What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

More nonsense. What has this got to do with atheism being a worldview?

A world-view is a set of beliefs: [ ]
Let beliefs be measured on a continuum: disbelief, don't know, belief [-1,0,1]
Leg G(x) be one's God-belief.
Let O be the set of all other beliefs one holds.

Here are three distinct world-views:

Theist = [ G(1), O ]
Atheist = [ G(-1), O ]
Agnostic = [ G(0), O ]

And you're wrong. Belief is an on-off switch. Knowledge is a separate issue. You're confusing them.

Lets go with the epistemologist on this one (me!) and say that you are wrong.

Beliefs feed into a decision-engine.

I see see an atheist and a theist arguing about God on the internet.
What shall I do?
Theist -> sides with Theist
Atheist -> Sides with Atheist
Agnostic -> goes against the Theist AND the atheist

Q.E.D

How does a binary (on-off) belief produce a trinary behavior?

No, as uwot has explained, theism and atheism are about a belief and its rejection.

By contrast, gnosticism refers to knowledge and therefore knowledge-claims. So there are gnostic (or 'hard') theists and atheists, and agnostic (or 'soft') theists and atheists.

Many theists believe there is a god but don't claim to know there is: they're agnostic theists. And many atheists don't believe there's a god, but don't claim to know there's no god; they're agnostic atheists.

So agnosticism is not a half-way position between theism and atheism. That's a misunderstanding.

And belief is definitely on-off. We either believe something is the case - or a factual assertion is true - or we don't. There can be no halfway position between those two. If we're 'not sure', by definition we don't believe it's the case or true. 'I'm not sure if there's a god' can never mean 'I believe there's a god'.

[TimeSeeker]

No (ETC...)

It's getting tiresome showing you all the edge/corner cases in your definitions/distinctions...

Problem 1 (meta-epistemic question): How does the knower know whether what they have is knowledge or belief?

Problem 2: Point out the distinction between:

I know that tomorrow you will or you won't die.
I believe that tomorrow you will or you won't die.

As far as I can tell the above is equivocation.

[TimeSeeker]

And belief is definitely on-off. We either believe something is the case - or a factual assertion is true - or we don't.

That's just indicative of your black-and-white thinking. That's why you keep falling into false dichotomies all the time.

If you think in continuums beliefs are less likely and more likely. Relative to each other!

[uwot]

it is generally taken to mean 'I don't know' and theism is not a knowledge claim, but rather a belief.

I do not subscribe to this taxonomy. I do not differentiate between knowledge and belief because of the epistemic meta-problem I described in the other thread:

1. Foundationalism is flawed since no such thing as "justification" exists to meet the JTB criterion (regress problem)

Personally, I think foundationalism is flawed, because the only two analytic a posteriori propositions that cut the mustard are Parmenides' 'Being is' and the stripped down version of Descartes' Cogito, 'Experience is'. As I said elsewhere, everything else is theory laden, and cannot be used as a logically sound premise.

2. How does the knower know whether they know or believe God's existence?

I would argue that they don't know that they know, but then I am not party to the experiences they have had. On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt someone who affirms a belief in some god.

I don't know anything about anything. I only have various degrees of certainty about various things which makes me good at guessing.

So in this instance you feel comfortable using 'know' as an absolute.

Whether you choose to call a certain degree of certainty "knowledge" - you need to declare that threshold.

'Knowledge of' or 'knowledge that'? If you insist on a threshold, what are the chances that you are creating a false dichotomy? As someone who is good at guessing, where would you suggest that threshold is?

[TimeSeeker]

I have no reason to doubt someone who affirms a belief in some god.

This is hugely problematic because you've already made a number of assumptions:

1. You assume that you have similar conceptions of 'belief' (as I am busy demonstrating that is not the case)
2. You assume you have similar conceptions of a "god"
3. You assume you use this "god-belief" the same way to make decisions.

It pre-supposes that you speak the same metaphysical/epistemic (mental?) language AND that you share vocabularies/taxonomies - which is an a whole lot of unvalidated assumptions. It's logocenrism's and the correspondence theory of truth's worst mistake!

I can even demonstrate: Do you believe in wingfrot ?

As someone who is good at guessing, where would you suggest that threshold is?

It's entirely subjective! Depending on your risk appetite/aversion and utility function.

I make some decisions on very little evidence. On other decisions - I require a lot of evidence.
I make some decisions on no evidence whatsoever - SO that I can obtain evidence through making an error.

It all depends on my willingness/ability to absorb the cost of making a mistake.

So in this instance you feel comfortable using 'know' as an absolute.

That is because I am making a claim about my own epistemic state. I know what I don't know. I recognise my own certainties/uncertainties.
Any claim I make about the world though is ALWAYS made on incomplete or stale information.

This is opacity/information assymmetry at play.

A secondary point is that even though my claim is not absolute - the absolutism of language makes it seem that way.

[uwot]

I have no reason to doubt someone who affirms a belief in some god.

This is hugely problematic because you've already made a number of assumptions...

It pre-supposes that you speak the same metaphysical/epistemic (mental?) language AND that you share vocabularies/taxonomies - which is an a whole lot of unvalidated assumptions.

I see. So what makes you think I could understand that assertion?

[TimeSeeker]

I have no reason to doubt someone who affirms a belief in some god.

This is hugely problematic because you've already made a number of assumptions...

It pre-supposes that you speak the same metaphysical/epistemic (mental?) language AND that you share vocabularies/taxonomies - which is an a whole lot of unvalidated assumptions.

I see. So what makes you think I could understand that assertion?

You understand the question because you ask it.
You assume the person answering it understood the meaning.

And when they say “Yes” you both walk away thinking communication has happened.

If you take the scientific approach - getting a “yes” is the WORST thing that can happen in a new experiment. It is Confirmation bias : https://youtu.be/vKA4w2O61Xo

You need a falsifier!

[Immanuel Can]

Mere pejorative. You'll have to forgive my lack of concern that a person who insists on typing words is trying to argue that words don't count.

If you don't care about performative contradictions...

Um...to denigrate language, while using language to do that...that's pretty much textbook performative contradiction. So I'd say I not only care about it, but pointed it out to you.

[TimeSeeker]

Um...to denigrate language, while using language to do that...that's pretty much textbook performative contradiction. So I'd say I not only care about it, but pointed it out to you.

Since you only speak 1 language and I speak about 17 it isn’t a contradiction. It is necessity.

I am denigrating English and other informal languages. They are communication tools. That is it.

Not tools for describing reality.

I am perfectly happy to invent semantics and repurpose words on the fly. But I imagine you can’t keep up...

[Immanuel Can]

As I pointed out, atheism isn't a worldview any more than rejecting belief in fairies is a worldview. Why didn't you quote or address that?

I did. I told you you weren't correct.

Atheism has no 'real implications'

It has one affirmative claim: that there is "no God." To that claim, it has no entitlement. It offers no evidence. It's just an empty assertion. But it has that one ontological claim...namely, that our universe does not have a Supreme Being in it.

As for further implications, it does have some. You've identified one yourself: if there's no God, there's no such thing as an objective morality either. Of course, that also turns the existence of any subjective morality into a triviality as well, so there's an additional implication.

Another implication is the meaninglessness of existence. The universe itself is an uncaused cosmic accident. It races toward heat death. Meanwhile, entropy will get all of us much sooner. And it will all mean nothing.

So lots of implications, really. But it would take a very brave Atheist to face them, so many prefer to stop well short of thinking all that through. And in a sense, I can't blame them. It's pretty bleak.

But since your argument rests on the claim that a god's existence could make morality objective, you have to show why that is true.

I have done so. I have said that "the character of God" and "moral" are two terms for the same thing, just as "Peter" and "Mr. Holmes" are. But you haven't liked the answer I've given, even though it's the right one.

I can't help you further with that, because that's the end of the trail. The buck stops there.

[Immanuel Can]

Since you only speak 1 language

Incorrect. Mais ca ne fait rien.

I am denigrating English and other informal languages. They are communication tools. That is it.

Not tools for describing reality.

So the statement you just made, in English, isn't an accurate description of reality? It isn't true?

I think I believe you.

[Peter Holmes]

And belief is definitely on-off. We either believe something is the case - or a factual assertion is true - or we don't.

That's just indicative of your black-and-white thinking. That's why you keep falling into false dichotomies all the time.

If you think in continuums beliefs are less likely and more likely. Relative to each other!

It helps to be very clear here. A belief is an attitude towards something, such as a factual assertion. To believe a factual assertion is to accept it - to think it's true. But it's the assertion that has a truth-value, not the belief.

Hume: 'A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence'.

TimeSeeker: 'I make some decisions on very little evidence. On other decisions - I require a lot of evidence.
I make some decisions on no evidence whatsoever - SO that I can obtain evidence through making an error.

These both seem rational positions, because they refer to the evidence that can justify decisions, actions and beliefs. And, surprisingly, you seem to agree that there is such a thing as evidence, of which we can have knowledge, and about which we can make true assertions. The real world and the ordinary meanings of our words are suddenly back in operation.

But notice that proportioning belief to the evidence doesn't refer to the cross-over between disbelief and belief, but only to the strength of belief.

Can you describe the supposed middle stage between disbelief and belief? What sort of model do you have in mind?

[Immanuel Can]

I am perfectly happy to invent semantics and repurpose words on the fly. But I imagine you can’t keep up...

Lewis Carroll: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

[TimeSeeker]

Since you only speak 1 language

Incorrect. Mais ca ne fait rien.

I am denigrating English and other informal languages. They are communication tools. That is it.

Not tools for describing reality.

So the statement you just made, in English, isn't an accurate description of reality? It isn't true?

I think I believe you.

By the time you parsed it it described the past

Does your definition of reality include a time dimension?

Which time slice did me language describe?

[TimeSeeker]

Since you only speak 1 language

Incorrect. Mais ca ne fait rien.

I am denigrating English and other informal languages. They are communication tools. That is it.

Not tools for describing reality.

So the statement you just made, in English, isn't an accurate description of reality? It isn't true?

I think I believe you.

By the time you parsed it it described the past

Does your definition of reality include a time dimension?

Which time slice did my language describe?

By the time you responded was this “truth” still true or had reality changed?

Latency and consistency are properties of information.