|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 8, 2017 22:31:06 GMT
I wouldn't expect them to behave differently at all, but I don't think the only useful thing about categories is what they imply about a person's behavior. Like I've said, people's beliefs about God can be complex and nuanced, far more than three broad categories can really hope to capture. Many of the "nuanced" definitions involve logical fallacies. You cannot "lack" a believe and participate in a debate. That makes no sense. "I lack belief on the existence of a god but there is none because ....," is far too obviously a person with no sense. While saying there is no god in a debate should be behavior that certainly identifies people who believe there is no god and that should be the end of it, several posters here still insist that an atheist is a person who "lacks" a belief in a god. It takes awfully long for the word to get around apparently. The people who truly "lack" belief in a god do not join debates, except maybe to watch.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 8, 2017 23:56:49 GMT
"There are three possible stances regarding the existence of god; believing in deity, believing there is no deity, and lacking any belief either way. "Agnostic atheist" fails to identify which of these categories is yours." Well it obviously discounts the former. IT could be either of the latter two, but so could simply "atheist" The addition of "agnostic" neither clarifies or obfuscates the meaning. You're basically just talking bollocks now. There are two different types of writing. News writing is distinctive from other writing in significant ways. When writing what is not the news you are encouraged to depend primarily on things from your own personal experience. You can create more interesting stories with more elaborate plots with more believable cohesion. News writing, especially political news writing, necessarily has considerably less regard for the individual outlook or individual worldview. It is more important to align with a common understanding, to fit events into that understanding. It is unusual for news writing to involve new definitions of anything although both types of writing can explore new terms. New terms require a clear standard. They cannot become widely used without identifying details the general public can recognize. Although writing that is not the news might introduce new words, that is generally not the goal. The goal is usually to develop more detailed characters. What in the name of Donald Trump are you on about now?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 0:29:26 GMT
There are two different types of writing. News writing is distinctive from other writing in significant ways. When writing what is not the news you are encouraged to depend primarily on things from your own personal experience. You can create more interesting stories with more elaborate plots with more believable cohesion. News writing, especially political news writing, necessarily has considerably less regard for the individual outlook or individual worldview. It is more important to align with a common understanding, to fit events into that understanding. It is unusual for news writing to involve new definitions of anything although both types of writing can explore new terms. New terms require a clear standard. They cannot become widely used without identifying details the general public can recognize. Although writing that is not the news might introduce new words, that is generally not the goal. The goal is usually to develop more detailed characters. What in the name of Donald Trump are you on about now? Free writing advice. A quick review of our previous disagreement, you told us how you identify yourself. I tried to explain those aren't valid definitions. Many people on this board especially regard how a person self identifies and are irritated when that is corrected. Consider this though, suppose someone self identifies as a vegetarian and we frequently catch him eating a steak. What matters more, how he self identifies or what his behavior reveals? of course he can call himself a vegetarian all he wants, but if we frequently catch him eating steak we will not call him a vegetarian nor should we. A person's own definitions do not matter in some cases. A person might write a book though on various dietary philosophies he has considered and the events in his life that shaped them. It might be a more interesting book than the dictionary. It is however not a dictionary.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 9, 2017 2:07:49 GMT
I wouldn't expect them to behave differently at all, but I don't think the only useful thing about categories is what they imply about a person's behavior. Like I've said, people's beliefs about God can be complex and nuanced, far more than three broad categories can really hope to capture. Many of the "nuanced" definitions involve logical fallacies. You cannot "lack" a believe and participate in a debate. That makes no sense. "I lack belief on the existence of a god but there is none because ....," is far too obviously a person with no sense. While saying there is no god in a debate should be behavior that certainly identifies people who believe there is no god and that should be the end of it, several posters here still insist that an atheist is a person who "lacks" a belief in a god. It takes awfully long for the word to get around apparently. The people who truly "lack" belief in a god do not join debates, except maybe to watch. . Just because you are incapable of being in a debate unless you believe one way or another doe not mean others are hampered by the same lack of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 9, 2017 2:18:15 GMT
What in the name of Donald Trump are you on about now? Free writing advice. A quick review of our previous disagreement, you told us how you identify yourself. I tried to explain those aren't valid definitions. Many people on this board especially regard how a person self identifies and are irritated when that is corrected. Consider this though, suppose someone self identifies as a vegetarian and we frequently catch him eating a steak. What matters more, how he self identifies or what his behavior reveals? of course he can call himself a vegetarian all he wants, but if we frequently catch him eating steak we will not call him a vegetarian nor should we. A person's own definitions do not matter in some cases. A person might write a book though on various dietary philosophies he has considered and the events in his life that shaped them. It might be a more interesting book than the dictionary. It is however not a dictionary. Okay. I didn't bother correcting you last time, but I will now. Vegetarianism is identifiable by actions. It is a diet. So in this case, what that person identifies as is made irrelevant by their actions. So using this, tell us how my actions make my self identification false?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 11:42:56 GMT
Many of the "nuanced" definitions involve logical fallacies. You cannot "lack" a believe and participate in a debate. That makes no sense. "I lack belief on the existence of a god but there is none because ....," is far too obviously a person with no sense. While saying there is no god in a debate should be behavior that certainly identifies people who believe there is no god and that should be the end of it, several posters here still insist that an atheist is a person who "lacks" a belief in a god. It takes awfully long for the word to get around apparently. The people who truly "lack" belief in a god do not join debates, except maybe to watch. . Just because you are incapable of being in a debate unless you believe one way or another doe not mean others are hampered by the same lack of intelligence. If you're deliberately trying to make atheists appear stupid you're doing a bang up job.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 12:33:15 GMT
Free writing advice. A quick review of our previous disagreement, you told us how you identify yourself. I tried to explain those aren't valid definitions. Many people on this board especially regard how a person self identifies and are irritated when that is corrected. Consider this though, suppose someone self identifies as a vegetarian and we frequently catch him eating a steak. What matters more, how he self identifies or what his behavior reveals? of course he can call himself a vegetarian all he wants, but if we frequently catch him eating steak we will not call him a vegetarian nor should we. A person's own definitions do not matter in some cases. A person might write a book though on various dietary philosophies he has considered and the events in his life that shaped them. It might be a more interesting book than the dictionary. It is however not a dictionary. Okay. I didn't bother correcting you last time, but I will now. Vegetarianism is identifiable by actions. It is a diet. So in this case, what that person identifies as is made irrelevant by their actions. So using this, tell us how my actions make my self identification false? I don't know you well enough so I will address the problems with atheists like you generally. 1. You fail to comprehend others' concept of a god.When you say you don't believe in a god it's not our god. You say you don't believe in god because he's this or that and the people who believe in god don't believe in that god either. It is your concept of a god not ours. You don't believe in unicorns for example. Very close to 100 % of people (no joke) who believe in a god do not believe in unicorns either. There are numerous buildings where large numbers of people gather regularly to discuss various gods. There are no buildings where anyone at all goes to discuss unicorns as an object of worship or guide their major life decisions. It's like you haven't graduated elementary school yet and are trying to argue with colleges students. You don't even have a clue what the topic is. Your thoughts on the topic are irrelevant. The police need to escort you out of the building. 2. Your claim that outward behavior is not relevant in the case of belief in a god proves how you totally do not understand others' concept of god.
Of course outward behavior matters. Christianity is the only exception if even it is one. All other religions have ways to distinguish who is and who is not a member by their behavior. Some Christians are an exception in that anyone who self identifies as Christian will be accepted as one without regard to behavior. Quite many other "Christians" however will rebuke false claims of Christianity when outward behavior is clearly a problem and counsel a change in behavior before continued acceptance. Notice that the only other people beside you in the world who go about following ridiculous self identifications are Christians. This is just one of many similarities between atheists and Christians you ought to find embarrassing. At this point you might be wondering how it happened that you said things as disconnected from reality as you did. Are you really that stupid? There is a chance you are not that stupid. You might have enough intelligence. You just might not be using it. Why? You, graham, vomisacaasi might all have more intelligence you just aren't using. Rather than using it what you're doing is copying off each other without bothering to think anything through. That might be laziness or it might be you were just caught unaware.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 9, 2017 12:49:15 GMT
An atheist recruit is trying to convince me to become an atheist and then burn in hell for all eternity for denying God. I told him that i don't care about religion, and i am an agnostic. He said that i can be an agnostic and atheist at the same time. This makes no sense to me. Explain Split personality?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 9, 2017 13:07:38 GMT
Okay. I didn't bother correcting you last time, but I will now. Vegetarianism is identifiable by actions. It is a diet. So in this case, what that person identifies as is made irrelevant by their actions. So using this, tell us how my actions make my self identification false? I don't know you well enough so I will address the problems with atheists like you generally. 1. You fail to comprehend others' concept of a god.When you say you don't believe in a god it's not our god. You say you don't believe in god because he's this or that and the people who believe in god don't believe in that god either. It is your concept of a god not ours. You don't believe in unicorns for example. Very close to 100 % of people (no joke) who believe in a god do not believe in unicorns either. There are numerous buildings where large numbers of people gather regularly to discuss various gods. There are no buildings where anyone at all goes to discuss unicorns as an object of worship or guide their major life decisions. It's like you haven't graduated elementary school yet and are trying to argue with colleges students. You don't even have a clue what the topic is. Your thoughts on the topic are irrelevant. The police need to escort you out of the building. 2. Your claim that outward behavior is not relevant in the case of belief in a god proves how you totally do not understand others' concept of god.
Of course outward behavior matters. Christianity is the only exception if even it is one. All other religions have ways to distinguish who is and who is not a member by their behavior. Some Christians are an exception in that anyone who self identifies as Christian will be accepted as one without regard to behavior. Quite many other "Christians" however will rebuke false claims of Christianity when outward behavior is clearly a problem and counsel a change in behavior before continued acceptance. Notice that the only other people beside you in the world who go about following ridiculous self identifications are Christians. This is just one of many similarities between atheists and Christians you ought to find embarrassing. At this point you might be wondering how it happened that you said things as disconnected from reality as you did. Are you really that stupid? There is a chance you are not that stupid. You might have enough intelligence. You just might not be using it. Why? You, graham, vomisacaasi might all have more intelligence you just aren't using. Rather than using it what you're doing is copying off each other without bothering to think anything through. That might be laziness or it might be you were just caught unaware. 1) I don't believe in gods. I don't care what you think gods are. I don't believe in any common or accepted definition of what a god is. If you are going to have special meanings for words than nobody else understands, then language is pointless at that point. 2) I claimed no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 13:50:19 GMT
1) I don't believe in gods. I don't care what you think gods are. I don't believe in any common or accepted definition of what a god is. If you are going to have special meanings for words than nobody else understands, then language is pointless at that point. 2) I claimed no such thing. 1. That is a logical fallacy. If you decide you don't believe in something without having any idea what it is, your opinion means absolutely nothing. If you have no idea what something is and still don't care then you are "agnostic" on it. 2.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 9, 2017 13:53:38 GMT
1) I don't believe in gods. I don't care what you think gods are. I don't believe in any common or accepted definition of what a god is. If you are going to have special meanings for words than nobody else understands, then language is pointless at that point. 2) I claimed no such thing. 1. That is a logical fallacy. If you decide you don't believe in something without having any idea what it is, your opinion means absolutely nothing. If you have no idea what something is and still don't care then you are "agnostic" on it. 2. 1) No it isn't. I cannot possibly know what your idea of god is. To you god might be a tuna casserole. If you want to use ANY accepted definition of "god" I don't believe in that being. 2) No. That was me asking you to support your assertion. Even if it were my claim, it is the direct opposite of the claim you think it proves.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 9, 2017 16:59:54 GMT
I wouldn't expect them to behave differently at all, but I don't think the only useful thing about categories is what they imply about a person's behavior. Like I've said, people's beliefs about God can be complex and nuanced, far more than three broad categories can really hope to capture. Many of the "nuanced" definitions involve logical fallacies. You cannot "lack" a believe and participate in a debate. That makes no sense. "I lack belief on the existence of a god but there is none because ....," is far too obviously a person with no sense. While saying there is no god in a debate should be behavior that certainly identifies people who believe there is no god and that should be the end of it, several posters here still insist that an atheist is a person who "lacks" a belief in a god. It takes awfully long for the word to get around apparently. The people who truly "lack" belief in a god do not join debates, except maybe to watch. A definition can not include a logical fallacy since definitions do not function as logical arguments. As for "lacking a belief," it depends on what you mean: is me believing the probability of God's existence is extremely low having a belief about God or lacking a belief in God or lacking the belief that God doesn't exist? When most people say they "lack of belief" I think most mean the latter sense rather than the former. I actually think the "lacks a belief in God" definition of atheism is more common now. The soft/hard distinction has been around since 1976. Maybe the theists are just slow to catch up.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 22:49:10 GMT
A definition should not include a logical fallacy since definitions should not function as logical arguments. Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 9, 2017 22:54:37 GMT
I cannot possibly know what your idea of god is. Then you'll understand when you are asked to please STHU.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 10, 2017 1:48:40 GMT
I cannot possibly know what your idea of god is. Then you'll understand when you are asked to please STHU. So you have run out of ways to twist your logic so resort to telling me to shut up. Nice one, it is much more dignified to simply say "i was wrong"
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 10, 2017 19:41:24 GMT
A definition should not include a logical fallacy since definitions should not function as logical arguments. Fixed. Nope. Cite a definition that includes a fallacy and logical argument, please.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 12, 2017 14:23:11 GMT
Nope. Cite a definition that includes a fallacy and logical argument, please. I have never failed to notice that "knowledge" and "belief" have various interpretations. I have continued to recognize, within reason, various individual uses of terminology. You are not being as reasonable as you believe. One thing you probably do "know" is the location of the keys to the main entrance of your residence and car if you have one. If you told me you "know" where they are I can accept that claim readily enough. A big mistake atheists often make is that they think "god" should be like a material thing. Because your keys are material things you can put them on the table and everyone at the table can see them (unless they're blind). If you jingle them, they all can hear them (unless they're deaf). Material things register in our common objective reality rather readily. The word "key" is not a problem for all people to associate some object to it. God is not like a material thing, rather it refers to complex and nebulous forces in nature and society, which unlike a key is a very abstract concept, not readily objectified. In fact quite many people who claim to be atheists are because they cannot grasp abstract concepts. They are the "Elementary Atheists" described in Types of Atheism Part IIWhile I might readily agree with you that you "know" where your keys are, that is not possible with far more abstract ideas. If you say you "know" some god exists, to my point of view you only think you know, you only "believe" you know. "God" is not something objectively registered like a key. Vegas got in trouble for allowing the term "faith" to include "knowledge." If I can see my car in the parking lot it would be confusing and awkward to tell people I believe it's there or have faith that it's there. I should say I "know" it's there or that I "see" (often synonymous with "know") it's there. Again "God" is nothing like a car. The difference between some very high degree of certainty and "knowledge" can become irrelevant. Thus the difficulties here. Even with something as material and objective as your keys, the cat might have taken them away without your knowledge. The car in the parking lot might be one that only looks like mine. Then even with keys and cars in some scenarios Vegas can be right. Because "knowledge" of extremely abstract concepts is not readily objectified, because it is a personal experience, unlike keys, it is useless to address it with any words, except perhaps "esoteric." That is why there are three categories; those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief either of those ways. It is irrational, failure of logic, to avoid that truth. The expression "agnostic atheist" fails to recognize those three categories and pick one. If you still have difficulties accepting this truth it's either because you have an extremely low level of reading comprehension or have extremely poor and inadequate education in abstract concepts.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 14, 2017 22:40:36 GMT
Nope. Cite a definition that includes a fallacy and logical argument, please. I have never failed to notice that "knowledge" and "belief" have various interpretations. I have continued to recognize, within reason, various individual uses of terminology. You are not being as reasonable as you believe. One thing you probably do "know" is the location of the keys to the main entrance of your residence and car if you have one. If you told me you "know" where they are I can accept that claim readily enough. A big mistake atheists often make is that they think "god" should be like a material thing. Because your keys are material things you can put them on the table and everyone at the table can see them (unless they're blind). If you jingle them, they all can hear them (unless they're deaf). Material things register in our common objective reality rather readily. The word "key" is not a problem for all people to associate some object to it. God is not like a material thing, rather it refers to complex and nebulous forces in nature and society, which unlike a key is a very abstract concept, not readily objectified. In fact quite many people who claim to be atheists are because they cannot grasp abstract concepts. They are the "Elementary Atheists" described in Types of Atheism Part IIWhile I might readily agree with you that you "know" where your keys are, that is not possible with far more abstract ideas. If you say you "know" some god exists, to my point of view you only think you know, you only "believe" you know. "God" is not something objectively registered like a key. Vegas got in trouble for allowing the term "faith" to include "knowledge." If I can see my car in the parking lot it would be confusing and awkward to tell people I believe it's there or have faith that it's there. I should say I "know" it's there or that I "see" (often synonymous with "know") it's there. Again "God" is nothing like a car. The difference between some very high degree of certainty and "knowledge" can become irrelevant. Thus the difficulties here. Even with something as material and objective as your keys, the cat might have taken them away without your knowledge. The car in the parking lot might be one that only looks like mine. Then even with keys and cars in some scenarios Vegas can be right. Because "knowledge" of extremely abstract concepts is not readily objectified, because it is a personal experience, unlike keys, it is useless to address it with any words, except perhaps "esoteric." That is why there are three categories; those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief either of those ways. It is irrational, failure of logic, to avoid that truth. The expression "agnostic atheist" fails to recognize those three categories and pick one. If you still have difficulties accepting this truth it's either because you have an extremely low level of reading comprehension or have extremely poor and inadequate education in abstract concepts. That's a lot of text used to deflect from your inability to post a definition that contains a fallacy or logical argument. And how do you intend to prove these "complex and nebulous forces in nature and society" exist and that they match any classic definition/description of God? This has nothing to do with grasping abstract concepts. Math is abstract and many atheists (including the majority of physicists and mathematicians) grasp it just fine. However, it's possible to create abstract concepts that either don't exist, or exist in very different ways than we imagine they do. This is when it crosses into unfalsifiable metaphysics, and Wittgenstein had some sage things to say about ignoring them entirely. Abstractions are also different than proposed explanations to personal experiences, which are only limited to what the imagination can concoct. The problem is that your third option describes the vast majority of people who don't declare certainty. It describes the person who thinks God's existence is 99% likely and the person who thinks God's existence is 1% likely the same and stupidly dumps them into the same category with the same label. What's irrational is to pretend that words and our attempts at categorizing capture the full range of reality, including human thought/beliefs. What's irrational is to treat a category like an all-or-nothing matter of inclusion or exclusion. What's irrational is to try to split what is essentially a spectrum into three discrete parts that compresses everything in the middle into the same category despite how much closer it can be to one of the poles. These are the real irrational things when it comes to language, and it's precisely what you're engaging in. Agnostic atheist is, if anything, the most "rational" category because it recognizes a reality that you're trying to ignore or dump into the entirely ambiguous third category. Failure to recognize this is just a sign of your own irrationality and lack of reading comprehension and understanding of how language and reality works in general.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 15, 2017 2:30:55 GMT
Excuse me? Are you really unaware that complex and nebulous forces in nature and society exist? Excuse me? "Classic"? God is a set of complex forces in nature and society. Such forces exist, you cannot deny that. When people speak of "God" they often refer to those forces. You obviously made the mistake of thinking of God anthropomorphically and are trying to pretend you didn't. They indeed exist in very different ways than you imagine they do, which is your problem, not mine. When you can tell me who is 90% certain and who is 15% certain with consistent standards across a wide variety of people let me know. Meanwhile it remains irrelevant what percentage there is. I mentioned you need consistent standards before. Perhaps you forgot. Again, when you can do that let me know. Remember you're going to need standards. Until you develop some watch out whom you call stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 15, 2017 16:11:25 GMT
Excuse me? Are you really unaware that complex and nebulous forces in nature and society exist? Of the "forces" that we know about via science, they're actually pretty simple; just counterintuitive to our own cognitive complexity. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're talking about. By "classic" I'm referring to a conscious, anthropomorphic deity that created the universe/life and has a set of rules that we should live by with possible eternal life/damnation on the line. If all you're referring to is the Einstein/Spinoza's "God of nature," then everyone believes in nature and the "God" part is just metaphoric. If there's a mistake of thinking of God anthropomorphically it's not mine; it's that of most religions. I'm fine with the more metaphoric concepts; I even find William Blake's concept of God quite appealing. I don't really know what you mean here. The point of adding the "agnostic" onto atheist or theist is to denote someone who is closer to one of the poles without being all the way there.
|
|