News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Atheism

Started by Bubblepot, January 01, 2011, 12:51:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, that isn't what it means, which makes this a wonderful opportunity for pushing my point home.  What I wrote, in Spanish, was "You cannot understand this thought because I'm writing it in Spanish, unless you can speak the language."  It really has nothing to do with ridiculing you.
I see - you actually wanted me to take the sentence at face value?  I thought a better thing to do was to take a guess at your underlying meaning in posting it.  Sorry if I had got this underlying meaning slightly wrong - reading between the lines is an inexact science, but as I alluded to earlier, I think I got the general gist!

If you'd said you wanted me to translate it into English, I'd have copied and pasted it into Google Translate!

Enjoy your other conversations.  Nobody's compelled to participate in this one!

You as well.  I'm one of the more boring posters here, in that I'm pretty literal and will write what I mean and mean what I write and all that good stuff.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Davin

Quote from: "Existentialist"I see that Davin has also taken up the challenge in his latest post.  This thread could take some time!  So far in this thread, the only people who have invented unique new definitions for words are those who are opposed to doing so!
And how do you determine that the definition you're claiming is the not made up definition:
By evidence? Negative.
By examples? Nope again.
By definitions? No, I have demonstrated that the definitions of the parts of the word do no match the definition you're claiming.
By precedence? No, I've demonstrated that the precedence doesn't point to the definition you're claiming.
By baseless assertion? Yes, and a lot of it.

So while you're claiming that I'm making the definition up myself with baseless assertions, I'm claiming that the conclusion I've come to is correct based off of objective, independently verifiable information. What to trust... mere assumptions that seem right to a person or independently verifiable, objective evidence... for rationalities sake, I suggest at least checking out the side with the evidence.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Interestingly, though several people have sought to demonstrate the absurdity of individual freedom to invent definitions for words, the same people don't seem to mind that Davin (another adherent to the model of human objectivity) made up his own unique definition for the word atheism, which he has consistently argued that nobody should contradict .  The only point of my arguing here is to protect Davin's freedom to say that atheism means 'absence of theism', whilst also saying that everybody else too is free to make up whatever definitions they want as well - against Davin's wishes as follows:-
Quote from: "Davin"That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.
Is this some kind of election or popularity contest? Do people have to choose either you or me? I did not know it was that serious. The only reason I'm still arguing is because I suspect Existentialist will never stop responding, and I'm determined to find out if I'm right about that.

Quote from: "Existentialist"My own preferred definition is that atheism is 'denial of the existence of god'.  Statistically I think this definition is shared by a large number of people who call themselves atheists - that's just an opinion, I have no sources other than my intuition and a general feeling, but I think intuitively most of you would agree with me on your most honest level: there are a large number of people who call themselves atheists who share this definition.  If you disagree, feel free to say so.
So you think that statistically your definition is shared by a large number of people who call themselves atheists... without statistics... how do you spell dishonest? Also don't confuse the meaning of a word with what people who self identify as atheist believe. Clearly a person who believes there is no god still falls under "lack of belief in a god or gods", so too does a person that doesn't believe anything.

Quote from: "Existentialist"Despite this large number, I think an even larger number of people who call themselves atheists would agree with the definition that atheism means, "disbelief in god".
What large number? You just said you don't have data to back it up. Also I'm not going allow an appeal to majority... even a majority you just made up in your head. I suspect that 100% of all atheists accept that "atheism" means "the lack of belief in god or gods", also statistically I think most atheists think that the moon is made of cheese, and that almost all atheists, I assume statistically, do not buy cheese. I'm also assuming that the world will end on December 22nd 2012 because a bunch of dudes made a calendar a while ago.

See how much BS you can try to pass by feeling, seeming, assuming and just making shit up?

Quote from: "Existentialist"I suspect this latter contingent of atheists (the largest number) are mostly empiricists - people who need independent evidence to establish a thing called the truth.  Logically such empiricists would also need independent evidence of most things - such as, for example, the definition of a word.  An individual's opinion wouldn't be enough for them in my view.  Mostly they have such opposition to the idea that the individual is actually free, that they would prefer to spend their time exhausting a great deal of time in laborious demonstrations of the dire consequences of chaos and confusion that would prevail if humans exercised their freedom.  They are free to do this as well, I suppose.
I suspect that those who think they can make up their own definition without supporting evidence and go around calling people who do have supporting evidence wrong, are delusional. Really just irrational. I also suspect that those that go around accusing other people of being wrong but are unable to back it up tend to resort to doing weird things like claiming that those that do have support for their argument are 14th century Englishmen taking over Scotland until some short crazy religious dude starts yelling "freedom" until he's gutted and dies and later the Scottish fight themselves free.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Stevil

Quote from: "Existentialist"So far in this thread, the only people who have invented unique new definitions for words are those who are opposed to doing so!
I am not saying that you invented the definition of the word Atheism that you choose to use. I am disagreeing with your philosophy that people can just make definitions up and not point to a reasonable source when others disagree.

My last point on this never ending thread is:
Without sauce it will turn to custard

hackenslash

Quote from: "Existentialist"Oh, hi again hackenslash.  Thanks for the picture.   The topic is atheism.  I was just discussing Davin's definition - 'the absence of theism'.  I seem to have spent quite a bit of time outlining my rationale on why 'denial of the existence of god' is also a legitimate definition in its own right.  

Have you got anything to say - on topic?

I have had plenty to say, in the form of demonstrating your argument to be utter guff. What more do you need?

Given that you accept the definition, and given my outlining why it is the only rigorous definition, for which you have no other response than 'I disagree' (always a fun argument), my work here is done. I already said I'd give more response if you actually posted anything that warranted it. You haven't done so.

Oh, and the picture wasn't for you.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Existentialist

Quote from: "Bubblepot"I'm starting this thread for us all to voice our thoughts rather than our opinions; to dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against, as I think we'll all find it interesting, and I myself think it a healthy exercise, to try and understand other points of view besides my own. I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy; and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here. Atheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism", which is itself another philosophy; one philosophy opposes another philosophy, and the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end. But if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.

Sometimes it is useful to post the opening post to get the conversation back on topic.  Bubblepot invited us to voice our thoughts and I have shared mine with you.  I don't agree with Bubblepot that atheism is the opposite and counterpart of 'theism', and I don't agree with Davin that atheism can only mean 'absence of theism'.  I've explained my rationale reasonably thoroughly, I think.  

Thanks for all the new and unique definitions of words that you've all made up, you've been very creative.  I've said what I think your underlying meaning is twice so on the custard remark and any more such examples, you just need to refer back to the interpretations I have given to Stevil and Thumpalumpacus on the last page which I think capture the correct gist.

So what do you think - is atheism the 'opposite and counterpart of theism'?  Can atheism mean only 'absence of theism'?  I'd be interested in your opinions, and would value them.

Stevil

Sorry mate I wasn't substituting Custard for anything. It is a common saying where I come from. Turning to custard, means that it turns into a mess. I don't know why so please don't ask me, I actually like custard.

BTW i did play with the spelling of sauce = source though, just thought it would be funnier.

Davin

Quote from: "Existentialist"Thanks for all the new and unique definitions of words that you've all made up, you've been very creative.  I've said what I think your underlying meaning is twice so on the custard remark and any more such examples, you just need to refer back to the interpretations I have given to Stevil and Thumpalumpacus on the last page which I think capture the correct gist.
Haha, this must be a troll post -> your argument, as it turns out, stems from your own baseless speculation, other peoples definitions came from sources separate from themselves... so clearly by definition, you made up your definition (the baseless speculation), while other people did not make it up themselves (external sources). So this seems very much like a troll attempt of accusing the people that disagree with you, of doing what you're doing, when they're not doing it.

Another example is that you've clearly not properly addressed any opposing arguments by anyone, and yet still are claiming that you're baseless speculation is correct when it has been demonstrated that it is incorrect. Not to mention that you haven't refuted anyone's arguments against yours (just saying you don't agree is not a refutation), which essentially means that you concede to being incorrect. So avoiding other people's valid points while still claiming "victory" (in the sense that you're accusing others of "making up" the definitions and implying that you're correct), is very trollish.

You claimed to have sources that back up your mere speculation, however you have not provided any. You agreed with my sources being accurate, but disagreed with the definition that one derives from following the sources. Very inconsistent, and very trollish.

And for almost each of your posts responding to me, I've put in effort to respond to each of your points even if it wasn't to refute them, and you've essentially ignored my posts while still goading me. Again, trollish behavior.

Here's an opinion you can value: I think you're being very dishonest and are just trolling.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Existentialist

Quote from: "Davin"troll... troll... trollish... trolling

So are you still saying that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?

Davin

Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"troll... troll... trollish... trolling

So are you still saying that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Are you still avoiding the arguments?
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Existentialist

Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "Existentialist"So are you still saying that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Are you still avoiding the arguments?

I just wondered if you would answer my question.

LegendarySandwich

Man, this argument seems so long and pointless. I think you both should just drop it and move on.

Yes, words have can more than one meaning, and a person can define a word anyway he chooses. Yes, common definitions of words are essential to any meaningful conversation, and you shouldn't use different meanings just for the sake of different meanings.

Happy now?

Existentialist

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Man, this argument seems so long and pointless. I think you both should just drop it and move on.

Yes, words have can more than one meaning, and a person can define a word anyway he chooses. Yes, common definitions of words are essential to any meaningful conversation, and you shouldn't use different meanings just for the sake of different meanings.

Happy now?

Oh, LegendarySandwich!!!  We were almost there!!!  I'll have to start all over again now!

LegendarySandwich

Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Man, this argument seems so long and pointless. I think you both should just drop it and move on.

Yes, words have can more than one meaning, and a person can define a word anyway he chooses. Yes, common definitions of words are essential to any meaningful conversation, and you shouldn't use different meanings just for the sake of different meanings.

Happy now?

Oh, LegendarySandwich!!!  We were almost there!!!  I'll have to start all over again now!
:shake:

Davin

Quote from: "Existentialist"
Quote from: "Davin"
Quote from: "Existentialist"So are you still saying that 'absence of theism' is the only possible definition of atheism and that nobody should try and make it mean anything more than that?
Are you still avoiding the arguments?

I just wondered if you would answer my question.
Quid pro quo.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Existentialist

Quote from: "Davin"Quid pro quo.

Ok, agreed.  I'll answer your question and then you can answer mine.  What's your question?