180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Help me to understand how you understand the veracity of your own claims. — 180 Proof

I UNDERSTAND THE VERACITY OF MY OWN CLAIMS BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY GODS EXIST OR NOT. AND I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A GUESS BECAUSE I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS ON THE MATTER.

If that is not enough for you,,,talk to someone else.

It seems plenty clear to me.

Don't have to, you refute yourself.

@tim wood I defy anyone on this forum to refute the fact that truth is a Description.
Banno already ran away tail between his analytic legs.
I've already dealt with your strawmanning and your procrustean appeals to authority.
You already got blasted on another thread for your ludicrous generalisations.
Time to actually have original thoughts friend. Put your dictionary and textbooks down and really think.

The consequence is that there is no truth qua truth. You're of course free to think that, if you like - there is no accounting for thoughts as thoughts and what some people will think. But I am pretty sure you do not live in accord with your belief, at all.

@Frank Apisa Well if 180 reads your current post I see no reason now for any further misunderstanding of your position.

@tim wood If you mean no truth separate from subjectivity then yes I live my life exactly like that.
Man describes,that is truth. From where do you timmy get your truth? Non human sources?

If truth is description, is all description truth? If not, how do you tell the difference?

@tim wood I have explained the nuance to what I am saying many times. There are varying degrees of accuracy of description. Some Descriptions are better than others.
Some are general some specific. And some descriptions are so poor or dishonest we call them false even though the speaker may call or think they are true.

The question didn't go to any opinion of yours; it was, "How do you know?" Or is knowledge too a matter of opinion?

@tim wood Read my post and your answer is there.
So you find it difficult to tell the difference between a false description and an accurate one?!
Its really not as obscure and difficult as you make out.
The distinction between knowledge and opinion is much misused. An opinion can be knowledge and vice versa.
But both are subjective or intersubjective. Only dogmatists and platonists put forward their opinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion.

But both are subjective or intersubjective. Only dogmatists and platonists put forward theiropinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion. — Asif

Could you expand on this? Does it also mean human assertions are true or does it only work in the one direction?

@DingoJones Human assertions are the source of truth.
But some assertions are inaccurate or false.
There is no truth independent of human perception.

That sounds like something can be truth and false. That seems like a contradiction. Do you mean something being true in one way but not true in another way? (For example it can be true that a car is red because it has red on it but at the same time it can be false because the car also has yellow on it.

"We're all Jesus and we're all God" said John Lennon in 1968. "He's inside all of us and that's what it's all about. As soon as you start realizing that potential in everyone, well, then you can change the world and the person themselves can change it."

@DingoJones No,I'm saying truth is human description. And there are varying levels of the accuracy of those descriptions. Something misdescribed would be false.

Well misdescribing something is a type of description, so if descriptions are truth then you cannot also then say that misdescriptions false....at least not without contradicting yourself.

@DingoJones As I have already stated above all truths are descriptions. And some descriptions are false.
The key is that all truths are descriptions,not that all descriptions are true.

Ignosticism is meant to cover up atheism, because the person using ignosticism realizes that atheism is bullshit. — Frank Apisa

That's a heavy claim to support on your end. . . or a vacuous opinion. If a person defined what they meant by god or we discussed a known definition (I'm taking this to be generalized) of god then they would have to take (in that context) one of three positions or any variations of them.

If Richard Dawkins suddenly became an ignostic and then someone asked him what he thought of the Christian god he would probably say it was highly unlikely or take the atheist position. He wouldn't suddenly say in lieu of the fact that god is nonsense (theological non-cognitivism) that it also is nonsense so it doesn't warrant discussion. If you thought the later, given he held onto my definition, then this would be a strawman of his position.

Argue with an atheist on the Internet...and most of what you get will be discussions of what various descriptors mean. — Frank Apisa

Because atheist has a thousand asterisks added to by people of all camps so it isn't a surprise their have their own terms defined to encapsulate their position. That's just god philosophy to make clear what your position means then jump forward with the discussion.

It is not intended to deal with ignosticism OR atheism. It is merely meant to tell people what I, Frank Apisa, means when I use the descriptor "agnoticism."

In my opinion, "ignosticism" is for people without the guts to take an agnostic position...so I normally do not give them much attention. I'm making an exception in your case. — Frank Apisa

First, your agnosticism is not intended to deal with what ignosticism deals with. Then we could have a word for saying "I don't know what a god is" or possess ignorance the question "what is a god"? That here would be ignosticism which addresses a different issue which has to be settled before moving towards atheism/theism/agnosticism.

We have a difference of opinion on what ignosticism is. I think it is a word people who think there are no gods use because they are too cowardly to use agnostic to indicate the degree of their doubt. — Frank Apisa

In contrast to your opinion, through my definitions and examples i have painted it as a tenative position you take on the question "what is god?"/"what meaning does the word god encapsulate?". Your test for ignostics of this variety (not non-cognitivists) would be if they would even discuss the properties of god in earnest or with a particularly well defined god take a mixed belief/knowledge position on said god. If they dismiss it out of hand because they think any god is nonsense, but not discuss why, then they are being clearly disingenuous or are using said position as a cover up to hid poor debate tactics.

In other words (mind the language) they are being an insufferable ass for just throwing the discussion out cold turkey because this fucker won't think critically for once.

Sounds good with me, but I will not break that promise. In fact, I already have dismissed it with a laugh. I'm just continuing to implement the plan. — Frank Apisa

Okay.

Well you said “truth is human description”, you also said truth is also human misdescriptions which you said are false. So if you are just saying truth and falsity are human descriptions then there is no contradiction, but it sounds like you are also equating truth with description and thats whats peeked my curiosity because once you equate the those two things it becomes contradictory. Did I misunderstand that, are you not Intending to equate the two?

The key is that all truths are descriptions,not that all descriptions are true. — Asif

And the question that you ignore is how do you know any description is not true?

@DingoJones Yep. I think you got me now. I'm not equating every description with truth.

Only dogmatists and platonists put forward their opinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion. — Asif

There is no truth independent of human perception. — Asif

Kind of odd that we sometimes get things wrong, then, and sometimes discover (distinct from invent) new things.
Self-elevation. Subjective idealism. Gross. (n)

Ok, gotchya. :up:

@tim wood If i describe the sky as blue and someone says no and describes it as yellow with rainbow streaks then its safe to day I can say their description is false,not true.

@jorndoe I dont see what occasionally making a mistake in describing means to this conversation.After all who describes and corrects the mistake?
Yes we describe new things all the time. You describe it as discovering.
Self elevation as opposed to what? Self deprecation? And the elevation of "knowledge" to some impersonal force given to scientists and philosophers? Elite much!
And not subjective idealism,but subjective descriptivism.
Yummy! Cakes are real!

, or there are just things whose existence is independent of me. *ding*ding*

@jorndoe Its wonderful how many philosophers cant read properly or seperate their minds from straw men categories!
What makes you think I was saying there arent things that exist seperate from humans? And do you really think describing entails idealism?
You obviously didn't get my cake reference.

How about if I describe you as someone who owes me $50?

@tim wood It's great the way you ignore posts and just keep asking questions in your not so subtle socratic subterfuge.
I've never met you or had any monetary transactions with you so your description is false. And it won't be the first time you have been wrong or inaccurate! Monsieur strawman!

In John 14:6 Jesus says to his disciples "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Jesus is alluding to another kind of truth, other than by description. How do you read this?