Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
99.31% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons
Great.
Why don't the "anti-abortion" people support SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC SUPPORT FOR THE POOR??
It seems like effective SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC support could prevent 99.31% of abortions.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
God knows all things. Thus, He has an objective knowledge of all things or, if you like, a real, true knowledge.
GOD = SMART
HUMAN = DUMB
I get it.
HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT GOD KNOWS?
AND.
HOW CAN WE VERIFY IF A HUMAN IS SPEAKING FOR GOD?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Individual freedom is impossible without the individual ability to freely generate their own food, clothing and shelter.That is a big assumption; providing physical necessities makes you free. If your mind is not free, neither are you. Whatever controls you keeps you unfree.
(IFF) you cannot freely generate your own food, clothing and shelter (THEN) you must submit yourself to your (human) provider
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you wanted proof, I am willing to go into the prophetic argument as to its reasonableness.
That's not a logical proof.
Your old book made some predictions.
I'm not going to dispute your claim about prophecy.
The ability to make some accurate predictions does not mean everything in the book is 100% factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I'm worried about the future advancement of tech.
I'm worried about the current advancement of tech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
However, or, can also be used to show the addition of something similar to
If I said, "you can have cake (OR) ice-cream" what would you think?
If I said, "you can have cake (AND) ice-cream" what would you think?
Is there an obvious and clear difference between these two statements?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
You also failed to dispute or challenge 3RY7AL's #1 : Your allegedly moral facts are not empirically demonstrable, nor logically necessary.
Step One.
Pretend you've never heard of "YHWH" and you've never heard of "The Bible".
Step Two.
Convince me I should accept your LAWS.
How did Abraham convince anyone to listen?
There was no book he could wave over his head.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If I consent to be a lumberjack, then I consent to the risks that may involve.
So, if you accidentally chainsaw a gash in your leg, you should be expected to "fend for yourself"?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, I can see that God would be upset that a baby was aborted so it couldn't die of starvation (3 million children in the world died of starvation last year) or get pediatric cancer.
Good point.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Your fallacy of choice is : missing the point. Read the post again without assuming that 3RU7AL was not being cynical.You are hypocritical. If 3RU7AL is playing a might makes right fan, then you criticize him. If God is imposing his might makes right justice, then you defend him with excuses.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Zoiks.
Do you know the difference between the logical operation of the word "OR" in contrast to the logical operation of the word "AND"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Quantum Computing. Rather than store information using bits represented by 0s or 1s as conventional digital computers do, quantum computers use quantum bits, or qubits, to encode information as 0s, 1s, or both at the same time. This superposition of states—along with the other quantum mechanical phenomena of entanglement and tunneling—enables quantum computers to manipulate enormous combinations of states at once.
I also lets you crack any keyboard based password instantly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
no where in the dictionary definition does it preclude deistic gods
Definition of atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods [**]
Notice the strategic placement of the word, "OR" (which is definitely NOT the same as the other word you seem to prefer, which is, "AND").
ALSO,
I'm not arguing that "the definition" of "ATHEISM" "precludes" (or specifically excludes) "deistic god($)".
I'm suggesting that it simply DOES NOT INCLUDE "deistic god($)".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
We wait for the great blood fever of Pon Farr to overpower us and drive us back to our homeworld of planet Vulcan, where the primordial mating dance begins or we battle rivals in the passion challenge of kal-if-fee.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Do the atheists go to the scientists to prove that their is a partner out there for them?
People have been "getting married" long before Abraham invented "YHWH".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You'll like this,
deist (n.)"one who holds to some general doctrines of Christian religion and believes in the existence of a personal God but denies revelation and dogma and church authority," 1620s, from French déiste (1560s), from Latin deus (see Zeus). [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is no "colloquial" I'm speaking of, I am using the definition of atheist.
A dictionary is simply a codification of colloquial word usage.
Why do you think lexicographers keep publishing new dictionaries?
Why can't we ALL simply use The Original Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1892 (?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So, looking at the definition you have provided, what part of this excludes deistic gods from the definition? I see nothing of the sort.
For example, even though "not-a-THEIST" is not the same as "not-a-DEIST" (a person can be "not-a-THEIST" and still call themselves a DEIST).
AND a person can ALSO be BOTH "not-a-THEIST" AND "not-a-DEIST" (because they are not mutually exclusive categories).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
not to mention, NONE of your evidence points to what you are trying to prove,
I'm not trying to "prove" anything.
I'm simply stating facts.
It is a fact that the word itself, "ATHEIST" quite literally means, "not-a-theist".
I never intended to suggest that colloquially it CANNOT be used to suggest "a lack-of-belief in all conceivable god($)".
The key point I'm trying to make is that NOT ALL PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "ATHEISTS" BELIEVE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
Trying to force a "one-size-fits-all" procrustean definition on any group of people inevitably falls prey to the BROAD BRUSH fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, and from context, it is very apparent that I am talking about Atheists in general,
Very apparent to you.
I appreciate your efforts to clarify your viewpoint.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading a.k.a. "moving the goal posts".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You cut out another part of my sentence, you have no proof that this was what people are referring to in a BROAD stroke,
Your logical fallacy is,
MOVING THE GOAL-POSTS
We began this conversation discussing what qualifies as an ATHEIST.
Is it a lack-of-belief in all conceivable god($) (OR) can it be simply a lack-of-belief in a category of god($)?
At some point along the way you ADDED the qualifier "BROAD" to the topic-at-hand, namely the specific word, "ATHEIST" (standing alone without a qualifier).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have no actual proof that this is what people are referring to
Please explain how the following excerpt fails to meet your standards of "proof"?
Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope; that is, a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus. Or a person can lack belief in the existence of any supernatural beings. [1] [OXFORD BIBLIOGRAPHIES.COM]
Welcome to Oxford Bibliographies
Developed cooperatively with scholars and librarians worldwide, Oxford Bibliographies offers exclusive, authoritative research guides. Combining the best features of an annotated bibliography and a high-level encyclopedia, this cutting-edge resource directs researchers to the best available scholarship across a wide variety of subjects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...insulting them instead of addressing the argument,
Sure, a fraction of what you wrote was in response to the topic-at-hand.
AND the part were you accuse me of dishonesty (dragging my motives into your attack) is insulting (I mean, do you think it's a compliment?).
I haven't been dishonest at any point.
I may misunderstand your words.
I may overlook something you think is important.
But I've never done any of those things INTENTIONALLY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I'm worried about the future advancement of tech.
I believe you are an AI bot.
If you are an AI bot, please deny you are an AI bot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Intel was overconfident and painted themselves into a corner.
It's exactly the same warning Feyerabend tried to give Popper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I was saying in general, being an atheist meant that you didn't believe in any gods,
I agree that some people who call themselves "atheist" lack belief in "all god($)" but I've also encountered a fair number of people who call themselves "atheist" who more specifically lack belief in THEISTIC god($).
Lacking belief in "all god($)" is not incompatible with lacking belief in THEISTIC god($).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm just pointing out that your dishonest,
This statement is beyond your epistemological limits.
AND any statement that is directed at the individual speaker (including speculating about motives and or general mental capacity and or physical and or genetic traits and or name calling) instead of addressing the actual logic of their argument is technically an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
"directed against a person, rather than against what that person says" - - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ad-hominem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...that is you being dishonest.
This is an ad hominem attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...and pointed out that it could mean either of these things,
So we agree?
I never suggested that an ATHEIST CANNOT disbelieve in all conceivable god($).
I'm only trying to point out that not ALL ATHEISTS disbelieve in all conceivable god($).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
What they dont want to consider is outside that dimension like spiritualism.
There are tons of people (ATHEISTS) who don't believe in a sky-daddy but still believe in "spiritual energy".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you have a name that doesn't sound like it is a a white person's name you are much less likely to get a job interview, for example. And that has absolutely nothing to do with single mothers. It has to do with racism.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
if he were standing on a street corner, then you would be absolutely right. he has the right to do shit like that. A website is not a street corner. It is owned and managed by the site's owner. That owner can put limits on what you can say on their website. So no, he is not entitled to free speech.
THE (SPEECH) GUIDELINES SHOULD BE UNAMBIGUOUS AND ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE UNIFORM.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You seem to forget all the home loans that were systematically denied to "darker-skin-toned-people" (REDLINE).I have no idea what you are referring to as black people can get loans just as whites can.
Redlining is the systematic denial of various services or goods by federal government agencies, local governments, or the private sector either directly or through the selective raising of prices. This is often manifested by placing strict criterias on specific services and goods that often disadvantage poor and minority communities.[2][3] Prior to the Fair Housing Act of 1968, there were no specific laws that protected minority populations from discriminatory practices in housing and commercial markets. Businesses were therefore able to exploit these groups in order to increase their profits.[4] Redlining was utilized in the housing industry by mortgage companies to suppress minority populations from receiving home loans to buy homes in other neighborhoods as well as to deny them the funds to improve their current homes.
This directly contributed to the spatial isolation of minority communities, a reality which incurred wide ranging impacts. Physical isolation resulted in political isolation as these residentially isolated minority groups had local political needs like increased affordable, government-subsidized housing and improved access to home loans that did not overlap with white majority groups, making political alliances difficult. [**]
This directly contributed to the spatial isolation of minority communities, a reality which incurred wide ranging impacts. Physical isolation resulted in political isolation as these residentially isolated minority groups had local political needs like increased affordable, government-subsidized housing and improved access to home loans that did not overlap with white majority groups, making political alliances difficult. [**]
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
When these factors are brought into the statistics and taken into account, black children raised in rural areas with 2 parents are as likely to end up in jail as whites in the same conditions.
Hmmmm, if only someone had given them some free land about 200 years ago...
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This was almost 200 years ago.
Exactly. The (lighter-skinned) decedents of those who received free land have had a 200 year head-start.
And the original occupants of that land have been corralled into the most desolate and remote areas (and they're still there).
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If gay and bi males want to be less likely to get HIV, as well as if anyone wants to avoid an STI, they should wait until marriage to have sex.
I think the point here is that NOT ALL gayandbimales engage in risky behavior.
Created:
-->
@Conway
Statistically speaking, those populations would have higher averages. In reality, this sort of decision is entirely up to the individual.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Zoiks.
You seem to forget all the free land that was given away to "lighter-skin-toned-people" (in the U.S.A).
You seem to forget all the home loans that were systematically denied to "darker-skin-toned-people" (REDLINE).
You seem to forget about the disproportionate conviction rates between "lighter-skin-toned-people" and "darker-skin-toned-people".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No! I was making an analogy, it is the SAME thing, just because one word with words inside of it had one meaning, that doesn't mean the new word retains that same meaning.
I disagree with you on this particular point and at the same time I do NOT wish to sidetrack the TOPIC AT HAND by explaining why (I'm perfectly willing to pursue this and or any other topic you wish to discuss after the TOPIC AT HAND is either settled or abandoned).
THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A RED-HERRING.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
How does that discount deistic gods?
Your preference (please clarify) seems to be "ATHEIST = DISBELIEF IN ALL POSSIBLE GOD($)".
(IFF) this is true (THEN) this definition would necessarily EXCLUDE deistic god($) as well (thus the term "ADEIST").
Disbelieving in any and all conceivable DESISTIC (creator) god($) logically precludes the existence of any THEISTIC (rule making) god($).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
ATHEISM CAN BE NARROW OR WIDE IN SCOPE and LACK BELIEF IN ANY SUPERNATURAL BEINGS
You inexplicably changed the (OR) in the original citation to an (AND).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...not to mention, your other resource literally agrees with me...
Let's compare,
What you said,
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
With what my "other resource" literally says,
"...a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus."
Your quote seems to suggest that an ATHEIST must deny the existence of all conceivable god($).
I'd be happy to know if I've misunderstood your intention somehow.
My counterpoint is that an ATHEIST may accept some conceivable god($) and only "lack belief" or "disbelieve" in a SPECIFIC "god" or set of "god($)" (and still qualify).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you ignore my point with the word homophobe? As usual, ignoring arguments are you?
RED-HERRING
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
NO, Materialism and Atheism are not the same things, no, they aren't even synonymous.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The base word atheist is simply a catch-all for god in general,
Nope.
If that were true, you'd be using the word, "ADEIST".
DEISM =/= THEISM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Atheism can be narrow or wide in scope; that is, a person can be a narrow atheist about the existence of a particular divine being, such as Zeus. Or a person can lack belief in the existence of any supernatural beings. [1] [OXFORD BIBLIOGRAPHIES.COM]
Welcome to Oxford Bibliographies
Developed cooperatively with scholars and librarians worldwide, Oxford Bibliographies offers exclusive, authoritative research guides. Combining the best features of an annotated bibliography and a high-level encyclopedia, this cutting-edge resource directs researchers to the best available scholarship across a wide variety of subjects.
Developed cooperatively with scholars and librarians worldwide, Oxford Bibliographies offers exclusive, authoritative research guides. Combining the best features of an annotated bibliography and a high-level encyclopedia, this cutting-edge resource directs researchers to the best available scholarship across a wide variety of subjects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again, wrong, atheists are simply people who lack a belief in [A THEISTIC] god, they can believe any spectrum of things outside of that.
DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ATHEISM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
so all the atheists are doing is that they look at what is and what isnt and physicks like if a rock
ATHEIST =/= MATERIALIST
Created: