Author Topic: velkyn, strong atheism  (Read 1412 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #116 on: December 02, 2016, 07:53:29 PM »
Alberto I am not confused.  You have moved the goal post.  I'm not going down your rabbit hole.

Insinuating I'm confused without offering evidence is to the woman.

You said it yourself the question I asked did not make sense.  All you are saying because I think it's called epistomology matters when you say strong atheist is strong not theist.  Occams razor applies to logic.  You can not make up your definitions.  Atheist means what it means.  Not theist.  Asymmetrical means not symmetrical.  Did you watch the video?

Thanks for your help Jaime.  I'm on my phone I won't get to read it until morning. 

I feel I need to reveal my motives.  I know a girl like me does not stand much of a chance to make a difference.  To say something I did in my life actually made the world a better place.  I'm only trying to help in the best way I know how.  I'm just a random atheist on the internet. 

My son said something intersting.  There's no such thing as an original idea.  Someone else out there is thinking like me. 

This is not an appeal to emotion.  I'm trying to convey my motive because it matters.  I feel not trusted.  I think thats because i became an atheist after two years of heated debates as a theist.  I blasphemed the holy ghost I really dont know what else i can do.  I know this doesn't make me right.

I have this nagging idea that we need to make things more simple for theists to understand atheist.
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8168
  • Darwins +322/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #117 on: December 02, 2016, 08:15:10 PM »
I have this nagging idea that we need to make things more simple for theists to understand atheist.

I agree. There is really no need to introduce atheism on a sliding scale. I would only bring it up when nuances arise in conversation if I think it will help.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Darwins +176/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #118 on: December 02, 2016, 09:49:03 PM »
Alberto I am not confused.  You have moved the goal post.  I'm not going down your rabbit hole.

I asked you to explain what I'm equivocating, and you reply that I moved the goal post. The reply is completely unrelated to the question, but okay.

Care to tell me what you think I equivocated?

Quote
Insinuating I'm confused without offering evidence is to the woman.

Is to the woman what? In any case, I'm not insinuating it, I'm stating, based on your comments, that I think you're confused in this thread. It started way back on page one, and I haven't changed my mind about that. This post included. Still, it's neither rude, nor is it an ad hominem attack to state an opinion that one is confused. If you are interested in the specific comments that lead me to my conclusion, I'll be happy to share. But I feel like you're ignoring my questions, questions I need to understand what your point is, so please answer those first. Then we can move on if you still want.

Quote
You said it yourself the question I asked did not make sense.  All you are saying because I think it's called epistomology matters when you say strong atheist is strong not theist.  Occams razor applies to logic.  You can not make up your definitions.  Atheist means what it means.  Not theist.  Asymmetrical means not symmetrical.  Did you watch the video?

I don't understand your point here, sorry. Are you suggesting I'm making up definitions? If so, which ones exactly?

Quote
I feel not trusted.  I think thats because i became an atheist after two years of heated debates as a theist.

I didn't know you as a theist. I'm responding to your comments as they are written.

Quote
I blasphemed the holy ghost I really dont know what else i can do.  I know this doesn't make me right.

I don't know what blasphemy has to do with using the qualifier "strong" with regard to atheism.

Quote
I have this nagging idea that we need to make things more simple for theists to understand atheist.

This is not the topic of this thread, though. While it is related, the OP's question assumed understanding already, and we can assume everyone here understands as well. One who doesn't will easily be identified and any erroneous ideas addressed.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #119 on: December 03, 2016, 08:54:52 AM »
You left out the part of that post where I already told you what you falsely equivocated.  I'll repeat that for you.  A positive claim with a negative claim.

What is the difference between atheist and strong atheist? 

You said it does not make sense.  I agree it does not.  That being said I'm satisfied I have proved my premise: 1) adding strong to atheist complicates the definition;Occam's Razor applies. 2) strong atheism is gnostic atheism, because weak atheism is agnostic, which declares knowledge and knowledge requires objective evidence.  3) Claiming knowledge shifts the burden of proof. 4) Anti-theism is a better term to declare the unlikelyness of converting to theism.  See I'm not confused.  I know exactly what I am saying. 

"Calling" me confused is ad hominem.  It is an attempt to discredit the premises of my argument by addressing the woman not the argument.  That's ad hominem all day long.  Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.  I'm glad you did not choke on your pride when you stooped so low.

You moved the goalpost by using this ad hominem.   Another logical fallacy.  Calling me confused moved the goalpost to me because now I'm defending my mental state.  Now that's off topic.

The definition of atheist is changed every time an attempt is made to define what strong atheist means.  Asymmetrical means not symmetrical.  Atheist means not theist.  Asexual means not sex.  Atypical means not typical.  Atheist does not mean likelyness of converting to theism.  Changing the definition is what you are doing when you say strong atheist means I'm not likely to convert to theism or ever believe gods exist anti-theism does that.  Atheist speaks for itself.  Strong atheist requires explanation and there can be millions of versions.   

You've been a member since 2011 I've been a member since 2013 so yes indeed you were here during my time as a SBNR theist.  If I need to dig deeper I bet $20 I can find replies from you to me as a SBNR theist.  I'll do it too.  Why?  Because I'm very interested in the reason why you and velkyn refuse to treat me as a peer interested only in helping make our arguments more effective than they already are.  Do you not think I'm capable of that albeto? 

I'm really done with this subject until somebody can point out weakness in my premises. 

I'm not going to answer your questions because that would be equivalent to admitting you are correct about confusion.  You are not correct about that so no need to answer your questions. 
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #120 on: December 03, 2016, 09:04:53 AM »
I have this nagging idea that we need to make things more simple for theists to understand atheist.

I agree. There is really no need to introduce atheism on a sliding scale. I would only bring it up when nuances arise in conversation if I think it will help.

Thanks for agreeing with me that feels great!

I think it's only useful in atheist conversation though.  Anti-theism is an awesome term that once explained is very effective.  They will leave or if they stay they know how opposed to belief you are.  To me this is the term that opens the door to how terrible and harmful their belief is.  It's so bad I'm anti that.  ;)
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Darwins +176/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #121 on: December 03, 2016, 12:53:32 PM »
ETA: tl;dr at the end

You left out the part of that post where I already told you what you falsely equivocated.  I'll repeat that for you.  A positive claim with a negative claim.

What is the difference between atheist and strong atheist? 

Okay. Thank you for sharing this. It makes it possible for me to keep up. Did it make a difference when I explained one is a subset of another? I'm using the definition of equivocation to be Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading. I'm using this only because it popped up in my engine search. By this understanding, atheism is neither an ambiguous term (we both agree it refers to lack of faith in god/s), nor is it being used in more than one sense. One is a qualifier of the other. One explains in more detail the other. They are the same, one contains more information than the other. For this reason, I don't think equivocation is the problem here.

Thanks for laying out your argument next. That's helpful for me as well. I'll address it one at a time.

Quote
You said it does not make sense.  I agree it does not.  That being said I'm satisfied I have proved my premise: 1) adding strong to atheist complicates the definition;Occam's Razor applies.

This is an example of why I think you're still confused. Strong atheism doesn't complicate the definition of atheism any more than blue dress complicates the definition of dress. The definition of the thing (atheism, dress) remains the same. The qualifier adds more detail. I think you might be confused in that you're assuming the theist who is first introduced to the idea of atheism is also introduced to the idea of strong and weak atheism. I can't imagine from where you get this idea. This thread assumes everyone knows what atheism is, and asks for clarification about the use of the word "strong." No one else, including the OP, articulated any confusion about understanding the concept of atheism, with or without the qualifier strong. The confusion, and thus the intent for the thread, revolves around the reason to use such a qualifier.

Quote
2) strong atheism is gnostic atheism, because weak atheism is agnostic, which declares knowledge and knowledge requires objective evidence.  3) Claiming knowledge shifts the burden of proof.


I've raised this example a couple times now but you haven't responded. I'm curious what your thoughts are with regard to using the theory of evolution to discredit the Genesis story of creation. Do you think that in rejecting the claim that God created the earth in 6 days 6-10 thousand years ago by virtue of the fact we have evidence that reveals the process of life on earth, the burden of proof has been shifted because no one has proven God didn't do it? Before we get too bogged down in burden of proof, I'd suggest in both cases the burden of proof is on the theist to show their claim is valid, but in both cases, the materialistic evidence that shows an alternative reality debunks the theist's claim, and that one need not prove God wasn't involved to state the claim God wasn't involved.

Quote
4) Anti-theism is a better term to declare the unlikelyness of converting to theism.[/b]
 

Likeliness to convert to theism is such an awkward definition, and ultimately untenable. One reason is that people convert to theism for many reasons, and often times it's not because their atheism isn't strong, but because some circumstance bypasses the objective critical thinking process. Please find a different definition of atheism than likelihood to convert. Furthermore, anti-theism doesn't have anything to do with conversion, it has to do with being against (anti) theism (belief in god/s). It refers to the argument that theism and religion are harmful to society and people, individually and as a society.

Quote
See I'm not confused.  I know exactly what I am saying. 

"Calling" me confused is ad hominem.  It is an attempt to discredit the premises of my argument by addressing the woman not the argument.  That's ad hominem all day long.  Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.  I'm glad you did not choke on your pride when you stooped so low.

I don't accuse you of not knowing what you're saying. I'm suggesting you are confused in this conversation because you're arguing against things no one is arguing for, and even then, the arguments are logically sloppy (ie, atheism = likelihood to convert).

By definition, ad hominem is discrediting the argument because of a supposed flaw in one's character.  If I said you can't ever trust a woman, therefore your argument is bunk, that would be an ad hominem attack. I'm not attacking your character at all. I'm not saying you are perpetually confused and therefore no argument you present could ever be taken seriously. I'm saying in this topic your argument is flawed, and I suspect it' because you are confused. Confusing ad hominem attack with saying it is my opinion you are confused is a remarkably apt example of why I think you're confused. And still, it's not an attack on your character as a person.

Quote
You moved the goalpost by using this ad hominem.   Another logical fallacy.  Calling me confused moved the goalpost to me because now I'm defending my mental state.  Now that's off topic.

Ah! This makes sense why you think my comment is a personal attack. I disagree. Confusion isn't a mental state. It's a cognitive state. It refers to being bewildered or unclear in one’s mind about something. It happens to everyone at one time or another, and is not a character flaw, but a consequence of applying critical thought to a situation in which information is lacking or misrepresented, or logic is flawed.

Quote
The definition of atheist is changed every time an attempt is made to define what strong atheist means.  Asymmetrical means not symmetrical.  Atheist means not theist.  Asexual means not sex.  Atypical means not typical.  Atheist does not mean likelyness of converting to theism.  Changing the definition is what you are doing when you say strong atheist means I'm not likely to convert to theism or ever believe gods exist anti-theism does that.  Atheist speaks for itself.  Strong atheist requires explanation and there can be millions of versions.
 

The definition of atheism has remained lack of faith in god/s throughout this thread. If you link a post that shows the contrary, I'll look at it. Again with the idea that atheism means likelihood to convert to theism (you said that earlier in this thread, and now you reject that -- ???). It's an awkward definition at best, and I think is inaccurate ultimately. Can we agree to stop using that as a definition of atheism and stick with the standard definition - lack of belief in god/s?

You say strong atheist requires explanation and there can be millions of versions. I'm not sure what you mean by millions of versions. Essentially, strong atheism doesn't change atheism. It's still a lack of belief in god/s. However, and this is the sticky-wicket here, it includes a positive claim in addition to rejecting the theist claim. Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim ("god exists"). Strong atheism is no different. It rejects the same claim. However, it does include a positive claim. That positive claim is "gods don't exist." This doesn't change what atheism is. You are assuming one definition (atheism) is changed when more details are added. The definition of atheism doesn't change. It never does, not even for the strong atheist. To assume the definition changes when more details are added is to be confused about what the details do to the concept.

At risk of furthering the confusion, I'll provide another example. If I were to say I'm wearing a blue dress with black trim, and you disagree, then you disagree with my claim. If you then go on to say my dress is white with gold trim, that doesn't change the fact that you reject my claim it is blue with black trim. We could stop with your disagreement and that would be enough. But if you were to add further commentary, it doesn't change the first position.

Quote
You've been a member since 2011 I've been a member since 2013 so yes indeed you were here during my time as a SBNR theist.  If I need to dig deeper I bet $20 I can find replies from you to me as a SBNR theist.  I'll do it too.  Why?  Because I'm very interested in the reason why you and velkyn refuse to treat me as a peer interested only in helping make our arguments more effective than they already are.  Do you not think I'm capable of that albeto? 

I'm here off and on, and if I've interacted with you, it escapes my memory. I don't understand what you mean by treating you as a peer. I'm responding to your argument, and in my opinion, I respond to people with the same respect regardless of their beliefs. At least, it is my goal. I don't favor atheists because we're on the same team or anything like that. Furthermore, your argument is not my argument. I am not interested in helping you as I don't agree with you, insofar as I understand your argument. I'm under the impression you are appealing atheists to stop using qualifiers like strong atheist, although you agree with jetson who says when it comes up it's fine. This makes no sense to me, as no one has suggested anything in opposition to this.

Quote
I'm really done with this subject until somebody can point out weakness in my premises. 

I just have. A number of them. We'll see if you recognize them or not.

Quote
I'm not going to answer your questions because that would be equivalent to admitting you are correct about confusion.  You are not correct about that so no need to answer your questions.

The answers you've provided in this post have been helpful. They've explained a lot and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify for me.

I think you're confusing using the qualifier strong when it suits the conversation with introducing the concept of atheism as strong or weak atheism. I think that's an erroneous conclusion to make. No one has suggested that. When jetson says he would only bring it ["strong"] up when nuances arise in conversation if he thinks it will help, you agree. No one is suggesting anything else, and I think you were confused from the very beginning, assuming that was the case. It certainly seems that way to me because that's what it turns out you're arguing against, despite no one arguing for it.


tl;dr: Confusion isn't a quality of one's mental health. I suggest you are confused in this thread because you continue to protest an argument no one is making, an argument that is logically untenable.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2016, 01:17:27 PM by albeto »

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7945
  • Darwins +1037/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #122 on: December 03, 2016, 02:11:26 PM »
I do need to point out that Occam's razor is generally intended to apply to explanations/models, rather than definitions.  A definition is a meaning, and there's no particular reason for a meaning to have the razor applied to it, because a definition is necessarily going to be a lot more subjective than an explanation or a model.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor.htm

Quote
Occam's razor is based on the notion that simplicity equals perfection. It fits perfectly with the scientific method -- the series of steps scientists take to prove or disprove something. Indeed, you could make the case that the scientific method was built upon Occam's razor.

But be careful when approaching the razor -- for such a brief statement, it has an uncanny ability to be stretched or bent to fit all sorts of ideas. It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

Most of the reason Occam's razor works is because explanations and models are mutually exclusive.  All things being equal, an explanation which introduces a complicating factor is less likely to be correct than one which does not.  But definitions are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, it's entirely possible for the same word to have conflicting definitions[1].  The definition which is simpler may not actually be the correct one, and so Occam's razor is a poor fit when talking about definitions.
 1. such words are known as contronyms, and an easy example is the word apology, which can mean a statement of contrition for an action, or a defense of it
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #123 on: December 04, 2016, 06:33:45 AM »
I do need to point out that Occam's razor is generally intended to apply to explanations/models, rather than definitions.  A definition is a meaning, and there's no particular reason for a meaning to have the razor applied to it, because a definition is necessarily going to be a lot more subjective than an explanation or a model.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor.htm

Quote
Occam's razor is based on the notion that simplicity equals perfection. It fits perfectly with the scientific method -- the series of steps scientists take to prove or disprove something. Indeed, you could make the case that the scientific method was built upon Occam's razor.

But be careful when approaching the razor -- for such a brief statement, it has an uncanny ability to be stretched or bent to fit all sorts of ideas. It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

Most of the reason Occam's razor works is because explanations and models are mutually exclusive.  All things being equal, an explanation which introduces a complicating factor is less likely to be correct than one which does not.  But definitions are not mutually exclusive.  Indeed, it's entirely possible for the same word to have conflicting definitions[1].  The definition which is simpler may not actually be the correct one, and so Occam's razor is a poor fit when talking about definitions.
 1. such words are known as contronyms, and an easy example is the word apology, which can mean a statement of contrition for an action, or a defense of it

Does it apply to logic?  That's what I'm applying it to here Jaime.
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #124 on: December 04, 2016, 07:37:35 AM »

Okay. Thank you for sharing this. It makes it possible for me to keep up. Did it make a difference when I explained one is a subset of another? I'm using the definition of equivocation to be Using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading. I'm using this only because it popped up in my engine search. By this understanding, atheism is neither an ambiguous term (we both agree it refers to lack of faith in god/s), nor is it being used in more than one sense. One is a qualifier of the other. One explains in more detail the other. They are the same, one contains more information than the other. For this reason, I don't think equivocation is the problem here.

Thanks for laying out your argument next. That's helpful for me as well. I'll address it one at a time.

Quote
You said it does not make sense.  I agree it does not.  That being said I'm satisfied I have proved my premise: 1) adding strong to atheist complicates the definition;Occam's Razor applies.

This is an example of why I think you're still confused. Strong atheism doesn't complicate the definition of atheism any more than blue dress complicates the definition of dress. The definition of the thing (atheism, dress) remains the same. The qualifier adds more detail. I think you might be confused in that you're assuming the theist who is first introduced to the idea of atheism is also introduced to the idea of strong and weak atheism. I can't imagine from where you get this idea. This thread assumes everyone knows what atheism is, and asks for clarification about the use of the word "strong." No one else, including the OP, articulated any confusion about understanding the concept of atheism, with or without the qualifier strong. The confusion, and thus the intent for the thread, revolves around the reason to use such a qualifier.

Quote
2) strong atheism is gnostic atheism, because weak atheism is agnostic, which declares knowledge and knowledge requires objective evidence.  3) Claiming knowledge shifts the burden of proof.


I've raised this example a couple times now but you haven't responded. I'm curious what your thoughts are with regard to using the theory of evolution to discredit the Genesis story of creation. Do you think that in rejecting the claim that God created the earth in 6 days 6-10 thousand years ago by virtue of the fact we have evidence that reveals the process of life on earth, the burden of proof has been shifted because no one has proven God didn't do it? Before we get too bogged down in burden of proof, I'd suggest in both cases the burden of proof is on the theist to show their claim is valid, but in both cases, the materialistic evidence that shows an alternative reality debunks the theist's claim, and that one need not prove God wasn't involved to state the claim God wasn't involved.

Quote
4) Anti-theism is a better term to declare the unlikelyness of converting to theism.[/b]
 

Likeliness to convert to theism is such an awkward definition, and ultimately untenable. One reason is that people convert to theism for many reasons, and often times it's not because their atheism isn't strong, but because some circumstance bypasses the objective critical thinking process. Please find a different definition of atheism than likelihood to convert. Furthermore, anti-theism doesn't have anything to do with conversion, it has to do with being against (anti) theism (belief in god/s). It refers to the argument that theism and religion are harmful to society and people, individually and as a society.

Quote
See I'm not confused.  I know exactly what I am saying. 

"Calling" me confused is ad hominem.  It is an attempt to discredit the premises of my argument by addressing the woman not the argument.  That's ad hominem all day long.  Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.  I'm glad you did not choke on your pride when you stooped so low.

I don't accuse you of not knowing what you're saying. I'm suggesting you are confused in this conversation because you're arguing against things no one is arguing for, and even then, the arguments are logically sloppy (ie, atheism = likelihood to convert).

By definition, ad hominem is discrediting the argument because of a supposed flaw in one's character.  If I said you can't ever trust a woman, therefore your argument is bunk, that would be an ad hominem attack. I'm not attacking your character at all. I'm not saying you are perpetually confused and therefore no argument you present could ever be taken seriously. I'm saying in this topic your argument is flawed, and I suspect it' because you are confused. Confusing ad hominem attack with saying it is my opinion you are confused is a remarkably apt example of why I think you're confused. And still, it's not an attack on your character as a person.

Quote
You moved the goalpost by using this ad hominem.   Another logical fallacy.  Calling me confused moved the goalpost to me because now I'm defending my mental state.  Now that's off topic.

Ah! This makes sense why you think my comment is a personal attack. I disagree. Confusion isn't a mental state. It's a cognitive state. It refers to being bewildered or unclear in one’s mind about something. It happens to everyone at one time or another, and is not a character flaw, but a consequence of applying critical thought to a situation in which information is lacking or misrepresented, or logic is flawed.

Quote
The definition of atheist is changed every time an attempt is made to define what strong atheist means.  Asymmetrical means not symmetrical.  Atheist means not theist.  Asexual means not sex.  Atypical means not typical.  Atheist does not mean likelyness of converting to theism.  Changing the definition is what you are doing when you say strong atheist means I'm not likely to convert to theism or ever believe gods exist anti-theism does that.  Atheist speaks for itself.  Strong atheist requires explanation and there can be millions of versions.
 

The definition of atheism has remained lack of faith in god/s throughout this thread. If you link a post that shows the contrary, I'll look at it. Again with the idea that atheism means likelihood to convert to theism (you said that earlier in this thread, and now you reject that -- ???). It's an awkward definition at best, and I think is inaccurate ultimately. Can we agree to stop using that as a definition of atheism and stick with the standard definition - lack of belief in god/s?

You say strong atheist requires explanation and there can be millions of versions. I'm not sure what you mean by millions of versions. Essentially, strong atheism doesn't change atheism. It's still a lack of belief in god/s. However, and this is the sticky-wicket here, it includes a positive claim in addition to rejecting the theist claim. Atheism is a rejection of a positive claim ("god exists"). Strong atheism is no different. It rejects the same claim. However, it does include a positive claim. That positive claim is "gods don't exist." This doesn't change what atheism is. You are assuming one definition (atheism) is changed when more details are added. The definition of atheism doesn't change. It never does, not even for the strong atheist. To assume the definition changes when more details are added is to be confused about what the details do to the concept.

At risk of furthering the confusion, I'll provide another example. If I were to say I'm wearing a blue dress with black trim, and you disagree, then you disagree with my claim. If you then go on to say my dress is white with gold trim, that doesn't change the fact that you reject my claim it is blue with black trim. We could stop with your disagreement and that would be enough. But if you were to add further commentary, it doesn't change the first position.

Quote
You've been a member since 2011 I've been a member since 2013 so yes indeed you were here during my time as a SBNR theist.  If I need to dig deeper I bet $20 I can find replies from you to me as a SBNR theist.  I'll do it too.  Why?  Because I'm very interested in the reason why you and velkyn refuse to treat me as a peer interested only in helping make our arguments more effective than they already are.  Do you not think I'm capable of that albeto? 

I'm here off and on, and if I've interacted with you, it escapes my memory. I don't understand what you mean by treating you as a peer. I'm responding to your argument, and in my opinion, I respond to people with the same respect regardless of their beliefs. At least, it is my goal. I don't favor atheists because we're on the same team or anything like that. Furthermore, your argument is not my argument. I am not interested in helping you as I don't agree with you, insofar as I understand your argument. I'm under the impression you are appealing atheists to stop using qualifiers like strong atheist, although you agree with jetson who says when it comes up it's fine. This makes no sense to me, as no one has suggested anything in opposition to this.

Quote
I'm really done with this subject until somebody can point out weakness in my premises. 

I just have. A number of them. We'll see if you recognize them or not.

Quote
I'm not going to answer your questions because that would be equivalent to admitting you are correct about confusion.  You are not correct about that so no need to answer your questions.

The answers you've provided in this post have been helpful. They've explained a lot and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify for me.

I think you're confusing using the qualifier strong when it suits the conversation with introducing the concept of atheism as strong or weak atheism. I think that's an erroneous conclusion to make. No one has suggested that. When jetson says he would only bring it ["strong"] up when nuances arise in conversation if he thinks it will help, you agree. No one is suggesting anything else, and I think you were confused from the very beginning, assuming that was the case. It certainly seems that way to me because that's what it turns out you're arguing against, despite no one arguing for it.


tl;dr: Confusion isn't a quality of one's mental health. I suggest you are confused in this thread because you continue to protest an argument no one is making, an argument that is logically untenable.

Just because I don't agree with you does not make me confused.  No it did not make a difference because you are comparing a dress to atheism and I consider that a terrible analogy.   Not confused about that.  I firmly think it's a terrible analogy.

What does complicate mean albeto? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/complicate

to make something more difficult to deal with or do

Why do you ignore the term anti-theism?

If you don't know what millions of versions mean you are the one confused.  It's individual preferences and there are millions of individuals. 

Do not try and tell me that you are not shifting the burden of proof when you say strong is a positive claim; "gods don't exist''. 

You're not saying Yahweh/El/Allah/Zeus/Thor does not exist but ''any'' possible concept of a god within a universe where only 2% of it is known if that much. 

You didn't watch the video did you?  What good does it do to share a link with you?  I'm asking you nicely to go back and watch the videos and links I shared.  That's why you think I'm confused.   You have no idea where I'm getting my ideas from. 

Why would I disagree with the color of your dress?  I bet you look hot in it though. ;)

If the TOE worked to prove there were no gods people would not still believe.  All they do is insert it into their SPAG or deny it.  Then you have shifted the burden of proof.  I think you are confused about the burden of proof and I even shared a wiki link to the concept.

Evidence of absence is the best evidence we have, IMHO.  I shared a link to that too.

You failed to mention in my response to Jetson that I think it's only useful in conversation with other atheist.  Why? I did not say I agree with you I said; ''thank you for agreeing with me''.  You're silly.  Please go back and read the response again it might help you understand it better. 

Would you like me to start my own thread?  None has left.  I'm going to.  Look for How Atheist Shift the Burden of Proof.  I'll post it in Chatter.  I'm mostly doing it out of respect for velkyn.  She shouldn't have been singled out.  I honestly wish I had done this much sooner.




Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7945
  • Darwins +1037/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #125 on: December 04, 2016, 09:22:58 AM »
Does it apply to logic?  That's what I'm applying it to here Jaime.
If you were talking about logic, why did you say that adding 'strong' to 'atheist' complicated the definition and thus made it less likely to be correct per Occam's razor?

While you could argue that Occam's razor applies to logic, because logic is utterly dependent on its premises, I wouldn't do so, because Occam's razor doesn't mean that the less complicated explanation is correct, just that it is more probable, and probability doesn't particularly matter when it comes to logic.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Darwins +176/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #126 on: December 04, 2016, 12:09:38 PM »
Just because I don't agree with you does not make me confused.

True enough. I totally agree with this. However, in this case, I think you are confused about the topic. I think that explains your awkward definitions, your overall argument, and your inconsistency now at the very end (with regard to agreeing with jetson, but with weird restrictions).

 
Quote
No it did not make a difference because you are comparing a dress to atheism and I consider that a terrible analogy.   Not confused about that.  I firmly think it's a terrible analogy.

That would be a terrible analogy! I'm not comparing, but modifying the concept of a dress with the color blue.

Is it your position that strong atheism is completely different than atheism? Somewhat different?

Quote
What does complicate mean albeto? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/complicate

to make something more difficult to deal with or do

The OP asked velkyn why she uses the term "strong" with regard to atheism. No one suggested and no one is supporting using qualifiers like weak or strong, gnostic or agnostic every time the topic of atheism comes up. That's simply not happening here, and your continued rally against such a thing is interesting to me. Sometimes complex topics require more complex words, and qualifiers to those complex words. There's nothing wrong with using vocabulary to suit the conversation, even if that vocabulary becomes complex or detailed. This thread appears to be the exact scenario in which jetson and you agree that using qualifiers like strong would be valid. Why it has become your mission to censor the word strong from conversations with theists is confusing to me, especially as you've recently stated you would support just such a thing at a time such as this.

Quote
Why do you ignore the term anti-theism?

Please read my reply again. I didn't ignore it. I answered with a full paragraph. It was in reply to your #4.

Quote
You're not saying Yahweh/El/Allah/Zeus/Thor does not exist but ''any'' possible concept of a god within a universe where only 2% of it is known if that much. 

You'll have to complete this sentence before I know what you're saying or asking.

Quote
Why would I disagree with the color of your dress?  I bet you look hot in it though. ;)

The point was in showing the qualifier doesn't change the essence of the thing it qualifies. Strong does not change atheism any more than blue changes dress. This particular example refers to some dress that went viral online last year, some saw it as blue with black trim, some saw it as white with gold. It became the topic of so many conversations, the mainstream media even picked up on it and tried to explain the phenomena [dress].

Quote
You failed to mention in my response to Jetson that I think it's only useful in conversation with other atheist.  Why? I did not say I agree with you I said; ''thank you for agreeing with me''.  You're silly.  Please go back and read the response again it might help you understand it better.


So the term strong is okay to use in your opinion only insofar as atheists only use it? Is that your position?

Quote
Would you like me to start my own thread?  None has left.  I'm going to.  Look for How Atheist Shift the Burden of Proof.  I'll post it in Chatter.  I'm mostly doing it out of respect for velkyn.  She shouldn't have been singled out.  I honestly wish I had done this much sooner.

I think that would be good for you. I get the impression you're not sure just how to apply that concept to a logical argument. You throw this term and "moving the goal posts" around quite a bit, but I notice that only happens when a direct answer to a particular question is avoided. I suspect it's because that question is confusing to you, and so you assume the other person is throwing you off intentionally. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting from this and other conversations with you.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 16206
  • Darwins +258/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #127 on: December 04, 2016, 04:45:03 PM »
Would you like me to start my own thread?  None has left.  I'm going to.  Look for How Atheist Shift the Burden of Proof.  I'll post it in Chatter.  I'm mostly doing it out of respect for velkyn.  She shouldn't have been singled out.  I honestly wish I had done this much sooner.
Don't bring me into this again. I have no problem in "being singled out"; your actions have no benefit to me. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #128 on: Yesterday at 04:46:22 AM »
Does it apply to logic?  That's what I'm applying it to here Jaime.
If you were talking about logic, why did you say that adding 'strong' to 'atheist' complicated the definition and thus made it less likely to be correct per Occam's razor?

While you could argue that Occam's razor applies to logic, because logic is utterly dependent on its premises, I wouldn't do so, because Occam's razor doesn't mean that the less complicated explanation is correct, just that it is more probable, and probability doesn't particularly matter when it comes to logic.

I did it because it was the logic of the premise that adding strong or weak to atheist complicates logic. 

I'm not sure I buy; "and probability doesn't particularly matter when it comes to logic''.    If you say Mammals give live birth, a cow is a mammal, cows give live birth, that is a probability.

If you don't mind let's take this up in the new thread.



Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #129 on: Yesterday at 05:04:31 AM »
Just because I don't agree with you does not make me confused.

True enough. I totally agree with this.

A new thread has been started.
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Online jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7945
  • Darwins +1037/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #130 on: Yesterday at 10:28:04 AM »
@junebug:  If you mean that you can calculate the probabilities inherent in a truth table and other things like that, sure.

However, what happens to those probabilities if a premise of a logical proposition is flawed or wrong?  That's what I was trying to get at.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline albeto

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Darwins +176/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #131 on: Yesterday at 11:00:11 AM »

A new thread has been started.

I saw. Thanks. Care to answer my question pertinent to this thread? I've asked a number of times but it seem to have gotten lost. I'll repeat for clarity.

Does your agreement with jetson include the condition that when and if the nuances in the conversation warrant the use of the qualifier "strong," it is appropriate then to do so?
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:06:29 AM by albeto »

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #132 on: Today at 04:25:02 AM »
@junebug:  If you mean that you can calculate the probabilities inherent in a truth table and other things like that, sure.

However, what happens to those probabilities if a premise of a logical proposition is flawed or wrong?  That's what I was trying to get at.

In that case I think Occam's Razor would not apply because it would be complicated.  I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention.  I'm trying to learn.  If I'm wrong I want to know it.  I'm probably using it more metaphorically than literally.  ;)

Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4015
  • Darwins +285/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Reply #133 on: Today at 04:38:59 AM »


A new thread has been started.

I saw. Thanks. Care to answer my question pertinent to this thread? I've asked a number of times but it seem to have gotten lost. I'll repeat for clarity.

Does your agreement with jetson include the condition that when and if the nuances in the conversation warrant the use of the qualifier "strong," it is appropriate then to do so?

I would ask; what nuance would warrant the use of the qualifier strong in a conversation with a theist where the term anti-theism does not work better? 

I'm not trying to rewrite the ten commandments albeto.  I do not dictate conditions.  Who the hell do you think I am?  :laugh: :laugh:
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine