Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

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.

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!

Yes, Frank's worse weakness is his vanity...

If you were in a conversation with someone sitting on a park bench...and the person said to you, "I know we are here sitting on a bench in the park watching all these people walking past us..."...more than likely you would not be challenging the person...because in everyday life, that would be a normal and reasonable thing to say.

That same kind of conversation, in a philosophy forum...would elicit a very different response from most people who discuss these kinds of things...including you.

Quote:

If you were in a conversation with someone sitting on a park bench...and the person said to you, "I know we are here sitting on a bench in the park watching all these people walking past us..."...more than likely you would not be challenging the person...because in everyday life, that would be a normal and reasonable thing to say.

That same kind of conversation, in a philosophy forum...would elicit a very different response from most people who discuss these kinds of things...including you.

??? Like what response? "No you don't know that you are sitting on a bench... For all you know, you could be a giant blue carrot watching a movie, or a brain-in-a-vat."???

Would that response be useful philosophical knowledge, that one can use to live a better life, or would it be useless intellectual wanking? Think about it before answering, if you can.

Most philosophers don't loose time playing with the idea that the world as we see it may be a complete illusion. Only kids do so; they play with philosophical ideas just like they play with their genitals. Nothing to be taken seriously.

Maybe "most philosophers" do not (actually, I do not know most philosophers), but almost all the philosophy discussions here in A2K...contain people doing exactly that.

I wonder what is causing you to have so much difficulty seeing and acknowledging that?

Quote:

Maybe "most philosophers" do not (actually, I do not know most philosophers), but almost all the philosophy discussions here in A2K...contain people doing exactly that.

I wonder what is causing you to have so much difficulty seeing and acknowledging that?

I acknowledge that most A2K 'philosophic' discussions are for entertainment value, and done by wankers for wankers, not by serious philosophers.

But even wankers discussing philosophy would treat the word "know" differently in the two different circumstances I suggested.

Quote:

But even wankers discussing philosophy would treat the word "know" differently in the two different circumstances I suggested.

ESPECIALLY wankers. A decent philosopher understands that philosophy is about us, our lives, our thoughts and our language, our place in this world etc. That's why they TALK of real life, why Levi Strauss wrote about race, why Bergson devoted a book to laughter...

Now, you might argue that the criteria and standards used to assess knowledge vary according to domains of knowledge. In biology, one uses statistics to assess the risk of error in concluding X or Y, usually nicknamed the alpha risk, and 5% is considered bearable. In sociology, higher risks of error are tolerated. In law, one often hear of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But all that's within a consistent logic or epistemology that says: there is always a risk of error in inferring anything from facts (aka 'knowing'). The ways 'knowing' happens are similar, it's all based on observation and logic, but different domains accept different levels of risk, different cut-off points between meaningless and meaningful. That's all.

I was trying to help you with you called 'crap', explaining how different domains deal with doubt differently. Now YOU are being contrarian.

But if there is indeed ANOTHER clear difference, which I missed, between the use of the term 'know' in A2K philosophical debates and in 'real life', you should be able to explain WHAT difference that is exactly...

And once you've done that (IF you can do that), then I will ask whether that implies your philosophical debates have no bearing on 'real life'.

You gave as an example a guy sitting on a bench and saying "I know I am sitting on a bench"... So what? What would A2K armchair philosophers say when sitting on a bench? Stuff like: I know its not me sitting on a bench right now but just a pack of mindless molecules determined by context and chemistry"?

And then at some point they will no doubt think it's time for dinner or a snack, otherwise known as additional needed molecules? And they will live their little (or big) lives like the rest of us, right?

The word "know" in some contexts (discussions in a philosophy forum, a science discussion)...simply requires greater rigor than when used in everyday context.

Quote:

The word "know" in some contexts (discussions in a philosophy forum, a science discussion)...simply requires greater rigor than when used in everyday context.

Rigor? Not very clear... But that's ok: I've created a new thread devoted to what A2K philosophers would say while sitting on a bench. Your contribution would be most welcome. After all it was your idea, even if you failed to flush it out.

Have you ever been proposed to online. If so how did you react.

That if I were asked online I couldn't answer with a direct yes, no/reply because of how fu**ed up my head is. If my head weren't fu**ed up as it is my answer to the question if the right man asked would be, "when?".