RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:09:02 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 281

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:12:16 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 10/12/2011 9:22:28 PM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 282

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:19:50 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 283

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:21:01 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 10/12/2011 9:23:58 PM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 284

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:21:27 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 285

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:25:25 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 286

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:26:06 PM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 287

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:33:43 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 10/12/2011 9:36:08 PM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 288

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:38:07 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 289

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:42:48 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 10/12/2011 10:35:02 PM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Post #: 290

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:46:49 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 291

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 9:53:54 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 292

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/12/2011 10:59:36 PM

gungadin09

Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 10/12/2011 11:09:59 PM >

_____________________________

[link] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlvDnbFOkYY [/link]

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 293

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 12:42:59 AM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

gungadin09: Ok. Accepted. If you find anything you consider wrong, let me know. I would be glad to learn too.

(in reply to gungadin09)

Post #: 294

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 12:49:01 AM

MadAxeman

Posts: 4171
Joined: 8/28/2008
From: UK
Status: offline

You don't know when you've been stroked dude.

_____________________________

Hitman for the Subby Mafia

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Post #: 295

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 1:07:59 AM

crazyml

Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 296

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 1:22:27 AM

MadAxeman

Posts: 4171
Joined: 8/28/2008
From: UK
Status: offline

There's a purpose to these boards?

Jacques Derriere

_____________________________

Hitman for the Subby Mafia

(in reply to crazyml)

Post #: 297

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 1:52:59 AM

crazyml

Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline

Ah. You've got me there!

I apologise for being snippy.

_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to MadAxeman)

Post #: 298

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 4:31:50 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 10/13/2011 4:49:36 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 299

RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion - 10/13/2011 5:05:44 AM

MadAxeman

Posts: 4171
Joined: 8/28/2008
From: UK
Status: offline

Farq that shit mate.

It's the Hatman that requires apologies.

You do the voodoo that you do so well.

_____________________________

Hitman for the Subby Mafia

(in reply to crazyml)

Post #: 300

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109