You are also young and egotistical — Shwah
You did not know the reference — Shwah
you referred to late witt's language games — Shwah
Now what makes us it difficult for us to take this line of investigation is our craving for generality. This craving for generality is the resultant of a number of tendencies connected with particular philosophical confusions.
...
The idea of a general concept being a common property of its particular instances connects up with other primitive, too simple, ideas of the structure of language. It is comparable to the idea that properties are ingredients of the things which have the properties; e.g. that beauty is an ingredient of all beautiful things as alcohol is of beer and wine, and that we therefore could have pure beauty, unadulterated by anything that is beautiful.
There is a tendency rooted in our usual forms of expression, to think that the man who has learnt to understand a general term, say, the term "leaf", has thereby come to possess a kind of general picture of a leaf, as opposed to pictures of particular leaves. He was shown different leaves when he learnt the meaning of the word "leaf"; and showing him the particular leaves was only a means to the end of producing 'in him' an idea which we imagine to be some kind of general image. We say that he sees what is in common to all these leaves; and this is true if we mean that he can on being asked tell us certain features or properties which they have in common. But we are inclined to think that the general idea of a leaf is something like a visual image, but one which only contains what is common to all leaves. (Galtonian composite photograph.) This again is connected with the idea that the meaning of a word is an image, or a thing correlated to the word. — Blue Book
If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.
— Gregory A
— EugeneW
I don't follow. If atheism is valid wouldn't they be able to talk with mouths wide open and loud words? It are the theists who should be silent.
This is confusing. The invalidity of atheism seems equivalent to the validity of theism. Is naturalism compatible with theism?
I'm not sure atheists believe in mermaids and unicorns. They can be found in principle while gods live in a world outside of the universe. But then again, maybe mermaids and unicorns live along with the gods.
That depends on the atheist and the power they possess. I'm a theist and an anarchist.
The atheist's challenge is not to 'put up' but is to put up or shut up. — Gregory A
No more, as far as I can see, than in hanging up on a telemarketer or a robocall. We do not owe one another our ears. As a believer in free speech, I think we owe one another only tolerance. I do try to hurt you or lock you away because we disagree and you do the same.It is an attempt at censorship. — Gregory A
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Jefferson
If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in. — Gregory A
So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god? — L'éléphant
So I have already answered your second sentence above but not under the condition of 'every human I meet' but under the condition of 'every human alive.' The existence of so many atheists and the fact that the numbers are growing is part of what keeps my own atheism affirmed.If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it too. — universeness
If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in. — Gregory A
The atheist's challenge is not to 'put up' but is to put up or shut up.
— Gregory A
— lll
Imagine a stranger or an acquaintance comes up to you and assures you that their grandmother came back from the dead or that their son leaped over the house. You'd be intrigued. At least I would. But I'd want some evidence pronto and get bored pretty quickly with various excuses. 'No one knew she was dead but me, but really she came back.' Or 'my son can only do it when no one is looking or just me.' If there were more witnesses supporting these claims, I'd more more intrigued. But I want to see the dead restored to life or the boy pull an ET over my house. The 'shut up' that comes from impatience is just symbolic of my right and yours to not have to listen to those who have lost our trust or respect. At times it's seems that theistic complaints are even a bit entitled, as if they don't just want protection from censorship (which they have in the US) but rather a captive audience.
No more, as far as I can see, than in hanging up on a telemarketer or a robocall. We do not owe one another our ears. As a believer in free speech, I think we owe one another only tolerance. I do try to hurt you or lock you away because we disagree and you do the same.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
— Jefferson
In my experience, theists often fail to note just how moral and even neurotic their foils those pesky agnostic or atheistic liberals can be. Or I wasn't invited to the pansexual key party this month. Hard to say. Neither decency nor smug self-righteousness require religious belief or its absence. In my experience, most people have some kind of patchwork religion of childhood Christianity, self-help books, sci-fi, conspiracy theory. I find the theist/atheist issue way too binary, way too simple. I just want to know that neighbor isn't a maniac who can't deal with not being the center of the world, happy enough in his/her beliefs to not need my approval or admiration.
The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right — Gregory A
If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in.
— Gregory A
— universeness
This skewed logic of yours is pure sophistry and as I have already stated, insignificant. You just string nonsense together and hope you can get near the bullseye on the dartboard. I think you are not even throwing darts in the same room the dartboard hangs in.
What does Matt Dillahunty talk about on YouTube on a daily basis. What do your nemeses such as Richard Dawkins write books about? What do groups like MythVision discuss on a daily basis.
Do you think your silly metalogic invalidates atheism and actually supports the OP title?
I find it very difficult to offer you anything but scorn and mockery.
You type with the thoughts of a character like a sandwich board man with the words 'Atheism is invalid' chalked on either side as you wander aimlessly up and down the high street exclaiming 'atheists should not speak because they are atheist and because they are all leftists and because they.......well....just because......
, he at least could have answered some of the questions I asked. — EugeneW
I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it — Gregory A
But if on the other hand if I should challenge its 'existence' (something only a dummy could do) I would then give credence to the possibility it may exist. I would be bringing myself down to the same level as those who believe it exists. Got it yet — Gregory A
There are many theories and books on the JFK assassination, but only the one assassin, Lee Oswald — Gregory A
The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right
— Gregory A
:rofl:
So, this is your logic? The left and the right make a whole. So the left is half of the whole. So the left has at best, half of a chance of being RIGHT. Apart from laughing about your poor handling of the words left and right in "LEFT has only half a chance of being RIGHT."
You conflate ratios with politics to try to make a logical point. We have not to consider the moralities of right-wing or left-wing politics, we have just to consider their 50%, coin-toss chance of being correct.
REALLY? — universeness
It is my logic. If x amount of people are on the left, the same number on the right, then given those parameters the Left has only half a chance of being right. The moral of the story, you really should have thought things over before becoming the leftwing extremist that you are. — Gregory A
naturalism — Gregory A
It's just my attempt to calm the disturbance created by the belief/non-belief or believer/non-believer wave machine.That seems so odd to say that 'positive confidence level' idea. — Shwah
No theism has always been about specific God claims. If theism was purely just the non-starter that is "belief" then why would theists ever disagree with each other — Shwah
atheists are clearly antagonistic to theists. — Shwah
There's no disbelief/ambiguity there but even if there was, that metric wouldn't be enough to describe the situations or what those words have been/are doing for all of human history (or even one moment). — Shwah
I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it
— Gregory A
— universeness
No, because you just told me you don't believe in the 'flying spaghetti monster.' Why did you do that is your logic demands your silence on that which you don't believe exists? Got it?
I don't think you should call yourself a dummy for not believing in the 'flying spaghetti monster.'
I agree with you that it doesn't exist, how's that for common ground! Welcome to our same level. Have you got it yet?
Yeah? You don't believe the one about the kill shot coming accidentally, from one of his own security men? or the triangular assassins hidden on the 'grassy knoll' etc. Have you got enough space on your sandwich board to reveal the truth about the JFK assassination as well? Do you still not get it yet?
Sorry Gregory A, but I am still laughing at your logic.
I will stop now.......:lol: ....sorry! — universeness
Matt Dillahunty gives a very good explanation of atheism in his gumball machine analogy.
The number of gumballs in a machine is either odd or even.
If I tell you that the number is even, do you believe me?
Theism may say yes they do believe me, without requiring a count.
Atheism does not accept the claim due to the lack of convincing evidence.
This does not mean that the atheist takes the alternate view, that the number of gumballs is odd.
They simply hold the VALID position of 'we do not currently know the number of gumballs.'
Atheism is therefore a completely valid position.
Matt suggests this is the correct definition of atheism, it is a rejection of the god posit but does not state that the existence of god is impossible. But Matt has also assigned a 'positive confidence level' to his rejection of the god posit towards a percentage level similar to my own. This does little damage, in my opinion, to the atheist position that god is not impossible.
an hour ago — universeness
Naturalism is not an escape pod for atheism. Newton, when he established the foundations of science, said something to the effect that only God could've been the one behind the laws of nature of which a handful he enumerated.
There's no arguing with theists. The laws that miracles violate and the miracles themselves, as per theists, are God's work. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Heads I win, tails you lose kinda deal! — Agent Smith
You seem to be showing even more how inaccurate saying "theism is just belief" is or you're showing a worse claim "theism cannot be a purely linguistic claim (as it can lead to issues)" but that latter would apply to anything and never manage to supplant the issues/inaccuracies of using an epistemological position for theism (or any -ism really) and it seems circular anyways ("what is theism? It's belief in God", perhaps god-fearingly so) — Shwah
In any case, religion itself is an application of a theistic claim — Shwah
There is possibly, in the philosophy of religion, a pentaune (five-in-one) God with distinct possible derivations and thought puzzles which may intuit issues or benefits in the triune God vs the unitarian God. Keep in mind that no religion of a pentaune God exists. — Shwah
No, referencing something that my adversaries have constructed is not at odds with my non-belief. — Gregory A
No, you are not going to corner me in with words. And I've never believed anything other than the Warren Commision's finding based on the evidence available. All else unsuported by facts. I'm a non-believer in a conspiracy, consequently I have nothing to say about it. Still don't get it yet? — Gregory A
No problem. I'm embarrassed by your stupidity — Gregory A
There is no escape for atheism. The 'this is what we've been waiting for' thing that they will try and lay on us if science suggests God is a possibility, will not work. That escape is covered. Naturailsm is not a non-belief in God, but is a 'belief' in Nature, a naturally occurring universe. Atheism, as the term suggests, says nothing about Nature. Miracles? You must be talking about religion? What does that have to do with theism really? — Gregory A
a lot like Alice falling down the rabbit hole and discovering all sorts of characters who don't make a lick of sense. — Joe Mello
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.