• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When does Atheism Become a Belief System

William Rea said:
Isn't it interesting how fundagnostic argumentation eventually starts to look so much like theistic argumentation. All the better reason to just ignore ignorance arguments and just lack belief in assertions that have no evidence to support them. The programming kernel in Frank v1.0 and Frank v2.0 looks the same.
Click to expand...

With a total lack of evidence no conclusions can be drawn, including any possibilities, potentials or probabilities. When we know nothing it's nothing all the way.
 
Russell797 said:
With a total lack of evidence no conclusions can be drawn, including any possibilities, potentials or probabilities. When we know nothing it's nothing all the way.
Click to expand...
When we know nothing, it can be pretty much anything.
 
calamity said:
When we know nothing, it can be pretty much anything.
Click to expand...

Our lack of knowledge has no connection to what could possibly be. They are discrete. Lack of knowledge. What is possible. Two unrelated things.
 
devildavid said:
Our lack of knowledge has no connection to what could possibly be. They are discrete. Lack of knowledge. What is possible. Two unrelated things.
Click to expand...

The lack of knowledge means you can't tell someone who proposes an idea that they are wrong. If you do, you'll be wrong--or, at the very least, be no better than them.

All you can do, and no be wrong--or as bad as them--is choose to not believe their idea. The other option is to simply admit yours too is a belief.
 
calamity said:
The lack of knowledge means you can't tell someone who proposes an idea that they are wrong. If you do, you'll be wrong--or, at the very least, be no better than them.

All you can do, and no be wrong--or as bad as them--is choose to not believe their idea. The other option is to simply admit yours too is a belief.
Click to expand...
The lack of knowledge also means you can't give any reason that an idea you propose is true. And if you can't know something is true, and can't give a reason why it could be true, then why should anyone believe it?

By your reasoning anyone can make up any idea, no matter how ridiculous, and as long as it can't be proven wrong, then no one can say it's wrong. Even knowing they made it up doesn't change that....it could still be true regardless. For example: there is a man named John Herbert Wagner living in Taipei. I just made that up. But you can't say it's wrong.
 
pinqy said:
The lack of knowledge also means you can't give any reason that an idea you propose is true. And if you can't know something is true, and can't give a reason why it could be true, then why should anyone believe it?
Click to expand...
I clearly state that one legitimate option is to not believe it.

By your reasoning anyone can make up any idea, no matter how ridiculous, and as long as it can't be proven wrong, then no one can say it's wrong. Even knowing they made it up doesn't change that....it could still be true regardless. For example: there is a man named John Herbert Wagner living in Taipei. I just made that up. But you can't say it's wrong.
Click to expand...
No. I am saying that, without proof, one person's belief is no more legitimate than another's, even the belief that there is no such thing as what the other person believes.
 
calamity said:
I clearly state that one legitimate option is to not believe it.


No. I am saying that, without proof, one person's belief is no more legitimate than another's, even the belief that there is no such thing as what the other person believes.
Click to expand...

You are still sitting firmly on the fence. Unable or without the courage to declare yourself one way or another.
 
Realitywins said:
You are still sitting firmly on the fence. Unable or without the courage to declare yourself one way or another.
Click to expand...
Bull****. I clearly state in the OP that I believe gods do not exist. It's just that I know mine is a belief. You all refuse to accept that yours is too.
 
calamity said:
I clearly state that one legitimate option is to not believe it.
Click to expand...
And what I'm saying is that to believe it is NOT a legitimate option.


No. I am saying that, without proof, one person's belief is no more legitimate than another's, even the belief that there is no such thing as what the other person believes.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying that, without knowledge then it's not legitimate to say something is true or to believe that it is.

Because if there is a lack of knowledge, then where did the idea come from?
 
calamity said:
Bull****. I clearly state in the OP that I believe gods do not exist. It's just that I know mine is a belief. You all refuse to accept that yours is too.
Click to expand...

You are afraid to say gods do not exist. This is not an intellectual position, it is a fence-sitter's statement.
 
pinqy said:
And what I'm saying is that to believe it is NOT a legitimate option.
Click to expand...
It's no different than believing they are wrong.


And I'm saying that, without knowledge then it's not legitimate to say something is true or to believe that it is.

Because if there is a lack of knowledge, then where did the idea come from?
Click to expand...
An idea is an idea. They can come from anywhere, but usually they spring from someone's mind. :roll:
 
Realitywins said:
You are afraid to say gods do not exist. This is not an intellectual position, it is a fence-sitter's statement.
Click to expand...

There is no way to know they do not exist. That is not fear. It's common sense.
 
calamity said:
It's no different than believing they are wrong.



An idea is an idea. They can come from anywhere, but usually they spring from someone's mind. :roll:
Click to expand...

What? Other than someone's mind, what other source is there?
 
Realitywins said:
What? Other than someone's mind, what other source is there?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure a computer can generate an idea yet. But, their getting close.
 
calamity said:
The lack of knowledge means you can't tell someone who proposes an idea that they are wrong. If you do, you'll be wrong--or, at the very least, be no better than them.

All you can do, and no be wrong--or as bad as them--is choose to not believe their idea. The other option is to simply admit yours too is a belief.
Click to expand...

They are neither right or wrong. The point is they have no basis either way. However, valid ideas must be testable otherwise they are meaningless conjecture. A valid answer can be confirmed while a denial of that answer can not be confirmed in the negative. Therefore the onus is always on the proponent of an idea to provide a test which will validate the idea.

A proposition which is not testable is not a valid idea and in that sense is wrong. To claim anything is possible if not shown to be impossible is nonsense. What that means is that absolutely anything is possible by that standard because we will never know everything. We can only think rationally with what we do know. You are thinking irrationally with this argument of yours. Now, that's OK if you call it what it is which is faith. However, you are not going to convince me or the others here that your stance is rational and logical unless you can complete the circle.
 
Russell797 said:
They are neither right or wrong. The point is they have no basis either way. However, valid ideas must be testable otherwise they are meaningless conjecture. A valid answer can be confirmed while a denial of that answer can not be confirmed in the negative. Therefore the onus is always on the proponent of an idea to provide a test which will validate the idea.

A proposition which is not testable is not a valid idea and in that sense is wrong. To claim anything is possible if not shown to be impossible is nonsense. What that means is that absolutely anything is possible by that standard because we will never know everything. We can only think rationally with what we do know. You are thinking irrationally with this argument of yours. Now, that's OK if you call it what it is which is faith. However, you are not going to convince me or the others here that your stance is rational and logical unless you can complete the circle.
Click to expand...

Well, it is interesting that Frank v2.0 appears to share the same bug that forgets previous posts as Frank v1.0. The Quag modifier now dropped again leaves us circled back to the point we were at hundreds of posts back: Same old Frank.

Invoking ignorance is a fool's errand and as you rightly point out it is not rational. You are right, if we don't know everything then we know nothing, it's a logical consequence of using ignorance. Simply put, if you want to use ignorance to argue any old crap into possibility then that opens the door right back to the question of how do we even know that reality exists; regression of ignorance back to increasing absurdity.
 
calamity said:
There is no way to know they do not exist. That is not fear. It's common sense.
Click to expand...

What is not common sense is to assume gods are possible. You don't know that they are possible or not. How do you know they are possible? Now you will say because they haven't been shown to be impossible. No one has to show they are impossible. You must show they are possible. The onus is on you as the proponent of the idea.
 
William Rea said:
Well, it is interesting that Frank v2.0 appears to share the same bug that forgets previous posts as Frank v1.0. The Quag modifier now dropped again leaves us circled back to the point we were at hundreds of posts back: Same old Frank.

Invoking ignorance is a fool's errand and as you rightly point out it is not rational. You are right, if we don't know everything then we know nothing, it's a logical consequence of using ignorance. Simply put, if you want to use ignorance to argue any old crap into possibility then that opens the door right back to the question of how do we even know that reality exists; regression of ignorance back to increasing absurdity.
Click to expand...

That's why I introduced the concept of boundary conditions a while back. Only when we establish a definite set of conditions as relevant can we understand reality. The reality as contained within the boundary condition.

The concept of entropy explains a great deal in this regard. Disorder (information, structure) always increases in an open system. Within a contained system entropy is allowed to decrease....even as it's contribution to the whole is an increase. That's why the Earth can build complex structure such as living things at expense to the Sun. It's also why given aeons of time, all matter in the universe will decay to diffused energy.

It makes sense only if we establish boundaries in time and space. The Big Bang is one such boundary. The laws of nature are another boundary. The Earth is bound by it's atmosphere. Our bodies are bound by our skin. Our minds are contained within our brains. Football games have time limits. We live for a while and then die. So will the Sun. The universe from any given perspective has a horizon defined by the speed of light.

Everything which we can grasp as real is contained within a discernible boundary. Removing the boundaries opens us up to the irrationality of infinity. Going "there" is pointless.
 
calamity said:
The lack of knowledge means you can't tell someone who proposes an idea that they are wrong. If you do, you'll be wrong--or, at the very least, be no better than them.

All you can do, and no be wrong--or as bad as them--is choose to not believe their idea. The other option is to simply admit yours too is a belief.
Click to expand...

I can also correctly view that their idea is just an idea and it doesn't impose any choice on me to not believe the idea but instead to not give it any consideration at all.
 
Philosophical Discussions • When does Atheism Become a Belief System
et al,

I "think" that the discussion has transcended to a set of related, but different topics:


• Topic #1: The epistemological steps are: What is possible --- and --- What is necessary, or --- What is impossible. The technical name for this is (I thinK) Modality. This having to do with facts about:

∆ How things could be,
∆ How things must be,
∆ How things could not have been.
​

• Topic #2: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What are the structure forms of knowledge? What are the limits of knowledge?

∆ It is often the case, more and more, that what is "false" can not always be discerned. This is the argument on the condition of "truth." What is the "Truth Condition?"
∆ A person can only know what they believe. If a person does not believe something it precludes the condition of knowledge.
∆ The "Condition of Justification" in a belief is an explanation of the steps towards a conclusion.
​

(COMMENT)

I think we are confusing the concepts here. The OP question is on the "Belief System."


QUOTE: Knowledge as Justified True Belief

There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:

S knows that p if and only if

p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
S’s belief that p is not inferred from any falsehood.​

The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” (Justified True Belief) analysis, for “justified true belief”.

Much of the twentieth-century literature on the analysis of knowledge took the JTB analysis as its starting-point. It became something of a convenient fiction to suppose that this analysis was widely accepted throughout much of the history of philosophy. In fact, however, the JTB analysis was first articulated in the twentieth century by its attackers. Before turning to influential twentieth-century arguments against the JTB theory, let us briefly consider the three traditional components of knowledge in turn. (In the early 1960's Edmund Gettier proposed an alternative view.)
​

I tend to think we need to go back and stipulate whether we are talking about the "knowledge" of something --- or --- the "Belief" in something. The argument on "knowledge" dates back to the First Emperor of China. Belief, in the final analysis, is personal to our understanding. We can believe the Earth is Flat (Flat Earth Society), but that may be very different for those that "know" the "true condition."

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Russell797 said:
What is not common sense is to assume gods are possible. You don't know that they are possible or not. How do you know they are possible? Now you will say because they haven't been shown to be impossible. No one has to show they are impossible. You must show they are possible. The onus is on you as the proponent of the idea.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not knowing something is impossible means it might very well be possible. Gods included.
 
RoccoR said:
Philosophical Discussions • When does Atheism Become a Belief System
et al,

I "think" that the discussion has transcended to a set of related, but different topics:


• Topic #1: The epistemological steps are: What is possible --- and --- What is necessary, or --- What is impossible. The technical name for this is (I thinK) Modality. This having to do with facts about:

∆ How things could be,
∆ How things must be,
∆ How things could not have been.
​

• Topic #2: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What are the structure forms of knowledge? What are the limits of knowledge?

∆ It is often the case, more and more, that what is "false" can not always be discerned. This is the argument on the condition of "truth." What is the "Truth Condition?"
∆ A person can only know what they believe. If a person does not believe something it precludes the condition of knowledge.
∆ The "Condition of Justification" in a belief is an explanation of the steps towards a conclusion.
​

(COMMENT)

I think we are confusing the concepts here. The OP question is on the "Belief System."


QUOTE: Knowledge as Justified True Belief

There are three components to the traditional (“tripartite”) analysis of knowledge. According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
The Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge:

S knows that p if and only if

p is true;
S believes that p;
S is justified in believing that p.
S’s belief that p is not inferred from any falsehood.​

The tripartite analysis of knowledge is often abbreviated as the “JTB” (Justified True Belief) analysis, for “justified true belief”.

Much of the twentieth-century literature on the analysis of knowledge took the JTB analysis as its starting-point. It became something of a convenient fiction to suppose that this analysis was widely accepted throughout much of the history of philosophy. In fact, however, the JTB analysis was first articulated in the twentieth century by its attackers. Before turning to influential twentieth-century arguments against the JTB theory, let us briefly consider the three traditional components of knowledge in turn. (In the early 1960's Edmund Gettier proposed an alternative view.)
​

I tend to think we need to go back and stipulate whether we are talking about the "knowledge" of something --- or --- the "Belief" in something. The argument on "knowledge" dates back to the First Emperor of China. Belief, in the final analysis, is personal to our understanding. We can believe the Earth is Flat (Flat Earth Society), but that may be very different for those that "know" the "true condition."

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...
We are still talking about beliefs, because when it comes to gods, there is no knowing. Of course, the usual suspects above seem to believe differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom