Dear Atheists, tell me what you DO believe

[KWED]

Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

These 7 assumptions are not the only way to do the human experience and existence.

No, I get that. It's just the words you use and the order you use them in.

 

[KWED]

Yeah, you claim something you can't know.
You have to look at the problems in epistemology before you claim knowledge.

OK. So you are claiming that we can have no knowledge of anything.
Fair enough, and good luck with that.

 

[KWED]

That there is no we for only one kind of reason. You claim a we and only one kind of reason. That is no how reason work.

Lost me again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't recognise the concept of "truth". That is the purview of the religious, not the scientific.
I prefer to deal in "best current explanations".

But that is your version of best current explanations. There are others possible than just yours or mine.

BTW philosophy and logic also use truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. So you are claiming that we can have no knowledge of anything.
Fair enough, and good luck with that.

Yeah, I have been doing that for 25 years now and it works.

Here is the explanation. For all claimed objective versions of knowledge that contradict each other, they can't all be correct. So there are humans who don't have knowledge. I stopped believing in knowledge and religion. So I believe in one less thing than you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I get that. It's just the words you use and the order you use them in.

Those are not my words. These assumptions are not mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lost me again.

Okay, now with science. There is not one methodology for what science is. Google it and you will find that what science is, is subjective in part.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They can teach us about the culture/society where they originated.

Nothing more? In any case, the point I am clumsily trying to make is that you hold beliefs about myths. I don't think that's a problem, and I would assume if you were about to make some major decision (say you were the Minister of Education, and thinking including of myth as a standalone subject at school), you'd use empirical research to try and determine if it was a good idea.

But ultimately there is a limit to our existing knowledge, and to what we can accurately simulate or test. And on those edges, we need belief.

 

[wandering peacefully]

From @lewisnotmiller comment on another thread

That sounds like a more constructive thread.​

Dear atheists...I get that you don't believe in Gods. But tell me what you DO believe in...​

There is no logical reason to believe in a god or gods, no hard evidence . So an atheist does not believe in god or gods.

Mentioning no names @questfortruth and others but there are some people on RF who believe that atheists have no belief whatsoever.

So i am asking atheists what do they actually believe in.

For me

I hope and believe that i will live to see my kids fledge the nest. It's one of my dearest wishes to take them through children and launch them on a successful adulthood.

I believe my husband and children love me

I believe that my car will start when i need it.

I even believe Jesus existed but not as the person described in the bible

I believe that the bread dough i made this morning will have risen enough to bake a couple of loaves.

And much more

So all you atheists out there in RF land, please inform us all of a few of the things you believe in.

I believe most humans are good people just trying to make things work for themselves and their loved ones.

I believe nature is way beyond any god concept in its reality, meaningfulness, purpose and actuality.

I believe people who say they know God are full of ****.

I believe if humans would be more open to understanding nature and the way things really work, we would be more intelligent and able to sustain ourselves as a species as well as other species instead of destroying our own planet and all of its ecosystems.

I believe we better hurry up and get real about reality.

 

[KWED]

Nothing more?

Well, nothing that can't be as effectively taught without the use of fantastical stories that often have some rather dodgy elements.

In any case, the point I am clumsily trying to make is that you hold beliefs about myths.

No I don't. I have a position on myths based on my understanding of them.

if you were about to make some major decision (say you were the Minister of Education, and thinking including of myth as a standalone subject at school), you'd use empirical research to try and determine if it was a good idea.

I'm not sure what kind of empirical research one could do in the context of mythology, other than looking into their historical origins.

But ultimately there is a limit to our existing knowledge, and to what we can accurately simulate or test. And on those edges, we need belief.

Absolutely not.
Where there is a lack of knowledge there needs to be further enquiry. We must reserve judgement until further knowledge is available, not assume something without evidence.
There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know, let's try to find out".

 

[KWED]

But that is your version of best current explanations. There are others possible than just yours or mine.

Not if they are based on testable and repeatable evidence.
As JP Moynahan said "People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts".

BTW philosophy and logic also use truth.

But neither deal with the real world, so they can say whatever they like. Still doesn't mean that "truth" is a thing.

 

[KWED]

Yeah, I have been doing that for 25 years now and it works.

Of course it does.

For all claimed objective versions of knowledge that contradict each other,

Sounds oxymoronic. Can you give some examples of "objective knowledge" that contradict each other?

So there are humans who don't have knowledge.

Yes. And there are some who do. And your point is?...

I stopped believing in knowledge. So I believe in one less thing than you.

That is a knowledge-based claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not if they are based on testable and repeatable evidence.
As JP Moynahan said "People are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts".

But neither deal with the real world, so they can say whatever they like. Still doesn't mean that "truth" is a thing.

Is that a fact or his opinion?

Okay, as far as I can tell, that there is a real world, is not a fact, but an opinion. How do I know this? I can't observe real. When I check for an scientific instrument to measure real, there is none. When I check for a theory of a real world there is none like the theory of gravity. When I check further it turns out the idea of a real world is philosophy and not science.

You see, KWED, I was taught skepticism by your kind and if someone makes a claim, I check using the above method. I can't find evidence for a real world, when I test it, so I conclude that it is an opinion.

 

[KWED]

Is that a fact or his opinion?

Okay, as far as I can tell, that there is a real world, is not a fact, but an opinion. How do I know this? I can't observe real. When I check for an scientific instrument to measure real, there is none. When I check for a theory of a real world there is none like the theory of gravity. When I check further it turns out the idea of a real world is philosophy and not science.

You see, KWED, I was taught skepticism by your kind and if someone makes a claim, I check using the above method. I can't find evidence for a real world, when I test it, so I conclude that it is an opinion.

I understand that you fundamentally reject the validity of your own senses, and good luck with that.
However, if you don't accept that any of this is real, why are you even here, arguing with imaginary people about imaginary stuff?
Maybe you should get some imaginary help?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand that you fundamentally reject the validity of your own senses, and good luck with that.
However, if you don't accept that any of this is real, why are you even here, arguing with imaginary people about imaginary stuff?
Maybe you should get some imaginary help?

No, I don't. I reject your philosophical version of what the world is, just as I reject standard versions of religion.

Just as there are many versions of what God is and some of them are contradictory, there are many version of what the world is and some of them are contradictory.

You: The world is real.
A religious person: The world is from God.
Me: I have checked and I have found that I don't need to do metaphysics/ontology for what the world is. Here is how I test it. I can observe that at best only one of you know what the world is. The other one don't, but you are both in the world and so am I. So I stop believing in any version of what the world really is, because it appears I don't need to know that. I only need to know how the world works for me to be in the world. I only need to know what is real for me and how that works for me to be in the world.

There is more, but for this part of philosophy, I don't need to believe in a positive version of metaphysics.

In other words I do for the bold part about epistemology, I do differently it, than both you and religious people.

You are as far as I can tell doing philosophical naturalism. I do methodological naturalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
That is a knowledge-based claim.

There is no objective method of knowledge. All theories of knowledge as epistemology are subjective. We are doing philosophy and you take your philosophy for granted. I just doubt it as I doubt other claims of epistemology. I am a skeptic.

 

[ecco]

You're posting on a discussion board, in a thread aimed at atheists, to suggest the world cares not for our discussion?

I can't work out if that is meta, redundant or ironic...

Yes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, nothing that can't be as effectively taught without the use of fantastical stories that often have some rather dodgy elements.

Hmm...perhaps 'myth' is a trigger word. What about poetry, then? Songs?

No I don't. I have a position on myths based on my understanding of them.

Which you don't see as a 'belief' because....why? If you think I'm equating religious beliefs with plain old run of the mill 'beliefs', I am not trying to do so. But it seems an extremely unusual position you are taking in suggesting you are free of 'belief' entirely. In a philosophical sense, that appears somewhat nonsensical, if I'm being frank, although I don't mean that to sound personally insulting.

I'm not sure what kind of empirical research one could do in the context of mythology, other than looking into their historical origins.

No...it would be difficult. Science is somewhat hamstrung by ethical considerations (happily), so it's not like we could get a couple of control groups, and expose one to myth in teaching life lessons, and remove myth from the life of the other's entirely.
However, I really wasn't trying to make a point about myths, per se. It was merely an example used. What that would really look like would be more education and learning research linking the achievement of particular outcomes to a planned curriculum (be it around myth or anything else).

At some point over the last few years here I made a post pushing back on our government's desire to reinsert Judeo-Christian principles into our curriculum framework (although buggered if I can find it now). Long story short, I was strongly against it because I didn't see any evidence that is had positive educational value, and believed instead it was a mixture of traditionalism, and political pandering. The broadly stated motherhood statement (paraphrasing) was something like 'the Bible should no be excluded from study given that it is the most impactful book in the formation of our society'. Which is all well and good if we're suggesting a critical evaluation of the role of Christianity in the history of Australia. I saw no reason to believe this was the intent, and was hence STRONGLY against the whole thing.

Equally, though, you've suggested in relation to myth that there is 'nothing that can't be as effectively taught without the use of fantastical stories that often have some rather dodgy elements.'
Assuming you can't evidence that (because as we've both agreed, empirical research into myths is a little challenging), that appears to be opinionative. Dare I say...a belief...?

Absolutely not.
Where there is a lack of knowledge there needs to be further enquiry. We must reserve judgement until further knowledge is available, not assume something without evidence.
There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know, let's try to find out".

Reserving judgement, in an evolutionary sense, might have wiped out your bloodline thousands of years ago, I suspect.

Hmm...I think it's worth pointing out that in most practical, real-life cases, you and I would most likely be in accord. There is nothing wrong with saying 'we don't know, let's try to find out'. I absolutely agree, and the recognition of our own ignorance is a fundamentally important consideration in the development of knowledge.

But without belief, you are limiting your approach to life in the same way that science itself is limited. Science MUST be limited. We don't want a world where we can do unfettered experimentation on children, for example, despite the scientific knowledge this would gain us, and the fact that the death of a couple of children in this exercise could lead to saving multiple children in the future.

Do we?

Why not?

Because we have a belief in protecting the rights of children. It's not quantifiable. It's not an evidence-based, scientific decision on whether live testing on human children would save more lives than it costs.