Just for the record, I've pulled out of participating in my own thread here. I don't condone altering the natural language in a discussion. For instance, if one says "table" and another one says "the origin of that word is board, so I use the word table for meaning board"; and another one argues what knowlege means, to him, in his definition, and another one does not agree with that definition... then the discussion has turned into discussing extreme minutiae, where new concepts are NOT introduced, but existing concepts are exchanged between meaning of words.

Yes, if someone wants to define a new concept, fine, I go with either a new word that the inceptor defines, or provisionally agree that for the sake of duration "A" will mean "B".

But if "A" in the language has been assigned to mean A, and it is a well-used word for its meaning, then I refuse to accept that B must be the meaning of A, because of whatever.

The re-assignment of meanings may not be arbitrary, but it still confuses the hell out of a reader. If "atheist" means "a person who believes there is no god", then let's not assign the meaning "a person who lives outside of religion" to "atheist". I don't say it would be illogical, but it is not necessary, and also, language is based on involuntary consensus, but to introduce a new meaning sometimes, like in this case, would necessitate the agreement to the new meaning by all in the population who speak English.

I will realign my meaning of "atheist" from atheist to non-religious, once at least 80% of English speakers have already done so.

In the meantime, let's use "knowledge" as an undefined, undefinable, but well-understood word; and let's use "atheist" also in its conventionan meaning.

This is not an order; it's a proposal. I will say that unless this proposal is accepted and put into practice, I shan't be participating here.

---------------

Life, the language, and thought is complicated enough already; I don't want to be worrying when presenting a point that X. believes A. means this, and Y. believes A means that. Also, when I read the texts of X. and Y., I don't want to be substituting the meaning of the creation of X. or Y. that is now (by them) assigned to A. I don't want to be constantly on the lookout for having to asign the proper personalized substitution which contains A. for each text I read.

One language, one consensus. If the concept exists already, and is referenced by the language with a word already, then let's not argue with that. Let's not playing musical chairs between words and their meanings.

I don't know how correct this quote above is. I think "theism" means "beilivism in god", not "religioninsm".

I say this because there are other formations, such as "mono-theism" and such like.

I believe deity and theos or thea all mean the same thing, but deity comes from Latin, and theos or thea comes from Greek.

I say this also because dei and thea or thei are similar with the only phonic difference of th becoming d, which is a very likely and often occurring phoneme change in transliterations from Greek text and spoken word to Latin.

Also, please consider that until recent times, there was no concept of religion without a God in the English language, and all over the
cultural European knowlege-database. Taoism, Shitsuism, and Buddhism were hardly heard by people for a thousand years, and definitely not heard at all for another thousand years before that, when theism and diety were used as words. So religion in the conceptual realm of English had god or gods inseparable from the practice of religion.

Therefore even if theism means "praciting religion", it must mean, at the time of its formation, "practicing the belief in god" or "believing god exists", since there had been no religious practices without god or gods.

Therefore I reject the plea of anyone to change the meaning of "atheism" from "believing in no god" to "practicing religion". For three reasons: the consensus would be extremely hard to secure by the users of the language; the reason or basis (apparently filological logic) to do this is faulty; and there is no need to do this.

I am not trying to argue definitions, or enforce my meanings, I am merely attempting to present the meaning of the words as I know them so that I can make intelligible my perspective here on this thread.

So as a single question.

Do the words belief, and knowledge mean exactly the same thing?

If you answer no then you are forced to accept the single point I have made even if you do not arrive at the exact same conclusions I reach.

Because knowledge and belief are different we cannot interchange the same language and must be more specific in regards to definition when attempting to understand the distinctions.

This is common for Scientists and Philosophers and is not a source of strife or deconstructive argumentation, quite the contrary.

This is the reason sub groups of theism/atheism exist, and why these subgroups offer a rich perspective on the topic.

Theism does not mean practicing religion, it just means belief in a deity. Why becuase that is the least common denominator, not becuase I said so.


Its funny how you worded this . . . looks like we agree except you seem unable to accept the very distinctions your word usage implies. Or perhaps I am merely mistaken about your position, excuse me if that is so, this is wholly an intellectual conversation for me and holds no emotional value.

When knowledge is built based on empirical science, and the standard for knowledge is held very high, it precludes beliefs based on faith. THAT is the foundation of my belief system. However I am human, and ALL humans hold at least some beliefs that are not strictly based on empirical facts. Some are based on reasoning alone, and its these beliefs which can cause cognitive dissonance, or allow for a strong/weak yet rational atheist based on what definition of god is being used.

THAT is my point. For myself I see no rational approach to theism, weak strong or otherwise, I do however see rational approaches for Deism, albeit with problems of definition as I mentioned.

The really really interesting question from my perspective is, "What does it even mean to have knowledge of a thing that does not exist anyways? How would the lack of knowledge from non-existence be different than the lack of knowledge from a hidden existence? ", the answer to this question when combined with a high standard for knowledge is what led me to atheism and has allowed me to form specific opinions about specific kinds of Gods. ie belief they do not exist.

yes, you seem to be mistaken about my position. nothing emotional about the conversation.



not so.i hold no beliefs whatsoever. to believe is to think that you know something to be true or factual. as an agnostic, i understand that the human mind is incapable of knowing anything absolutely other than what i've experienced myself.



by definition, deism is distinguished from theism only by the belief in creation. both belive in the existence of a god. so what are rational approaches do you see for the existence of a god?



here's the main stumbling block between you and me. you think the human mind is capable of knowing, i don't.

participate, don't participate as you choose but when you associate agnosticism with god as you did in your op it's hardly "extreme minutiea." you are simply dead wrong. an agnostic thinks that the human mind is incapable of knowing gods. in essense, we don't give god a thought as we can never know.



that a concept or word definition is new to you does not mean that it's new to others. many, many people make the mistake you did regarding the thinking of an agnostic.



fine, refuse to accept or reject whatever meaning of whatever word you choose but that does not alter how others arrive at word definitions.



as is agnostic non-religious.



as you wish but we do agree that knowledge is undefinable as it doesn't really exist.

So since you believe there is no such thing as knowledge you then agree knowledge is different than belief, becuase you have used the word belief in the context of you having beliefs, thus belief exists, and in your perspective knowledge does not, thus knowledge and belief from your position are different. This of course sets up a huge problem for anyone with your position . . . more on that later. . . .

Ultimately if you do not accept we can know anything, then clearly I have a higher standard for knowledge, as this would preclude you from having any standard . . . its one thing to be agnostic about god, a whole other to be agnostic about every possible topic.

Having a solipsistic perspective of knowledge is a problem for anyone wishing to have a clear understanding of a naturalistic science that is for sure, or even understanding other perspectives on religious topics. This illustrates clearly the different positions that have been taken in this topic.

So from that position there really is little for you to contribute to a conversation like this . . however its just as interesting, at least for me, to try to square a perspective that accepts beliefs, but not knowledge.

I mean do you really think it impossible to know your keys are not in your pocket? Why?

You think it impossible to know if the door is locked? Why?

Really? Please describe why?

How do you even know what it means to be agnostic, you seem willing to argue the point, on what basis did you attain this knowledge that you do not accept exists?

The real problems with the position that beliefs exist but not knowledge is this . . . .how do you know what your beliefs are?


From my perspective, knowledge lives upon a continuum, and for mundane things it need not be rigorously defined. Ex the keys are not in my pocket becuase I patted my pocket and did not feel them there, I stick my hand in my pocket and sense that nothing is there. Mundane = sensory data is plenty to determine this level of knowledge.

"God told me to burn all witches", killing people is not a mundane topic no less the whole sale wickedness that is burning someone alive, this topic requires a rigor for knowledge that is not necessary for the topic of if my keys are in my pocket thus I require a higher standard knowledge. Not mundane = sensory data is not enough to determine this level of knowledge.

These where extreme examples on different ends of the knowledge spectrum.

now you have an issue in reading what i wrote correctly. nowhere have i ever said in any way shape or form that i have beliefs. indeed, i've said several times that i believe nothing whatsoever and can know nothing whatsoever. what point is there in discussing this issue with me if you will not read the words i write?



the word agnostic has nothing whatsoever to do with god. has only to do with the unknown and unknowable. but okay, i'll concede that your standard of knowledge is higher than mine. as a matter of fact my grandaughter's standard in her knowledge that santa exists is higher than mine. her "knowledge" pretty much illustrates how high i hold knowledge in my thinking.



oh, there's no doubt in my mind that we're wasting time here. you're arguing with yourself when you insert your words, such as me having beliefs, into my position. but being retired i've plenty of time to waste and i'm amused by all of this.



see? you did it again. i said before several times that i can only know what i experience. as i've experienced placing my keys in my pocket, i can indeed know, barring a hole, that they are in my pocket. of course if i see them sitting on the counter, i know that they are not in my pocket.



again, not in the least. the door is likely locked if i tried to open it and experienced that it wouldn't budge. but do i know that the door is locked? it could be stuck or something blocks it, no? so i try the key and by damned the bolt slips and i open the door so now i know from my short experience returning home that the door was locked.



you just cannot get past this "jrbogie knows" bs. i never said that i know what it means to be agnostic. i've said only what i've read in dictionaries, reading is an experience, no?, and how i use the term, again, experience. indeed i do wish a simpler word to describe my feelings about knowledge were available as it would make conversations like this so much easier but unfortunately we're stuck with "agnostic."



i suppose we both can take solice in your repeating this theme over and over. perhaps you'll understand by the end of this post my position is that NEITHER BELEIFS OR KNOWLEDGE EXIST. i don't know what my beliefs are as I HAVE NO BELIEFS WHATSOEVER.




yes, from your perspective. but i thought your concern was from my perspective? maybe this is our problem. you speaking of my perspective while thinking from your perspective. ya think?

Honestly its kind of impossible to believe. I think maybe you should stop posting, since you do not even know if anyone is on the other side having this conversation, and you cant even believe it if it was demonstrated to you that there is.

Honestly this illustrates just how irrational your position is. You claim to have no beliefs, or knowledge except when you do which is only when you have experienced something yourself.

JR seriously, take some time, if you like this topic, do some academic reading, really think hard, maybe you can pull together your thoughts to form some rational beliefs on the subject.

I believe in you.

This contradicts . . .<This

Scientific reasoning is based on methodological naturalism, which requires that we have a basis for assimilating knowledge, the first order of knowledge is that which we experience. Either something exists, or it does not. Since you can form knowledge based on experience, knowledge exists. Since you are relaying your beliefs on the topic, belief exists.


This is a hoot really. Funny how some people argue just to argue, and then accuse you of not reading there posts, and then do not read for themselves not just what I type, but what they themselves type.
Seems we all pretty much agree, except JR, and his position, at least from my perspective, is unintelligible and contradictory.

The bolded part explains better what I meant be least common denominator, the definition of theism is based on belief, becuase belief is common to ALL of the various religious positions, its fundamental, there for integral. The root of the word should be as simple as possible, we can then build up or add prefix, suffix based on concepts that include belief but break down into separate categories.

The thing that causes the most confusion is that beliefs are held for different reasons, thus we can hold different positions based on different concepts, or definitions within a single topic.

Hence I am a strong atheist in regards to Mediterranean gods, however I am a weak atheist in regards to most naturalistic definitions of a Deistic god.

i'll post as i choose. but i will say that it's unlikely i'll continue the discussion with you. i think we've both stated our positions as best we can and still don't even begin to understand each other. take care.

The idea that 'strong' atheist represent the 'best' of the atheists seems to be based on the assumption/position that the word "strong" implies something 'good'. Strong atheists are not the best of the atheists, and the word 'strong' is not meant to imply 'better' in any way.


The use of 'strong' and 'weak' is simply a very common way of representing shades of position on something, without assuming that one shade is better than another.

correct so far!



Um... no, theism is related to believing in a deity, not practicing a religion.

Wux wrote:


I also reject this other definition, but atheism doesn't strictly mean 'believing in no god', rather 'lacking belief in a god'.

Do you not think that the human mind is capable of knowing, or do you think that the human mind is incapable of knowing?

If its the latter..... how do you know?

I AM A WEAK ATHEIST.

I lack a belief in any deity. I consider most deities to be quite unlikely. In general, I cannot assert definitely that some particular deity does not exist.



Quoted cause I like it.

I lack the belief in the government's success to appease poverty.

I don't believe in the goverment's success to appease poverty.

These two are equivalent.

I belive in no success by the government to appease poverty.

How is this different from the first two?

Paraphrasing alwasy carries the risk of altering the meaning of the original, but I think you hit on a turn of the English language, massage, in which the paraphrases mean EXACTLY what the other does. No difference in meaning, whatsoever.

This can be tested easily. You can set up some sentences in which an opinion is given about god's existence, and then testing which of the two paraphrases yield necessarily what value in regards to those statements. (True or false.)

If the two views yield different results in some of the instances you generate, then yes, you are right, the two paraphrases are not equivalent; but if the the generated results are identical, then there paraphrases are those lingual beauties that get born once every thousand years.

You are right, Massage. The two are not equivalent.

I believe in no god (A) lacking the belief in a god (B)

There is a god. (A) yields false, (B) yields false.

There are two gods. (A) yields false, (B) yields true.

So yes, your definition is not the same as mine, but your definition is therefore that an atheist can and does accept the existence of multiple gods, any number of them existing, and atheism denies the existence of one and only one god.

So I ask: of the many gods, which is that one particular god that Atheists, in your definition, deny? :-)

i think that the human mind is incapable of knowing anything absolutely other than what he/she experiences. this is what i THINK as i can KNOW nothing absolutely.

actually deism is a belief in a deity. theism is a belief that god created everything.

I don't agree that A and B, even, are equivalent. I feel that "don't believe" is ambiguous, and leaves unclear whether one "lacks belief" or "disbelieves" in something.

If I assert A, I acknowledge that I don't know whether the proposition is true or not. If I assert C, then I claim knowledge of whether the proposition is true. That is the difference.

As far as the "government's success with poverty", I don't see how that specific example changes the overarching principle here. If we create a sufficiently specific definition of success and failure (and government and poverty) then naturally the following positions are different:

I believe the government is successful at appeasing poverty.
I lack a belief on the topic of the government's success at appeasing poverty.
I believe the government is a failure at appeasing poverty.



Yes!



I lack a belief that that is correct.



This seems to assume that all positions require that one arrive at an either-or answer. You effort at testing for consistency of meaning is based on the assumption that there is a either a yes or no answer, and that all statements of belief will be found to be either true or false depending on that answer - so naturally you have already, artificially collapsed all possible positions (in your worldview? certainly in your testing scheme) into being one of either two positions. If you take that approach, then you cannot allow for there being at least three different positions being articulated here.

Trying to evaluating phrase #2 for a truth value, given that God either exist or doesn't exist, fails because phrase #2 is not an assertion about the existence or non-existence of god - it is a assertion that one lacks a definite belief on the topic.

and leaves unclear whether one "lacks belief" or "disbelieves" in something

Quickly: Here, did you use "or" as an "xor" (either one or the other, singularly, must be true, and both can't be true at the same time, and both can't be false at the same time), or as a logical "or" (one, the other, or both can be true, and both can't be false at the same time.)

I think to save time we could use xor as a valid connective when talking classical logical arguments.
----------
This was a good counter argument to mine:

This seems to assume that all positions require that one arrive at an either-or answer. You effort at testing for consistency of meaning is based on the assumption that there is a either a yes or no answer, and that all statements of belief will be found to be either true or false depending on that answer - so naturally you have already, artificially collapsed all possible positions (in your worldview? certainly in your testing scheme) into being one of either two positions. If you take that approach, then you cannot allow for there being at least three different positions being articulated here.

Trying to evaluating phrase #2 for a truth value, given that God either exist or doesn't exist, fails because phrase #2 is not an assertion about the existence or non-existence of god - it is a assertion that one lacks a definite belief on the topic.


But my mistake is easily corrected by rephrasing (NOT paraphrasing) my own proposition to the new, improved wording as below.

(A) I believe in no god <- this means that I believe there is not one god. At the same time it also means that I believe there are not many gods; in one sentence, I believe there is not any number of gods.

(B) I lack the belief in a god <- this means that there is not one god, but the believer may or may not believe in more than one god or less than one god. This is the semantic meaning, but I do admit that in natural language it can be interpreted that there is no god according the belief of "me".

The expression "I lack the belief in a god" is therfore either imprecise which you deny, or else equivalent to "I believe in no god" which you also deny.

