Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"

Author: 3RU7AL ,

Posts

Total: 338
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Reece101
One simple example is geometry. 
imagine a poem written without geometry

what poems include geometry ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @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
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
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.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @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"
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
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.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @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
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
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.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,404
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @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.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Reece101
Those emotions aren’t coming from language.
and they can't be expressed with numbers
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @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
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,404
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @3RU7AL
sure, but you can't be surprised when you say "zeus is real"

and people think you believe in zeus
I'm not.

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,036
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @Athias
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."
I never said nor suggested that I considered your questions to be contributing to the conversation. Whether they are a contribution depends on whether you are going somewhere with them.

The point where it seemed apparent that you were not going anywhere with them was when you asked me how the scientific method tells us what's true.

It's not that there are not interesting philosophical questions here. Concepts like observability, repeatability, predictability, etc. are at the core of our epistomology. But that is miles away from where this conversation started. So by this point, if I'm going to veer this far off of the subject, I need to know why.

In the proceeding posts you verified my suspicions by admitting that you saw nothing wrong with my answers, in other words you were going no where with these questions, thus this conversation was a complete waste of time.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,036
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
--> @oromagi
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.
In all my years of debating and reading other people's arguments, any time I have ever heard someone respond to an argument by saying "that's just semantics", I've never heard of situation where everyone reading it didn't know what that meant.

Yet according to you, when you hear that what you actually hear is "that's just [the study of the meaning of words]".

Language is about more than just definitions. There is this thing we call context.
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 3,573
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
If atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god(s) existence then the definition of theism is simply a belief in a god(s) existence. No reason to put any more qualifiers on other than to argue.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,645
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
--> @Reece101
One simple example is geometry.

I would argue that what makes it holy is not just that it expresses a cosmic principle or cosmic physical law, but that it expresses a principle or law that is relevant to biological life of humans and the ecological systems that support and sustains that wholistic set of humans and ecology.

This may have been what the GAIA concept was all about., tho it is not necessarily a related to a cosmic physical law or principle.

Holy = wholistic set of interrelating phenomena that support the integrity of Universe and the GAIA hypothesis for individual planets, that may be expressed matehmatically, yet lack some consideration of Spirit-1, 2, 3 or 4.   
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @Double_R

In all my years of debating and reading other people's arguments, any time I have ever heard someone respond to an argument by saying "that's just semantics", I've never heard of situation where everyone reading it didn't know what that meant.

Yet according to you, when you hear that what you actually heard was "that's just [the study of the meaning of words]".

Language is about more than just definitions. There is this thing we call context. I suggest you spend some time learning how it works.

Argumentum ad Populum is the logical fallacy that the fact that many or most people accept something as true should serve as evidence that the claim is true.  A lot of people believe X, therefore X must be true.

Literally is literally the most misused word in the English language, demonstrating that the majority of Americans don't understand the distinction between literal and figurative language.  Just because everybody's wrong about it doesn't change the importance of that distinction to reasoned thought.

Most Americans don't understand that the US Constitution is an inherently Liberal project or that Liberalism and Conservatism are not opposing points of view.

Most people don't understand the Left/Right distinction is a Human Rights vs Property Rights distinction, by definition.

Most people think that you can have Socialism without Democracy or that the USSR and China are/were Socialist states when, by definition,  that economic state is dependent on the  capacity of the people to freely apply their will to the means of production.

In this very forum you have argued that Atheism is a lack of belief in God when the originally intended definitional distinction was that Atheism asserts that there is no God while Agnosticism asserts that Atheism can't justify that assertion with any more confidence than Theism.  Interested parties like atheism.org deliberately muddy up that distinction in order to increase their apparent numbers but saying that atheism now seems to mean the same thing as agnosticism deliberately tramples on that essential academic, theological distinction.

At the dawn of Philosophy Socrates declared: "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms."

At the dawn of the Enlightenment Voltaire declared:   “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.

Will Durant argued in "The Story of Philosophy that , "the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to the strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."

Most people think they have a pretty good grasp on the essential political, religious, social concepts of our time but most people get their definitions from biased sources: political and religious leaders, commercial and corporate interests, national and economic interests etc.  People hate dictionaries and encyclopedias precisely because those more objective efforts increasingly clash with the biased definitions of people's  interest groups.

The problem with just going along with the crowd, context as you wrongly label it, is that actual meanings of words get trampled.

