Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Quote:

Another perspective that has value in "real life."
What we perceive is what is in fact true to us; it doesn't matter what others think. We make decisions based on our subjective beliefs all the time; that's all the proof we need. Some people have one dimensional understanding of life, and think their definition is the "only one."

And some people actually think that whatever they "believe" (that is to say, guess)...is the truth...and that anyone who questions that silly assumption is somehow defective.

Thinking that way...actually is thinking that their definition is "the only one."

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

As I said...in the "real life" (which may not be real)...I deal with the word "know" in a different way than when dealing with it in discussions of religion or philosophy.

That may be the source of your problem. Life and philosophy are not separate. The only good reason to do some philosophy is to get some insight about our life and how to live it.

To know is to know, whether you are discussing car driving or the universe expansion. And yes, intuition is a surprisingly effective way to get new knowledge. You can't control it, tough.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Frank wrote,

Quote:

As I said...in the "real life" (which may not be real)

He plays both sides of an issue, then proceeds to tell us his interpretation of "life." LOL

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
As I said...in the "real life" (which may not be real)...I deal with the word "know" in a different way than when dealing with it in discussions of religion or philosophy.

That may be the source of your problem. Life and philosophy are not separate. The only good reason to do some philosophy is to get some insight about our life and how to live it.

To know is to know, whether you are discussing car driving or the universe expansion. And yes, intuition is a surprisingly effective way to get new knowledge. You can't control it, tough.

Olivier...I understand you are almost compulsive about disagreeing with almost everything I say...

...but there is a "know" in formal discussion...especially about science, philosophy or religion...

...that is quite different from the "know" we use in informal talk.

If you do not understand that...probably no explanation will penetrate...so you are on your own.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Or you can let ci explain it to you. He is a genius.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I just happen to disagree with you most of the times, but don't take it personally. If you were to say stuff I agree with, I would publicly agree with you, as I think I did once in a long while.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Olivier...I understand you are almost compulsive about disagreeing with almost everything I say...

hard not to be, you say a lot of garbage.

Quote:

...but there is a "know" in formal discussion...especially about science, philosophy or religion...that is quite different from the "know" we use in informal talk.

wrong. you simply think they are different, because you have different degrees of belief in each. you believe that scientific knowledge is 100% true, or close to it, while everyday 'knowledge' is far less probable to be true.

but actually none of it is true knowledge, because if the definition of knowledge is being 100% sure of its truth, then no such certainty is ever possible for anything. even though you and olivier will argue that there is certainty of one's own 'existence', that is because of strong identity with words and an inability to see the difference between the words 'reality', 'truth', and the concepts that they point to. you assume the concepts of reality and truth as definite truths, and therefore you set yourself up to never see them as they are; eternally questionable.

Quote:

If you do not understand that...probably no explanation will penetrate...so you are on your own.

it is you that needs to read above and understand that there is no knowledge other than highly probable beliefs. the absolute highest probability belief possible is the belief in one's own existence. instead of thinking about all other beliefs, which are definitely LESS probable, why not completely question the most probable belief.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Olivier...I understand you are almost compulsive about disagreeing with almost everything I say...

hard not to be, you say a lot of garbage.

Actually, most of what I say is not garbage. You have, for some reason, a need to think that almost everything I say is. Fine with me...particularly if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Quote:

Quote:
...but there is a "know" in formal discussion...especially about science, philosophy or religion...that is quite different from the "know" we use in informal talk.

wrong. you simply think they are different, because you have different degrees of belief in each. you believe that scientific knowledge is 100% true, or close to it, while everyday 'knowledge' is far less probable to be true.

One...I do not do believing...so I do not have different degrees of "belief." Two there is a very big difference between what we mean when we say we know things in every day conversations...from what we mean in a discussion of philosophy, religion, or science...whether you want to accept that or not.

In every day life...we can use it casually. In those other discussions we have to be more careful.

Quote:

but actually none of it is true knowledge, because if the definition of knowledge is being 100% sure of its truth, then no such certainty is ever possible for anything.

Yeah...but if you were to suggest to someone mentioning that the capital of England is London....that they really do not KNOW that...they would laugh in your face. We do not do that kind of parsing in regular life.

In a philosophical discussion...that could seriously be discussed at length.

That is because we use the word differently.

Quote:

even though you and olivier will argue that there is certainty of one's own 'existence', that is because of strong identity with words and an inability to see the difference between the words 'reality', 'truth', and the concepts that they point to. you assume the concepts of reality and truth as definite truths, and therefore you set yourself up to never see them as they are; eternally questionable.

Really. Well, I think I can see the differences there...and I am pretty sure Olivier (although he disagrees with me on many things) can see the difference also.

I think you may suppose that you have some greater view of those things...but mostly you are trying to sell a half baked cake.

Quote:

Quote:
If you do not understand that...probably no explanation will penetrate...so you are on your own.

it is you that needs to read above and understand that there is no knowledge other than highly probable beliefs. the absolute highest probability belief possible is the belief in one's own existence. instead of thinking about all other beliefs, which are definitely LESS probable, why not completely question the most probable belief.

We've already covered this.

Pick out your most salient point...and we can discuss it. Other than that...I am not particularly interested in your blind guesses....or if you insist on calling them "beliefs"...I am not particularly interested in your beliefs. Even the ones you consider the most probable.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

hard not to be, you say a lot of garbage.

Harsh? I see it as.

Quote:

Actually, most of what I say is not garbage. You have, for some reason, a need to think that almost everything I say is.

You shouldn't have to defend yourself.

Quote:

...but there is a "know" in formal discussion...especially about science, philosophy or religion...that is quite different from the "know" we use in informal talk.

Quote:

wrong. you simply think they are different, because you have different degrees of belief in each. you believe that scientific knowledge is 100% true, or close to it, while everyday 'knowledge' is far less probable to be true.

I "believe" we learn.

Quote:

One...I do not do believing...so I do not have different degrees of "belief."

Not a surprise coming from Frank A.

Quote:

Two there is a very big difference between what we mean when we say we know things in every day conversations...from what we mean in a discussion of philosophy, religion, or science...whether you want to accept that or not.

I may be confused. with this statement.

Quote:

Pick out your most salient point...and we can discuss it. Other than that...I am not particularly interested in your blind guesses....or if you insist on calling them "beliefs"...I am not particularly interested in your beliefs. Even the ones you consider the most probable.

I believe in hard, solid fact(s). Evidence. Math. "Solving" equations. I have two pecils. I need four. So I "do" go to the store to purchase two more pencils. "Problem solved".

The point? You have to do what is required in order to solve. all problems.

Rock the boat. No. don't rock the boat, dear.

1 Reply

@secondusername,

secondusername wrote:

Quote:
hard not to be, you say a lot of garbage.

Harsh? I see it as.

Quote:
Actually, most of what I say is not garbage. You have, for some reason, a need to think that almost everything I say is.

You shouldn't have to defend yourself.

Quote:
...but there is a "know" in formal discussion...especially about science, philosophy or religion...that is quite different from the "know" we use in informal talk.

Quote:
wrong. you simply think they are different, because you have different degrees of belief in each. you believe that scientific knowledge is 100% true, or close to it, while everyday 'knowledge' is far less probable to be true.

I "believe" we learn.

Quote:
One...I do not do believing...so I do not have different degrees of "belief."

Not a surprise coming from Frank A.

Quote:
Two there is a very big difference between what we mean when we say we know things in every day conversations...from what we mean in a discussion of philosophy, religion, or science...whether you want to accept that or not.

I may be confused. with this statement.
Quote:
Pick out your most salient point...and we can discuss it. Other than that...I am not particularly interested in your blind guesses....or if you insist on calling them "beliefs"...I am not particularly interested in your beliefs. Even the ones you consider the most probable.

I believe in hard, solid fact(s). Evidence. Math. "Solving" equations. I have two pecils. I need four. So I "do" go to the store to purchase two more pencils. "Problem solved".

The point? You have to do what is required in order to solve. all problems.

Rock the boat. No. don't rock the boat, dear.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnDIKHtYh14&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]

If you have a question of me...just ask it and I'll respond.

I am not sure of what you point was with this post...so it is difficult to respond to it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I understand.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

On why I disagree with you NOW, what interests me in philosophy is its applicability in real life. Any philosophy that is ONLY valid in some sort of ethereal metaphysical kingdom but not applicable in real life is just intellectual masturbation, a waste of time. If concepts have different meanings in philosophy and in life, I take that as a symptom of philosophic decay into gratuitous, empty musing.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

On why I disagree with you NOW, what interests me in philosophy is its applicability in real life. Any philosophy that is ONLY valid in some sort of ethereal metaphysical kingdom but not applicable in real life is just intellectual masturbation, a waste of time. If concepts have different meanings in philosophy and in life, I take that as a symptom of philosophic decay into gratuitous, empty musing.

Thank you for sharing that.

I suspect you don't actually think that is true...but I guess you had to have your daily disagreement with me...and calling my thoughts "intellectual masturbation and a waste of time" probably did more for you than your morning coffee!

Hey...that "symptom of philosophic decay into gratuitous, empty musing" was pretty good also. Wink

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Or maybe Frank, reading my words are a wast of time.

1 Reply

@secondusername,

secondusername wrote:

Or maybe Frank, reading my words are a wast of time.

After I posted that earlier comment to you, secondusername…I read some of your other comments in other threads today and realized that you almost certainly are someone who has come onto the forum in several guises already…Anon being one of them. Or "Anon" being two of them.

Many of us here came from Abuzz…the New York Times/Boston Globe site. I loved that site…it was my first contact with Internet discussions…and I flat out loved it.

I love this one…and even the people with whom I argue regularly and strongly matter to me.

Abuzz started to go downhill at breakneck speed when some people started coming onto the site in multiple personalities using multiple screen names. They had no intention to have discussions at all…and seemed only intent to be as disruptive as possible. They were not the only reason the site went down…but they helped A LOT.

I do not appreciate what you are doing.

You have the right to do it…and you have the right to screw with the site and the people here as much as you like. But as Yogi might say….include me out.

I’m not interested in furthering whatever destructive intentions you have for the forum…and I’d just as soon not engage you in conversation.

Okay?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Distructive. Not my intent.

As I think you are wanting to fight?, and feel you've won. Won what. The fact that older people will always be better than younger people. Sorry no not sorry I came across as distructive.

Maybe I read too much into things? Reason for me mentioning

Quote:

Or maybe Frank, reading my words are a wast of time.

Or maybe I'm not reading too much into things. Or maybe I am. Or maybe you're not reading what you should into things.

Quote:

On why I disagree with you NOW, what interests me in philosophy is its applicability in real life. Any philosophy that is ONLY valid in some sort of ethereal metaphysical kingdom but not applicable in real life is just intellectual masturbation, a waste of time. If concepts have different meanings in philosophy and in life, I take that as a symptom of philosophic decay into gratuitous, empty musing.

Perhaps olivier5 is smarter, more knowledgeable than I think.

No worries Frank. I have no intent of including you in me.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

P.S. my love. I believe. You are wearing what appears to be a red shirt in your picture you have displayed here for your profile picture. the color red or what appears to be similar to the color, red.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

What you think is irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you but it's not all about you.

I am on record here opposing armchair philosophy and the fallacious distinction between philosophy and life. There's a bunch of philowankers around here who think that it's okay to muse around in a philosophical dreamland but that none of it applies to their daily lives. They use philosophy as a pastime, it's like a video game for them. They don't take it seriously.

I call them cheats, and if you are one of them, that makes you a cheat too.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I totally agree with you on this one, Frank. See? It happens.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You,

Quote:

@Frank Apisa,
What you think is irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you but it's not all about you.

Ahhh, I see you're beginning to see the light. It's always about me, me, me...with Frank. His ideas are primary and the only truths - even though he guesses most of the time. He doesn't even know whether his life is real or not!

2 Replies

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know