This is exactly what I'm saying. Just because we can not detect something doesn't make it non-existant. And your point is...? I'm sorry - I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make here? I have clearly stated previously that something that can not be detected is "logically consistent" with something that does not exist - but this is not the same as saying that "it definitely does not exist". One can only claim that IF one had the ability to detect at an absolute level. Which is why I define existence that is everything that is "able to interact" - i.e. "able to be detected" - whether they are or not.
The point, is that you have claimed, or appear to have claimed, that we can know that things that don't exist are logically consistent (whether this is with the fact that they do not exist, or with any other known thing), or belong in some set. I have been saying that you can't say anything at all about something you haven't observed. You can say "there are things that we know do not exist". Sure, these are things in a set that have been imagined, but not seen. But then, there is only some assigned probability, we can't say there is zero possibility. What about things we can't imagine, or conceive of in any way? We can't say that things that don't exist, belong in a set, because we can't say even that they don't exist, or anything else.
I am assuming the be (bolded above) was a typo (?). Just so we don't get lost right off. My first reaction is that this definition eliminates some abstract entities like categories potential the past the future I don't think one can say that a category can interact with something, for example. ARe you OK with these things considered not existing? How do we judge an interaction is successful or real? (I guess what made me ask would be personal experiences of God, but the issue is probably broader)
Comment: be careful with abstract things, because they're ideas or theories, always based on real observations. Also, I'd say on some level, abstract ideas do interact, with conscious minds, and with meaning (whatever that is). Physical events, like weather, eclipses, floods, etc have a lot of ideas about them. Only some are useful or accurate descriptions.
To be honest I find myself at the edge of my ability to think here. I think I realized the issue you are raising about abstractions. I felt like asking: does a category interact or does our thought of categories interact with other thoughts. So the category is not interaction, but our thought of the category does. (without even trying to get at what is going on at a neurological level, the whole thing makes me want to scream).
Yes - correct - it was a typo. Should have read "Able to interact". You have to ask yourself what these "abstracts" really are. Are they objects or are they merely patterns of the physical interactions within our brain, with other parts identifying these patterns as "categories" or "potential" etc. But still - you need to fully define what you mean by each of these terms. How would you define "category"? But you need to define "category". Then see whether it interacts, and ultimately how it exists. To answer that you need to adequately define what you mean by them. You can not judge an interaction - either it does or it doesn't. Only the interpretation of that interaction is subjective. Part of that interpretation might be "nothing happened" - but this could be due to non-interaction as much as inadequate detection methods.
How would you define it so that it interacts? This may not seem fair to put it back on you. But I gave you a couple of lists of things that I think, arguably, can be seen to exist and not to exist simultaneously. Do you think all the things I listed in those two posts exist? If so, could you choose one and show me how? I think we could each make a case for whom the onus rests on. Or 'the future'? With this latter what do we do with Einstein's notion that time is a dimension and that the future and the past are 'already in place' and that it is simply our limited traveling perspective that seems to make them not interactable with and your definition: if it exists in can be interacted with. So you would say that hard atheists are going too far.
As a pattern of physical interactions within the brain. This pattern interacts with other patterns. This is how all subjective things interact. They exist as patterns of activity within the brain. I don't agree, unless you mean by dint of different definitions of them (i.e. under 1 definition it does, under another it doesn't). Define them adequately - then we'll decide what, if anything, actually exists. But if I remember the list correctly, most were subjective so will exist as described above. Does any action "exist" before it has happened? Define "future" - then we'll proceed. Define "past", and "future". My point with asking you to define them is that the terms can be open to so many different understandings that you need to be extremely precise before being able to say whether they "exist" or not. Just saying what Einstein thought is insufficient - as I'm sure neither you nor I fully appreciate exactly what he is saying so our own interpretations of it might lead to different conclusions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You mean "strong" atheists. "Hard atheists" sound like atheist standing in an alleyway on a dark night, waiting for trouble to arrive. Strong atheism is a rationally untenable position for me to hold, yes. i.e. I find it irrational.
O.P. here. I realize I've been gone a while, (largely due to idiocy on this thread), but what does this have to do with Atheists self-delusion; that they need not follow the same rules that they will cut someone else down for, i.e. disregarding the dictionary and making up their own definitions? Oh, and that "teapot in space" thing? What a crock of shit!!! Quite the elaborate dodge to a simple yes or no question. :bugeye: Also, quite ridiculous. Look, I have no problem with atheism, it's the atheists who think that just because they don't believe in god that somehow this makes their opinion carry more weight.
What question was that ? Also, I don't think atheists are alone in thinking their arguments carry more weight. The theists and agnostics are party to those sentiments too. If they wouldn't atheists wouldn't be atheists, or theists wouldn't be theists , and agnostics wouldn't be agnostics. Of course provided they have a rational mindset.
Question: Do you believe in god? You have a point, but I don't think my opinion is more important because of my beliefs. (I think it's more important because it IS more important!:roflmaoPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Question: Do you believe in god? You have a point, but I don't think my opinion is more important because of my beliefs. (I think it's more important because it IS more important!:roflmaoPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! T1G! out!
But you said 'carry more weight'. Obviously you think your arguments for being agnostic carries more weight than the arguments for being an atheist. If not, you would be an atheist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh yea, my answer to the question is "no". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dictionaries are often in error. Well, Bertrand Russell has been effectively refuted! I'll send an email to the Bertrand Russell Society. I'm pretty sure you have a problem with atheists and atheism.
It might have been more compelling if I illustrated it with theist arguments vs. atheist arguments Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The dictionary doesn't explain the fundamental theorum of calculus, nor baye's theorum. It probably doesn't go much into depth regarding logic operations or theory. Stuff that is specialized gets figured out by people who study and stuff. So like, to know about philosophy stuff, you have to study or at least pick up some philosophy stuff. The dictionary is basically a generalization of the language, but specialities like philosophy for instance, analyze the language involved in describing the stuff of its focus. Given that a bunch of philosonerds have looked into epistemology, theology, logic, etc... they have a more specific use of the terms that what is used in normal conversation. You use the 'street' definition of agnosticism. If you really look into what the geeks say, or even what the guy who coined the term intended, you'll find that the term is not directly aimed at god or religion, but instead "the nature of knowing". Atheism however, is directed exactly at 'god'. I mean, if you use the nerdspeak it's one way... and street speak is another. *shrug*
I agree. That the definition of the OP for agnosticism is incorrect. A lack of belief CANNOT be considered as an "ism". Theism: The belief that God does exist. Atheism: The belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism: Whereas skepticism is the belief that man cannot know anything for certain. Agnosticism is skepticism with respect to certainty of God's existence/non-existence. Agnosticism is the belief that man cannot know whether or not God exists. These are the correct interpretations of both terms.
The really hilarious thing here is that even if everyone agreed that atheism was a belief, all the people who simply lack a belief in god would just make up a new term and start calling themselves "nontheists" or something, and everyone would still have the same beliefs and same arguments. Why are so many people here obsessed with the labels that people use for their beliefs and lack of beliefs? Why not try to address what people actually believe and lack belief in, rather than playing around with the semantics of labels? When someone says that they are an atheist, just ask “Do you mean you are sure that god doesn’t exist, or do you just mean that you aren’t convinced that god exists?” and move on with the discussion from there.
What the people pushing for the "belief" definition are actually contending is that there are few, probably no, such people - that "simply" lacking a belief in something that operates as a deity in one's belief system is rare, perhaps impossible.
