Calling all atheists

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5206556)
Hehehehe.........(sorry Set).

Frank, did you know that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy alone devotes dozens of pages to the topic "epistemology" (theory of knowledge)? Here's the contents list to give you a flavor.
Quote:
1. What is Knowledge?
1.1 Knowledge as Justified True Belief
1.2 The Gettier Problem
2. What is Justification?
2.1 Deontological and Non-Deontological justification
2.2 Evidence vs. Reliability
2.3 Internal vs. External
2.4 Why Internalism?
2.5 Why Externalism?
3. The Structure of Knowledge and Justification
3.1 Foundationalism
3.2 Coherentism
3.3 Why Foundationalism?
3.4 Why Coherentism?
4. Sources of Knowledge and Justification
4.1 Perception
4.2 Introspection
4.3 Memory
4.5 Reason
4.6 Testimony
5. The Limits of Knowledge and Justification
5.1 The Case for Skepticism
5.2 Skepticism and Closure
5.3 Relevant Alternatives and Denying Closure
5.4 The Moorean Response
5.5 The Contextualist Response
5.6 The Ambiguity Response
5.7 Knowing One Isn't a BIV
6. Additional Issues
6.1 Virtue Epistemology
6.2 Naturalistic Epistemology
6.3 Religious Epistemology
6.4 Moral Epistemology
6.5 Social Epistemology
6.6 Feminist Epistemology

And your point is????

Richard Feynman said it best for me: “I do not KNOW anything…”

And perhaps I do not know anything. But I like to suppose I can KNOW that the name on my birth certificate (in my possession) is Frank Apisa; that I am sitting at my desk typing on the keyboard of my computer; that the woman I live with is named Nancy; and that our new cat is Cabot.

I do not know the true nature of REALITY, Fresco, and I am reluctant to make inclusions or exclusions from the possibilities that I can envision unless I am as close to sure as I am about my birth certificate or my sitting at the desk here.

I see some people doing that kind of (what I perceive to be) pretending...hence, my signature line.

If you ever want to discuss what you see as wrong-headed about that…I am willing to engage you. But mostly I do not see you actually discussing anything. As I have said many times over the years, Fresco, mostly I see you pretending you are discussing...while you are actually surreptitiously saying, “I am very smart…and I am smarter than you.” (Nothing wrong with that, but you really ought to develop the balls to actually do it out-front.)

So, if you want to discuss something with me...start discussing. I can do it respectfully and reasonably.

Or, we can just continue the kind of thing we are doing now.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Still do not want to discuss it, right Charles.

Well...I don't blame you. Smart move on your part.

0 Replies

When I dismiss made up stuff as being unworthy of belief and you try to tell me I am guessing, unreality sets in in further discussions. It is why I avoid getting in deeper these days. I had not intended to use this thread as a stage for debate. It just got pushed on us by non atheists.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Richard Feynman eh ! An admirable, but in your case a misguided appeal to authority. His "particles travelling backwards in time" should tell you where his attitude to epistemology comes from (but it won't!).

What is there to discuss with someone who revels in "knowing nothing" (or very little) ? You wouldn't know it (hehe) but your agnosticism is merely a more sociably acceptable posture to take in a society which statistically favors believers over atheists. It pays lip service to "tolerance" and "reasonableness", in the face of the blatant lack of "evidence" for theism, and worse, in the face of the infamous consequences of fanatical belief which has blighted all our lives.

No...I don't discuss social reality with those who clearly don't understand either "it", or the contextual restraints it puts on semantics and epistemology.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5206577)
Richard Feynman eh ! An admirable, but in your case a misguided appeal to authority. His "particles travelling backwards in time" should tell you where his attitude to epistemology comes from (but it won't!).

What is there to discuss with someone who revels in "knowing nothing" (or very little) ? You wouldn't know it (hehe) but your agnosticism is merely a more sociably acceptable posture to take in a society which statistically favors believers over atheists. It pays lip service to "tolerance" and "reasonableness", in the face of the blatant lack of "evidence" for theism, and worse, in the face of the infamous consequences of fanatical belief which has blighted all our lives.

Not an appeal to authority at all, Fresco. That is what you do. Simply mentioning a name is not a logical fallacy. But you will learn.

Anyway, we have a “blatant lack of ‘evidence’” that there are any sentient beings living on any planet circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol. Are you actually suggesting that if I were to answer the question, “Are there any sentient beings living on any of those planets?” with “I do not know”…that would be all that nonsense you proposed for the agnostic position?

C’mon, Fresco, even someone like you could do better than that. (I think!)

Quote:

No...I don't discuss social reality with those who clearly don't understand either "it", or the contextual restraints it puts on semantics and epistemology.

Oh, you do have such a high opinion of yourself…and then you bemoan the alleged superiority claims of others.

Another laugh.

