Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
Topic's author
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Define, "accept."
accept
əkˈsɛpt
verb
consent to receive or undertake (something offered). 
give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to. 
say yes to a proposal of marriage from (a man).  dated
receive as adequate, valid, or suitable. 
regard favourably or with approval; welcome. 
Topic's author
#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I would say that's a pretty big difference, but that's just my opinion.
a deist does not ANTHROPOMORPHIZE the idea of "god"

an atheist might say, "thebigbang" is the primary observable cause of everything we can perceive

a deist might add, some people call the "thebigbang" "god" (and that literally changes nothing)
#153
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
accept
əkˈsɛpt
verb
consent to receive or undertake (something offered). 
give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to. 
say yes to a proposal of marriage from (a man).  dated
receive as adequate, valid, or suitable. 
regard favourably or with approval; welcome. 
Which description are you applying to this argument?
Topic's author
#154
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
consent to receive or undertake (something offered). 
give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to. 
receive as adequate, valid, or suitable. 
regard favourably or with approval; welcome. 
#155
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
a theist believes in a god that writes books

a theist believes in a god who interferes in human affairs

a deist accepts a god that does not write books

a deist accepts a god that does not interfere in human affairs

There are theists who do not believe that any sacred text was written by a god. This is a fundamentalist  concept. Not all theists believe gods interfere in human affairs. Deists do believe an entity was involved in creation. They are theists. If they're ashamed of that then they should call themselves atheists. 
#156
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 5,890
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
a deist might add, some people call the "thebigbang" "god" (and that literally changes nothing)
Someone who calls themselves a diest and justifies that label by calling the big bang a god is just an atheist in denial.

When I use these terms i'm conveying actual ideas. If all you're going to do is find some technicality where you can substitute one word for another then this conversation is pointless.
Topic's author
#157
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
There are theists who do not believe that any sacred text was written by a god. This is a fundamentalist  concept. Not all theists believe gods interfere in human affairs. Deists do believe an entity was involved in creation. They are theists. If they're ashamed of that then they should call themselves atheists. 
theist
ˈθiːɪst
noun
a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. 
adjective
denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. 

Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god")[3][4] is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology[5] that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe.[3][5][6][7][8][9] Or more simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority.
Topic's author
#158
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Someone who calls themselves a diest and justifies that label by calling the big bang a god is just an atheist in denial.
this is the best possible approach to a debate with a theist

all of their stock arguments against atheism

completely fall apart

if you call the big bang "god"

they cannot draw a straight line from classical deism to their own theistic belief

but it's fun to watch them try
#159
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Nice atheist definition. It ignores whole religions and theists but who is surprised. 
#160
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 5,890
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I don't necessarily see anything "wrong." 
Hence my point, if you don't have a point you're getting at then this conversation is a waste of time. And you are free to pretend that's a reflection on me all you want if it makes you feel better.
Topic's author
#161
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nice atheist definition. It ignores whole religions and theists but who is surprised. 
what definitions do you personally prefer ?
#162
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority.

1} God created Universe, is distinctly differrent from the following,

2} Universe is God, as in their synonyms Universe/God.

...1a} There is no empircal evidence for a God that created Universe,

....2a} God/Universe is eternally existent via 1s law of thermodynamics, that, I would say carries over to include all occupied space is Universe/God and is eternally existent as in eternal state of transformation, ergo, 1 is moot, irrelevant, false, insignificant, empty rhetoric etc.

Refinning the definitions of words by introducing a new word ---ex via combinations of existing words--- is one way to help help us to express an --ergo more refined---   more correct, absolute truth.


#163
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,876
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Equally unfalsifiable for sure.


As are the green Unicorns found on the Planet Zog.

Which are actually independent, sentient, photosynthetic, horse like plants that absorb nutrients through their horn like structures.

Strange but true.....Prove me wrong.
#164
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 5,890
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
this is the best possible approach to a debate with a theist

all of their stock arguments against atheism

completely fall apart

if you call the big bang "god"

they cannot draw a straight line from classical deism to their own theistic belief

but it's fun to watch them try
It might make theists stumble over their words but that doesn't make it a good argument. It's just a sematic game.

Topic's author
#165
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
It might make theists stumble over their words but that doesn't make it a good argument. It's just a sematic game.
every single person has a different definition of "god"

but each of those people think that their idea of "god" is universal

that's why the christians are happy to see "in god we trust" on their dolladollabillz yo

of course, they'd be even more happy to see "in YHWH we trust"

because that's what they actually think it says

just try to imagine living in a world where every piece of fiat is stamped with "in YHWH we trust"

kinda puts things in perspective

they love to ask "do you believe in god" without every realizing that there is more than one definition

and if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language is
#166
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Fullers words in Synergetics

1052.63 From time to time humans learn a little more about a principle, but greater familiarity does not change the principles themselves. As further observation becomes more comprehensive and refined, the statement of the principle becomes ever more incisive and ever less frequently modified and improved. Since the principle itself is eternally changeless,

.....the more accurately it is defined, the more unchangeable is the definition.

...The word truth is applicable to an earnestly attempted statement of any observed or recollected special case experience. Recollection of a plurality of truths may lead to discovery of a generalized principle intercoordinating the special case experiences. Recollection of truths leads toward discovery of generalized principles.

........Thus we find the metaphysical definitions of human minds tending to become ever more enduring as human mind trends toward the only absolute perfection, which is the eternal integrity of the omniinteraccommodation of all principles.

1052.64 Thus do words evolve and accumulate to fill the dictionaries as humans discover mutually shared conceptions regarding their common experiences, each of which requires unique and incisive means of identification and communicability. That all humans, always starting naked, helpless, and ignorant, have through the ages so truthfully identified over a hundred thousand experiences each of which is so unique as to deserve__indeed require__a uniquely identifying word, and that humans, despite their propensity to withhold agreement upon any mutual convention, have agreed upon some hundred thousand more or less common words and upon many more hundreds of thousands of scientific words, constitutes the greatest extant memorial in testimony of the supra-ethnic and transgeneration growth of the means of human communication, common understanding, and ultimate integration of all human concern and ever more effectively informed coordination of all human initiatives. ".....
Topic's author
#167
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Alfred Korzybski
Topic's author
#168
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
As are the green Unicorns found on the Planet Zog.

Which are actually independent, sentient, photosynthetic, horse like plants that absorb nutrients through their horn like structures.

Strange but true.....Prove me wrong.
TINA (There Is No Alternative): Squashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant and any further discussion is simply a waste of time. [**]
#169
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 5,890
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
and if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language is
Language is using words to communicate ideas.

Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.

An example of this is someone claiming January 6th is a conspiracy theory while ignoring the fact that the connotations (aka ideas) behind the term "conspiracy theory" communicate something that is not present with regards to January 6th. In other words it's an attempt to use language in such a way as to smuggle in ideas that could not be supported if argued directly.
Topic's author
#170
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
each and every person you meet

has a different viewpoint

they learned each individual word in a different order than you

and in a different context than you

we communicate in order to identify and then negotiate these differences in perception

this is why language evolves
Topic's author
#171
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikós, "significant") is the study of reference, meaning, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines, including philosophy, linguistics and computer science.
#172
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Alfred Korzybski
YOur reply defines nada.

Fuller.....the more accurately it is defined, the more unchangeable is the definition.


#173
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
we communicate in order to identify and then negotiate these differences in perception

..." From time to time humans learn a little more about a principle, but greater familiarity does not change the principles themselves. As further observation becomes more comprehensive and refined, the statement of the principle becomes ever more incisive and ever less frequently modified and improved. Since the principle itself is eternally changeless, "...

We orbit truth and see it from differrent angles of viewpoint, but that does not change the truth, it only helps to better refine our words definning the truth.


#174
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
consent to receive or undertake (something offered). 
give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to. 
receive as adequate, valid, or suitable. 
regard favourably or with approval; welcome. 
Which one of these descriptions are you applying when stating this:

i don't know what exactly proposition A is

and i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A is

therefore

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

i will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"



#175
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Hence my point, if you don't have a point you're getting at then this conversation is a waste of time. And you are free to pretend that's a reflection on me all you want if it makes you feel better.
My feelings are irrelevant. All I've asked you to do is to explain how the scientific method helps determine what's real and what's not, and you have refused. That IS a reflection on you. You can indulge the pretext that "your time is being wasted" but I will maintain that you have not proffered a sufficient explanation because YOU CAN'T. I'm not egging you on, or provoking, given that a simple request should have sufficed. But there's no point in beating this dead horse. So enjoy your night, sir.
#176
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
>@3RU7AL
and if you don't see how every single conversation you've ever had is "just a semantic game" then i have no idea what you think language is
Language is using words to communicate ideas.

Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.

You are conflating the term SEMANTICS with the term SEMANTIC ARGUMENT- not the same thing.  SEMANTICS is the study of the meaning of words.  Everybody should study the meaning of words.  A SEMANTIC ARGUMENT is a kind of special pleading, "a form of argumentation in which a proponent modifies the meaning of a term, or introduces a new meaning, in order to support his or her persuasive goal."

Saying "oh I don't mind white people....its honkies I can't stand" is an example of a semantic argument.  Semantically, the set of all white people equals the set of all honkies but the speaker is making a special (usually less then well defined) distinction  to try to score a rhetorical point (usually erroneously).  We see a lot of merely semantic arguments on this site because DARTers are absolute shit at defining their terms up front using legitimate sources and often even have the temerity to complain about debaters who do.

An example of this is someone claiming January 6th is a conspiracy theory while ignoring the fact that the connotations (aka ideas) behind the term "conspiracy theory" communicate something that is not present with regards to January 6th. In other words it's an attempt to use language in such a way as to smuggle in ideas that could not be supported if argued directly.
A CONSPIRACY is "The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations."
A CONSPIRACY THEORY is "A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are and/or were secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases, the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. "

There's no room left for doubting that many Republicans worked and planned in secret to overthrow Biden after he won the election- thousands of conspirators have confirmed under oath that there was a CONSPIRACY.  There are also many unanswered questions about that day that encourage many hypotheses alleging coordination between various groups and individuals- was Trump giving/receiving information to/from the Proud Boys that day, for example.  That the inept coup of Jan 6 was a CONSPIRACY of dunces is no longer in question.  That Ray Epps was a secret agent encouraging the coup at the behest of the FBI is a CONSPIRACY THEORY lacking any evidence.


Topic's author
#177
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Which one of these descriptions are you applying when stating this:

i don't know what exactly proposition A is

and i've lived my life perfectly fine up to this point without knowing exactly what proposition A is

therefore

even though i don't "accept" proposition B

i will continue to act as-if proposition B "is true"
even though i don't "consent to receive" proposition B
even though i don't "give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to" proposition B
even though i don't "receive as adequate, valid, or suitable" proposition B
even though i don't "regard favourably or with approval; welcome" proposition B
even though i don't "accept" proposition B

any and all of the above
Topic's author
#178
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
We orbit truth and see it from differrent angles of viewpoint, but that does not change the truth, it only helps to better refine our words definning the truth.
do you believe this will lead to everyone speaking a single unified language that never changes ?
#179
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 5,890
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I will maintain that you have not proffered a sufficient explanation because YOU CAN'T. I'm not egging you on, or provoking,
Read that sentence again. Out loud.

given that a simple request should have sufficed. 
It wasn't a simple request. Stop pretending your request was made in a vacuum. It wasn't. Let's recap;

You have been asking me questions since post 79. Since then you have asked me to explain my position via multiple questions in posts 89, 97, 99, 104, 109, 111, and 117. I have responded by answering every single one of your questions in detail in posts 84, 96, 98, 102, 107, 110 and 112. At the end of post 112 I warned you that you needed to contribute to the conversation if you wanted this to continue. You completely ignored that warning in post 117 so I drew the line and let you know that you need to contribute if you wanted this to continue.

Asking questions is not contributing. To do that you have to provide actual thoughts and ideas of your own.

So to pretend like I just tucked my tail between my legs because I can't answer your questions is just plain stupid.
#180
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 5,890
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@oromagi
You are conflating the term SEMANTICS with the term SEMANTIC ARGUMENT- not the same thing.
Rocket: "his people are completely literal, it's going to go over his head"

Drax: "nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast"

That's all I could think about as I read this post.