ForumsWEPRTheism & Atheism & Agnostics

46 6695
Owen135731
offline
Owen135731
2,128 posts
Peasant

Most people here, such as me, are acting like idiots (Note how I included myself). In our current society, we should have enough understanding of our differences that we are capable to get along. But instead, we babble on without regard of what is actually important. There are greater matters to attend to than religion. Surely we can just accept that we have differing opinions and move on? It's not like in our current day and age that religion plays a great role in our lives (for most of us). If you feel like choosing a "side", then do so. It is none of my business, or anyone else's. In a world where freedom of speech is thought to exist, we should not have to badger one another over whom's opinion is dominant.

kthx

  • 46 Replies
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

I wouldn't believe in a god I believed to be fictional but I can claim knowledge of that god in the same way I can claim knowledge of any other fictional being.


Not philosophical knowledge. Really, this is about differing definitions of the term knowledge. I just cannot accept one where justification, truth and belief do not all play a role. Your chosen definition is rather trivial and inapplicable to agnosticism for the reasons I have already mentioned. To claim that to be a agnostic christian but also that having a knowledge of Vulcans somehow makes you a gnostic about Odin simply because you read a book about Norse mythology is a simply ludicrous assertion. It would be like saying ''I'm a Democrat supporter, but since I read the Republican election manifesto, that also makes me a Republican supporter''.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Really, this is about differing definitions of the term knowledge. I just cannot accept one where justification, truth and belief do not all play a role.


Maybe it would help if you could show me a source where the definition of knowledge requires belief.

Your chosen definition is rather trivial and inapplicable to agnosticism for the reasons I have already mentioned.


Just because agnosticism deals with metaphysics I don't see why it need to have it's own definition of knowledge.

To claim that to be a agnostic christian but also that having a knowledge of Vulcans somehow makes you a gnostic about Odin simply because you read a book about Norse mythology is a simply ludicrous assertion.


I think your mixing up the analogies a bit here.

It would be like saying ''I'm a Democrat supporter, but since I read the Republican election manifesto, that also makes me a Republican supporter''.


Not really. It's more like being a Democrat supporter but since you read the Republican election manifesto you have an understanding of the Republican point of view.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Maybe it would help if you could show me a source where the definition of knowledge requires belief.


I've already stated I am using theclassical philosophic definition.

Just because agnosticism deals with metaphysics I don't see why it need to have it's own definition of knowledge.


Philosophical questions need philosophically defined terms.

I think your mixing up the analogies a bit here.


Whatever, either way the point still stands.

since you read the Republican election manifesto you have an understanding of the Republican point of view.


Not by my definition. To have true knowledge of something, it must be believed, true and justified, which can't apply here.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I've already stated I am using theclassical philosophic definition.


I'm not sure how useful this definition is. Your source does state it's highly debated and not even the originator endorsed it.

Another major flaw I see is it puts gnostic atheist as an impossible position.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

I'm not sure how useful this definition is. Your source does state it's highly debated and not even the originator endorsed it.


Plato said a lot of weird stuff. It is now the endorsed classical definition of knowledge among philosophers.

Another major flaw I see is it puts gnostic atheist as an impossible position.


That's because gnosticism doesn't apply to atheism. How can you know there is no god. It is impossible to prove a negative.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

That's because gnosticism doesn't apply to atheism. How can you know there is no god.


Well since you want this in a philosophical context we really can't know anything making gnosticism impossible and agnosticism moot.

Honestly there seems to be to many holes with this definition to truly function in a piratical manner.

For instance back to the Vulcan analogy. I couldn't possibly have knowledge of Vulcans even though I clearly do. This problem extended out would me no knowledge for any fictional thing.
Hectichermit
offline
Hectichermit
1,828 posts
Bard

Well, there have been philosophers that try and use logical methods to prove the existence of a deity. yaay for Wiki

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Well since you want this in a philosophical context we really can't know anything making gnosticism impossible and agnosticism moot.


The thing is you can. But only with one God. To truly 'know' a god, you have to think it is a) true, which is possible for many people. Think how many people are convinced in a god. For justification, tons of born again Christians have epiphanies and defining moments in their lives, where they witnessed or were a part of what they perceived to be a miracle. And c) them believing in it. That criteria is obviously the simplest to fulfill.

Honestly there seems to be to many holes with this definition to truly function in a piratical manner.


Which is why it is only used in a philosophical, not practical sense.

I couldn't possibly have knowledge of Vulcans even though I clearly do. This problem extended out would me no knowledge for any fictional thing.


You can have knowledge. But not on a philosophical level. The same concept of knowledge that applies to star trek trivia does not apply to belief systems.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

The thing is you can. But only with one God. To truly 'know' a god, you have to think it is a) true, which is possible for many people. Think how many people are convinced in a god. For justification, tons of born again Christians have epiphanies and defining moments in their lives, where they witnessed or were a part of what they perceived to be a miracle. And c) them believing in it. That criteria is obviously the simplest to fulfill.


This seems to create a problem for the definition even further.

a) I saw people convinced James Randi could see them. But that didn't make it true (he was waring glasses with no lenses). So if this is all it takes for something to be Then we should say nearly everything is true fairies, leprechauns, Santa, the Easter Bunny....
b) Justification I can't really argue.
c) While it does seem to be the simplest It is also the most problematic, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.

Which is why it is only used in a philosophical, not practical sense.


If a definition is only applied in this context and can not be applied in any practical sense I see no reason to use it.

The same concept of knowledge that applies to star trek trivia does not apply to belief systems.


I see no reason why we can't use a practical definition of the word for both instances.

Thanks for jumping in Hectichermit (no bunny pun intended). Since this has been pretty much just me and Firefly anyone else have something to add? Because I think me and him might be at a bit of a stale mate.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Then we should say nearly everything is true fairies, leprechauns, Santa, the Easter Bunny....


And believing in a god has any more evidence to back that up? No. Which is why different definitions of knowledge need apply to gods, which cannot apply to fictional creatures.

c) While it does seem to be the simplest It is also the most problematic, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.


How is it the most problematic? People believe in gods, and have done for thousands of years. It seems pretty clear cut to me.

If a definition is only applied in this context and can not be applied in any practical sense I see no reason to use it.


Because the very decision to choose a belief system is not a practical one, and is an inherently philosophical one.

I see no reason why we can't use a practical definition of the word for both instances.


For the reasons I've already given over the ast few pages. In short, you have one belief system. It does not change depending on what kind of god is involved.
Veobahamut
offline
Veobahamut
887 posts
Nomad

Humans disagree its in our "nature"

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

And believing in a god has any more evidence to back that up? No. Which is why different definitions of knowledge need apply to gods, which cannot apply to fictional creatures.


So what? This is just giving this particular belief special treatment.

But anyway I was doing a bit of reading and found it stated that in the philosophical sense the belief can't be a false belief. Even if the person is sincere about the belief (such as a child's belief in Santa) This does not make it philosophical knowledge. As such I would say the belief in god while sincere is false, thus not knowledge in this sense.

How is it the most problematic? People believe in gods, and have done for thousands of years. It seems pretty clear cut to me.


Because we can take it to a point where there is almost no such thing as knowledge.

Because the very decision to choose a belief system is not a practical one, and is an inherently philosophical one.


I can think of plenty of practical reasons a person would choose a religious belief system or like in my case no religious belief system.

They may pick a religion because they feel it helps them be better person, stay off drugs, perhaps they feel that religion X is protecting them in some way, it gives them a feeling of belonging.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

As such I would say the belief in god while sincere is false, thus not knowledge in this sense.


That's a criticism of theist modes of thinking. It doesn't really address the point of why philosophical knowledge in more than one deity cannot be held.

Because we can take it to a point where there is almost no such thing as knowledge.


Why? How?

I can think of plenty of practical reasons a person would choose a religious belief system or like in my case no religious belief system.


So can I, but again, it doesn't really address the point of why every day non philosophical definitions of knowledge are unsuitable regarding deities.

They may pick a religion because they feel it helps them be better person, stay off drugs, perhaps they feel that religion X is protecting them in some way, it gives them a feeling of belonging.


What you have just described is the exactly why philosophical definitions work so well:

1) Truth: They kicked the drug habit.
2) Jutification: They perceive it only to be possible with the help of god.
3) Belief: Consequently, they believe.

vs

1) Truth: I have knowledge of Power rangers.
2) Justification: I saw them on tv.
3) Belief: Tv never lies.

Why you believe the same definition of knowledge applies to everything is beyond me. Why do you even think these differing definitions even need exist in the first place? Because already existing ones are inadequate, and a more refined version of what knowledge really is, is entirely necessary.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

That's a criticism of theist modes of thinking. It doesn't really address the point of why philosophical knowledge in more than one deity cannot be held.


More then one or just one it doesn't matter. There are no true facts backing the belief.

Since this was also brought up I don't see the distinction between fictional characters and god(s).

Why? How?


Why not?
Unlike the more practical methods we can take this form of knowledge to it's extreme. As such we can't really know anything with certainty. Of course for piratical use we do have to dial this back some. But I'm pretty sure philosophy is meant to go to the extremes, even if it's not practical.

So can I, but again, it doesn't really address the point of why every day non philosophical definitions of knowledge are unsuitable regarding deities.


You were pointing out the reason to use in impractical definition rather then a practical one is because the belief system is impractical, so I pointed out how it can be practical. So we can use practical definitions.

1) Truth: They kicked the drug habit.
2) Jutification: They perceive it only to be possible with the help of god.
3) Belief: Consequently, they believe.


The problem is it leads to false conclusions so it's not knowledge in the philosophical sense.

For example
1) Truth: presents are left under the tree.
2) Justification: child perceives that only Santa could have left them.
3) Belief: so the believe in Santa.

While this does follow, it's leading to false conclusions as such not knowledge.

Why you believe the same definition of knowledge applies to everything is beyond me.


I'm just not seeing any practicality in this definition, so I don't see the point of really using it. It leaves huge holes that allow it to be taken to such a point that terms become moot.

Because already existing ones are inadequate, and a more refined version of what knowledge really is, is entirely necessary.


How is the one I used inadequate? It laid out a clear path for each word.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Most people here, such as me, are acting like idiots (Note how I included myself). In our current society, we should have enough understanding of our differences that we are capable to get along. But instead, we babble on without regard of what is actually important. There are greater matters to attend to than religion. Surely we can just accept that we have differing opinions and move on? It's not like in our current day and age that religion plays a great role in our lives (for most of us). If you feel like choosing a "side", then do so. It is none of my business, or anyone else's. In a world where freedom of speech is thought to exist, we should not have to badger one another over whom's opinion is dominant.
kthx


Theism & Atheism & Agnostics

THAT is the title, are you implying that we are creating an argument? And to be honest NO, it is probably the most important discussion.

Religion is based on faith, faith is dependent on lack of evidence. Lack of evidence allows bad things to be done. Yes, I said bad, because any illogical reasoning is a bad one. For the reason that you do something without proper reason is where you take the wrong step, no matter how you put it.

For this reason I am saying that, without logic we can say whatever we want and let it happen.
In Africa they still do witchburnings, if I were, say, a normal person who doesn't get along with people (for obvious reasons) and one of them accuses me of being a witch, what's going to happen? Beaten till confession, burned, tortured. And etc.

Right now they say 2012 could happen, you know why they can say this without worrying of being caught out? Because there is no way to disprove it.
They said "the Spanish burnt the Mayan books thinking it was Devil's Work" etc and etc. But really, how would they be so advanced? And they haven't really any evidence other than that, it could've been made up, and you may never get to see what their evidence is because "it's too important"... Eh? See where I'm going?

As a logical and morale person, this is not right, nor fair to anyone. The people who are also brought into whatever religion they are brought into can also be living a giant lie. Children are naive at such young ages, and thus, believe what you tell them. When they're older, their belief is unbreakable, causing a never ending argument. Despite our proof of the world being older than 6,000 years old (Christian belief), they just wear their Ignorance Armor and babble on saying God this God that xD

Ranting ranting ranting

I'm finished sorry about that.
Showing 31-45 of 46