*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Curious George]

The claim that we found beliefs on prior bits of knowledge seems uncontroversial. If I know when the sun will come up tomorrow, and I've set my alarm accordingly, I am safe in believing that I will get to work on time.

One would think that it was uncontroversial.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not a fan of solipsism. If A=A is not true, then you have no basis to say anything is true. Ergo, no basis to discuss belief or knowledge because to do so necessitates the assumption that A=A as true. So, if not A=A then all of your experience is for naught.

I'm not a fan of solipsism either, but unfortunately there is a difference between A=A being true and assuming A=A is true for practical purposes. Try as you might, there is no argument you can possibly make that can make A=A into a justified true belief. You even said so here that you must ASSUME A=A because of the implications, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Ergo, you believe A=A, but you cannot call A=A a justified true belief.

Not that it really matters, however, since even if it were it wouldn't make one lick of difference to the fact that not all beliefs or belief claims have anything to do with knowledge or knowledge claims.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not a fan of solipsism either, but unfortunately there is a difference between A=A being true and assuming A=A is true for practical purposes. Try as you might, there is no argument you can possibly make that can make A=A into a justified true belief. You even said so here that you must ASSUME A=A because of the implications, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Ergo, you believe A=A, but you cannot call A=A a justified true belief.

Are you saying that 'identity' isn't true? That defies thought. Literally.

Not that it really matters, however, since even if it were it wouldn't make one lick of difference to the fact that not all beliefs or belief claims have anything to do with knowledge or knowledge claims.

Kind of makes a difference, yeah.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you saying that 'identity' isn't true? That defies thought. Literally.

I'm not asserting the truth value of anything, simply explaining that A=A is not a JTB.

Kind of makes a difference, yeah.

Not really. It has no impact whatsoever on the fact that not all beliefs depend on knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

It has no impact whatsoever on the fact that not all beliefs depend on knowledge.

All beliefs depend on knowledge because without truth there is nothing in which to invest belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All beliefs depend on knowledge because without truth there is nothing in which to invest belief.

That makes no sense. Knowledge is a subset of belief, and truth is irrelevant to either.

 

[Willamena]

That makes no sense. Knowledge is a subset of belief, and truth is irrelevant to either.

Then you are defining belief in a way I am unfamiliar with.

To me, belief is the attitude that something is true, exists or is firmly real.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then you are defining belief in a way I am unfamiliar with.

To me, belief is the attitude that something is true, exists or is firmly real.

That's more or less the same definition I am using - what definition do you think I'm using? Knowledge is a subcategory of belief which can further be expressed as "justified true belief". Knowledge is a specific kind of belief. Perhaps you are using a different definition of knowledge?

 

[Willamena]

That's more or less the same definition I am using - what definition do you think I'm using? Knowledge is a subcategory of belief which can further be expressed as "justified true belief". Knowledge is a specific kind of belief. Perhaps you are using a different definition of knowledge?

Then, if we are using similar definitions, truth is in no way irrelevant to belief--it is integral. It is the object of belief (without that object, taken objectively in the form of proposition, there is no belief).

Further, there can be no attitude of truth towards a proposition if "truth" doesn't serve to describe other propositions, and seem to serve for the present proposition.

Further, the object of belief seems true for a reason. Nothing happens randomly--the object of belief is dependent upon a series (or cascade, depending on your beliefs) of thoughts that preceeded it. (In the case of axiom, the explanation is embedded in justification of the device by which axiom comes about: thought. But that's another story.)

And lastly, the apparent truth of the proposition can only be dependent upon other truthful propositions, since falsehoods cannot produce truth.

I cannot see truth being irrelevant to belief.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Then, if we are using similar definitions, truth is in no way irrelevant to belief--it is integral. It is the object of belief (without that object, taken objectively in the form of proposition, there is no belief).

No, because belief is the position that something is true. Whether or not the thing actually IS true is irrelevant to whether or not we hold that position that it is true. You can still believe something that is objectively false.

Further, there can be no attitude of truth towards a proposition if "truth" doesn't serve to describe other propositions, and seem to serve for the present proposition.

Word salad.

Further, the object of belief seems true for a reason. Nothing happens randomly--the object of belief is dependent upon a series (or cascade, depending on your beliefs) of thoughts that preceeded it. (In the case of axiom, the explanation is embedded in justification of the device by which axiom comes about: thought. But that's another story.)

Which isn't relevant to anything I wrote.

And lastly, the apparent truth of the proposition can only be dependent upon other truthful propositions, since falsehoods cannot produce truth.

"Apparent" truth and actual truth are two different things. We can accept something as true even if it is a falsehood, and it's actual truth value has no necessary relation to its accepted truth value.

I cannot see truth being irrelevant to belief.

Then you don't understand the difference between objective truth and belief.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not a fan of solipsism either, but unfortunately there is a difference between A=A being true and assuming A=A is true for practical purposes. Try as you might, there is no argument you can possibly make that can make A=A into a justified true belief. You even said so here that you must ASSUME A=A because of the implications, but you have yet to demonstrate it. Ergo, you believe A=A, but you cannot call A=A a justified true belief.

Not that it really matters, however, since even if it were it wouldn't make one lick of difference to the fact that not all beliefs or belief claims have anything to do with knowledge or knowledge claims.

Are you suggesting that something that is necessarily true isn't true. That doesn't make sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you suggesting that something that is necessarily true isn't true. That doesn't make sense.

No, I'm saying that something we accept as necessarily true isn't a justified true belief. I'm with you on solipsism - I'd rather avoid the whole subject altogether - but if you're going to assert that all belief is dependent on knowledge then you're ultimately doomed to run right into the problem of hard solipsism.

 

[Curious George]

No, I'm saying that something we accept as necessarily true isn't a justified true belief. I'm with you on solipsism - I'd rather avoid the whole subject altogether - but if you're going to assert that all belief is dependent on knowledge then you're ultimately doomed to run right into the problem of hard solipsism.

That is fine, whether or not we live in a matrix, necessary truth is enough to define truth in that matrix.

I needn't appeal to an ultimate reality regarding truth, only truth within the reality we experience. Both provide objective standards as far as our experience is concerned.

 

[Willamena]

Then you don't understand the difference between objective truth and belief.

I recognize only one "kind" of truth, and it is objective.

No, because belief is the position that something is true. Whether or not the thing actually IS true is irrelevant to whether or not we hold that position that it is true. You can still believe something that is objectively false.

Belief is the position that something actually IS true. It's the same truth we're talking about.

There is nothing that IS objectively false. The world is true.

"Apparent" truth and actual truth are two different things. We can accept something as true even if it is a falsehood, and it's actual truth value has no necessary relation to its accepted truth value.

Apparent truth and actual truth are the same truth, just the adjective changes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is fine, whether or not we live in a matrix, necessary truth is enough to define truth in that matrix.

Agreed. I made a promise to myself years ago to never bother debating the problem of hard solipsism directly. Now that it's been brought up again I feel a little ashamed of myself...

I needn't appeal to an ultimate reality regarding truth, only truth within the reality we experience. Both provide objective standards as far as our experience is concerned.

I agree. I think the problem we're experiencing really comes down to what can make a belief justified or true, which is probably a subject for a whole other thread (or maybe a whole other forum) of it's own. Part of the problem with debates that dwindle down to the level of terminology is that it's impossible to define terms without... Well, more terms that then need defining.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I recognize only one "kind" of truth, and it is objective.

I never said that there were "kinds" of truth.

Belief is the position that something actually IS true. It's the same truth we're talking about.

There is nothing that IS objectively false. The world is true.

So nothing is false and everything is objectively true?

Apparent truth and actual truth are the same truth, just the adjective changes.

So it's impossible to believe something that isn't true?

Willamena, I'm really starting to get that "Going down Willamena's rabbit-hole of obfuscation" feeling again. Are we going to be able to get anywhere in this discussion without you suddenly upending your terms or going off on an unrelated tangent?

 

[Willamena]

So nothing is false and everything is objectively true?

The world is what is objective, and the world is true. Propositions that are false are denied and rejected. Those are the things "don't believe in."

So it's impossible to believe something that isn't true?

It is impossible to believe something that is false. We believe things that are apparently true. If "this proposition is false" is true, you lend yourself to errors in thinking because of grammatical confusion.

Willamena, I'm really starting to get that "Going down Willamena's rabbit-hole of obfuscation" feeling again. Are we going to be able to get anywhere in this discussion without you suddenly upending your terms or going off on an unrelated tangent?

If something I said was unclear, just ask. Name-calling doesn't promote the conversation.

If this sub-thread is a tangent from what you want to talk about, just say so and I'll happily stop.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The world is what is objective, and the world is true. Propositions that are false are denied and rejected. Those are the things "don't believe in."

Uh huh...

It is impossible to believe something that is false. We believe things that are apparently true. If "this proposition is false" is true, you lend yourself to errors in thinking because of grammatical confusion.

Yes you can. You can believe the proposition "x is false" is true.

If something I said was unclear, just ask. Name-calling doesn't promote the conversation.

It's not that it's "unclear", it's that it makes almost no sense and has barely any relation to anything I've said. You have done this repeatedly in the past when backed into a corner in a debate - you just obfuscate until the other person gets too frustrated to continue trying to debate. Please don't try it with me, I am sick of it.

If this sub-thread is a tangent from what you want to talk about, just say so and I'll happily stop.

Then stop.

 

[Reflex]

For an hilarious account of the absurdity of atheism (at least, as it is represented in this forum), read The Atheist Who Didn't Exist: Or the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments, by Andy Bannister. Be sure to read the footnotes, too.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The atheistic worldview is an absurd one. Why? Because the atheist views the world as ultimately meaningless and therefore as absurd.

Un jour, ça ne vous suffit pas, un jour pareil aux autres il est devenu muet, un jour je suis devenu aveugle, un jour nous deviendrons sourds, un jour nous sommes nés, un jour nous mourrons, le même jour, le même instant, ça ne vous suffit pas?"
-Beckett
“rien, rien n’avait d’importance…”
-Camus