There .. So now .. can we move onwards and discuss how Atheism/Nihilism is impacted by this perspective on how beliefs, reality and science work?
Upvote
0
Below is the definition of “real” I gave you a few days back. Any definition that is different than below is not what I am talking about. You need to address what I said in the context of the below definition otherwise we aren’t speaking the same language.You should read what I've said again so you'd know what it is about. The issue is what you mean by 'existence', (or 'reality') in that statement, and where that meaning comes from. I think the issue may be a little subtle for you, but here's the synopsis.
Let's start with the basics. 'Existence' (or 'Reality') is quite clearly a word. I mean, I just wrote down a word, and put it in quotes, I should think that would be rather uncontroversial. Now, words have intended meanings, so when someone writes 'existence', they have an intended meaning for using that word. How are we doing so far?
OK, let's see if we can continue. Different people mean different things by a word. To find out what they mean, you must follow the process they are using to give it meaning. If that process is different, the meaning is different. If that process is science, a scientific meaning results. To see the scientific meaning, look at how the word is used in science.
Belief leaves room for doubt. I have no doubt about the tree, therefore I know.The other way of doing it, is by way of belief, which doesn't call for testing, but it still involves models which depend on the perceptions created by our minds which, when described using language, give meaning to the word 'existence' .. and in this case, your 'tree' example above does that when you describe your perception of it 'being real' without ever testing it .. therefore its just a belief that its 'real' .. by assertion.
Oh .. we're writing in the same language (English) .. but I agree that there are different contexts here could potentially inhibit acquiring eachother's meanings (and thence gain understanding).Below is the definition of “real” I gave you a few days back. Any definition that is different than below is not what I am talking about. You need to address what I said in the context of the below definition otherwise we aren’t speaking the same language.
Ok .. Conditionally. My condition is that I emphasize what a pile of unclarity and confusion this definition is, and therefore, how it will lead to the same, in any discussion about what is real!Ken-1122 said:Definition of real | Dictionary.com
How do we agree on what 'is true', if that is the standard by which 'what is real' is to be based? More importantly, who is the authority I have to defer to, in order to find out, given that 'true' is asserted without evidence here? Do they possess a human mind?real;
adjective
true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
How do we go about agreeing on a 'fact' in some discussion in the case of where there is no consistency? Are those trying to reach agreement, humans?existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
How do we agree on 'real events'? And how does the word 'actual' add anything but circularity to the meaning of 'thing'?being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
Calls for a separate post .. (when I get the chance).Ken-1122 said:Belief leaves room for doubt. I have no doubt about the tree, therefore I know. Difference Between Knowing and Believing | Difference Between
We can work more efficiently with the summary in that link. It is as follows:Belief leaves room for doubt. I have no doubt about the tree, therefore I know.
Difference Between Knowing and Believing | Difference Between
Superficially, items (1) and (2) are contradictory. If 'knowing' means that I am 100% certain about a chosen truth, then why is that not a 'belief' as defined by item (3), ie: 'Believing’ is blind trust'?1. ‘Believing’ means that you have chosen a truth, but ‘knowing’ means that you are certain about that truth.
2. ‘Believing’ always leaves room for doubt, but ‘knowing’ leads to confidence.
3. ‘Believing’ is blind trust, while ‘knowing’ is trusting with awareness.
In this context, real and true are pretty much the same.How do we agree on what 'is true', if that is the standard by which 'what is real' is to be based?
Why do you have to appeal to an authority? Don’t you know the difference between real and make believe? And as far as evidence, there is plenty of evidence that the tree is real.More importantly, who is the authority I have to defer to, in order to find out, given that 'true' is asserted without evidence here?
Really???Do they possess a human mind?
The inconsistencies are so slight that it doesn’t prevent it’s reality from being agreed uponHow do we go about agreeing on a 'fact' in some discussion in the case of where there is no consistency?
By experiencing using our 5 senses.How do we agree on 'real events'?
To know is also to believe; its just more than merely believingWe can work more efficiently with the summary in that link. It is as follows:
Superficially, items (1) and (2) are contradictory. If 'knowing' means that I am 100% certain about a chosen truth, then why is that not a 'belief' as defined by item (3), ie: 'Believing’ is blind trust'?
The authors of that article confused themselves right there.
That’s your choice; I chose to use dictionary definitions; (the way terms are commonly used) when making the analogy of the tree in my front yard.As a scientific thinker, I'd choose operational definitions (objectively testable), rather than trying to adjudicate words by convention (in other words, what we can show we mean, not what we'd like to mean).
To know is also to believe; its just more than merely believingWe can work more efficiently with the summary in that link. It is as follows:
Superficially, items (1) and (2) are contradictory. If 'knowing' means that I am 100% certain about a chosen truth, then why is that not a 'belief' as defined by item (3), ie: 'Believing’ is blind trust'?
The authors of that article confused themselves right there.
That’s your choice; I chose to use dictionary definitions; (the way terms are commonly used) when making the analogy of the tree in my front yard.As a scientific thinker, I'd choose operational definitions (objectively testable), rather than trying to adjudicate words by convention (in other words, what we can show we mean, not what we'd like to mean).
Some religious people claim that atheism, which is defined as a lack of belief in deity or deities, is inherently nihilistic. Since atheists come from all nationalities, races, socio-economic backgrounds, and indeed all walks of life, it is reasonable to say that making such a sweeping generalization of all atheists isn’t fair.
However,
many atheists spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing religion. Visit any atheist blog on the internet, and there you won’t find one positive article on faith. It seems like everything they post is hostile towards religion. You’ll never see them post a link to a news story about Christians feeding the poor or being good people in general.
The same can be said about atheist books: read any book from renowned atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, and all they have to say about religion is bad. In fact, the world's most famous blasphemy advocate Christopher Hitchens even wrote a book called How Religion Poisons Everything.
Since it seems like almost all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity,
which is an inherently peaceful faith that improves morals
'Atheism' is more than just a label though .. I've come to the conclusion there is a (big) belief underpinning the practice.One plausible reason: The fact there exists the term 'atheist' could shed some light... You do not see people going around labeling themselves an 'abigfootist'. This is because the majority of the populous around them are not asserting unfalsifiable claims, day in and day out, which also is accompanied by unfalsifiable moral doctrines associated or attached, which surround Big Foot.
Certainly possible motivations .. but, (as an example only), your invoking 'what's possible' also re-admits the possibility of the existence of a deity .. which is apparently what atheists are arguing against(?) There's inconsistency there, I think(?)cvanwey said:Another plausible reason: Maybe many use these forums as a refuge, to air their internal grievances with fellow anonymous internet users; as maybe their loved ones oppose their internal views? Maybe they do not wish to raise discord among their family and friends? But wish to escape to a place of refuge to unload?
I agree with that .. (there's objective evidence for it).cvanwey said:Yet another viable reason: Maybe these individuals see Christianity, as doing more 'harm' than 'good', from their individual perspectives? If Christianity is going to be reduced or equated to the likes of feeding the poor, then we do not need Christianity for this, as there exists secular organizations which perform as such, as well.
Consider another way for ruling out the possibility; that they see no convincing evidence that the claim is even possible.See, when the belief (in a deity) is objectively untestable, there are only two ways I see atheists use for ruling out the possibility of one .. either by way of logical contradiction/inconsistency (which might dismiss the argument, but doesn't rule out the belief itself) or, by invoking yet another undisclosed belief, which then acts as the basis for ruling it out. Both ways require believing in some untestable notion, which then makes atheism indistinguishable from being yet another religious belief (maybe even a religion)?
Can you demonstrate that in some way?To know is also to believe; its just more than merely believing
That's right ... It is a choice I can make and not something I believe .. because I have a test for distinguishing beliefs .. which is way more useful than perpetually quoting untestable truisms.Ken-1122 said:That’s your choice; I chose to use dictionary definitions; (the way terms are commonly used) when making the analogy of the tree in my front yard.
Often what's possible isn't obvious .. especially when its not testable.Consider another way for ruling out the possibility; that they see no convincing evidence that the claim is even possible.
Correct. The absence of a thing is not itself that thing which is absent.'Atheism' is more than just a label though .. I've come to the conclusion there is a (big) belief underpinning the practice.
I think, (but , I'm not sure yet), that Atheists seem to think that the absence of the belief of the existence of a deity is not, itself, just another belief(?)
I'll just stop you there. Lacking belief doesn't require ruling out the possibility. It's possible that I'll meet a female with good looks who cooks and cleans, but I lack belief that there exists such a creature.See, when the belief (in a deity) is objectively untestable, there are only two ways I see atheists use for ruling out the possibility of one
Appreciate your feedback there.Correct. The absence of a thing is not itself that thing which is absent.
I'll just stop you there. Lacking belief doesn't require ruling out the possibility. It's possible that I'll meet a female with good looks who cooks and cleans, but I lack belief that there exists such a creature.
Some atheists do hold to the belief that "there are no gods", that's called hard atheism and I would agree it's untenable, but it isn't required for atheism.
Okay, here's a good illustration I've heard. Let's say you and I are walking through the county fair and come upon a booth with a large jar full of marbles. I say to you "The number of marbles is odd". If you don't believe me, does that require you to believe the number of marbles is even? Of course not. That's atheism in a nutshell.Appreciate your feedback there.
I really wish an Atheist would speak up so I could understand how they rationalise their position.
I looked into the etymology of the word "atheism" a long while back and I found out that the Romans used to call Christians "atheists" in a derogatory manner because the Christians didn't believe in their pantheon. Sounds like you've been talking to a hard atheist. It's fair to bash that, I do, but it isn't accurate to generalize atheism based on that. It would be like talking to a Baptist and telling the multitude of other denominations what they believe about Christianity.I recently had one present me with this rather interesting insight (from a Humanist/Atheist):
'I respect the right to freedom of belief - but I don’t respect the belief itself. I think that’s general though - religious people are effectively atheists when confronted with all but their one particular choice of religion'.
(My underline). So, if one accepts the underlined, the implication there is that if one then reverses it, Atheism, for that person, is on a par with being a religion .. (which was quite a surprise for me).
We don't need to argue that a god is not possible. We can merely argue that what a person thinks is evidence does not lead to the conclusion they've arrived at. For instance, a theist might claim that because the geographical facts in the Bible are accurate, we should believe that the miraculous events are also accurate. But that doesn't logically follow. The geographical facts were accurate in "The War of the Worlds" too, and that caused people to believe it when it was read on the radio, but the sci-fi events weren't actually happening. See, I didn't argue against the possibility of god, I merely argued against the value of some piece of evidence for that god. If all claimed evidences for a god are bunkum, then there's no reason to hold a belief in god even while there's also no reason to hold a belief that there is not a god.Certainly possible motivations .. but, (as an example only), your invoking 'what's possible' also re-admits the possibility of the existence of a deity .. which is apparently what atheists are arguing against(?) There's inconsistency there, I think(?)
Thank you for sharing that .. much appreciated.Okay, here's a good illustration I've heard. Let's say you and I are walking through the county fair and come upon a booth with a large jar full of marbles. I say to you "The number of marbles is odd". If you don't believe me, does that require you to believe the number of marbles is even? Of course not. That's atheism in a nutshell.
I'm an atheist because I lack belief. That's all it takes. I'm a hard agnostic because the belief I do hold to is that it is impossible to know if there is a god or if there is not.
I looked into the etymology of the word "atheism" a long while back and I found out that the Romans used to call Christians "atheists" in a derogatory manner because the Christians didn't believe in their pantheon. Sounds like you've been talking to a hard atheist. It's fair to bash that, I do, but it isn't accurate to generalize atheism based on that. It would be like talking to a Baptist and telling the multitude of other denominations what they believe about Christianity.
A hard atheist lacks belief in a god and holds the belief that there is no god. If you don't believe there is something, then of course you also don't have a belief that there is that something. But it doesn't work in reverse. It's possible to not have a belief that there is something without believing that there is not that something.
We don't need to argue that a god is not possible. We can merely argue that what a person thinks is evidence does not lead to the conclusion they've arrived at. For instance, a theist might claim that because the geographical facts in the Bible are accurate, we should believe that the miraculous events are also accurate. But that doesn't logically follow. The geographical facts were accurate in "The War of the Worlds" too, and that caused people to believe it when it was read on the radio, but the sci-fi events weren't actually happening. See, I didn't argue against the possibility of god, I merely argued against the value of some piece of evidence for that god. If all claimed evidences for a god are bunkum, then there's no reason to hold a belief in god even while there's also no reason to hold a belief that there is not a god.
