BWE wrote:I most certainly was talking about identity. What else defines a religion?

Then you were talking about it incompetently, since your suggestion of a 'fundamentalist atheist' 'membership qualification' would include people as members irrespective of what they actually thought or believed regarding the actual or possible existence of gods, but simply based on the strength of their views of what the 'membership criteria' for atheism should be (and regardless of how exclusive or inclusive they thought the criteria should be).

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I most certainly was talking about identity. What else defines a religion?

You'd be going great guns if you could show that religion (however you designate) excludes other aspects of identity. That sort of puts a damper on identity in the first place, which ought by rights to be one thing.

It's a different matter to say "I identify as X but also as Y". It's a 'manner of speaking' but you couldn't really figure out what it denotes.

Sure you could. Words can have different meanings in different contexts. Definitions aren't like measurements.
http://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/courses/lang/Russell(1905).pdf

BWE wrote:
I am shocked that you would think that I would just write an off the cuff answer to a question of such profound import.

I think I'll keep my own counsel as to what is profound and what isn't. And what is, y'know, pretentious claptrap. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but facts are nowhere in your grasp today, are they?

Well! No need to be rude about it. My point was simple and as factual as anything we can say about folk psychology. The only thing that would make me concerned about a definition is if I had a stake in it. Same goes for most people. Perhaps if I call you a loon, you would disagree emphatically if you defined loon in such a way that to call you a loon was an affront to your identity. You may define it in a more relaxed or even friendly way and wouldn't care one way or the other if it had no bearing on your identity. You sure are testy these last couple days. Or maybe I should say, you sure do come across to me as testy these last couple days.

Alan B wrote:the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

It is really difficult to imagine a world in which people post such drivling crap, and others give it the thumbs-up!
I believe that it's raining, does that imply that I lack the knowledge that it's raining? Of course it fucking doesn't.
No wonder you twits can't get your heads round the problems with your vacuous redefinition of "atheism".

ughaibu wrote:

Alan B wrote:the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

It is really difficult to imagine a world in which people post such drivling crap, and others give it the thumbs-up!
I believe that it's raining, does that imply that I lack the knowledge that it's raining? Of course it fucking doesn't.
No wonder you twits can't get your heads round the problems with your vacuous redefinition of "atheism".

Well, you imply you believe that you're a genius (in relation to, say, 'twits'), hence the analogy with knowledge that it's raining. If it was really that easy, philosophy would be no achievement at all. Waitaminit! When you do it that way, it isn't! Another example:

BWE wrote:Words can have different meanings in different contexts.

True enough, but what are the implications? That words have different contexts inside different skulls? More from the Internet Tautology Generator:

BWE wrote:The only thing that would make me concerned about a definition is if I had a stake in it.

If you're only going to sit one philosophy course in your life, don't let it be the one where they only teach you how to write trivial tautologies.

I'll be sure to watch out for that one.

ughaibu wrote:

Alan B wrote:the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

It is really difficult to imagine a world in which people post such drivling crap, and others give it the thumbs-up!
I believe that it's raining, does that imply that I lack the knowledge that it's raining? Of course it fucking doesn't.
No wonder you twits can't get your heads round the problems with your vacuous redefinition of "atheism".

I know! It's almost as bad as when someone makes one individual's error the fault of everyone vaguely on the same 'side' of an argument. Almost as bad too as falsely equating this one incident with a made-up scenario. Nowhere near as bad as being really really mean to people though. Of all the filth I've seen, this has to be the absolute worst. 'Twits'! That is just despicable and worse than Hitler. I hope you get a stiff prison sentence for that. As far as I'm concerned you just lost the right to live in a civilised society.

Alan B wrote:

BWE wrote:The fundamentalist wing of science involves strict belief that no knowledge is valid if it doesn't have controlled experimental evidence supporting the hypotheses which support that knowledge.

The absence of knowledge does not imply the presence of belief. But the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

Therefore, 'lack of knowledge' cannot be synonymous with religion.

I think you're confusing "belief" with "faith", among other things.

A claim that one believes proposition x to be true is a claim that one knows proposition x to be true.

If someone claims to believe there is a god, they are claiming to know there is a god. The fact that everyone in recorded history who has ever made this claim has had very bad reasons for thinking this true, is beside the point.

Nicko wrote:

Alan B wrote:

BWE wrote:The fundamentalist wing of science involves strict belief that no knowledge is valid if it doesn't have controlled experimental evidence supporting the hypotheses which support that knowledge.

The absence of knowledge does not imply the presence of belief. But the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

Therefore, 'lack of knowledge' cannot be synonymous with religion.

I think you're confusing "belief" with "faith", among other things.

A claim that one believes proposition x to be true is a claim that one knows proposition x to be true.

If someone claims to believe there is a god, they are claiming to know there is a god. The fact that everyone in recorded history who has ever made this claim has had very bad reasons for thinking this true, is beside the point.

Quibbling about semantics, I think the usage is that if I say "I believe it's raining", the implication is that I'm not 100% sure, while if I say "I know it's raining" then I'm stating that I am 100% sure. If I say "he believes it's raining", I'm saying that he's sure it's raining but I have my doubts; if I say "he knows it's raining" then I'm saying he's sure it's raining and I agree with him. There are so many different religions and varieties of Christianity around that "I believe" rather than "I know" tends to be used even by believers as a courtesy, an acknowledgement that the other person may have a different belief, so that "I believe in God" does tend to have stronger force than "I believe it's raining"? It's a huge strength of science that it doesn't split up into sects as religions do.

zoon wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Alan B wrote:

BWE wrote:The fundamentalist wing of science involves strict belief that no knowledge is valid if it doesn't have controlled experimental evidence supporting the hypotheses which support that knowledge.

The absence of knowledge does not imply the presence of belief. But the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

Therefore, 'lack of knowledge' cannot be synonymous with religion.

I think you're confusing "belief" with "faith", among other things.

A claim that one believes proposition x to be true is a claim that one knows proposition x to be true.

If someone claims to believe there is a god, they are claiming to know there is a god. The fact that everyone in recorded history who has ever made this claim has had very bad reasons for thinking this true, is beside the point.

Quibbling about semantics, I think the usage is that if I say "I believe it's raining", the implication is that I'm not 100% sure, while if I say "I know it's raining" then I'm stating that I am 100% sure. If I say "he believes it's raining", I'm saying that he's sure it's raining but I have my doubts; if I say "he knows it's raining" then I'm saying he's sure it's raining and I agree with him. There are so many different religions and varieties of Christianity around that "I believe" rather than "I know" tends to be used even by believers as a courtesy, an acknowledgement that the other person may have a different belief, so that "I believe in God" does tend to have stronger force than "I believe it's raining"? It's a huge strength of science that it doesn't split up into sects as religions do.

I agree with you, that is what belief should mean. But you're forgetting we're not talking about everyday, common usage of belief here. You're falling for the game of obscurism played by religious apologists.

The theist's "belief" is "special" belief - they don't believe because they're not sure - they believe because they have faith.

I imagine faith to be something like being utter and completely confident what is believed inherently true and good is. It boggles the mind.

ughaibu wrote:

Alan B wrote:the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

It is really difficult to imagine a world in which people post such drivling crap, and others give it the thumbs-up!
I believe that it's raining, does that imply that I lack the knowledge that it's raining? Of course it fucking doesn't.

There's that appeal to personal incredulity again.
Not to mention blind dismissal.

ughaibu wrote:No wonder you twits can't get your heads round the problems with your vacuous redefinition of "atheism".

You mean unlike your persistent failure to actually refute the claims you blindly dismiss?

Nicko wrote:

Alan B wrote:

BWE wrote:The fundamentalist wing of science involves strict belief that no knowledge is valid if it doesn't have controlled experimental evidence supporting the hypotheses which support that knowledge.

The absence of knowledge does not imply the presence of belief. But the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

Therefore, 'lack of knowledge' cannot be synonymous with religion.

I think you're confusing "belief" with "faith", among other things.

A claim that one believes proposition x to be true is a claim that one knows proposition x to be true.

If someone claims to believe there is a god, they are claiming to know there is a god. The fact that everyone in recorded history who has ever made this claim has had very bad reasons for thinking this true, is beside the point.

However, at least in British English communication, 'I believe' does usually imply uncertainty.

If someone who is asked 'It it raining?' replies 'I believe it is', the reply is either conveying actual uncertainty, or circumspection feigned as part of a particular style of interaction where direct replies are often avoided.

If someone is asked "Is the man who attacked you in the identity parade?" and they reply "I believe so", that would be interpreted as expressing meaningful uncertainty - much more like saying "I think..." than "I know...".

If I say I believe someone is telling the truth, that means something quite different to me saying I know they are telling the truth. Even with the strongest interpretation of 'believe', it suggests some personal element, whereas if I said I knew someone was telling the truth, that would seem to imply I had evidence which should persuade a reasonable third party.

If I say I believe my SO is the most gorgeous woman on the planet, that would generally be taken as an indication of my subjective feelings, not an actual claim about reality.
If I said I knew she was the most gorgeous woman, that would be a quite different thing.

Typical usage does seem to suggest 'belief' as either less than 100% confidence, or confidence reaching beyond the evidence (faith?).

Even with your: "A claim that one [i]believes proposition x to be true is a claim that one knows proposition x to be true.[/i]", I'd suggest that 'belief' there didn't necessarily imply 100% confidence.

tolman wrote:
However, at least in British English communication, 'I believe' does usually imply uncertainty.

"Usually", but not always or exclusively.

tolman wrote:If someone who is asked 'It it raining?' replies 'I believe it is', the reply is either conveying actual uncertainty, or circumspection feigned as part of a particular style of interaction where direct replies are often avoided.

Indeed, in this scenario "believe" is added in as a qualifier. Instead of simply saying "yes" the respondent felt the need to add in the statement that it was there belief that the answer is yes. It is this act of qualification that marks it as a position of uncertainty, in other words in this context it implies uncertainty. And there is often an inflection on the word "believe" when one says that, further highlighting the uncertainty in their voice.

In other contexts if someone asks "Do you believe in X?" one may say "No, I know X exists" or one may simply say "yes" to state that they think that X is real even if they feel absolutely convinced, that they know, or not.

tolman wrote:
Typical usage does seem to suggest 'belief' as either less than 100% confidence, or confidence reaching beyond the evidence (faith?).

True, but firstly that is "typical usage" not universal usage. Secondly note that theists often say that they believe in some god rather than that they believe that some god exists. The grammar has somewhat different connotations. And thirdly it is not uncommon so one to say something like "Not only do I believe that X is real, I know it is" implying knowledge to be a subset of belief.
The bottom line being that "belief" can be, and is, used both ways, with the context sometimes making it clear what that usage is.

In the context of this thread I used 'belief' to indicate a theist 'belief' - no more, no less. Any other interpretation or usage as commonly used in British English is irrelevant to my post (and the context of this thread). The word 'belief' in this context is used as a noun.

Again, in the context of this thread, 'knowledge' is used to indicate a 'third party observable and evidentially repeatable fact'. It does not include a theist believer who claims to 'know'.

If a theist believer were able to produce a 'third party observable and evidentially repeatable fact' that a deity exists, then my non-belief and their theist belief would be replaced by knowledge (as defined).

Perhaps if I had used more words, then Ug - whose knowledge of English usage seems to be limited - would not have made his stupid twattish remark.

Note: In the last sentence 'knowledge' is used in the general sense. (Just in case - yer never know... )

zoon wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Alan B wrote:

BWE wrote:The fundamentalist wing of science involves strict belief that no knowledge is valid if it doesn't have controlled experimental evidence supporting the hypotheses which support that knowledge.

The absence of knowledge does not imply the presence of belief. But the presence of 'belief' does imply a lack of knowledge.

Therefore, 'lack of knowledge' cannot be synonymous with religion.

I think you're confusing "belief" with "faith", among other things.

A claim that one believes proposition x to be true is a claim that one knows proposition x to be true.

If someone claims to believe there is a god, they are claiming to know there is a god. The fact that everyone in recorded history who has ever made this claim has had very bad reasons for thinking this true, is beside the point.

Quibbling about semantics, I think the usage is that if I say "I believe it's raining", the implication is that I'm not 100% sure, while if I say "I know it's raining" then I'm stating that I am 100% sure. If I say "he believes it's raining", I'm saying that he's sure it's raining but I have my doubts; if I say "he knows it's raining" then I'm saying he's sure it's raining and I agree with him. There are so many different religions and varieties of Christianity around that "I believe" rather than "I know" tends to be used even by believers as a courtesy, an acknowledgement that the other person may have a different belief, so that "I believe in God" does tend to have stronger force than "I believe it's raining"?

I really can't say I've ever observed this distinction before. Perhaps it's because I see any claim to "knowledge" as only ever being provisional.

zoon wrote:It's a huge strength of science that it doesn't split up into sects as religions do.

Just an effect of the way science works. History is replete with examples of scientists divided by opinion then reunited when the process establishes facts.

D'ya know what? I completely changed my mind about all this, but the i changed it back.

I change my mind about it all the time. However, right now my mind is firmly made up.

BWE wrote:I change my mind about it all the time. However, right now my mind is firmly made up.

That's because you have no stake in it, right?

Pretty much.

Anyway, anyone can plainly see that it is beautiful sunshine outside, therefore atheism is whatever you want it to be.