Okay, so they're essentially making a four way t shaped chart (an up/down axis and a left/right axis), much like how the political compass test chart looks... The up/down is referring to theism and atheism, and the left/right is referring to agnosticism and gnosticism. Anywhere directly on any of those axis lines would be arguing a paradox, but anywhere off of the lines wouldn't be, according to that paradigm. Okay...
On your number line paradigm, it is hard to place the three terms because it depends on how one views 'knowledge'... I would say that the confidence level ('knowledge') would play into theism and atheism instead of agnosticism, so I would say that 0-49 would be atheism, 50 would be agnosticism, and 51-100 would be theism.
Yup, but in accepting, as a true, that "last term", the agnostic is essentially rejecting, as a true, the two 'belief' claims by way of making their own 3rd claim.
Right. They are, and no one wants you to prove your claims. If they do, then call them out for committing the circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). I just like to know whether I'm discussing with someone who rejects both belief claims (accepts neither as a true) or only rejects one belief claim (accepting the other claim as a true)...
Yeah, that bit asked of you seems unreasonable, but I will say that I would think that atheists should be able to articulate some sort of positive evidence for why they are atheists, even if I happen to see that evidence in a different light. Most atheists I run into (not you, you're actually making arguments) seem to resort to the Argument of the Stone fallacy by simply saying "that's ridiculous!" without providing any counterargument as to why they think it's ridiculous. It's mostly all denial of a particular belief with little to no reasoning for their own belief... Plenty of theists fall into that same type of thing also (having little to no reasoning for their belief), which is equally as sad in my book.
Yup... It just comes down to whether people find those evidences to be convincing to them or not.
The 'owning up' thing is more or less just coming out and admitting that you also hold a belief, instead of hiding behind the 'lack of belief' veil... Just own up to your belief that god(s) don't exist... Own up to what you accept as a true... I'm not asking atheists how confident they are in their belief, but just to admit what their belief is (what they accept as a true regarding the existence or non-existence of god(s))...
Here, you seem to be accepting God's non-existence as a true in the first bolded, but simultaneously rejecting God's non-existence as a true in the 2nd bolded... Or are you rejecting both claims as a true and saying "idk either way"...?
Okay.
Why not? You don't have the free will to choose what you accept as a true? Why can't you accept, as a true, that your cat is a dog? Why can't you believe that?
Yes, you did. You hold the belief that a cat is a cat because you choose to adhere to the proof of identity. It is a choice on your part.
Yes, I can. I might have a medical condition which causes me to perceive colors in that way. I might also choose to deny the proof of identity.
Exactly... This seems like you are open to changing your beliefs about black holes (if convinced that your current beliefs are incorrect). Seems like you have the ability to choose what you believe, and aren't just stuck in believing one way or the other...
Correct. I don't adhere to all common definitions of words; I think that other definitions are much more accurate and better for certain words, fact being one of those words.
You likely meant 'proof' or 'universal truth', as that is what most people mean in most cases of using the word fact...
Dictionaries are not authoritative in any way. They don't define words. -- But yes, you will most likely not find that definition of fact in any dictionary...
That definition comes from Philosophy. What one is doing when they make use of facts is they are assuming a particular thing to be true, regardless of whether it actually is or not... It is a form of shorthand so that people don't have to build an argument for every single little thing that they say... Facts allow for quicker conversation. If a fact is not accepted by all conversing parties, then that fact returns back to being an argument (is no longer a fact). Anything may or may not be a fact, depending upon whether all conversing parties accept that thing as a fact or not...
Reality is experienced differently by each and every one of us, but that doesn't mean that we don't make choices regarding our beliefs... --- I used to believe in amillennialism, but now I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and a literal millennial reign. In the future, I might believe in something else entirely... I've changed my belief regarding this particular matter, and may do so again...
Sure... I used to reject the Theory of Evolution, but now I believe the theory to be true.
Obviously we’re wandering into the free will morass. And I suspect that would be a frustrating conversation if I was constantly having my words parsed based on unusual definitions I wasn’t using.
Okay.
Why not? You don't have the free will to choose what you accept as a true? Why can't you accept, as a true, that your cat is a dog? Why can't you believe that?
Yes, you did. You hold the belief that a cat is a cat because you choose to adhere to the proof of identity. It is a choice on your part.
Yes, I can. I might have a medical condition which causes me to perceive colors in that way. I might also choose to deny the proof of identity.
Exactly... This seems like you are open to changing your beliefs about black holes (if convinced that your current beliefs are incorrect). Seems like you have the ability to choose what you believe, and aren't just stuck in believing one way or the other...
Correct. I don't adhere to all common definitions of words; I think that other definitions are much more accurate and better for certain words, fact being one of those words.
You likely meant 'proof' or 'universal truth', as that is what most people mean in most cases of using the word fact...
Dictionaries are not authoritative in any way. They don't define words. -- But yes, you will most likely not find that definition of fact in any dictionary...
That definition comes from Philosophy. What one is doing when they make use of facts is they are assuming a particular thing to be true, regardless of whether it actually is or not... It is a form of shorthand so that people don't have to build an argument for every single little thing that they say... Facts allow for quicker conversation. If a fact is not accepted by all conversing parties, then that fact returns back to being an argument (is no longer a fact). Anything may or may not be a fact, depending upon whether all conversing parties accept that thing as a fact or not...
Reality is experienced differently by each and every one of us, but that doesn't mean that we don't make choices regarding our beliefs... --- I used to believe in amillennialism, but now I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and a literal millennial reign. In the future, I might believe in something else entirely... I've changed my belief regarding this particular matter, and may do so again...
Sure... I used to reject the Theory of Evolution, but now I believe the theory to be true.
I was trying to explain that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent" (gfm claimed they were identical because guilty is an antonym of innocent), and so I linked to a legal site which explained the difference. Apparently that was a "False Authority Fallacy".
And that's where I gave up. But I am following your discussion with interest, excellent patience, keep up the goodwork.
This is just dealing with the proof of identity (which is, in formal terms, "If A, Then A")... It is a proof of Logic. Many people on this forum outright deny Logic quite often, which is a choice on their part. They literally choose to not adhere to Logic. So, yes, one could easily choose to not adhere to Logic, not adhere to the proof of identity, and through doing so, choose to believe that your cat is a dog. Trust me, I've had enough experiences on this forum to rattle off multiple examples of people making the choice to deny Logic.
No, I genuinely believe that choice is involved in believing that a cat is a dog. Denying Logic is a choice one makes.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Because, over time, my paradigm of what religion and science actually are and how they work changed. That change allowed those same evolution arguments, which were at first unconvincing, to eventually become convincing.
I think we're operating under the same definition of convincing.
Fair enough. I can admit that I unintentionally did some mixing of "my" definitions with "their" definitions for some of the paradoxes I brought up. I will let those accusations go. However, my "t chart" rebuttal still stands, as well as the paradoxes which result from the "t chart" line of definitions... Under those definitions, a person who I would call an agnostic can't logically exist. The difference comes from an apparent contradiction of what the word 'belief' means...
We're talking about the same paradigm, I believe... This is what I am thinking of (how "atheists" are arguing the definitions of the terms)... See linked chart example...
It really does sound like we're talking about the exact same paradigm, yet you don't realize it. See the model chart that I linked to... I was putting existence on the up (theist)/down (atheist) axis and knowledge on the left (agnostic)/right (gnostic) axis... So, according to this paradigm, a person who falls into the lower left square would be an agnostic atheist, the upper left square would be an agnostic theist, the upper right square would be a gnostic theist, and the lower right square would be a gnostic atheist.
This was YOUR paradigm, NOT mine... I even said during assigning the numbers that it doesn't exactly work...
Okay, then I will lay out specifically how I use the terms.I suspect but do not know that we might have different definitions of ‘circular argument’ and ‘fundamentalism’.
He should know that he doesn't have to prove anything because he can't prove anything.
Okay. That sounds like you accept, as a true, that god(s) do not exist (in other words, you believe that god(s) do not exist). It sounds like you aren't 100% confident in that claim being true in actuality (I suspect that very few people are, and it could be argued that the people who are 100% confidence are kidding themselves). This is why I dismiss confidence level and am only interested in what one is accepting as a true (regardless of it's truth in actuality, since that truth can't be proven in any way). So, given this, I would argue that you are an atheist (you may say "agnostic atheist", which to me is a paradox, but I understand the point you're trying to make regarding your confidence level in the actual truth (unprovable) of your chosen belief). That's the part I am uninterested in; I am only interested in what your chosen belief is (what you accept as a true, regardless of it's truth in actuality).
Yup, I would never ask you to address unimagined concepts of god(s). I would only ever ask you to address concepts which either you are familiar with, or one's which I can make you familiar with, such as the Christian God concept that I adhere to.
Generally agreed.
This is where the definition of the term 'belief' is important... Belief is "acceptance of a particular claim as a true". That definition doesn't concern itself with how confident one is in their chosen belief, just the fact that one indeed accepts a particular claim as a true. Whether one asserts "I accept this particular claim as a true" or "I am 'this' confident in this particular claim that I accept as a true", one is ultimately accepting a particular claim as a true. THAT is what belief is. One can have dwindled confidence level in their belief, yet STILL cling on to their belief. That's why I find confidence level to be irrelevant when discussing belief.
I think you're reasoning in a generally adequate manner here.
Correct, and I can't prove them.
This is where we separate, since we seem to have different definitions for 'evidence'... Evidence is 'any statement which supports an argument'... So, there IS evidence for god(s) and there IS evidence against god(s), it just comes down to whether or not we find that evidence to be convincing. This also gets into Phenomenology, which I won't get into here...
I don't find solipsism to be appealing nor in the slightest bit convincing. It seems quite apparent that we can know of existence beyond ourselves. We seem to agree here.
