atheists

[Thebobo]

Was it Kierkegaard or was it Wayne's World that said,

If you label me you negate me.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Yes, just like not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief system.

All the definitions you linked would fit a person who has never been exposed to religion. Read two sentences further in the wiki page and that will clear things up as well.

It's getting useless arguing the point though, because you and others are just being stubborn and dense. Atheist is a very broad term in the way it's used today, but it basically means non-theist.

Theists?

I tried the Atheist thing once did not like it. They got no holidays so fuck that shit

 

[Paul98]

Attributing behavior of any phenomenon to anything outside of the necessarily determinism of positive science.

So you think things are predetermined if you don't include a god to make changes or give us freewill?

 

[HumblePie]

You are conflating issues.

Big Business does not operate with Scientific Principles. They may use Science to produce a product, but that's about it. Hell, most of the Theoretical part of the Science they don't even do, they just do what is necessary to bring an established property of something to Market.

Your example invariably shows why Science works. Certainly there was an assumption that pervaded Medicine about the guys idea, but it seemed that there was Corporate Political interference going on as well. Once he provided Data showing his Hypothesis had merit, the Scientific Community quickly opened up to it. If there was a Religious/Dogmatic aspect involved, he would have continued to be ignored.

No, my example was to show that one guys hypothesis went against the current pervading "theory" when he had no reason to do so. The scientific community as well as big business at the time didn't want him to do his line of research for several reasons. Hubris, money, and others all factored into it. The point of the story was how one guy came up with a conflicting hypothesis in direct opposition to the current scientific theory which had evidence and support going for it. Despite all that it turns out his hypothesis was actually correct.

The whole point I was trying to make is one can always come up with ANY hypothesis in science. It doesn't matter how absurd it sounds. It doesn't matter if it has evidence or even goes directly against current evidence found. All one has to do as the next step after creating a hypothesis is form test cases to prove or disprove the hypothesis. It doesn't matter at that point if the tests can or can't be done. Until the tests are done the hypothesis is neither validated or invalidated. Just like the scientist used in my example, he had a test case and couldn't test at first because he was denied the permits to do so. It didn't mean his hypothesis was right or wrong. It is not until the tests have been done and evidence gathered that makes a hypothesis right or wrong. THAT is science at work.

 

[HumblePie]

Theists?

I tried the Atheist thing once did not like it. They got no holidays so fuck that shit

You think all the religions of the world came up with the current holidays we celebrate today? If you are so enamored with holidays, you need to convert over to paganism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Like it or not, it is a belief system.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that dictionaries define our words for us. They simply record word usage, and I'll be the first to concede there is no shortage of people that use "atheism" to (wrongly) describe a belief system. Moreover, there are certainly a fair number of atheists that do take on the belief "zero gods exist," but this is not a necessary belief for atheists, and still, one belief does not a belief system make.

The reality is that atheism is an attribute of many belief systems, but it is not a belief system unto itself.

Your argument seemed to imply that once a person was "exposed" to an idea, a rejection of that idea is tantamount to taking on the positive belief in its negation, but that is a non-sequitur. Let me try to give you an example.

If you asked me how many coins you had in your pocket, I would tell you that I do not know the answer. I've certainly been exposed to the idea of a number of coins in your pocket, but I would not have any evidence to indicate whether the number is 3, 7, 1 or 0. If you asked if I believed there were 10 coins in your pocket, I would answer "no," but you could not conclude from this that I must believe that there are 0 coins in your pocket.

Why then do you think it is legitimate to deduce from the fact that I do not believe there are 1, 3, or 12 gods that I must therefore believe there are 0?

Please also do not confuse the belief that arguments for a god's existence are false for a belief that the proposition "god exists" is false. Atheists do not reject god, but the arguments for a god's existence.

 

[HumblePie]

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that dictionaries define our words for us. They simply record word usage, and I'll be the first to concede there is no shortage of people that use "atheism" to (wrongly) describe a belief system. Moreover, there are certainly a fair number of atheists that do take on the belief "zero gods exist," but this is not a necessary belief for atheists, and still, one belief does not a belief system make.

The reality is that atheism is an attribute of many belief systems, but it is not a belief system unto itself.

Your argument seemed to imply that once a person was "exposed" to an idea, a rejection of that idea is tantamount to taking on the positive belief in it it's negation, but that is a non-sequitur. Let me try to give you an example.

If you asked me how many coins you had in your pocket, I would tell you that I do not know the answer. I've certainly been exposed to the idea of a number of coins in your pocket, but I would not have any evidence to indicate whether the number is 3, 7, 1 or 0. If you asked if I believed there were 10 coins in your pocket, I would answer "no," but you could not conclude from this that I must believe that there are 0 coins in your pocket.

Why then do you think it is legitimate to deduce from the fact that I do not believe there are 1, 3, or 12 gods that I must therefore believe there are 0?

Please also do not confuse the belief that arguments for a god's existence are false for a belief that the proposition god exists is false. Atheists do not reject god, but the arguments for a god's existence.

Dictionaries, usually the abridged versions, do record definitions based upon word usage. However, even the abridged versions typically include the original intended usage of the word and the historical usage or etymology of a word. Unabridged dictionaries usually give only the original definition of the word and perhaps one of the more popular usage definitions.

Atheism as the word was originally created for was to describe people who lack a belief in theism. Not that they are opposed to theism. Not that they reject theism. Just that they lack belief in theism. How that lack of belief occurs doesn't matter. Only that if a person lacks belief in theism, then they are by definition atheist. So that means the following statement is true.

All atheist don't believe in God, but not all atheist reject the idea of God. Lack of exposure to any religious ideas and not forming a religious idea on their own makes a person an atheist.

Keeping definitions simple prevents confusion I found.

 

[Kev]

edit: not worth it

 

[HumblePie]

edit: not worth it

Oh really?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

You want the dictionary definition that states exactly what I said? Or how about googling the word and looking at any number of definitions that state the same thing. A hypothesis is a supposition that doesn't require any evidence an can be asserted with provisional conjecture. Or it can work from a limited base of evidence (0 is a limit the last time I check). It can also be based on already established evidence and facts.

I hypothesis is exactly what I've stated it to be and others in this thread have already said that I was correct on that. Again you fail. Be a man and admit it.

 

[Juddog]

--double post bloops--

 

[Juddog]

There is the belief in something, the belief that something doesn't exist, and the lack of belief in something. The three are all different things.

Strictly speaking, atheism just means lack of belief in god or god(s).

Similar to how people don't believe in santa claus (part of growing up), atheists don't believe in the fairy tales that other people believe in. Not a belief that "that thing absolutely does not exist", but rather "I don't believe in that because you have no proof that it exists or doesn't exist".

In a way, atheism is similar to apathy. Apathy is the lack of emotions, rather than the opposite emotion (e.g. love versus hate).

 

[Kev]

Oh really?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

You want the dictionary definition that states exactly what I said? Or how about googling the word and looking at any number of definitions that state the same thing. A hypothesis is a supposition that doesn't require any evidence an can be asserted with provisional conjecture. Or it can work from a limited base of evidence (0 is a limit the last time I check). It can also be based on already established evidence and facts.

I hypothesis is exactly what I've stated it to be and others in this thread have already said that I was correct on that. Again you fail. Be a man and admit it.

You keep missing the point. The point is that equating a hypothesis with faith is fucking idiotic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith - hey look, I can condescendingly link to wikipedia too.

Tell you what, if you can design an experiment to test the "hypothesis" that "if you don't believe in Jesus, you will go to hell," then I will be a man and admit you were right.

 

[actuarial]

Like it or not, it is a belief system.

How is atheism possibly a belief system? It is only a single belief. There's nothing else that stems from it.

In addition, an absence of belief should never be qualified as a 'belief system', else you're just saying people have an infinite number of belief systems. I reject the existence of unicorns. Is that a belief system?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So you think things are predetermined if you don't include a god to make changes or give us freewill?

Everything is predetermined from a positive-science perspective. You don't need to appeal to a god to escape predetermination, but you do need to get outside of the positive-science paradigm in development of your metaphysics.

Most atheists do this though; they don't know that when they argue for their scientific perspective they are secretly believing in nietzsche/derrida post-structural metaphysics and a nietzsche/sartre nihilistic ethical perspective.

There are literally hundreds of posts in this thread (including the OP) that make reference to these ideas; unfortunately in almost every case the person making the post uses these ideas but thinks of them as"SCIENCE!". The metaphysics of the "being" and what constitutes a "belief" is argued here on a very "applications" level which means this thread will never get to the theoretical assumptions underlying the molotov-one-liners.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that dictionaries define our words for us. They simply record word usage, and I'll be the first to concede there is no shortage of people that use "atheism" to (wrongly) describe a belief system.

If you want to share meaning then you need to use words as they are received (the dictionary). By changing the definition you equivocate in your argumentation. It is possible to be a thought-leader and change the meaning of a word, but this is jargon making, not "properly" defining a term.

If we remove your appeal to equivocation through jargon you've lost this petty argument. Words are variables that contain meaning and if we look up the data-dictionary for the variable and find a definition contrary to the one assumed by the procedure calling the variable then it's the procedure's fault, not the variable's or the other procedure's calling the variable as defined in the data dictionary.

Despite this, you have still won the over-all thought; which says to me you simply need to express yourself in full nuance instead of utilizing an equivocal definition.

 

[destrekor]

You think all the religions of the world came up with the current holidays we celebrate today? If you are so enamored with holidays, you need to convert over to paganism.

No, he doesn't think much period. This is another one of his failed attempts at one-liner comedy, where he uses a mildly-related point simply for the means of spinning a "comedic gem" around it... and always, as usual, falls short of remotely worth reading.

I think it's mainly a ++post-count shtick.

 

[sandorski]

No, my example was to show that one guys hypothesis went against the current pervading "theory" when he had no reason to do so. The scientific community as well as big business at the time didn't want him to do his line of research for several reasons. Hubris, money, and others all factored into it. The point of the story was how one guy came up with a conflicting hypothesis in direct opposition to the current scientific theory which had evidence and support going for it. Despite all that it turns out his hypothesis was actually correct.

The whole point I was trying to make is one can always come up with ANY hypothesis in science. It doesn't matter how absurd it sounds. It doesn't matter if it has evidence or even goes directly against current evidence found. All one has to do as the next step after creating a hypothesis is form test cases to prove or disprove the hypothesis. It doesn't matter at that point if the tests can or can't be done. Until the tests are done the hypothesis is neither validated or invalidated. Just like the scientist used in my example, he had a test case and couldn't test at first because he was denied the permits to do so. It didn't mean his hypothesis was right or wrong. It is not until the tests have been done and evidence gathered that makes a hypothesis right or wrong. THAT is science at work.

Ok, I misunderstood.

 

[HumblePie]

You keep missing the point. The point is that equating a hypothesis with faith is fucking idiotic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith - hey look, I can condescendingly link to wikipedia too.

Tell you what, if you can design an experiment to test the "hypothesis" that "if you don't believe in Jesus, you will go to hell," then I will be a man and admit you were right.

No, I'm not equating faith with what a hypothesis is. Geez you are fucking dense.

I stated you can make any fucking statement you fucking want as a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't matter what the hell you say. I can say all dinosaurs were purple. I can say there is little green on Mars. I can say whatever the hell I want. THAT is what a hypothesis is. A fucking statement. It is the ACT of devising tests, and then testing your hypothesis that are the next steps in the scientific method.

I stated that usually one must have faith in their hypothesis being right if that hypothesis is made when there is ZERO evidence before formulating the hypothesis that is may be right. Or even worse, when there is evidence but it all shows so far that your hypothesis is incorrect. That was the example I used with the Australian scientist trying to cure ulcers. He had a hyopthesis he came up with in the face of current pervading scientific theories. He had to have faith to drive him forward in his research to do his tests.

You are a too dense to even understand what I'm talking about and are too stupid to admit that you are wrong on this. YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG.

as for your link.. here's mine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

definition 1 and 2.

Definition 2 is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Having faith in something is not only a religious act. I can have faith in knowing that my neighbor will put out his trashcans next Tuesday on trash day. Not that I know he will. Not that I have evidence he is going to do this action. I will not be able to test or validate my hypothesis, that my neighbor will put out his trashcans next Tuesday, until the actual event happens from which I can gather evidence. That doesn't mean I can not use my hypothesis to do other things. Like plan a booby trap for my neighbor so when he puts his trashcan out at the curb he trips or something. See what I'm trying to show here? I don't know if he will put out his can. I have a hypothesis he will. I can't test until Tuesday occurs. I can in the meantime have faith in my hypothesis being correct and make plans off my hypothesis.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you want to share meaning then you need to use words as they are received (the dictionary).

Dictionaries can be useful arbiters of meaning, but they are not authoritative. I've been reasonably rigorous in communicating my meaning, so the definitions in the dictionary are trivial.

By changing the definition you equivocate in your argumentation.

I've only equivocated if the meaning I've used has changed through the course of my arguments, but it hasn't.

 

[destrekor]

No, I'm not equating faith with what a hypothesis is. Geez you are fucking dense.

I stated you can make any fucking statement you fucking want as a scientific hypothesis. It doesn't matter what the hell you say. I can say all dinosaurs were purple. I can say there is little green on Mars. I can say whatever the hell I want. THAT is what a hypothesis is. A fucking statement. It is the ACT of devising tests, and then testing your hypothesis that are the next steps in the scientific method.

I stated that usually one must have faith in their hypothesis being right if that hypothesis is made when there is ZERO evidence before formulating the hypothesis that is may be right. Or even worse, when there is evidence but it all shows so far that your hypothesis is incorrect. That was the example I used with the Australian scientist trying to cure ulcers. He had a hyopthesis he came up with in the face of current pervading scientific theories. He had to have faith to drive him forward in his research to do his tests.

You are a too dense to even understand what I'm talking about and are too stupid to admit that you are wrong on this. YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG.

as for your link.. here's mine.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

definition 1 and 2.

Definition 2 is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Having faith in something is not only a religious act. I can have faith in knowing that my neighbor will put out his trashcans next Tuesday on trash day. Not that I know he will. Not that I have evidence he is going to do this action. I will not be able to test or validate my hypothesis, that my neighbor will put out his trashcans next Tuesday, until the actual event happens from which I can gather evidence. That doesn't mean I can not use my hypothesis to do other things. Like plan a booby trap for my neighbor so when he puts his trashcan out at the curb he trips or something. See what I'm trying to show here? I don't know if he will put out his can. I have a hypothesis he will. I can't test until Tuesday occurs. I can in the meantime have faith in my hypothesis being correct and make plans off my hypothesis.

Blind Faith and "faith" in procedural and repetitive (and testable) circumstances are two entirely different forms of faith, and should not even be spoken of with the same fundamental description.

Religious faith is Blind Faith.
Everyday faith is like the type you use to navigate roads... for instance, I have "faith" other people will know to stop at the light when they have a red light that has been red for some time - I don't when it's flashing red, though. or about to turn red - zero faith at that time, I never go the instant it turns green unless traffic is obviously not a hazard.
That's not a metaphysical faith, that's more or less expecting behavior patterns, trends, and otherwise testable specifics... to occur tomorrow like they occurred today, yesterday, and last week.
I focused it for point, but in general, that kind of faith deserves a distinction from Blind Faith, because they are quite radically different. It's also one you are more likely to say "yeah, I'm not feeling like trusting this observation today..."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Dictionaries can be useful arbiters of meaning, but they are not authoritative.

If you are getting any reasonable flack it's because the dictionary is more authoritative than posts are.

Let me offer a example:

Everyone that isn't nihilistic believes in God. This is because I define God as truth and if you believe in truth you therefore believe in God. You may think God means sky-fairy, which you point out to me in the dictionary: but if we agree I get to re-define words if I'm specific enough, then you must agree with my premise under the conditions given. This poor argument, while not an analog of your argumentation, is an example of the problems we create when we re-define the meaning of words in order to support a premise. *

I would like to encourage the creation of a word instead of the re-maping of a dictionary word.

For example, athegnostic atheagnostic theagnostic and theaagnostic would offer a communication symbol set that would require specific definition within the context of the argumentation, allow for exacting meaning when speaking and alleviate the connotative equivocation that can occur from re-defining words that already exist and that have heavy connotative meanings.

I've only equivocated if the meaning I've used has changed through the course of my arguments, but it hasn't.

True; I falsely accused you of fallacious reasoning when, in fact, it's simply sub-optimal communication.


*another problematic is that while we clearly add a sub-definition to the word we also bring with the word connotative meaning; with this in mind it is very easy to question the propaganda-like intent of such re-definition and reject the re-definition based on the contradictory meaning that the connotation of the word would bring about when using the new definition.

For example, with my re-definition we could only ever have atheagnostics and thea-gnostic/agnostics when clearly it is not logically impossible for an athegnostic to exist: what with that being the dictionary definition of an atheist.



DAMIT... long post in a religion thread... I lose

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you are getting any reasonable flack it's because the dictionary is more authoritative than posts are.

I think we disagree on which matter dictionaries are authoritative. As I've said, they record word usage, and you will rarely find me disagreeing that definitions offered by dictionaries are meanings legitimately in use by people.

It seems (and feel free to set me straight) that you regard dictionaries as some kind of "deciders" of "true" definitions -- as if one must resign to the definitions in the dictionary if another were to take issue with an uncommon usage employed in an argument.

In fact, I am the most authoritative source for the meanings of my words. If a person would like to understand the meanings of of the words I've used, he should ask me, not a dictionary.

Let me offer a example:

Everyone that isn't nihilistic believes in God. This is because I define God as truth and if you believe in truth you therefore believe in God. You may think God means sky-fairy, which you point out to me in the dictionary: but if we agree I get to re-define words if I'm specific enough, then you must agree with my premise under the conditions given. This poor argument, while not an analog of your argumentation, is an example of the problems we create when we re-define the meaning of words in order to support a premise. *

I contend that I have not redefined any word, but that I have presented a more useful and precise definition which is actually in use, albeit less so than the more popular and less rigorous usage which I'm constantly battling. In contrast to your "God is truth" definition, I believe I can supply good reasons to accept and use the definition of "atheism" as I've used it -- reasons with which rational people should agree.

I would like to encourage the creation of a word instead of the re-maping of a dictionary word.

For example, athegnostic atheagnostic theagnostic and theaagnostic would offer a communication symbol set that would require specific definition within the context of the argumentation, allow for exacting meaning when speaking and alleviate the connotative equivocation that can occur from re-defining words that already exist and that have heavy connotative meanings.

Again, I haven't redefined anything. Also, we already have a perfectly good word to serve our purposes, and I think it is an abuse of language to invent new terms where others can serve quite adequately.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It seems (and feel free to set me straight) that you regard dictionaries as some kind of "deciders" of "true" definitions

Quite to the contrary; I believe the objective-reality of a symbol (such as a word) is socially constructed with nuance and meaning that varies in any given context in ways that can hardly be accounted for by a simple dictionary.

But with that, also, we must contend with the fact that despite clear statements of suppositions, intentions and even nuanced delineation of meaning (on the part of you, the sender) we also have receiver contextual factors that delimit understanding, interpretation and ability to comprehend the newly detailed symbol.

As such, I believe that delineation of nuance in a word to such a point that generally-accepted meanings are lost is the abuse of language.

To create a new symbol that is more free from denotative and connotative meaning in the mind of the receiver, i believe, is a perfectly valid method of moving past the intellectual-dishonesty intrinsic in appealing to symbols that would have otherwise evoked not only the meaning intended, but also other implied meanings.

The best reason, though I disagree with this reason, to use an existing word for such detail is to change the way the person viewing the symbol generally accepts and interprets it: to suppress the contrary meanings previously intrinsic in the way the receiver accepted the word. This is what I call propaganda.

I assume, though, that you identify with your detailed explication of the symbol given and as such you are simply expressing your identity through the word; not as an intent to create or disseminate intellectually dishonest propaganda, but as an honest expression of "self".

To this end I applaud the attempt, particularly as it may relate to trying to help others not only understand the logic internal to the word-game that makes up your world, but also as it may help others that would otherwise be socially repressed by intellectually dishonest discourse.

*****
Actually I don't agree with the social-constructivist semiotics perspective just used... but I feel that I'm already pushing being dismissed for being so fancy-pants with my words; so a detailed explanation of ontology as the facticity of hermeneutics and the relation of that to the ontoic and the aforementioned epistemic system of semiotics would probably get an "eyes roll" emoticon in response.

 

[PowerEngineer]

The whole point I was trying to make is one can always come up with ANY hypothesis in science. It doesn't matter how absurd it sounds. It doesn't matter if it has evidence or even goes directly against current evidence found. All one has to do as the next step after creating a hypothesis is form test cases to prove or disprove the hypothesis. It doesn't matter at that point if the tests can or can't be done. Until the tests are done the hypothesis is neither validated or invalidated. Just like the scientist used in my example, he had a test case and couldn't test at first because he was denied the permits to do so. It didn't mean his hypothesis was right or wrong. It is not until the tests have been done and evidence gathered that makes a hypothesis right or wrong. THAT is science at work.

Since the establishment of a hypothesis to test is the first step in the scientific method, it is virtually by definition that a hypothesis starts out with no evidence to support it. Once the hypothesis has been established, however, we need to follow through (as you describe) by designing methods to collect data while we test the hypothesis so that on completion we can determine whether or not the hypothesis descibes our real world. Hypothesis that are demonstrated to be true add to our scientific understanding of reality; hypothesis that turn out to be false are discarded.

I'm not sure that the scientific approach to knowledge allows for a "limbo" to hold untested and/or untestable hypothesis. It seems to me that until these hypothesis are tested (e.g. the tooth fairy and string theory?), they need to be banished into the realm of philosophy/religion.

 

[Mike Gayner]

lololololololololololololololololololol

 

[DominionSeraph]

As such, I believe that delineation of nuance in a word to such a point that generally-accepted meanings are lost is the abuse of language.

It's just going back to roots. Try to keep up.
Avatar related.