But there is no other possible way to read the meaning of this sentence. Therefore you must choose to admit either that your definition is imprecise, xor that it is equivalent to mine. I don't see any other available choices for you.

Also, you made no arguments against "I believe in no god" whatsoever. You tried to show that "I don't believe in god" is this or that, but that is not part of my original expression, therefore you are treating a matter that is inconsequential to this argument.

Please state how "I believe in no god" is ambiguous, or false as a declaration of an atheist.

Finally, the expression [that proposition X is true] is not a good substitute for "in god". You used it in an attempt to paraphrase the original two propositions, to clean them up so to speak. But you fail in convincing me that "in God" is equivalent to "that proposition X is true". For one thing, "in God" is not a proposition at all, and it certainly does not say another proposition, which claims truth of a proposition. Therefore that part we can ignore, that part of your counter argument.

Your argument is valid inasmuch as pointing to the incorrectness of my way when I compared the belief or the lack of belief to the actual truth if it were possible to find the truth about the existence of god or gods. Since that truth can't be found, you very appopriately pointed it out that my "test" was not a useful test. Hence my newly phrased stating my definition and its ramifications and your definition and its ramifications.

The or was used to link two possibly substitutions for a phrase - it makes no sense to me to use both substitutions simultaneous, so in that sense I meant 'or' as in 'xor'. However, if one 'disbelieves' in Prop. X, then it seems to me(1) they also automatically 'lack belief', so full mutually exclusivity of meaning doesn't hold so one might argue whether its a true xor. (Tangentially, i suppose it is possible for one person to both believe and disbelieve in something, if they suffer from multi-personality disorder, or are simply very creative or open-minded. I'm not clear on whether all (or any) human minds operate as the kind of centralized, singular kernel of selfhood that most of us seem to believe ourselves to be).



I'm really fascinated by this conversation. We seem to keep hitting some semantic stumbling blocks, I hope we can get past them. Its late and I might not be understanding you correctly.

Are you comfortable with the idea that your proposition (A) is equivalent to saying "I assert that there are no gods", or "I definitely, positively believe that no gods of any kind might exist" ?


I completely don't follow you with B. Maybe I will when I read this later. It seems to me that if I lack the belief in any god, then I lack belief in two gods, and I lack belief in three gods. If I believe in two gods, then I can't lack belief in all gods. Or did you mean that the person asserting b lacks belief in one specific god, leaving unstated whether they lack belief in other gods?

Maybe you can demonstrate to me why the interpretation you give is the 'semantic meaning' of the phrase (B) by using examples or parallels. Does the same relationship hold true if I use 'apple' instead of 'god' ?




Incidentally, I do not deny that 'I lack the belief in a god" is imprecise. Well, that may be incidental, or it may be essential; i suspect its incidental. I find all non-mathematical or symbolic-logic language to suffer from some degree of imprecision, to benefit from refining meaning. Perhaps I was arguing earlier that the phrase in question was not imprecise in some specific way, if so then I'm happy to reexamine and perhaps justify that argument, but I am not likely to make the sweeping denial that some phrase couldn't be imprecise in any way at all.



I don't think that 'i lack belief in the existence of X' can be equated to 'i believe in the non-existence of X'. The phrase is not so imprecise as to allow that equality (though the second implies the first, to my mind). I do however admit that on some level perhaps irrelevant to this conversation, the phrase/definition is imprecise.



Is the speaker saying the believe in the existence of no god? "I believe that no god exists"? Is that the same as "I believe that no gods exist" ?



This may be tangential, but unless we clarify whether or not we are talking about existence, there are other ways this could be taken. People say "I don't believe in him" and the mean that they don't think he is honest, or that they don't think he is reliable, or that they don't have confidence in his ability... the list goes on. I have met people who told me they "don't believe in God", then i learn they believe in the existence of some god, they just don't have personal faith in their god, or trust that their god is reliable for them in their life.




Yes, in general when it comes to making statements of belief, and especially when it comes to evaluating statements for truth-values, I prefer to deal with very specific propositions... or the symbolic place holders for such propositions.



Yes! in God is not a proposition! What are we doing here? Are we evaluating truth-values for collections of words that don't even qualify as propositions?

Hmmm...are we indirectly making fun of people who believe in gibberish?