• All that matters in society is appearance
    It is about repeatedly (though not always) confirmed personal experience. — Lionino

    is this a 'constant conjunction' thing? My experience has been the inverse..
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    ↪creativesoul
    Ahh ok, lol all good. Thank you
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    someone whom I've respected for decades — creativesoul

    Sorry, as this is entirely off-topic, but what... Do you know each other IRL, or have been following each other across the internet since the Nineties? (genuinely curious - seems anomalous here)
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    agnostic means unknowing. — Lionino

    I am having trouble with the plum disregard for what these words actually mean. Obviously, you're not hte culprit.

    But a-theism has a meaning. A-gnostic has a meaning. Hallucinogen and Philosophism seem to be entirely ignoring those meanings to insert reverse definitions - for what reason, I cannot tell.
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    The foundation for a proper, moral use of language should be much more substantial than merely a consideration of what might "hurt another person's feelings." — baker

    I agree. Words are not morals. I guess the issue here, though, is that substantial scholarly work indicates that the use of words (particularly protracted, claustrophic (i.e inescapable (parents, for instance))) can cause physical harm to the stasis of the brain via repeated reactions to the words changing hte wiring in the brain to fire off irrational responses despite best efforts on the subject's part. If so, "hurt feelings" may have a physical and substantially material component.

    To what degree I personally subscribe to this, im unsure but just putting that out there. Where I live it's swung from "harden up" to "You are a bad person if you say anything to offends anyone ever, in any context, for any reason and if you defend yourself that's evidence you are the bad person you've been accused of being"

    so my feathers ruffle at the initial conception.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    ↪Philosophim
    righteous :wink:
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    I could say exactly the same thing back. You're just asserting you are correct because you believe you are correct. When I disagreed with reasons, you just got upset. If enjoy conversations with people who have different ideas than you, act like it. You can disagree with respect and not get upset at the other poster. Well, unless they start insulting you first, then have at it.

    Forgiven, just don't do it again.     — Philosophim

    Ah you seem to just be here for a conflict now.

    This is inaccurate. Your arguments are based on inaccuracies. I pointed these out and you did not address them. I literally do not care how you go about processing that. It is not up to me.
    I have disagreed with respect. And in fact If you had read my comment fully, you’d see. this was explicitly stated to avoid a bogus retort like this. Sigh. I have addressed your arguments. Not you. The fact that to my mind you are outright, inarguably wrong, is something YOU need to process with respect.

    However, I take this particular comment to be an attempt to shift the argument to a personal one and I’m not taking that bait.

    Words have meaning. Etymologies matter. Simply saying “I’m going to make up and use my own definitions” doesn’t fly. So perhaps this is best left alone if that’s the MO.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    All of this was proven wrong in the OP. What's your reason for thinking atheists do not assert God does not exist? And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen

    No. No it wasn’t.

    These are th positions. And the actual atheists of the world know this. You can’t te them what their view is. And the citation has been provided more than once.

    They are anti-theists.

    Just bloody look at the words lol.

    A-theism literally means not theism. It doesn’t contain anything close to a positive claim. It is a rejection of an u justified belief and nothing more.

    Anti-theism. That there is NOT deities.

    I understand people see things differently but his is like claiming the sun is dark. It is by definition, not.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    And here I thought we had a nice parting of the ways. You're simply asserting, "I'm wrong" then calling me a troll. Control yourself and bow out of a conversation between myself and the another poster please. — Philosophim

    No. I adequately showed you position to be entirely incorrect viz a viz the definition and use of the two terms and if you looked at the etymologies that would have been obvious from the get go. I provided you the citation for the definition of atheism and yet you continue to espouse an entirely incorrect one in that light.

