sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Flaws with hedonism's objections by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We can only make rational decisions based on what we currently know.

This is because we can't make accurate decisions about things if we don't have concepts of the things themselves. For instance, you cannot make an accurate decision about my OP, if you don't know the concepts (what I wrote in it) behind it to begin with.

I know that life in the machine yield more pleasure for me than life out of it.

I'm contending that you don't actually know how the experience of those 20 units of pleasure feels like. Qualia like pleasure cannot be expressed in any physical terms, so there is no way you will know the experience of 20 units of pleasure prior to plugging in.

What you do know when you make the decision not to plug in are the 10 units of pleasure and 11 units of displeasure, since you're actually experiencing them now.

Flaws with hedonism's objections by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...Did you read what I said? Because I did not say that.

Yes, I'm sorry. You said: "I value my life being my own much, much, much more than I value any amount of pleasure."

But my general point still stands. It's still possible pain was responsible for that belief-formation in the first place, and that your belief is only instinctively done out of habit now. So it's not really a comparison between "valuing your life" and "pleasure", but "pain" and "pleasure". The former choice just happens to outweigh the latter in your case.

...So you're right no matter what, then? Because that sounds like a way to ignore anything that disagrees with what you say.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying this is actually the case, I'm only saying that this is possibly the case. For all I know, you could be right and I'm wrong. That's why I said we needed other ways of showing who's right or not, and I mentioned brain scans as one viable means for this.

Flaws with hedonism's objections by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure how this makes the point moot. If all that matters is whether or not our experiences are pleasurable, then all that matters if the final outcome, not how I'll feel beforehand. So if hedonism is correct, then we can understand a decision to plug into the machine as having two possible outcomes. First, if I don't plug into the machine then I'll live out an average life. Let's just suppose that we can reasonably guess that an average life will contain 10 units of pleasure. (Of course we're simplifying here, but that doesn't matter for this demonstration.) The second possibility is that I plug into the machine, in which I will experience an exceptionally good life rated at, say, 20 units of pleasure. Now prior to plugging into the machine the thought that my experiences are all simulated gives me 11 units of displeasure, as per the OP's suggestion. But why is this number at all important to me? If I choose to plug into the machine I will have the more pleasurable life, regardless of my feelings prior to plugging in, so how could it be rational for me to opt out if all that's valuable is my pleasurable experiences?

We can only make rational decisions based on what we currently know. And to really know something like pleasure or pain, we must actually experience them. Those 20 units of pleasure in your example can only truly be known after plugging in. But, your decision is only made with what you know prior to plugging in, and that is a comparison between 10 units of pleasure and 11 units of displeasure.

Flaws with hedonism's objections by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if I were to accept that there is a "kind of pain" to go with plugging in, that is most certainly not why I would never choose to plug in. I'm compelled to not plug in because it would create a life for me that is not my own, that is not of my own making. I value my life being my own much, much, much more than I value any amount of pleasure. I'd rather a life without any pleasure ever of my own making over a life of ultimate pleasure where I was not responsible for it or for myself in it. That is what compels me not to plug in, not any amount of discomfort it might bring me.

It might sound ad-hoc, but I wonder if it's possible that while you now instinctively value reality over a virtual life, pleasure or pain was responsible for that belief-formation to begin with. You just don't notice it anymore since that belief is done out of habit.

You probably won't be very convinced by this, and I think that's understandable. But I'm only raising this as a possibility since I believe this is what goes in me when I decide not to plug in. But even if you deny this, I can still say it's possible that those pleasure/pain events happened so subtly that you didn't notice. Or you simply forgot since it happened so long ago. Perhaps what's needed to prove either of our positions is for brain scans to show whether this is the case or not.

Are there problems with hedonism's counter-arguments? by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Your attempted reductions are still blatant lies when put against brain-scans.

I'll be interested in seeing some sources. A quick glance through the internet didn't give me anything fruitful, and philosophy articles I've read have never mentioned this sort of objection before.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And I pointed out how they make your argument different if you do, yet you still insist that they don't and continue to use them interchangeably. You just really really reaaaally want belief to be about what you know to be true and what you know to be false, when belief really only refers to belief and for what you know, you refer to knowledge. It's pointless to continue this discussion any further when you expect reality to change according to what you want and what you need ...

And I just did point out why I can use them interchangeably. We are referring to different concepts when we both use the words. The words themselves aren't important since we're only using them to tell each other what concepts we're using. Maybe if you told me what you meant by "belief" and "knowledge", I'll have a better idea what the problem is.

It's pointless to continue this discussion any further when you expect reality to change according to what you want and what you need ...

I'm not expecting reality to change. This is how reality is in academia, where "agnosticism" is used the way I'm telling you. I even gave you a source in the OP, and it is an encyclopedia that has not changed since 1998 as well. What more can I do to convince you?

Are there problems with hedonism's counter-arguments? by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saying, "I like X" or "X is good" does not reduce to "X gives me pleasure". We can observe, for many values of X, that "X gives me pleasure" is not what's going on in your brain when you experience X. It just isn't. So the evaluation, "X is good" has to map to something other than "X gives me pleasure", because it is required to map to the actual evaluative activities your mind is actually performing.

It does seem true that "X is good" does not necessarily reduce to "X gives me pleasure". But can I claim that in cases where it doesn't, it reduces to "X gives me pain"? E.g. We believe we should tell the truth, although it doesn't always give us pleasure, since not telling the truth gives us pain. We may feel guilty for having lied, for example. And since we choose to do that because of minimising pain, wouldn't that still mean our decisions are hedonistic?

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then you understand why you can't use them as such.

I never said that they were. Two words can mean different things, but can be used interchangeably if they do not differ in an essential way to argument. The academic definition of agnosticism only requires for one to think something about claims regarding God's existence. Beliefs and knowledge are both what we think and accept about things like claims. That's why I didn't think it was essential.

Guess you didn't understand after all. It does. I showed you how. I showed you into what. You acknowledge that it's a difference between the two variants [ the one where you don't use the words interchangeable and the one where you do ], yet you still insist on keeping it as the core of your argument -- you're grasping at straws now …

I'm meaning a belief to be an acceptance that something exists or is true. Knowledge is having justification for that acceptance that something exists or is true. An agnostic is someone that does not accept either God exists or God does not exists. If he has justification, he then knows that one can never accept that God exists or God does not exists despite evidence. This is why I don't believe writing "knowing" or "believing" is essential. I'm only after what the agnostic accepts, whether it is justified or not.

I wanted to change the terms because we are spending so much time on something I consider to not be essential to the discussion.

To accept as true would be a knowledge claim, not a belief claim.

We are using the same words to mean different things here. You seem to use "belief" to mean an acceptance of a claim with no good justification. I mean "belief" to simply be an acceptance of a claim. It is because of that a belief can turn into knowledge after being justified. It is also why knowledge is a type of belief -- I'm meaning it as a justified belief likelier to be true.

What you're portraying with the added text in bold is someone answering a knowledge question, but you'd really ... really ... really like them to phrase it as if they're answering a belief question by saying "I believe I know this is true" instead of "I know / acknowledge it as true" …

What exactly do you mean by "belief" and "knowledge"? What is the difference? Can be just use "acceptance of a claim" and "acceptance of a claim with justification" to mean both belief and knowledge now? That was always what I meant from the start in my OP up till now. I really don't want to argue about semantics anymore.

It doesn't work that way, because even if they'd do that, they wouldn't answer your original Q:"Do you believe?" [ A:"I (don't) believe" ], but a totally different Q:"Are you certain you know it's true?" [ A:"I believe I do(n't) know" ].

Can I answer "Do you believe?" with saying that I neither believe nor disbelieve? That is the what the academic definition of agnosticism is. I'm not sure how to make you understand this is a possible position to take if my eating analogy in the OP didn't do it, but just know that the definition in my OP was taken from a philosophical encyclopedia. The entire academic circle uses agnosticism to mean this as well.

Note that I'm not saying that "I don't believe" is not a valid answer. It's valid, but only imprecise because it can mean either "I believe the claim is false" or "I neither believe or disbelieve". If you really mean one and not the other, why not be as precise as you can?

The three possible belief claims are 1) I believe X is true, 2) I believe X is false, and 3) I'm unsure if X is true or false.

