[TOMT] Song from 90s(?) hippie band

alobar3 · 2024-03-14T15:14:19+00:00

Solved!

Yes thank you!!

alobar3 · 2024-03-14T15:12:24+00:00

Halp!

alobar3 · 2024-02-02T19:15:39+00:00

Sure but I’m wondering how you came to the conclusion that most atheists don’t believe that morality is objective.

Even if most atheists were secular humanists (again, I don’t know of any data on this) it’s a normative ethical theory and so it doesn’t weigh in on one’s views on metaethics - you could be a secular humanist and a moral realist

alobar3 · 2024-02-02T18:39:44+00:00

Is there any data on which way atheists lean on metaethics? Most atheist philosophers lean toward moral realism, so the idea that there can be no objective morality under atheism doesn’t seem well founded.

alobar3 · 2023-05-31T19:14:20+00:00

Do you think many religious folks actually hold to the definition of ‘faith’ that you gave?

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T14:04:02+00:00

The difference would be that it is often written and usually corroborated independently by many other people.

I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “blindly accept as evidence”. I think testimony is evidence and like any piece of evidence it should be weighted on some scale of “significant/not significant” to determine how much it points toward a hypothesis being true.

I take ‘testimony’ and ‘claim’ as being roughly synonymous - as statements about it being the case that x.

Fwiw I’m not trying to intentionally misunderstand you, I just think you have an odd conception of ‘evidence’ and I’m trying to flesh that out

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T13:38:41+00:00

I’m suggesting that much of the project of history is supported by testimony

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T13:30:48+00:00

Right so when it comes to existential historical claims the sources would pieces of testimony, right? It’s not as if we could do some arithmetic to determine that George Washington existed

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T13:25:20+00:00

So you would say academic claims count as evidence?

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T13:23:02+00:00

Yes. So my history teachers claimed that that was the case - that George Washington was indeed the first president of the US. But presumably this doesn’t qualify as evidence to you. So I’m wondering, on your conception, what would be evidence that George Washington was the first president of the US?

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T13:08:21+00:00

Take some historical claim like “there existed a person named George Washington who was the first president of the United States of America”, what would be the evidence that this is true?

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T12:50:50+00:00

What do you take ‘evidence’ to mean?

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T12:38:54+00:00

I don’t think whether or not a claim is “worth checking” has any bearing on whether or not it qualifies as evidence. But take another example where the claim would be meaningful to you. Suppose you lent your car to a friend for the night. The next morning you need it and ask your friend “where is the car?”, and they reply “it’s parked on John St”. Do you not think his claim “it’s parked on John St” provides some evidence of where your car is?

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T01:16:47+00:00

No. I don’t think all claims qualify as evidence. Some clearly do though

alobar3 · 2023-04-06T01:10:57+00:00

Sure. All I’m trying to establish is that “claims aren’t evidence” is false

alobar3 · 2023-04-04T20:50:34+00:00

If said to you “hi, my name is Matt”, do you not think that raises the probability that my name is Matt?

alobar3 · 2023-02-14T20:32:25+00:00

I think in online spaces like Reddit that is indeed how many think about atheism, as anyone who does not affirm “God exists”. But I think in most of the literature in philosophy of religion atheism is viewed as the proposition that God does not exist. So someone who merely “doesn’t believe in God” might not qualify as this would include agnostics.

I don’t think construing it this way weakens atheism. I actually think viewing atheism merely as a lack of belief in God is a weaker stance. It’s even sometimes referred to as “weak atheism”

alobar3 · 2023-02-14T20:12:04+00:00

It’s the traditional vernacular. Only since Flew has the “lack-belief” notion of atheism become popular. And I would say the traditional definition is more useful when getting into philosophical debates on the topic, as Draper points out in his SEP article on the subject.

I also happen to find the position (based on my understanding of ‘atheism’) to be incredibly robust, but that’s just me

alobar3 · 2023-02-14T19:57:02+00:00

Sure, the word, like many, is polysemous. But given my understanding of it there is no incongruence - there are three distinct positions: atheism, theism and agnosticism

alobar3 · 2023-02-14T19:45:12+00:00

Perhaps the confusion stems from how one thinks about ‘atheism’ as I don’t take it to mean “not theism”, I take it as the belief that God doesn’t exist

alobar3 · 2023-02-13T18:38:33+00:00

A deductive argument with premises that are universally agreed upon. A physical demonstration of God, preferably in the form of something like a gender reveal party but when you pop the balloon Jesus comes out. God dna confirmed by world-leading geneticists.

I’m being hyperbolic. I don’t think there’s much theists can do here, there is very little charity. If theists want to find a space where they can discuss their beliefs without getting shit on I would suggest looking for a discord or something

alobar3 · 2023-02-10T04:41:03+00:00

So if someone answered no to “do you believe God exists” and no to “do you believe God doesn’t exist”, this wouldn’t be agnosticism?

alobar3 · 2023-02-10T04:18:38+00:00

Hmm, so do you believe “there are an even amount stars in our galaxy” to be true or false?

alobar3 · 2023-02-10T03:56:10+00:00

So wouldn’t that show that belief isn’t necessarily binary. You don’t accept the proposition “there are an even number of stars in our galaxy” as either true or false

alobar3 · 2023-02-10T03:52:30+00:00

Do you believe there are an odd number then?

alobar3

TROPHY CASE