Alonzo Fyfe

You are correct. I am a hard sell, entirely due to the fact that I refuse to buy flawed merchandise.


I mentioned earlier that you use a strange definition of "know".

Importantly, a person cannot know something that is not true. A person can think or believe that he knows something that is not true. However, he does not actually know it unless it is true.

So, if you tie the definitions of atheism and theism to knowledge, then "gnostic" can only apply to the atheist or the theist, but not both. Because if the theist knows that God exists, then the atheist only (wrongly) thinks he knows (believes) that God does not exist. And if the atheist knows that God does not exist, then the theist cannot know, but can only believe that God does not exist.

The only way to count both the atheist and the theist as gnostic at the same time is if the term is semantically tied to think he knows rather than knows.

Which is fully captured in the set of terms that I provide.


Really?

A 'surreal' answer to the question, "Does God exist?" is "No?"

Perhaps you think that there is a difference between the question, "Does God exist?" and the question "Do you believe that God exists?"

A "belief that P" is a mental attitude that the proposition 'P' is true.

If I believe that the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun, then I believe that the proposition "The earth is 93 million miles from the sun" is true.

Similarly, if I believe that no God exists, then I believe that the proposition, "God exists" is false.

If somebody were to ask me, "Do you believe in God?" they are asking me, "Do you believe that the proposition 'God exists' is true?"

It is perfectly legitimate to answer that question by saying, 'Yes', 'No', or 'How the heck am I supposed to know?'


"I believe that P" = "I believe that the proposition 'P' is true."

"I know that P" = "I believe that the propositon 'P' is true, my belief is founded on sound deductive or strong inductive reasoning, and 'P' is in fact true."

This is the difference between the two.

It follows the formula that "Knowledge = justified, true belief".

Now, I recognize that epistemiologists have found some obscure problems with this definition. Until they work out those obscure problems, it is the best definition we have at the moment. No objection can be raised against using the best definition we have at the moment.


I can include your understanding as "weak atheist" as somebody who answers the question, "Is there a God?" by saying "I'm not sure, but I am inclined to think that there is not."

Accordingly, we can have a "weak theist" as somebody who answers the question by saying, "I'm not sure, but I am inclined to think that there is."

I can fit these into the taxonomy that I offered quite easily.

Is there a God?

Yes: Strong Theist
Probably: Weak Theist
I don't know: Agnostic
Probably not: Weak atheist
No: Atheist

Note: Once again, the question, "Do you believe that there is a God?" is no different from the question, "Do you believe that the proposition 'there is a God' is true?" These are legitimate answers to such a question.


As I mentioned above...

"Do you believe in god" = "Do you believe that the proposition 'there is a God' is true?" = "Is there a God?"

We do not distinguish between these questions in normal conversation. We treat all of them the same way.

"Do you believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the House in the next election?"

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Nobody will be confused about it. It means that the person answering the question does not think that he has enough evidence to decide one way or the other.

To say that 'atheism' includes 'agnosticism' is a lot like saying that the person who answers the question above by saying 'I don't know' is a Republican.

There is nothing technically wrong with trying to lump "I don't know" and "yes" in the same group and giving it a name. However, giving it a name by saying that it is the same as saying "Yes" is a bit . . . well . . . 'presumptuous' seems too weak of a word.

Corona688

Maybye you do. The first two are roughly equivalent, but the last one is completely different -- asking about, well, whether a god literally exists rather than what your beliefs are. The difference is simple. The first two questions are about the person you're asking. The last one is asking for a literal fact.

I agree if I was asking "Is there a god?", "I don't know" would be a valid answer, but answering "I don't know" to "do you believe in god" is nothing short of evasive. If they believed, they'd probably know it. That's a totally different question, and a totally different kind of question, because it's a totally different usage of "belief".

Alonzo Fyfe

"Do you believe that the Republicans will maintain control of the house"

"Do you believe that God exists"

Are exactly the same type of question.

They are both examples of:

"Do you believe that P" for some proposition P.

Which is the same as "Do you believe that 'P' is true." for some proposition P.

This whole idea of a "second usage" is what I am questioning. Only people who want to maintain this strange concept of atheism think that there is a second usage.

To every other English-speaking person, there is only one.

Corona688

No, they are not. One is of the form, "Do you believe IN P", the other is "Do you believe THAT P". One is asking what YOU believe in, the other is asking what you think ABOUT something. One's existential. The other's an opinion. See the difference now? Your logic here's kind of a tautology, when you think about it. Only those who see the difference between "in" and "that" see the difference between "in" and "that"? Well, duh. Of course we see the difference, otherwise we wouldn't be trying to point it out to you. And your last statement amounts to no more than "I'm right and you're wrong", so I don't even feel obliged to go back and quote it.

Did you take a poll, by the way? Or did you just assume that all rational people agree with you? That gets my goat more than this silly argument.

JGL53

Well, AF, I believe Corona688 has adequately spoken my own thoughts, so I thank him.

Ya know, I stated a thread recently entitled “FUCK Atheism and FUCK Agnosticism�?. The type of discussion this has degenerated to on this thread –the back and forth, never-get-any-fucking-where stuff – is why I am still of the same opinion.

So, fuck this whole boatload of shit – I guess I don’t really care, in the final analysis, what anyone thinks, believes or is convinced that the words atheist and/or agnostic actually, really mean. I’m just going to self-label as an “utter religious skeptic�? and a “convinced beyond any reasonable doubt metaphysical naturalist/materialist�?, and eschew both the “A�? terms as pretty much fucked and useless.

Alonzo Fyfe

Okay, I must admit I did not realize people felt so strongly about this issue. I thought we were discussing the meaning of terms, and nothing more serious than that.

Still, on the philosophical issue:

Ultimately, I think that any statement of the form "believe in" can be reduced to statements of the form "believe that".

The statement, "Do you believe in the power of love" can be reduced to statements of the form, "Do you believe that love has the following set of powers and significances."

And, "Do you believe in God" is simply a short way of saying, "Do you believe that a God with the following powers and significances exists."


No, mine is an argument from parsimony. It is an argument that only one concept is needed where somebody says that we need two. Like all arguments from parsimony (or simplicity) it suggests that the burden is on the person defending the more complex model to explain the need for the second complexity. That is to say.

Why do we need two types of "belief"?

One seems to work just fine.


Neither, really.

My claim is that I do not think that you could identify a set of common sentences that cannot be accounted for within the system that I suggested. If you could, it would prove that the system is inadequate.

You took a good shot by suggesting that this system could not handle the distinction between "believes in" and "believes that". I think that you are ultimately mistaken, for the reasons that I gave above.

Also, I am working within a fairly widely accepted theory in the philosophy of psychology that suggests that all belief claims and desire claims can be reduced to propositions of the form "believes that P" or "desires that P". These are called "propositional attitudes" because they express attitudes towards a proposition. A "belief that P" is the attitude that the proposition 'P' is true. A "desire that P" is an attitude that the proposition 'P' is to be made or kept true.

Of course, there are other views in the philosophy of psychology about the nature of beliefs and desires, but I think this one works the best.

In all of that reading, I have not encountered anybody actually suggesting a distinction between "believes in" and "believes that". So, your distinction, rather than being obvious, actually caught me by surprise.

Ultimately, as I said, I do not think it works because "believes in" can be reduced to a statement of the form "believes that". However, it is an interesting proposal.


JGL53

Seriously, I did not think that you considered this such an important issue. Had I known, I would have likely proceeded with a little more tact.

I believe that the views that I expressed here are correct and adequately defended.

I'm sorry. I think that when most theists hear some atheist insist that an atheist is someone who "lacks a belief in God" as opposed to "has a belief that there is no God", they smile to themselves and give knowing winks to their friends.

And, again, I'm sorry, but I agree with them on this.

When I say that I am an atheist, I take it to mean that I believe THAT the proposition "God exists" is (almost certainly) false. I have a great deal of confidence that most people who hear me say that I am an atheist they hear me as saying that I believe that the proposition 'God exists' is false.

I do not think that this usage has generated any confusion.

Whereas those who claim that 'atheist' means 'I lack a belief in God' does generate confusion. People who hear this generally have to have it explained to them, upon which they still don't get it.

However, your final assertions may be the best. Simply do not worry about it that much. Whatever the word means to those who hear it; that is what it means.

Corona688

I guess this is an emotional issue 'cause he who controls the language controls the argument. For a long time atheism meant nothing but heathenous wretchedness; only now are we reclaiming it, and even that mostly just amongst ourselves.

It's not whether we want there to be more than one "believe", it's that it's really the way it appears to work from my PoV. Someone who asks me "Do gods exist"?" will get a very different answer from me than "Do you believe in gods?". One's asking about my belief, the other's asking what I know about the world.

But if you don't see that, this fight's dragged on long enough. JGL hit the nail on the head too.

JGL53

Jebus H. Fucking Christ, ain't that the god's honest truth - see the back and forth between Rogernme and (just) me in the last several pages of this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...29#post2699229

According to the lovely and talented R-man, if you call yourself an "atheist" then that it's - ballgame over - hit the showers, dude. No soup for YOU.

But if you "use" the word god, in some non-defined, or some flowery language/expressive way to talk about your ontological convictions, then WHAM - you are deemed his brother in christ. You are a good guy. You get a free membership in the only club that counts.

I should really cut down on using this phrase so much, but - FUCK THIS SHIT.

Alonzo Fyfe

This is another point with which I disagree. Which would, in turn, explain why words are not an emotional issue for me.

What things are is independent of what we call them.

I have before me a stone. No matter what I call this stone, its properties do not changle. I cannot change the stone itself simply by using a different set of sounds and letters when talking about it.

If I were to call this "cursedstone", I might be able to generate a negative reaction towards it. However, I do this only because, given the meaning of "cursed", because I am saying something about the stone that is not true. I am saying that it is cursed, even though, in fact, there is no such thing as curses.

The issue is not one of control of language. It is one of truth versus error.

Or, as Shakespear put it, "A rose by any other name will smell as sweet."

It is true that you can change peoples' attitudes towards things if you say things about them that are not true. However, where this is the case -- where people lie about something -- we should not seek to "control the language" but to identify and eliminate those false beliefs (a "belief that P" where "P" is not true).


Is the same true if somebody asks you, "Do you believe in ghosts?" as opposed to "Do ghosts exist?" Or, "Do you believe in magic?" as opposed to "Does magic exist?"

No, it seems clear to me that "Do you believe in X" means nothing more than "Do you believe that the phenomena of X is real?"


JGL53

I have had my own encounter with rogernme, concerning his view that, if you do not believe in God then, unless you are culturally restrained by good moral Christians in power, then you are likely to go about murdering, raping, and stealing without remourse. Because atheists have no morals.

As an atheist who has spent my life focused almost obsessively on moral issues, I took exception to his comments.

Yet, I do not see my dispute with him as one of controling the language. It hardly makes sense that rogernme's attitudes towards atheists would change if we taught him to speak French rather than English. Because, as I said, the words we use has no power to change the things we talk about.

It is because his beliefs about atheists -- whatever name is used -- are false.

Corona688

Yes already! Do not presume my answer before I give it.