Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
General Religious Discussion / Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Last post by junebug72 on Yesterday at 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Science / Re: "The Case AGAINST Dark Matter"
« Last post by Add Homonym on Yesterday at 07:09:51 AM »
General Religious Discussion / Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Last post by junebug72 on Yesterday at 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.

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.
Science / Re: "The Case AGAINST Dark Matter"
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on Yesterday at 12:59:16 AM »
Dark matter is just the new aether

Eventually, maybe, scientists will discover that the observable universe is expanding in direct proportion to our conscious understanding of our observations of the universe expanding. The more we see the bigger it gets. How can you separate the observer from the experiment?
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on December 03, 2016, 11:04:52 PM »

I see life like a mirror
And I see life so much clearer
We move so quickly
Who knows where the time goes
Where does this road lead?
No one knows, no one knows
Listen to the single heart beating
Rhythm for an ever-changing song
I see life with surprise
And I see life, oh, in your eyes
Take all your troubles
Put them in a common file
Light a fire with reason
Watch it rise, watch it rise
Listen to the single voice singing
Lifted in an ever-growing song
I see life without anger
I see life all together
I see life go on forever
Life goes on forever
Life goes on
Chatter / Re: Log in your Trump rant -
« Last post by Add Homonym on December 03, 2016, 10:32:39 PM »
I'm not pretending to have the answers, but it seems to me that compromise might end up being just as self destructive as using Republican bad behavior against them.

Trump might put forward a raft of traditionally left wing legislation that he requires help to get through a Republican house. It might be difficult to find excuses to block half of it.
Science / "The Case AGAINST Dark Matter"
« Last post by shnozzola on December 03, 2016, 10:05:52 PM »
I can't say I understand it, but here is the latest......

Many experts have called Verlinde’s paper compelling but hard to follow. While it remains to be seen whether his arguments will hold up to scrutiny, the timing is fortuitous. In a new analysis of galaxies published on Nov. 9 in Physical Review Letters, three astrophysicists led by Stacy McGaugh of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have strengthened MOND’s case against dark matter.

The researchers analyzed a diverse set of 153 galaxies, and for each one they compared the rotation speed of visible matter at any given distance from the galaxy’s center with the amount of visible matter contained within that galactic radius. Remarkably, these two variables were tightly linked in all the galaxies by a universal law, dubbed the “radial acceleration relation.” This makes perfect sense in the MOND paradigm, since visible matter is the exclusive source of the gravity driving the galaxy’s rotation (even if that gravity does not take the form prescribed by Newton or Einstein). With such a tight relationship between gravity felt by visible matter and gravity given by visible matter, there would seem to be no room, or need, for dark matter.
Chatter / Re: Log in your Trump rant -
« Last post by jaimehlers on December 03, 2016, 08:49:38 PM »
That is all very nice verbiage about being liberal and open minded and free thinking but you remain a nonintervention-est
I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here.  I was saying that we shouldn't use Republican bad behavior as an excuse to behave in a similar manner, so I don't see why you would conclude that this is "non-interventionist".

Quote from: stuffin
Are you kidding me? Waiting for them to compromise! My mother had a saying for that "you might as well hold your hand on your ass."
When did I ever say anything like that, stuffin?

Quote from: stuffin
Not stooping the their level as you call it, just changing tactics to get the results I want.
You're basically talking about doing the exact same thing that the Republicans have been doing all along.  You might be able to fool yourself into thinking that's not stooping to their level, but I know better.

Quote from: stuffin
As Grasshopper once said, "when in a den of rattlesnakes, you must become a rattlesnake."
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.  When you're in a bad situation, you have to maneuver to get leverage and then act decisively to take advantage of it.  You aren't going to be able to beat a rattlesnake by trying to act like one.
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by Timo on December 03, 2016, 07:24:10 PM »
Yeah. And it came right on time. It was sort of perfectly bitter sweet for an album coming the same week we elected a fucking twitter troll as our president.
Chatter / Re: "What are you listening to now"... take three...
« Last post by The Gawd on December 03, 2016, 07:15:18 PM »
It tripped me out. I took Phife's death like he was a family member so hearing new verses from him got me square in the chest. All the feels. Like I've always been kind of ambivalent about the addition of Consequence. But on this, it felt comforting. I also came away wondering why Tip doesn't do more one off productions. And I liked seeing Jarobi stepping up. All in all, it's pretty great.

Yeah I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised because I wasnt expecting too much but it was a fresh throwback to better days of our genre. A few nicely placed features too.

The Common album wasnt bad either
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10