RE: When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?
December 22, 2015 at 11:37 pm
(This post was last modified: December 22, 2015 at 11:43 pm by Delicate.)
(December 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(December 21, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Delicate Wrote: Well I agree that it suits you.
I just think it suits you in the same way that diplomatic immunity "suits" diplomats who want to commit crimes without prosecution.
So I don't think it's a high-minded suiting. It's a self-interested suiting that doesn't necessarily line up with the interests of honest, substantive rational discourse.
And I'm perfectly aware that people will try and create rationalizations of this suitability, just like the diplomats in New York City rationalize their immunity to suit their preference to park anywhere they want without worrying about parking regulations.
But the bottom line of my position I've laid out in the previous post. The one to which you responded " Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?"
There, I pointed out that if you're truly an agnostic, the atheist part of your definition is superfluous, and vice versa. This view is better, in my opinion, because it's not based on tactical redefinitions to avoid burden of proof or enhance your debating position, allowing you to take the label of atheist while defending the position of agnosticism.
And I think it lines up better with epistemology, which takes belief and disbelief to be propositional attitudes.
One label pertains to knowledge, the other pertains to belief. If you're not smart enough to discern the difference, that's your problem, not mine.
Love,
A Concerned Agnostic Atheist
If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge, you wouldn't have a category for both in your epistemology.
Love,
Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge.
PS- Ask me to explain.
