RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:29:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Dont be, he created a strawman specious argument in an attempt to support his agenda.


I'm not sure what you think my agenda might be.

As far as my I'm concerned - I've been having a really interesting riff with Heather. That's it.

It's been a bit off topic, but ya know - that happens some times.


quote:



Graphically analyzing their structure they are grammatically identical.


I expect that if you dropped both of them into a bowl of soup they would appear to be grammatically identical.

But if you looked at them from the point of view of grammar, you'd certainly discover that they are gramatically, really, really, really very distinct.

In one sentence the "not" modifies "belief" in the other it modifies "exists".



quote:



Slight emphasis difference but the meaning is identical.



Notwithstanding the logical catastrophe inherent in "different emphasis" vs "identical meaning", you're wrong. The meaning is quite different.

quote:



He is making a specious argument about some figment that does not exist in the sentence.


It's not clear at all to me you've demonstrated that the argument is specious, in fact you've posited a specious argument as to the speciousness of mine ;-)

quote:



Beware of people where English is not their native language trying to teach it.  LOL



Indeed. We should all be aware of that. I'm thankful that English is my first language. LOL.



POSTSCRIPT

If dancing on pinheads, and semantics, isn't your bag then that's ok; it's not really my favourite thing either. But sometimes, to make a case or defend a position it has to boil down to precisely what the words mean. I'm not having a snippy argument with anyone, it's not about scoring points - It's about looking at language.



That was directed at the spanish dood not you, my bad for lack of editing.  Sorry for the confusion.

Granted in many cases emphasis can and does make or completely change the context of sentence.  My point is that in those sentences it does not.



crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:33:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

That was directed at the spanish dood not you, my bad for lack of editing.  Sorry for the confusion.

Granted in many cases emphasis can and does make or completely change the context of sentence.  My point is that in those sentences it does not.



No worries.

I'm sure we can disagree without falling out.



Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:35:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

they are grammatically identical... the meaning is identical.

Beware of people where English is not their native language trying to teach it.

I disagree with your claim in regard to "I believe that god does not exist" versus "I do not believe that god exists."

The difference is the difference between "I believe" and "I do not believe," namely, that the former expresses an affirmative belief while the latter states only an absence of belief. An absence of belief in the existence of something is not the same as an affirmative belief in its non-existence.

The simplest demonstration of this is someone who has never given any thought to the matter of whether or not God exists. Rather obviously, such a person would not hold a belief that God exists. But your logic demands that they would necessarily therefore hold the belief that God does not exist.

Nuh-uh.

K.






both are affirmations.

one is an affirmation of belief and the other affirmation of disbelief.

Both take a position, hence not neutral.

Agnostic for instance "leans" toward neutral. 

I do not know is neutral.

Never heard of it is neutral.

Either belief or disbelief is a, or presumes a conclusion, (belief derived), of a data set, while I dont know has none.







Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 7:58:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Agnostic for instance is neutral.

I disagree with your claim that "agnostic" is neutral. The agnostic position is that it is not possible to know.

Of course, in your view that may appear to be the same thing. [:D]

K.




Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:03:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Agnostic for instance is neutral.

I disagree with your claim that "agnostic" is neutral. The agnostic position is that it is not possible to know.

Of course, in your view that may appear to be the same thing. [:D]

K.




HAHA

G1

I knew you were going to come back in and tag my ass on that LOL

yeh the classical definition also requires a belief to be set up for agnostic too.







kalikshama -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:08:46 PM)

quote:

THE VERY DEFINITION of aTheism is "there is no god". Agnostic means "Hell if I know". In English, the prefix "a" ("an") generally means "without". Like the word "anhedonia": an·he·do·ni·a (nh-dn-) n. The absence of pleasure or the ability to experience it.


From the Sanskrit (improper capitalization for emphasis):

aSteya - "avoidance of stealing" or "non-stealing"
aVidya - ignorance (not knowledge)
aHimsa - Nonviolence
aRjava - renouncing deception and wrongdoing
aParigraha - absence of avarice



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:10:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
A sidenote to SpanishMatMaster - El paradigma se presentó (el ateísmo débil y fuerte) era un trabajo de copia de evilbible.com. Que tuvo la audacia de pedir a otros que apreciamos sus esfuerzos más allá de mi comprensión. Lo que se presentó fue el esfuerzo de otros, no el suyo propio y, como tal, no tengo ningún aprecio por su la falta de esfuerzo y el intento de exponer el trabajo de otros como si fuera el suyo propio. Usted no está haciendo ningún favor al foro cuando se roban el trabajo de alguien más. Por lo menos debería haber citado la fuente, pero supongo que habría sido difícil hacerlo ya que reclamó como propio. Te has portado como un mentiroso y un ladrón, y puede ser que también me esconden ahora porque "nunca" tendrá respeto por el tipo de carácter que han mostrado por sus acciones.

