You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
It is the difference between holding something as true (an absolute position) with no implication of uncertainty, and holding something as true within its given framework that is far smaller than the absolute but not being certain it is true even within the framework (let alone in the whole) only that nothing has yet contradicted it.Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
I fail to see the difference
The latter makes no judgement as to the absolute truth, only to what currently appears to work/hold within the specific framework in question.
Yep - which means that belief is not a requisite for being a practical atheist. If they hold such a belief then it is not part of their atheism but due to other philosophies that they might hold.EDIT - note that the part from the atheism link reads " ... the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."
I see your position of "belief" allows for an implication of uncertainty - so I accept that you are uncertain about the existence of God, it's good to know.
However, to me "belief" implies no such thing:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ - and I draw your attention to: "Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage)."
Given you're allowing implications of uncertainty within your philosophical "belief", this is understandable.just try answering some of them without referencing states of being given in the wiki link about belief
Practically as "in practice" or as in "almost"?Practically the first sentences of both links undo your ideas about distinctions between beliefs and assumptions or maintaining a position about existence bereft of beliefs
And no they don't - as explained above.
No@lightgigantic --
So, according to the logic in my post, religion doesn't provide motivation for good deeds.
According to your post you haven't been clear about what is the nature of good deeds in regards to religion
I'd have to double check, but it appears that he has just taken Wynn's list and turned it around. Wynn claims that you must "believe" these things to accept that religion motivates people to do evil... if so, then you must "believe" the same list to accept that religion motivates people to do good.@ Arioch, Could you explain how #'s4, 5, and 6 are necessary prerequisites for a good deed to be inspired by religion?
I don't follow.
I can't find anything in the link that talks about beliefs being necessarily absolute.It is the difference between holding something as true (an absolute position)
Can you?
The problem is here is what they are holding as true ... "and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine".with no implication of uncertainty, and holding something as true within its given framework that is far smaller than the absolute but not being certain it is true even within the framework (let alone in the whole) only that nothing has yet contradicted it.
Can you explain how philosophical naturalism is bereft on an ontological framework?
Or perhaps I should be asking can you understand how any sort of ontology requires belief in order to be workable .....
aka - justified true beliefThe latter makes no judgement as to the absolute truth, only to what currently appears to work/hold within the specific framework in question.
I think you missed the part where usage of "beliefs" is distinct from "believing in"Yep - which means that belief is not a requisite for being a practical atheist. If they hold such a belief then it is not part of their atheism but due to other philosophies that they might hold.
Can you see how you are talking about "believe - in" here?I see your position of "belief" allows for an implication of uncertainty - so I accept that you are uncertain about the existence of God, it's good to know.
For instance the phrase "I don't believe Sarkus reads the links given to him" is different to "The beliefs Sarkus has about existence and its properties (ie the manner he answers ontological issues) doesn't permit him to grant cause to the divine"
To which the next sentence reads ... "Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it's the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. "However, to me "belief" implies no such thing:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ - and I draw your attention to: "Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage)."
aka ontology
IOW the link you provided is talking about how belief frames ontological issues (as well as finding it's usage in existential "believe in" claims)
:shrug:
If you would answer the question given to you it would be clear how belief frames ontologyGiven you're allowing implications of uncertainty within your philosophical "belief", this is understandable.
as in if not the first sentence then in the first fewPractically as "in practice" or as in "almost"?
And no they don't - as explained above.
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines belief as Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.According to the Oxford English Dictionary.
Belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: something one accepts as true or real.
The wiki link goes on to provide several slight variations of its usage
How I see you err with the word belief is that you are using it purely in terms of existential claimsHow I see you err, Lightgigantic is, with atheism, there is nothing to accept, objective reality is blatantly obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#Belief-in
which then begs the question what other tools do they have to maintain their ontological positionAtheism simply means without god, that boils down to lacking belief in the claims of a god,
we are born with a complete absence of ontological frameworks (apart from very base desires for sustenance and avoidance of pain I guess) - to equate that with atheism is complete bullshitit is a term that was coined by the believer, Nobody is born with a god belief, we are all born tabu rasa: non-believers and are without god thus lacking belief in gods. and as such are atheists.
the belief that an absence of ontological frameworks translates as atheism stands out remarkably.Can you explain where you see any "belief" in atheism, in there. thanks
Hell at the very least you have beliefs about what the word atheist defines
:shrug:
Its not too hard to scratch the surface and find several more
:shrug:
What makes you think I haven't answered it already?Oh and to OP could you answer the question I posed in post #58 thank you
Last edited:
So far you are talking about inspiring mundane acts that can be carried out by anyone close to being a human being@lightgigantic --
That's irrelevant to whether or not religion can inspire them.
:shrug:
And this is not atheism! It is philosophical naturalism!Can you explain how philosophical naturalism is bereft on an ontological framework?
Is one of the requirements of being an atheist to hold to philosophical naturalism? No.
No beliefs need to be held to be an atheist... but if an atheist wishes to adopt a philosophy, to hold other beliefs... bully for them.
No - because there is no requirement for it to be true, only for it to have demonstrably held so far.aka - justified true belief
There is a difference.
I read it and you're talking semantics to wriggle out of the issue - wanting to use casual language of "believe in" within a philosophical framework where there is a more prevalent usage of "belief".I think you missed the part where usage of "beliefs" is distinct from "believing in"
Can you see how you are talking about "believe - in" here?
And please explain how one can "believe in" without having a "belief that", without resorting to the casual parlance where belief operates in the presence of uncertainty?
And finally, we're not talking about ontology! We're talking about atheism.
Yes, you have wriggled the topic to ontology, taking an example of an atheist that has also taken an ontological position. And now you are trying to worm your way to a fallacy of generalisation, that all atheists have an ontological position thus have belief.
So, to get it back on track:
What is the belief that defines the atheist position... not just a specific atheist position but one that defines ALL of them? i.e. what is the fundamental belief, the core belief, that one requires to be considered an atheist, irrespective of anything else?
yeah, but one of the ontological systems that makes atheism workableAnd this is not atheism! It is philosophical naturalism!
if there are other alternatives to having explanations about how there is no need to invoke the divine when answering fundamental ontological questions feel free to list them ...Is one of the requirements of being an atheist to hold to philosophical naturalism? No.
if that was the case they would have no means to contextualize theistic claims .... and if you agree that is the case then I guess we have a dire shortage of atheists on sciforums ...No beliefs need to be held to be an atheist...
If an atheist didn't have a philosophy, they would have no scope for contextualizing theistic claimsbut if an atheist wishes to adopt a philosophy, to hold other beliefs... bully for them.
Justified true belief is a definition for knowledge.No - because there is no requirement for it to be true, only for it to have demonstrably held so far.
There is a difference.
Its what happens when there is a justification for a proposition
On the contrary you are talking about "believe -in" as the all encompassing usage for the word "belief" (the latter of which the links, both the one you provided and the one I provided, goes to great pains to explain is the common philosophical usage of it ).I read it and you're talking semantics to wriggle out of the issue - wanting to use casual language of "believe in" within a philosophical framework where there is a more prevalent usage of "belief".
IOW the fall down of your arguments is that you have been using the definition of "believe-in" to try and wriggle out of (the greater philosophical implications of) "belief".
One can't because "believe that" is the language of all ontological underpinnings and hence all knowledge based claims (including "believe in"'s)And please explain how one can "believe in" without having a "belief that", without resorting to the casual parlance where belief operates in the presence of uncertainty?
If atheism didn't have anything to say about existence and it's qualities it wouldn't be capable of contextualizing theistic claimsAnd finally, we're not talking about ontology! We're talking about atheism.
It's impossible to be an atheist and not take an ontological position - that's clear from reading the atheist wiki linkYes, you have wriggled the topic to ontology, taking an example of an atheist that has also taken an ontological position.
Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος "being; that which is", present participle of the verb εἰμί "be", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.And now you are trying to worm your way to a fallacy of generalisation, that all atheists have an ontological position thus have belief.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]
Atheists tend to be skeptical of supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Atheists have offered various rationales for not believing in any deity. These include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies,[9][10] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
The atheist wiki link reads as one big huge treatise on the ontological position.
as far as ontology goes it would be that there are alternative explanations for existence and its qualities without a need to indicate the divineSo, to get it back on track:
What is the belief that defines the atheist position... not just a specific atheist position but one that defines ALL of them?
look no further than the ontology ....i.e. what is the fundamental belief, the core belief, that one requires to be considered an atheist, irrespective of anything else?
:shrug:
@lightgigantic --
Is "ontology" in this sentence another way of saying "fact", because what follows is definitely a fact.
as far as ontology goes it would be that there are alternative explanations for existence and its qualities without a need to indicate the divine
Is "ontology" in this sentence another way of saying "fact", because what follows is definitely a fact.
Then I guess you had better explain what you mean by an altruistic act and its inherent relationship to religion so we can let the discussion begin .....@lightgigantic --
Alright then, you want to go big, let's go big.
I posit that religion can not inspire altruistic acts of any kind. To believe that religion can you must accept all six of the assumptions I listed above.
no and no@lightgigantic --
Is "ontology" in this sentence another way of saying "fact", because what follows is definitely a fact.
read the ontology link if you want to know why
yes, it is more commonly known as strong atheism but it tends not to be very popular amongst educated persons due to the enormous pitfalls within its form.@lightgigantic --
Humor is lost on some people. And yes, there are working models of the universe, reality if you will, that do not require divine anything.
Exactly, especially one without proof.The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines belief as Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Which are irrelevant to core atheism. What the atheist person may belief is irrelevant to basic core atheism.The wiki link goes on to provide several slight variations of its usage
Remember this is not a belief-in situation, it a lack of that Which is what atheism core position is.How I see you err with the word belief is that you are using it purely in terms of existential claims
Sorry wrong! can you provide any other tools, as I know of none.which then begs the question what other tools do they have to maintain their ontological position
it is not being equated, it is atheism at it's core position. we're not born with, and could not possibly be with, however as we are a blank slates we're without. We lack any belief whatsoever. Which is the basic core position of atheism.we are born with a complete absence of ontological frameworks (apart from very base desires for sustenance and avoidance of pain I guess) - to equate that with atheism is complete bullshit,
It really isn't rocket science.
And there really is no need for philosophical BS
You're searching for more than is needed, whether a person remains or becomes again an atheist, because of the use of their sense reason and intellect, is irrelevant to their core atheistic position. I.E. what they believe other than holding a core position isn't relevant, to said position. atheist are merely individuals with a similar core position. there are no tenets, doctrines to atheism.the belief that an absence of ontological frameworks translates as atheism stands out remarkably.
You may have tried, but I didn't ask you, and your answers are so haphazard, I don't read to many.What makes you think I haven't answered it already?
I just noticed that your had erred, and still err in you belief, in regard to atheism.
Irrelevant. We are discussing atheism, not what ontological systems one does or does not adhere to.yeah, but one of the ontological systems that makes atheism workable
Why do they need to address fundamental ontological questions to be an atheist?? And how about the simple answer to them of "I don't know"??if there are other alternatives to having explanations about how there is no need to invoke the divine when answering fundamental ontological questions feel free to list them ...
Or do you insist that these questions have an answer, and that we all need to ask them, let alone answer them?
How they conceptualise it has nothing to do with them being atheist, but with whatever their additional philosophical position might be.if that was the case they would have no means to contextualize theistic claims
First, we're talking belief - not knowledge.Justified true belief is a definition for knowledge.
Its what happens when there is a justification for a proposition
Second, you miss the rather vital requirement for the proposition to be TRUE before it can be considered knowledge.
I hope you don't think that just because something holds so far that it is thus true?
Further it is a definition, and one that has been discussed at length over the years and criticised for being too lenient on what it allows to pass as knowledge. But that is another issue.
First I have stated that my usage of the term "belief" implies no uncertainty!On the contrary you are talking about "believe -in" as the all encompassing usage for the word "belief" (the latter of which the links, both the one you provided and the one I provided, goes to great pains to explain is the common philosophical usage of it ).
Which is why when one merely holds an assumption as holding within the framework in question until something contrary arises - and there IS implication of uncertainty, it is thus NOT a belief.
You cannot seem to accept that one is able to hold an assumption as true while allowing for uncertainty. Thus you can not see the difference between this and a belief. Pity.
So finally you will admit that any position that allows for uncertainty can not be held as belief?One can't because "believe that" is the language of all ontological underpinnings and hence all knowledge based claims
Sure - but the question is relating to atheists, not to their ontological position.It's impossible to be an atheist and not take an ontological position - that's clear from reading the atheist wiki link
You're trying to describe what a Man is through the clothes they wear, not through what a Man actually is.
What is the belief that all atheists have, regardless of their ontological position (or lack thereof)?
Irrelevant, as explained.The atheist wiki link reads as one big huge treatise on the ontological position.
And as explained, these are not necessarily beliefs - as they may allow for uncertainty... i.e. many atheists merely hold these positions in the absence of anything contrary, but it is not correct that they therefore believe them as true... only that it models a given framework to a required level of accuracy. But there is room for uncertainty.as far as ontology goes it would be that there are alternative explanations for existence and its qualities without a need to indicate the divine
@lightgigantic --
Wow, I didn't know that "physics" had so many pitfalls. Damn, and it's such a shame too because it works so damn well.
Oh well. Are you going to respond to my post at all, or are you just going to ignore it because you can't figure a way out of it....again....?
Wow, I didn't know that "physics" had so many pitfalls. Damn, and it's such a shame too because it works so damn well.
Oh well. Are you going to respond to my post at all, or are you just going to ignore it because you can't figure a way out of it....again....?
Not physics - strong atheism@lightgigantic --
Wow, I didn't know that "physics" had so many pitfalls. Damn, and it's such a shame too because it works so damn well.
Oh well. Are you going to respond to my post at all, or are you just going to ignore it because you can't figure a way out of it....again....?
Sure - just waiting for you to clarify key terms in your question