Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 10:08 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 07:40 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  ... The police? FBI?

If you mean passing a law, the President, Supreme Court. It's checks and balances, the one thing they taught you in grade school that you skipped out on.

Read up on some civics while you're at it.

Things Dimaniac has demonstrated on TTA that he does not understand:
  • Civics
  • Civility
  • Logic
  • Ethics/morality
  • Atheism
  • The Bible
  • Set theory
  • Statistics
  • History

I'm sure the list is longer, but I'm not going to start dredging through his thread-shittery to find more.

you forgot to add the purpose of tautology in language
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 09:04 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Lack of belief, disbelief, not believing are all the same. Something does not have to exist for you not to believe in it. It's accurate to say I lack a belief in unicorns.

I disagree. 'Not believing' includes both 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' but those are not the same thing with 'disbelief' being a subset of 'lack of belief'. I can not hold a belief about something while also not disbelieving it.

Thinking about this, you are using 'disbelieve' as a synonym for not holding the belief while, in my mind anyway, it carries the connotation of actively believing that the claim is not only unproven, but also untrue.

A simple example: you tell me that you have a $100 bill in your pocket. I do not disbelieve you because there is no good reason for me to doubt it but I also don't believe you because I don't know you and your situation well enough to judge how likely it is. I lack the belief/I don't believe. I lack the disbelief/I don't disbelieve.

Quote:Furthermore, atheism takes no position on supernatural entities other than gods.

a = without
theism = belief in a god or gods
atheism = without belief in a god or gods

Simply not having a belief in a god doesn't assume there isn't a god. It simply means that, without evidence, there is no reason to have a belief. But agnostic atheists are willing to accept that there could be a god and would be willing to accept that there is one if the proper evidence was presented.

That all matches my understanding and use of the terms. A strong, or gnostic, atheist would disbelieve that a god exists. A weak, or agnostic atheist, would lack both the belief and the [active] disbelief.

Ain't it amazing how pedantic most atheists are?
Thumbsup

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
24-10-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 11:07 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I disagree. 'Not believing' includes both 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' but those are not the same thing with 'disbelief' being a subset of 'lack of belief'. I can not hold a belief about something while also not disbelieving it.

Thinking about this, you are using 'disbelieve' as a synonym for not holding the belief while, in my mind anyway, it carries the connotation of actively believing that the claim is not only unproven, but also untrue.

You're probably right about disbelief. I'm not convinced there's a difference between not believing and lack of belief. If I do not believe then I lack a belief. If I lack a belief then I do not believe.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
24-10-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 11:12 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You're probably right about disbelief. I'm not convinced there's a difference between not believing and lack of belief. If I do not believe then I lack a belief. If I lack a belief then I do not believe.

I believe that which, I guess, means that I lack a disbelief in it.
Big Grin

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 09:13 AM)Kowlzer Wrote:  I might be wrong, but did we get off topic? lol or maybe i'm wrong.

"Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality"

Morality like marriage was around before the Israelites appointed Yahweh as their one true god(bronze age- there were ages before that). that is the beginning of the religion, and when they made up the foolish idea of Creationism. if you need the threat of hell and a god to tell you to be a good person then you aren't really that much of a good person.

Exactly. First off, if a Christian is claiming that morals come from their god, then they have to be a fundie to make that argument without their point being moot right off the bat. Modern man has existed on this planet for around 2 million years. The story of the god Yahweh only goes back to a couple thousand years. So how did humans survive for millions of years before the whole Yahweh thing came around if our morals rely on believing in him? It makes no sense.

This whole "There is no morality without God" crap could just as easily be used with fairies: "Oh, so you don't believe in fairies? Well, how do you have any morals if you don't believe in fairies?" Yet substitute an invisible man in the sky in place of the fairies, and all of a sudden it's a valid argument? It's stupid because one obviously has nothing to do with the other. It's religious people that make this claim, so why should we go repeating ourselves ad nauseum while they continue to ignore our points and just repeat their claims over and over again. We've had threads go on for well over a hundred pages on this worthless argument, and I refuse to get caught up in it anymore. Why should we constantly put ourselves on the defensive for this ridiculous, bullshit claim made up by creationists? It's their game, and we take the bait of getting dragged into it over and over again. It's as stupid as continuing to argue with a white supremacist that claims that if there were no black people, then crime would be nonexistent.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 11:12 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(24-10-2014 11:07 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I disagree. 'Not believing' includes both 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief' but those are not the same thing with 'disbelief' being a subset of 'lack of belief'. I can not hold a belief about something while also not disbelieving it.

Thinking about this, you are using 'disbelieve' as a synonym for not holding the belief while, in my mind anyway, it carries the connotation of actively believing that the claim is not only unproven, but also untrue.

You're probably right about disbelief. I'm not convinced there's a difference between not believing and lack of belief. If I do not believe then I lack a belief. If I lack a belief then I do not believe.

I'm basically with you on this (and I have defined atheism as a lack of belief in God(s)), but the word "lack" does tend to have a negative connotation. In most other contexts, we only say we lack something when we wish we had it. So it's probably not the best word to use. Something more neutral like absence of belief is probably preferable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
24-10-2014, 04:35 PM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 05:59 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 04:39 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  It reminds me of that saying about how arguing with willfully ignorant people and playing their game is like wrestling with a pig: You end up all covered in mud and shit, and the pig enjoys it.

Nice post! Yeah, I agree that there's little use in caving on these definitions on first principles. Once you give them that much, you'll spend the rest of the discussion trying to explain why you're not as bad as Hitler, or something.


(23-10-2014 05:55 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Atheism is NOT the lack of belief. Having a lack of something implies that something exsits.

That's not true. Whether or not God exists, I lack a belief in him. My personal beliefs have no bearing on how true something is or isn't.

There is a difference between not making a positive claim in something's existence and making a negative claim about its lack of existence. This is, of course, rooted in the nonfalsifiable nature of most religions (the falsifiable ones tend to die out fast and hard).


(23-10-2014 05:55 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Atheism - The disbelief of supernatural claims.

No, you're over-defining the term. There's nothing theistic about beliefs in leprechauns or ghosts, so long as you don't posit that they are also deities. Now, I'll admit it is a very specific term, and as WCJ already pointed out, one that only matters in our society because three out of four people do believe in deities.

..mm...perhaps you are right. Maybe I am just overthinking the wording a bit.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 06:34 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(23-10-2014 07:08 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  This statement is true. We are not a democracy. We just make good use of it in our political fields etc.

I pledge my allegiance, To the flag, of the United States of America, and to the replublic for which it stands. One nation Indivisible, with liberty and justice for most.

since the US constitution (1st amendment) provides for freedom of speech and he's using the internet to speak freely that the constitution is irrelevant

isn't he a perfectly exact depiction of this meme ?

[Image: irony-11074321783.jpeg]

I do believe you are correct sir! I agree with your reasoning.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2014, 05:32 PM
RE: Stop Playing Creationist Game Of Defining Atheism And Its Link To Morality
(24-10-2014 11:30 AM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  Modern man has existed on this planet for around 2 million years.

I'd like to correct this if I may, its more like 200,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

Carry on. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: