|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 28, 2021 13:44:12 GMT
"I realize what happened." You got proven wrong and are now backpeddling crazy, yes that's what happened "I stupidly assumed the most relevant aspect of the definition of Materialism would be obvious by the context of my post." NO, you tried to misconflate two entirely different defintions of materialism into one "That's why I said your argument was 'pseudo-intellectual' since it was about something I figured would be obvious by context." Uh no, again my position is actually backed up by entire field of philosophy, yours isn't. And you actually have the nerve actually accuse me of "psuedintellectualism" "1a: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (see MATTER entry 1 sense 2)" "2: a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things?" Yeah that only proves my point, those are two entirely seperate, different definitions, you kept trying to misconflate the two, again probably because consumer materialism is easier to argue against, so you can just pull a motte and bailey. Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you keep dodging that question. "I can paraphrase for you: 'IMO Materialists (no matter what kind) are as narrow minded as religious fundamentalists'." No because one can actually be demonstrated to exist (matter) the other cant (supernatural). You might as well be saying people who accept the earth is round are as narrow minded as those who don't. "I guess I need to put 'IMO' for you to know it's my opinion, just like you needed me to clarify the relevant aspects of 'Materialism' in my post." What opinions? Saying stuff like "atheism is a belief" and "physical materialisn and consumerism are synonymous" are just objectively wrong statements, again no valid philosophy teacher would agree with you. "Seemed weird that someone so much smarter than me and so articulate needed the context spelled out for him, but there it is." You literally gave TWO seperate defintions for materialism and my position is actually backed up by academics, yours isn't "And I disagree about atheism being a belief system." Yeah in the same way not believing in leprechauns is a belief system "You have to have a lot of faith to be fully convinced that no 'Gods' exist." Yes in the same way you have to have a lot of faith no leprechauns exist. 'You got proven wrong and are now backpeddling crazy, yes that's what happened.' Like I said, the part of the definition of Materialism that was relevant to my post should have been apparent by context. My mistake was assuming people aren't mentally retarded. Have a nice day. Genius. "Like I said, the part of the definition of Materialism that was relevant to my post should have been apparent by context." UH you literally posted two different defintions of "materialism" genius, that only proves my point "My mistake was assuming people aren't mentally retarded." Uh no again, my position is actually backed up by academics, yours isn't. . Again do you think any philosophy professor would agree with you? Notice how you keep dodging that question. You can lie about terms and throw petty insults all you want, no one is falling for it. Do you take debate lessons from Arlon?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 28, 2021 13:48:00 GMT
'You got proven wrong and are now backpeddling crazy, yes that's what happened.' Like I said, the part of the definition of Materialism that was relevant to my post should have been apparent by context. My mistake was assuming people aren't mentally retarded. Have a nice day. Genius. "Like I said, the part of the definition of Materialism that was relevant to my post should have been apparent by context." UH you literally posted two different defintions of "materialism" genius, that only proves my point "My mistake was assuming people aren't mentally retarded." Uh no again, my position is actually backed up by academics, yours isn't. Notice how you don't actually address that point. Depends on how you look at it. IMO I posed one definition of Materialism that had four parts. I went back and bolded the parts relevant to my post. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Jul 28, 2021 13:56:18 GMT
I wonder if conspiracy theories are a new type of religion? More than likely, religions are just conspiracy theories. It was more to do with how people try to find meaning in coincidences. Of course there can be intelligence behind the quest for truth but that doesn’t always lead to a sensible conclusion. And if we try to point that out we’re just being foolish people who are easily led.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 28, 2021 14:02:54 GMT
"Like I said, the part of the definition of Materialism that was relevant to my post should have been apparent by context." UH you literally posted two different defintions of "materialism" genius, that only proves my point "My mistake was assuming people aren't mentally retarded." Uh no again, my position is actually backed up by academics, yours isn't. Notice how you don't actually address that point. Depends on how you look at it. IMO I posed one definition of Materialism that had four parts. I went back and bolded the parts relevant to my post. You're welcome. "Depends on how you look at it." I go by what actual academics say and not just make stuff up. "IMO I posed one definition of Materialism that had four parts." Uh no, it had two different definitnions, with some some "contextual definitions" below them, they're not "one definition with four parts". What you're saying would be like if I looked up "grinder" in the dictionary and argued that a molar and a tool for grinding are the same thing just because they're both listed as "grinder". Do you see why what you said is crippingly stupid? And you actaully accuse me of pseudointellectualism. "I went back and bolded the parts relevant to my post." Yeah on defintion #2, notice how you conveniently left out "materialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification" because you know that throws your argument in the garbage can. Your dishonest tactics aren't gonna work.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 28, 2021 14:45:31 GMT
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Sure in the same way being unemployed is a job It's a great example of what Cody takes to be a profound observation, though.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 28, 2021 15:03:37 GMT
Depends on how you look at it. IMO I posed one definition of Materialism that had four parts. I went back and bolded the parts relevant to my post. You're welcome. "Depends on how you look at it." I go by what actual academics say and not just make stuff up. "IMO I posed one definition of Materialism that had four parts." Uh no, it had two different definitnions, with some some "contextual definitions" below them, they're not "one definition with four parts". What you're saying would be like if I looked up "grinder" in the dictionary and argued that a molar and a tool for grinding are the same thing just because they're both listed as "grinder". Do you see why what you said is crippingly stupid? And you actaully accuse me of pseudointellectualism. "I went back and bolded the parts relevant to my post." Yeah on defintion #2, notice how you conveniently left out "materialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification" because you know that throws your argument in the garbage can. Your dishonest tactics aren't gonna work. You're right bro. I guess in some aspects they are four separate definitions, although I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. 'Overriding quest for personal gratification' goes along with 'Stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things' and 'a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter'. Not seeing any glaring contradictions. If you consider yourself a 'Materialist', have fun with that. If not, I'm not sure why you bothered with all this.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 28, 2021 17:53:50 GMT
"Depends on how you look at it." I go by what actual academics say and not just make stuff up. "IMO I posed one definition of Materialism that had four parts." Uh no, it had two different definitnions, with some some "contextual definitions" below them, they're not "one definition with four parts". What you're saying would be like if I looked up "grinder" in the dictionary and argued that a molar and a tool for grinding are the same thing just because they're both listed as "grinder". Do you see why what you said is crippingly stupid? And you actaully accuse me of pseudointellectualism. "I went back and bolded the parts relevant to my post." Yeah on defintion #2, notice how you conveniently left out "materialism, hedonism, and the overriding quest for personal gratification" because you know that throws your argument in the garbage can. Your dishonest tactics aren't gonna work. You're right bro. I guess in some aspects they are four separate definitions, although I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. 'Overriding quest for personal gratification' goes along with 'Stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things' and 'a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter'. Not seeing any glaring contradictions. If you consider yourself a 'Materialist', have fun with that. If not, I'm not sure why you bothered with all this. "I guess in some aspects they are four separate definitions, although I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other." They don't contradict each other in the sense that they're diametrically opposed to each other (you can have both a hedonistic and naturalistic worldview) they contradict by having completely different defintions. You can have a material/naturalistic worldview and not a consumerist one (there's plenty of atheist monks that have this worldview) "'Overriding quest for personal gratification' goes along with 'Stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things' and 'a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter'. Not seeing any glaring contradictions." One is about consumerism, the other is about rejecting the supernatural/metaphysical/ in favor of a physical/naturalistic worldview. These are two completely different things. If I were to look at some money grubbing trophy wife that likes to go shopping and spend her husband's money and say "Man she she sure is materialistic", you wouldn't look at me and say "Oh you mean she must believe reality is matter based and rejects the supernatural?". For all you know she could be some New Ager or something (plenty of suburban Karens that have both of these views). These are two completely different things depending on what context you use them and aren't mutually dependent on one another is the point I'm making.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 29, 2021 5:45:13 GMT
You're right bro. I guess in some aspects they are four separate definitions, although I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other. 'Overriding quest for personal gratification' goes along with 'Stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things' and 'a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter'. Not seeing any glaring contradictions. If you consider yourself a 'Materialist', have fun with that. If not, I'm not sure why you bothered with all this. "I guess in some aspects they are four separate definitions, although I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other." They don't contradict each other in the sense that they're diametrically opposed to each other (you can have both a hedonistic and naturalistic worldview) they contradict by having completely different defintions. You can have a material/naturalistic worldview and not a consumerist one (there's plenty of atheist monks that have this worldview) "'Overriding quest for personal gratification' goes along with 'Stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things' and 'a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter'. Not seeing any glaring contradictions." One is about consumerism, the other is about rejecting the supernatural/metaphysical/ in favor of a physical/naturalistic worldview. These are two completely different things. If I were to look at some money grubbing trophy wife that likes to go shopping and spend her husband's money and say "Man she she sure is materialistic", you wouldn't look at me and say "Oh you mean she must believe reality is matter based and rejects the supernatural?". For all you know she could be some New Ager or something (plenty of suburban Karens that have both of these views). These are two completely different things depending on what context you use them and aren't mutually dependent on one another is the point I'm making. No offense, but the only people I've seen use 'Karens' as a label are mentally regressed media whores. Up to now of course. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 29, 2021 15:07:59 GMT
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Sure in the same way being unemployed is a job Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous. In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2021 16:27:43 GMT
"I guess in some aspects they are four separate definitions, although I don't see how they necessarily contradict each other." They don't contradict each other in the sense that they're diametrically opposed to each other (you can have both a hedonistic and naturalistic worldview) they contradict by having completely different defintions. You can have a material/naturalistic worldview and not a consumerist one (there's plenty of atheist monks that have this worldview) "'Overriding quest for personal gratification' goes along with 'Stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things' and 'a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter'. Not seeing any glaring contradictions." One is about consumerism, the other is about rejecting the supernatural/metaphysical/ in favor of a physical/naturalistic worldview. These are two completely different things. If I were to look at some money grubbing trophy wife that likes to go shopping and spend her husband's money and say "Man she she sure is materialistic", you wouldn't look at me and say "Oh you mean she must believe reality is matter based and rejects the supernatural?". For all you know she could be some New Ager or something (plenty of suburban Karens that have both of these views). These are two completely different things depending on what context you use them and aren't mutually dependent on one another is the point I'm making. No offense, but the only people I've seen use 'Karens' as a label are mentally regressed media whores. Up to now of course. LOL Petty insults don't count as an argument. Notice how you didn't address anything I actually said. Evasion noted. Are you just looking to replace Arlon now that he's gone?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2021 16:39:45 GMT
Sure in the same way being unemployed is a job Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous. In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist. "Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous." Uh no, this is just baseless conjecture and conspiratorial thinking. In actuality, atheism pretty much has the same defintion as it always has. Do you unironically believe Richard Dawkins and a bunch of other atheists secretly plotted together to change the defintion? "In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist." LOL, no, if you were to ask a bunch of theology and philosophy professors, how many do you think would actually agree with you?
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 29, 2021 19:14:02 GMT
No offense, but the only people I've seen use 'Karens' as a label are mentally regressed media whores. Up to now of course. LOL Petty insults don't count as an argument. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm insulting you with petty insults. However, you imagining I give a shit about winning an argument on this website is a petty insult in itself. You're insinuating I'm a fucking loser.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 29, 2021 19:29:56 GMT
Petty insults don't count as an argument. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm insulting you with petty insults. However, you imagining I give a shit about winning an argument on this website is a petty insult in itself. You're insinuating I'm a fucking loser. "I'm not trying to win an argument" Oh that's good to know, because you were making rather terrible ones "I'm insulting you with petty insults." Yeah because you realize you have no actual arguments. That's usually the last desperate resort of an intellectual coward. "However, you imagining I give a shit about winning an argument on this website is a petty insult in itself." Oh you mean the one where you kept responding to me for about three pages? Is that one you don't "give a shit about"? "You're insinuating I'm a fucking loser." I don't need to "insinuate", that's glaringly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 30, 2021 10:19:58 GMT
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm insulting you with petty insults. However, you imagining I give a shit about winning an argument on this website is a petty insult in itself. You're insinuating I'm a fucking loser. "I'm not trying to win an argument" Oh that's good to know, because you were making rather terrible ones "I'm insulting you with petty insults." Yeah because you realize you have no actual arguments. That's usually the last desperate resort of an intellectual coward. "However, you imagining I give a shit about winning an argument on this website is a petty insult in itself." Oh you mean the one where you kept responding to me for about three pages? Is that one you don't "give a shit about"? "You're insinuating I'm a fucking loser." I don't need to "insinuate", that's glaringly obvious. You just seemed to want it more bro. I kept replying to you because I"m killing time at work and you keep responding, not because I give a shit about winning a semantic argument. You keep responding to me, by your logic you must really give a shit about my opinion!! ....if you do, you're a loser. Seems like you're a materialist that got triggered, maybe by this comment I made on page 1: Believing in no Gods takes as much faith as believing in a God or Gods. One path is just more pessimistic and close-minded.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 30, 2021 10:21:47 GMT
Sure in the same way being unemployed is a job Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous. In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist. Go easy on him. I think some evil 'Karens' cast a spell on him! Those Karens...they're horrible, horrible people. WITCHES!!!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 30, 2021 11:44:33 GMT
Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous. In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist. "Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous." Uh no, this is just baseless conjecture and conspiratorial thinking. In actuality, atheism pretty much has the same defintion as it always has. Do you unironically believe Richard Dawkins and a bunch of other atheists secretly plotted together to change the defintion? "In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist." LOL, no, if you were to ask a bunch of theology and philosophy professors, how many do you think would actually agree with you? So you believe God does not exist or do you merely lack belief that he does?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 30, 2021 22:35:44 GMT
"I'm not trying to win an argument" Oh that's good to know, because you were making rather terrible ones "I'm insulting you with petty insults." Yeah because you realize you have no actual arguments. That's usually the last desperate resort of an intellectual coward. "However, you imagining I give a shit about winning an argument on this website is a petty insult in itself." Oh you mean the one where you kept responding to me for about three pages? Is that one you don't "give a shit about"? "You're insinuating I'm a fucking loser." I don't need to "insinuate", that's glaringly obvious. You just seemed to want it more bro. I kept replying to you because I"m killing time at work and you keep responding, not because I give a shit about winning a semantic argument. You keep responding to me, by your logic you must really give a shit about my opinion!! ....if you do, you're a loser. Seems like you're a materialist that got triggered, maybe by this comment I made on page 1: Believing in no Gods takes as much faith as believing in a God or Gods. One path is just more pessimistic and close-minded. "I kept replying to you because I"m killing time at work and you keep responding, not because I give a shit about winning a semantic argument." So you don't give a shit, but you keep responding anyways even though you could be doing something more productive (like learning what "materialism" actually means). Gotcha. "You keep responding to me, by your logic you must really give a shit about my opinion!!" To some degree, yes, not because I think your some high pillar of intellectual thought or anything, quite the opposite, but because the world is made a better place when anti-intellectualism and irrational thought is questioned and argued against so it doesn't spread. For instance people like Dawkins practically built their careers upon arguing scientifically illiterate creationists, not because people like Ham or Hovind are intellectual giants, (quite the opposite), but because they spread lies and misinformation and should be corrected to prevent further damage to the world. "Seems like you're a materialist that got triggered" No I got "triggered" by your flagrant misuse of words and blatant stupidity. In the same way people get "triggered" by flat earthers. Sorry but you don't get to just say really dumb things and then just write them off as "triggered" to avoid having to make actual arguments. That's just more intellectual cowardice. "One path is just more pessimistic and close-minded." You think atheism is more pessimistic? So why is the countries with the lowest depressions are the Nordic ones with overhwelming atheist/irrelgious rates? Do you think atheist monks are more pessmistic as well? You realize there are plenty of atheist/non religious people that do plenty of philanthropy work, right? "Close-minded."? OK lets examine that, do you believe humans were created by space aliens? Do you think we live in a Matrix-like reality? Do you think reality isn't real and were just a figment of someone's imagination? There are a bunch of different hypothesis about reality that people think of, but you probably still reject a bunch of them, because well there's no evidence for them. And until evidence is provided there's no particularly good reason to believe in them. So no it's not "close minded" to not believe in God no more than it's "close minded" to not believe we're hooked up to machines and were living in a virtual reality.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 30, 2021 22:36:24 GMT
"Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous." Uh no, this is just baseless conjecture and conspiratorial thinking. In actuality, atheism pretty much has the same defintion as it always has. Do you unironically believe Richard Dawkins and a bunch of other atheists secretly plotted together to change the defintion? "In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist." LOL, no, if you were to ask a bunch of theology and philosophy professors, how many do you think would actually agree with you? So you believe God does not exist or do you merely lack belief that he does? I lack a belief that he does. I would never claim "god doesn't exist" (unfalsifiable hypothesis), but until evidence is provided I don't see any particuarly good reason to believe in one. In the same way
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 30, 2021 22:46:03 GMT
So you believe God does not exist or do you merely lack belief that he does? I lack a belief that he does Well we already have a term for that. It’s called a “non-theist”.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jul 31, 2021 14:00:06 GMT
Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous. In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist. "Probably because your group have spent the last few decades redefining the word making it’s meaning ambiguous." Uh no, this is just baseless conjecture and conspiratorial thinking. In actuality, atheism pretty much has the same defintion as it always has. Do you unironically believe Richard Dawkins and a bunch of other atheists secretly plotted together to change the defintion? "In academic settings Atheism is consistently understood as the belief that God does not exist." LOL, no, if you were to ask a bunch of theology and philosophy professors, how many do you think would actually agree with you? Academic sources: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011): “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” [Atheism and Agnosticism Encyclopedia of Unbelief (2007), p. 88: “In its broadest sense atheism, from the Greek a (‘without’) and theos (‘deity’), standardly refers to the denial of the existence of any god or gods.” Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2nd ed. (2006), p.358 [in vol. 1 of 10]: “According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God” Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Ed. (2005), p. 65: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, ... Agnosticism may be strictly personal and confessional—‘I have no firm belief about God’—or it may be the more ambitious claim that no one ought to have a positive belief for or against the divine existence.” Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004), p. 530: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998), entry by William Rowe: “As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. … the common use of ‘atheism’ to mean disbelief in God is so thoroughly entrenched, we will follow it. We may use the term ‘non-theist’ to characterize the position of the negative atheist.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: “[Atheism] denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.” Notice how it specifically excludes the non-theist definition as being standard. Colinsdictionary“Atheism is the belief that there is no God.” dictionary.com“ the doctrine or belief that there is no God.” Macmillandictionary“ the belief or theory that God does not exist”
|
|