aphilosophy

[lancek4]

Not this atheist. I state, quite simply, that I have no belief corresponding to the idea that gods exist.

So then there is a possibility that god(s) do exist, but you merely do not believe there is personally? Do you admit that perhaps your 'un-correspondance' is incorrect? Or do you assert that it is correct?
And, if you assert that it is correct, what essential referent are you leaving out of the discussion such that I cannot be as sure as you? (and I am not asserting agnosticism here either)

[Thundril]

My final statement of my own position in the matter of belief in gods:
Amongst the many things that I think about the world, and about myself, and about the species of which I am a member, I recognise a tradition of story telling, of 'just-so' explanations for phenomena not easily otherwise understood.
However useful, informative, or inspiring many of these stories have been, there is not, anywhere in my mind, the slightest suspicion that any of these stories might have been factually, historically true.
Neither Loki nor Anansi actually existed. Neither Thor nor Apollo has historical reality, except as characters recorded in the history of story-making.. Likewise Jahweh, Brahma and Brer Rabbit mean a great deal in artistic, romantic and philosophical imagery, but they are not, in any way, people who actually existed. Aesop's town mouse and country mouse didn't actually meet and have a conversation somewhere on a road in ancient Greece, nor did Sisyphus actually get lumbered with a bloody great lump of rock to man-handle. These stories have meaning; they have (each in its own way) a certain beauty and depth, but none of them is factually true.
Can anyone honestly assert that this statement includes anything that could be described as 'faith' equivalent to religious faith?

[chaz wyman]

Not this atheist. I state, quite simply, that I have no belief corresponding to the idea that gods exist.

So then there is a possibility that god(s) do exist, but you merely do not believe there is personally? Do you admit that perhaps your 'un-correspondance' is incorrect? Or do you assert that it is correct?


The lack of correspondence is neither true not false it is negative.
I am really having trouble figuring out why you are having trouble with this.
It is like you asking me; when did you stop beating your wife.



And, if you assert that it is correct, what essential referent are you leaving out of the discussion such that I cannot be as sure as you? (and I am not asserting agnosticism here either)[/color]

[chaz wyman]

My final statement of my own position in the matter of belief in gods:
Amongst the many things that I think about the world, and about myself, and about the species of which I am a member, I recognise a tradition of story telling, of 'just-so' explanations for phenomena not easily otherwise understood.
However useful, informative, or inspiring many of these stories have been, there is not, anywhere in my mind, the slightest suspicion that any of these stories might have been factually, historically true.
Neither Loki nor Anansi actually existed. Neither Thor nor Apollo has historical reality, except as characters recorded in the history of story-making.. Likewise Jahweh, Brahma and Brer Rabbit mean a great deal in artistic, romantic and philosophical imagery, but they are not, in any way, people who actually existed. Aesop's town mouse and country mouse didn't actually meet and have a conversation somewhere on a road in ancient Greece, nor did Sisyphus actually get lumbered with a bloody great lump of rock to man-handle. These stories have meaning; they have (each in its own way) a certain beauty and depth, but none of them is factually true.
Can anyone honestly assert that this statement includes anything that could be described as 'faith' equivalent to religious faith?

No, it seems a reasonable conclusion of a general phenomenon based on a mountain of evidence.

[chaz wyman]

nice rhetoric. Dishonesty is contentless?

No, dishonesty is without honesty.
Atheism is without God.

"You are missing the point entirely.
Atheism has no content." gibberish?

Nope not gibberish. Your words have meaning. Its just that your comparison was not valid.

[chaz wyman]

Negative knowledge can only represent the absence of knowledge.

Even worse: negative knowledge would have to involve forgetting something previously known?

No,like negative evidence, it it can only be used to imply an absence. It has nothing to do with loss of memory.

[blackbox]

... lack of money, not interested having heterosexual intercourse...

So a person is standing before you, lacking money. Now, you give this as if it proves there is content. Well, what is the content?

A person lacks any sexual desire. What is the content of this lack?

I don't need more analogies, so please address the ones you've given in their own terms not some other analogy.

Why can't you describe the content of my atheism? You insist it has content. Presumably this content can be described. Well, again, I challenge you to tell me the content of my disbelief. Why is this difficult for you???

[evangelicalhumanist]

It is an amazing fact that we're going to finally have to admit: there are those who can use language effectively in one context, but who cannot use precisely the same constructs effectively in another -- usually when that other context is important to them. Example:

Theist: I believe God exists.
Atheist: I do not.
Theist: So you believe that God does not exist?
Atheist: I didn't say that. I said I don't believe that God exists. Nothing I've seen suggests that God exists.
Theist: Exactly, so you believe that God does not exist!
Atheist: Are you deaf? I don't have any reason to think so, and therefore see no reason to suppose it true. To me, it's all in your head!

Lover: I believe my girlfriend is cheating on me.
Friend: I do not.
Lover: So you believe that my girlfriend is not cheating on me?
Friend: I didn't say that. I said I don't believe your girlfriend is cheating on you. Nothing I've seen suggests that your girlfriend is cheating on you.
Lover: Exactly, so you believe my girlfriend is not cheating on me.
Friend: Are you deaf? I don't have any reason to think so, and therefore see no reason to suppose it true. To me, it's all in your head!

[Thundril]

Perhaps this is just intractable. Some theists do not distinguish between knowledge and belief; therefore if we say we 'know' that gods do not exist, they cannot see how that is different in kind from their 'believing' that one of them, Jahweh, does exist. Perhaps further discussion is futile?

[blackbox]

It is an amazing fact that we're going to finally have to admit: there are those who can use language effectively in one context, but who cannot use precisely the same constructs effectively in another -- usually when that other context is important to them. Example:

Theist: I believe God exists.
Atheist: I do not.
Theist: So you believe that God does not exist?
Atheist: I didn't say that. I said I don't believe that God exists. Nothing I've seen suggests that God exists.
Theist: Exactly, so you believe that God does not exist!
Atheist: Are you deaf? I don't have any reason to think so, and therefore see no reason to suppose it true. To me, it's all in your head!

Lover: I believe my girlfriend is cheating on me.
Friend: I do not.
Lover: So you believe that my girlfriend is not cheating on me?
Friend: I didn't say that. I said I don't believe your girlfriend is cheating on you. Nothing I've seen suggests that your girlfriend is cheating on you.
Lover: Exactly, so you believe my girlfriend is not cheating on me.
Friend: Are you deaf? I don't have any reason to think so, and therefore see no reason to suppose it true. To me, it's all in your head!

Great analogy. I'd maybe change the last line to something like the following: |
Are you deaf? She might be, who knows? But at this stage since I don't have reason to think she is, well, I don't believe she IS cheating on you.

[blackbox]

What I find intriguing in debates such as this is the inability some people have of understanding or even recognising things that are so obviously the case. I think it's a bad case of confirmatory bias combined with a strong dose of motivated reasoning. They really do feel as if they are weighing things up evenly, when they are not.

We are all vulnerable to those distorting pyschological phenomena, so how can we say we are not just as biased as others? Well, after many discussions with theists, I've recognised that they constantly employ fallacies. I think they do this sincerely, they just feel they are so right, they are so preoccupied with the conclusions they are arguing for, that they don't even realise how weak their fallacies are. To them, they feel right. I've also noted another indicator. Once it has been clearly demonstrated that a particular argument is fallacious, and they admit this, they don't allow this to alter their conclusion one bit. They just cast about for another argument to hold up their precious conclusions. And often, give them a while, and they'll go back to restating their original fallacy. Hmm, another indicator comes to mind... having to constantly refer them to a dictionary because they insist on giving a word their own particular "meaning" that drastically differs from the accepted one (is it Bran, doing exactly this with his ridiculous concept he calls "experience"?).

A sceptical stance seems to be crucial to avoid falling for these traps. And a good understanding of the scientific method. And openness to learning new truths that challenge existing ideas, even your own. And if people do point out that your argument(s) are fallacious... recognising this as a possible indicator and bveing prepared for self-analysis??

[blackbox]

Perhaps further discussion is futile?

But surely anyone can understand that not holding the belief "she IS cheating on you!" does not necessarily mean that the person believes "she is NOT cheating on you"? And then apply that to the atheist's disbelief?

Here, I cast round for an even simpler analogy. I don't think this wall is painted black. Now, does that require I believe it IS painted white? Of course not. The statement is ONLY concerned with one belief that is not held, it says nothing more than that.

Brick wall... head...

[chaz wyman]

It is an amazing fact that we're going to finally have to admit: there are those who can use language effectively in one context, but who cannot use precisely the same constructs effectively in another -- usually when that other context is important to them. Example:

Theist: I believe God exists.
Atheist: I do not.
Theist: So you believe that God does not exist?
Atheist: I didn't say that. I said I don't believe that God exists. Nothing I've seen suggests that God exists.
Theist: Exactly, so you believe that God does not exist!
Atheist: Are you deaf? I don't have any reason to think so, and therefore see no reason to suppose it true. To me, it's all in your head!

Lover: I believe my girlfriend is cheating on me.
Friend: I do not.
Lover: So you believe that my girlfriend is not cheating on me?
Friend: I didn't say that. I said I don't believe your girlfriend is cheating on you. Nothing I've seen suggests that your girlfriend is cheating on you.
Lover: Exactly, so you believe my girlfriend is not cheating on me.
Friend: Are you deaf? I don't have any reason to think so, and therefore see no reason to suppose it true. To me, it's all in your head!

I'm not sure where you are going with this -both seem to be completely reasonable positions.

In fact I would go so far as to say that pretending to know that a person is NOT cheating is almost impossible.
To know that for sure you would have to know the whereabouts of that person 24/7, know all their texts, emails ad infinitem.
All this is completely beyond the bounds of human action.
On the other hand, knowing that cheating IS going on only requires a small amount of evidence.

[lancek4]

[quote="Thundril"]My final statement of my own position in the matter of belief in gods:
Amongst the many things that I think about the world, and about myself, and about the species of which I am a member, I recognise a tradition of story telling, of 'just-so' explanations for phenomena not easily otherwise understood.
However useful, informative, or inspiring many of these stories have been, there is not, anywhere in my mind, the slightest suspicion that any of these stories might have been factually, historically true.
I agree.
Neither Loki nor Anansi actually existed. Neither Thor nor Apollo has historical reality, except as characters recorded in the history of story-making.. Likewise Jahweh, Brahma and Brer Rabbit mean a great deal in artistic, romantic and philosophical imagery, but they are not, in any way, people who actually existed. Aesop's town mouse and country mouse didn't actually meet and have a conversation somewhere on a road in ancient Greece, nor did Sisyphus actually get lumbered with a bloody great lump of rock to man-handle. These stories have meaning; they have (each in its own way) a certain beauty and depth, but none of them is factually true.

I agree. The term 'god' in this way as you have described absolutely may be refered to as a type(s) of theism. Thus with reference to this, atheism is a valid position.

[lancek4]

What I find intriguing in debates such as this is the inability some people have of understanding or even recognising things that are so obviously the case. I think it's a bad case of confirmatory bias combined with a strong dose of motivated reasoning. They really do feel as if they are weighing things up evenly, when they are not.
Yes. Along this line: I wonder if the participants in this thread see me as not understanding what they are saying as to atheism? Do they think that I am a theist or agnostic?
I suppose I am taking Blackbox's statment from the other side:
I state that I conceed to the atheist position. Then I critique how they are proposing it. this does not mean I am an atheist, but it likewise does not mean I am a theist. It may be that it does not conern me as to theism and atheism. As above, atheism is a position to confront the ethical problems that tend to occur around theist belief. But again: Do they think I do not understand what they are saying? Are there individuals on this thread that are arguing against the validity of atheism?

We are all vulnerable to those distorting pyschological phenomena, so how can we say we are not just as biased as others? Well, after many discussions with theists, I've recognised that they constantly employ fallacies. I think they do this sincerely, they just feel they are so right, they are so preoccupied with the conclusions they are arguing for, that they don't even realise how weak their fallacies are. To them, they feel right. I've also noted another indicator. Once it has been clearly demonstrated that a particular argument is fallacious, and they admit this, they don't allow this to alter their conclusion one bit. They just cast about for another argument to hold up their precious conclusions. And often, give them a while, and they'll go back to restating their original fallacy. Hmm, another indicator comes to mind... having to constantly refer them to a dictionary because they insist on giving a word their own particular "meaning" that drastically differs from the accepted one (is it Bran, doing exactly this with his ridiculous concept he calls "experience"?).
I concur. The problem is definition. There are many definitions that float around this forum and alot of the contension in the threads centers around this. I must assume, until proven otherwise, that the individual with whom I am engaged in debate or discussion has considered the facts. The facts (WItt?) may be absolute but how they are communicated is not; the terms are largely contigent. We could bring in the conept of 'paradigm' here. Well-known and developed arguments are typical of what we know as philosophy. Then usualy as we go on to 'philosophize' about something 'new', we want to take the terms that have already been established and thier meaning. The probelm is when such tradition is confronted; the traditional arguments and definitions of terms are questioned.
Also, the individual (as above here) knows its Truth, and speaks it. When someone else does not speak the same way about the proposed topic, then he is seen as wrong by the first.
For example: what do we mean by 'content'?
What are we meaning when we say 'belief'? "god"? "God"? There are many loose definitions that have been flaoting around this thread that are responsible for contension.
I cannot say: "I contend that I have no corresponding belief in an existence of God" because 1)it foreshortens the potential for argument from the author's obstinancy and closed mindedness, and 2) the definitions of terms are not common between those who would comment on it.

A sceptical stance seems to be crucial to avoid falling for these traps. And a good understanding of the scientific method. And openness to learning new truths that challenge existing ideas, even your own. And if people do point out that your argument(s) are fallacious... recognising this as a possible indicator and bveing prepared for self-analysis??

Perhaps this is what aphilsophy is about, if philsophy is about finding out a truth of the universe in which we humans are just examples of another object of the universe. Maybe a philsophy of aphilsophy may be about how we are situating what objects are.

And I might add, for me -- I do not engage in discussion so that I might prove others wrong. I engage so I might find out where I am wrong. I do this be asserting my truth and considering dissent with an open mind. I know what is true; so does everyone else. I want to know where I am wrong.

Perhaps this is an aphilosophical method.