    As Tom nicely points out, anyone can have any view they want about thing. But we do have “wrong” views and claims. In this case I do not think your position is justified and I don’t see any need for a new words

    At the very least, if you accepted the definitions that are actually used for those terms, the ambiguity would disappear and the words would already (and they do!) serve the purpose your trying to reinvent the wheel for. Imo

    Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me. — mentos987
    :ok:

    Also to note I enjoy the discussions no matter how obvious the positions appear to me. I am in no way seeing you in some kind of lower stead @Philosophim - I just cannot understand how it’s possible to claim what you’re claiming in light of the facts. No significant emotion involved
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    . If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it. — Philosophim

    Err nope. Arguing against the likelihood of something does not require knowledge that it “isn’t”. Your misinterpretations are starting to seem trollish
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    ↪Philosophim
    oh my. This is unfortunate.

    You are wrong in your definitions and I see no reason to entertain arguments based on them :) take care mate
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Odd how riled up you are over this. I'm an atheist. I know God doesn't exist. Its not that hard. You seem to be confusing that knowledge means you have the burden of proof. You do not need a burden of proof to know things don't exist. Its up to those who want to prove that something exists to have the burden of proof. I think this is more of an issue of "What is knowledge" than anything else. — Philosophim

    No it isnt. You’re wrong and I’m trying to explain it as simply as possible - but you’re literally ignoring the fact that your definitions are wrong.

    Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. I do not believe anything that I have no knowledge of. God fits there.
    Sorry if that’s not how you feel. It is bizarre to me that you’re digging your heels in over something demonstrably incorrect.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    ↪mentos987
    :ok:
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Yes, but you deciding to make a decision based on a lack of evidence is knowledge, not belief. — Philosophim

    What? No it isn’t. That’s entirely non sequitur. It’s a lack of knowledge of the existence of God/s. It is neutral. It is not a decision. It is in fact NOT making a choice abs living with uncertainty; awaiting further evidence. The agnostic doesn’t believe that evidence could exist

    , I know there aren't. Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon. — Philosophim

    No. You don’t “know”. You simply don’t believe it. This conception seems counter to all reasonable takes on “knowledge” or “belief”. Seems to conflate them for specifically the task of messing with the terms to fit your ideas. Again, suffice to say you are flat-out wrong about the two positions in question.

    Are you a theist?

    I’m sorry but repeating definitions that aren’t correct doesn’t help the position. I do believe this is now not a worthwhile discussion. You are merely repeating your incorrect definitions to support a fairly oblique point.

    Agnostic: believes we can’t know whether God exists.
    Atheist: does not believe God exists due to a LACK of evidence; (not believes God doesn’t exist.

    You are describing anti-theism. It’s not fair to do this. Atheists do not agree with your shoehorned definition.
  • Arab Spring
    I was in Egypt for a few weeks almost immediately after this. April/May 2011.

    Peaceful as all heck. Despite the burned out buildings
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    from belief is because you rely on knowledge. To rely on belief is because you abstain from knowledge. Atheists know that God does not exist because there is no evidence for it. Just like I know magical unicorns don't exist, there's no evidence for it.

    An agnostic is a person who remains unconvinced that there is enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make an assertion one way or the other.     — Philosophim

    Suffice to say you are wrong here and just repeating the incorrect descriptions. Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. It is precisely a lack of knowledge that leads one to abstain. No evidence? Ignored.

    And as noted, an agnostic believes we cannot know if God/s exist.

    If you don’t take these definitions, I’m unsure this is a worthwhile discussion. It seems to me you’re just in bad footing and proceeding badly just so

    As Tom helpfully provide earlier in the https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

    You’ll note that this position is neutral.
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    ↪noAxioms


    :ok:
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
    Atheist - Denies God's existence entirely     — Philosophim

    No. THIS is the misunderstanding of the terms.

    An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist.

    An agnostic believes/thinks we can’t know if God exists.

    They can co-exist in one entity.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    I don't think that "atheist about" is even something grammatically correct. — Lionino

    Fully agree. A-Abrahamic makes more sense I just take it to be a shoddy enumeration of the position I noted. Z
  • All that matters in society is appearance
    Objectification is alive and well. And it's okay. I think it's the term itself that offends people. — 3017amen

    Amen. I also think this goes for (perhaps entailed by the above situation) discrimination too. We do it all the time with great success
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    ↪Lionino
    I always take this to mean the person has assessed the claim for that God and rejevted it for lack of evidence - other Gods are next in line for assessment
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    Time doesn't exist in the physical world like space does. — Corvus

    I agree with this, as a Kantian definition. But I do think there must be an actual “something” from which our senses infer a consistent ratio of change from moment to moment. I suppose whatever that medium is, is what I refer to as “time”. Perhaps it’s something not perceptible which is why we’ve evolved “time” as a figure of mentation.

    Do you claim that change is the same thing as time? — Corvus
    I am leaning toward “no”. Time being immaterial, change being material in some sense or another. The “previous states of affairs” may obtain somehow, though I can’t answer the how.

    o what is your own definition of time, and time travel? Can you travel in time physically, or is it in some other way? — Corvus

    Unsure precisely but I view it similarly to the Tesseract in Interstellar to use a visual metaphor. All change occurring in tandem - but, and this is the important part - in order of appearance (as such). Appearance “in time” doesn’t necessarily speak of duration. Our position in it requires duration - hence developing the mental faculty for it.

    As always, these are vague, young, naive ideas I’m having. I’m not trained or anything yet
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    ↪mentos987
    no issues with you whatsoever my friend :) we’re all just asking questions!
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    Time is a concept in mind. — Corvus

    If you’re a Kantian or similar about time. Not everyone is. Beside this, time as a concept describes a pattern which actual does obtain among material and bodies. Just move through the pattern of materials.

    Unless you deny the external world entirely, changes exist. Choose your “point in time” based on the “previous state of affairs” you’re after. No need for dates - but would require a more god-like knowledge of history
  • Time travel to the past hypothetically possible?
    And time travel? What do you mean by time travel? Does time exist? In what form does it exist? Travel? what do you mean by travel? Are you physically going somewhere? Where is the destination? — Corvus

    1. Travelling to another point in time from the one you started from.
    2. That precedes the rest so will leave aside.
    3. Doesn’t matter. Time might not exist but the concept of another point in history remains. Problems remain to be solved but it’s not as if a normal person can’t grok this concept easily.
    4. Travel means point A to point B or further. The actual medium is dependent on the medium through which you’re travelling. In this case it may well be zero(seen Event Horizon?). But who knows.
    5. ………1776. I didn’t get any impression there was a geographical element to the travel discussed.

    Unsure why you’re having so much trouble. I don’t personally think this is going to happen. But your impossibility claim seems more to be you having trouble with holding a few different things together in the idea (location, medium, dimensionality etc..
    But hey I could be wrong. I just had no issue understanding the argument.
  • Spontaneous Creation Problems
    , then nothing should stop it from occuring at random. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Along with your possible solution - I agree with the above and would posit that if that’s true, we are merely seeing the result of that randomness being only one instance of SC. I don’t see an issue there it’s just super unsatisfying to me
  • Guest Speaker: Noam Chomsky
    It seems im a serious minority but - gross lol
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Great last bunch of posts.
  • Bannings
    hat there are textbooks teaching argumentation in law that instruct lawyers to use what in philosophy is known as informsl logical fallacies. — baker

    This is somewhat implicit for criminal defence lawyers lmao
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    . To me it seems like arguments that god does not exist are weak, and arguments that it does exist are even weaker. — mentos987
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    I am guessing you haven't been bullied enough to form cracks yet, or that you have an iron will. — mentos987

    Ooof. A lot to unpack here. Suffice to say: I have attempted my life several times.
    But that has never been due to constant bullying which I have experienced up to and including several serious assaults. I just don’t care.