¿El paradigma que se presentó dónde?
Si está sugiriendo que he copiado y pegado algo ajeno aquí, salvo la definición del Oxford, miente como un bellaco, difama, y hace el ridículo.
Gilpollas.
Le doy UN mensaje para pedir disculpas y retractarse. En caso contrario, al ignore.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:18:40 PM)

Gungadin:

You wrote " i wonder that you brought it up". I have shown you that I brought it up because YOU were showing a confusion: "Oh my goodness, i'm so confused. To me, "i don't believe god exists" and "i believe god does not exist" mean exactly the same thing. ".

I have helped you, resolving this confusion. I expect recognition before I carry on debating with you. "Thanks for your help" would be nice to read.

You have called me "semantic freak". I expect apologizes for that before I carry on debating with you.

I could not care less about the OP, I cannot even read it and have no interest to. I answered to concrete postings from other people.

If you want to see how common the definitions of weak and strong Atheism are, I suggest that you consult the wikipedia.

If you want to use a non-standard definition of Aheism, I suggest that you warn beforehand.

"THAT was my point. This "is believing there is no god the same as not believing in god" thing was a tangent. "

Your point was, that you were confused. This is what I quoted and what I answered to. And I have received attacks when you had no other option as to recognise that you were wrong.

"various rebuttals of YOUR arguments."

There haven't rebutted absolutely anything as far as I know. But I am ready to handle this AFTER you have recognised that I helped you with your confusion AND you apologize for calling me "semantic freak".

If not, this discussion is over and no, I will not debate with you anymore. I had enough. If I manage to show you something and all I get are insults, why should I be interested on showing you anything more? It makes no sense.

Bye



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:18:54 PM)


Back to the point, however: If you accept Carl Sagan's observation that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then an absence of belief is not a belief in absence.

K.



gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:20:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
But sometimes, to make a case or defend a position it has to boil down to precisely what the words mean.


You've gained Your point. Oxford got their definition wrong. It should say "an atheist is a person who believes god does not exist" instead of saying "an atheist is someone who does not believe in god." So, now what?

pam



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:20:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Back to the point, however: If you accept Carl Sagan's observation that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then an absence of belief is not a belief in absence.
K.

Not exactly. Even if you think that A derives logically from B, A and B are still different assertions. A person can believe B and not A if...
- Your reasoning is wrong.
- She does not behave logically on that point (for example because her reasoning is wrong).

In this case, by the way, I disagree with Carl Sagan, but maybe because I use the word "evidence" in a different way.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:21:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
no, they arent the same thing, because while you don't "know for a fact" that your keys will be where you left them, for them not to be would defy your years of experience. It goes way beyond "belief" to a rational expectation and has nothing to do with faith.


That's only true if you remember for sure where you left your keys.  If you only think you put them there, but you're not sure, then it's a belief.  Incidently, i suspect almost nothing is really KNOWN.  We say we "know" something when in fact we just believe it really, really strongly.  For example, it's possible, although unlikely, that the sun really WON'T rise tomorrow.  However, i still say i "know" it will.  But that's another thread, isn't it?

pam


So is memory and consciousness, and if you want to take the "nothing is real" position then fine, but you then have no relevance to this thread, since religion, science, and your existence arent real.



Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:28:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Back to the point, however: If you accept Carl Sagan's observation that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then an absence of belief is not a belief in absence.

K.



I wont argue that if correctly applied.

It only applies to the "I do not know", "never heard of it", etc etc arguments.  for it is true that you cannot have a belief if you know nothing of it.

To be absent of belief requires no mental process to make a determination or taking a position.

