Atheism does not exist

[Willamena]

So anway, you're saying that knowledge is subjective? Whether or not a thing is true -- that's subjective?

"Subjective" is a whole other ball of wax. Don't get me started.

So you do agree that knowledge is simply subjective opinion, yes?

No. See my post above.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Knowing and believing are results of truth, not causes of it.

Well, not in my wordworld. In my conception, truth does not exist except as an artifact of human thought. If there were no human thought, there would be no truth.

Truth is in place before either can exist. (Truth is place before the world can exist, but that's another story.)

You and I see it oppositely.

By whatever means we each may imagine the 'true' switch to come on (and it doesn't matter which means), it switches on, and a belief is born.

I agree with that. I just don't think that 'truth' needs to exist somehow in order for us to form an opinion about truth.

The world is symbols. As we get older, we replace the sensation of hunger with the word "hungry," the sensation of the sight of a face with the word, "mom"; etc, until we are practically living in the world of symbols, every bit of the sensational world having been significantly replaced, and then, with education, we build a level of abstracted ideas on top of that. At that level, we analyse the world. At that level, we theorize, proposition and assign truth. That is where belief and knowledge reside.

That sounds like a reasonable summary to me.

When I say "assign truth," I don't mean that we go around labelling. A "sign" is present in the world of theory and analysis: it "jumps off the page" to slap us in the face with a message of significance and realization. Assignation, in this case, is recognizing truth, not labelling truth.

You lost me with that. Sorry.

Holding a belief is investing in a proposition (a beast of symbols) with its assigned truth; it becomes knowledge when we know that we have good reason for holding that belief.

Well, OK. But everyone has good reason for all the knowledge which they possess. If they didn't have such good reason, why would they believe it?

So I can't see why you deny that knowledge is entirely subjective. One person's knowledge is just as true and legitimate as the next guy's... according to how I understand your view.

 

[Willamena]

Well, not in my wordworld. In my conception, truth does not exist except as an artifact of human thought. If there were no human thought, there would be no truth.

It is, indeed, an artifact, but that dosen't speak against what I said. It comes first in that it is not a conscious measure. It is more like a benchmark.

You and I see it oppositely.

Possibly it's not this that we see oppositely, but a larger picture.

I agree with that. I just don't think that 'truth' needs to exist somehow in order for us to form an opinion about truth.

'Existence' is a tricky word when it's casually used. Philosophically speaking, things that fail to exist aren't. We cannot know things that fail to exist. We cannot form an opinion about things that fail to exist.

You lost me with that. Sorry.

Don't worry about it--TMI.

Well, OK. But everyone has good reason for all the knowledge which they possess. If they didn't have such good reason, why would they believe it?

Just so! But there are still many things we can list that we don't believe. I don't believe Calgary is the capital of Alberta.

So I can't see why you deny that knowledge is entirely subjective. One person's knowledge is just as true and legitimate as the next guy's... according to how I understand your view.

'Objectivity' and 'subjectivity' are products of the world of analysis--it is only there we can look back on the bigger picture and analyse it into portions like the sensational world of babies I mentioned vs. the world of educated analysis. It's easy to borrow from others analyses, to deconstruct and reconstruct our own in a process of shaping and reshaping the world ... until it looks pretty.

To say that knowledge is "entirely subjective" denies that subjectivity is about truth--or, more properly, it sustains that only objectivity is about truth. Neither need be the case, especially if these terms have a more pretty side. Both subjectivity and objectivity are true, which means that truth informs them both. But that may be a discussion for another thread.

 

[idav]

Then it's an unlucky guess.

It would be wrong and there isnt a reason to put faith in a guess we think will be wrong. How much we would wager shows how much trust we put in an idea. Something that is not existent isnt anything to put trust in. Lack of evidence doesn't give much to chew on.

 

[Willamena]

It would be wrong and there isnt a reason to put faith in a guess we think will be wrong. How much we would wager shows how much trust we put in an idea. Something that is not existent isnt anything to put trust in. Lack of evidence doesn't give much to chew on.

There's no reason to put faith in a guess, whether lucky or unlucky, right or wrong. "Justification" speaks to the method used. Guessing = not a good method. Experience = a pretty good method.

 

[Willamena]

So anway, you're saying that knowledge is subjective? Whether or not a thing is true -- that's subjective?

If, by "subjective," you mean "unique to each individual," then yes. That's relative.

It's unique because each of us has composed the world of words by ourselves, with only limited help from others. We put our first word together ("mom") with an associated sensational blob of face without help. We did that. "Me."

And since then, we have each been composing a unqiue database of words, associated images, and abstract ideas. We each analyse the world based on our unique database sets.

That's why "logic" is so special. The Greeks set out to find particular rules that we all have in common, that we all use the same way. And they did 'identify' a few.

Identity, contradiction, and truth. These things we all use in common, and we all use them the same way. They are the foundation of rational thinking, and they all reside in us and exist unconsciously. They are objective, because they are not manipulable--they determine our ability to manipulate. They are objective, because their existence is not dependent upon us--ours, in the world of words/symbols/analysis, is dependent upon them. And they are not learned by being told about them; rather, we pick them up because of their utility (like the aesthetic values, quality, and Plato's favourite, perfection). Monkey see, monkey do.

We can bring to them into the world of analysis and try to turn that world back on them to see what they are, but they are not natives of that world, and we use them to do analysis, and so it's bound to fail. All we can manipulate, all we can analyse, is words and ideas. Hope that make sense.

Edit: 'Existence' is another one that precedes the world of analysis--that resides in the "Here be Whales" realm of "the unconscious." (Pretty much any concept that Greeks came up with is about that.)

 

[McBell]

There's no reason to put faith in a guess, whether lucky or unlucky, right or wrong. "Justification" speaks to the method used. Guessing = not a good method. Experience = a pretty good method.

How does the use of experience make a guess go from not a good method to a pretty good method?

 

[Willamena]

How does the use of experience make a guess go from not a good method to a pretty good method?

It doesn't.

Guessing = not a good method.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But if the cat is not actually on the couch and I am not actually talking to Granny, then it would be inappropriate for us to know these things.

"Inappropriate"? No, impossible. You cannot know a falsehood. (you can know that a falsehood is false, on the other hand)

But that's OK. You have come to the right place. We can help you organize your thought. Just give us 15 or 20 years of your life and we will make you into a mighty thinker and debater indeed! I'm sure of it.

Less smoke and more fire, please.

Since I can so easily debate circles around you, without the least exertion, why would you want to give me an even greater advantage by sending me off to learn more? That doesn't make good sense.

Lol... Normally, one needs to have at least some vague conception of a topic before they try to debate it. Maybe that's why you aren't running circles around me, because you simply have no idea what you're talking about here.

Undeniable that your personal definition of these terms are 'what the terms really mean.'

Correction- not "my personal definition", but the nearly universally accepted one in epistemology. Read the article so you can stop talking out of your *****.

Here: See if you can grapple with this simple question. If 33% of humanity says that A is true, and 42% says that -A is true -- with the rest being undecided -- is A true or is -A true?

How would I know? Truth is not decided by consensus. What I can say is that if A turns out to be true, and the people who believe that A is true have sufficient reason for believing A to be true, then those people know A.

I look forward to your considered response.

I wish I could say the same. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness. It's sort of embarrassing for me just watching you not only make a fool of yourself, but do so apparently thinking you're "setting me straight" (when you're simply clueless about the topic and not understanding what I'm saying to you)

At least Willamena appears to understand whats going on here.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It would be wrong and there isnt a reason to put faith in a guess we think will be wrong. How much we would wager shows how much trust we put in an idea. Something that is not existent isnt anything to put trust in. Lack of evidence doesn't give much to chew on.

As Willemena correctly pointed out, justification is what distinguishes (accidental) true belief, from knowledge. If I believe, for no apparent reason but just as a silly guess, that it is raining today in London, and it is actually raining today in London, did I know that it was raining today in London? No, it was a lucky guess.

On the other hand, if I believe that it is raining in London because I saw it on the weather channel, and it actually is raining in London, not only is my belief true, but it is justified- it is based on sufficient reason to hold that belief.

Thus, in this latter case, my belief would count as knowledge.

***

Look, I'm not making any radical claims about having discovered some new ground-breaking evidence that proves God doesn't exist- rather, I'm making a point about what does or does not constitute knowledge. It is often held that knowledge, to count as knowledge, must be proved beyond all possible doubt. While in mathematics this is possible, this is simply impossible in other domains. Thus, if absolute certainty is the criteria, then it turns out we know nothing outside of the tautologies of mathematics and logic.

But we do know stuff- how to change a tire, what my brothers birthday is, what time (approximately) the sun will rise tomorrow, and so on. And what distinguishes these cases (i.e. of us knowing stuff), is that we have defeasibly true and justified beliefs.

And I'm saying atheism, as belief that theism is false, satisfies this criteria. Thus, atheism can, under the right circumstances, be said to constitute knowledge, whereas belief in the existence of God/gods- i.e. theism- can not (because it is false).

 

[Willamena]

"Inappropriate"? No, impossible. You cannot know a falsehood.

It's not actually false. It's true that if it was it would be impossible, but all that's required for it to be true is for it to be the case.

To slave truth or 'the case' to absolute (so that it cannot be relative) is to slave an idea to absolute. If the idea is true, then truth becomes the master.

 

[idav]

There's no reason to put faith in a guess, whether lucky or unlucky, right or wrong. "Justification" speaks to the method used. Guessing = not a good method. Experience = a pretty good method.

Well maybe there is not reason to do it but theists do it to some extent. With atheism that sort of guessing isn't necessary. It isn't necessary to justify something not existing, the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

edit: so the difference is in whether people view a specific evidence as good enough. One person thinking it is justified doesn't satisfy everyones need for evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Well maybe there is not reason to do it but theists do it to some extent. With atheism that sort of guessing isn't necessary. It isn't necessary to justify something not existing, the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

edit: so the difference is in whether people view a specific evidence as good enough. One person thinking it is justified doesn't satisfy everyones need for evidence.

It's not necessary to guess about the existence of a god, yes. For either theists or atheists.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well maybe there is not reason to do it but theists do it to some extent. With atheism that sort of guessing isn't necessary. It isn't necessary to justify something not existing, the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

Nonsense. Any view must be justified, otherwise it is... well, not justified.

Atheism has a burden of proof just as anything else does. The difference between atheism and theism is that atheism can meet this burden of proof, and admit of justification- and thus count as knowledge- whereas theism cannot.

 

[idav]

Nonsense. Any view must be justified, otherwise it is... well, not justified.

Atheism has a burden of proof just as anything else does. The difference between atheism and theism is that atheism can meet this burden of proof, and admit of justification- and thus count as knowledge- whereas theism cannot.

I almost feel the same way but one cant know of non-existance as lack of evidence doesnt count as proof.

 

[Willamena]

...one cant know of non-existance as lack of evidence doesnt count as proof.

That's true, but not in the way you mean. One can't know of non-existence because, despite our common use of it in language, there's no such thing (it doesn't exist).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I almost feel the same way but one cant know of non-existance as lack of evidence doesnt count as proof.

Wrong. One can know of non-existence, because "proof" is a fallacious standard (as it happens, we can prove, in the strict sense, that certain things don't exist- consider a round square; by definition, it cannot exist.). Proof is what one uses in deductive reasoning, like mathematics, not in inductive reasoning, like science (or most of our everyday sort of knowledge).

And as I said before, the absence of necessary evidence is necessarily evidence of absence. Besides, knowledge consists in defeasible explanations- thus, things which can not admit of disconfirmation are illicit.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's true, but not in the way you mean. One can't know of non-existence because, despite our common use of it in language, there's no such thing (it doesn't exist).

Sure we can. To exist is to be instantiated, and if some X is not instantiated, then it does not exist. And certainly for things which cannot, by their very definition, be instantiated (like transcendental beings, or entities with contradictory predicates) knowledge of their non-existence is not only true, but necessarily true.

 

[Falvlun]

As Willemena correctly pointed out, justification is what distinguishes (accidental) true belief, from knowledge. If I believe, for no apparent reason but just as a silly guess, that it is raining today in London, and it is actually raining today in London, did I know that it was raining today in London? No, it was a lucky guess.

On the other hand, if I believe that it is raining in London because I saw it on the weather channel, and it actually is raining in London, not only is my belief true, but it is justified- it is based on sufficient reason to hold that belief.

Thus, in this latter case, my belief would count as knowledge.

***

Look, I'm not making any radical claims about having discovered some new ground-breaking evidence that proves God doesn't exist- rather, I'm making a point about what does or does not constitute knowledge. It is often held that knowledge, to count as knowledge, must be proved beyond all possible doubt. While in mathematics this is possible, this is simply impossible in other domains. Thus, if absolute certainty is the criteria, then it turns out we know nothing outside of the tautologies of mathematics and logic.

But we do know stuff- how to change a tire, what my brothers birthday is, what time (approximately) the sun will rise tomorrow, and so on. And what distinguishes these cases (i.e. of us knowing stuff), is that we have defeasibly true and justified beliefs.

And I'm saying atheism, as belief that theism is false, satisfies this criteria. Thus, atheism can, under the right circumstances, be said to constitute knowledge, whereas belief in the existence of God/gods- i.e. theism- can not (because it is false).

The problem arises because there is no absolute standard for what an acceptable justification is.

Person A claims to know something and gives XYZ to justify it.

Person B claims that the XYZ justifications are not good enough.

Who is right and who is wrong? Do you need justifications for your justifications? It would be an endless spiral of justifications-- which, more often than not, are just more beliefs in and of themselves that are considered to be reliable.

I don't think anyone would argue that a good belief, or claim of knowledge, shouldn't be justified. But I think making that a requirement for something to be considered knowledge just bogs down the concept to make it nonsensical.

We use the word "knowledge" to simply refer to beliefs which we are certain about. The cause of our certainty is besides the point. Whether the belief is actually true or actually false is also besides the point.

This also really precludes the argument that a "lucky guess" would be considered knowledge, since generally, people don't assign certainty to guesses-- hence the name.

The designation of "knowledge" has less to do with separating "true" beliefs from "false" beliefs or "good (well-supported) beliefs" from "bad (poorly supported)beliefs", than it does with separating beliefs that people have doubts about from those that they don't.

 

[Falvlun]

Well maybe there is not reason to do it but theists do it to some extent. With atheism that sort of guessing isn't necessary. It isn't necessary to justify something not existing, the burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists.

edit: so the difference is in whether people view a specific evidence as good enough. One person thinking it is justified doesn't satisfy everyones need for evidence.

If I said "dogs do not exist" would I have a burden of proof? Or can I go on my merry way without ever having to support that stance simply because it's a claim of non-existence?