Semantics of "I don't believe in God".

[lixluke]

A person makes the statement: "I don't believe in God".

What is this person implying?
A. "There is no God. I require sufficient evidence to believe there is a God."

B. "I don't know if there is a God or not. I require sufficient evidence to beleive either way."

C. This person must be implying either A or B only, but it is impossible to tell which one.

[mathman]

Ask the person making the statement. What is the point of a poll?

[Fraggle Rocker]

As a member of a family whose members have been saying that for three generations, I can speak with some authority.

It means, "I don't believe in the existence of gods or a god." There are no implications about evidence or the lack of it, and there's certainly no ambiguity. I was raised in a home where the existence of a god was never discussed, any more than your parents would have brought up the possibility of the existence of Klingons. I was about seven when one of the kids at school started talking about a god, and I laughed uproariously because I quite reasonably assumed he was joking.

It was many years before I got a glimmer of understanding of how and why adults could believe in such a fairytale. By then I was taking science classes in high school and had some comprehension of the scientific method. I was finally able to put my skepticism into words: How can you believe something for which there is no evidence? Wouldn't it be just as "reasonable" to believe that a bucket of money will fall out of the sky and land in your yard?

It was decades later that I learned the Rule of Laplace and was able to defend my skepticism: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect, so I choose to exercise my right to not treat this most extraordinary hypothesis with respect.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

meh. this goes in religion

[one_raven]

It depends on who is making the statement.

[buckybeam]

doesnt everyone believe in god during sex?

[lixluke]

It means, "I don't believe in the existence of gods or a god."
So then it is A?

[Enmos]

doesnt everyone believe in god during sex?

Huh ? No.. lol

[Enmos]

So then it is A?

The poll is loaded Lix.

[buckybeam]

Huh ? No.. lol
sure i hear it all the time.

oh god

oh god

yes yes

oh god yes

jesus god yes.

[Enmos]

sure i hear it all the time.

oh god

oh god

yes yes

oh god yes

jesus god yes.

lol :D

[greenberg]

A person makes the statement: "I don't believe in God".

What is this person implying?

Hard to speak for others.
My first thought at "I don't believe in God" is "I do not believe God will help me, I am certain God will leave me to rot in misery". Considering some fire and brimstone ideas of what God is like, this is a justified intepretation.

[Enmos]

It means: "I do not accept that God is a real entity. I see no reason to believe that God is a real entity because of the lack of any sort of evidence and because the concept evades reality".
It does not mean: "God does not exist" or "I believe that God does not exist".

[Norsefire]

Enmos, the concept itself doesn't "evade reality"

I chose b

[Enmos]

Enmos, the concept itself doesn't "evade reality"

I chose b

No the concept itself doesn't.

[Norsefire]

No the concept itself doesn't.

It doesn't. Wait, what? Are you agreeing with me?

[Enmos]

It doesn't. Wait, what? Are you agreeing with me?

Yea, I didn't know how to word it to be honest.

[Enmos]

If I say God evades reality someone might take it the wrong way.

[Norsefire]

If I say God evades reality someone might take it the wrong way.

When you say "God evades reality", I take it that you are saying the concept is irrational. I don't think so.

See my "God is rational" thread in the religion subforum.

[Enmos]

When you say "God evades reality", I take it that you are saying the concept is irrational. I don't think so.

See my "God is rational" thread in the religion subforum.

Well how suppose God does not evade reality ?

[buckybeam]

yes i think that b is more open. open minds are better minds.

but what if some did not believe in god because they believe in something else. say another religon. say, i dont beleive in god because i believe in satan and satan says that god does not exist. or i dont believe in god because im an anamist.

It a hypothetical question so all you satanists dont need to come out and correct me as to what satan says or doesnt say.

[Enmos]

yes i think that b is more open. open minds are better minds.

but what if some did not believe in god because they believe in something else. say another religon. say, i dont beleive in god because i believe in satan and satan says that god does not exist. or i dont believe in god because im an anamist.

It a hypothetical question so all you satanists dont need to come out and correct me as to what satan says or doesnt say.

I think you mean animist.
Who are you referring to when you talk about satanists ?

[buckybeam]

thankls for correcting my speeling.

um satanists. someone that worships satan, is there any other kind?

[Enmos]

thankls for correcting my speeling.

um satanists. someone that worships satan, is there any other kind?

I think your post insinuated there are satanists on SciForums..
so all you satanists dont need to come out

[buckybeam]

haha

no. i just afraid that some ones going to say soje like but satan believes in god, god is his arch enemy or something to that extent.

satan experts? better?

[Enmos]

haha

no. i just afraid that some ones going to say soje like but satan believes in god, god is his arch enemy or something to that extent.

satan experts? better?

No, not better.. who are the satan experts ?

Edit: Never mind, I probably misunderstood.

[buckybeam]

and what do you have against satanists?

[Enmos]

and what do you have against satanists?

I never claimed any stance on them.

[buckybeam]

you suggested that i thought that there where satanists here.


(not that it matters)

[Enmos]

you suggested that i thought that there where satanists here.


(not that it matters)

No, I thought that you suggested that there were satanists here ;)
To be honest for a second there I thought you were one of those characters that equals atheists with satanists..

[buckybeam]

No, I thought that you suggested that there were satanists here ;)

well i did. there might be ;)


To be honest for a second there I thought you were one of those characters that equals atheists with satanists..

no very distinc groups. would be very hard to be an atheist and a satanist at the same time. atheists dont just not believe in a particular supreme being.

though the church lady would suggest that atheism is the devils work

no im not in that camp.

i have nothing against atheists or people of any other faith/religon/belief sytem. that is unless they start dumping on mine.

where were we?

[Enmos]

well i did. there might be ;)



no very distinc groups. would be very hard to be an atheist and a satanist at the same time. atheists dont just not believe in a particular supreme being.

though the church lady would suggest that atheism is the devils work

no im not in that camp.

i have nothing against atheists or people of any other faith/religon/belief sytem. that is unless they start dumping on mine.

where were we?

Ok, just out of interest. In which "camp" are you ?

[007]

opps im burning this compu

[buckybeam]

Ok, just out of interest. In which "camp" are you ?

im not fond of camping.

[Enmos]

god evading reality , u see your parents all group together and buy you pre-positions in society , your education which is a sold piece of the slice of the (god) pie.



now your parents , goverment common folks share out this pie between there children, and in turn they take away the stress that god has caused them by making someone smart, on top. now there is no top , just slices.

no god,

so a son of god sees that his people needs work, the land holds riches and is a test of mans intelligence so he is given the ability from god to do the job and he does it well, the only thing is that your 110 IQ parents and children already have the pre-positions of mine finders, engineers, geologist, lawyers judges and police.

you are left with god being teased with immoral, be-littling offerings for life which he will not take so you see there is no god, not even an intelligent man for that matter. just criminals who own gods work.

maybe god will sing and do tricks for us , woulden't that be something.


by making the education system, police, -- goverment they just reap the rewards of the people. they buy the title so they get the credit, like an insurance scam which is a common way for goverment to steal, they play golf and relax in the capital untill someone steals there work(does the work), you see unlike some poeple the goverment knows all to well what god is, fortune.

money.

and mr. fraggle rock is as happy as a fraggle in shit, were all equal lol as equal as jesus and the guy who fell off of a cliff and died at 10 because a buterfly hit his arm. grow up and learn history, men are not created equal.

What does this mean.. ?

[Enmos]

im not fond of camping.

No, I meant what religion :)

[Vkothii]

"I don't believe in God".Someone saying that might be saying they don't believe in the "God" of religions, like the Abrahamic ones, or the "Christian God", say.

If I was asked, if I believe in God (although I've presented this before) I would ask what they mean, do they mean the biblical one, or something else?

The thing about not believing in a pre-packaged kind, to me, is it cannot also preclude the existence of another kind.
Atheists claim that there is no evidence for such a thing; what they appear to be saying is: "you can only believe in a God that doesn't "exist" as those who claim there is a pre-packaged version exists".

A non-existent God, is still a "god" though; a god that atheists believe in the non-existence of. Their belief is based on just as much faith, in that sense. Or lack of as much faith, based on a lack of evidence, of the personal kind (the only kind that matters).

Besides, my "god" does exist - I know that because I exist, ipso facto my god must too. Quite straighforward really. But that doesn't require my belief in some book, or in fact in a single word anyone else has to say about my god's existence.

Try arguing with that lot.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Besides, my "god" does exist - I know that because I exist, ipso facto my god must too. Quite straighforward really.Straightforward? Where's the logic in that assertion? Your use of ipso facto is not warranted because there's nothing inherent in the definitions of the words you're using, or in the communal observations of those of us who are reading them, that makes your point obvious.

"She is a citizen of Iran who entered this country illegally and was convicted of espionage. Ipso facto she has no right to apply for a U.S. passport." That's the correct use of the phrase.

It's one thing to say you "believe" a god exists because beliefs can be based on hopes, hunches, logic errors, instinct or misinformation. But this is a place of science and you can't say here that you "know" something so controversial without providing evidence for it. If you're saying that your existence is evidence for the existence of a god you're going to have to present your reasoning and allow it to be tested and peer-reviewed.

[Vkothii]

there's nothing inherent in the definitions of the words you're usingI think you mean to say: "there's nothing inherent in my definitions of the words you're using".

If instead I said: "I do exist - I know this because I'm breathing, seeing and hearing, doing things that affirm my existence constantly - even dreaming. Quite straightforward really", can you see any difference? Bearing in mind that I am under no obligation whatever to believe, or even understand, what definition you apply to the concept of "god".

[Fraggle Rocker]

I think you mean to say: "there's nothing inherent in my definitions of the words you're using".No dude. You're the one who chose to throw in the grandiose phrase ipso facto without looking it up first. Ipso facto presumes that there is a standard, uncontroversial definition of all terms in use, and that there is an uncontroversial consensus regarding all observations and reasoning cited. In short, it's Latin for "duh." You used standard words that have standard definitions and your conclusion did not follow from your premise.

Your existence does not constitute unremarkable, universally acknowledged evidence for the existence of a god. If your assertion is that your existence does indeed constitute evidence for the existence of a god, then you're not allowed to toss it off as an ipso facto summary argument. This is not my ruling, this is simply how the convention of ipso facto works.

Since this website is a place of science, since the Linguistics subforum is one of our science boards even though linguistics is only a "soft" science, since the scientific method is therefore to be observed at all times, and since I am the Moderator here, let me make this clear:

If you present an assertion and anyone challenges it, that is a peer review, which is one of the steps in the scientific method. You are required to immediately present evidence to support your assertion, before you are permitted to pursue your argument any further or to post it a second time, on this thread or any other. Failure to abide by this convention constitutes trolling, which is a violation of the rules of SciForums.

Please present your evidence or desist.

Saying, "I was joking," is also good. I'm famous for my inability to grasp sarcasm.

[Vkothii]

Your existence does not constitute unremarkable, universally acknowledged evidence for the existence of a god.Yes it does, I'm sorry but you are completely mistaken with that conclusion. My existence certainly does constitute evidence for the existence of my god. Read that again, please.
If you present an assertion and anyone challenges it, that is a peer review, which is one of the steps in the scientific method. You are required to immediately present evidence to support your assertion, before you are permitted to pursue your argument any further or to post it a second time, on this thread or any other. Failure to abide by this convention constitutes trolling, which is a violation of the rules of SciForums.

Please present your evidence or desist.I have presented my evidence, please stop misunderstanding it.
Or present "scientific evidence" that I can't claim my god exists; as I've said, I am aware that I exist, and that is all the evidence required, perhaps not where your "understanding" of the term is concerned, but I don't need to consider what you, or anyone thinks "god" is, only what I think, ipso facto.

[Oli]

Maybe he's misunderstanding because your "evidence" isn't evidence.
I don't understand either.

[Vkothii]

I don't understand either.That's OK. I don't understand why you're saying you "don't understand". What don't you understand, I thought it was as obvious as breathing...?

Maybe start again: when you say "existence of a god". what do you mean? What do you think I mean when I use a phrase like that?
Or did you miss the part where I claimed: "there is no requirement for me to believe, or even to understand what you mean with that word" - you know, the "G" word.

[Oli]

That's OK. I don't understand why you're saying you "don't understand". What don't you understand, I thought it was as obvious as breathing...?
I don't understand how your existence constitutes evidence for the existence of your god.
Whatever meaning of the word god you want is irrelevant to me since I can't see how your existence constitutes evidence of his/ its/ her existence.

[Vkothii]

I can't see how your existence constitutes evidence of his/ its/ her existence.Well, I can - how about that?

[Oli]

So that makes it a personal subjective thing, which isn't evidence to anyone else.
And you're haranguing Fraggle because he (and I) can't understand your subjective experience?
Way to go.

[Vkothii]

So that makes it a personal subjective thing, which isn't evidence to anyone else.
And you're haranguing Fraggle because he (and I) can't understand your subjective experience?
Way to go.Of course it's a personal subjective thing, how could it be anything else?
You're saying that I can't, by existing, provide evidence to anyone but myself - of that existence? That's what I would say is the case, and always has been the case.

If someone's feeling harangued, it isn't because I'm doing any haranguing.
How long does it usually take you to understand the following: "I do not need to believe what anyone else has to say about my existence, since it's mine, and therefore (ipso facto) that is entirely up to me and my existence".

So you saying: "it isn't evidence to anyone else", follows logically from the above - of course it isn't - it's evidence to the only one that matters: me.

[Oli]

So you're also using your own personal definition of evidence.:rolleyes:
Evidence which you claimed (falsely as it turns out) to have "presented" to Fraggle...

[Vkothii]

So you're also using your own personal definition of evidence.Evidence of what, exactly? Think carefully here...

[Oli]

Evidence of what?
Irrelevant.
You claimed to have presented evidence to Fraggle.
You have since admitted that your evidence is purely subjective, and that it's not evidence to anyone else.

Very strange definition of "evidence".

[Fraggle Rocker]

Of course it's a personal subjective thing, how could it be anything else?That is my point. The "ipso facto" argument specifically, the scientific method in general and the scientific community called SciForums require a consensus. A majority or near-majority of the community must agree on definitions and the validity of both evidence and reasoning, before a statement is accepted and the discussion or argument is permitted to move forward. This is why I stressed the terms "unremarkable" and "uncontroversial" repeatedly: that's what consensus is all about. You can't open a topic on a science board and claim a consensus by citing "ipso facto" and then say it's a "personal subjective thing." That's not science.

And that is your problem and that's why your problem is not going to go away by you casually shrugging it off. We, the other members of this community, at the very least, do not find your reasoning valid, and demand that you explain it to us before we will let this matter rest. It could be that we also disagree with your definitions, something that is yet to be determined since your definition of "my god" may be the root of this controversy and you have refused to tell us what it means in your own writing. I don't think we find your evidence invalid, since the only evidence you present is your existence and that is neither remarkable nor controversial.

It's your reasoning we want explained. To say, "I exist therefore a god exists," is not and never has been accepted by the consensus of scientists as a valid argument.

As I noted, the fundamental theory upon which all science is based is: the natural universe is a closed system. It follows as a corollary--or ipso facto, to use the phrase properly--that no gods can exist as the meddlesome supernatural creatures they are invariably portrayed to be, since outside forces cannot act upon a closed system.

I don't know how the moderator of another subforum would deal with your assertion. But regardless of the point you're trying to make--whatever it is--on the Linguistics board I'm concerned with language and you're using language improperly.

If your final words on the subject are to say this is all a misunderstanding because you thought we all knew you were being personal and subjective, then fine. I hope in the future you'll be more careful to avoid such misunderstandings.

[Vkothii]

To say, "I exist therefore a god exists," is not and never has been accepted by the consensus of scientists as a valid argument.I would say anyone, whether or not they think they're a scientist, would believe that they exist though. Therefore, because they exist, they can see perhaps as I do, that this leads to the existence of a god, ipso facto.

That is, the thing I perceive as that which does not have any definition than the one I give it subjectively, and do not need to apply any other definition to than my own subjective one - that thing.
From an objective, or group perspective, I would have to presume this ability in others, or actually see the same thing in others, in some manner. Perhaps talking and trying to relate amongst a group, this perception (subjective though it is), might lead me to understand why I see it that way, and why others might think what they think.

Like agreeing on the fact the sun is up, or it's raining - these are subjectively related experiences, as to others, so to myself. Explanations for why the sun exists, why it rains and so on, are objective, but the explanations' existence has required a lot of subjective experience, and a lot of discussion and agreement. I don't need to do all that to draw a breath, or see something like a sunrise.

But you immediately presume the word "god" means something external (a force) that can have an effect on a 'closed system', whatever that might be, which logically and scientifically doesn't happen. But logically I exist, and logically, I am not an external force, and nor am I a closed system. Nor is anyone else, logically.

I don't know how the moderator of another subforum would deal with your assertion. But regardless of the point you're trying to make--whatever it is--on the Linguistics board I'm concerned with language and you're using language improperly.No, I think you have a restricted kind of idea, of a certain subjective experience and what it might mean. A conditioned reflex to certain ideas, or an idea, specifically. Often this reflex response is triggered by a one-syllable word that starts with "g". Or that's been my experience with it.

P.S. don't you have a headache yet?

[Oli]

Therefore, because they exist, they can see perhaps as I do, that this leads to the existence of a god, ipso facto.
No.
Simply: no.

[Vkothii]

That would be your subjective experience? Seeing how you cannot claim it to be a universal one?

[Oli]

Subjective experience?
I suppose so.
I cannot see how my existence proves, or even indicates, the existence of a god.

[Vkothii]

Well, that's up to you isn't it?

[Oli]

Exactly, but it sort of negates your claim to have presented Fraggle with evidence.

[Vkothii]

But I have presented evidence; I claim the evidence is quite easily accessible to anyone, it's as easy to see as, well, as seeing is.
I claim that I can see the evidence, and so can anyone. You can hear it too, among one or two other ways.

P.S. I'm fairly sure there are other words for it, apart from that troublesome "g" one. I sometimes call it: "being awake".

[Oli]

Since I've already said that for me it doesn't follow then how can you claim that the evidence is accessible to everyone?
Since it doesn't follow for me (and I don't assume I'm unique) then there must be others for whom it doesn't follow: therefore this "accessibility" is non-existent for some.

[Vkothii]

Since I've already said that for me it doesn't follow then how can you claim that the evidence is accessible to everyone?That doesn't follow? I've seen a lot of other people in my lifetime, all of whom have appeared to be as capable of seeing and hearing this thing as I am.

It's like how you can tell someone is alive; how someone who isn't alive anymore looks "dead", you know? You must have seen a dead body at some stage - even a dead animal or a pet that you remember being "alive"?

[Oli]

The point being?
As I said, my existence does not indicate a god to me.
Either give an explanation or forget about.

[Vkothii]

As you have so obviously forgotten about, I will too at this point.
About explaining it, I mean.

But with this parting shot: you possibly don't see any indication, as I claim to, because you don't know what "a god" is; instead you have some idea of that (which, being an idea, then cannot possibly be what you may or may not believe it is).

[Oli]

So you're using your own definition of god as well?
Regardless, anything that could (in my conception) be regarded or termed a god does not exist for me.
Especially one that would engender "belief".
And you still can't actually come out with a straight statement.
Pity.

[Vkothii]

So much for parting shots.
So you're using your own definition of god as well?Which one are you using?Regardless, anything that could (in my conception) be regarded or termed a god does not exist for me.Of course, as long as you have an idea of that, which you perceive as an idea of something you aren't, and can't be, you never will, will you?

[Oli]

Well there's "generally accepted" definition, which probably has something to do with what comes to my mind when people use the word "god".

Something I aren't?
Well I'm not god for one thing.

Still no straight statement...

[Vkothii]

I think you just more or less said: "I'm not something I think I can never be, which is an idea".

[Oli]

No I said "I'm not something that fits any definition of god that I understand"

[Vkothii]

And that "definition" isn't some thing, that you also believe or define, that is: you understand as, unattainable personally because it can't exist, there can be no such thing?

I think that looks like going around in circles - either this thing exists, or it doesn't...?

[Oli]

Unattainable?
It's sometghing to be attained now rather be a consequence(?) of my existence?
You become more obtuse with every post.

What's your definition then?
If you tell me that then I can tell you straight away whether or not it exists for me.
It doesn't exist for me that I can discern, but according to you I should be able to see it.
So what is it?

[Vkothii]

I said "I'm not something that fits any definition of god that I understand"How would you describe undefinable? "Unable to be attained to by any intellectual process" do it for you, or not?

I thought I had outlined my "definition", it's that which I say (because I see) is the thing about me I don't believe a word about, particularly any that are in books, or that anyone else has to say (about whatever it is).
It's something that isn't really definable that way. But it isn't complicated, or like you're superman. It's like breathing - actually it is breathing. And all the other stuff.
But it isn't thinking, or just an intellectual process, or emotion as such. You don't need to think about having a brain for it to be one, right?

[Oli]

How would you describe undefinable? "Unable to be attained to by any intellectual process" do it for you, or not?
Poor attempt at a subject change. Unable to be defined... :rolleyes:

I thought I had outlined my "definition", it's that which I say (because I see) is the thing about me I don't believe a word about, particularly any that are in books, or that anyone else has to say (about whatever it is).
So god is what you say it is?
Hardly works for anyone else.
If they use their own defintion that doesn't match yours then it makes you wrong.
If ALL individual definitions are accepted then the concept itself becomes so nebulous as to be worthless.

It's something that isn't really definable that way. But it isn't complicated
Apparently it is since you still can't make a definitive sentence about what it is.

or like you're superman. It's like breathing - actually it is breathing. And all the other stuff.
So "being alive" is god?
:bawl:

But it isn't thinking, or just an intellectual process, or emotion as such. You don't need to think about having a brain for it to be one, right?
Who said anything about thinking?

You stated that your own existence proves that god exists.
You stated that this "proof" (or sequence of logic, or even god itself) is visible to everyone.
SO far you've failed at any of those.

[Vkothii]

This is getting tedious.
Did you say this before, I was sure I saw you post it:
"I'm not something that fits any definition of god that I understand"

So your definition isn't at all like mine, which goes: "I don't have a definition that corresponds to anything you have to tell me about whatever it might be".

You are going around in circles, see?
Who said anything about thinking?You did.
You stated that your own existence proves that god exists.Yes, and it does, where I am concerned. This appears to be a universal principle - everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.
You stated that this "proof" (or sequence of logic, or even god itself) is visible to everyone.I assume that since I see this, everyone else can see it too. What's so illogical about that?
SO far you've failed at any of those.You mean: "so far I've failed to understand any of this, because I keep going back to the same idea".

[Oli]

Your definition of god is: "I don't have a definition that corresponds to anything you have to tell me about whatever it might be".:confused:

That's not a definition that's a get-out clause.
And your existence proves to you that "you don't have a definition"?

So you still can't possibly have provided evidence of its existence, or even that ipso facto its existence follows from yours.

Yes, and it does, where I am concerned. This appears to be a universal principle - everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.
Evidently not; since I'd already stated that it didn't follow for me.

I assume that since I see this, everyone else can see it too. What's so illogical about that?
Ah, so you wanna talk about esoteric military technology? Particle physics?
I assume, since I'm interested in them, that everyone else is.
Logic? :rolleyes:

[Vkothii]

I wash my hands of it.Good for you, but they were never dirty at any stage of this whole pointless "discussion".

I know. You never had any intention of looking past your own get-out clause. The one that goes: "I don't have a definition that fits, etc". Nicely done.

You seem to believe that your personal definition is "all that you need", whereas mine has to be something that everyone agrees with. Or you think everyone agrees perhaps, with your personal definition already (something you also know cannot be possible).

But I say I can have a "god" that does not, and cannot fit any description or be anything that you say, or anyone else says, or even what I say it is.
That thing. The one you have "no definition" for, except that you do have one. Your definition appears to exclude the existence of the thing, whatever it might be. It seems to be less general than my one, somehow.

Mine is completely free of any and all conditions; whereas your definition, the one that "you understand doesn't fit anything that you can be", looks like an idea, mine is more an "idea-free" version. This makes sense, since I am not an idea.

[Oli]

I know. You never had any intention of looking past your own get-out clause. The one that goes: "I don't have a definition that fits, etc". Nicely done.
Another "This is what I believe, so it must be universal" assumption?

[Vkothii]

No, like most of your efforts, it's an observation from me, which I believe is valid.

[Oli]

You seem to believe that your personal definition is "all that you need", whereas mine has to be something that everyone agrees with. Or you think everyone agrees perhaps, with your personal definition already (something you also know cannot be possible).
Nope I needed a definition of what god is, or what you considered it to be to see how its existence could follow from your own.
Everyone agrees with?
Again, false.
I don't agree, as I've said, that's not a definition at all, let alone of god.

Mine is completely free of any and all conditions; whereas your definition, the one that "you understand doesn't fit anything that you can be", looks like an idea, mine is more an "idea-free" version. This makes sense, since I am not an idea.
Which still doesn't invalidate my statement that as far as I can see its existence follows from mine.

So your assumption that this logic was true for everyone was, surprise, incorrect.
As Fraggle said a long while back.

[Vkothii]

No, it's incorrect to you because "it doesn't fit", right?
I can see that what I am is something I can also see in others (and in other sentient animals). This is not something that is an idea. Actually ideas are a peripheral thing, this thing I am is not something that requires me to have an idea about it, or explain it to myself. Of course I can try to do this, or try to explain something that is not amenable to intellectual analysis as such. Anyone can try to explain anything.

When it comes to experience and scientific explanation, there's only so far you can get by comparing notes; this presumes that everyone can see the same thing. With the topic of this thread, what sort of discussion do you think there can be if there's a belief that the subject can't exist? Or that an idea can't be the subject?

You seem to be saying that your idea of what this thing is, includes the idea that it can't be you. Whatever it is, your idea of it places it beyond your experience.
I say it has nothing to do with ideas, it's beyond ideas but not beyond experience.

Can you understand that?

[Oli]

No, it's incorrect to you because "it doesn't fit", right?
It doesn't accord with what I would call god, correct.

When it comes to experience and scientific explanation, there's only so far you can get by comparing notes; this presumes that everyone can see the same thing.
Which is exactly what you did:
This appears to be a universal principle - everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.
Which Fraggle had already invalidated by disputing your ipso facto clause.

You seem to be saying that your idea of what this thing is, includes the idea that it can't be you.
Nope, I said that I don't consider myself a god, which implied that I could be but I'm not...

Whatever it is, your idea of it places it beyond your experience.
I say it has nothing to do with ideas, it's beyond ideas but not beyond experience.
Can you understand that?
Nope.
Really no.
Which is why, for me its existence does not follow from mine.

[Vkothii]

This thread is supposedly about the semantics of an idea - the "who or what is" idea, that is either in the way here, or is a sort of inevitable idea that we deal with one way or another.
I see no problem with claiming I am that which I perceive myself to be, and it's what I associate with an idea that to many people involves something else altogether, I call it "god", or "my god", and I'm it.
No problem in my head with that, except I also know that most people think of worship, and temples, and external deities, so saying "I am that thing, I am god or a god", doesn't fit with that.
I say you have it the wrong way around. The external stuff came from the real god, or gods, which is us.
That religious, ritualism etc, all represents just what we've been in apparent contention over here: the rationalisation, externalisation of our own nature - which is always beyond that because we can't rationalise or externalise it. You seem to be saying that there aren't any spirits or ghosts, I'm saying those are ideas, and what I'm talking about is not an idea, it's much simpler than that.

[Oli]

I see no problem with claiming I am that which I perceive myself to be
Yup.
Mostly. :D

and it's what I associate with an idea that to many people involves something else altogether, I call it "god", or "my god", and I'm it.
I don't, but I think I get you.

No problem in my head with that, except I also know that most people think of worship, and temples, and external deities, so saying "I am that thing, I am god or a god", doesn't fit with that.
Understood, but I still disagree that I'm any sort of god.

I say you have it the wrong way around. The external stuff came from the real god, or gods, which is us.
The externalisation of the "idea" yes I agree.
But I disagree that I, at least, am any sort of god.

That all represents just what we've been in apparent contention over, the rationalisation, externalisation of our own nature - which is always beyond that because we can't rationalise or externalise it. You seem to be saying that there aren't any spirits or ghosts, I'm saying those are ideas, and what I'm talking about is not an idea, it's much simpler than that.
Er no, at least I don't think so.
I am not god.

[Vkothii]

Well, you are, it's actually where the whole thing comes from, surely?

Just because it's a big word doesn't really mean all that much.

[Oli]

Well, you are, it's actually where the whole thing comes from, surely?
Not that you can demonstrate to me though... :p

[Vkothii]

I suppose not. That would be up to your own point of view; nonetheless I can claim that it is the case.
It just seems to make more sense than the other way.

[Oli]

I suppose not. That would be up to your own point of view; nonetheless I can claim that it is the case.
As Fraggle would say: an unverifiable claim isn't valid. ;)

[Vkothii]

And that comes down to the whole observation and group agreement thing, right?
We seem to be able to come to agreements, in general amongst ourselves, about how things work based on specific experience.

Our explanations then, are the "invariant remainder" after all the opinions and ideas, they are what works "best" at explaining. Science is the art of explanation, of being more precise, or distilling an essence or essential truth, a simplest explanation that works, so to speak.
Except for a particular aspect of all that, which is: how do we explain that we can do this, or that we can agree the explanations work, as we all can see they do? I say that's the bit where we tend to abstract our own, and so our group abilities, to explain things. Our godlike powers of explanation: Newton believed he was explaining the very motions of heavenly spheres, the mechanics of God's creation, written in the sky for the reasoning mind of the man to uncover; unfortunately the mechanistic explanation soon ran into a problem - we obviously had not yet reached the pinnacle of our potential to comprehend His nature after all.
But the whole thing is in fact seated firmly between everyone's ears.

[Oli]

And that comes down to the whole observation and group agreement thing, right?
Group agreement and observation are insufficient.

We seem to be able to come to agreements, in general amongst ourselves, about how things work based on specific experience.
With corrobaratory evidence, yes.

Our godlike powers of explanation
Ah that's where I'd have to disagree.
Our powers of explanation seem pretty limited to me.

Newton believed he was explaining the very motions of heavenly spheres, the mechanics of God's creation, written in the sky for the reasoning mind of the man to uncover; unfortunately the mechanistic explanation soon ran into a problem
That problem being?

we obviously had not yet reached the pinnacle of our potential to comprehend His nature after all.
So gods aren't by nature omnipotent, they're limited?

But the whole thing is in fact seated firmly between everyone's ears.
You keep saying "fact", but I still claim it's a supposition.

[Vkothii]

Where do you get this supposition idea from?
Back in Newton's day I'd say the notion of godlike powers of reason and observation, were pretty much the thing.

They persisted until the Victorian era, in which some believed it was all down to figuring it out to the last decimal place, otherwise we understood everything. Today we seek a theory, and evidence for it that explains the existence of matter in the universe: the "God particle".
We may have adjusted our view of just how godlike our powers of reason might be, but we still believe there is something unique about our intellect, and how our group intellect has led to our current speculative grasp: how it's up against its own wall, or our god has not yet learned how to read the "signs" - we're still learning to see or how to look at those signs, even how to discriminate certain signals from the usual stuff.

[Oli]

Because a "fact" is demonstrable and independently verifiable, not a personal revelation.
It may well be true for you (subjectively) but to claim that it's true for everyone when you can't prove it leaves it as supposition.

[Fraggle Rocker]

I would say anyone, whether or not they think they're a scientist, would believe that they exist though. Therefore, because they exist, they can see perhaps as I do, that this leads to the existence of a god, ipso facto. That is, the thing I perceive as that which does not have any definition than the one I give it subjectively, and do not need to apply any other definition to than my own subjective one - that thing.That runs counter to the essence of language, which is what this subforum is about. Language works because we all agree on what the words mean, so we understand each other's sentences. You seem to have invented your own definition for the word "god," and as a result none of us can understand you. This whole thread is going around in circles because of your stubborn refusal to play by the rules of English.

You can call anything you want a "god," if you're writing a poem or a treatise, and you spend a good portion of your effort explaining your definition, defending it, and finally demonstrating its usefulness so the reader feels it was worth the trouble to try to follow you. You have not done any of those things and so far it has not been worth the trouble to try to follow you. Obviously I speak for many.But you immediately presume the word "god" means something external (a force) that can have an effect on a 'closed system', whatever that might be, which logically and scientifically doesn't happen. But logically I exist, and logically, I am not an external force, and nor am I a closed system. Nor is anyone else, logically.Your rhetoric is a little rough around the edges, but since none of us is inclined to believe you're a god, it doesn't matter.No, I think you have a restricted kind of idea, of a certain subjective experience and what it might mean.As a third-generation atheist I have no subjective experience with the concept of gods. I never even heard of them until I was about seven. My understanding of the word is based exclusively on what people who believe in them tell me it means. Sure, I restate their definition in unflattering scientific terminology, but it's the same definition. Gods are universally perceived by those who believe in them as supernatural, and as deliberately affecting events and conditions in the natural universe. If you have a different definition then you're outside the consensus and, as you've experienced, people will have great difficulty understanding you.

If I spend half an hour trying to convince you that I have a really great dog and nothing I say about him makes sense, and then finally I casually mention that my dog has retractable claws and goes "meow," that's pretty close to what you're inflicting on us with your eccentric talk about your god.P.S. don't you have a headache yet?No. I eat wannabe philosophers for breakfast and the extra protein helps me sail serenely through my day. ;) It's a required ability for the Moderator's job.This thread is supposedly about the semantics of an idea - the "who or what is" idea, that is either in the way here, or is a sort of inevitable idea that we deal with one way or another.When it started it was about the semantics of the word "believe." Don't change the subject.I see no problem with claiming I am that which I perceive myself to be, and it's what I associate with an idea that to many people involves something else altogether, I call it "god", or "my god", and I'm it.By choosing to call it a god, when it seems to have nothing in common with what the rest of the English-speaking community calls a god--a supernatural being who perturbs the conditions and events in the natural universe--you have broken the consensus of meaning and slipped out of the English-speaking community. That community can no longer understand you.No problem in my head with that, except I also know that most people think of worship, and temples, and external deities, so saying "I am that thing, I am god or a god", doesn't fit with that.Many people think of that, but it's not the essence of their meaning of "god." The essence is a supernatural being that interferes with the workings of the universe, although in the modern era most people make the additional assumption that his intentions are for good.I say you have it the wrong way around. The external stuff came from the real god, or gods, which is us. That religious, ritualism etc, all represents just what we've been in apparent contention over here: the rationalisation, externalisation of our own nature - which is always beyond that because we can't rationalise or externalise it.This has become a philosophical argument and not a linguistic one. Even though it is therefore on the wrong board I normally would probably not object strenuously, since Linguistics doesn't get a lot of traffic. I could always push the Magic Moderator Button and move it to Philosophy. What I object to is that you've spent all this time letting us think you wanted to talk about linguistics. Couldn't you have made your point about four pages ago?You seem to be saying that there aren't any spirits or ghosts, I'm saying those are ideas, and what I'm talking about is not an idea, it's much simpler than that.I'm saying that there is no evidence of spirits or ghosts and furthermore that the existence of spirits or ghosts would falsify the fundamental theory upon which science is based. Therefore it is an extraordinary assertion and, according to the Rule of Laplace which is a cornerstone of the scientific method, we are not obliged to treat it with respect until it is accompanied by extraordinary evidence.Group agreement and observation are insufficient.In an academy of tertiary research such as ours, they would probably be okay. Almost all of us are merely students of science, not practicing scientists.

[Vkothii]

How do you mean "demonstrable"? To an audience, or to a recording device of some kind?

[Oli]

To an audience would do.
(After Fraggle's comment above :))

[Vkothii]

As a third-generation atheist I have no subjective experience with the concept of gods. I never even heard of them until I was about seven. My understanding of the word is based exclusively on what people who believe in them tell me it means. Sure, I restate their definition in unflattering scientific terminology, but it's the same definition. Gods are universally perceived by those who believe in them as supernatural, and as deliberately affecting events and conditions in the natural universe. If you have a different definition then you're outside the consensus and, as you've experienced, people will have great difficulty understanding you.You're claiming that before the age of seven, you had no subjective experience? I don't think so - you certainly would have been experiencing all kinds of stuff well before you got introduced to this "definition", and you had an idea what this newly-encountered (i.e. foreign) idea was about, surely.
An atheist to my way of seeing it, is someone who denies the existence of any external god or deity; in a sense believes in a god that doesn't exist. It's still a kind of faith, or non-faith I suppose. My definition does not require me to have faith other than in being able to see or hear; it fits my paradigm a lot better.

And you claiming the English-speaking world has a definition for the word "god" as being different to mine, again you are mistaken in concluding that, I'm quite sure.
The Bible contains this notion here and there in various parts - that there's something "within you", right? That you can be "with" something, and so on.
So, I'm sorry but you haven't done quite the demolition job you thought.

[Fraggle Rocker]

You're claiming that before the age of seven, you had no subjective experience? I don't think so - you certainly would have been experiencing all kinds of stuff well before you got introduced to this "definition", and you had an idea what this newly-encountered (i.e. foreign) idea was about, surely.I had never heard of gods and religion. My family simply didn't talk about it, and apparently none of their friends did either. There was no TV and little kids weren't exposed to things outside the family to the extent that they are today. When a kid in school told me the story of some guy named God living up in the sky in a place called Heaven, I doubled over with laughter. I assumed it was a joke. When he kept insisting it was real, I figured it was just one of those stories kids make up and get all wrapped up in. Then when it made him mad I realized it must be a Santa Claus-Tooth Fairy-Easter Bunny kind of thing his parents told him when he was little, and I wondered why they hadn't told him the truth yet. Then when I told me parents about it and they said there were grownups who believe in it because their parents never told them the truth, I thought they were making a joke. I became really disgusted with the human race when I finally found out they were telling me the truth. It took me a long long time to be able to forgive people for being that stupid, and I still can't always do it. I understand why my parents were such misanthropes.An atheist to my way of seeing it, is someone who denies the existence of any external god or deity; in a sense believes in a god that doesn't exist. It's still a kind of faith, or non-faith I suppose.You don't understand atheism at all. The word "deny" only applies in a situation like this if what you're "denying" is true. But gods are bullshit. My definition does not require me to have faith other than in being able to see or hear; it fits my paradigm a lot better.And the point I will not cease hammering until you get it is that you don't get to make up your own definitions of words. Language operates by consensus and if you flout the consensus you take yourself out of the linguistic community and people will no longer be able to understand you.And you claiming the English-speaking world has a definition for the word "god" as being different to mine, again you are mistaken in concluding that, I'm quite sure.I didn't get to be the Head Linguist around here without knowing how to use a dictionary. A basic skill, by the way, which I heartily encourage in the members.

Webster's: "A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol."

American Heritage: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being; a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

WordNet: "The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions; any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force."

There are other secondary, poetic, metaphorical and portmanteau definitions, but this is the consensus of what English speakers mean when they use the word "god" or "God" in a conversation with a stranger. Are you going to keep insisting otherwise?The Bible contains this notion here and there in various parts - that there's something "within you", right? That you can be "with" something, and so on.You're talking about that little Christian section at the end of the bible. The rest of it makes it very clear that God is a supernatural creature who lives in Heaven, who created the earth and the rest of the natural universe (as distinct from Heaven, which is clearly off somewhere in a supernatural universe), who created all life including people, and who continued to meddle in their affairs rather angily and petulantly. The God of the Christians had finally taken an anger management class and stopped turning people into pillars of salt and causing planet-wide floods, and he sent the First Hippie to teach them about Peace and Love. Since God had redefined himself as a peaceful and loving kind of guy, Jesus could teach people that God was inside each of them. They would not have wanted to hear that about the Old Testament God.
So, I'm sorry but you haven't done quite the demolition job you thought.I'm not trying to demolish anyone. I'm just acting as a gatekeeper of the language and you've been misusing it.

[Vkothii]

Webster's: "A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol."

American Heritage: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions; the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being; a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

WordNet: "The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions; any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force."These may well be "universally accepted" definitions, possibly even by a majority of English-speaking (or African-language, or Asian-language speaking) people. Hell, I even understand them; maybe even why they exist and why they have that particular form.

But they're all incorrect. They are all externalisations, abstractions of the meaning of 'something', which can only have originated from us humans (unless some "external" agency gave us the idea. But then how did we "get" the idea in the first place?)
What led you to reject, or even question the "standard" meaning you were given as a child? Did you have any conception of your own, so that the idea you were told then didn't fit with your own? Or are you saying you had no idea, no preconceived individual notion of this thing at all, so the story you got told seemed laughable?
Whether you agree now or not, I would say you did as we all do, have such a notion. You wouldn't have related it to the "story" you were told, which is why the story seemed so outrageous...?

There are other secondary, poetic, metaphorical and portmanteau definitions, but this is the consensus of what English speakers mean when they use the word "god" or "God" in a conversation with a stranger.According to you it is, you mean?

Are you going to keep insisting otherwise?I'm going to stick to my personal definition, since all the above are misconceptions, yes.
All are based on an idealisation of human "god-ness" if you will. The whole idea comes straight from our cultural history, and religion became a means of social coherence, then political control. At least that's how I see the whole "external deity" thing. Religion and its approach to certain "godlike" aspects, aren't just a single story, or a single idea.
But my understanding of what it's all about is a single thing as I've explained; it's the idea that "god" is not an idea because "god" is me, it all starts with an idea. Religion is an enshrinement of an idea, then.

You obviously have a definition of "god", that fits your paradigm. Your definition, as I've already said, proclaims a non-existent god/gods. But that doesn't "do away" with the concept at all, as I've also stated. It puts a certain idea in its place, maybe, but the idea hasn't "gone" anywhere.
God is not an idea - religion is.

P.S. That one-para redaction of yours, of the Bible looks very much like the "standard" version atheists explain to their kids. I claim you (and probably millions of others) have misread the whole thing. It may look a lot like a description of an external, vengeful and petulant being who meddled in the affairs of people, but it's actually a characterisation of cultural and political wills, in conflict at times, in agreement at other times throughout the history of a certain people - the Hebrews had their traditions to help keep them together.

You can read the whole Bible, or any religious tome from front to back, and see that's what it is; a characterisation, a metaphor for cultural strife, for all the things that happen in a people's history; the mis-step is when a people start believing it's about real beings, rather than metaphors. Then the history gets "corrected", since culture and social cohesion are the important things, the story can change accordingly.

That's how I see it, anyway. There's no need to demolish the idea of an external deity, it's already just an idea. The need is to see it as what it really is, where it came from, why it's a mistake to worship an idea; why the idea comes from us (because we are that thing ourselves of course).

[Fraggle Rocker]

These may well be "universally accepted" definitions, possibly even by a majority of English-speaking (or African-language, or Asian-language speaking) people. Hell, I even understand them; maybe even why they exist and why they have that particular form. But they're all incorrect.

What led you to reject, or even question the "standard" meaning you were given as a child? Did you have any conception of your own, so that the idea you were told then didn't fit with your own? Or are you saying you had no idea, no preconceived individual notion of this thing at all, so the story you got told seemed laughable?

I'm going to stick to my personal definition, since all the above are misconceptions, yes.

You obviously have a definition of "god", that fits your paradigm. Your definition, as I've already said, proclaims a non-existent god/gods.V, I'm not going to spend the next twelve weeks dancing in a circle with you on this.

There is a consensus among English speakers regarding the meaning of the word "god." I presented that consensus to you by giving you direct quotes from three different dictionaries that were nearly identical.

You don't get to say that a definition is "incorrect." If you lived in France you'd have to abide by the definition handed down by L'Academie Française. If you lived in Germany you'd probably be arrested. In Japan you'd be ostracized. Fortunately the anglophone community doesn't have such draconian institutions, but instead it has consensus. Whatever the word means in the everyday conversations of the people, that's what it means. If you don't like it, you can write an article about it, or maybe a pop song, and try to change people's vocabulary.

What you can't do is establish your own idiosyncratic definition and tell people it is "correct."

As for my childhood, please allow me to tell you what it was like, since I was actually there. Don't try to tell me what I experienced. I had no idea what the concept of "god" was supposed to be about because I'd never been exposed to either the word or the concept. And it certainly didn't pop up spuriously in my little head.

Finally, the definition of "god" that I use on SciForums is not "my" definition. It is the definition of the hundreds of millions of English speakers on this planet. I didn't make it up like you did; I looked it up like we're supposed to.

[Vkothii]

I had no idea what the concept of "god" was supposed to be about because I'd never been exposed to either the word or the concept. And it certainly didn't pop up spuriously in my little head.You mean: you had no idea about this story you got told by someone when you were young. But you did have an idea of what "god" is, even when you were younger than when you first heard the "grown-up version". Even if you say, and wholeheartedly believe you didn't; what you're doing is saying "I had no conception like that, it must be a fairy story". But you had "a conception" nonetheless, just like everyone else does.

And I don't believe that I am under any obligation, cultural, everyday, worthy of ostracism, whatever, to believe in "a definition" that conflicts with my day-to-day experience. So I don't, and furthermore I won't be doing that anytime at all.

As for looking up some word - I know there's a word that's spelt the same way, pronounced the same way, and what "hundreds of millions of English speakers on this planet" think it means.
I don't believe that there is one and only one meaning as you apply it. There never has been only one meaning either.

[Oli]

But you had "a conception" nonetheless, just like everyone else does.
No.
Again: NO.

As I've said before NOT EVERYONE.

[Vkothii]

No.
Again: NO.

As I've said before NOT EVERYONE.Ah. So you're claiming some kind of special ability then? To avoid forming any conception of your own existence, relative to the rest (of existence - i.e. "the world")? This is something you have never done, or found any reason to?
I'd say, no, you're wrong about that. You most certainly have conceptions, mostly formed at a young age but filtered somewhat by years of experience (in which mysterious things don't happen to you, and so on).

[Oli]

Ah. So you're claiming some kind of special ability then?
Nope, you're claiming that everyone shares your perceptions.
I'd say you're the one claiming a special ability -ascribing YOUR personal experiences to everyone else.
Which, if nothing else has, real life should have demonstrated as not true.

I'd say, no, you're wrong about that. You most certainly have conceptions, mostly formed at a young age but filtered somewhat by years of experience (in which mysterious things don't happen to you, and so on).
You can say it as often as you like.
You have nothing other than your own experiences to indicate this and it simply isn't true for me, or, as he's said, Fraggle.
Therefore your assumption that it's universal is incorrect.

[Vkothii]

Nope, you're claiming that everyone shares your perceptions.No, I'm claiming that it's safe for me to assume that I can see much the same stuff as anyone else with eyes can, or hear much the same kinds of sounds, since I appear to have the same kinds of eyes and ears.

I have never said that everyone shares my perceptions - this implies that I'm somehow "sharing" my experiences of seeing and hearing with others. This can't be possible, since everyone has their own eyes and ears, their own distinct brain which is separate from mine...?
You have nothing other than your own experiences to indicate this and it simply isn't true for me, or, as he's said, Fraggle.
Therefore your assumption that it's universal is incorrect.
I assume that the experience of seeing is universal for people with functional vision, and that it must be a lot like, or the same as my experience, since the equipment is the same. I have nothing but my experience and the way I compare that with what I believe others experience, which I can never know except through intuition.
But this is how we function, how any group of social animals functions - by assuming common experience. We wouldn't do so well at coordinating activities the way we do, if we did not assume this common ground (of experience, of how we see and hear the world and each other). Would we now?

[Oli]

No, I'm claiming that it's safe for me to assume that I can see much the same stuff as anyone else with eyes can, or hear much the same kinds of sounds, since I appear to have the same kinds of eyes and ears.
And life has never shown you that people don't quite see things the same way, hear them the same way...?

I have never said that everyone shares my perceptions - this implies that I'm somehow "sharing" my experiences of seeing and hearing with others. This can't be possible, since everyone has their own eyes and ears, their own distinct brain which is separate from mine...?
Now you're quibbling over sematics.
"Everyone sharing the same perception" is also used to mean that everyone has the same, not necessarily sharing as in "a piece for you a piece for me".
You are claiming that we all have the same perception as you.
Patently false.

I assume that the experience of seeing is universal for people with functional vision, and that it must be a lot like, or the same as my experience, since the equipment is the same.
And look where assumptions get you.

But this is how we function, how any group of social animals functions - by assuming common experience.
Right, so how did the divorce go, especially after you found out that she was cheating?
Arrant nonsense - we accept that there ARE shared experiences, but that they are not all the same, in cases not even similar.

We wouldn't do so well at coordinating activities the way we do, if we did not assume this common ground (of experience, of how we see and hear the world and each other). Would we now?
Yup: assume. And then find out that you got it wrong - never happened to you in real life?

[Vkothii]

You are claiming that we all have the same perception as you.
Patently false.What a pile of crap, man. You're trying to say we all have different eyes? We all "translate" everything we see and hear a different way because we all have "different" equipment? You're claiming that I'm claiming something I obviously am not claiming. I said, we all see the same way, that is what we share - a common way of seeing; are you saying this is patently false?

That isn't what I picked up in Bio lectures; what should we tell all those guys?

You seem to be trying to find hairs to split. But you can't split the one about how we humans function in groups; we have "identical" sensory equipment, we see the same things and hear the same things, and we even agree that we do.
Otherwise we would probably have gone extinct a couple mil. years back, I'd say, or we would still be living in trees. But go ahead and call it arrant nonsense, I'd like another chuckle about now.

You simply cannot hold up a false idea, universal though it may be, and proclaim that it discredits all ideas. This is a logical fallacy, as I've tried to point out. I don't have to consider any "external" entity whatsoever; there is no connection that I can see with my perception, to this "accepted wisdom" that you hold up as being a fairy-story. My being alive is no fantasy - I can see and hear and so on. That is sufficient explanation for existence and all the rest, including that "god" thingamy.

[Oli]

What a pile of crap, man. You're trying to say we all have different eyes?
Oops you can't read very well can you?
You've never argued over what exact shade a particular colour is?
You've never studied perceptual pstchology?

We all "translate" everything we see and hear a different way because we all have "different" equipment?
No we see things differently because we all interpret them differently.

You're claiming that I'm claiming something I obviously am not claiming.
You have also stated:
I would say you did as we all do
and
everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.

I said, we all see the same way, that is what we share - a common way of seeing; are you saying this is patently false?
Same physical method of seeing, different perceptons.
No two people see exactly the same colour. for example.

You seem to be trying to find hairs to split. But you can't split the one about how we humans function in groups; we have "identical" sensory equipment, we see the same things and hear the same things, and we even agree that we do.
See the same things, perceive them differently.
Which is why philosophers like to argue that things aren't actually real...

Otherwise we would probably have gone extinct a couple mil. years back, I'd say, or we would still be living in trees.
Unless we agree on a general working consensus which may not be factually correct.

And I notice you ignored my comments about "shared experience"

[Vkothii]

And I notice you ignored my comments about "shared experience"Yes, I ignored them by posting that last lot, which you have ignored in turn.
We humans simply do not assume that we all see and hear things differently. This is not generally the case, ever.

About this "shared" vs "different" experience/interpretation.
At what stage of a group, coordinated activity of some kind, do people "interpret" things differently or individually? All the time? When they "feel like it"? After their brains have done a bit of signal-processing at various speeds?

Say there are some people on a bus, the bus travels down some road, and stops.
What sort of "different interpretations" would the individual passengers have? Would some think the bus is still going down the road, or some the bus stopped miles back? How about the sounds the passengers might hear?
If the driver stops the bus and turns the engine off, say, do the passengers share a common experience at any time, or is that something that only happens in a sort of random way, if they happen to all be thinking about the same thing, maybe?

[Oli]

Yes, I ignored them by posting that last lot, which you have ignored in turn.
So you didn't understand what I posted?

We humans simply do not assume that we all see and hear things differently. This is not generally the case, ever.
Correct we don't assume it: nevertheless that is the case.

About this "shared" vs "different" experience/interpretation.
At what stage of a group, coordinated activity of some kind, do people "interpret" things differently or individually? All the time? When they "feel like it"? After their brains have done a bit of signal-processing at various speeds?
As stated: we perceive things differently from the next guy.

[Vkothii]

As stated: we perceive things differently from the next guy.No we don't; unless we all have fundamentally different sensory apparatus.
Biology and histology says we all see the same way, and we all hear the same way; there are genetic differences - some humans have different sets of taste sensory organs around different areas of their tongue, some people have attenuated senses, some are blind or deaf. But in general we see with the same equipment - it is universal, there are not thousands or millions of different ways to see, among humans, or any other species we know about.

You might be talking about what happens after the sensory perception part - what our brains do with the sensory input, what we interpret, and how we think (or not) about some experience. Different people will remember different details and different times from a common group experience. This does not imply that the experience was different at the time, or that everyone did not hear the same noises, for instance.

[chris4355]

Atheist: "There is no God. I require sufficient evidence to believe there is a God."

Agnostic: "I don't know if there is a God or not. I require sufficient evidence to beleive either way."

Agnostics do not say they do not believe in god, they say that they do not know.

If someone states they don't believe in god, that means they do not think god exists, not that they are unsure whether he exists or not. Just like if you do not believe in Santa Clause, you do not believe that he exists.

[Vkothii]

How about if you believe it has nothing to do with any of that? With affirming or denying the existence of this Santy Claws dude?

[chris4355]

How about if you believe it has nothing to do with any of that? With affirming or denying the existence of this Santy Claws dude?

If you are not sure about someones existence then you will most likely say "I am not sure if I believe in him", not "I do not believe in him".

[Vkothii]

You might mean: "I am not sure if I believe they exist", or: "I do not believe they exist".

There is no requirement or need for me to believe "in" anything, except my ability to determine if someone is alive or not, or how likely their existence is.