A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2016, 02:49 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 02:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 02:14 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I try to not use word believe for much the same reasons, I don't need belief when I have facts, previous experience, etc.

I wouldn't say it legitimize religious objections as these "objections" are - to use crude language - shit. It's just word that does not really fit to the subject. Trouble
would start if one were to say that one have faith in evolution.


Except, we do both 'believe'. Our belief is based upon facts and evidence, theirs is built upon faith. The problem isn't with the word belief in and of itself, the problem is with the foundations of said belief. The problem is faith versus evidence.

I don't believe, I'm convinced in light of existing evidence. There is no need for belief, but there may be room for it if we are to define it as: accepting something as true.

And yes real problem is foundation of one conviction, in this we definitelly agree.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 03:05 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 02:49 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 02:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except, we do both 'believe'. Our belief is based upon facts and evidence, theirs is built upon faith. The problem isn't with the word belief in and of itself, the problem is with the foundations of said belief. The problem is faith versus evidence.

I don't believe, I'm convinced in light of existing evidence. There is no need for belief, but there may be room for it if we are to define it as: accepting something as true.

And yes real problem is foundation of one conviction, in this we definitelly agree.

You are fundamentally using that word wrong.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

[Image: 2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
17-01-2016, 03:20 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 03:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 02:49 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I don't believe, I'm convinced in light of existing evidence. There is no need for belief, but there may be room for it if we are to define it as: accepting something as true.

And yes real problem is foundation of one conviction, in this we definitelly agree.

You are fundamentally using that word wrong.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

[Image: 2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png]

And you're certainly using it right and how it should be used. Thanks for enlightening me.

But you know there are other definitions, yours isn't the only one. If we go by this then original example of believing in evolution would be idiotic and word itself nearly useless - for me at least - considering especially without proof part of definition.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 03:27 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2016 03:42 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 03:20 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 03:05 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are fundamentally using that word wrong.

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

[Image: 2000px-Belief_Venn_diagram.svg.png]

And you're certainly using it right and how it should be used. Thanks for enlightening me.

But you know there are other definitions, yours isn't the only one. If we go by this then original example of believing in evolution would be idiotic and word itself nearly useless - for me at least - considering especially without proof part of definition.


Which applies to use 1 and 1.2, but not 1.1, 1.3, or 2.

I hold a positive belief in the explanatory power of the theory of evolution, because of the evidence in support of it; and this qualifies my belief as knowledge, and I can thus restate my position as claiming to know (to the best of our knowledge) that the theory of evolution is demonstrably true. The important point is the reason, answering the 'why?' question. For that mater, I have a positive belief in the non-existence of the divine and the super-natural, because of the complete lack of evidence in support of it. We all have beliefs, but not all of our belief's qualify as knowledge.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 03:40 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I hold a positive belief in the explanatory power of the theory of evolution, because of the evidence in support of it.

I'm convinced that TE is true thanks to all evidence supporting it.

(17-01-2016 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The important point is the reason, answering the 'why?' question.

As in why I hold a positive belief...? Or rather why I'm convinced of it being true? Cause I'm educated, free from indoctrination and having common ancestor with monkey does not feel me with shame. Mostly though cause such are facts.

On the side note I've never met someone who believed in TE as one can believe in religion.

(17-01-2016 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For that mater, I have a positive belief in the non-existence of the divine and the super-natural, because of the complete lack of evidence in support of it.

I lack the belief in space wizard cause there is no evidence for it existing. Also which may be even more important apparently parents were bad at indoctrination.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 04:04 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 03:40 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(17-01-2016 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For that mater, I have a positive belief in the non-existence of the divine and the super-natural, because of the complete lack of evidence in support of it.

I lack the belief in space wizard cause there is no evidence for it existing. Also which may be even more important apparently parents were bad at indoctrination.


As in, you believe that the space wizard doesn't exist because the concept hasn't met it's burden of proof.


We all have beliefs, and this popular atheist dodge that we all 'lack belief in god' does nothing but muddy the waters. Do you believe god exists as anything more than a concept? No? Then you conversely believe that god is nothing more than a concept until sufficiently defined and backed by evidence. That's not a lack of belief, it is itself a belief; just with a different opinion. Once again the important underling principle is always the 'why' part, and for many of us it comes down to evidence. Good critical thinkers and those who value evidence gauge the strength of their beliefs against the weight of the available evidence or lack thereof. But a concept that lacks evidence in support of it doesn't get a 'lack of belief', you simply believe it isn't true because it fails it's burden of proof; and that belief shouldn't change without additional evidence.


Atheists do not lack a belief in gods, we believe the god concept has no merit in reality because as of yet all meaningful and falsifiable definitions have failed to meet their burden of proof.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 04:05 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(16-01-2016 08:36 PM)coyote Wrote:  ...
Atheists need to drop 'belief' from their lexicon.

I partially agree. If a word causes more confusion that it removes e.g. "theory", it should probably be avoided.

But "belief" is fairly innocuous. "Faith" should be the target.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
17-01-2016, 04:23 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2016 04:29 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As in, you believe that the space wizard doesn't exist because the concept hasn't met it's burden of proof.

As in I lack the faith in something called god often though not always attributed with omniscence or other omnis.

(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We all have beliefs, and this popular atheist dodge that we all 'lack belief in god' does nothing but muddy the waters.

I do not consider it dodge but sincere and accurate statement. If you wan't consider lack of belief as a belief it's not my problem. But do not impose your line of thinking onto me.

(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do you believe god exists as anything more than a concept?

I know that there is concept of a god and I lack belief in existence of "real" god.

(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No? Then you conversely believe that god is nothing more than a concept until sufficiently defined and backed by evidence.

No. You may believe it, more than that you also can believe that I believe just like you but your belief is irrelevant to my opinion.

(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's not a lack of belief, it is itself a belief; just with a different opinion.

That's - in my case as I don't speak for the others - lack of belief in existence of god. Existence of concept isn't matter of belief.

(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again the important underling principle is always the 'why' part, and for many of us it comes down to evidence. Good critical thinkers and those who value evidence gauge the strength of their beliefs against the weight of the available evidence or lack thereof. But a concept that lacks evidence in support of it doesn't get a 'lack of belief', you simply believe it isn't true because it fails it's burden of proof; and that belief shouldn't change without additional evidence.

I think that I know better than you what beliefs - if any - I have and what I don't have. I'm absent the belief in existence of god.

(17-01-2016 04:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Atheists do not lack a belief in gods, we believe the god concept has no merit in reality because as of yet all meaningful and falsifiable definitions have failed to meet their burden of proof.

I consider myself atheist and I'm lack or rather I'm absent the belief in god. I don't know neither I care what "we" are supposed to believe.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 06:37 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 02:14 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 08:36 PM)coyote Wrote:  Religionist is my own word, though I'd be surprised if it hadn't been used before I was even born. It rolls into one word people who believe in God, people who believe in a particular religion, and people who believe religion is superior to no-religion.

I see no need for such word as believer and theist are enough but it is at best minor issue.

(16-01-2016 08:36 PM)coyote Wrote:  Anyway, the problem with the above statement is this: it legitimizes religious objection to evolution! By saying "I believe in X", you give complete credence to people who say "I believe in Y". And then when you attempt to argue it, it's just your belief vs my belief. It is THE rhetorical mechanism whereby all manner of fictional nonsense gets elevated to the same conversational/conceptual plane as facts and data.

I try to not use word believe for much the same reasons, I don't need belief when I have facts, previous experience, etc.

I wouldn't say it legitimize religious objections as these "objections" are - to use crude language - shit. It's just word that does not really fit to the subject. Trouble
would start if one were to say that one have faith in evolution.

(16-01-2016 08:36 PM)coyote Wrote:  Language matters. In many instances, it is crucial. Atheists need to drop 'belief' from their lexicon.

Language indeed matters but atheists only "need" to do what they please. You arent highest atheistic instantion capable of banning certain words.

Oy. Don't you grasp that it is the word 'belief' that allows religionists to categorize atheism as merely one more belief system??

Of course I can't 'ban' you from using the word. I really don't get why multiple posters here are accusing me of trying to do that. You are free to continue using the word.... just be aware that it is exactly that usage which lowers the conversation to, and legitimizes the nonsense of, the irrational.

I believe in global warming.
There, I've just taken all the science out of the conversation, and allowed the endless nonsense spewed by deniers to play on the same field as the abundant data and constantly-improving data models.

See how that works?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2016, 06:50 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(17-01-2016 04:05 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(16-01-2016 08:36 PM)coyote Wrote:  ...
Atheists need to drop 'belief' from their lexicon.

I partially agree. If a word causes more confusion that it removes e.g. "theory", it should probably be avoided.

But "belief" is fairly innocuous. "Faith" should be the target.

Smile

The word itself does not cause confusion. Incorrect usage does.
Lots of people believe in God, while having no faith in God. Think of Ted Cruz. If he really had faith in his God, would he so incessantly bear false witness against as many people as he does? But he sure does seem to believe in that God, doesn't he.

Belief only seems innocuous. Because it's thrown around so carelessly.

But I like your example too! And I occasionally find myself, when positing a fictional scenario, starting a sentence by saying "Theoretically, if we blahblahblah..." and I make a point of correcting myself, publicly: "I mean, hypothetically..... " And I do this specifically to emphasize to others the correct usage of the word! Again, because if I posit a mere what-if as a 'theory', it gives license to religionists to dismiss evolution as "mere theory, not factual".

Language Matters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: