you can conjure up any add hoc explanation that preserves your theory if you like, so we one again return to the fact that 'inference' is the only tool we have for the real world, so you can't use the "there's no proof" defence to act smug. It's okay guys, I'm not like a *scoff* fedora wearing atheist. No, I'm an agnostic, I'm one of the good ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 04:22
|
|