Atheism

@layman,

Quote:

Again, I suppose that whether or not you want to call those kinds of beliefs "supernatural" is simply a matter of definition. It seems that it is that word which troubles you. Of course, if one says that anything that exists is "natural," then if there is a god, then, under that definition, god cannot be "supernatural" (because he/it exists). But that is not the standard definition.

That's exactly the problem..you've hit the nail on the head. I have no proof of a supernatural world. I don't know how anyone can prove its' existence.
That's why I use the example of the three jars. Because something that cannot be described, defined or as of yet proven or known cannot be distinguished between the jars that contains nothing.

Of course I should always ask what does a person mean by such and such.

For better or worse I start with the premise that something exist or it doesn't.

my personal preferences are I don't believe in god(s), the supernatural or metaphysics until otherwise proven to the contrary.

Like you said the Scientific Method is for testing the natural word.
How does one test for a supernatural world? How would you even identify it?

P.S. Wasn't s Plato into templates?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

P.S. Wasn't s Plato into templates?

Never heard it put that way, but I presume that what you are calling "templates" are just the same things that I referred to as "forms."

Quote:

my personal preferences are I don't believe in god(s), the supernatural or metaphysics until otherwise proven to the contrary.

No one can really escape it, though. The proposition that "unproven things are not worthy of belief" is, itself, a metaphysical stance. So, if you believe that, you believe in "metaphysics" (whether you want to acknowledge it, or not).

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

No one can really escape it, though. The proposition that "unproven things are not worthy of belief" is, itself, a metaphysical stance. So, if you believe that, you believe in "metaphysics" (whether you want to acknowledge it, or not).

Well I'm confused on your answer. How is not believing in things that are beyond the physical a metaphysical stance?

...and should I believe every utterance and posited theory to be worthy of believing? My brain isn't that big. LOL

1 Reply

@argome321,

I said:

Quote:

The proposition that "unproven things are not worthy of belief" is, itself, a metaphysical stance.

Your question implies an altered version of what I said. You ask:

Quote:

How is not believing in things that are beyond the physical a metaphysical stance?

But this whole issue goes beyond subtle differences in phrasing (just as the atheist/agnostic distinction does).

The point is that if you assert, and subscribe to, the proposition I mentioned (i.e. "unproven things are not worthy of belief") then that itself is a position about "what is," in particular what is "worthy of belief." You will not discover that value empirically. It is a metaphysical postulation, that's all.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The point is that if you assert, and subscribe to, the proposition I mentioned (i.e. "unproven things are not worthy of belief") then that itself is a position about "what is," in particular what is "worthy of belief." You will not discover that value empirically. It is a metaphysical postulation, that's all.

What one chooses to value is a subjective matter. If something doesn't exist or can't be proven to exist I have no obligation to deem it worthy of my belief. Call it mental triage.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

What one chooses to value is a subjective matter. If something doesn't exist or can't be proven to exist I have no obligation to deem it worthy of my belief. Call it mental triage

OK, fine. That's (at least one of) your personal metaphysical positions, including assertions regarding the nature of values (subjective, not objective) and what obligations are imposed on you.

1 Reply

I know...I know...it sounds like a broken record...

...but...

...if these thoughts were written without using the words "believe" or "belief" (ESPECIALLY "believe in")...

...they tend to become a bit more coherent and manageable. And if you finish the thought out…the clearer your point will be made.
If “guess” as a substitute for 'believe' (my favorite) is too offensive to your ear, use any of the synonyms offered in standard dictionaries…suppose, conjecture, or “accept as true.”

EXAMPLE:

“I do not ‘believe’ a GOD exists” can be stated as “I do not suppose a GOD exists”; “I do not conjecture that a GOD exists” or “I do not ‘accept as true’ that a GOD exists.”
None of these states that the opposite position has to be the case for you.

“I do suppose that no gods exist”; “I do conjecture that no gods exist”; “I do ‘accept as true’ that no gods exist.”

The same thing is true for “I do not ‘believe’ a GOD exists” (that does not say that one ‘believes’ no gods exist), but it is harder to see that the opposite is not being offered when ‘believe’ is used. The “I do not believe” tricks the mind to suppose the opposite is being said. "I do not believe gods exist" sounds to most ears to be saying "I believe gods do not exist."

They are not the same.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

OK, fine. That's (at least one of) your personal metaphysical positions, including assertions
1. values are subjective (not objective)
2. about what "obligations" are imposed on you
3. etc.

I don't have a metaphysical position. I can't exist beyond he physical.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

I don't have a metaphysical position.

Yes, based on what you just said, you do.

You just don't want to call it "metaphysical." As with anything else, calling something a thing that it isn't cannot change what it is. Word choice does not determine what "is."

But, of course, fools like Fresco might tell you different. But, then again, that's just his metaphysics.

For that matter, me saying "word choice does not determine what "is" reflects my metaphysics.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Yes, based on what you just said, you do.

You just don't want to call it "metaphysical." As with anything else, calling something a thing that it isn't cannot change what it is. Word choice does not determine what "is."

Nope, I disagree. Point me to a definition that would support your claim that my statements are metaphysical, please.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank did you mean to post this here?

Quote:

I know...I know...it sounds like a broken record...

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Point me to a definition that would support your claim that my statements are metaphysical, please.

Quote:

Subjectivism is an epistemological theory. It is a theory of knowledge, and how it is achieved. Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind, without reference to reality. It holds that gaining knowledge about the world is done through introspection. It holds that metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations. It holds that because reality is an aspect of our minds, it is affected by them.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Subjectivism.html

Quote:

One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_SubjectiveValue.html

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Point me to a definition that would support your claim that my statements are metaphysical, please.

Quote:
Subjectivism is an epistemological theory. It is a theory of knowledge, and how it is achieved. Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind, without reference to reality. It holds that gaining knowledge about the world is done through introspection. It holds that metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations. It holds that because reality is an aspect of our minds, it is affected by them.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Subjectivism.html
Quote:
One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_SubjectiveValue.ht

ml

Your response are definitions of subjectivism, that wasn't the topic. The topic or question here is whether it was worthy of belief and whether my statement was a metaphysical one.

We aren't talking about if something is a figment of my imagination. at least that is my understanding.

here is something a bit interesting from the last definition

Quote:

If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality

off topic: ones opinion on good and evil may be subjective but that doesn't mean it isn't real or part of reality. It may or maynot be true universally.

1 Reply

@layman,

what is the -1 thing about?

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Your response are definitions of subjectivism, that wasn't the topic. The topic or question here is whether it was worthy of belief and whether my statement was a metaphysical one.

No. That was the former topic. Then you said, and I quote: "VALUES ARE SUBJECTIVE."

Then I said that, based on what you just said, you do have a metaphysical position.

You denied that, and asked for a definition which indicated that "what you said" (i.e., the statement that values are subjective) was metaphysical. I did that.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

here is something a bit interesting from the last definition

Yes, and here's something interesting about the implications of the claim that "values are subjective," I think:

Quote:

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions.

A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Your response are definitions of subjectivism, that wasn't the topic. The topic or question here is whether it was worthy of belief and whether my statement was a metaphysical one.

No. That was the former topic. Then you said, and I quote: "VALUES ARE SUBJECTIVE."

Then I said that, based on what you just said, you do have a metaphysical position.

You denied that, and asked for a definition which indicated that "what you said" (i.e., the statement that values are subjective) was metaphysical. I did that.

That's a big nope, you failed.

We were not talking about subjectivism.

lets try it this way

You know that a price tag is merely a bid? No one has to sell you any particular item for the price he place on the tag. it all depends what it is worth
to you and that is the subjectivity I was talking about.

You love the blues so I guess if some one offer you an original Robert Johnson record you probably would value it more than I would.

That is not an ontological matter.

If I deem something not worth my time that's my individual subjective right.

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Frank did you mean to post this here?

Quote:
I know...I know...it sounds like a broken record...

Yup.

The thing that prompted it was something you wrote, as a matter of fact.

You wrote:

Quote:

my personal preferences are I don't believe in god(s), the supernatural or metaphysics until otherwise proven to the contrary.

So if it were proven that a GOD exists...you would say "you believe in it."

If you have proof of something...you don't have to "believe" in it. You KNOW it is so.

Would you say, "If you prove there is something in that box, I will believe there is something in it?"

As for the existence or non-existence of gods...all one can do is to guess. There is no way to estimate or calculate.

So if you are saying, "If you prove to me there is a GOD...I will guess there is one"...it makes no sense.

1 Reply

@layman,

here is something a bit interesting from the last definition

Yes, and here's something interesting about the implications of the claim that "values are subjective," I think:

Quote:

Quote:
The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions.

A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.

Nothing more then mere speculation and hyperbole.

I guess there is empirical data that backs that up?
It also sounds alot like Sam Harris reasoning. or pleading, Hariss does that alot.

I not saying you are using it. I'm talking the cited passage.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

That's a big nope, you failed.

We were not talking about subjectivism

Forget it, Arg. I weary of your constant denial and revisionism, and your incessant sematic quibbling. Go back and read the posts.

Definition seems to be everything to you. If I had to guess at your ultimate metaphysics/ontology, I might guess that it consists of the following:

1. The definition of words determine what is (i.e., what exists, and what is true).
2. The definition of words is what I (Arg) deem it to be.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know