Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 417
#181
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,432
3
2
5
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
do you believe this will lead to everyone speaking a single unified language that never changes ?
This was the point of dictionaries, to some degree, to find common ground on what we think and ways to communicate those thoughts clearly.

I started to watch that movie with Mel Gibson but never finnished.

Mohammad unified varied tribes who were fighting each other, under a common god.  History has many cases of chaos and disorder, being unified by a violent leader. Alexander the Great, Tito, USSR, etc.

Phonetics led to English and English seems to be common ground, good or bad.  Pictographs/iconics made a comback with their symbolisms in autos for air, winshield wipers etc back in 90's.  A result of digital age?

A picture speaks a thousand words, but phonetics > English has led more words than pictures, to define more varied concepts.  Many people want a picture to help them to understand what may be presented in complex matematical notation. Geometry is more visual than algebra.

Feynman diagrams were a resultant of Feyman simplying for self and others what little we did know at the time about what is going on in atomic world.

I dont believe humanity will survive on Earth with this many nuclear weapons nor without a global unified goal to survive and prosper via and ecology that is viable to sustain us.
Topic's author
#182
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
meaningful language appears cyclical

younger generations always want to create new words and phrases to distinguish themselves

meaningless language (mathematics) is much more stable, but still changes over time
#183
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
meaningful language appears cyclical

younger generations always want to create new words and phrases to distinguish themselves

meaningless language (mathematics) is much more stable, but still changes over time
That makes little to no sense unless by cyclical you mean more commonly spoken. Even though we use basic math all the time to communicate.
Topic's author
#184
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
cyclical
ˈsɪklɪk(ə)l

adjective
occurring in cycles; recurrent. 

in other words, NOT constant and immutable
#185
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
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
What distinctions do you draw between accepting proposition A and not accepting proposition B, i.e. "receiving as valid"?
Topic's author
#186
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers
Topic's author
#187
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What distinctions do you draw between accepting proposition A and not accepting proposition B, i.e. "receiving as valid"?
i'm illustrating that one can "not accept" BOTH proposition A and proposition B

and continue their life

as they were already

which is "without belief" in proposition A

which is also "de facto" "as-if" proposition B "is considered true"

without "accepting" proposition B
#188
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Read that sentence again. Out loud.
What use would that serve?

It wasn't a simple request.
Yes it was.

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.
Let's really recap, then. First, you volunteered a response to a question that was directed at 3RU7AL. That is how our exchange began. (So you had no issue engaging me in discussion on what you would consider a "non-contribution.")  Second, I HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS THE WHOLE TIME--i.e. since my first post in this thread. Last,  you did not exhibit or convey ANY ISSUES with my "non-contributions" until I asked you this:

Athias Post #111:
How does the scientific method help you determine what's real as opposed to what's not real?
Suffices to say that in retrospect it should have been no surprise  that your "warning," as you pointed out, followed immediately in post #112--that is when my questions were no longer "contributing." We can scrutinize the reasons behind your incapacity or refusal to provide a sufficient answer. But ultimately, they don't matter. And frankly, I'm no longer interested. Hence, my stating, "I'm not egging you on or provoking you." You have no intention of answering my question? Fine. Enjoy your day, sir.



#189
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm illustrating that one can "not accept" BOTH proposition A and proposition B

and continue their life

as they were already

which is "without belief" in proposition A

which is also "de facto" "as-if" proposition B "is considered true"

without "accepting" proposition B
So can one "reject" as opposed to "not accepting" proposition B, without accepting proposition A?

My point is that "non-acceptance" is nuanced especially when applying terms like "reject" (i.e. deny,) which has a more "active" description than apathetic or ignorance-based non-acceptance. And this hearkens back to my reflection on oromagi's point:

Wouldn't that inversely suggest a negative belief of some sort, which doesn't necessarily implicate a "lack" of it? I understand oromagi's contention because the term "lack" suggests "absence." And in my opinion, the only thing that approximates a "lack of belief" is ignorance. Is it that an atheist "lacks belief" or is it that an atheist sustains a "negative" belief based on a "positive" belief in something else? And I'm not suggesting that for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures
Topic's author
#190
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
non-belief is the obvious default state of mind

failure to be convinced

does not constitute a "rejection" of  proposition A

and does not constitute an "acceptance" of proposition B
Topic's author
#191
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
for example, because you do not adopt a positive belief in Bigfoot, that necessarily suggests that you've adopted a positive belief in Bigfoot's existence being falsfiable. It would necessarily suggest however that whatever measures you use in maintaining and gauging your "positive beliefs" would produce an active belief against all which fall short of said measures
nope

i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that something that matches the description of "bigfoot" may possibly "exist"
#192
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
non-belief is the obvious default state of mind

failure to be convinced

does not constitute a "rejection" of  proposition A

and does not constitute an "acceptance" of proposition B
I'm suggesting that rejecting proposition A, which incorporates denying its proposed truth, is tacit acceptance of proposition B.

Case in point: if one states that one rejects the proposed truth of the claim "God exists," is that not a tacit acceptance of the claim "God does not exist"?

nope

i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that something that matches the description of "bigfoot" may possibly "exist"
I know. I'm pointing out that the measures on which you based your positive beliefs "excludes," and thereby create an active "disbelief" in all which fall short of said measures.


Topic's author
#193
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
nope

i do not deny the POSSIBILITY that something that matches the description of "bigfoot" may possibly "exist"
I know. I'm pointing out that the measures on which you based your positive beliefs "excludes," and thereby create an active "disbelief" in all which fall short of said measures.
that's the entire point of this thread

here's another example,

i once read that a "scientist" does NOT believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life

and the interviewer asked, "so, does that mean you DON'T believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life ?"

"no." the "scientist" responded

"I do NOT deny that intelligent extra-terrestrial life MAY exist" they explained
#194
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL

imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers
Imagine any text written without mathematical principles. It’s impossible, unless you’re ignorant.
#195
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Double_R
-->@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.
The language of logic and reason  often comes across like this because logical thinking tends to avoid the deliberate ambiguities of figurative speech.
For this reason, Vulcans and Robots are generally depicted with the same lack of understanding of figurative speech- they are only thinking logically.

Kirk: “If we play our cards right, we may be able to find out when those whales are being released.”
Spock: “How will playing cards help?”

O'Brien: "We'll all be burning the midnight oil on this one."
Data: "That would be extremely inadvisable."

So...what you are now claiming is that when you said

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.
That was not meant to be read literally, but figuratively.   You don't actually mean "Language is using words to communicate ideas" but rather that sentence is used metaphorically to suggest some alternative meaning.

You say we ought not take you literally when you argue:

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.
because you mean something totally different.  Honestly, I don't see any use of the 23 types of figures of speech (methaphor, simile, synedoche, etc) at play in either of these sentences.  

Please identify the figures of speech here and explain what you really meant when wrote these words.  I don't think your attempt at colorful, evocative language here succeeded in getting your point across.
Topic's author
#196
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
for example,

in another thread

someone demanded a "YES" or "NO" answer to the question,

"are all mexicans xenophobic ?"

and i tried to explain

that a simple "YES" is "not true"

and likewise, a simple "NO" is also "not true"
Topic's author
#197
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers
Imagine any text written without mathematical principles. It’s impossible, unless you’re ignorant.
please explain
#198
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
that's the entire point of this thread

here's another example,

i once read that a "scientist" does NOT believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life

and the interviewer asked, "so, does that mean you DON'T believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life ?"

"no." the "scientist" responded

"I do NOT deny that intelligent extra-terrestrial life MAY exist" they explained
I understand the distinction quite well. For example, some time back, FLRW posed to me this question, which was followed by this response:

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. Do you think he exists?
Yes, Zeus exists. Your objection?
Amoranemix would then presume that my statement meant that I "believe in" Zeus, and I'd respond:

[e] For example, you believe in Zeus.
I do not "believe in" Zeus. I acknowledge Zeus's existence:
I maintain a separation between my (personal) evaluation and ontological exploration/conclusions. And by accepting the proposition that "Zeus exists" is true, I must necessarily reject the proposition that "Zeus does not exist" is true. So despite my not "believing in" Zeus, I accept that Zeus exists. Now if we're going to dive into ontology, then I think it's prudent that we do as you say: explicitly define "X" (placeholder for any God or entity) and "exist."



#199
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
imagine a "holy text" written exclusively with numbers
Imagine any text written without mathematical principles. It’s impossible, unless you’re ignorant.
please explain
One simple example is geometry. 

#200
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
for example,

in another thread

someone demanded a "YES" or "NO" answer to the question,

"are all mexicans xenophobic ?"

and i tried to explain

that a simple "YES" is "not true"

and likewise, a simple "NO" is also "not true"
As a response to that specific question, I would agree. One would have to take into account your position, or anyone else's for that matter, to affirm or deny that claim, especially since it would necessitate a capacity to describe with 100% accuracy that which one thinks or feels.

Topic's author
#201
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
One simple example is geometry. 
imagine a poem written without geometry

what poems include geometry ?
Topic's author
#202
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I accept that Zeus exists
i accept that THE CONCEPT OF zeus "exists" (in an abstract and NOT in a concrete sense)

personally, i would never say "zeus exists" without some very explicit (non-standard) definitions
#203
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
imagine a poem written without geometry

what poems include geometry ?
All written language is geometric regardless of format.



Topic's author
#204
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
imagine a poem written without geometry

what poems include geometry ?
All written language is geometric regardless of format.
in the same way a child's finger-painting is "geometry"
#205
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
in the same way a child's finger-painting is "geometry"
Language conveys information regardless how little you squeeze out of it. Whether it’s finger-painting or learning to spell.

As geometry is mathematics and mathematics is language.
Topic's author
#206
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
Language conveys information regardless how little you squeeze out of it. Whether it’s finger-painting or learning to spell.
sure

but there is an important difference between hollow mathematical precision

and deep emotional meaningfulness
#207
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,033
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
sure

but there is an important difference between hollow mathematical precision

and deep emotional meaningfulness
Those emotions aren’t coming from language.
#208
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
i accept that THE CONCEPT OF zeus "exists" (in an abstract and NOT in a concrete sense)

personally, i would never say "zeus exists" without some very explicit (non-standard) definitions
For me, the "difference" is negligible. I'm all for maintaining standards consistently. With that said, experiencing existence is an epistemological hodgepodge, where "concept" provides meaning to that which one would consider "concrete," and the subject of ontology can be indexed to Merriam-Webster.

Topic's author
#209
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
Those emotions aren’t coming from language.
and they can't be expressed with numbers
Topic's author
#210
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
For me, the "difference" is negligible. I'm all for maintaining standards consistently. With that said, experiencing existence is an epistemological hodgepodge, where "concept" provides meaning to that which one would consider "concrete," and the subject of ontology can be indexed to Merriam-Webster.
sure, but you can't be surprised when you say "zeus is real"

and people think you believe in zeus