Atheism does not exist

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you can't/won't answer them, for whatever reason, then just say so. (although it would awfully curious for you to be on a discussion forum advocating a view which you then refuse to discuss, i.e. answer questions about)

Um... I really hope you aren't serious.

Few people have ignored so many of my direct questions as you have.

And you now chide someone else for avoiding your questions?

You can't be serious.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Edit: I apologize for snapping. I'll answer them when I have time and when I'm no longer annoyed at you for violating polite forum etiquette.

Hehe... you may have some time to wait.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Give me a break... Violating polite forum etiquette? I have not posted any ad-hominems, nor any flaming posts, and my tone is far less obnoxious and condescending than our recently fled "Big Bad Questioner", about whom you had zero complaints.

Please.

I always find it humorous to see a man cursing his image in the mirror. Don't you?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Um... I really hope you aren't serious.

Few people have ignored so many of my direct questions as you have.

And you now chide someone else for avoiding your questions?

You can't be serious.

The (hitherto unanswered) invitation for you to repeat, or quote, or link to, any questions you feel I have missed is still on the table. Feel free to back up your bark with some bit anytime you please. I'm not going anywhere.

 

[Willamena]

How does this establish any sense to the proposition that, as you're advocating, the law of excluded middle doesn't still apply? "P" cannot be both true and false, i.e. true "for" person 1 but false "for" person 2; if "P" is meaningful, then person 1 or person 2 must be mistaken. (even if neither one of them is in the position to be the "final arbiter", or some such nonsense, of which of them is mistaken... but this hardly implies that one of them is not nevertheless mistaken)

I did not advocate that the principle of excluded middle does not apply, and I do not advocate that. That principle upholds that either the proposition is true or its negation is true. It applies for any and all individuals who invest in the world of meaning/content that is true.

And it applies to each of them.

So... What about my belief that "Micheal Jordan is the King of France"... This appears to be a belief, but not "awareness of the true proposition" since the proposition I'm aware of here ("Micheal Jordna is the King of France") is not true- France has no monarch, and Micheal Jordan is a retired basketball player.

Your example of belief would be more meaningful if it were actual. However, proceeding with this absurdity, if you did believe that, you'd believe it because you were aware of the true proposition, and, as I declared earlier, 'true' is a unconscious switch that informs our personal databank of memories.

You can only declare Michael Jordan is a basketball player and not the King of France because there is a sighted arbiter in the room, which is to say, you.

Then there's social convention, hence the need to lock you up before you come up with even more absurd examples.

Right, and we can form pictures of the world that do not match up with the world... ones that do "match up" are true.

That's not what I meant. By pictures, I refer to the true propositions, those that shape a personal "worldview." False ones do not, and cannot, factor into our personal landscape.

All proposition, like all theorizing, analysis and logic, takes place in what in this thread has been deemed wordworld, which is the representation of the world (content) in symbol or word (thought). The picture of "the world: concrete" and the picture of "the world: malleable" can both be understood because both are informed by truth, and both are true only in their respective contexts.

What does this mean, in plain English?

That "truth," in my opinion, is not reducible.

What? How does truth inform a false belief?

I don't believe it does, at best it informs the proposition "that proposition is false." Belief is in the true proposition--we believe the world that's right in front of our face. As you said, sometimes we can be mistaken, and with new information, the propositional world of our personal memory banks is revised.

That someone else believes Michael Jordan is the King of France is no skin off my nose if (as is the case) I don't believe that, which is to say that the proposition "he is mistaken" is true.

...in the sense that "the truth", i.e. the fact of the matter (Micheal Jordan not being King of France) is what makes this belief false?

The "fact of the matter," for each of us, is only as good as our personal database or memory bank of the world. I'm not required to know how many mice there are in Florida, or what decoration there is on the outside of the tea pot orbiting Mars.

Whatever that means.

It's poetic.

 

[Willamena]

As an aside, the principle of excluded middle is: "either a proposition is true, or its negation is true."

If you hold the negation of a true proposition to be a false proposition, and plug those values into Aristotle's statement, you get "...or a false proposition is true." I don't think that's what Aristotle meant.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The (hitherto unanswered) invitation for you to repeat, or quote, or link to, any questions you feel I have missed is still on the table. Feel free to back up your bark with some bit anytime you please. I'm not going anywhere.

If you promise you'll stay with me for awhile, I'll be glad to do that. But the pursuit of understanding takes time. It's a challenge of the integrity of one's worldview -- the unique way in which each person organizes his concepts and words.

And debate requires politeness. You don't have to like me, nor my questions, but you do need to at least pretend civility. Even better would be to actually feel civility toward those with whom we tangle.

So you wanna go back to the problem with the 'justified true belief' definition of knowledge, or would you like me to prove that no such thing as atheism actually exists?

I'm fine with whatever. Heck, I'll even prove that atheism does exist, if that's better for you.

 

[adi2d]

If you promise you'll stay with me for awhile, I'll be glad to do that. But the pursuit of understanding takes time. It's a challenge of the integrity of one's worldview -- the unique way in which each person organizes his concepts and words.

And debate requires politeness. You don't have to like me, nor my questions, but you do need to at least pretend civility. Even better would be to actually feel civility toward those with whom we tangle.

So you wanna go back to the problem with the 'justified true belief' definition of knowledge, or would you like me to prove that no such thing as atheism actually exists?

I'm fine with whatever. Heck, I'll even prove that atheism does exist, if that's better for you.

I'm mainly a lurker here but you saying you can prove A and prove not A. I have to think you are of the if you can't dazzle with brilliance baffle them with BS type

That's too bad but I still hold out hope that someone here will surprise me.

 

[Willamena]

The lack of a sighted person in the analogy doesn't mean that the blind man has a complete impression of the elephant by touching its ear; it means that the blind man can never be perfectly sure whether his impression is complete.

A sighted person, per the analogy, isn't lacking: there has to be one in order to be able to say, "this is a partial truth," or "the impression is incomplete." The sighted person has seen the more complete picture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A sighted person, per the analogy, isn't lacking: there has to be one in order to be able to say, "this is a partial truth," or "the impression is incomplete." The sighted person has seen the more complete picture.

So "the whole elephant" only exists if there's a sighted person to see it?

 

[Falvlun]

That's too bad but I still hold out hope that someone here will surprise me.

Surprise you with what?

 

[Willamena]

So "the whole elephant" only exists if there's a sighted person to see it?

In the context of the analogy, yes.

As I said, I don't think you're seeing the analogy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm mainly a lurker here but you saying you can prove A and prove not A. I have to think you are of the if you can't dazzle with brilliance baffle them with BS type

You're just confused about the meaning of the word 'prove.' It happens. Most people have no good idea what the word means. At least, that's my experience.

That's too bad but I still hold out hope that someone here will surprise me.

Can you define 'prove' for me? In your own words? What am I doing when I am proving something?

 

[idav]

A sighted person, per the analogy, isn't lacking: there has to be one in order to be able to say, "this is a partial truth," or "the impression is incomplete." The sighted person has seen the more complete picture.

The picture is never complete unless we know everything. Sight isnt a better way to assess something, its one of many ways. One true aspect is still true when you find other attributes. The true aspects were the clues, has somthing like this or that based on observation, the interpretaion that it was a rope was wrong but didnt change the fact that something is there resembling certain true qualities of a rope.

 

[Willamena]

The picture is never complete unless we know everything. Sight isnt a better way to assess something, its one of many ways. One true aspect is still true when you find other attributes. The true aspects were the clues, has somthing like this or that based on observation, the interpretaion that it was a rope was wrong but didnt change the fact that something is there resembling certain true qualities of a rope.

Yes. That "the picture is never complete" or "this isn't my whole picture" is something a sighted person would say--the little sighted person inside you, pointing their finger at a bigger picture beyond. Perhaps you butted your head up against a true statement or a realization, and the sighted person began jumping up and down excitedly; now he's quiet, he just sits and points, but he's still there, still the arbiter that the bigger picture is "what is." He's seen it. (I'm stretching the analogy horribly, but no one seems to get it.)

You hold all the pieces of the puzzle. That there is a bigger picture is another piece that has, as some point in your life, in some manner, come down to you. A sighted person handed it to you, and now it's yours. But you really do hold all the pieces of the puzzle.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm mainly a lurker here but you saying you can prove A and prove not A. I have to think you are of the if you can't dazzle with brilliance baffle them with BS type.

By the way, I find it deliciously ironic that you've responded to my message about civility-in-debate with the statement above.

It makes me suspect that my message didn't get though to you properly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the context of the analogy, yes.

As I said, I don't think you're seeing the analogy.

Heh... I just realized the irony of you arguing that my perspective on the story of the blind men and the elephant isn't valid. So, in your view, the elephant really is like a rope and I'm wrong to say that it seemed more wall-like to me, eh? In the absence of any "sighted" people, your argument would imply that my perspective (and yours) is correct, but here you are arguing that mine is wrong. Funny.

 

[Willamena]

Heh... I just realized the irony of you arguing that my perspective on the story of the blind men and the elephant isn't valid.

I didn't argue that anything was invalid! Oh dear...

So, in your view, the elephant really is like a rope and I'm wrong to say that it seemed more wall-like to me, eh? In the absence of any "sighted" people, your argument would imply that my perspective (and yours) is correct, but here you are arguing that mine is wrong. Funny.

That wasn't my intent.

I'm just going to give up, now.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I did not advocate that the principle of excluded middle does not apply, and I do not advocate that. That principle upholds that either the proposition is true or its negation is true. It applies for any and all individuals who invest in the world of meaning/content that is true.

And it applies to each of them.

It also means that if so-and-so believes that "X" is true, and other so-and-so believes that "X" is false, then one of them is mistaken (provided "X" is meaningful).

Your example of belief would be more meaningful if it were actual.

Okay, how about this- I used to believe that the presents I found on Christmas morning had been delivered by a fat man driving a flying sleigh; it turns out this belief was false and they had been left there by my parents.

I have belief, but not of a truth- I am believing a falsehood.

if you did believe that, you'd believe it because you were aware of the true proposition

What true proposition? My belief is in a false proposition, i.e. "Micheal Jordan is the King of France"...

'true' is a unconscious switch that informs our personal databank of memories.

I'm still not sure what that's supposed to mean... "True" is a word. Truth is a property of linguistic items like propositions and statements. How is the word "true" an "unconscious switch"? What does that even mean?

You can only declare Michael Jordan is a basketball player and not the King of France because there is a sighted arbiter in the room, which is to say, you.

A "sighted arbiter"? I can declare Micheal Jordan is not the King of France because I'm aware of several facts that entail this conclusion- the fact that France is not a monarchy chief among them. Facts are what render true judgments true, not "arbiters"- people are the ones making the judgments, but the facts are what make the truths be the truths, and the falsehoods be the falsehoods.

False ones do not, and cannot, factor into our personal landscape.

This just seems patently false- take the Santa Claus example from above; most children are told that Santa brings them presents- thus most children have a personal worldview that includes falsehoods (and not just the existence of Santa, but the existence of the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and probably goblins and ghosts and wizards as well).

In any case, why "cannot" falsehoods "factor into our personal landscape"? Because they are not false in our estimation, even though they may be nevertheless false?

Or are you claiming that people cannot be mistaken in their beliefs, by definition?

The "fact of the matter," for each of us, is only as good as our personal database

No, ex hypothesi the "fact of the matter" is irrespective of anyone's "personal database" or perspective. That's what "the fact of the matter" means.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As an aside, the principle of excluded middle is: "either a proposition is true, or its negation is true."

If you hold the negation of a true proposition to be a false proposition, and plug those values into Aristotle's statement, you get "...or a false proposition is true." I don't think that's what Aristotle meant.

Um... What? Excluded middle simply means that if a proposition is not true then it's negation is true, and if a proposition is true then its negation is false. In other words, there is no middle ground, the middle is "excluded" (hence "excluded middle").