No. What you believe vs know is based on what’s going on inside your head. You cannot demonstrate what’s going on inside your head, you can only tell people about it and they can take your word for it or not.Can you demonstrate that in some way?
(I mean, as opposed to simply claiming it as being true and expecting everyone to just accept it?)
This is simple stuff! Most people have no problem understanding it; I have no idea why you are struggling with this.I also don't have clue what it means .. sounds like completely useless philosophical rhetoric to me.
Not a belief? How could your choice to use operational definitions be a belief? That doesn’t make any sense.That's right ... It is a choice I can make and not something I believe .. because I have a test for distinguishing beliefs .. which is way more useful than perpetually quoting untestable truisms.
Don’t assume because I’ve ruled out religion, that I haven’t tested it first only to find out the claims are false.Often what's possible isn't obvious .. especially when its not testable.
Going even one step further however, I would say one often doesn't see any rational evidence either .. its a belief! .. where, by 'belief', I mean (see the underlined bit):
' ... any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.
However, many notions, even in science, don't at first present as having rational evidence .. but that doesn't mean they get ruled out!
I’m an atheist; what is it about my position you would like to understand?Appreciate your feedback there.
I really wish an Atheist would speak up so I could understand how they rationalise their position.
Just because a person is atheist doesn’t mean they don’t have beliefs; they just don’t have belief in God.I'm (fairly obviously) gravitating towards that a hidden, assumed belief is lurking around there somewhere(?)
Don’t make the mistake of assuming all atheists are for the same reason. Perhaps the person you were discussing with is on par with being a religion (but it’s not a religion) but that doesn’t mean his logic applies to all atheists.I recently had one present me with this rather interesting insight (from a Humanist/Atheist):
'I respect the right to freedom of belief - but I don’t respect the belief itself. I think that’s general though - religious people are effectively atheists when confronted with all but their one particular choice of religion'.
(My underline). So, if one accepts the underlined, the implication there is that if one then reverses it, Atheism, for that person, is on a par with being a religion .. (which was quite a surprise for me).
Stated like a true believer!No. What you believe vs know is based on what’s going on inside your head. You cannot demonstrate what’s going on inside your head, you can only tell people about it and they can take your word for it or not.
Well maybe its because you're just expecting me to swallow it holus bolus .. y'know just like believing in a deity .. including its miracles 'n stuff(?)Ken-1122 said:This is simple stuff! Most people have no problem understanding it; I have no idea why you are struggling with this.
Not sure how you came up with that statement after I said the opposite:Ken-1122 said:Not a belief? How could your choice to use operational definitions be a belief? That doesn’t make any sense.
What I was trying to say is that if I have the ability distinguish a belief by applying my operational definition for one, then I can apply that to one of my own thoughts to see if it qualifies as a belief (or not). Because I have that test, I am then free to choose (or make a choice). Where I don't have such a test, I'll probably go on forever being driven by that undistinguished belief (with no freedom to choose another path).SelfSim said:It is a choice I can make and not something I believe ..
Ok .. accepted.Ken-1122 said:Don’t assume because I’ve ruled out religion, that I haven’t tested it first only to find out the claims are false.
So I ask: How can something exist independently from your mind (or head) when what you 'believe' vs 'know' is based on what's going on inside your head?Ken-1122 said:What you believe vs know is based on what’s going on inside your head.
Umm .. feel free to share .. but after the dilemma you just presented, please don't expect me to understand it, if that same thinking is involved. (All will be cool by me if you accept that).I’m an atheist; what is it about my position you would like to understand?
Where 'God' exists as some kind of mind independent 'thing' there, I presume you to mean?Ken-1122 said:Just because a person is atheist doesn’t mean they don’t have beliefs; they just don’t have belief in God.
Sure .. and to be fair to them, I don't think they'd be saying that either. They said it was very personal to them .. and I get that.Ken-1122 said:Don’t make the mistake of assuming all atheists are for the same reason. Perhaps the person you were discussing with is on par with being a religion (but it’s not a religion) but that doesn’t mean his logic applies to all atheists.