Goliath

Ah! Okay. Thanks, Starboy!

Sincerely,

Goliath

CJD

Goliath, I do not mean to offend. When I write, I am writing hypothetically to make a point. Follow it, and see where the holes are. I do not presume to know things about you. That is so far beyond the point of our discussion let us just forget you read it that way.

You wrote: "No it is not. In fact, you have incorrectly surmised what my beliefs are through my actions."

I do not know how I could be wrong, when I have (theoretically) surmised correctly that you are an atheist because your actions show as much (please re-read my above two post s-l-o-w-l-y). How is this wrong?

By your own admittance, you live like an atheist—no church, no prayer, no testing your actions against the bible, etc. I have not presumed anything. Follow the argument! I have responded (in my previous post) to your absurd statement that one can only know another's beliefs by 1) reading his/her mind or 2) merely asking them. I challenged that with a third option: one's actions speak clearly about one's beliefs. I then posed a HYPOTHETICAL situation, according to your 2nd option above: "That would be like observing your life, with its complete lack of theistic practices (remember, you admitted this much), then ask you what you believe regarding God (your second option), hear that you do believe in God (HYPOTHETICALLY), and then all I am supposed to do is accept it." Do you follow me? Do you not see how that is epistemically irresponsible? How your argument for merely asking someone what they believe regardless of his/her actions is fruitless? I think you do, for in your last post you quipped, "Actions and beliefs are indeed related." You went on to state a non-issue "actions do not determine beliefs." Actions, Goliath, while they do not determine beliefs are nonetheless part and parcel of those beliefs. Please do not separate what cannot be separated. That is what I was asking you to admit, thereby showing some epistemic responsibility.

If you misread me again, I will give up and accept my obtuse fate.

CJD

p.s. I am not arguing that atheism is a belief so much as I am arguing that our actions say somehing about what we do (or do not) believe. There. That should be plain enough. Please attempt to deny this, and then show me how you can hold that belief consistently while living your life (refer back to the Internet example above).

NonHomogenized

So, CJD, what hair color is baldness?

Muffinstuffer

Skintone.

Starboy

CJD, perhaps you could learn something from this. As a theist you are convinced there is a god and that you know something about that god. For you that is reality. For an atheist or non-theist we see all religions the same, as groups of people that make various claims about reality, gods and their properties. We examine these claims and whatever evidence the adherents present as support for their claims and draw our own conclusions. Since we remain atheists it is obvious we find none of them convincing. As a theist you concern yourself primarily with your own little religion. It defines the universe you live in. As atheists we are exposed to all the little universes of all the various religions. We see them come and go. Some of these religions make such fantastic and conflicting claims for god and reality that many atheists can just say flat out ‘I don’t think that god exists.’ But then there are the religions we don’t know about or are yet to be. For us to dismiss them out of hand would be to make a claim of knowledge of reality we just don't possess. It would be like claiming there was a god when there really wasn't sufficient evidence to back up such a spectacular claim. In such a position the only rational thing to do is to withhold belief about god(s) in general until such time as such evidence if forthcoming. Until then the ball is in the theist court.

Starboy

CJD

Starboy, that's nice. But it has little to do with what I am speaking of. I am making epistemological assertions. That is what I want to see you agree/disagree with. Do actions reveal our beliefs or not?

Besides, you know the Christian perspective well enough to know that I would deem your atheism a warranted absence of beliefs, insofar as your socially constructed reality justifies it. To me, we are nothing more than on equal footing, equally relativized, but not equally plausible. There is no way that you, in seeing all the little universes of religion that come and go, somehow stand above them all. No, you are in your own little universe, too. Denying this is the ultimate arrogance.

CJD

p.s. As a theist I concern myself with ecology (humanity, et al.).

Starboy

How about this question – ‘Does inaction reveal a lack of belief?’

That's a hoot! “Socially constructed reality”. Unlike you I do not confuse “truth” with reality and I have the good sense to not make claims about things I do not know.

Starboy

CJD

Starboy:"How about this question – ‘Does inaction reveal a lack of belief?’ "

*Yes. Same thing as far as I am concerned.


Starboy: "That's a hoot! “Socially constructed reality”."

* I daresay you haven't the guts to face this one. OR, you have yet to face the fact that not only do you project yourself and your beliefs into society, but society itself works objectively upon you. The sum of the two equals . . . your reality. It's inescapable—and scary. Funny that you make light of it.

Bracket the metaphysical just for a second: Do you ever make claims that you are unable to justify?

CJD

Starboy

Then why did you assume Goliath was a closet theist because he claimed lack of belief?


This is off topic. I have addressed similar philosopical ideas on other threads both in GRD and in the philosophy forum. You can read those threads or you are welcome to open a new one.

Starboy

CJD

Starboy: "Then why did you assume Goliath was a closet theist because he claimed lack of belief?"


Where did I assume this? Are you referring to the hypothetical situation I described in an earlier post? (if so, re-read the post that begins, "Goliath, I do not mean to offend.").

Also, please show me where you have dealt with similar philosophical ideas (though I must caution, I am really more concerned with a sociological theory of knowledge than a philosophical one).

Regards,

CJD