Obviously, not as dense as you. You are using analogies in an effort to force me to describe what it is you cannot describe, and one of your buddies believes you’re brilliant. The problem with your analogies is that you are comparing scientific paradigms to various dictionary definitions and encyclopedia articles that describe the definition of “belief” to be various. Where as, “paradigm,” has a relatively stable semantic evolution.
I believe it is a good idea for atheists to have a little bit more respect for the concept I have emphasized in bold letters, than what the theists have for the concept of belief that they are using to support their belief that the gods use magic to cause beliefs.
And, then, I believe the third paragraph answers your analogy challenge to me.
I bet you can get a bunch of hearts from your buddies if you can compose a response to this post.
How do we go from paradigm to paradigm?
It certainly does not go like from belief to belief by magic - paradigms need superior evidence. And in the realm of abstract ideas, the idea has to be held as doctrine.
We codify ideas in our minds.
We probably create some kind of category system of things we learn, and that is doctrine, even if it is personal doctrine.
I really hope you, brilliant atheists, do not mind if I take the position of an Eliminative Materialist in my arguments. It seems to put forth a better assumption than what you are championing to be the paradigm for semantic etymology, or whatever.
Damn, but then again why would he require a description of something he can already describe?
A lot less less embarrassing than you believing you are brilliant.
Be a dear and explain why this is a problem, and for whom?
I don’t care what subjective beliefs you hold, why would I?
I bet this bothers you, but then since it bothers you enough to mention it I’m backing a safe bet.
Yes, you may want to look up the definition of doctrine, also try to grasp why some people categorise claims, and then may choose to withhold belief, since it is axiomatic that it need have nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine. Is it Münchhausen’s trilemma you’re parroting? That seems to be the kind of snake oil you’re trying to peddle here.
Your distinction between belief and paradigm is eronious. A paradigm is still a belief. We use the scientific method because we believe it is the best way to understand the world around us. When something better comes along, we will change our belifs. This is how ALL Belief Works. Difficulty arises only when people refuse to accept new information that contradicts currently held beliefs.
I did not use analogies at all.
I gave specific examples. Nothing you asserted changes that. You have not succeeded in digging yourself out of the pit you find yourself in.
I find life is simpler and less confusing if I attempt to simplify things as much as possible. When one begins to jump through linguistic hoops in an attempt to explain anything, to me it raises a red flag.
I see this all the time with theists attempting to explain that their god exists. Instead of proving a valid explanation and valid evidence, they launch into a complex game of wordsmanship and convoluted logic.
And so, are you implying that you suspect that I am a theist troll?
Yes, or no?
And, how about everyone else whose attention I have drawn - do you believe that I am on a mission to confuse you into making a false statement that I am then going to print it for all the world to see that atheists are stupid???
That is why humanism is the ontology that atheists would behold as true, or more accurate. The humanism ontology is going to begin with something different. It is not going to begin with a supernatural creation.
And atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theism doctrine as the principle for public policy. Get used to it, because in your lifetime that will be the semantic paradigm that you will encounter. There is an error in the dictionary definitions using the term “belief.”
“Belief,” is unsettled science. And we need a reliable ontology to settle the science of human abstraction of language, or communication. We cannot make any rule about evaluating arguments without a reliable ontology.
Well this doesn’t address the flaw in your previous claim of course. I also find it a dubious assertion, that an atheist need necessarily be a humanist.
No it isn’t, atheism is solely the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. though individual atheists may hold all manner of beliefs of course, except for any belief in any deity obviously.
Again I am dubious, your penchant for making sweeping unevidenced claims is not very compelling argument.
Dictionary definitions simply reflect common usage or understanding. If you think word definitions are right or wrong beyond that, then you clearly don’t understand how words are used.
A belief is simply an acceptance that something is true. Science is a collection of methods that help us understand the natural physical world and universe. Your claim seems nonsensical. I believe that all living things evolved slowly from common ancestry, oddly enough this belief not only matches scientific fact, but is based on it. So no, belief is not "unsettled science. " Not all beliefs have equal merit, that is axiomatic.
Ontology is a branch of metaphysics, it has little to do with science per se. It belongs more to philosophy.
We cannot make any rule about evaluating arguments without a reliable ontology.
Another sweeping claim, is that a rule, what is it based on then one wonders? Again you seem to be toying with munchausen’s trilemma, philosophers love these unending dichotomies, can’t say I’m that enamoured myself. Logic seems to have managed to make rules about how arguments are evaluated, the principles of logic seem to be efficacious as well. Science certainly can evaluate claims and arguments about the natural physical world.
Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism ) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind.
ADOPT the position all you like; it does not matter, you can not act on it. It is not a position you can both hold and function in the world with. Without a common sense understanding of traffic lights, you would not be able to cross the street. Your hypothesis has no practical function whatsoever. You may as well assert that we are all minds in vats. It does not fucking matter. There is still a REAL WORLD out there. You interact with this real world in real ways that have real consequences. No matter how idiotic your supposed belief system is, were you not able to set it aside and function in the ‘REAL WORLD’ you would be locked away in a little rubber room. You could not survive in the world while holding the position ("The ideas in my mind do not actually exist.) The position is as useless as a funnel hat on top of a Tin Man.
