RootsBooster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I disagree. Can you explain why you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Can you explain why you disagree? I have already . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tallisman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Most tables have four legs, most dogs have four legs, therefore most tables are dogs. It's simple logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I have already . No you haven't, you've stated your argument to which I've made a counter argument, you've offered nothing since. I'll give you another example of belief and lack of belief- An example as it happened: Before I started writing this post, I did not have a belief in a tisch. I had no cause to have such a belief. I had never even heard of a tisch. It turns out that a tisch is the German translation for table. Now that I know this and I am convinced enough to accept it as the truth, I have a belief in a tisch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 No you haven't, you've stated your argument to which I've made a counter argument, you've offered nothing since. I'll give you another example of belief and lack of belief- An example as it happened: Before I started writing this post, I did not have a belief in a tisch. I had no cause to have such a belief. I had never even heard of a tisch. It turns out that a tisch is the German translation for table. Now that I know this and I am convinced enough to accept it as the truth, I have a belief in a tisch. belief An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists So you did have a belief in tisch you just didn't realise until it was defined. At no time did you lack a belief in it. Do you think that befor language people lacked a belief in everything that existed. My Dog accepts that its dinner exists, that its lead exists and we exist, it just doesn't know what everything is called. If it learnt to talk tomorrow and I asked it if cars exist, it would likely respond by saying, I don’t know, what’s a car, and when I explained what a car was it would say yes I know they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The reasoning behind this is fairly sound; No, it's not... as God means so many different things to so many different people, there is no one definition of God that can be tested What makes you think the definition has to be unified and agreed upon by all for you to believe in it? You still don't seem to be able to explain this and because everything is so up in the air, the question isn't even worth considering. You don't have to consider the question, to be an atheist Ignosticism is essentially all about the definition of God, and that all religions, and even agnostics and atheists assume too much when taking their philosophical positions. What exactly do you think that atheists (me, as an example) assume too much of when it comes to absence of belief? It's okay copy & pasting your poached wiki quotes like this but if you can't come up with any explanations or use it's logic to rebuke an opposing argument, then you have no argument, your reasoning only works within the safe and unchallenged confines of the wiki page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 If I had never heard of a table, I wouldn't lack a belief it because I have seen one and touched one but didn’t know what it was called. OK, so what you are saying is you do believe in a Teburu but you know it as a table. You weren't ignorant of it, you just had a different term for it. Likewise, if you'd seen one and touched one, but had no term for it, you'd just be ignorant of the term other people use for it. In both cases, you'd believe in the existence of X - you just may not call it X. If you wasn't aware of X - regardless of whether others have a term for X - you'd still have an absence of belief in X. So you can lack belief in X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 No, it's not... What makes you think the definition has to be unified and agreed upon by all for you to believe in it? You still don't seem to be able to explain this You don't have to consider the question, to be an atheist What exactly do you think that atheists (me, as an example) assume too much of when it comes to absence of belief? It's okay copy & pasting your poached wiki quotes like this but if you can't come up with any explanations or use it's logic to rebuke an opposing argument, then you have no argument, your reasoning only works within the safe and unchallenged confines of the wiki page. Does my dog think nothing exists just because it doesn’t know what everything is called. ---------- Post added 18-02-2013 at 21:59 ---------- OK, so what you are saying is you do believe in a Teburu but you know it as a table. You weren't ignorant of it, you just had a different term for it. Likewise, if you'd seen one and touched one, but had no term for it, you'd just be ignorant of the term other people use for it. In both cases, you'd believe in the existence of X - you just may not call it X. If you wasn't aware of X - regardless of whether others have a term for X - you'd still have an absence of belief in X. So you can lack belief in X. That’s right; I would need to know what X is to know if I am aware of it. And because I don't know what God is, I don't know if I am aware of it, this makes me ignostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 belief An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists Okay let's play by your words So you did have a belief in tisch you just didn't realise until it was defined. See this word, "realise", if I don't realise that I believe, then it is not something I have accepted, or I would have realised. At no time did you lack a belief in it. Of course I did, the belief in a tisch was totally absent from me, since birth up until this day. Do you think that befor language people lacked a belief in everything that existed. No, but they will have lacked belief in specific things. They may have believed that warmth came from the bright thing above them but they will not have had the belief that it was "the Sun" My Dog accepts that its dinner exists, that its lead exists and we exist, it just doesn't know what everything is called. I suppose he confirmed his belief to you did he? If it learnt to talk tomorrow and I asked it if cars exist, it would likely respond by saying, I don’t know, what’s a car, and when I explained what a car was it would say yes I know they exist. We're not talking about knowledge of what exists, we're talking about belief. If you didn't ask him the question "if cars exist" and instead asked him if he (at that time) had a belief in cars, he would have to say no, because he would have no cause to believe in cars. ---------- Post added 18-02-2013 at 22:02 ---------- That’s right; I would need to know what X is to know if I am aware of it. And because I don't know what God is, I don't know if I am aware of it, this makes me ignostic. You're confusing knowledge and awareness with belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Okay let's play by your words See this word, "realise", if I don't realise that I believe, then it is not something I have accepted, or I would have realised. Of course I did, the belief in a tisch was totally absent from me, since birth up until this day. No, but they will have lacked belief in specific things. They may have believed that warmth came from the bright thing above them but they will not have had the belief that it was "the Sun" I suppose he confirmed his belief to you did he? We're not talking about knowledge of what exists, we're talking about belief. If you didn't ask him the question "if cars exist" and instead asked him if he (at that time) had a belief in cars, he would have to say no, because he would have no cause to believe in cars. ---------- Post added 18-02-2013 at 22:02 ---------- You're confusing knowledge and awareness with belief. So you think a human without the ability to communicate lacks a belief in everything that exists. This person can see and touch everything but because they don’t know what everything is called you think they are unaware of them. Right I think it’s best if we agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.