01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 |
<= [721][722][723][724][725][726][727][728][729][730] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3028 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Thousands of years later, in English, one cannot go strictly by an ancient construct of the word.« **
Why not? I can! And I do it without changing any linguistic form, neither of the Ancient Greek nor of the English language. So it is correct to do that. One merely has to arrange with one or more of the others about the meanings of the language forms (i.e.: the Ancient Greek language has disappeared but not its meanings and forms). And if that is the case, then referring to another language, especially to a "dead" language like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit ... and others, is no problem at all.
James S. Saint wrote:
»English Prefix a-
1. a reduced form of the Old English preposition on, meaning on, in, into, to, toward preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate adjective or an adverbial element (afoot; abed; ashore; aside; away), or before an adjective (afar; aloud; alow), as a moribund prefix with a verb (acknowledge), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present participle in -ing (set the bells aringing); and added to a verb stem with the force of a present participle (ablaze; agape; aglow; astride; and originally, awry).So strictly by the construction of toward, the word in English would be toward-theism, into-theism. English uses bits of many languages and often one ancient root is contrary to another.
Greek Prefix a-
prefix
1. not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocialNot only has the formal definition of atheism been established for more than a century, but the use of the word hasn't changed a bit. Atheists believe that there is no God. The formal definition of Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Atheists proclaim there is no God and in arguments attempt to prove that there cannot be a God. They are God-haters. And for those who simply don't know or care, English as a specific word that means that, Agnostic (which uses that Greek root for a-: a-gnostic = void-of-knowing, without-knowing, and also against-knowing).
Greek Prefix an-
prefix
1. not; without: anaphrodisiacIf they are so concerned, as they obviously are, why not just use the word, Antheist, Antitheist, or Agnostic. They don't because it is intended as a semantic game of rhetoric and feigned innocence. They worship their savior-god Plausible Deniability, the god of serpents, cowards, liars, and thieves.« **
I prefer the original meaning of both the prefix »a« and the prefix »anti«, so that I can correctly say: most modern atheists are antitheists. I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning of the Ancient Greek prefix »a« because of rhetorical reasons. But all this rhetorical reasons don't matter for those who know what is meant by the original morphemes »a« and »anti«and what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes »a« and »anti«.
Another example:
Are antifeminists called »afeminists«? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists. Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. »masculinists«) that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call »opposition« or »fighting against«. Feminism, militarism, theism, ... and so on (there is just no end ...) - they are all part of Hegel's Dialektik, so they develop according to Hegel's dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis. ** **
3029
English is no where close to a strictly codified language. Languages change quite often, including German. Is all of German wrong today merely because ancient Germania spoke it and spelled it differently? French is the same way. Their spelling indicates how they are "supposed" to be speaking it. But do they speak it the way they spell it? Not even close. So The French don't know how to speak French and we must correct them?
When the dictionaries in a land by in large agree on the use of a word, that is the use of the word. It doesn't matter if it is anatomically correctly codified. They aren't machine languages. And what some word USED to mean might be relevant, but it is only what USED to be, not what IS. **
3030 |
3031 |
Arminius wrote:
»I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and death languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy.
For example: The meanings of the Ancient Greek a and anti are solid, fixed meanings. So we should use them when it comes to be precise. And all Western languages do use them when it comes to be precise (for example in science). Why should ILP members not be precise?« ** **
I agree with you in that such is what would be nice for philosophers to do. But the problem is that people at ILP are mostly political drones, not philosophers. And they use language for political affect and manipulation, not accuracy. When it comes to accuracy,
They
Could
NOT
Care
less. **
Actual philosophers are smart enough to simply choose a less ambiguous word. **
Arminius wrote:
»If ILP members should not be precise, then I would stop posting on ILP. In that case all words, all posts, all threads of ILP would be OFF TOPIC, because they would have nothing at all to do with ILP, ILP would not be ILP but ILK (I LOVE Kaffeeklatsch), and that is not what I want ILP to be. ** **
Well, if you want to get together and change it, let me know. **
I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
3032 |
You left out Aristoteles, Kant, and James S. Saint. **
Maybe;
»I Love 9% Philosophy«. **
3033 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»English is no where close to a strictly codified language. Languages change quite often, including German. Is all of German wrong today merely because ancient Germania spoke it and spelled it differently? French is the same way. Their spelling indicates how they are "supposed" to be speaking it. But do they speak it the way they spell it? Not even close.« **
That is true. I have been said the same before in the other thread too.
I do not know about other languages like French or German, but English is certainly a very unscientific or loose language. **
I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and "death" languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy. ** **
It relies on practice far more than rules, which is not a good sign, besides making it difficult for learning. **
English is such a language which you cannot learn only by books, especially its speaking part. It is confusing in general, not to say about exceptions. **
But, let me mention here that both of Hindi and Sanskrit are governed by strict rules, both in writing and speaking. Means, you have to write exactly how you speak and vice verse. No confusion. I do not know about other Asian languages but my guess is that they will follow the same practice too. **
|
3034 |
It sounds like we are in agreement on whether or not a newborn holds the belief that a god exists. But for some reason, you're not aware that the term for one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists is 'atheist'. Therefore, a newborn is an atheist. **
Would you say newborns hold the belief that dragons exist? **
What is the false precondition and how do you know it is false? **
By that logic, a newborn isn't a newborn, as a newborn doesn't know what the word 'newborn' means. Otherwise you're engaging in the fallacious argument of special pleading. **
Do you agree with me that atheist means a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists? **
I gather you don't have a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what 'atheist' means to be an atheist. **
If the god I've posited is ridiculous, then the Christian god is equally ridiculous. **
If an atheist is not a gnostic atheist, then by definition, he/she is an agnostic atheist. **
If all humans stopped believing in gods, a person who didn't believe a god exists would still be an atheist. **
Again: What is the difference between a »non-godbeliever« and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists? **
Please explain how a person who is not a theist is not an atheist. How do you come to the conclusion that atheist = not a theist? **
3035 |
3036 |
3037 |
Arminius wrote:
»If newborns could be classified as atheists (and newborns are NOT atheists), then the rulers would misuse this, because they want the children for themselves, for their system of rule, they want no godbelievers, no theists. What they want are antitheists who firstly call themselves atheists before they show their true face, that they are against theists, thus that they are antitheists. According to the rulers parents who are theists are enemies. Therefore the rulers use a linguistic trick in order to make out of all parents and especially out of all children ....« ** **
That is the bottom line truth of it.
Arminius wrote:
»We know that from history: the rulers of the systems of egalitarianism like communism and other socialisms wanted all people, especially all children (!), to be in conformity with the system. Currently the system is a globalistic system, and it is as antitheistic (rhetorically called: "atheistic") as the systems of egalitarianism. The difference between the globalism and the egalitarianism is that the globalism conists of both the dictatorship of egalitarianism and the dictatorship of liberalism (a.k.a. capitalism), whereas the egalitarianism consists of the dictatorship of egalitarianism and nothing else, but both globalism and egalitarianism are antitheistic (rhetorically called: atheistic).« ** **
Also called »Secularism«.
Arminius wrote:
Rulers, especially the current rulers, want to be like gods; so they want no other gods besides them. If all gods of the past and of the present will be dead, thus out of the brains of their subjects, then the rulers will dictate a new theism (with themselves as gods - of course), and then atheism and antitheism will be forbidden. That's history - its process is not "progressive", not "linear", but it is periodic, thus cyclic, exactly: spiral-cyclic.« ** **
Yep.
Arminius wrote:
This thread is interesting but also terrible, because behind all those euphemistic (rhetoric!) words like atheists, atheism, atheistic of those who are against theists, theism, theistic, thus who are antitheists, permanently works the nihilism (the rhetoric atheism is one of its euphemistic and dishonest forms, antitheism is its strongest and honest form against theism).« ** **
That is why the languages change so much, people using the language against the masses; not allowing certain words, insisting on other words, constant manipulation ..., just like what is happening on this thread. **
I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
3038 |
If you wish to address my latest post on the thread topic with an intellectually honest reply, I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you. **
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
3039 |
Don't forget ILBS
.... I'll let you ask Mithus what that means. **
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«).ILN = (4) ILN 1, (5) ILN 2, (6) ILN 3. ** **
3040 |
It sounds like you're interested in continuing on this discussion. Thanks for making the effort. I'll address this post only you after you address each of my points in the first post in which you avoided my points and questions. Here it is again: .... **
In this world of two categories (theist/atheist) .... **
If a theist is hit on the head, loses the ability to think and goes into a vegetative state, then he automatically becomes an atheist. **
Here comes a typical ILN question:
Do you think that Purgatorius (allegedly an ancestor of the human beings) was a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist?
** **
3041 |
Since atheist means to not hold the belief that a god exists, the »no« for child/atheist is incorrect. If you said »explicit atheist« instead of limiting it to »atheist«, then you would be correct. **
The following shows a semantic feature analysis for the words »theist«, »atheists«, »antitheist«:
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
One could add more features as preconditions for those lexemes (»theist«, »atheist«, »antitheist«) which are also conceptual preconditions, but more features or preconditions are not necessary for this thread. Mark my words: »theist«, »atheists«, »antitheist« are no children! Newborns are children and are not able to really intellctually process the meanings of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theistic«, »atheist«, »atheism«, »atheistic«, »antitheist«, »antitheism«, »antitheistic«. ** **
Then what word would you use to describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?
....
Then please copy and paste the answer you provided. Or tell me what page your answer is on. **
This is a long thread, and it's a lot more work for me to read through the entire thread while trying to read your intentions to find what you think is the answer to my question than for me to ask the question and for you to answer it again. **
A little piece of wisdom. One who avoids a question by saying "I already answered that" is similar to one who responds with "no comment". It almost always means that they are unwilling to lie, but know that an honest answer would seriously compromise their position. It's called reading between the lines. **
I need more information on Purgatorius. Is Purgatorius considered to have been a person? If not, then he wasn't an atheist. **
Where did I say that? **
This is a long thread, and it's a lot more work for me to read through the entire thread while trying to read your intentions to find what you think is the answer to my question than for me to ask the question and for you to answer it again. **
3042 |
Mutcer wrote:
A quote from an 1861 speech by the pioneering feminist and atheist Ernestine Rose shows how many atheists think of atheism. Rose said, »It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so.« In other words, people who set religious belief aside are returning to a state that is natural for humans atheism.« **
A typically dumb quote ... seriously dumb. **
It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are ignorant, and were education not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. In other words, people who set education aside are returning to a state that is natural for humans ignorant/atheism. **
3043 |
It doesn't happen from within. **
3044 |
|
3045 |
3046 |
You're operating under the erroneous assumption that to be an atheist, one must be aware of what a god is. **
Arminius wrote:
»Purgatorius:
« ** **
That doesn't look like the type of creature that would qualify as a »person«. **
Sorry. I never said Purgatorius was an atheist. **
3047 |
3048 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»Mags J. wrote:
Arminius / JSS, please refrain from the ad-hom towards Mutcer ..., you have been warned! **
There haven't been any ad homs toward Mutcer
..., for heaven sake, get a dictionary, woman.« **Warning issued. **
3049 |
|
3050 |
3051 |
It's misogynistic to even suggest that the word woman is misogynstic ..., unless you're a woma.
Isn't it interesting how on this site you can troll and basically post whatever you want to regardless of what the topic is, but god forbid you call somebody a name.
I mean, you can be the most obvious troll ever and you get a free pass unless you directly insult people. You can uncover the secret about the origin of reality itself but woe unto you if you call somebody a name, even if it is an accurate description of that somebody ..., just something I dislike about the moderation here. **
3052 |
Let's backpedal a little bit. **
Do you think »not a theist« and »atheist« mean the same thing or mean different things? **
3053 |
I didn't vote.
