My observation: atheists are anti-creativity

superluminal said:
"Do you believe I live in Hoboken, New Jersey?" with "I neither believe nor disbelieve it without further investigation. I take no stance either way."
Click to expand...
Right, but I believe you probably live somewhere. Since you mention a specific place, as you say this information or idea being true or not, is contingent.

But I can believe you live somewhere on this planet, generally. And also that the specific place you mention does exist - though I have never seen the entire planet, and I've never been to Hoboken.

As for actually believing something I can't confirm or deny, and that I also believe isn't any great concern to my personal status, all I do is believe it isn't important to me - it doesn't require any greater 'level' of belief

Most belief is contingent, I believe that the actual location is either true or false, I assume this. So I do believe something - I assign equivalent belief and disbelief to that idea, by believing (knowing) that its truth or falsity depends on more information.
 
Last edited:
Superluminal,

Good luck to you, man. The guy wants to argue semantics--and do it inconsistently!--and then ditch that argument mid-sentence to absolutely twist your words and mischaracterize your argument.

It's like this, really:

Me: The Earth revolves around the sun.

Vkothii: What do you mean the galaxy is spinning??

Me: ...

Vkothii: Don't use so many commas!
 
Like I said, ad nauseum. I have no interest in continuing such a silly debate. I've got important internet porn sites to visit ya know...
 
It's pretty childish to turn the debate back, too.

So "debating" doesn't come into this particular subject, there are too many fanatics.

I believe I'll give up - Kant could have been looking at the wrong tree to climb, after all.
 
Hmmm... I thought this was about the definition of a simple word that we've flogged to death with zero sign of resolution? Is that debate?

Childish. Hmmm...

Ok then. What would you suggest as a path to proceed on that avoids the continuous rehashing, with the same arguments, of the the meaning of one simple word?

I'm listening.
 
If we went back to the beginnings, maybe; and/or discussed why a single word evokes so much consternation and, er, debate..?

Why is it a different word to a word like, say, 'faith', or 'expectation', or 'experience'.
As some appear to think it is.

I was reasonably convinced, before now, that Kant had essentially described two kinds of 'belief' - the belief we get from direct experience, or knowledge of the world, and the belief that we 'borrow', or file under 'contingent'.
The latter is the sort of knowledge we have of the world that we haven't experienced directly. You know the sort of thing.
We gain a lot of this second kind through things like TV, the internet, books etc these days.

Back in the day, there was only speech to convey knowledge to others, then there was written language, then books, to borrow ideas from. Our borrowing now probably exceeds significantly the beliefs we gain through experience.

But I could have completely misinterpreted the whole thing..?
 
No, I generally agree. And this is just one of the reasons that the philosophy of science is so important. As the body of human knowledge increases, how do you come to trust those "borrowed" ideas and rationally use them for further exploration and learning?
 
Vkothii said:
If we went back to the beginnings, maybe; and/or discussed why a single word evokes so much consternation and, er, debate..?

Why is it a different word to a word like, say, 'faith', or 'expectation', or 'experience'.
As some appear to think it is.

I was reasonably convinced, before now, that Kant had essentially described two kinds of 'belief' - the belief we get from direct experience, or knowledge of the world, and the belief that we 'borrow', or file under 'contingent'.
The latter is the sort of knowledge we have of the world that we haven't experienced directly. You know the sort of thing.
We gain a lot of this second kind through things like TV, the internet, books etc these days.

Back in the day, there was only speech to convey knowledge to others, then there was written language, then books, to borrow ideas from. Our borrowing now probably exceeds significantly the beliefs we gain through experience.

But I could have completely misinterpreted the whole thing..?
Click to expand...

Maybe you did. And/or Kant did.
 
superluminal said:
As the body of human knowledge increases, how do you come to trust those "borrowed" ideas and rationally use them for further exploration and learning?
Click to expand...
How do we retain trust, or faith, in ideas?

We're obliged to assign some kind of status to the borrowed ones, surely; which would depend on what?
We tend to give greater authority, or status, to ideas from others who we believe are knowledgeable persons (Einstein became something of an authority because of this).

Although I've never met Albert Einstein (I never will), I have faith in his ideas because so many others do, and so many of these others, can explain his ideas and why they work; though I've never observed an object moving at close to light speed (apart from light), I've never seen a black hole, etc.
I even believe he was wrong about some things, and also that his ideas aren't a 'complete' description of reality.

So it's possible to trust without affording 'complete' trust, i.e. to have faith but not without retaining some contingency (which is doubt).

How to explain abstract ideas of things (say, like 'God') that can never be observed?
That kind of borrowed idea has to go deeper into the philosophical mudpile, because we have to abstract the idea of abstraction itself; explain how or why we form beliefs about particular contingencies (such as unseen gods) that will always be contingent.

Nonetheless, that particular abstraction (the 'god' one) seems to find currency - why is that?
Why don't other abstract ideas (cosmic teakettles, tooth fairies, aliens living in Central Park) have the same sort of currency?
What's special (or not) about the idea? What is the idea?
Is it some sort of experience that can't be imagined (conceived)?
Is there such an experience, or is all belief contingent on actual experience, we can't 'believe' in abstraction itself, only the abstractions?

Go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top