Definitions and negation
Written by admin on January 2, 2009 – 1:08 pm -Tags: atheism, belief, definition, logic, negation, of, theory
Posted in Atheist Definition | 25 Comments »
Tags: atheism, belief, definition, logic, negation, of, theory
Posted in Atheist Definition | 25 Comments »
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“How do you know …
“How do you know that’s what he’s thinking? Don’t rely on simple and untestable speculation to make a point.”
Its not speculation. Firstly I know he is not an automaton and has thoughts; secondly I am a witness to the manifestation of the emotions arising from these though his tears and other physical displays of anxiety; thirdly it is a well-known feature of child development that the begin to experience what child-psychologists call “separation anxiety” when they reach about one yr old.
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“Incorrect? Look, I …
“Incorrect? Look, I can’t find that specific comment, why not just tell me what morphous means. According to you, that is. ”
Not according to me.
Accordign to from Answers. com (you can check other dictionaries if you like).
‘-morphous’ is having a specified shape.
Amorphous is lacking definite form.
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“Actually, I would …
“Actually, I would say I was a non-hypothecist. Even before you put that concept forward.”
No. Such a statement would be impossible until someone had proposed a hypotheticus. The non-hypothecist, hypothecist, and or ahypothecist positions cannot exist.
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“Gibberish. Sorry,” …
“Gibberish. Sorry,”
What are you saying is gibberish?
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Kinda misqouted me …
Kinda misqouted me there, buddy. I was very careful not to say ‘agnostic’ but rather ‘the people you’ve just described’. I know perfectly well what agnosticism is.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“I have a one yr …
“I have a one yr old. He believes that if I leave the room, I might not come back, and it manifests itself in tears and anxiety. Babies can hold beliefs.”
How do you know that’s what he’s thinking? How do you no that that’s a belief at all? Don’t rely on simple and untestable speculation to make a point.
Belief is thinking that something is true.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Yes, but for some …
Yes, but for some reason you’ve exluded rocks despite the fact that they lack a belief in god from your considerations simply becasuse they lack the ability to believe, which to me is a very strange qualifier. A lack of belief is a lack of belief regardless of why something lacks a belief and therefore should have the same rules applied to it.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
In fact no need to …
In fact no need to rewrite the dictionary at all in my case.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Complicated? It’s a …
Complicated? It’s a complete facking mess compared to the way I see it. The way I see it there’s no violation of set theory, everything agrees with formal logic, no reliance on implication to fill in any gaps and certainly no need to rewrite the dictionary to an absurd degree as with your argument.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Okay, just so I …
Okay, just so I know exactly where you stand in this absolute mess of an argument perhaps you could clear a few things up before we proceed cos frankly, you’ve lost me.
What is atheism now, according to you? What is ‘implicit’ atheism? How can someone be an atheist without knowing what theism is (even most hardcore notters would agree that atheism is at the very least a rejection of theism)? How could you tell when someone was capable of belief? What would the test be?
Thanks.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
If someone …
If someone disagrees with formal logic to such an extent than I really hold no value to their argument or opinion. Particularly if they think that babies are atheists, which is just a joke.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Incorrect? Look, I …
Incorrect? Look, I can’t find that specific comment, why not just tell me what morphous means. According to you, that is.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
The only way you …
The only way you managed to do that was by violating set theory for your own ends.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Gibberish. Sorry, …
Gibberish. Sorry, but there’s no other word for it. I simply haven’t a clue what this is supposed to say. It’s no wonder I am trying to help people simplify.
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“Morphous does not …
“Morphous does not mean with defined shape or form (square, circle etc.) but just with shape or form. Basically, any physical object.”
Incorrect.
I refer you to the answer I gave earlier re “-morphous”.
By darktango78 on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
mungbeanman: ” …
mungbeanman: “Babies are not atheists and it would undermine atheism to say so.”
Several atheistic philosophers would disagree with you, including d’Holbach.
By darktango78 on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
mungbeanman: “just …
mungbeanman: “just where in his Venn diagram would [agnostics] go? He only has two sets, theists and atheists.”
Agnosticism is the position that no knowledge of God can be had. As such the division is orthogonal to the theist/atheist one which refers to belief. There are both theistic and atheistic agnostics.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Not as regards god …
Not as regards god though can they? And that’s what atheism is. Babies are not atheists and it would undermine atheism to say so.
By darktango78 on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
mungbeanman: “Erm, …
mungbeanman: “Erm, no. A baby capable of understanding theism? My 2 year old isn’t even close, he can barely do the alphabet yet.”
I didn’t say they had to understand theism. They only need to be capable of holding beliefs.
This is referred to as being an implicit atheist.
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“My 2 year old …
“My 2 year old isn’t even close, he can barely do the alphabet yet.”
I have a one yr old. He believes that if I leave the room, I might not come back, and it manifests itself in tears and anxiety. Babies can hold beliefs.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Morphous does not …
Morphous does not mean with defined shape or form (square, circle etc.) but just with shape or form. Basically, any physical object.
By darktango78 on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
mungbeanman: “Why? …
mungbeanman: “Why? Why make it even more complicated than you already have? It’s so complicated as to be almost impractical.”
I don’t find it complicated at all. But now you see we change the focus to whether the definition is useful or not, instead of whether it’s intrinsically flawed.
The first is a matter of utility and is debatable.
The purpose of my video was to show that there are no definitional problems with it.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
Actually, I would …
Actually, I would say I was a non-hypothecist. Even before you put that concept forward.
By Minttzz on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“We only use …
“We only use amorphous for physical objects.” Yes, as I have already stated this is the case but if you think that the prefix ‘a-’ means without then you would not be able to apply it to physical objects as it would be, as you say, absurd.”
Re: the use of “a-” for amorphous. It does not mean without shape. It means without a defined shape. Implying that it has an undefined shape, but still possesses the ability to have shape and its therefore prerequisite that it exists in the physical world.
By mungbeanman on Jan 2, 2009 | Reply
“If you want to …
“If you want to exclude babies, simply change “people” to “mentally developed people capable of holding beliefs.” Why? Why make it even more complicated than you already have? It’s so complicated as to be almost impractical.
“Alternatively, if neuropsychology finds that babies can indeed hold beliefs, then yes, they would be atheists.” Erm, no. A baby capable of understanding theism? My 2 year old isn’t even close, he can barely do the alphabet yet.