Other complaints I have is that half the mods are almost never here .... **
Why is Dan no practising moderator anymore? ** **
... and only Ucc ever actually participates in discussions. **
Some good things are that the other half of mods are active on an almost daily basis and do their job properly. **
I just dislike the overall style of moderation I described in my post above, where a person can blatantly troll and spew non-philosophy but get away with it, but one insult and everybody gets all jumpy. **
3054 |
3055 |
I apparently voted No before the middle of January. I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation. **
I think the ban on insults--verbal violence, active aggression--is a good thing, but as you say that does not cut it. Often enough I feel there are too many cretins, or too much cretinousness. I just found out this word etymologically derives from »Christian«! **
And indeed, what I mean is people who are--often enough suspiciously--cocksure about their positions. **
3056 |
50% for »yes«, 30% for »no«, and 20% for »I don't know«. ** **
3057 |
Not sure if this is the right place for a discussion on my custom title. **
Then again, the mods are free to split it off from this thread (something I think they should perhaps do more often--though they may have good reasons for doing it as seldom as possible). Also, it's your thread.
»Supremacist« by itself can also be short for »white supremacist«. »Philosophical supremacist« would then mean »a white supremacist who is philosophical«, whatever that means. I'm a philosophical supremacist in the sense that »philosophical« takes the place of »white«. Thus »supremacist« in my title means I believe »that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them« (Merriam-Webster)--that group being the philosophers. So yeah, I believe ILP should be moderated so as to most advance philosophy. I understand, though, that to that end the love of ILovePhilosophy must, in cases of a conflict of interest, take precedence over the love of philosophy.
Arminius wrote:
It derives from the French. ** **
From the French word for »Christian«, which is cognate with the English word. **
I consciously did not exclude myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I have become »a Value Philosopher--that is, I now acknowledge, and in fact insist, that my worldview is in the first place a value and only in the second place a fact. It is my will that the world be will to power and nothing besides.« **
That's only insofar as I'm a philosopher, though. **
|
3058 |
Only Humean wrote:
»Hitler committed suicide because the Third Reich had failed and Nazi Germany was defeated. Was that defeat bad?« **
No, the Jews [now see Israel too] ran/run the financial world pyramid [analogy to simplify] so to affect power in the world for them and their allies [firstly America and Britain], it is done for protection rather than attack ~ and we kinda go along with it because we want that power too. Hitler was wrong in the assumption that removing them would change that power structure, other people ~ probably the British and Americans mostly, would continue that without the Jews. Hitler would have had to conquer the entire capitalist powers in the world, in order to gain control of Germanys finances/power.
If he had achieved that, he would have run the world how it is good for Germanic peoples, but countries as like people are all different. Take Britain for example; Germans who have lived and worked here often say things like the British are always nattering and dont fully concentrate on their work ~ in say a regimented Germanic fashion i assume. However perhaps that and a million other differences are what makes Britain the most inventive nation in the world, so what we are doing is what produces that, and what Germany is doing doesnt. **
3059 |
To set the record straight, Peripheral did not debunk any of my arguments. If anyone thinks he did, please point it out at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=185125 (**). **
3060 |
My main problem with this would be that, even if it were possible, it is difficult for something to create something better than itself, because it raises the question of where a difinition of 'better' could come from. **
Armorphos wrote:
»Perhaps they [and humans?] will manufacture mature offspring or will be otherwise produced in such a manner. So now you got a species without children ....« **
Probably the one biggest success of our species over others is that we have a long period of 'growing up', on that has gotten consistently longer throughout history, rather than simply arriving in the world 'pre programmed' with a set of instincts appropriate for a certain environment or situation. The blend of nature and nurture allows one species to operate in an infinite number of different environments. **
3061 |
Arminius wrote:
»Are you saying that too many ILP moderators have not enough will to power?« ** **
I don't see how that follows from anything I said. **
I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation. **
3062 |
Arbiter of Change wrote:
»Arsebiter of Change?
« **
I wondered if anyone would notice. Nothing personal, it just seemed like a Satyresque nickname. **
3063 |
The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not«, »non«, »the absolute lack of«, so an »atheism« is that what »absolutely lacks a theism«, thus »atheism« is that what is »not a theism«, thus yes: an »atheist« means »not a theist« - like I already said several times. ** **
|
3064 |
Then unless a newborn baby is a theist (or believes a god exists), then a newborn baby is an atheist. **
According to Mutcer Purgatorius was an »atheist«. ** **
Does it require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to not be a theist? If so, then given what you said earlier, it also doesn't require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to be an atheist. **
The precondition of knowing what a god is isn't required to not be a theist. And if not a theist is the same as atheist - as you said, then being an atheist doesn't require one to know what a god is. **
3065 |
Babies lack a belief in everything.
Should we have a word for that? **
3066 |
So unless a newborn baby is a theist, then it is an atheist. Right? **
3067 |
The Chinese have the highest national average IQ, yet would you say they »arrive« earlier or later? Don't they grow up quicker and their children more generally disciplined, adept and mature? **
3068 |
Possibly. But too strict moderation would again drive people away .... **
... leading to a decrease of mod power. **
3069 |
As with all of life, moderating or governing can be very strict as long as it is very consistent and also allows everything to get done that actually needs doing. But that takes intelligence and careful attention. **
3070 |
Arminius wrote:
»The Chinese nation can and does learn from the most of the European nations, because they were the first arriving nations.« ** **
Or they invented gunpowder and clocks from which the modern world largely descend. The first weaving machines of the industrial revolution used mechanisms from automatons which derive from clocks etc. (**). **
Arminius wrote:
»But the arriving in the world has not only to do with intelligence but also with responsibility, and - unfortunately - it is just the responsibility that lacks more and more, although it should grow more and more. So there is an error in the modern world - the lack of responsibility -, and this error is mainly caused by another error - the greed.« ** **
Interesting point. **
It is perhaps far more likely that the west is and will be far more irresponsible and greedy than China. **
3071 |
If A and B are the same and C is equal to A, then C is also equal to B. Likewise, if non-theist and atheist are the same and a newborn baby is a non-theist, then a newborn baby is also an atheist. **
....
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
.... ** **
3072 |
I still fail to see the usefulness of dividing everything into two categories. In this case, the only reason seems to be to claim that atheism is »natural« for humans. **
3073 |
3074 |
Yes, that is the actual intention of the OP. This is I said earlier on this thread ---
Basically OP was indirectly suggesting that humans are born with the default sense of not believing in theism but unfortunately they were somehow forced to believe otherwise. Means, having strong disbelief in the theism is some sort of natural or default position for humans and diverting from it unnatural, hence humans should discard theism and go back to their natural state, which is having belief in the nonexistence of the god.
That is the only reason why OP tried to include agnostics into atheists through playing semantics in order to present theists as opposite to rest of all. **
3075 |
My point originally was that the Chinese grow up [arrive] quicker and are lets say at least equal in intelligence. So the point is that lengthier growing up transitions dont provide a better or more advanced product [adult human]. »Arriving« in terms of cultural and industrial advancement for nations, isnt relevant because children of all cultures grew up faster pre-20th century. Unless we say that recently the longer growing up periods have improved us. Then we would also have to say why that requires child-like form rather than beginning at adult form? **
I see. Less prominent perhaps, and the east will catch up. Imho the future will see a collective world rather than east/west dualisms etc.. **
3076 |
Does a newborn baby hold the belief that a god exists? **
3077 |
Atheism is the neutral term or what we are when we are born. **
3078 |
Note that doesn't hold a belief that a god exists is neutral. Thus, atheism can be neutral - especially in the case of newborn babies. **
|
3079 |
Arminius wrote:
Beginning at an adult form is a risk, because its failure is very much more probable than it would be, if development started at the earliest prenatal form. The sooner the better. If such a development is too short, too fast, then it is very probable that it will burst like a balloon very soon. All those developments refer to something like bubbles.« ** **
Interesting, and i like the visuals to go with it too. Why is failure more probable? Hmm i suppose being the size of an adult, other adults would expect the infant to act like an adult, perform tasks like an adult and such things. Is that the sort of thing you mean? **
What are these balloons? **
3080 |
Interesting theory, but it also implies an accumulative strength ~ the bubbles have got bigger. **
Why do balloons equal failure? **
And why have you given spheres of influence and meaning such a fragile and singular shape? **
Can you define a single bubble? **
And why have you given spheres of influence and meaning such a fragile and singular shape? Can you define a single bubble? **
World society wont fail if it is not based upon »bubbles« then? What does failure change? You have a world then after failure you still have a world. **
3081 |
You can only say that by using a definition of atheism based on 'lack of belief' phrasing and ignoring other definitions. And you also ignore the lack of capacity of newborns to have beliefs - as thought that makes no difference to practicality of using the word. **
3082 |
Sounds like you're saying no. Given that you've said no and that one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists is a non-theist and that you've said a non-theist is an atheist, then it follows that you would claim a newborn baby is an atheist. **
3083 |
3084 |
3085 |
I think that you are underestimating him. He ignores nothing. **
3086 |
3087 |
Arminius,
You are not far from the truth but you have to keep in the mind that ILP or Internet philosophy cannot meet the standards of academic philosophy either. These forums are meant to common people (including myself), not scholars. Thus, one should expect bit more naivety here. That is acceptable but there should be some limit to naivety too. **
3088 |
I would think a misuse would be impossible to ascertain do to the various philosophical approaches, schools, and intended uses of it. a misuse would be nearly impossible to discover, since the many formed uses are too numerous to detect. I may have an intentional project t in mind, whereas someone with whom a discussion is going on, may have another reason for the same, if any at all. in philosophy, at times, the levels of communication are not always appearent, to enable the communicators to understand each other, or to come to anything but an agreed on agreement. The times are rare when mutual understanding becomes implicitly taken for what it implies. **
As with all of life, moderating or governing can be very strict as long as it is very consistent and also allows everything to get done that actually needs doing. But that takes intelligence and careful attention.
People (and all animals) prefer strict rules as long as they are consistent and allow for everything truly needed. People can trust things that are consistent. **aint wrote:As with all of life, moderating or governing can be very strict as long as it is very consistent and also allows everything to get done that actually needs doing. But that takes intelligence and careful attention..
3089 |
50% for »yes«, 30% for »no«, and 20% for »I don't know«. ** **
61% for »yes«, 28% for »no«, and 11% for »I don't know«. ** **
3090 |
Arminius, how are ad hominem rules differ from logical ones? **
Can't they be subsumed under logic as well? **
Is not propriety a function of ascending loyalty into the realm of desired social intercourse? (Without which the mutual trust in the virtues of honesty could not sustain) **
3091 |
Philosophy cannot be misused because it cannot be properly used in the first place. There is no »proper« use for a language game. **
It was not for nothing that Wittgenstein threatened Popper with a fire poker, you know.
»There are no genuine philosophical problems, Sanjay, only linguistic problems.« **
3092 |
I am not saying he is correct, I am saying he ignores nothing and that you underestimate him.
As Sanjay said, he is a committed person with a lot of patience (that is a good quality to have).
He knows what he is doing and there is a clear intention behind what he is doing.
Philosophical debate is not always about logic, just like war is not always fought on the battle field.He grows stronger in each of his threads whereas others atrophy. **
Jr Wells wrote:
»This is ILG.« **
Yes, at least partly. I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
3093 |
3094 |
As some people consider as wiki the word of the god, here is a quote from the theism page of wiki. **
|
3095 |
There are many other strengths that need to be exercised too (he is currently stronger on some of them and growing in strength). **
What are the qualities (strengths) of a good philosopher?
Maybe this is an idea for another thread. **
3096 |
Correct the language problems (semantics) through definitions and the philosophy problems (conundrums and mysteries) go away. **
3097 |
So things/bubbles come and go and the world carries on turning. Where are we going with all this? How does it affect humans V2, if we consider they would simply adapt? **
3098 |
Philosophy is reasoning, ontology, metaphysics, and methodology. Language is merely notation of concepts (through sound or script) within the philosophy for the communication of it. **
3099 |
What I meant (and what Wittgenstein means) is that what are really linguistic problems and confusions appear as, and take the form of, philosophy.
Very often in philosophy you are seeing a relationship between two or more concepts, not a relationship between a concept and the world; an abstract circularity that begins spinning without having any contact with reality. So, when you think you see a truth or a fact in there, you might only be seeing a truth or a fact confirmed by another concept in this self organizing circle of concepts ..., none of which ever »touch the ground«.
Karl Marx wrote:
»The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.«
.... **
3100 |
An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god, ....
If a being has never considered beliefs in regards to God/god then they are incapable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god.
If a being is incapable of holding beliefs in regards to God/god (positive, negative or neutral) then discussing issues of God/god in relation to them is utter nonsense.
It becomes nonsensical wordplay ..., gibberish. **
The intent is to have a discussion regarding what the appropriate and proper religious label is for newborn babies. The conclusion is that while newborn babies are atheists, by calling them an atheist it doesn't provide any useful information about the baby. **
But calling them atheist does tell us quite a bit about the word atheist. **
Having a belief in the nonexistence of god isn't the neutral or natural state. The proper way to word it is »not having a belief in a god«. That would be the default or natural state. **
1) An atheist is a being who is capable of holding beliefs, yet who does not hold the belief in at least one god.
2) Now if he(/she/it) has never considered this belief, he is a negative atheist (a.k.a. weak or soft atheist).
Unless negative atheist isn't an atheist, then #1 is incorrect. **
Earlier, you stated that non-theist and atheist are the same thing. You also agreed that if one isn't a theist, then they are a non-theist. And you agreed that newborn babies aren't theists. Therefore, you would have to contend that newborn babies are atheists. **
1) Atheist and non-theist are the same thing (from your claim)
2) One who is not a theist is a non-theist (from your claim - and also by definition)
3) Newborn babies aren't theists (from your claim)
4) Newborn babies are non-theists (from #2 and #3)
5) Newborn babies are atheists (from #1 and #4) **
Phyllo wrote:
»Mutcer wrote:
Belief in the nonexistence of a god isn't the natural state. The natural state is no belief with respect to a god.
Positive: Holds a belief that a god exists
Neutral: Doesn't hold a belief that a god exists and doesn't hold a belief that no gods exist
Negative: Holds the belief that no gods existNote that doesn't hold a belief that a god exists is neutral. Thus, atheism can be neutral - especially in the case of newborn babies. **
You can only say that by using a definition of atheism based on 'lack of belief' phrasing and ignoring other definitions. And you also ignore the lack of capacity of newborns to have beliefs - as thought that makes no difference to practicality of using the word.« **
Whether we ignore or don't ignore the lack of capacity of a newborn to have a belief, it doesn't change the fact that they don't hold the belief that a god exists. **
This thread isn't about whether or not newborns have the capacity to believe a god exists, but about the appropriate term for their position with respect to belief in a god. I don't disagree with you that newborns lack the capacity to believe that a god exists. But this isn't sufficient to keep them from being atheists. **
3101 |
So which category do newborn babies fall into? **
3102 |
|
3103 |
3104 |
3105 |
3106 |
3107 |
|
3108 |
Meiner Meinung nach läßt sich das kaum noch ändern. Die Lage ist derart verfahren, das es unweigerlich zum großen Exodus kommen wird, da die riesige Seifenblase platzt. Die ex 68er haben es geschafft und die Karre AK vor die Wand gefahren und das bar gegen jeden gesunden Menschenverstand. Ich erwäge es ernsthaft, das ich in ein absehbarer Zeit der BRD den Rücken kehren werde. Dies ist nicht mehr das Land, auf das ich als junger Mensch einen Eid geschworen habe. Ein Land, was die rechtschaffenen Menschen belügt, betrügt und um die Früchte ihrer Lebensarbeitszeit bringt, nicht maßhält und auf die kleinen Leute spuckt, kann nicht mehr meines sein. (Mücke, 06.01.2015, 21:47).
==>
|