this negative belief you have added is no more that a positive belief in an opposing idea. It doesn't add anything, but rather introduces a false dichotomy that every idea has exactly one opposing idea.
Thanks for the feedback, I guess I could be more explicit...
Balanced trinary is a conceptual framework that rejects the notion of dichotomies as the total picture. It is true that for every positive postulation there is an opposing negative postulation. It only becomes a false dichotomy if one assumes that all situations fall under either the positive or negative.
Trinary has the neutral postulation of the concept itself. This third option is what I'm adding, not the negative.
@enotdetcelfer So if I reject Allah even if I have no evidence against him then according to your model I have faith? Idk I could say the same for Santa Clause and the toothe fairy. I've never tried to provide positive evidence against those but I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
@RuinSonic This is why I defined what I mean by "faith" at the beginning as apo-religious. In your example, "Rejecting" is the problem word. If you say that allah Cannot exist; prove it or believe it without claims against his definition. If reject means disregard, hold fallacious, ignore as irrelevant, then simply say that he Doesn't exist and point to the lack of evidence, you are in the center.
In the center you're grounded against every empty form.
@enotdetcelfer "If you say that allah Cannot exist; prove it or believe it without claims against his definition."
How about unlikely? I don't have to prove a negative to be justified in believing it is incorrect. Do I need an argument to have no faith in denying (or in the negative category in your diagram) of Zeus or Santa Clause?
I lack belief in Santa but I don't have faith saying he definitely doesn't exist.
@RuinSonic What I'm saying is that the biggest confusion is coming from "negative position" meaning two things. Most people use it to refer to both "can't say it exists" AND "does not exist". I believe the statement "does not exist" means that you know it does not exist. This means you either have looked everywhere (impossible) or you can show the definition is illogical. I believe the latter. However the notion that you cant prove a negative is a fallacy of binary logic. Don't have to =/= have.
@enotdetcelfer ". I believe the statement "does not exist" means that you know it does not exist."
No it means I think it does not exist. How does a statement of belief or opinion translate into a certain belief or a claim of knowledge? I don't believe aliens have abducted people but I don't claim to know no aliens have come to earth recently. Therefore I'd say they haven't as far as I'm concerned.
We can't know anything if your definition of knowledge is true.
@RuinSonic "We can't know anything if your definition of knowledge is true"
Well this whole debate is about a year old, I won't get into it, I just thought I'd mention this one statement... My favorite saying is "True knowledge lies in knowing you know nothing at all"
@TheoryOfThought Technically I suppose I would be agnostic of Bigfoot, but in reality I'm pretty sure made up creatures that violate physics are just as untrue as gravity is true. While God I would be practically and technically agnostic because I have no standard to measure it by. All I have is reason to judge it by.
@RuinSonic Of course if Bigfoot is just a regular ape that's oversized and is human like I suppose I would be very agnostic about it since we don't have omniscience in the world.
@enotdetcelfer this notion of having to know all possibilities and everything in order to know something isn't true is called absolute certainty. It's a red herring because if we can assume we are talking about something math and our existence is about all we can know according to your epistemology. Because even if I search and find a contradiction in the universe it could just be me interpreting it wrong or my senses could give me wrong information.
@enotdetcelfer Here is a good example. I know who my parents are. Yet I could easily be wrong. Just because you don't find the reasoning for or against a proposition being that convincing doesn't mean others don't. I know very few atheists who claim they know God doesn't exist. And even if they did they always will tell you they don't have absolute certainty. Your opinion about what people mean when they say something is true is irrelevant. A YEC will tell you about absolute certainty.
@enotdetcelfer I guess an equally important question is what do you mean by evidence for a negative position? Is this like proof or evidence that anti-magic sandwhiches is an accurate and correct position or does it mean reason to think we shouldn't accept arbitrary magic sandwhiches because things like this are most likely wrong? Because I really don't know many logical syllogisms that argue against any deist God existing, other than Dawkins one I guess.
@RuinSonic Well it's a fallacy of binary logic to say you have to be for or against... "True or false; Answer the question." Bullshit. It is the most honest to logic to say that there is no proof for and no proof against. "Do you believe there is a god?" - "No" "Do you believe there is no god?" - "No" "Are you Agnostic?" - "No" "How are you not Agnostic??" - "I am willing to field any evidence toward any position. Till then, it's irrelevant." Why does everyone need to be negative to win?
@enotdetcelfer "Well it's a fallacy of binary logic to say you have to be for or against"
I didn't say you had to be for it or against it. I said why must you have evidence to be against a proposition? For example I reject BigFoot and fairies. I don't have positive evidence they don't exist.
Btw you are agnostic because agnostic means I don't know. Whether you think it's irrelevant or suspend belief or whatever says nothing about the yes or no question of do you believe in a God.
If you can tell me the difference between "I don't believe bigfoot exists" and "I believe bigfoot doesn't exist" then I will continue this conversation...
@enotdetcelfer One is an affirmative statement and the other one is a negative statement. Pyschologically it's the same, so semantically it doesn't make a whole lot of difference other than how people use "I believe" or I "don't believe." I could lack belief in Zeus or Allah, but I life exactly like they don't exist without even having a positive affirmation. It's really the same but one is taken to be a claim of knowing something the other is just denoting their belief in a claim.
@RuinSonic A negative position is the positive position that would disprove the positive position. A positive position is the negative position of a negative position. A neutral position is the opposite of both a positive And a negative position. You learned all this when you were learning basic math... (+)=(+); (+)=/=(-); (+) x (-)=(-); (-) x (-)=(+); (0)=/=(+); (0)=/=(-); Atheism is (god) <= 0 Antitheism is (god) < 0 If that doesn't put it simply enough I can't help. Sorry.
@enotdetcelfer "If that doesn't put it simply enough I can't help. Sorry."
Yeah, I watched your video. Don't know how this is relevant to my point. I never denied that there is positive claims that are a negative position. I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist. I don't have faith, but I think reason leads to that proposition. Your claiming i need hard proof to make this positive assertion and I'm saying no I don't.
You claim that the (-) position, negative/ disbelief kind of atheist needs evidence for his position ( evidence for the nonexistence of god) and you claim that if he does not have evidence for the nonexistence of god, then he needs 'faith'. I think this is wrong. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim saying SOMETHING EXISTS. In lack of evidence that something exists, there is no need (and no possibility) of proof that something does NOT exists
Incorrect. Mutual/logical exclusion allows for the proof of a negative by the proof of a positive.
Ex: If I show you two gods, it disproves the notion that only one god exists. Also, if the definition of god is self-refuting, illogical, then that god positively does not exist because it cannot exist.
It is one thing to say that you don't believe in god because you see no evidence. It is a whole other case to say you know for sure that god does not exist. The latter I call positive atheism.
I don't believe in god because I don't see evidence for it. But because there is no sensual evidence for it, I am able to say 'I know for sure that god does not exist'. Asking me to provide evidence for the ABSENCE of something places me in an impossible position. It is like if I would claim WITHOUT EVIDENCE that you murdered someone, and ask you to prove that you did NOT murder someone. And if you don't have evidence for NOT murdering someone, I d say: you can't say FOR SURE that you didn't.
That is correct, without evidence, you cannot make positive claims. You can only say that you are justified in not believing because you have no evidence. Not believing is a neutral position until you say the reason you don't believe is because you are sure god doesn't exist.
I still disagree with setting up the 'system of proof' making it mandatory to prove the absence of non existents (which is impossible) and we are not going to resolve this. Besides, you would be horribly annoyed if someone would run around claiming that you murdered someone without evidence and asking you for proof that you didn't and until then you couldn't say FOR SURE that you didn't. It is a perversion of justice. And it is a perversion of epistemology to ask for proof of negatives.
well, I agree that if the definition is self-refuting, then that god positively does not exist because it cannot exist.
What I don't understand: proof of a negative by the proof of a positive. If you could show two gods it would refute there is only one. How does that apply to proving the non existence of a negative (and let's say you couldn't use the definition of it to refute it) ? How would you refute a statement like: 'there is a parallel universe' ? There is no EVIDENCE for its absence.
That's the point exactly, if there is no evidence, there is no grounds for positive claims. This leaves god in who-gives-a-fuck-land along with the three legged saguaro cake and the (insert made up creature here). It however does not mean you can make a positive claim of non existance. This is an important logical distinction.
Basically, you are condemning people to hold agnostic positions in regard to god (who knows if he exists, I can't prove that he doesn't, so I can't BE SURE that he doesn't).
Yet, I can be sure that he doesn't because there is no evidence (again, I have left out the self refuting definitions which would be reason enough to reject god). Being NOT SURE about the existence of god, just is not enough to keep a healthy epistemology. It asks my brain to accept invalid statements as 'not resolvable'.
Nope. All I'm saying is know where the lines are when making claims. Saying you think god doesn't exist because there is no evidence is A-O-K...
Dude, it's the same reason why scientists insist on calling evolution and gravitation "theories" despite all the evidence, it's precision of logic. Was Feynman condemning science when he said we can't "know why" magnetism works, only how? No, he was just being precise.
Precision about conceptual taxonomy is crucial to fostering intellectual integrity.
That's my objection: despite of all the evidence that is available, they still call evolution and gravitation 'theories' , saying, 'oh, we really can't be SURE about this, just theory' . And then the creationist comes along and says, here, 'I got another theory, creationism, and it is AS MUCH a theory as evolution is'. This is perverse. With your kind of logical method, you grant creationism a similar status as evolution. This method prevents the use of 'sure' in too many cases which ARE sure.
@enotdetcelfer "Precision about conceptual taxonomy is crucial to fostering intellectual integrity."
Brilliantly stated, and brilliantly expressed. This video is a much needed explanation for people who routinely fail to discern between different classes of ideas, and how each ought to be treated and addressed. Thanks for the post!
@TrenchantAtheist "what is beautiful and definite and the object of knowledge is by nature prior to the indefinite and the incomprehensible and the ugly" -nicomachus. with that said i agree with your statement, I feel that I'm still justified in arguing my point to theist that its silly to believe in things which are completely self serving and centralizing. Nobody knows therefore the argument is pointless I get that, but all of theism must DIE before any beautiful paradigm shift
For more on the buddhist notion of dualism see: ... en.wikipedia org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
Another example of dualism: In zen it's often said that asking where the soul goes when one dies, is like asking where the flame goes when you blow out a candle. If someone asks this, clearly they misunderstand what a flame is. So if someone asks you: Do souls go to heaven when one dies? The correct answer is "mu". To say merely NO would imply that the nonexistent soul might go somewhere else.
There's a famous Zen story abt a student who demands that the zen master answer his philosophical question w/ either a YES or a NO. The teacher answers: MU. In Japanese "MU" means the question is null & void of any meaning. The teacher knew that if he answered either YES or NO, then the student would get the wrong idea, b/c it was a biased question based on incorrect assumptions. In reality there are ALWAYS more than 2 answers to any question. Zen teaches how to avoid such dualistic thinking.
For more on this you should look into the Buddhist concept on DUALISM. From the Buddhist perspective (a non-theistic perspective) the main problem with most of western philosophy is that it gets hung up on DUALISM. Most of western philosophy is based on "THE LAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE" (look it up). Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha) regnozized this logical falacy over 2500 years ago and realized that dualism is the cause of much unnecessary conflict and suffering in the world.
Atheists should learn to be comfortable admitting that their BELIEFS are not proveable by logic and therefore requires FAITH. Every scientific theory begins as a hunch or hypothesis & then becomes a BELIEF as the evidence mounts in its favor & ultimately becomes scientific DOGMA when the evidence becomes overwhelming. But, even dogma can sometimes be overturned or must be revised. There is nothing wrong with having faith in EVOLUTION for example because the evidence for it it is so overwhelming.
FAITH is not enemy of rationality "blind faith" is (I.e. faith in the face of overwhelming conflicting evidence). As an atheist I might say: "I have faith in science" or "I have faith in democracy'. Can I prove that either of these big abstract concepts will lead people to the best answer? NO. But, in general, I choose to believe that in most cases they will, because of evidence from past experience & because each contains a self-correcting mechanism that I have FAITH will win out in the end.
The problem here is that many atheists have a problem using the word "faith", because they have allowed theists to monopolize use of the word to mean ONLY faith in their religion & have allowed the theists to brand them as "faithless" or "non-believers". Everyone believes in things that they can not prove & acts on those beliefs everyday. Atheists should not shy away from using the word FAITH. There's NOTHING WRONG with FAITH that is based on good evidence. It is 'blind faith that is illogical.
EXCEPT... you logic is flawed in one regard. Your definition of FAITH reveals a subtle bias against it. Your definition of faith is: "internal drive or conviction that is not externally waranted". You should have said a conviction based on "insufficient evidence", rather than using the loaded term "warranted". Who is to say if my evidence is sufficient for me to believe? You commit a common error here confusing "faith" with "blind faith" (i.e. faith w/o evidence).
Seems fair. Most of the atheists I encounter would fall in the middle category. Some don't... and you know who you are.
it may aid the debate in the respect that it might help theists visualize a truly neutral position that is not faith-based. It may be more fun, though, to just have two non-neutral positions slug it out. We can make bets. It could even descend into an all-female mud wrestling match. A win for all, if you ask me.
Your presentation was kinna dull, but I TOTALLY agree with the content...
...up to a point.
You're treating theism as if it were some big monolithic thing, which it isn't; this chart has to be run for each and every god/religion out there. If you're a christian, you STILL have to run this thought process for Mumbo-Jumbo, Monkey God of the Congo, and for Zeus, and for Odin, and for Ra, and for all the other gods anyone might ever suggest. Same for the atheist.
And you're not alone; lots of people do this. It's a video I've been meaning to make, and issue I've been meaning to address for a while, actually; scripting it right now.
The chart idea was pretty good as was the tripartite arrangement.
Did it clear anything up? Weeeelll I think it is one of those things that clears the issue up for as long as you can remember it - like a convoluted mathematical proof or sequence that you hope to commit to memory but forget the next day and all you can recall is that there was something you have now forgotten.
I suppose I'm saying it clarifies without simplifying :))
Some who is open to the idea of god(s), but does not associate themselves with a specific religious group or god(s). Something like that.
OMGtechy 1 month ago
Your definition of an agnostic is completely wrong.
OMGtechy 1 month ago
@OMGtechy
Correct it.
SaveTheWheat 1 month ago
Please make this video available on mobile devices.
RalphInRalphWorld 2 months ago
Linked this video in my latest upload. Definitely needs more views (still)
Cheers.
TrenchantAtheist 1 year ago
@TrenchantAtheist You're too kind.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
this negative belief you have added is no more that a positive belief in an opposing idea. It doesn't add anything, but rather introduces a false dichotomy that every idea has exactly one opposing idea.
fourthirteen 1 year ago
@fourthirteen
Thanks for the feedback, I guess I could be more explicit...
Balanced trinary is a conceptual framework that rejects the notion of dichotomies as the total picture. It is true that for every positive postulation there is an opposing negative postulation. It only becomes a false dichotomy if one assumes that all situations fall under either the positive or negative.
Trinary has the neutral postulation of the concept itself. This third option is what I'm adding, not the negative.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer So if I reject Allah even if I have no evidence against him then according to your model I have faith? Idk I could say the same for Santa Clause and the toothe fairy. I've never tried to provide positive evidence against those but I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic This is why I defined what I mean by "faith" at the beginning as apo-religious. In your example, "Rejecting" is the problem word. If you say that allah Cannot exist; prove it or believe it without claims against his definition. If reject means disregard, hold fallacious, ignore as irrelevant, then simply say that he Doesn't exist and point to the lack of evidence, you are in the center.
In the center you're grounded against every empty form.
I exist. Definition & evidence, A=A.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer "If you say that allah Cannot exist; prove it or believe it without claims against his definition."
How about unlikely? I don't have to prove a negative to be justified in believing it is incorrect. Do I need an argument to have no faith in denying (or in the negative category in your diagram) of Zeus or Santa Clause?
I lack belief in Santa but I don't have faith saying he definitely doesn't exist.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic What I'm saying is that the biggest confusion is coming from "negative position" meaning two things. Most people use it to refer to both "can't say it exists" AND "does not exist". I believe the statement "does not exist" means that you know it does not exist. This means you either have looked everywhere (impossible) or you can show the definition is illogical. I believe the latter. However the notion that you cant prove a negative is a fallacy of binary logic. Don't have to =/= have.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer ". I believe the statement "does not exist" means that you know it does not exist."
No it means I think it does not exist. How does a statement of belief or opinion translate into a certain belief or a claim of knowledge? I don't believe aliens have abducted people but I don't claim to know no aliens have come to earth recently. Therefore I'd say they haven't as far as I'm concerned.
We can't know anything if your definition of knowledge is true.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic "We can't know anything if your definition of knowledge is true"
Well this whole debate is about a year old, I won't get into it, I just thought I'd mention this one statement... My favorite saying is "True knowledge lies in knowing you know nothing at all"
TheoryOfThought 2 months ago
@TheoryOfThought Technically I suppose I would be agnostic of Bigfoot, but in reality I'm pretty sure made up creatures that violate physics are just as untrue as gravity is true. While God I would be practically and technically agnostic because I have no standard to measure it by. All I have is reason to judge it by.
RuinSonic 1 month ago
@RuinSonic Of course if Bigfoot is just a regular ape that's oversized and is human like I suppose I would be very agnostic about it since we don't have omniscience in the world.
RuinSonic 1 month ago
@enotdetcelfer this notion of having to know all possibilities and everything in order to know something isn't true is called absolute certainty. It's a red herring because if we can assume we are talking about something math and our existence is about all we can know according to your epistemology. Because even if I search and find a contradiction in the universe it could just be me interpreting it wrong or my senses could give me wrong information.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer Here is a good example. I know who my parents are. Yet I could easily be wrong. Just because you don't find the reasoning for or against a proposition being that convincing doesn't mean others don't. I know very few atheists who claim they know God doesn't exist. And even if they did they always will tell you they don't have absolute certainty. Your opinion about what people mean when they say something is true is irrelevant. A YEC will tell you about absolute certainty.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer I guess an equally important question is what do you mean by evidence for a negative position? Is this like proof or evidence that anti-magic sandwhiches is an accurate and correct position or does it mean reason to think we shouldn't accept arbitrary magic sandwhiches because things like this are most likely wrong? Because I really don't know many logical syllogisms that argue against any deist God existing, other than Dawkins one I guess.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer "Well it's a fallacy of binary logic to say you have to be for or against"
I didn't say you had to be for it or against it. I said why must you have evidence to be against a proposition? For example I reject BigFoot and fairies. I don't have positive evidence they don't exist.
Btw you are agnostic because agnostic means I don't know. Whether you think it's irrelevant or suspend belief or whatever says nothing about the yes or no question of do you believe in a God.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
If you can tell me the difference between "I don't believe bigfoot exists" and "I believe bigfoot doesn't exist" then I will continue this conversation...
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer One is an affirmative statement and the other one is a negative statement. Pyschologically it's the same, so semantically it doesn't make a whole lot of difference other than how people use "I believe" or I "don't believe." I could lack belief in Zeus or Allah, but I life exactly like they don't exist without even having a positive affirmation. It's really the same but one is taken to be a claim of knowing something the other is just denoting their belief in a claim.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer Wrong answer? Lol.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer "If that doesn't put it simply enough I can't help. Sorry."
Yeah, I watched your video. Don't know how this is relevant to my point. I never denied that there is positive claims that are a negative position. I believe Bigfoot doesn't exist. I don't have faith, but I think reason leads to that proposition. Your claiming i need hard proof to make this positive assertion and I'm saying no I don't.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
Comment removed
RuinSonic 1 year ago
You claim that the (-) position, negative/ disbelief kind of atheist needs evidence for his position ( evidence for the nonexistence of god) and you claim that if he does not have evidence for the nonexistence of god, then he needs 'faith'. I think this is wrong. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim saying SOMETHING EXISTS. In lack of evidence that something exists, there is no need (and no possibility) of proof that something does NOT exists
TOMsReason 1 year ago
Incorrect. Mutual/logical exclusion allows for the proof of a negative by the proof of a positive.
Ex: If I show you two gods, it disproves the notion that only one god exists. Also, if the definition of god is self-refuting, illogical, then that god positively does not exist because it cannot exist.
It is one thing to say that you don't believe in god because you see no evidence. It is a whole other case to say you know for sure that god does not exist. The latter I call positive atheism.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
I don't believe in god because I don't see evidence for it. But because there is no sensual evidence for it, I am able to say 'I know for sure that god does not exist'. Asking me to provide evidence for the ABSENCE of something places me in an impossible position. It is like if I would claim WITHOUT EVIDENCE that you murdered someone, and ask you to prove that you did NOT murder someone. And if you don't have evidence for NOT murdering someone, I d say: you can't say FOR SURE that you didn't.
TOMsReason 1 year ago
That is correct, without evidence, you cannot make positive claims. You can only say that you are justified in not believing because you have no evidence. Not believing is a neutral position until you say the reason you don't believe is because you are sure god doesn't exist.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
I still disagree with setting up the 'system of proof' making it mandatory to prove the absence of non existents (which is impossible) and we are not going to resolve this. Besides, you would be horribly annoyed if someone would run around claiming that you murdered someone without evidence and asking you for proof that you didn't and until then you couldn't say FOR SURE that you didn't. It is a perversion of justice. And it is a perversion of epistemology to ask for proof of negatives.
TOMsReason 1 year ago
well, I agree that if the definition is self-refuting, then that god positively does not exist because it cannot exist.
What I don't understand: proof of a negative by the proof of a positive. If you could show two gods it would refute there is only one. How does that apply to proving the non existence of a negative (and let's say you couldn't use the definition of it to refute it) ? How would you refute a statement like: 'there is a parallel universe' ? There is no EVIDENCE for its absence.
TOMsReason 1 year ago
That's the point exactly, if there is no evidence, there is no grounds for positive claims. This leaves god in who-gives-a-fuck-land along with the three legged saguaro cake and the (insert made up creature here). It however does not mean you can make a positive claim of non existance. This is an important logical distinction.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
Basically, you are condemning people to hold agnostic positions in regard to god (who knows if he exists, I can't prove that he doesn't, so I can't BE SURE that he doesn't).
Yet, I can be sure that he doesn't because there is no evidence (again, I have left out the self refuting definitions which would be reason enough to reject god). Being NOT SURE about the existence of god, just is not enough to keep a healthy epistemology. It asks my brain to accept invalid statements as 'not resolvable'.
TOMsReason 1 year ago
Nope. All I'm saying is know where the lines are when making claims. Saying you think god doesn't exist because there is no evidence is A-O-K...
Dude, it's the same reason why scientists insist on calling evolution and gravitation "theories" despite all the evidence, it's precision of logic. Was Feynman condemning science when he said we can't "know why" magnetism works, only how? No, he was just being precise.
Precision about conceptual taxonomy is crucial to fostering intellectual integrity.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
That's my objection: despite of all the evidence that is available, they still call evolution and gravitation 'theories' , saying, 'oh, we really can't be SURE about this, just theory' . And then the creationist comes along and says, here, 'I got another theory, creationism, and it is AS MUCH a theory as evolution is'. This is perverse. With your kind of logical method, you grant creationism a similar status as evolution. This method prevents the use of 'sure' in too many cases which ARE sure.
TOMsReason 1 year ago
I can't help any further. Perhaps this may help:
watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
For now, lets just say you are right and the theists are wrong, hows that? I bid you good day.
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago
@enotdetcelfer "Precision about conceptual taxonomy is crucial to fostering intellectual integrity."
Brilliantly stated, and brilliantly expressed. This video is a much needed explanation for people who routinely fail to discern between different classes of ideas, and how each ought to be treated and addressed. Thanks for the post!
TrenchantAtheist 1 year ago
@TrenchantAtheist "what is beautiful and definite and the object of knowledge is by nature prior to the indefinite and the incomprehensible and the ugly" -nicomachus. with that said i agree with your statement, I feel that I'm still justified in arguing my point to theist that its silly to believe in things which are completely self serving and centralizing. Nobody knows therefore the argument is pointless I get that, but all of theism must DIE before any beautiful paradigm shift
1980albatros 1 year ago
For more on the buddhist notion of dualism see: ... en.wikipedia org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
Another example of dualism: In zen it's often said that asking where the soul goes when one dies, is like asking where the flame goes when you blow out a candle. If someone asks this, clearly they misunderstand what a flame is. So if someone asks you: Do souls go to heaven when one dies? The correct answer is "mu". To say merely NO would imply that the nonexistent soul might go somewhere else.
TomPage1 2 years ago
There's a famous Zen story abt a student who demands that the zen master answer his philosophical question w/ either a YES or a NO. The teacher answers: MU. In Japanese "MU" means the question is null & void of any meaning. The teacher knew that if he answered either YES or NO, then the student would get the wrong idea, b/c it was a biased question based on incorrect assumptions. In reality there are ALWAYS more than 2 answers to any question. Zen teaches how to avoid such dualistic thinking.
TomPage1 2 years ago
For more on this you should look into the Buddhist concept on DUALISM. From the Buddhist perspective (a non-theistic perspective) the main problem with most of western philosophy is that it gets hung up on DUALISM. Most of western philosophy is based on "THE LAW OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE" (look it up). Siddhartha Gautama (aka The Buddha) regnozized this logical falacy over 2500 years ago and realized that dualism is the cause of much unnecessary conflict and suffering in the world.
TomPage1 2 years ago
Atheists should learn to be comfortable admitting that their BELIEFS are not proveable by logic and therefore requires FAITH. Every scientific theory begins as a hunch or hypothesis & then becomes a BELIEF as the evidence mounts in its favor & ultimately becomes scientific DOGMA when the evidence becomes overwhelming. But, even dogma can sometimes be overturned or must be revised. There is nothing wrong with having faith in EVOLUTION for example because the evidence for it it is so overwhelming.
TomPage1 2 years ago
FAITH is not enemy of rationality "blind faith" is (I.e. faith in the face of overwhelming conflicting evidence). As an atheist I might say: "I have faith in science" or "I have faith in democracy'. Can I prove that either of these big abstract concepts will lead people to the best answer? NO. But, in general, I choose to believe that in most cases they will, because of evidence from past experience & because each contains a self-correcting mechanism that I have FAITH will win out in the end.
TomPage1 2 years ago
The problem here is that many atheists have a problem using the word "faith", because they have allowed theists to monopolize use of the word to mean ONLY faith in their religion & have allowed the theists to brand them as "faithless" or "non-believers". Everyone believes in things that they can not prove & acts on those beliefs everyday. Atheists should not shy away from using the word FAITH. There's NOTHING WRONG with FAITH that is based on good evidence. It is 'blind faith that is illogical.
TomPage1 2 years ago
Overall, very good. Well done.
EXCEPT... you logic is flawed in one regard. Your definition of FAITH reveals a subtle bias against it. Your definition of faith is: "internal drive or conviction that is not externally waranted". You should have said a conviction based on "insufficient evidence", rather than using the loaded term "warranted". Who is to say if my evidence is sufficient for me to believe? You commit a common error here confusing "faith" with "blind faith" (i.e. faith w/o evidence).
TomPage1 2 years ago
Excellent analysis. Very clear.
Great contribution to the "debate".
Cimbolic 2 years ago
Very interesting video.
ticijev 2 years ago
Seems fair. Most of the atheists I encounter would fall in the middle category. Some don't... and you know who you are.
it may aid the debate in the respect that it might help theists visualize a truly neutral position that is not faith-based. It may be more fun, though, to just have two non-neutral positions slug it out. We can make bets. It could even descend into an all-female mud wrestling match. A win for all, if you ask me.
grindstonejournal 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheraminTrees 2 years ago
Your presentation was kinna dull, but I TOTALLY agree with the content...
...up to a point.
You're treating theism as if it were some big monolithic thing, which it isn't; this chart has to be run for each and every god/religion out there. If you're a christian, you STILL have to run this thought process for Mumbo-Jumbo, Monkey God of the Congo, and for Zeus, and for Odin, and for Ra, and for all the other gods anyone might ever suggest. Same for the atheist.
Just sayin'.
BionicDance 2 years ago
Yea thanks for the input. I definitely have to work on my delivery HA
Also, I can see how it seemed monolithic... in all honesty, I thought it more of a board game "How the play Atheism" lol.
Thanks for stopping by 8)
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
Yeah, no worries.
And you're not alone; lots of people do this. It's a video I've been meaning to make, and issue I've been meaning to address for a while, actually; scripting it right now.
BionicDance 2 years ago
The chart idea was pretty good as was the tripartite arrangement.
Did it clear anything up? Weeeelll I think it is one of those things that clears the issue up for as long as you can remember it - like a convoluted mathematical proof or sequence that you hope to commit to memory but forget the next day and all you can recall is that there was something you have now forgotten.
I suppose I'm saying it clarifies without simplifying :))
noelplum99 2 years ago
Thanks for stopping by. I really appreciate the input. 8)
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
I'm going to start making videos with this chart idea. I love it <3
TrueEmergence 2 years ago