What a wonderful group to provide such humor.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You miss the point as usual that you are the one that has established your reputation of being out of his depth by wittering (in the mode of one of my aging aunts) about "not knowing nuffing about nuffing". From that point of view, anybody who is prepared to support a particular epistemological position would appear to be superior to you by default !

1 Reply

To all, not particularly to Fresco, I must say, yaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnn.

Frank has been nattering on about all this for something like ten years, trying ever so hard to win at being right. Jack in the Box. I like Frank, but I am beyond bored. And the definition of atheism by whomever, knowing and not knowing, is not what the thread is about.

Max, here as a more recent but now nicely imbedded poster that I appreciate at least part of the time, is lecturing EdgarB about their being two types of atheists.
Give us a break, we know this, or at least anyone who has ever read a thread on a2k talking about atheism knows it.

This is about some damned signup list, and whether or not we feel like being a group (the answer is no for me, but some might say yes). Little k's thread, precisely meant as a place for atheists to talk, was ruined by incessant blather by non atheists and people engaging those with their cross purposes. Sort of like reading BillRM and Firefly go at it until everyone else tires.

This is another thread directed specifically to atheists, with Frank honking toot toots for attention.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

This is not merely a discussion thread. It is an invitation to action. Perhaps you should consider why atheism is such a significant social issue nowadays. I agree that arguments for and against its logical justification are futile, but as perhaps with the topicality of shooting atrocities, we may have come to a point where atrocities in the name of religion can no longer be tolerated.

I make no claim regarding solutions to either problem. I think that what both religion and gun ownership have in common is the psychological need to attempt to arrange control of our destinies. It is part of the price we pay by being cognate animals doomed to "forward plan". But like the elemental forces which erupt in destructive storms, that "control urge" is harnessed by impersonal social forces against which no individual can stand.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I know it is an invitation to action by atheists. I'm a slow to join person. I'm not against it, actually. And I've read just this last week about an atheist at (where, Stanford? I'll have to look it up in my files) being part of the .. well, here, I looked it up:

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Stanford-gets-a-chaplain-for-atheists-4139991.php

Well, that's a little odd to me; I'm still digesting it as it seems messy conceptually.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I say good for Stanford ! One might argue that atheists are in even greater need to come to terms with their life problems than those who are tempted by an opiate ! Wink

BTW, further to the therapeutic point, assuming we can classify Buddhism as "atheistic", there have been very well subscribed courses at Berkeley by the cognitive psychologist Eleanor Rosch on "Buddhist Psychology". Hopefully, not another opiate !
(If interested you can audit the whole course using itunes by googling "Berkeley Webcasts" )

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yeah - thing is I like it, and then there's the whole beeswax about whether atheism (+ humanism, agnosticism, buddhism) is a religion. And this is an outsider supported endeavor apparently fine with Stanford. The Office of Religious Life title is what gives me pause, as if defining atheism as part of religion.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Adds, thanks re the buddhism - I'm dear friends with JLNobody, but that is as far as I go on buddhism. He still puts up with me as a pal. Plus, in many ways, we think the same, just use different terms.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

And you are, as always, too much of an intellectual coward to address pointed criticisms of the bullshit you peddle. Your snide, passive-aggressive insults are all you have to fall back on, because you can't defend your position. I note that you are weaseling out of any intelligent discussion with Fresco, too.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

aaaaack, I meant they're.

Bad Fingers.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Agreed. That title needs changing.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Frank has never been able to adequately explain why he is agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural deity, but sneers at the idea of supernatural fairies, pixies and elves. Frank picks and chooses the topics about which he will assert the superiority of his agnostic point of view. In short, he's a hypocrite.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5206615)
You miss the point as usual that you are the one that has established your reputation of being out of his depth by wittering (in the mode of one of my aging aunts) about "not knowing nuffing about nuffing".

I think it is you who is missing the point. But watching you squirm when someone says "I do not know" when the person honestly does not know...is a thing of beauty.

I'm enjoying it.

Quote:

From that point of view, anybody who is prepared to support a particular epistemological position would appear to be superior to you by default !

Appearances are often deceiving.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5206396)
And you are, as always, too much of an intellectual coward to address pointed criticisms of the bullshit you peddle. Your snide, passive-aggressive insults are all you have to fall back on, because you can't defend your position. I note that you are weaseling out of any intelligent discussion with Fresco, too.

This is one of the reasons I so love your lectures to other people on their insults. You are a gas, Set. I love ya.

And I am not weaseling out of any discussions. But I understand your need to pretend I am doing so.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Re: edgarblythe (Post 5206574)
Frank has never been able to adequately explain why he is agnostic about the possibility of a supernatural deity, but sneers at the idea of supernatural fairies, pixies and elves. Frank picks and chooses the topics about which he will assert the superiority of his agnostic point of view. In short, he's a hypocrite.

Oh, the ever-so-reasonable speaks again. You are wonderful, Set. A classy act from A to B.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

ossobuco wrote

Quote:

,.....with Frank honking toot toots for attention

0 Replies

Calling all atheists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know