    The things that hurt me are few and far between. Repetition of something that doesn’t hurt me isn’t one.
  • Has The "N" Word Been Reclaimed - And should We Continue Using It?
    My opinion is that no words are inherently bad or harmful,only bad actors. I agree with Churchill. — GTTRPNK

    I’ll take that.

    I am openly not straight and being insulted for it doesn’t bother me because I’m not ashamed.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    I wasn't aware of their definition until recent years. — Tom Storm

    I have always assumed that since the two words are used separately and that they have separate etymologies that they would carry particular and different meaning. My intuitions there worked out to be pretty much spot on.

    I think that’s true that a usage-symbolism is good in some sense because it ultimately doesn’t matter what one labels oneself with over what they do. But discussing th Le positions requires a little more precision and that’s where the notion of belief vs knowledge is super clear abs helpful to me. In any case it seems to solve the problem of rhe OP if the definitions are shared.
  • Currently Reading
    Just given Letters from a Stoic for Xmas. Diving in.
  • Agnostic atheism seems like an irrational label
    Haven’t read comments but to OP:

    Agnostics believe we can’t know whether God exists. This doesn’t preclude faith. It’s just not justified true belief. So no knowledge of God - just belief.

    Atheists cannot make that leap as they can only belief something justified and true. That precludes God.

    So they are well-delineated to my mind. Has that delineation failed somewhere?
  • Divine simplicity and modal collapse
    Maybe He just wants you to think you are…
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    Hey @Count Timothy von Icarusare you actually Tim De Mey? Lol
  • Would you live out your life in a simulation?
    Yes/no but slightly confused.

    Yes to forgetting entirely and having a commensurate memory scheme installed for the new life to make sense - and yes If the bridge memory is inserted but I can’t forget my own life.

    No, if I cannot forget.
  • Best Arguments for Physicalism
    In the body doesn't in some way "produce" the mind, then why does ingesting certain chemicals so radically affect our cognition? Aren't traumatic brain injuries and dementia powerful demonstrations of this fact? — Count Timothy von Icarus

    The brain-as-receiver or brain+consciousness=mind models would solve this as the changes are occurring in hardware/wetware receiving “mind” data from elsewhere; the experiential changes are in many senses not related to the consciousness per se but the representative exprience of it which can be devolved to an ersatz experience because of damaged or aberrant hardware/wetware
  • A Case for Moral Anti-realism
    I was waiting until after Xmas to reply to several responses but this one has drawn me in.

    I love it when people put 'fact' after their statement. "Ohh, if you put fact, well now, clearly, it must be true...." — Tobias

    It’s my knowledge of what constitutes a legal entity at play here.

    In a court of law you are not really of concern. "Hey I solemnly promised to kill my father in law at the Christmas table, but you see the promise does not really exist so sentencing me for threatening murder is not warranted". A judge will make short work of that defense. — Tobias

    This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and anyone who thought this even constitutes a defense or a sensible thing to say regarding a charge around threatening to kill isn’t thinking, or has no clue what they’re talking about.

    Ignoring the glibness of your other responses, this one shows I may not even need to address them.

    Well, I suggest not dealing with a Dutchman as you might well find yourself paying indemnification because of your rather outlandish views on promises and obligations. — Tobias

    You’ve described a constructive trust. Consists in different facts and requirements than a “promise”. “Promise” may be the problem here. Promissory estoppel for instance relates to a provable, recorded promise on which one relies. You’re discussing hearsay. “A judge would make short work of that defense”.
    If your claim relies on a mere oral promise and you have no record of it, you will be ordered to pay costs. Having credible witnesses is a record. Best to read thoroughly ;)
    Here this utter materialistic view of law reverts to an idealist view. — Tobias

    You then address a view unrelated to the law, and not the view actually put forward.

    Promises don’t exist; they occur. Obligations can exist. But I do not think a promise confers any. Can’t see any argument here from either yourself or Banno that gets close to satisfactory
Home » AmadeusD