Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 116

Thread: Eldorian and Mistwell argue about religion.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    Ehhhh.... which one? They both seem pretty fucking whacky to me.

    errrrmmh... the use of 'troof' and '!!!1!' didn't clue you in on the spoof?

 

  • #32
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,571

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Halo View Post
    errrrmmh... the use of 'troof' and '!!!1!' didn't clue you in on the spoof?
    They've been spoofed! OMG!!! NSA is spying on our religious intellectuals crazies!

  • #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    I challenge you to define "disbelieve".
    Although I can't answer for Ovi, perhaps this may help:
    Theist: I "know" that God exists.
    Atheist: I "know" that God does not exist.
    Agnostic: I "do not know" whether God exists or not.

    In my humble opinion, to simply state that those who are not in the "I 'know' God exists" camp are athiests represents a false dichotomy. Do you disagree with this assertion Eldorian? Perhaps I am oversimplifying your argument here. Thoughts?

  • #34
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    4,996

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Devoid View Post
    Although I can't answer for Ovi, perhaps this may help:
    Theist: I "know" that God exists.
    Atheist: I "know" that God does not exist.
    Agnostic: I "do not know" whether God exists or not.

    In my humble opinion, to simply state that those who are not in the "I 'know' God exists" camp are athiests represents a false dichotomy. Do you disagree with this assertion Eldorian? Perhaps I am oversimplifying your argument here. Thoughts?
    Thoughts? Both the definitions for theist and atheist are wrong, both in Ovi's "general consensus" and in any literature on the subject. Theism is about belief, not knowledge. Atheism is exactly the lack of theism.

    And you didn't define "disbelieve".

  • #35
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    Thoughts? Both the definitions for theist and atheist are wrong, both in Ovi's "general consensus" and in any literature on the subject. Theism is about belief, not knowledge. Atheism is exactly the lack of theism.

    And you didn't define "disbelieve".
    Have you tried Google?

  • #36
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Reference.com:
    dis·be·lief
    [dis-bi-leef] Show IPA

    noun
    1.
    the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
    Oxford @ oxforddictionaries.com

    disbelief
    Syllabification: dis·be·lief
    Pronunciation: /ˌdisbəˈlēf 

    noun

    1Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
    Merriam Webster
    dis·be·lief
    noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\

    : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real
    All in the top five hits for 'disbelief' on Google.

    This is fairly conclusive that 'don't believe' is different from 'disbelief.'

    EDIT: in that one can not believe, yet not exihibit disbelief, which is a refusal or rejection of believe. I don't believe in a God, neither do I disbelieve in a God. Eldorian's argument is a false dichotomy.
    Last edited by Ovinomancer; April 2nd, 2014 at 10:12 PM.

  • #37
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    4,996

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    This is fairly conclusive that 'don't believe' is different from 'disbelief.'
    The challenge was to define "disbelieve", a verb. "don't believe" is obviously different from "disbelief", being different parts of speech and all.

    If you want to play the definition game, play it right. Check your same resources.

    EDIT: in that one can not believe, yet not exihibit disbelief, which is a refusal or rejection of believe. I don't believe in a God, neither do I disbelieve in a God. Eldorian's argument is a false dichotomy.
    What argument are you now claiming I've made, which you also claim is a false dichotomy? You gonna throw around fancy logical phrases like "false dichotomy", you ought to know that the law of excluded middle isn't one. You really don't want to bring this into a symbolic logic argument.

    I don't believe in a God, neither do I disbelieve in a God.
    You really want to double down on that?

  • #38
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldorian View Post
    The challenge was to define "disbelieve", a verb. "don't believe" is obviously different from "disbelief", being different parts of speech and all.

    If you want to play the definition game, play it right. Check your same resources.



    What argument are you now claiming I've made, which you also claim is a false dichotomy? You gonna throw around fancy logical phrases like "false dichotomy", you ought to know that the law of excluded middle isn't one. You really don't want to bring this into a symbolic logic argument.



    You really want to double down on that?
    Disbelieve has many of the same trigger words in it's definition: to be unable to believe. To refuse or reject belief. To hold not worthy of belief. I say those are different from not believing -- it's a stronger statement that not only do you not believe, you find yourself incapable of belief or that your reject belief. Disbelieve is the stronger statement over not believing.

    Not believing is necessary to disbelieving. Disbelieving is not necessary to not believing. I can not believe without engaging in refusal or rejection of belief. Much like not assembling is necessary for disassembling, but you can not assemble whilst also not disassembling.

