|
Post by goz on Jun 30, 2019 8:14:18 GMT
His super-intelligent brain just goes into overdrive sometimes, goz, causing it to emit more heat than light . And it just starts to steam and vapor, then hisses and dissipates into something so vapid and opaque, it is not even worth acknowledging. Hey guys! ad hominem and meanness doesn't win arguments!
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 30, 2019 12:11:21 GMT
Yeah... I read some of your posts. You constantly preach about how your beliefs are correct... and others are not. You're more religious about your beliefs than a lot of theists. Perhaps you can outline for us all, just when an opinion becomes 'a belief'? I dunno… When you never shut the fuck up about them? When you view your opinions as universal truth?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 30, 2019 13:09:55 GMT
Just reading Goz's thread.... and... I know Brandon used to like to say that "Atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color"... But, as usual, he thought himself to be wittier than he actually was (but, that's okay... so am I): Yes. Baldness is a lack of hair... Atheism is a lack of structured supernatural beliefs. However: Baldness is a categorial type of hair style. (which is where Brandon's analogy failed) Atheism is a categorial type of religion. There being nothing to believe in... is what you believe in.
The end.(Just kidding... let the arguments begin)Let the similes proceed
Atheism is a religion like a bicycle is an ocean liner.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 30, 2019 14:33:24 GMT
Nope. By definition it can't be. Yup. By definition... it's not defined as such:"I don't believe that any gods exist" is a statement of one's beliefs... This shit really ain't that complicated. Since all definitions are arbitrary, that one is inherently as valid as any other. It is not right to use a definition as a means to win an argument though. There are people who "disbelieve" or "lack a belief" in a god and if you want to call them "atheists" then that is your definition. Where that definition usually fails though, where definitions do fail, in application is that people who claim to "lack a belief" join debates and make arguments that there is no god, which is expressing the belief there isn't one. That is clearly not a "lack" of belief.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 30, 2019 21:07:22 GMT
Yup. By definition... it's not defined as such:"I don't believe that any gods exist" is a statement of one's beliefs... This shit really ain't that complicated. Since all definitions are arbitrary, that one is inherently as valid as any other. It is not right to use a definition as a means to win an argument though. There are people who "disbelieve" or "lack a belief" in a god and if you want to call them "atheists" then that is your definition. Where that definition usually fails though, where definitions do fail, in application is that people who claim to "lack a belief" join debates and make arguments that there is no god, which is expressing the belief there isn't one. That is clearly not a "lack" of belief. Yes, it is. It demonstrates a lack of belief in god or Gods ie atheism. An absence of something can NEVER be something.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 30, 2019 21:12:00 GMT
Perhaps you can outline for us all, just when an opinion becomes 'a belief'? I dunno… When you never shut the fuck up about them? When you view your opinions as universal truth? I don't think that there is a universal truth. I come here to discuss my opinion on the subject of lack of belief and conversely the beliefs of others. I have a lack of belief in god or Gods ie atheism. An absence of something can NEVER be something.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 0:30:01 GMT
A good point, which is the reason it is so weird that some "atheists" find it useful to join debates about god. "Lacking" belief would make debating rather absurd. People I call "agnostics," indeed lack a belief, and do not join debates. You can't have it both ways. You can't lack belief and offer evidence one way or the other in a debate. If you think it is evidence, then you have a "belief." Please don't bother arguing that you can say things you don't really mean or believe. I know some people do that. You miss the point though. You can't honestly, yourself join the debate in a meaningful way without any beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 1:19:27 GMT
A good point, which is the reason it is so weird that some "atheists" find it useful to join debates about god. "Lacking" belief would make debating rather absurd. People I call "agnostics," indeed lack a belief, and do not join debates. You can't have it both ways. You can't lack belief and offer evidence one way or the other in a debate. If you think it is evidence, then you have a "belief." Please don't bother arguing that you can say things you don't really mean or believe. I know some people do that. You miss the point though. You can't honestly, yourself join the debate in a meaningful way without any beliefs. Luckily I am an avowed and long standing agnostic atheist. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 2:13:57 GMT
" goz " said: [full text here]< clip 1 >
I am an avowed and long standing agnostic atheist. < clip 2 >
Why [can't you join a debate without any beliefs]? 1. You may describe yourself however you choose. Isn't that nice? Bad news, your description is not very -- descriptive, that is. 2. I have been very clear already how that works. If you lack beliefs then you won't have anything to say that is your words and what you believe unless you are lying. That's why agnostics do not bother to join debates. They quite truly lack a belief one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 2:21:46 GMT
" goz " said: [full text here]< clip 1 >
I am an avowed and long standing agnostic atheist. < clip 2 >
Why [can't you join a debate without any beliefs]? 1. You may describe yourself however you choose. Isn't that nice? Bad news, your description is not very -- descriptive, that is. 2. I have been very clear already how that works. If you lack beliefs then you won't have anything to say that is your words and what you believe unless you are lying. That's why agnostics do not bother to join debates. They quite truly lack a belief one way or the other. My description is what it is and the best I can muster to describe in accepted words ( in the dictionary) of my world and spiritual view. Lacking 'beliefs' does not presuppose lacking opinions and so my opinions are as valid on these subjects as anyone else....despite your pathetic remonstrations to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 2:34:20 GMT
1. You may describe yourself however you choose. Isn't that nice? Bad news, your description is not very -- descriptive, that is. 2. I have been very clear already how that works. If you lack beliefs then you won't have anything to say that is your words and what you believe unless you are lying. That's why agnostics do not bother to join debates. They quite truly lack a belief one way or the other. My description is what it is and the best I can muster to describe in accepted words ( in the dictionary) of my world and spiritual view. Lacking 'beliefs' does not presuppose lacking opinions and so my opinions are as valid on these subjects as anyone else....despite your pathetic remonstrations to the contrary. Your dictionary is not "the" dictionary. In fact, as I have tried to explain too many times to count, there is no "the" dictionary. All definitions are arbitrary. Although the definitions in "my" dictionary are just as arbitrary as yours, they are more "useful" in conveying meaningful information.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 2:37:52 GMT
My description is what it is and the best I can muster to describe in accepted words ( in the dictionary) of my world and spiritual view. Lacking 'beliefs' does not presuppose lacking opinions and so my opinions are as valid on these subjects as anyone else....despite your pathetic remonstrations to the contrary. Your dictionary is not "the" dictionary. In fact, as I have tried to explain too many times to count, there is no "the" dictionary. All definitions are arbitrary. Although the definitions in "my" dictionary are just as arbitrary as yours, they are more "useful" in conveying meaningful information. Interesting that there is a 'my dictionary' and a 'your dictionary'! This concept from you says it all, really!
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jul 1, 2019 2:45:14 GMT
Hitler was just a shitty Christian... if he ever really thought himself of one in his heart of hearts, btw.... Actually he was very much a Christian. That's why he was so obsessed with religious artifacts such as the Ark and the Spear of Destiny.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 3:14:04 GMT
Your dictionary is not "the" dictionary. In fact, as I have tried to explain too many times to count, there is no "the" dictionary. All definitions are arbitrary. Although the definitions in "my" dictionary are just as arbitrary as yours, they are more "useful" in conveying meaningful information. Interesting that there is a 'my dictionary' and a 'your dictionary'! This concept from you says it all, really! I get the feeling you think "my" dictionary only exists in my imagination. It also exists in the real world. On the cover of "my" dictionary it proudly boasts that it is the "official dictionary of the Associated Press," which I certainly know it is since it is required for my membership. Like mine aren't? Notice when we use "my" dictionary (the AP's) that "atheists" can now join debates! Isn't that cool! Now you don't have to pretend you "lack" beliefs anymore!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 4:11:46 GMT
Interesting that there is a 'my dictionary' and a 'your dictionary'! This concept from you says it all, really! I get the feeling you think "my" dictionary only exists in my imagination. It also exists in the real world. On the cover of "my" dictionary it proudly boasts that it is the "official dictionary of the Associated Press," which I certainly know it is since it is required for my membership. Like mine aren't? Notice when we use "my" dictionary (the AP's) that "atheists" can now join debates! Isn't that cool! Now you don't have to pretend you "lack" beliefs anymore! OK. If you want to play the game. MY dictionary is the Oxford English dictionary which is the acknowledged arbiter on the English language unlike Websters, which is 'American' Hence I lack belief , NOT believe in the lack of a God. There is a crucial dfference. One is an opinion and the other is a belief. Hence as an agnostic atheist I am able to discuss opinions of belief without believing in stupid shit, myself. SO liberating.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 9:23:12 GMT
goz said: [full text]< clip > MY dictionary is the Oxford English dictionary which is the acknowledged arbiter on the English language unlike Websters, which is 'American' I see your point. I often do despite your incompetence to make one. Americans have been struggling lately to make any sense, haven't they? I own an Oxford Dictionary too (print version with online features), and a few others less well known. Among the most useful is the American Heritage Dictionary which explains why it lists several definitions more often and in greater detail and history than the others. The sad thing here though is that when you are "born to it" you can lose your way, as you have. The English are no longer world leaders. Have you heard of the "Golden Globe" awards? Have you ever won any? The Academy (you like that word, I know) of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (and that word too) often gives awards to foreign films. How many of those awards have you? Speaking of science, who landed men on the moon? Hint: It was not the Australians. How many of those medical achievements you are so fond of noting were made by people outside the United States? Sometimes not being born to it can be an advantage apparently. See? I've already won and didn't even have to mention you might be speaking German instead of "Oxford" English were it not for the efforts of some Americans. You do have a point though about U.S. politics. We do have an obvious problem. Do you know why? I've explained it elsewhere many times. People who accept things mindlessly, on authority (as you do) or on blind faith (as others do much like you), gravitate to politics because it is the only way they can get people to accept their beliefs, dumb brute force of government. We also have intelligent people here. They just haven't spoken up lately. We're waiting for the politicians to make complete fools of themselves. It appears we won't have much longer to wait. Have you noticed how I have been able quote you without copying every last word over and over again? It was a bit of trouble getting the time stamp and the link. You have to do that manually. There is an interesting story about how stupid people have taken control of so many things. People who never thought anything in paragraphs, people who thumb type, you get the picture. If you're still pretending to be an authority on definitions, tell me what "ditz" means. I've wondered. I also would like to know whether your picture is by the definition in "the" dictionary. I also have a 100th anniversary edition of the Oxford Dictionary. In 2011 they reprinted the 1911 version of their dictionary, some of it archaic. I know you're wondering. Yes, they got atheism wrong then too.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 9:47:17 GMT
goz said: [full text]< clip > MY dictionary is the Oxford English dictionary which is the acknowledged arbiter on the English language unlike Websters, which is 'American' I see your point. I often do despite your incompetence to make one. Americans have been struggling lately to make any sense, haven't they? I own an Oxford Dictionary too (print version with online features), and a few others less well known. Among the most useful is the American Heritage Dictionary which explains why it lists several definitions more often and in greater detail and history than the others. The sad thing here though is that when you are "born to it" you can lose your way, as you have. The English are no longer world leaders. Have you heard of the "Golden Globe" awards? Have you ever won any? The Academy (you like that word, I know) of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (and that word too) often gives awards to foreign films. How many of those awards have you? Speaking of science, who landed men on the moon? Hint: It was not the Australians. How many of those medical achievements you are so fond of noting were made by people outside the United States? Sometimes not being born to it can be an advantage apparently. See? I've already won and didn't even have to mention you might be speaking German instead of "Oxford" English were it not for the efforts of some Americans. You do have a point though about U.S. politics. We do have an obvious problem. Do you know why? I've explained it elsewhere many times. People who accept things mindlessly, on authority (as you do) or on blind faith (as others do much like you), gravitate to politics because it is the only way they can get people to accept their beliefs, dumb brute force of government. We also have intelligent people here. They just haven't spoken up lately. We're waiting for the politicians to make complete fools of themselves. It appears we won't have much longer to wait. Have you noticed how I have been able quote you without copying every last word over and over again? It was a bit of trouble getting the time stamp and the link. You have to do that manually. There is an interesting story about how stupid people have taken control of so many things. People who never thought anything in paragraphs, people who thumb type, you get the picture. If you're still pretending to be an authority on definitions, tell me what "ditz" means. I've wondered. I also would like to know whether your picture is by the definition in "the" dictionary. I also have a 100th anniversary edition of the Oxford Dictionary. In 2011 they reprinted the 1911 version of their dictionary, some of it archaic. I know you're wondering. Yes, they got atheism wrong then too. Do you have a point? No. I thought not.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 9:50:56 GMT
Do you have a point? No. I thought not. Is one required here?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 1, 2019 11:45:12 GMT
Since all definitions are arbitrary, that one is inherently as valid as any other. Unless Arlon is being ironic, this flies directly in the face of what he has previously argued when it suits: that to be valid any definition must be mutually agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 11:50:06 GMT
Since all definitions are arbitrary, that one is inherently as valid as any other. Unless Arlon is being ironic, this flies directly in the face of what he has previously argued when it suits: that to be valid any definition must be mutually agreed. They must be mutually agreed before a debate, otherwise have at it.
|
|