RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

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

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

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:09:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 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. Yes, you should, lol. Indirect proof isnt possible because the hypothesis that something exists that is omnipotent, omnisicent and omnipresent precludes contradiction.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Yes, you should, lol. Indirect proof isnt possible because the hypothesis that something exists that is omnipotent, omnisicent and omnipresent precludes contradiction. If the hypothesis is self-contradictory (edited), the hypothesis is wrong. As simple as this. And if it is not, then any contradition found from it proves it wrong. There is no way to prevent this, is pure logic. If later the hypotesis makes a contradiction true, again, the hypotesis is wrong. Logic. Pure logic. The only way to escape from this is to decide (arbitrarily, no logic proof is possible) not to use logic and/or reason with God. It is a free option. Just not a logical one.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Yes, you should, lol. Indirect proof isnt possible because the hypothesis that something exists that is omnipotent, omnisicent and omnipresent precludes contradiction. If the hypothesis is contradictorious, the hypothesis is wrong. As simple as this. Contradictorious isnt an English word, and the Spanish English translation gives so many different meanings its difficult to respond. However, most likely I disagree with your statement at least with respect to this thread.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Contradictorious isnt an English word, and the Spanish English translation gives so many different meanings its difficult to respond. However, most likely I disagree with your statement at least with respect to this thread. "Which contains a contradiction". I edited my message, and I will try to find a better word and edit it again, ok? Edit: Found, self-contradictory I think means this.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster 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. If memory serves, anything with ism suffix is more modern version to create specifics, say after 1500ish.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:25:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Contradictorious isnt an English word, and the Spanish English translation gives so many different meanings its difficult to respond. However, most likely I disagree with your statement at least with respect to this thread. "Which contains a contradiction". I edited my message, and I will try to find a better word and edit it again, ok? No need, I think you mean "contains a contradiction" to mean that the hypothesis that there is a God is somehow self-contradictory. I don't see where that can be the case. Its a binary proposition, either A or not A, there is nothing self contradictory about that. (you may argue that some theories of God are self-contradictory, but that doesnt make existence any less binary.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:26:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster 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... Dieses (Feststellung) is sogar noch mehr schwachsinnig als Crazymls OED idiotisch Elefantmist. So "aLias" means "an absense of the early part of the Jurassic Period?" As much as I dislike the word, lulz is appropriate here.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:33:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No need, I think you mean "contains a contradiction" to mean that the hypothesis that there is a God is somehow self-contradictory. I don't see where that can be the case. Its a binary proposition, either A or not A, there is nothing self contradictory about that. (you may argue that some theories of God are self-contradictory, but that doesnt make existence any less binary. The existence is "binary" (and assertion and therefore true or false). I am not discussing that. But A may be self-contradictory. This is very simple, actually. A is an assertion, "God exists". Now expand the meaning of the word "God" and use the characteristics you find. If you arrive at any point to "Something exists, such as it makes B and not-B true" then you have a contradiction and the hypotesis must be wrong. An example: "The pink invisible unicorn exists" => "There is something, that is pink and invisible" => "There is something, which has color and no color" => "There is something, so that "it has a color" is true and false at the same time". Contradiction. Hence, the pink invisible unicorn does not exist. The premise must be wrong, as it leads to a contradiction. You can try to do the same with the various definitions of God. I did in Spanish and succeeded without big effort, even using the pretty wide definition of God of the DRAE (the standard Spanish dictionary). "Dios" is self-contradictory, and therefore no "Dios" can exist... according to logic. But I would not like to enter on trying it here and in English even if I said that it should be "pretty easy". Why? Because first it is off-even-the-new-topic, and second because first we would have to agree on which definition of God we want to use. Please open a new thread if you want to handle this... and give me a definition. Best regards.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No need, I think you mean "contains a contradiction" to mean that the hypothesis that there is a God is somehow self-contradictory. I don't see where that can be the case. Its a binary proposition, either A or not A, there is nothing self contradictory about that. (you may argue that some theories of God are self-contradictory, but that doesnt make existence any less binary. The existence is "binary" (and assertion and therefore true or false). I am not discussing that. But A may be self-contradictory. This is very simple, actually. A is an assertion, "God exists". Now expand the meaning of the word "God" and use the characteristics you find. If you arrive at any point to "Something exists, such as it makes B and not-B true" then you have a contradiction and the hypotesis must be wrong. An example: "The pink invisible unicorn exists" => "There is something, that is pink and invisible" => "There is something, which has color and no color" => "There is something, so that "it has a color" is true and false at the same time". Contradiction. Hence, the pink invisible unicorn does not exist. The premise must be wrong, as it leads to a contradiction. You can try to do the same with the various definitions of God. I did in Spanish and succeeded without big effort, even using the pretty wide definition of God of the DRAE (the standard Spanish dictionary). "Dios" is self-contradictory, and therefore no "Dios" can exist... according to logic. But I would not like to enter on trying it here and in English. I simply said that there MAY be a proof of the absence of God using this ways, and the "absence of evidence" is not the only possible way. That's it. Best regards. Only your first two sentences are needed. This thread has devolved into yet another discussion about existence, which you agree is binary and therefore cannot be self-contradictory. The rest may or may not be an interesting discussion in another thread. [:D]

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:42:48 PM)
I said exactly what I said. You interpret it as you like. You decided to comment my assert, not me. quote: 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. This is what I said and I see no rebuttal of it. Plus... quote: Indirect proof isnt possible because the hypothesis that something exists that is omnipotent, omnisicent and omnipresent precludes contradiction This is something you said and I think I have rebutted it in my answer to it. @All: There is something inherently wrong in this argument of "God is almighty so it does not need to be logic". Actually, many things: - You are using logic on God to prove that logica can't be used on God. Your prove cancels itself. - You are supposing that God "is", and this is exactly the point to be proven. God is not, actually. - From a contradiction, you can derive anything ("F -> x" is T for every possible x) but this does not make the contradiction less of a contradiction. - Will you apply the same for the almighty flying spaghetti monster? Dress like a pirate! Best regards.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:46:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. frankly no. as I said earlier both establish the same conclusions to the same end. I will email one of the linguistics gurus I know and hopefully they will chime in, could take a while if they do at all. If there is no interest in the thread by the time they respond I will give you their response on the other side.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 9:53:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy No need, I think you mean "contains a contradiction" to mean that the hypothesis that there is a God is somehow self-contradictory. I don't see where that can be the case. Its a binary proposition, either A or not A, there is nothing self contradictory about that. (you may argue that some theories of God are self-contradictory, but that doesnt make existence any less binary. The existence is "binary" (and assertion and therefore true or false). I am not discussing that. But A may be self-contradictory. This is very simple, actually. A is an assertion, "God exists". Now expand the meaning of the word "God" and use the characteristics you find. If you arrive at any point to "Something exists, such as it makes B and not-B true" then you have a contradiction and the hypotesis must be wrong. An example: "The pink invisible unicorn exists" => "There is something, that is pink and invisible" => "There is something, which has color and no color" => "There is something, so that "it has a color" is true and false at the same time". Contradiction. Hence, the pink invisible unicorn does not exist. The premise must be wrong, as it leads to a contradiction. You can try to do the same with the various definitions of God. I did in Spanish and succeeded without big effort, even using the pretty wide definition of God of the DRAE (the standard Spanish dictionary). "Dios" is self-contradictory, and therefore no "Dios" can exist... according to logic. But I would not like to enter on trying it here and in English even if I said that it should be "pretty easy". Why? Because first it is off-even-the-new-topic, and second because first we would have to agree on which definition of God we want to use. Please open a new thread if you want to handle this... and give me a definition. Best regards. Cant see feel or touch Microsoft either. now what lol and -isms came into popularity around middle 1700's. I was off by 200 years. Which takes us back to [A]Theos.

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/12/2011 10:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Gungadin: 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 SpanishMatMaster: Lo siento, de todo corazon. Usted tenia razon, y yo fui tan ignorante que no me di cuenta. Si hubiera leido su discusion con cuidado, no la habria pasado por alto. Si hubiera consultado wikipedia, como Usted me dijiera, habria entendido la discusion. Usted le empenaba para que me ententiera, y nunca le di gracias. Lo que es mas, le insulte. De hecho, no intente ofenderle, pero mi observacion fue irrespetuoso, y Usted no la merecio, sobre todo despues de tomarse la tarea de ensenarme. Entonces, me gustaria decir: Gracias para su ayuda. Hoy entiendo algo que antes no entendi, gracias a Usted. Gracias para su paciencia. Me mostro gracia, aun despues de le obligue repetirse varias veces. Siento haberlo tomado a la ligera. Gracias por su ayuda. Siento que le ofendio. i'm truly sorry. You were right, and i was too ignorant to know it. If i had read Your argument carefully, i would not have dismissed it. If i had checked wikipedia like You told me to, i would have understood it. You went to great lengths to help me understand, and i never thanked you. Not only that, but i insulted you. i honestly didn't mean offense by what i said, but i made a flippant comment, and one that was especially unwarranted after the trouble You took to help me. So, for the record i would just like to say: Thank you for Your help. i understand something now that i didn't before, and that's because of You. Thank You for Your patience. You were very gracious even after You had to repeat Yourself so many times. i'm sorry to have made light of it. Thanks for helping me. i'm sorry if i offended You. pam ETA: Same to You, crazyml.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 12:42:59 AM)
gungadin09: Ok. Accepted. If you find anything you consider wrong, let me know. I would be glad to learn too.

MadAxeman -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 12:49:01 AM)
You don't know when you've been stroked dude.

crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 1:07:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster Dieses (Feststellung) is sogar noch mehr schwachsinnig als Crazymls OED idiotisch Elefantmist. Ah, I think you misunderstand the purpose of these boards - if you're not actually going to add anything substantive to the argument, and you're going to simply call people names in a foreign language, you run a real risk of looking like a jackass. Just sayin.

MadAxeman -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 1:22:27 AM)
There's a purpose to these boards? Jacques Derriere

crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 1:52:59 AM)
Ah. You've got me there! I apologise for being snippy.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 4:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 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. to believe requires a mental decision. to not believe or disbelieve requires a mental decision. In either case you accepted a position based on a mental decision. The acceptance of "any" position by definition "is" a "belief", in this case one is simply positive the other is negative. Absence of belief requires that no mental decision process was involved and no outcome determined. That is the only instance one could legitimately claim "no belief". (or change the definition of belief) The acceptance of a position or premise by some mental process as correct or true "is" or creates a condition of belief. To believe or not to believe are both an acceptance of a conclusion. Hence either way it is a belief. Therefore it is impossible to be with out belief if a person takes a position on a matter. To believe is a position, to not believe is a position, to be without a belief is to be without knowledge or thought process hence without a position. Example of "NO" belief: Absence of belief: Do you believe in the existence of God? I dont know I never heard of God. The atheist claim that "I do not believe" is the same as "no belief" fails reason on its face by definition. "I do not believe" is a determination made "with subject matter knowledge" whereas "no belief" is without determination or knowledge or similar circumstance. The whole (modern) atheist argument with respect to belief and religion frankly falls apart.

MadAxeman -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/13/2011 5:05:44 AM)
Farq that shit mate. It's the Hatman that requires apologies. You do the voodoo that you do so well.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875