tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post9123841797312326736..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: We get email: Brains, evidence, and burden of proof againUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47955892935745826512011-10-05T22:23:28.671-05:002011-10-05T22:23:28.671-05:00Hi....Ho...all Atheists!!
There is God.
The brain ...Hi....Ho...all Atheists!!<br />There is God.<br />The brain is just a creation and are only parts of our body.Its an internal party. An internal party can't figure out what brings about its existence. It must be told by an external party...that is God.This can be explained by the concept of creation or thru reasoning.The heart(wise) can simply reason out there must be a creator to anything, everything except God.s0l0m0nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006973929452633302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-671225427669245672011-10-05T22:06:17.247-05:002011-10-05T22:06:17.247-05:00Mauricio Duque,
It's just Gods ways that every...Mauricio Duque,<br />It's just Gods ways that every living thing must die.Its only the way to die is different.s0l0m0nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006973929452633302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68988253190338246032011-10-05T21:55:39.821-05:002011-10-05T21:55:39.821-05:00Atheists are a group of people who are actually sw...Atheists are a group of people who are actually swayed from the true path by their wicked heart.s0l0m0nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12006973929452633302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-67643666223981037872011-09-21T03:17:53.622-05:002011-09-21T03:17:53.622-05:00I can only go by my own experiences and research. ...<i>I can only go by my own experiences and research. If I've somehow missed it, and the general population really are using such terms as "Agnostic Theist", then I can only say it's a very confused term, referring as it does to someone who believes god exists but also believes they've not got sufficient reason to believe it.<br /><br />So I hope it's just a passing fashion.</i><br /><br />You mean sufficient evidence. An agnostic theist is a theist that acknowledges that their faith in god is solely based on faith, and doesn't try to claim evidence or logic as being the reason behind it.<br /><br />Which probably constitutes the largest majority of moderate theists.NoNamesGivenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15819713310248586964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70759474426581437382011-09-20T18:22:38.566-05:002011-09-20T18:22:38.566-05:00The worst thing about using the term as a fence si...The worst thing about using the term as a fence sitting position is that people will call themselves agnostic so as to avoid telling you anything about their views. Such a cop out and a concession to the religious. It makes the term largely meaningless.A socialist open to criticismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619402773454709868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77322501265656599362011-09-20T17:38:47.589-05:002011-09-20T17:38:47.589-05:00in hes eyes, iam the fanatic, bcause no argument h...<b>in hes eyes, iam the fanatic, bcause no argument he presented, make any effect on me</b><br /><br />Hah! That sounds familiar. <br /><br />"I've made several arguments and you're still not convinced."<br /><br />"Because I refuted every one of your arguments, pointing out poor logic or unsupported premises"<br /><br />"Yeah, sure, but I made <i>so many of them!</i>"Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65092075920962155642011-09-20T17:21:13.185-05:002011-09-20T17:21:13.185-05:00One thing, its not Wayne Craig, its William Lane C...One thing, its not Wayne Craig, its William Lane Craig, bad mistake XD...https://www.blogger.com/profile/05774854360116475084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42705616466358841942011-09-20T17:05:32.631-05:002011-09-20T17:05:32.631-05:00Iam debating with him in a blog, and i know that a...Iam debating with him in a blog, and i know that a this point, theres nothing i could tell him, that would change his mind, is one of those guys:<br /><br />"God is good, no matter what..."<br /><br />The funny thing is (yes theres at least a funny thing XD), is that in hes eyes, iam the fanatic, bcause no argument he presented, make any effect on me. Well, that tends to happen when you copy&paste argument of Wayne Craig, and say that atheists are afraid of debating with him XD.<br /><br />What i think i cant never understand is, how someone can say that a god that create hell, is a good god? how someone can say that a god that killed all the first born of a entire nation, is a good god?<br /><br />A fucking god, should have the highest standards of ethics, of morals, of justice...but again, that shit was created more than 2000 years ago, maybe iam just expecting too much of it....https://www.blogger.com/profile/05774854360116475084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-68330628215546870842011-09-20T16:11:05.770-05:002011-09-20T16:11:05.770-05:00he said that, maybe yes, maybe we deserve to be ki...<b>he said that, maybe yes, maybe we deserve to be killed by his god, and tortured forever after, that we betrayed god, so we deserve the worst of it.</b><br /><br />Clearly this guy has been morally compromised to the point where he's actually insane. I see only one option: Get him to repeat himself in front of as large an audience as possible. <br /><br />He's a lost cause, but maybe he can serve as a cautionary tale.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13337793669227018972011-09-20T15:53:23.702-05:002011-09-20T15:53:23.702-05:00I have no patience to this kind of things, and iam...I have no patience to this kind of things, and iam having less and less, since i begin debating with a evangelical.<br /><br />I press him up against the wall, saying that, if god create the world at it is, then hes responsible for all the deaths we have every year caused by natural desasters, like hurricanes and earthquakes, and that after he kills those persons, he still gets to decide if they are going to heaven or hell.<br /><br />But i never spected the answer i got, he said that, maybe yes, maybe we deserve to be killed by his god, and tortured forever after, that we betrayed god, so we deserve the worst of it.<br /><br />Iam thinking what could i say as a answer, or if that discussion deserve a answer, because, after you crossed the line of : "yes, my god can torture us forever, and still be god" ; theres anything at all to be said?...https://www.blogger.com/profile/05774854360116475084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69442014679358665082011-09-20T08:46:58.354-05:002011-09-20T08:46:58.354-05:00I've been debating a set of mormon missionarie...I've been debating a set of mormon missionaries for the last few months. I have learned much about patience.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69421556995251210912011-09-19T16:27:15.322-05:002011-09-19T16:27:15.322-05:00Lukas has far more patience for this topic than I....Lukas has far more patience for this topic than I.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08881036419280903737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70329509581087413552011-09-19T13:56:48.649-05:002011-09-19T13:56:48.649-05:00I've always known atheism and agnosticism to h...I've always known atheism and agnosticism to have the meanings that luke, or the hosts of this show would describe it. Kapitano's description is foreign to me, and he seems to be projecting his feelings onto luke for "having his neat diagram questioned". Kapitano, if you're reading this, just go with the flow man. Not everything has to be over-analyzed and dissected to the point where you're posting essays on this. For practical purposes just use the words as everyone else here does.Wulfgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10077868446917021978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-14801341172750430812011-09-19T13:09:58.385-05:002011-09-19T13:09:58.385-05:00You seem extremely upset that someone is questioni...<b>You seem extremely upset that someone is questioning your nice neat diagram.</b><br /><br />Don't. Just fucking don't. <br />I argue for my point of view. I do so passionately, because I care. If you think that's a character flaw, then that says way more about you than me.<br /><br />Now, you seem to be interested in having a long, philosophical discussion about the nature of language and meaning. I'm sure that would be quite interesting, but that's not what I'm here for.<br />I think this may be part of the reason for our disagreement, so allow me to spend some time clarifying my position.<br /><br />Here's my problem, in a nut shell:<br />The definitions you use prevent me from clearly stating my position in a simple way. I can't call myself an atheist, because then people will think I'm claiming absolute knowledge. I can't say I'm an agnostic, because then people will think that I don't hold a position on the matter. <br /><br />These are real problems that affect real people having real discussions. I've run into each of these multiple times. If you haven't, fine. I have and they have caused me problems. I have chosen to address this problem by advocating what I find to be a simple, straight-forward method of labeling positions. <br /><br />Is it perfect? No. Show me a system that is.<br /><br />The reason I say things like: "<i>Life is complicated. We might actually have to stop and think once in a while</i>" is because I don't care about the issues you raise. Yes, concepts are difficult. Yes, definitions are murky. Yes, even very simple subjects turn out to be not so simple when you look at the details.<br /><br />So fucking what?<br /><br />My impression is that you're focussing so much on the details that you're missing the big picture. Your position might be relevant for a student of philosophy, but when I'm talking to some christian, I don't need that level of detail. I simply need to be able to clearly make certain key distinctions.<br />In most conversations, you don't actually need to go over rules of epistemology, the nature of belief and whether something constitutes proper justification for a belief. You just need a clear, simple and reasonably accurate label that allows you to quickly distinguish between the major positions.<br /><br />Apparently you don't think that this is an important issue. OK. I disagree. Because I disagree, I'll keep advocating my point of view.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6054734845484184602011-09-19T12:29:24.954-05:002011-09-19T12:29:24.954-05:00"I've now said all I intend to say on thi...<b>"I've now said all I intend to say on this thread, and I'm going to listen to show 727."</b><br />I certainly hope that you come back here and read the replies and perhaps respond to them. Your statements haven't earned you much respect with anyone, and I'm even prepared to call you a bad atheist, in addition to a bad linguist. You haven't made any truly substantial arguments; you've just been poking holes at others' arguments, which is one of the most common tactics of theists. You call yourself an "atheist," but you haven't explicitly defined what you mean by that. Please also define "belief" and "knowledge." And now you're stubbornly (and vocally) disengaging yourself from the discussion, which effectively doesn't sound much different from a "drive-by" theist.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35906223234393543742011-09-19T12:17:56.185-05:002011-09-19T12:17:56.185-05:00I made no "Argument from Etymology." If ...I made no "Argument from Etymology." If you really want to go down that road, then a better point would be that the reason why "gnosticism" and "agnosticism" generally refer to discussions/claims about the god concept, rather than to any kind of knowledge, is that these words (and "gnosis" at their root) are based on the ancient concept of Gnostic Christianity. Likewise, "stoicism" is rooted in the ancient philosophy of "Stoicism," but most people today know what the former means while being totally ignorant of the latter. If I made any appeal to etymology, it was only to ground definitions with something concrete, not to make poorly-supported claims of definitions, as you do.<br /><br />Your further discussions of "knowledge" and "belief" are even more confused as you wax philosophical. But I can play that game, too. Although I concede that my initial definitions of "knowledge" and "belief" may not be the most clear, they are still less problematic than your views. "Knowledge" is not merely information. It is the intellectual apprehension of information. Knowledge cannot exist without someone to know it. Because "knowing," in the most rigorous sense, is only a function of a mind, and minds are unique, all knowledge is therefore ultimately subjective to some degree. All measurements are subject to human errors of perception and instrument design. All logic is founded on subjective premises; indeed, there are many different, mutually-incompatible mathematical systems based on different fundamental assumptions. See what you get when you go down that rabbit hole? You become skeptical of everything, including skepticism itself.<br /><br />For you to try to show that my definition of "knowledge" is circular is laughable, because anyone who looks closely will see that you've claimed a circular definition of the word "fact." So how do you define "fact"? As for "opinions," again I concede that my point was not made in the most clear way, and I actually suspected as much when I wrote it. But it was for the purposes of shorthand. An "opinion" is always understood to be something that does not claim to be a universal truth; it's subjective, based on an individual's feelings, preferences, and biases.<br /><br />I argue that there is no meaningful or useful distinction between "believing in" and "believing that." While you may be right that the former connotes a greater emotional significance that might be associated with faith, they are otherwise equivalent. Please go ahead ask people what the phrase, "I do believe in fairies," means. I bet that most will say, "It means that I believe that fairies exist." It is, after all, the theme of that iconic scene from Peter Pan (as well as the theme of the entire story).<br /><br />I would like to note that you claim that I didn't mention "faith," even though I used the word three times in a paragraph in which I discussed fideism. I would also like to note that you've ignored all of my subsequent comments after the one from which you quoted.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29775412931287638272011-09-19T12:17:16.733-05:002011-09-19T12:17:16.733-05:00Kapitano:
I can only go by my own experiences and...Kapitano:<br /><br /><b>I can only go by my own experiences and research. If I've somehow missed it, and the general population really are using such terms as "Agnostic Theist", then I can only say it's a very confused term, referring as it does to someone who believes god exists but also believes they've not got sufficient reason to believe it.</b><br /><br />That's not what it refers to, however. An agnostic theist would be someone who believes in a god, but doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge.<br /><br />If you like, it's the difference between saying: 'I'm pretty sure a god exists but I admit I have no definitive proof' and 'I am certain a god exists and I can prove it'. As a generalisation: your hard core proselytising theists tend to be gnostic theists, and your er... part time Anglicans tend to be agnostic theists. ;)<br /><br />Generally, though, you don't find many people self identifying as agnostic theists simply because they don't care enough about the subject to look into it.<br /><br />Also, it's something that is mainly used by atheists, as it is very helpful in correcting misapprehensions about what they believe.<br /><br />It's a handy way to explain to proselytising theists that being an atheist means we don't believe in a god, not that we believe no gods exist. Also, it helps destroy many stereotypes that religious people have put around about atheists. (Like the arrogantly presuming to know everything stereotype.)<br /><br />(As an aside, I always think the atheist = no gods exist definition is a <i>very</i> stupid definition. There is no hard and fast definition for the word 'god', so for the definition of atheist to mean anything, the atheist would have to provide the definition for 'god', and if you're doing that it is almost a truism that that particular 'god' doesn't exist.<br /><br />"I'm an atheist."<br /><br />"So you don't believe god exists?"<br /><br />"Yeah, I don't believe a one legged asexual hermaphrodite with tentacles rather than arms, no torso, and that is coloured both entirely green and entirely orange, doesn't exist."<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned that definition of atheist adds absolutely nothing to any discourse.)Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23656164881507704022011-09-19T12:16:52.038-05:002011-09-19T12:16:52.038-05:00Kapitano: From the way that you are debating, I...Kapitano: From the way that you are debating, I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of you, as you are being clearly disingenuous and/or ignorant. But for the sake of argument, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are sincere.<br /><br />First of all, please explain how your views are more "useful and helpful" than "Lukas's system" (which is not something that he made up, but rather the most common definitions for the concepts at issue here). You seem to suggest that "belief" is interchangeable with "knowledge," and that is why you reject our definitions of "agnosticism" and "atheism." However, I find your proposal to be more confusing, and I suspect that I am in the majority. Please go ask a bunch of your friends and strangers whether they think that "belief" and "knowledge" refer to the same thing, and see how many agree with you.<br /><br />Your understanding of the term "troll" appears to be as confused as your understanding of the other terms. "Troll" refers to one's sincerity and intent. "Rationale" has nothing to do with that. In fact, I'm not sure what your understanding of the word "rationale" is. My use of the word is wholly consistent with dictionary definitions, i.e., "a statement reasons; logic, basis, grounds." Merely having reasons implies nothing about sincerity or intentionality, and those reasons may be evaluated without respect to the person's sincerity or intentionality. I feel that all Christians' rationales for their beliefs are "mind-boggling and appalling," but I certainly don't think that all Christians are trolls.<br /><br />I don't see how your "original point was that to most people 'gnosticism' is 'Gnosticism.'" Where did you make this point? It's not even a valid point because most people are ignorant of most ancient history and have no idea what Gnosticism (with a capital 'G') is. But most people have at least a vague understanding of the word "agnosticism," so if you asked about Gnosticism, they'd guess that it's opposite of agnosticism. You claim to be a linguist but have done nothing to demonstrate your credentials; instead, you continue to show that you are, if anything, a poor linguist. You also ignored the analogy that I made with the words "stoicism" and "Stoicism."Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62993578854944260752011-09-19T11:03:01.060-05:002011-09-19T11:03:01.060-05:00Lukas said:
I never claimed that my system could d...Lukas said:<br /><b>I never claimed that my system could describe the totality of human thinking. I don't know where you got this idea.</b><br /><br />What you are claiming is that your system is adequate to describe the range of beliefs about the existence of a god. I have been arguing that it only takes four badly defined points and plots them on a two dimensional grid.<br /><br /><b>Also, I can't help but notice that in describing these positions, you've introduced a fuck-ton of new terms and ideas, so clearly your naming conventions can't handle these either.</b><br /><br />I have not introduced a naming convention in competition with yours. I have simply tried to explain why I think your system is not sufficient.<br /><br /><b>Sooooo, what was the point of this, again?</b><br /><br />It's the one you keep missing. The one I keep restating, and have just restated again.<br /><br /><b>Life is complicated. We might actually have to stop and think once in a while.</b><br /><br />Yes, life is complicated. Which is why oversimplified and overabstract schematic diagrams are misleading.<br /><br /><b>Are you telling me that you'd like to introduce this distinction?</b><br /><br />No, I didn't say anything to suggest that, and even said it was a 'side issue'.<br /><br /><b>All I'm trying to do is institute a system of nomenclature which is reasonably clear and which allows for certain distinctions that are not found in more traditional use, but are still, in my opinion, important.</b><br /><br />Fair enough. I think they're unclear and unimportant. You seem extremely upset that someone is questioning your nice neat diagram.<br /><br />I've now said all I intend to say on this thread, and I'm going to listen to show 727.Kapitanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647896216499813443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45165103234343783562011-09-19T08:47:21.354-05:002011-09-19T08:47:21.354-05:00Afterthought_btw said...
I do, however, come acro...Afterthought_btw said... <br /><b>I do, however, come across people continuously that use the words the way Lukas has been describing them, and on the internet it seems almost unanimously used that way.</b><br /><br />I can only go by my own experiences and research. If I've somehow missed it, and the general population really are using such terms as "Agnostic Theist", then I can only say it's a very confused term, referring as it does to someone who believes god exists but also believes they've not got sufficient reason to believe it.<br /><br />So I hope it's just a passing fashion.Kapitanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647896216499813443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64498452485127145192011-09-19T08:35:52.115-05:002011-09-19T08:35:52.115-05:00Farmboy said:
Yes, in Dutch they use 'weten...Farmboy said:<br /><b>Yes, in Dutch they use 'weten' and 'kennen' but in English they just use the same word 'knowing' which can be used in both instances. 'I know that guy'. (ken) 'I know 2 + 2 equals 4' (weet).</b><br /><br />Lukas's system seems applicable to 'weeten', but not to 'kenen'. That's not a point against the system, but it does ignore what christians (IMO, IME) regard as the important thing about god - their personal relationship with him.<br /><br />Leaving aside questions of how it's conceievable to have a deep intimate relationship with something so alien, with such a power imbalance, I think the psychologically attractive thing about the notion of a 'loving god' is the 'loving' part.<br /><br />There's no reason why there can't be a theistic position which holds that god exists, but doesn't notice us, and wouldn't care if he did. Islam has a god that's unknowable...except when it's politically expedient to know him.Kapitanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647896216499813443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60069301556055780902011-09-19T07:35:00.350-05:002011-09-19T07:35:00.350-05:00Yes, in Dutch they use 'weten' and 'ke...Yes, in Dutch they use 'weten' and 'kennen' but in English they just use the same word 'knowing' which can be used in both instances. 'I know that guy'. (ken) 'I know 2 + 2 equals 4' (weet). <br />And I don't see how any of this matters. Knowing a god and knowing he exists...there is only one question: how do you know?<br /><br />There is a distinction however that could lead to miscommunication between atheist and theist. Belief in god and belief in a god's existence. Faith that he exists and/or faith that he has a plan for you. The latter presupposes the first. And I think the latter is also commonly misused by theists whenever they claim atheists are only atheists because they lost someone or because they didn't get what they want or that they don't want to obey god's laws. They are talking about losing faith in this god while we are talking about whether he exists or not. And sometimes this can cause friction. Especially since those theists refuse to imagine a world without their god, they keep presupposing it with indoctrinated self-delusion and gullibility and insist we are wrong and they are right. Because they say so. Because they have faith in their god's plan and in their eyes we 'reject' it.<br /><br />Two different discussions, which only reveals the theist's ignorance regarding atheism. A-Theism. Without Theism. Without gods/without belief in gods.<br /><br />Try telling WLC that and your comment will be deleted, blocked and manipulated in their favour, to mean the opposite.farmboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15825056049310588217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21255125063457000762011-09-19T07:10:47.211-05:002011-09-19T07:10:47.211-05:00Kapitano:
For the record I'm a British atheis...Kapitano:<br /><br />For the record I'm a British atheist, and I know no atheists that use the word as you do, nor the word gnostic as you do. (In fact, most people I meet have barely even heard of the Gnostic Christian sect (if at all), and thus I find it rather amusing that they would be basing their understanding of the terms 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' on that.)<br /><br />I do, however, come across people continuously that use the words the way Lukas has been describing them, and on the internet it seems almost unanimously used that way.<br /><br />The only reason I'm pointing this out, is it strikes me you have it entirely backwards when trying to claim that the definition you use is the popularly used one, and Lukas' is virtually never used by anybody.<br /><br />Oh yeah, seeing as you mention your long experience debating about this... I was taught these definitions for (a)gnosticism in a philosophy module at university, if that means anything.Afterthought_btwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17758975616219512727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50395980531691348022011-09-19T03:02:16.984-05:002011-09-19T03:02:16.984-05:00Here are some positions your system can't hand...<b>Here are some positions your system can't handle:</b><br /><br />I wasn't trying to handle those positions. I never claimed that my system could describe the totality of human thinking. I don't know where you got this idea. <br />Also, I can't help but notice that in describing these positions, you've introduced a fuck-ton of new terms and ideas, so clearly your naming conventions can't handle these either.<br /><br />Sooooo, what was the point of this, again?<br /><br /><b>Your distinction between knowledge and belief, common as it is in indo-european languages, isn't so clear cut as it first appears</b><br /><br />Oh, boo fucking hoo! Life is complicated. We might actually have to stop and think once in a while. What a fucking horror!<br /><br /><b>As a side issue, in Dutch there's 'weten' and 'kennen. You seem to collapse this distinction, common to most germanic languages. Why?</b><br /><br />Are you telling me that you'd like to introduce this distinction? Do you think it would be useful to do so? If so, why are you allowed to do that when I'm apparantly not? I mean, when I tried to do this, you called me "dictatorial". What gives?<br /><br />If you really want this distinction, fine. We could call it theoretical knowledge and experiential knowledge, or something like that. Now, what do you wish to do with this new distinction?<br /><br />You seem to have some sort of point waiting backstage, but I'm not seeing it. So, words are complicated and their definitions often fall apart under close scrutiny, but so what? No system of naming conventions can cover all possible positions, and who cares?<br />You do realize that this is not a problem unique to my position, right?<br /><br />Also, in this context, I don't actually much care about clear definitions of "belief", "knowledge" and "faith". Let them remain blurry. It doesn't matter. I'm not here to solve the accumulated philosophical problems of millennia. <br />All I'm trying to do is institute a system of nomenclature which is reasonably clear and which allows for certain distinctions that are not found in more traditional use, but are still, in my opinion, important.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01844177654412625852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25240009386233218642011-09-18T21:58:08.815-05:002011-09-18T21:58:08.815-05:00There is also a simple linguistic illustration of ...There is also a simple linguistic illustration of the difference between "belief" and "knowledge": When a belief has little or no basis in reality, it is called a "delusional belief," but there is no such phrase as "delusional knowledge." Since knowledge is inherently based in reality and not merely a matter of perceptions and feelings, the corresponding term would be something like "incorrect knowledge" or "faulty knowledge" or simply "lack of knowledge." You can have a "delusional belief" that demonstrates your "lack of knowledge," such as the anti-vaccination belief. Many anti-vaxers are clearly dead certain.<br /><br />"Belief" and "knowledge" are far from the only pair of distinct concepts that seem to lie on the same emotional spectrum. One example is "like" and "love." Like with the former pair, people often use these words in casual conversation to refer to different degrees of the same feeling. But when used more rigorously, "love" in almost any context implies more than "extreme like." And just as you might be hard-pressed to draw a definite line between "confident belief" and "knowledge," you'd be equally hard-pressed to draw a definite line between "really like" and "love."<br /><br />A more concrete example might be the difference between "good" and "great" when evaluating art. In casual conversation, people might describe something as "really, really good" and "extremely good," even though "great" is less to say. So why do people use words in this way? Clearly, there is a widely-understood distinction between "good art" and "great art," even though both are subjective evaluations of quality that are based on how strong of a positive reaction that one has. A "great" work of art is often used synonymously with the word "masterpiece," which specifically implies something that will prove to be influential, studied, and able to stand the test of time. But one can like a piece of art so much to be beyond words and yet not judge it to be a "masterpiece" or "great."<br /><br />Along those lines, you can love a movie without thinking that it's "great." I doubt that most people claim their favorite movie to be the "greatest/best movie of all time." One may recognize that a movie (or book or song, etc.) has a sentimental appeal that's specific to you and your life, which puts your feelings about it beyond the realm of artistic judgment. That's why people use such as phrases as "guilty pleasure" (something that you admit is not "good" but that you enjoy anyway) and "I admire it, but I don't like it very much." You'd claim all of these cases to be "nonsense," "redundant," or "tautological" if you didn't recognize that distinct pairs of concepts do exist despite how similar or related they are to each other.Fei Menghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17534941709876911424noreply@blogger.com