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

Which one is correct?

  • A

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • B

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • C

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Total voters
    18
Oli said:
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?
 
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?
 
Oli said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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"
 
Oli said:
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?
 
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.
 
Oli said:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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".
 
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.
 
Back
Top