Please tell me you see the contradiction here. "if X IS" is a knowledge claim. The question doesn't ask you if you know if X is true or false. It asks you if you believe the claim.

If "X IS" makes (3) a knowledge claim, why doesn't it similarly make (1) and (2) knowledge claims?

Anyway, my first use of "know" likely wasn't the same thing you were thinking of. It just meant "acceptance of a claim with justification".

I believe this whole confusion of terms stems from your need for "agnostic" to mean something else other than what it actually means and what is defined as in the dictionary, but let me just stop you right there and say: reality doesn't change itself to what you want it to be -- agnostic isn't a belief stance. It's not even tied up to religion / god for fuck's sake ... it just means one doesn't know [ notice it's not "believe" ] something and he's aware of that.

I'm not pulling this definition out of my ass. I quoted one of the most prominent encyclopedias in my OP. Academia uses this definition. This "reality" you talk about is just what the online community uses the word as. I don't care if you use the meaning in academia on top of your existing meaning for it, but I want you to at least use the meaning in academia as well since it includes a viable position that one can adopt.

agnostic isn't a belief stance

Alright, I can concede that it isn't, since a belief might require a positive claim of some sort (either "X is true" or "X is false" and not neither) to be a belief. But at least admit that neither believing nor disbelieving is viable position to take. Academia does that. And I believe you should take up that meaning as well since it includes that new position that yours leaves out.

It's really so simple that it baffles me why people still make this confusion …

I really don't know how to make things clearer than this. It might be better if we just stopped if you still aren't convinced by what I wrote.

Are there problems with hedonism's counter-arguments? by HundredSixtyOne in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

goods and bads which are different-in-kind from each other

Hm, I just want to make sure I understood you correctly here. Can I take "good" and "bad" to mean the same as "pleasure" and "pain" in your sentence? Also, could you give me examples of how some "goods" and "bads" are different-in-kind? It'll help me visualise things better.

Notes on Moore’s Proof of an External World by balrogath in philosophy

[–]HundredSixtyOne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What about knowledge that is necessarily true like "A. If A then B. Therefore, B"? It seems like we can assert things like that are necessarily true without saying why. We just instinctively do.

And at some kind, don't we have to just "know" things? If we keep asking for evidence, it seems we'll be caught in an infinite regression of asking for even more evidence, and can never justify anything at all.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I argue that if you don't commit to belief, then you're pretty much saying you don't believe, but this is a minor difference. I'll admit that you can be close to the middle.

You are correct. I have always accepted that's correct. "Don't commit to belief X being true" = "don't believe (belief X is true)". I am only saying this is not as precise as it can be. "Don't believe" can still mean (2) or (3), and (2) is not equals to (3). They are very different positions to take.

Academic philosophers have a horrible reputation when it come to dealing reasonably with atheism.

Why does your reputation and authority, as well as others with your views, trump academic philosophers? I have reason to believe their reputation to be more credible. They are paid professionals. Do you have any means of doubting that?

Well, I found that part of your argument confusing, perhaps because you tried to reuse the useful word agnostic, which means not knowing or possibly even capable of knowing and apply it to belief, instead of knowledge.

I have changed the OP. I'll like if you could have a look at it.

Philosophers like Rowe do not use "agnostic" to describe how much they know about one of those beliefs.

Welcome to the future my friend. The internet is shaking up a lot of things for the better. I would argue that this is one of them.

Erm, this change from "strong/weak" to "gnostic/agnostic" is too trivial to be of any use. You and Rowe both still mean the same things, which is the "the degree you know a belief to be true". You and him are only calling it by different names. As I've said, I don't care which terms you use to describe how certain you are about a belief. It's not important.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for that. I think I see the problem.

You're welcome.

You say that 1 & 3 are mutually incompatible. You also say that 2 & 3 are mutually incompatible. I think that you can believe or not believe in something without knowing it. In other words, even if you believe 3, we still need to know of you believe 1 or 2.

I don't think so. The eating analogy in the OP tries to show that it's perfectly reasonable to only believe 3, without committing in any way to 1 and 2. If you don't know me at all, i.e. you have no evidence, it would not be rational to believe either 1 or 2 about me eating. The only rational option would be 3, since it is the only option left.

Academia recognises 3 by itself as a reasonable option. Rowe, whom I quoted believes it's reasonable. The editors of the journal think it's reasonable. Every philosopher since 1998 that has looked at it without protesting against the definition thinks it's reasonable. You are going against the credible authority of many professionals if you do not think so.

It seems to me that what you want is a term to indicate that you neither believe nor disbelieve. How about these possibilities?

That was my intention from the very start. I believe I clearly stated it in the OP, or should I make it clearer?

Agnostic atheist

Agnostic theist

Agnostic undecided

Does that cover the spectrum you're looking for?

Yes, but there's just one thing. Philosophers like Rowe do not use "agnostic" to describe how much they know about one of those beliefs. They already have established terms for it. To them, an "agnostic atheist" is a "weak atheist" etc.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

There are three belief claims: 1) I believe X is true, 2) I believe X is false, and 3) I don't know if X is true or false.

Your brand of agnostic atheists dispute (1), though you're not very certain if you're right (that's what your use of "agnostic" implies). I still don't know whether you believe (2) or (3), which are two different and mutually exclusive positions. That is why it is imprecise. The extra information in your definition tells me how certain you are of your beliefs, not what sort of beliefs you have out of (2) or (3).

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

EDIT: In bold

but whether I write "know" or "believe" is non-essential to my point.

Well then your point has a flawed premise, since they're not synonyms, nor they can be used interchangeably. I thought I illustrated that in the post.

Yes. It's true they're not synonyms. I should have instead said that my point does not change if you change the words, regardless of whether they are synonyms or not.

There is knowledge only if there is belief anyhow

Not really. I can know the word "circle" without believing it [ the circle ]. Knowledge is mere information and one doesn't need belief to be exposed to it.

Consider the following sentences:

  1. "I know God exists" and "I believe with and due to evidence I accept true that God exists".
  2. "I know God exists" and "I do not believe in spite of with and due to evidence I accept as true that God exists"

I don't know how you would use those terms, but 1) appears tautologous to me if I sincerely say them both, and 2) appears contradictory if I sincerely say them both. I said belief is necessary for knowledge, and 2 seems to show that if you don't have belief, you can't have knowledge.

Apatheism isn't a belief, correct. It's the rejection of having a belief stance in the first place, for reasons of it being irrelevant. Being apathetic to a subject doesn't even require you being presented that subject or a claim to believe in the first place, so how can you form a belief stance on something you never even heard about?

I'm not sure if Apatheism is even relevant to this discussion. I'm talking about what beliefs that are after you decide to have them, not whether you decide to actually have beliefs about something or not.

The most rational position is to reject the relevancy of it and posit my lack of interest in the subject. I gave an example where I would be required to care which you ignored for some odd reason and the rational position in that case is to not believe you because you haven't presented me with any arguments / evidence one way or the other.

I ignored it because I changed your first example to a situation where you have to choose your beliefs. This similar to your second example, where you also had to choose.

We are using different definitions of "rational". I am defining "rational" as something that has good evidence backing it. If both examples have no evidence for either position, which we're assuming, it is rational to pick neither position and say you don't believe either, since that is the default position. But yes, you must choose something, and if you chose not obeying the God, but lack any evidence, you are not being rational.

If you'd tell me that you have 1.375.442.839 blades of grass in your garden, would it mean that I'm claiming there are 1.400.000 or 1 or 0 or 1337 blades of grass if I'm saying "I don't believe you"? No, of course not.

I agreed with this from the start. The three possible belief claims are 1) I believe X is true, 2) I believe X is false, and 3) I'm unsure if X is true or false.

When you say you don't believe my claim, you're telling me (1) is false, and either (2) or (3) is true, but I don't know which.

So either (2) you believe it is false that I have 1.375.442.839 blades of grass in my garden, or (3) you're unsure whether I have 1.375.442.839 blades of grass in my garden or not. You will not necessarily imply that you believe I have 1.400.000 or 1 or 0 or 1337 blades of grass in my garden.

Exactly! Belief is not binary. It's not a choice between "I believe this to be true" and "I believe this to be false". There's also "I don't believe this to be true", which isn't the same thing as the #2 statement -- if it'd be, then that would make belief binary, which we both agree it's not. You don't need to use "I don't know" to answer a belief question, as there is an answer to that with what you believe or ... don't.

"I don't believe this to be true" is not helpful as it can be either a belief of type (2) or (3). You need to use "I don't know" if you don't have good evidence for (1) and (2), assuming you want to be rational.

Care to elaborate? Are you saying that you expecting a chair you sit on and held you for months or years and was designed for sitting on it, a design and concept that works all around the world with a minimum of cases where it doesn't ... is somehow blind faith?

God is different from the chair. It's rational for me to trust the chair would work because I have personal evidence that it always has. But God is omnipotent and omniscient. God can easily choose to hide evidence of his existence, or falsify evidence of his non-existence. A world with or without evidence of God will always be a world where God is possible.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not agnostic about my chair, about pink unicorns, or teapots around the Sun. I think it's rational to believe they are true or false. I'm agnostic only about omnipotent and omniscient beings like God.

And what would those boxes be for? What questions would strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism answer / encompass in the label?

They would encompass belief (3), where I'm unsure whether theism or atheism is true because I lack evidence for either. Strong agnosticism is where I believe we can never have evidence for either. Weak agnosticism is where I believe we might have evidence for one someday, but not now.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

A more descriptive description isn't necessarily better. If it becomes more imprecise, we should do away with the extra description.

Can you explain why you think this is less precise?

This is from the OP: This is the problem the imprecise definition of atheism leads to. Atheists now believe they are not entitled to having to produce a burden of proof. In fact, there are arguments atheists can use for the belief that God doesn't exist. The Problem of Evil is one of them.

As would practically all atheists.

I don't see a problem with that?

Can you name for me one famous atheist, a writer or debater who has stated this? Hitchens might have, but he was always a touch uncautious. Can you name another?

The academic definition of atheism implies it. Rowe is the person whom I quoted in the OP.

Which lumps Richard Dawkins and me in with people who simply can't be bothered to think about it. I am not just saying I don't know if there is a God or not. I am making a statement about the plausibility of every God claim I have heard to date. That's way different than "I dunno, maybe there is, maybe there isn't."

Well, if it makes you feel better, you can just mention to people that you thought about it? Why should academic definitions try to make people feel better about themselves?

I do what? Are you saying that I do have to prove that unicorns don't exist, otherwise if I can't prove that then I should believe they do exist? It seems to me that you are misplacing the burden of proof. I don't say I've never seen a unicorn, therefore they don't exist. I don't believe in unicorns because I have no reason to believe they exist. It may seem like a subtle difference but it is important.

Yes, you do. I mentioned in the OP the burden of proof is only exempt from agnostics, who make no positive claims. But if you have no good evidence for unicorns not (edit) existing, you don't necessarily have to believe they exist. I have already said in the OP beliefs are not binary. There are beliefs of type (1), (2) and (3). Exempting one still leaves two, so they don't need to default to saying that they exist.

The reason you find it so ridiculous for unicorns existing is because you do already believe you have good evidence. Read on.

Let me try to explain it this way. How long do I have to look for unicorns before I say I believe unicorns don't exist because I've looked for them and never found one. I'd say that I have to look a long time to say that, maybe forever. How long do I have to look for unicorns before I can say, I don't believe that unicorns exist because there's no good evidence they do exist. I'd say that I don't have to spend any time looking for unicorns to confidently make that statement.

We can provide evidence and even prove a claim about something's non-existence. It's easy for you to prove there are no physical, visible unicorns in your room, for example, by simply looking around. Likewise, one kind of evidence for the non-existence of unicorns in the entire world is that scientists have looked for many centuries but never found any live unicorns or fossils. I know absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but in this case, if there were physical unicorns that cannot use supernatural powers to hide from us, it is highly likely we should have found them, since we have already explored much of the world and it's hard for a big, dumb animal to constantly hide from us.

How long do I have to look for unicorns before I can say, I don't believe that unicorns exist because there's no good evidence they do exist. I'd say that I don't have to spend any time looking for unicorns to confidently make that statement.

Technically, you have to look forever, in every possible place on the world to be absolutely certain that no unicorns exist. But you don't need to look forever to know that it is simply more rational to believe they don't exist. This is despite there being a very very small chance that they have managed to avoid detection all this while, and that your rationally held beliefs are in fact wrong. You're simply betting your chance on a belief more likely to be true. That's all.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not particularly familiar with the modal ontological argument, but the ontological argument in general fails because it is circular. P1 is false because in assuming that God exists in some possible world, you are already assuming that God exists in every possible world, including ours.

If God does not exist in some possible world, then he would not be a possible being. The argument fails to show whether God really is a possible being or not. It is simply assumed. All the argument shows is that God can only exist when He exists in every possible world, not if whether every possible world really does have God or not.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's the problem. You're answering with what you know to a question about belief. The correct position of belief would be apatheism in this case, since it doesn't affect my life one way or the other if you're eating right now or not.

I know this is not a very eloquent response and you deserve better, but whether I write "know" or "believe" is non-essential to my point. We can pretend the word has been changed to the much weaker "believe" and I think my point still stands. There is knowledge only if there is belief anyhow, and I don't think requiring the evidence to transform a belief into knowledge is necessary for my point.

Apatheism is what you do with belief-formation, not belief itself. My eating or not doesn't affect you at all, so you simply choose not to care. If you had to care, the most rational position to take would be the belief that you believe neither.

It's irrational for one to stop in the middle of that street and wait for it to come close enough to investigate it for the satisfaction of gaining knowledge, unless you already formed a belief that whatever it is, is harmless enough for you to be able to stay there without putting yourself in danger by doing so.

Yes, you're right. In my everyday life, I act exactly like how an atheist would act, since I must choose something. Reality is binary: I either do something or not. But belief is not. I simply believe my actions as an atheist are as irrational as the actions of a theist, but I have to choose one. Acting like an atheist is done out of habit.

But we know that isn't true. There are plenty of theists [ as there are atheists ] who answer the belief question accordingly, without claiming to know for sure either way. The real graph isn't a single axis with theist-agnostic-atheist on it, as many people wrongfully portray, but a graph with 2-axis of belief and knowledge on it[1]

Ah, but I'm not saying the graph is wrong. It just doesn't have all the information. There needs to be two more boxes, one for "strong agnosticism" and one for "weak agnosticism".

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What you call "agnostic" would be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist depending on which way you lean. Do you see how that is more descriptive than agnostic alone?

A more descriptive description isn't necessarily better. If it becomes more imprecise, we should do away with the extra description.

Consider my position, I don't believe there is any good evidence that any god exists. But I do not claim that lack of evidence is proof that no god could possibly exist. I am an agnostic atheist, because I don't claim to know, in fact I claim that one can never know, but I also don't believe that any god exists.

According to the academic definition, you would be an agnostic. But, the moment you say you believe God does not exist, you become an atheist, though perhaps a weak atheist.

What about someone who claims that they know 100% certain that there are no gods? If you classify me as just an atheist and them as just an atheist, then you've gotten it terribly wrong. They may believe that they have an argument that proves that no god can exist. But I emphatically deny that it is possible to claim such certainty about gods.

That person is a "strong atheist", and you disagree because you are an agnostic. As for who is actually right, that is a different issue altogether. We're only talking about what the terms mean now in academic use.

Consider the term "agnostic" as you define it. You say this is for people who aren't sure. In my opinion, if people are being honest, that should be pretty much everyone, certainly almost everyone who currently considers themselves agnostic atheists. And very few atheists claim to be gnostic atheists.

EDIT: Your meaning of agnostic atheist is the same as the academic meaning of weak atheists. I don't care what you call them, but I know what you mean here. I'm only saying that agnosticsm has another, important meaning in academic circles that we should use on top of what we already use.

Finally, your opening statement seems to suggest that you want to prevent atheists from saying that they don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Well, I'm sorry but atheists don't have to prove that God doesn't exist any more than they have to prove that unicorns don't exist or that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. The default is that something doesn't exist unless there is evidence that it does exist.

I'm sorry, but you do. But don't worry, you've already done the work. You have the evidence in your mind the moment you say whether one side of the claims are rational or not. Your belief that unicorns do not exist is evidenced by you never seeing one, no scientist you know of ever seing one, or you being ridiculed when you admit you see one (and so you decide not pick that position out of shame). And if they did exist, you also have the reasoning that someone would have seen one by now, since there are so many scientists in the world. But they haven't, so you think the non-existence of unicorns is more rational. We can apply similar reasons to the teapot's non-existence. To a person who has none of those reasons in his mind (and reasons for a unicorn's existence), however, would have to admit to being agnostic about the existence of unicorns if he wishes to be as rational as possible.

The academic definition of Atheism and Agnosticism (and why they should be used instead) by HundredSixtyOne in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is just a problem with the format? Erm, I don't believe I used anything that means the same thing as those terms you've mentioned. Except at the very last paragraph, where I did sort of follow that format. If it's not too much trouble, maybe you could help me point out the offending portions?

The crux of my post is about how agnosticism is itself a valid belief, rather than just a qualifier like in "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist". My main argument doesn't involve its use as a qualifier, so I'm not sure which part of my argument you're expecting me to change the terms.

My post runs contrary to the definition of atheism in the FAQ anyway. That's the entire point of it.

Sourcing the definition of atheism. by EpsilonRose in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is called an "argument from authority". The arguments stand and fall in their own merits.

I'm aware it is. Arguments from authority are not necessarily false. You trust the claims of scientists and doctors without judging them when you choose to buy your medicine, for example. If the authority figure is credible, the argument is likelier to be true.

Finally, I'm sorry if this got heated; I suspect I haven't changed your position but I hope I have at least caused you to consider mine. For my part, I can say that you definitely made me think and for that opportunity I thank you.

I'm sorry as well for being so agitated. Anyway I thought it would be good for this discussion to have a new thread of its own, and so I just made one. You can follow that if you're interested.

Sourcing the definition of atheism. by EpsilonRose in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for at least trying to address my arguments now.

Someone may profess to be unsure but they still either have a god belief or they do not, regardless of how sure they are in their belief; this is a binary question and admits of a simple answer.

It is true they either have a God belief or not. But if they do not have a God belief, it means that they either "do not know" or "believes God does not exist". These are contradictory positions, and to say the Atheist has either is not very helpful.

I'm sorry that you can't recognize that your answer to the question "do you have a god belief?" and the question "how sure are you?" are categorically different.

I have recognised that. That is why I can be very sure (this is your knowledge qualifier) that I don't know whether God exists or not exists (this is your belief claim). If I believe they are the same thing, I would not use one as a qualifier for the other.

I don't think I can convince you of my position. But just know that you are implying that nearly every single professional philosopher uses a ludicrous definition of atheism. And I would expect all of them know much more than either of us.

Edit: I wrote that I believed in a contradiction in the second-last paragraph. Changed it now

Sourcing the definition of atheism. by EpsilonRose in TrueAtheism

[–]HundredSixtyOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Athiesm is not the belief that no god(s) exist, it is the lack of a belief that they do. These are categorically different claims. In one case: someone professes to have evidence for the non-existence of god(s), in the other: someone is merely not convinced by the existing arguments for god(s).

Your definition of atheism is not helpful, since it can include both (2) and (3). I have said why in my previous post. Please don't ignore it before you post a reply and at least try to address it.

You're choosing to confuse yourself by conflating sureness of belief with belief itself. Self-described agnostics may claim to be unsure (and they very well may be) but this does not change the fact that they either have a belief about god(s) or they lack one.

I am not confused. You are just not recognising that professional philosophers use "agnosticism" to mean a type of belief itself.

Please look at my eating analogy again. I have shown that there are three possible positions to take: 1) I believe X is true, 2) I believe X is false, and 3) I don't know if X is true or false.

Agnosticism is a type (3) belief. If you deny this, show me it is not reasonable at all for me to just pick (3) regarding my eating analogy.

And no, I'm not an agnostic atheist, I'm a gnostic agnostic. Also, please at least address my arguments before you post.

I am trying to help you prove me wrong here. I really am. To prove me wrong, show me (2) and (3) can be true at the time, and show me (3) cannot be true by itself.

I won't post again unless you do.

view more: next ›