As soon as a mental decision making process is involved, we inevitably slip to one side or the other of neutral, it now becomes a bona fide "accepted" position hence a belief.







crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:33:18 PM)

Oh, that's it. Way back, when this thread was a bright eyed, bushy tailed little scamp of a thing, I agreed whole heartedly with Heather's take on the op!

:-P



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:34:16 PM)

quote:

THE VERY DEFINITION of aTheism is "there is no god".


Matrimony: Couple with a "mater" - sorry guys and infertile women - no marriage for you.
Alarm: Go find your weapons, we are being attacked. No weapons => no alarm.
Christ: Anointed, so almost every customer of a new age healer is Christ. Halleluya!

Nope. The definition is what comes in the dictionary. Not the ethimology.
Ethimology from another language < > Current meaning in this language

quote:

In English, the prefix "a" ("an") generally means "without".
You mean, like in "without belief on God"? Well, duh, that's Oxford pure...

aLias: Absense of lias.
aStonished: Absence of stonished. Duh, that shit helps to understand eeeeeeeveeeerything...




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:45:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


Back to the point, however: If you accept Carl Sagan's observation that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, then an absence of belief is not a belief in absence.

K.


Thats a big "IF", especially since there is some disagreement as to whether Sagan actually made that observation or was ridiculing it. However, we live in a probabilistic universe, and atheism itself has been expressed (by Dawkins if not others) as having degrees based on the probability of there being a God. From a probabilistic pov absence of evidence is most certainly evidence of absence. This is the least mathematical explanation I was able to find:

"In probability theory, absence of evidence is always evidence of absence. If E is a binary event and P(H|E) > P(H) [i.e. "seeing E increases the probability of H"]; then P(H|~E) < P(H), "failure to observe E decreases the probability of H". P(H) is a weighted mix of P(H|E) and P(H|~E), and necessarily lies between the two"

To put it without any math, when millions of people have been looking for evidence of something for thousands of years and no evidence can be found, that is most certainly evidence that either the something is unlikely to exist or leaves no evidence of its existence. But if there can be no evidence of God's existence then the whole discussion is moot and all you are left with is that absence of evidence of God is evidence of his absence.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:51:23 PM)

Just another point to add to the "evidence of absence".
It is pretty easy to find evidence of the absence of God. You only have to find a contradition on the concept. If you can prove that the existence of God provokes a contradiction, then you are proving (by reductio ad absurdum) that God does not exist.
But well, maybe I should stick to the "evidence of absence" argument.



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:52:29 PM)


Okay, let's change the context here. Let's say we're talking about somebody online (hypothetical, not you)...

"I do not believe that you are female."

versus

"I believe that you are not female."

You can't see any difference?

In the first case, I'm not buying it. Maybe you are, maybe you're not, but it ain't working for me. Something just ain't right here. Can't get behind that.

In the second case, we're across the line. I believe that you are not female. Period. End of story. We're done here.

You can't see any difference?

K.



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:54:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

THE VERY DEFINITION of aTheism is "there is no god". Agnostic means "Hell if I know". In English, the prefix "a" ("an") generally means "without". Like the word "anhedonia": an·he·do·ni·a (nh-dn-) n. The absence of pleasure or the ability to experience it.


From the Sanskrit (improper capitalization for emphasis):

aSteya - "avoidance of stealing" or "non-stealing"
aVidya - ignorance (not knowledge)
aHimsa - Nonviolence
aRjava - renouncing deception and wrongdoing
aParigraha - absence of avarice

So it seems that the root came to the Greeks from the Indus Valley... interesting.
TY for that. Knowledge is cool.



Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 8:54:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

THE VERY DEFINITION of aTheism is "there is no god".


Again its derived from [A]Theos.

meaning no God, Godless, Lacking God, Void God and other synonyms that indicate [A]bsense

NOT "There is no God"

quote:

In English, the prefix "a" ("an") generally means "without".
You mean, like in "without belief on God"? Well, duh, that's Oxford pure...

It generally means a negation, no, without, void, lack etc.

aLias: Absense of lias.
aStonished: Absence of stonished. Duh, that shit helps to understand eeeeeeeveeeerything...




I already explained the foolishness of that position, serves you right for putting everyone who disagrees with you on sqiggy iggy!

quote:

The Romans used A to signify a negative or dissent in giving their votes; A standing for antiquo, I oppose or object to the proposed law.


Can you imagine the red face if he ever looks back at what he missed?  LMAO



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875