When everybody says "oh that's just semantics" disconnected from any dictionary meaning, their expression is likewise without meaning and it is very likely that the writer and reader have two different understandings of what's being said- an ambiguity that obscures truth-finding, a disconnect that denies consensus. 

Pretty quickly the actual meaning of "The study of meaning" becomes lost, and the important distinction of "a semantic argument" meaning that the claimant is depending on an invented definition also becomes lost and we are left with an empty shell of a word that just translates as just another "doubleplusungood."  We kill our language, its meaning and the ideas and knowledge contained in those distinctive meanings by conforming our usage to the badly misinformed users of social media.

As Richard Dawkins tweeted last year, "Existing words change meaning by gradual evolution. Or a redefinition or refinement is proposed & voluntarily adopted. Fine. Not fine is when a word with a long-established common usage is bossily redefined, & adoption of the new meaning imposed by law or social bullying."

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @3RU7AL
and they can't be expressed with numbers
Well yes they can. They can also be expressed with geometry in the form of words, which we’ve been discussing.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 7,388
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
@Poly.

#214

Well stated.


Wouldn't it be dull if everyone agreed about everything?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @ebuc
I would argue that what makes it holy is not just that it expresses a cosmic principle or cosmic physical law, but that it expresses a principle or law that is relevant to biological life of humans and the ecological systems that support and sustains that wholistic set of humans and ecology.

This may have been what the GAIA concept was all about., tho it is not necessarily a related to a cosmic physical law or principle.

Holy = wholistic set of interrelating phenomena that support the integrity of Universe and the GAIA hypothesis for individual planets, that may be expressed matehmatically, yet lack some consideration of Spirit-1, 2, 3 or 4.    
Keep in mind i’m not a big math person which I hope is apparent.

I should have gone this direction with my argument…

One example off the top of my head:
Two quirky mathematicians in love expressing themselves using equations laymen wouldn’t understand.
The laymen would find no spirt due to their lack of understanding. 

It would have addressed 3RU7AL talking about deep emotional meaningfulness. Also where we first started off:

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.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,645
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
--> @Reece101
It would have addressed 3RU7AL talking about deep emotional meaningfulness. Also where we first started off:
Ok gotcha.  Sorry, my bad.  Yeah complex algebraic, etc type complex formula go over common peoples ---you, me and 3Ru--- heads.

I still believe the use of word holy needs to incorporate in its definition, a reference to ecological based life support environments like rare Earth.

Even tho humans with their access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, may eventually be their own demise, I still think they they a related to  holy aspect of Universe.

Fuller talks about how God created humans t as an experiment, to see if mind accessing creatures could exist in Universe, without destroying the integrity of Universe. 

Holy needs to be wholistic --of cosmic consideration---   in its definnition. Yes?  No?



Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @ebuc
it sounds like a conversation you should have with 3RU7AL who brought it up.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,645
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
--> @3RU7AL @Reece101
it sounds like a conversation you should have with 3RU7AL who brought it up.
Oh sorry, I forgot who introduced word holy into this thread.  I believe Universe/God are synonyms ergo I believe in my definition of God as an eternally self-regenerative God/Universe. 

And there is R. Penrose Conformal Cyclic Universe for those who want to go off on the words cyclic meanings of words.

Uni = 1, and,
verse = set words. 

...." The suffix –VERSE (Latin, “to turn”) attaches to a number of key words with interesting results for comparison. Among these words are OBVERSE (“turn toward”), REVERSE (“turn back”), CONVERSE (“turn with”), INVERSE (“turn inside out”), UNIVERSE (“turned into one”), DIVERSE (“turn separately”), AVERSE (“turn away”), and PERVERSE (“turn the wrong way”). You, too, can make a sentence using these words! In this universe, I would like to converse with diverse readers; or, in reverse, I might wish to be subversive or be averse and wish to do the inverse or the obverse with the perverse. '...

To turn would lead me to Arthur Youngs operating system of Universe his Relflexive Universe, where the turn is a key part of his scenarios.



Verse > to turn > V  i.e. and invagination, that, goes in and then back out.

Verse also as ...' poetry and chorus of rythmic sequence etc '....
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Reece101
and they can't be expressed with numbers
Well yes they can. They can also be expressed with geometry in the form of words, which we’ve been discussing.
language predates writing

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Polytheist-Witch
If atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god(s) existence then the definition of theism is simply a belief in a god(s) existence. No reason to put any more qualifiers on other than to argue.
a lack of belief in any THEISTIC god(s)

it's in the word itself

a-THEIST
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 3,573
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
--> @3RU7AL
Your just being a jerk.