Atheism · Religion Forum

Oliver North Junior Member

wow, congratulations, you have an internally consistent system defined by useless categories that most people think are inadequate?

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Oliver North
wow, congratulations, you have an internally consistent system defined by useless categories that most people think are inadequate?

Someone's upset.

No, my position adequately addresses my sentiments on the topic. In fact I'm astonished by how short-sighted some posters are, trapping themselves in elaborate mazes of ambiguous—yet, supposedly absolute—terminology defending a position they don't fully grasp.

Digi Forum Leader

Originally posted by Astner
Someone's upset.
No, my position adequately addresses my sentiments on the topic. In fact I'm astonished by how short-sighted some posters are, trapping themselves in elaborate mazes of ambiguous—yet, supposedly absolute—terminology defending a position they don't fully grasp.

No one's upset. It's the internet and we're adults.

Your second paragraph there is almost meaningless in its vagueness.

Anyway, I'm still curious as to why you think there's no leeway for the label of atheism, when your definition for it is incompatible with anyone on the forum, any text or novel on the subject, the usage of it by public intellectuals or clergymen, etc. etc.

Tell me your thoughts on that video from the last page. It's insightful, thorough, and not aggressive, and it's an excellent synopsis of the intellectual justification behind a position of atheism.

Oliver North Junior Member

Originally posted by Astner
No, my position adequately addresses my sentiments on the topic.

yes, and now you are simply restating the problem

Originally posted by Astner
In fact I'm astonished by how short-sighted some posters are, trapping themselves in elaborate mazes of ambiguous—yet, supposedly absolute—terminology defending a position they don't fully grasp.

you realize, unless you have some radically different definition of proof than I am assuming, your stance on atheism creates a situation where it would be impossible for a theist to ever provide proof of their position?

So, you define God as unknowable. You then say, without proof, you can only believe something, not know. However, because something is unknowable, it is impossible to know what evidence would be proof of it.

Because of how you define God, you define proof of its existence as unknowable as well. Basically, it is impossible to say whether any theist believes or knows under your system, because it is impossible to know what would be justifiable "proof" of something that is, by definition, unknowable.

among other glaring weaknesses....

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, I'm still curious as to why you think there's no leeway for the label of atheism, when your definition for it is incompatible with anyone on the forum, any text or novel on the subject, the usage of it by public intellectuals or clergymen, etc. etc.

It's not. It's the one brought up in the Oxford dictionary, and one of the more commonly accepted stances in general.

The idea that atheism isn't a belief—but rather a lack of belief—is rhetoric jargon to associate belief with the logical stance of non-belief.

As I pointed out earlier, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Originally posted by Digi
Tell me your thoughts on that video from the last page. It's insightful, thorough, and not aggressive, and it's an excellent synopsis of the intellectual justification behind a position of atheism.

It's structured passive aggressive manner, with equivocation and false dichotomy as its most preeminent flaws.

If you want a direct refutation of a certain argument you'll have to specify which.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you realize, unless you have some radically different definition of proof than I am assuming, your stance on atheism creates a situation where it would be impossible for a theist to ever provide proof of their position?
So, you define God as unknowable. You then say, without proof, you can only believe something, not know. However, because something is unknowable, it is impossible to know what evidence would be proof of it.
Because of how you define God, you define proof of its existence as unknowable as well. Basically, it is impossible to say whether any theist believes or knows under your system, because it is impossible to know what would be justifiable "proof" of something that is, by definition, unknowable.
among other glaring weaknesses....

How about reading what I wrote, rather than guessing?

Oliver North Junior Member

Originally posted by Astner
How about reading what I wrote, rather than guessing?

This:

Originally posted by Astner
The definition of belief is to accept a statement without proof, the definition of knowledge is to accept a statement with proof.

Plus:

Originally posted by Astner
When I said god's existence I meant the existence gods in general, which is irrefutable

Equals:

Originally posted by Oliver North
Because of how you define God, you define proof of its existence as unknowable as well. Basically, it is impossible to say whether any theist believes or knows under your system, because it is impossible to know what would be justifiable "proof" of something that is, by definition, unknowable.

as soon as you claim there is some way to get proof about God, it becomes tautologically knowable and verifiable. If you claim God is unknowable, you claim there is no way to know what proof might be proof of its existence.

EDIT: you are either wrong about God being unverifiable or it is ontologically impossible to determine if a theist "believes" or "knows"

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Originally posted by Astner
This is why I hate starting arguments just before a weekend study session.
What certain sects practice is irrelevant. Siddhārtha denied the existence of deities, and so Buddhism is generally an atheistic religion.

Do you think Buddha is the end and beginning of all Buddhism? It's amazingly arrogant to say that the practices of certain sects is irrelevant.
Where did he deny their existence?
I love how you add that "generally" qualifier.

I'm one of the few people here who's actually able to present my position with little- to no ambiguity.
The reason for which is that I study mathematics, physics, as well as programming at advance levels. Logic is what I do. That's also why I know the importance of using pre-defined terminology.
That's why you take out your frustration in terms of insults, because I've defined my position logically. There are no flaws in my argument which you can address.

Ambiguity isn't at issue--what's at issue is your failed attempt at defining epistemic terms in a way that's germane to this discussion.

Simple question: do you think language is logical?

If I insult you, it's only because you're asking for it by adopting a constant condescending tone with every post you make.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Oliver North
This:
Plus:
Equals:

Now you're quoting me out of context.

The first quote is how I define belief and knowledge, for the sake of clarifying my position.

The second argument isn't a definition, but rather me clarifying to you that I meant gods in general, and not god as a specific deity.

It's logically impossible to refute every permutation that would fall under the category of god, as the permutation may adapt to the refutation at hand.

Originally posted by Oliver North
as soon as you claim there is some way to get proof about God, it becomes tautologically knowable and verifiable. If you claim God is unknowable, you claim there is no way to know what proof might be proof of its existence.

I don't.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: you are either wrong about God being unverifiable or it is ontologically impossible to determine if a theist "believes" or "knows"

God isn't unverifiable, simply irrefutable. There's a difference.

Oliver North Junior Member

Originally posted by Astner
God isn't unverifiable, simply irrefutable. There's a difference.

what proof of an irrefutable God could a theist provide of their belief then?

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

On belief, let me break down what I think your misunderstanding is, Astner.

You say that a belief is to accept a proposition/statement without proof and contrast this with knowledge, which is accepting the statement as a result of proof (whatever proof is)

But here are two examples.

One: If I say "I believe God exists" but can't account for this belief then (I'm working on the assumption that 'proof' is something like justification mixed with truth) it's not knowledge but is a belief.

Two: I say "I know the sky is blue but I don't believe it is"--this is a illogical statement, because (at least as per my understanding, and according to almost all epistemologists back to Aristotle) it's impossible to know something without believing it.

So, I disagree with you separating knowledge and belief as if they're binary opposites reflected on the notion of 'proof'.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Do you think Buddha is the end and beginning of all Buddhism? It's amazingly arrogant to say that the practices of certain sects is irrelevant.
Where did he deny their existence?

It's specifically pointed out in the Tipitaka. Not that the information is hard to come by, Buddhism and the God-idea, by Nyanaponika Thera.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I love how you add that "generally" qualifier.

I wouldn't have if you didn't feel the need to cherry-pick my arguments.

Not that it matters, because all that's needed for to clarify my position is one atheistic religion. Just because some sects supposedly accept the existence of deities doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Ambiguity isn't at issue--what's at issue is your failed attempt at defining epistemic terms in a way that's germane to this discussion.

Words are labels—nothing else—which sole purpose is communication, it's asinine to try and construct absolute definitions. Either way, since you accept that my position is unambiguous and that you've not attempted to refute it, there's nothing left to argue.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Simple question: do you think language is logical?

Specify what you mean.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If I insult you, it's only because you're asking for it by adopting a constant condescending tone with every post you make.

Which on a psychological level strengthens my confidence in my position. As opposed to say, a proper refutation.

Don't worry, I take little offense in how you imagine my accent.

Originally posted by Oliver North
what proof of an irrefutable God could a theist provide of their belief then?

Are you doing this on purpose or are you simply that dense?

The existence of god (generally) is irrefutable.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
On belief, let me break down what I think your misunderstanding is, Astner.
You say that a belief is to accept a proposition/statement without proof and contrast this with knowledge, which is accepting the statement as a result of proof (whatever proof is)

I've defined proof being the logical consequence from the postulates of modern physics, or science on a fundamental level.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But here are two examples.
One: If I say "I believe God exists" but can't account for this belief then (I'm working on the assumption that 'proof' is something like justification mixed with truth) it's not knowledge but is a belief.
Two: I say "I know the sky is blue but I don't believe it is"--this is a illogical statement, because (at least as per my understanding, and according to almost all epistemologists back to Aristotle) it's impossible to know something without believing it.
So, I disagree with you separating knowledge and belief as if they're binary opposites reflected on the notion of 'proof'.

As defined, they are binary. Hence your second example collapses. You either know something, or you don't, and if you don't you may aver a belief.

As by definition, knowledge isn't absolute. So saying that you know that the sky is blue isn't illogical.

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Originally posted by Astner
It's specifically pointed out in the Tipitaka. Not that the information is hard to come by, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html.
I wouldn't have if you didn't feel the need to cherry-pick my arguments.

I was responding to the only part of a particular post not aimed at me that caught my interest--that's not cherry picking, that's butting in.

Not that it matters, because all that's needed for to clarify my position is one atheistic religion. Just because some sects supposedly accept the existence of deities doesn't matter.

There's a very important part of the Pali Canon that centers on a monk questing for an answer to a metaphysical question, and in this quest he approaches a series of gods who are all ultimately shown as impermanent and finite. They're not seen as non-existent or frauds--just unworthy of worship.

Words are labels—nothing else—which sole purpose is communication, it's asinine to try and construct absolute definitions. Either way, since you accept that my position is unambiguous and that you've not attempted to refute it, there's nothing left to argue.

Wow, and here I thought there was a whole field of study called linguistics. Nope, guess you showed me better.
I didn't accept your position as unambiguous. In fact there's plenty of ambiguity resulting from your use of the pronoun "with" in your original post.
You said: "The definition of belief is to accept a statement without proof, the definition of knowledge is to accept a statement with proof."
Let's just unpack the ambiguity of "with proof". What does this mean? Do you mean to say that knowledge is to accept a statement that includes "proof" in it's language? Do you mean to say that knowledge is accepting a statement that happens to be proven? Wouldn't it be better and--gasp--less ambiguous to say that knowledge is accepting a statement on the condition that it's contents have been validated by some kind of possibly metaphysical cosmic truthiness or scientific method rather than using such an ambiguous word as 'with'?

Specify what you mean.

When someone says "the grass is green" is that any more logical than saying "the grass has green" or "the grass is the green" or "the grass is a green"?

Which on a psychological level strengthens my confidence in my position. As opposed to say, a proper refutation.
Don't worry, I take little offense in how you imagine my accent.

Man, I'm glad we have guys like you to keep psuedo-intellectual assholes in check.

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Originally posted by Astner

I've defined proof being the logical consequence from the postulates of modern physics, or science on a fundamental level.

I'm not a scientist. This definition is useless to me and to the vast majority of the world's population.

As defined, they are binary. Hence your second example collapses. You either know something, or you don't, and if you don't you may aver a belief.
As by definition, knowledge isn't absolute. So saying that you know that the sky is blue isn't illogical.

But they're not. Belief is a necessary (but not independently-sufficient) component of knowledge.

Yes it is epistemologically (I forgot to make that distinction in the last post) illogical to say "the sky is blue but I don't believe it is". You can't know something without believing it.

How would you envision someone 'knowing' that his keys are in the back seat of his car if he believes that they're on his night stand?

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Are you insinuating linguistics centers around attributing terms with absolute definitions? Because in context, that's ironically humorous.

As for your little twist at the end sarcastically referring to me as a pseudo-intellectual. Yeah, those insults usually don't hit home as well when the victim in question has a GPA of 5.0, working on a Master's degree in one of the most advance fields of physics, and is overall confident in his intelligence.

Either way, I need to catch some z😖.

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Originally posted by Astner
Are you insinuating linguistics centers around attributing terms with absolute definitions? Because in context, that's ironically humorous.
As for your little twist at the end sarcastically referring to me as a pseudo-intellectual. Yeah, those insults usually don't hit home as well when the victim in question has a GPA of 5.0, working on a Master's degree in one of the most advance fields of physics, and is overall confident in his intelligence.
Either way, I need to catch some z😖.

Not at all. My linguistics comment was aimed at your vague and superficial assessment of language's function and nature. There's so much more to language than definition, since definition is incredibly amorphous and arbitrary. A hint: if you're going to talk out of your ass, use a lot more "generally" and "in my opinion" type qualifiers.

Yes, you're clearly confident. No insecurity whatsoever.

I wasn't implying you were stupid. I don't think you're stupid (in the common sense of the word, anyway--the jury's still out on your EQ and social skills), I do however think you're guilty of the same undeserved smugness that you pin on atheists.

Robtard Senor Member

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Mindship
You guys sound like Ichu's student. 😉
Of course Buddhists can be smug and pretentious, just like Jews, Mormons, Catholics, etc, yes, even atheists. It's what many humans become when they adopt a school of thought they think makes them superior to their fellow man.
My point was that Zen (again, as far as I understand it) centers around an instruction ("Don't take my word for it, see for yourself"😉 instead of unquestionable dogma.

👆

Originally posted by Oliver North
wow, congratulations, you have an internally consistent system defined by useless categories that most people think are inadequate?

This statement is not true. I find his definitions more than adequate to not only agree or disagree with, but to argue against.

Originally posted by Digi
No one's upset. It's the internet and we're adults.

Come on: you know this isn't true. Some people literally have taken personally what Astner has said.

Originally posted by Digi
Your second paragraph there is almost meaningless in its vagueness.

This also is not true. It makes perfect sense, to me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you realize, unless you have some radically different definition of proof than I am assuming, your stance on atheism creates a situation where it would be impossible for a theist to ever provide proof of their position?
So, you define God as unknowable. You then say, without proof, you can only believe something, not know. However, because something is unknowable, it is impossible to know what evidence would be proof of it.
Because of how you define God, you define proof of its existence as unknowable as well. Basically, it is impossible to say whether any theist believes or knows under your system, because it is impossible to know what would be justifiable "proof" of something that is, by definition, unknowable.
among other glaring weaknesses....

WTF, man? That's the entire point of faith and it is far from a 'weakness'. That is not even close to a "glaring weakness" in his argument: that is actually a strength. It is quite clear we all bring biases to the table and yours are not even remotely hidden.

Originally posted by Oliver North
what proof of an irrefutable God could a theist provide of their belief then?

NONE!

That's the entire point of faith. Why would a person have such a thing? That defeats the purpose of having theistic believes. It becomes inexorable truths (read, Objective) if you take that out.

Originally posted by Robtard

I agree. And Astner has done quite well for himself.

Astner The Ghost Who Walks

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. And Astner has done quite well for himself.

Don't I always?

Grand-Moff-Gav Senior Member

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You say that a belief is to accept a proposition/statement without proof and contrast this with knowledge, which is accepting the statement as a result of proof (whatever proof is)
But here are two examples.
One: If I say "I believe God exists" but can't account for this belief then (I'm working on the assumption that 'proof' is something like justification mixed with truth) it's not knowledge but is a belief.
Two: I say "I know the sky is blue but I don't believe it is"--this is a illogical statement, because (at least as per my understanding, and according to almost all epistemologists back to Aristotle) it's impossible to know something without believing it.
So, I disagree with you separating knowledge and belief as if they're binary opposites reflected on the notion of 'proof'.

Presumably one can accept the notion that 'belief precedes knowledge' whilst maintaining the definition of belief as 'a proposition without proof' and knowledge as 'a proposition with proof.'

Saying, 'I believe there is no God' contains a knowledge claim, but as it is one without proof, it is what Astra calls a 'belief'.

So, does this mean that the statement: "I do not believe God exists, but I do not know whether or not God exists" doesn't really make sense... How can one come to the first part of the proposition whilst maintaining the second?

However, can one can still say "I do not know if God exists, but I believe God exists"? (By virtue of their 'faith'...)

Does any of that make sense?

Omega Vision Face Flowed Into Her Eyes

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Presumably one can accept the notion that 'belief precedes knowledge' whilst maintaining the definition of belief as 'a proposition without proof' and knowledge as 'a proposition with proof.'
Saying, 'I believe there is no God' contains a knowledge claim, but as it is one without proof, it is what Astra calls a 'belief'.
So, does this mean that the statement: "I do not believe God exists, but I do not know whether or not God exists" doesn't really make sense... How can one come to the first part of the proposition whilst maintaining the second?
However, can one can still say "I do not know if God exists, but I believe God exists"? (By virtue of their 'faith'...)
Does any of that make sense?

'I believe there is no God' isn't a claim to knowledge, it's a statement of belief. It would be a claim to knowledge if the person said 'I know there is no God'.

However, if the person were to say "I know there is no God" he would be making a knowledge claim AND stating a belief because anything that one claims to know must first be believed, going back to the example of the car keys.

This is very simple.