    I do not reject or refuse to believe in God. I find myself in the position that I have no reason to believe in a God, nor do I have a reason to not believe in a God. Apathy isn't appropriate, as I am interested in the debate -- I just do not find one side or the other worthy of support. Theists believe in God. Atheists reject God as a belief -- albeit with differing levels of intensity. Agnostics, as it applies to this discussion, just haven't picked a camp. Your overly broad use of agnostic to just imply that there's a lack of concrete knowledge debases the term -- it's no longer useful because all persons have a lack of knowledge, theists and atheists and those in the middle alike.

  • #39
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,013

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Turjan View Post
    In principle, you both have a point. Eldorian's definition is correct, and agnosticism is for the most part just a subset of atheism, which means you don't believe in a god. Whether you positively believe he doesn't exist or don't know whether he exists is a semantic distinction that doesn't matter, as "don't believe he exists" doesn't mean anything else than "don't know whether he exists because lack of evidence". That's just a simple scientific view point.

    But, as I said, you have a point here, as, unfortunately, the American debate regarding this subject has been conquered by Creationists who managed to re-define the term atheist to "definitely knows that God doesn't exist", so they can say that being an atheist is at least as crazy as believing in a sky daddy with a big beard. Good on them. You are as stupid as us, har har (just contrasting the intended effect vs. the actual effect here; I generally don't berate believers, as long as they don't take their belief as excuse to force some obvious factual stupidities on me, like that Earth is only 6000 years old).

    So Tyson would be termed an atheist everywhere else, but I can understand that he wants to avoid that label like the devil the holy water, so the agnosticism label is suited much better for someone in the US nowadays, even if it basically means the same thing as atheism in most cases (the only exception are those agnostics that don't know which God to believe in).
    This is possibly true, I lack the experience to gainsay you. However, that smells like the atheist movement defining the term as broadly as possible to secure the largest possible block of 'friendly' support, not that it's an accurate term to describe the various states of religious belief. It's silly to attempt to define religious belief as a locked duality -- either you're for it or against it. Neutral needs a term as well. Agnostic has been in use for a long time in more than just the US to describe neutrals in the contest of religous belief.

  • #40
    can't be bothered Eldorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Province
    US
    Oratio
    4,996

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Disbelieve has many of the same trigger words in it's definition: to be unable to believe. To refuse or reject belief. To hold not worthy of belief. I say those are different from not believing -- it's a stronger statement that not only do you not believe, you find yourself incapable of belief or that your reject belief. Disbelieve is the stronger statement over not believing.

    Not believing is necessary to disbelieving. Disbelieving is not necessary to not believing. I can not believe without engaging in refusal or rejection of belief. Much like not assembling is necessary for disassembling, but you can not assemble whilst also not disassembling.

    I do not reject or refuse to believe in God. I find myself in the position that I have no reason to believe in a God, nor do I have a reason to not believe in a God. Apathy isn't appropriate, as I am interested in the debate -- I just do not find one side or the other worthy of support. Theists believe in God. Atheists reject God as a belief -- albeit with differing levels of intensity. Agnostics, as it applies to this discussion, just haven't picked a camp. Your overly broad use of agnostic to just imply that there's a lack of concrete knowledge debases the term -- it's no longer useful because all persons have a lack of knowledge, theists and atheists and those in the middle alike.
    You've picked the wrong words to back. Disbelieve means "to not believe". All that "refuse" or "reject" or "to hold not worthy of" belief is just a dictionary's way of elaborating. The only difference between "rejecting a belief" and "not believing" is that it's possible to not believe something you're unaware of, whereas you can't reject something unless it's first offered. The distinction you're trying to make, the one that is a logical distinction, is to believe not, ie. you want to claim that atheists believe there are no gods, theists believe there is at least one, and you're in some camp in between which you want to call agnostic. Unfortunately, these are not the commonly used definitions in anything like serious discourse.

    Unfortunately for you, agnostic already has meaning, and it's nothing to do with belief in gods. It is a position about knowledge, whether any god's existence is known or even knowable. This is what the word was coined for, it's what the word means (without knowledge). I don't debase the term, I use it exactly for what it means, what Huxley meant, and what those who have followed him have meant.

    You only reject the term atheist because theists are much more accepting of "agnostic" and you don't want to be associated with the "New Atheists" movement.

    The only "neutrals" in the "contest of religious belief" are those who are aware of religious belief but undecided on what they believe, which I don't have a word for. You're looking for a position of neutrality in the contest of religious conflict, in which the New Atheist movement is opposed to any religious ideas having power. That's the position you're shying away from. What you really want to say is that, while you don't believe in any gods (and it helps here if you stop using the capital G, or one of these days you'll be called a Wiccan or some shit), you're not an antitheist.

  • #41
    Cockface! Turjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Vienna
    Oratio
    5,859

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    This is possibly true, I lack the experience to gainsay you. However, that smells like the atheist movement defining the term as broadly as possible to secure the largest possible block of 'friendly' support, not that it's an accurate term to describe the various states of religious belief.
    But it's the historical definition of atheism that Eldorian and I use. And I tried to make clear why this makes sense. When I define myself as atheist and say that I don't see the actions of any god on this planet, which means that I don't think that "He" exists, then this is just the conclusion for my life that I draw from this. If you want to know the details, then I will tell you that, of course, nobody can prove a negative, so I obviously cannot tell whether some god exists, especially given that "modern" gods are described as being transcendent. For example, there is no way I could rule out a deist setup. For all practical intents and purposes, this distinction is irrelevant though, as, if there aren't any effects that can be ascribed to a god, it doesn't matter whether he exists or not. It's not a useful distinction in any way or form. And this is basically the reason why most forms of agnosticism can be safely lumped into atheism, which means, lack of belief in a god. It's even in the word, a-theism. Not theism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    It's silly to attempt to define religious belief as a locked duality -- either you're for it or against it. Neutral needs a term as well.
    Now you really have to tell me what is silly about this. Either you believe in a god or you do not. It's really that simple. If you don't know whether there is one, you obviously lack any belief in a god. You are not a theist.

    If you read my initial post closely, you may have noticed that I acknowledged that the words "atheist" and "agnostic" have different meanings, as they describe two different concepts. The two groups have about a 80-90% overlap. Outside of this overlapping region, there are fringe atheists that are crazy in their absolute beliefs, and there are fringe agnostics that don't know whether to believe in the Christian God, a mighty tree, of maybe Odin, but are clearly theists, even if maybe only pan-theists. Which means agnostics overlap with theists and atheists.

    On your point regarding that agnostics are included into atheists in order to win power in the battle, I have to disappoint you, as I don't really see much of an atheist movement. It's a handful of activists. Where I live, it's between a third to half atheists in the population. Their main characteristic is that nearly all of them are not interested in religion and don't talk about it. Which makes sense. I really only started to get into religious debates when I was sitting between two outspoken Mormons, and there were loud preachers in front of the door of my workplace every day, who talked of the hellfire that all of their listeners would meet in their future for sure. Or Pentecoastals who insisted on telling me their literal interpretation of specific Bible verses.
    Last edited by Turjan; April 4th, 2014 at 06:49 PM.

  • #42
    Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    Crystal Lake, IL
    Oratio
    8,366

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Turjan View Post
    If you don't know whether there is one, you obviously lack any belief in a god. You are not a theist.
    I suspect some of the Jesuits that taught philosophy and theology when I went to Marquette would have a thing or two to say about this construction...
    My Other Sword Is Vorpal

  • #43
    Cockface! Turjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Vienna
    Oratio
    5,859

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    I suspect some of the Jesuits that taught philosophy and theology when I went to Marquette would have a thing or two to say about this construction...
    You think so? Fusangite is not the only believing Christian atheist I know.

  • #44
    Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Province
    Crystal Lake, IL
    Oratio
    8,366

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Turjan View Post
    You think so? Fusangite is not the only believing Christian atheist I know.
    Oh sure...at least as I understood the material they were teaching lo these many years ago...

    Belief and knowledge are different things. The truth table isn't as simple as four boxes.
    My Other Sword Is Vorpal

  • #45
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Turjan View Post
    Where I live, it's between a third to half atheists in the population. Their main characteristic is that nearly all of them are not interested in religion and don't talk about it. Which makes sense. I really only started to get into religious debates when I was sitting between two outspoken Mormons, and there were loud preachers in front of the door of my workplace every day, who talked of the hellfire that all of their listeners would meet in their future for sure. Or Pentecoastals who insisted on telling me their literal interpretation of specific Bible verses.
    But that's just, like, their freedom of religion, man.

    Why must you persecute believers by talking about your atheism?



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

  • Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •