721) Arminius, 24.05.2015, 01:25, 02:45, 03:02, 03:07, 15:53, 17:36 (3028-3033)

And this was my response:

„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, asocial

Not 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: anaphrodisiac

If 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.“ ** **

And one more example: Why are those many ILP members who call themselves "atheists" always posting in this subforum (Religion and Spirituality) and always negatively refering to theism and theists? They are antitheists!

3029

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. 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.“ **

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?

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.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

That is absolutely right.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Actual philosophers are smart enough to simply choose a less ambiguous word.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Being precise, we should call ILP „IL“, because the portion of philosophy is merely 1/8 (12,5%):

„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«).“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„You left out Aristoteles, Kant, and James S. Saint.“ **

They belong to the real ILP (compare: (7)), becasue they are real philosophers.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Maybe;
»I Love 9% Philosophy«.“ **

Yah.

------

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 (!) antitheists. We know that from history: the rulers of the systems of egalitarianism like communism and other socialisms wanted the 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 consists 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“).

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 stronges and honest form against theism).

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Very unscientific, yes. Since the 18th century English has been becoming a language of mongers, thus a trade language, commercial language.

James referred to my post, so let me quote myself:

„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.“ ** **

This „dead“ languages are really best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy. „Living“ languages are not as best placed to do this as the „dead“ languages, although German has been the science language of the world, incl. the philosophical language of the world, for about two centuries. German is also best placed, but it is a „living“ language, thus the meanings of its words change, and that is not the case in „dead“ languages, so they are best placed to give us „dead“, thus fixed definitions in order to be even more precise / accurate, especially in the long run.

Zinnat wrote:

„It relies on practice far more than rules, which is not a good sign, besides making it difficult for learning.“ **

More practise than rules - that is indeed the problem of the English language, yes. (Compare what I said above: language of mongers, thus a trade language, commercial language).

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

That's right too. But for Germans (incl. Austrians and the Swiss), Dutchmen, Flemish Belgians, and Scandinavians English is not difficult to learn, because all their languages and the English language are very closed relatives. They all are Germanic languages. But the fact that English is the Germanic language which relies on practice far more than on rules is also the reason why the modern people (especially the modern young people) of the other Germanic languages like English. Most of the modern people (especially the modern young people) like nihilism, because it is easier and funnier to deconstruct than to construct.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Sanskrit and Hindi are Indogermanic languages. Did you know that? Compare that languages with other Indogermanic languages, for example with those in Europe. That is very interesting.

722) Arminius, 25.05.2015, 00:50, 01:04, 01:21, 01:42, 15:25, 16:01, 18:13, 20:14, 21:00, 22:57, 23:21 (3034-3044)

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

You did not read my posts.

Mutcer wrote:

„Would you say newborns hold the belief that dragons exist?“ **

You did not read my posts. Otherwise you would know the answer.

Mutcer wrote:

„What is the false precondition and how do you know it is false?“ **

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

No. Your statement is nonsense. Are you sure that you know what logic is?

Mutcer wrote:

„Do you agree with me that atheist means a person who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?“ **

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

Mutcer wrote:

„I gather you don't have a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what 'atheist' means to be an atheist.“ **

That is your answer to my question? Please read my question again.

Mutcer wrote:

„If the god I've posited is ridiculous, then the Christian god is equally ridiculous.“ **

I did not say that god but that your example is ridiculous. Please read my post again.

Mutcer wrote

„If an atheist is not a gnostic atheist, then by definition, he/she is an agnostic atheist.“ **

Or an antignostic atheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme „anti“?

Mutcer wrote:

„If all humans stopped believing in gods, a person who didn't believe a god exists would still be an atheist.“ **

Or an antitheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme „anti“?

The situation that humans stopped believing in god or gods will never be reached. When it comes to religious, metaphysical, philosophical, spriritual aspects humans are transcendence beings.

Mutcer wrote:

„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?“ **

Precisely spoken an atheist is not „one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists“. Again: I said this several times. Why do you not read my posts?

Mutcer wrote:

„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?“ **

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

What is a „gotcha“. An ad hominem?

Excuse me, English is not my first language.

You have asked the same questions again and again. So why should I answer again and again? It is not fair of you to demand that I repeat my answers again and again.

Your statement is nonsense, because it has nothing at all to do with reality.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. Exactly. That makes this thread and many other threads terrible and shows their nihilistic character. Such threads are threads for ILN, for example: ILN 1 („I Love Nietzsche“), ILN 2 („I Love Nonsense“), ILN 3 („I Love Nothing“); and besides ILN also for: ILSC („I Love Social Criticism“). So I remind you of this:

„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«).“ ** **

ILN = (4) ILN 1, (5) ILN 2, (6) ILN 3.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, but excuse me, because the problem is that I do not always understand your language: Mutcerish. For example: In Mutcerish questions are „not questions“ („a-questions“? or „anti-questions“?), and answers are „not answers“ („a-answers“? or „anti-answers“?), contradictions are „not contradictions“, ... and so on ....

The following shows a semantic feature analysis for the words „theist“, „atheists“, „antitheist“:

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“.

END.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Don't forget ILBS
.... I'll let you ask Mithus what that means.“ **

Okay. I would say "ILBS" belongs to ILN, espcially to ILN 2 („I Love Nonsense“):

„(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.“ ** **

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?

Mutcer wrote:

„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: ....“ **

No. Not in that way. ....

I have answered all your questions several times.

Phyllo wrote:

„In this world of two categories (theist/atheist) ....“ **

Three categories: (1) theist, (2) atheist, (3) antitheist.

Phyllo wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. Another example:

Arminius wrote:

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?

“ ** **

According to Mutcer Purgatorius was an „atheist“.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

Your „since“ lacks the rationale. You are using the false definitions and the false preconditions, and the reason for that has much to do with your language which is split in Mutcerish and English. Both are not suitable enough to explain what the words "theist", "atheist", and "antitheist" exactly mean, because in order to accurately define what those words and concepts mean one has to know the original meaning of them, and this original meaning can only be found in their original language which is Ancient Greek.

According to your definitions and preconditions all ancestors of the humans, all daed humans, all prenatal humans, all newborn humans, all childlike humans, all disabled humans, all menatlly ill humans, all humans with Alzheimer's desease, all demented humans, all unconscious humans, and many other humans are „atheists“. So your definitions and preconditions are completely false.

Again:

„The following shows a semantic feature analysis for the words »theist«, »atheists«, »antitheist«:

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«.“ ** **

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

Are you really not able to read a whole post?

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

No. And even this I have already said many times. What is your problem, man?

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

You are telling nonsense again. Why did you not read my posts? Are you not able to read? What is your problem, Mutcer?

Mutcer wrote:

„I need more information on Purgatorius. Is Purgatorius considered to have been a person? If not, then he wasn't an atheist.“ **

According to your own definitions and preconditions - thus: the false definitions and the the false preconditions - Purgatorius was an atheist.

Purgatorius:

Mutcer wrote:

„Where did I say that?“ **

In this thread.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

I do not know why you are posting texts, because you seem to have problems with the reading.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, an typically dumb quote. You merely have to read the used „keywords“ in order to know what is going on. And b.t.w.: Rose could already speak a bit Mutcerish.

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, of course.

--------------------

You know why so many antireligous and antitheistic (and rhetorically called „atheistic“) people are posting here (this subforum is called: „Religion and Spirituality“).

James S. Saint wrote:

„It doesn't happen from within.“ **

But from without? Let me guess: from SAM?

- The film „Ex Machina“ - little boys?
- The film „Chappie“ - little boys and girls?
???
Is that weird or not?

723) Arminius, 26.05.2015, 05:41, 13:30, 18:06, 18:28, 18:32 (3045-3049)

This must be the wrong thread.

Mags, where did you find the ad homs? I can't find any.

Mutcer wrote:

„You're operating under the erroneous assumption that to be an atheist, one must be aware of what a god is.“ **

No. You are "operating under the erroneous assumption that to be an atheist, one must be aware of what" is political correct, but political correctness has nothing to do with the correct definition of „theist“, „atheist“, and „antitheist“.

Mutver wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Purgatorius:
« ** **

That doesn't look like the type of creature that would qualify as a »person«.“ **

Mutcer, please! According to the current science that „creature“ is your ancestor!

Mutcer wrote:

„Sorry. I never said Purgatorius was an atheist.“ **

You said it conclusively, although not literally, with many of your sentences you wrote here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Mutcer, but I think this is the wrong thread (**|**).

Why is Dan no practising moderatior anymore?

Mags J. wrote:

„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.“ **

Don't unleash your mysogynistic ego on me because it will backfire on you. Who do you think you are talking to? some idiot?
Is the word „woman“ misogynistic?

Is the word „anthropic“ misanthropic?
Is the word „human“ inhumane?
Is the word „man“ misandristic?
Is the word „woman“ misogynistic?
Is the word „child“ child-unfriendly?
Is the word „theist“ antitheistic?
...?

If so, then Orwell's newspeak has become reality (and this time it is the newspeak of the New World Order of the so-called globalists).

Copied part of a post in another thread.

724) Arminius, 27.05.2015, 00:01, 01:02, 01:42, 16:39, 17:17, 17:48, 18:19, 21:26 (3050-3057)

In consideration of the fact that humans control, want to control, and have to control humans because of the human will to recognition, appreciation, acceptance, acknowledgement, tribute, credit, thus to power, the probability of the realisation of that „limitless capabilities“ you are talking about (**), is unfortunately reduced.

Perhaps you are also interested in the following thread (**|**).

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„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.“ **

Four questions, please, Arbiter (b.t.w.: the spelling of the German „Arbeiter“ which means „worker“ is very similar to the English „arbiter“ - if "arbiter" did not lack the „e“, then it would be even the same spelling):

1) Is your disliking about the ILP moderation strong enough to answer the question of this thread with „no“?
2) May I ask you whether you also answered the question of this thread by voting?
3) If I may ask you: Did you vote?
4) And if you voted: Did you vote „no“?

Mutcer wrote:

„Let's backpedal a little bit.“ **

Okay, Mutcer, but don't bombard me gain with so many questions which I have already answered - for example such as the following one:

Mutcer wrote:

„Do you think »not a theist« and »atheist« mean the same thing or mean different things?“ **

Like I said several times:

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.

But it is not possible to define all humans as „theists“, „atheists“, or „antitheists“, because not all humans are able to intellectually process (the whole spiritual system of) „theism“, „atheism“, or „antitheism“- like I also said several times. Theism, atheism, and antitheism require relatively much intellectual processing, and if you remember the times when you were a child, and if you are honest, then you have to admit that you were not able to know the meaning of „theism“, „atheism“, or „antitheism“. So if you say you do not need this precondition, then you are wrong, because the intellectual or spiritual ability of the humans is as well as or even more than the humans themselves (as human beings or whatever) part of the precondition.

If a part of the precondition is false, then the whole precondition must be considered as false, so that the conclusions are also false.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„I didn't vote.

Other complaints I have is that half the mods are almost never here ....“ **

Arminius wrote:

„Why is Dan no practising moderator anymore?“ ** **

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„... and only Ucc ever actually participates in discussions.“ **

Yes, Uccisore is a good one.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„Some good things are that the other half of mods are active on an almost daily basis and do their job properly.“ **

Maybe the following formaula would be the right one for ILP: „A mod is no god but always present“. So mods should never try to be gods, not even godwannbes, but they should always be present.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„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.“ **

I hugely agree with you in that point, because that is indeed a huge problem.

The solution of that huge problem should never be a quantitative one. We do not need more rules, we do not need more moderators. What we need is another quality.

Sauwelios wrote:

„I apparently voted „No“ before the middle of January. I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation.“ **

Is it because you call yourself a „Supremacist“?

Sauwelios wrote:

„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«!“ **

It derives from the French.

Sauwelios wrote:

„And indeed, what I mean is people who are--often enough suspiciously--cocksure about their positions.“ **

But again: Doesn't that suit you, because you call yourslelf a „Supremacist“?

Let's have a second interim result for the question: „Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?“.

We have 61% for „yes“, 28% for „no“, and 11% for „I don't know“.

Please vote!

The first interim result from January, 12, 2015:

Arminius wrote:

„50% for »yes«, 30% for »no«, and 20% for »I don't know«.“ ** **

Perhaps the mods have voted in the last time.

Please vote!

Sauwelios wrote:

„Not sure if this is the right place for a discussion on my custom title.“ **

No. It is not. But I just (journalistically) asked because of the topic of this thread.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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.“ **

Not for „Christian“ but for a „poor Christian“ in the sense of an „ill Christian“ who is retarded because of an inherent hypothyroidism. So I think you mean other „cretins“.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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.“ **

To close the circle:

Are you saying that too many ILP moderators have not enough will to power?

725) Arminius, 28.05.2015, 01:04, 01:04, 02:32, 18:20, 18:58, 19:59 (3058-3063)

Amorphos wrote:

„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 Germany’s 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 don’t 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 doesn’t.“ **

If my translation of your word „inventive“ is correct, then I must disappoint you, because it is a historical fact that Germany is the most inventive nation in the world - by far.

Mutcer wrote:

„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 (**).“ **

I'm sorry, Mutcer. Your conclusions are false, because your definitions and preconditions are false.

And concerning to the thread you mentioned, I have to say again that your conclusions are false because your definitions and preconditions are false. It is our logic itself that tells us that God can be beyond of logic - as well as issues of love, ethics, aestetics, emotions, etc. can be beyond of logic. The spiritual engagement with that what can be is one of the main aspects of metaphysics and - in the case of God - of theology. If you want to critisise or even deny God, theology, theism, and theists, you have to know what you want to critisise or even deny, thus you have to know what „God“, „theology“, „theism“, and „theist“ mean. And the statement „God is not fully explainable by logic“ does not mean „God does not exist“. Your „arguments“ in that said thread are as full of repetitions, especially repeated questions as in this thread, and I could not find anything like that what you and two other ILP members had allegedly „shown“.

We - the human beings - are not „merely“ luxury beings but also beings of transcendence. If we were not such transcendence beings, then it would not be possible to think about any transcendental phenomenon.

Brevel Monkey wrote:

„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.“ **

How do we decide what is »intelligent«. An IQ test is a subjective definition of intelligence. Even a pure test of computational ability is still, in some senses, subjective. As soon as you start trying to make »more intelligent beings«, you are relying on our own, flimsy definition of what intelligence means.

An IQ test can refer to persons and societies. IQ tests are not entirely objective but at least also not entirely subjective.

Brevel Monkey wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, that's absolutely right. And: The longer the process of the arriving in the world the more intelligent the living beings who arrive.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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.“ **

But - at least - you said this:

Sauwelios wrote:

„I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation.“ **

Moderators with enough will to power probably mean a stricter moderation.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Arbiter of Change wrote:

»›Arsebiter‹ of Change? « **

I wondered if anyone would notice. Nothing personal, it just seemed like a Satyresque nickname.“ **

I noticed it, but I decided to not mention it, because I did not want to derail my own thread; and that is als the reason for this post: the risk of derailment is given. So, please, keep to the point: „Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?“.

So you, Arbiter (or „Arbeiter“ [nobody noticed?], or „Arsebiter“) and Sauwelios, are not satisfied with the ILP moderation and have well founded, justified, reasoned arguments.

What can we do in order to get a better ILP moderation?

Yes. Like I said several times (for example in your other thread):

„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.“ ** **

726) Arminius, 29.05.2015, 02:38, 02:48, 03:25, 04:11, 14:52, 15:33, 16:06, 16:52, 17:25, 17:44, 17:54, 19:11, 19:55, 22:08, 22:23 (3064-3078)

Mutcer wrote:

„Then unless a newborn baby is a theist (or believes a god exists), then a newborn baby is an atheist.“ **

NO. Newborns have nothing to do with that because of the definition(s) and the precondition(s). According to your false definitions (if you have any definition at all!) and your false preconditions everyone could be an athesit because of the lack of being a theist. So I was correct when I said:

„According to Mutcer Purgatorius was an »atheist«.“ ** **

Purgatorius (allegedly an „ancestor of the human beings“):

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

NO. It does NOT „require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to not be a theist“, because a newborn and other children have nothing to do with the definitions and preconditions you want to have for your „classification“.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

That is - again - nonsense, Mutcer, because „godbeliever“ and „theist“ do not mean the same - the reason for that are - again - the definitions. In order to believe in God you do not have to intellctually process as much information about God as you need in the case of theism. If you believe in God you do not have to challenge God, but if you are a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist that is already one of the preconditions.

Do you know what that means?

Phyllo wrote:

„Babies lack a belief in everything.

Should we have a word for that?“ **

No. We do not need it. And that is one of the reasons why babies can and should never be defined as „atheists“, not even as „godbelievers“, perhaps also not even as „believers“.

Mutcer wrote:

„So unless a newborn baby is a theist, then it is an atheist. Right?“ **

NO. Again and again: Newborns have nothing to do with that.

Look also here (**|**).

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

It is not quite sure that „the Chinese have the highest national average IQ“. However. What I said about the arriving in the world was meant in a more evolutionarily anthropological than currently national sense, although the arriving in the world has also to do with the current nations - of course. The Chinese nation can and does learn from the most of the European nations, because they were the first „arriving“ nations. 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.

Perhaps the Chinese nation will cause a huge catastrophe because of this two „learned“ errors: (1) the greed and (2) its main effect - the lack of responsibility.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Possibly. But too strict moderation would again drive people away ....“ **

Yes, but it is an option. A good webforum does not need to have many but good members. It is a matter more of quality than of quantity that shows how good a webforum is. If ILP banks more on quantity than on quality, then it will lose members who bank on quality (and I will be among them). ILP should bank on more quality and hazard the less cruel consequences, because it is better to take a quantitative loss than a qualitative loss.

Sauwelios wrote:

„... leading to a decrease of mod power.“ **

Yes, but perhaps also leading to a better quality.

So the change of the ILP moderation is a risk, and probably Carleas does not want to risk anything.

P.S.) I do not hope that I am going to be banned because of this post.

James S. Saint 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.“ **

Yes. Intelligence and careful attention are two of the most important components of the „quality“ I mentioned (see above).

Amorphos wrote:

„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. (**).“ **

It was not my intention to praise the Europeans, but nevertheless: the European nations were the first "arriving" nations. Nations are typical European. The Chinese did not know what nations were before they "met" them for the first time.

Amorphos wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes.

Amorphos wrote:

„It is perhaps far more likely that the west is and will be far more irresponsible and greedy than China.“ **

If we "merely" look at the present and the near future, yes, but did you notice that I also used the future tense by the word „will“? My estimation is that in the future the Europeans as „the West“ will play a less meaningful role than in the near future and than they do today.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

You are confusing logic with definition.

If „1 + 1 = 2“, then that does not prove that the word „two“ means the number „2“.

A newborn human is NOT a not-theist or atheist, or antitheist, or theist, because a newborn human has nothing to do wit that. The definitions and preconditions exclude children (thus also newborns); thus a newborn human is neither a godbeliever nor a theist, atheist, antitheist.

Arminius wrote:

„....

....“ ** **

You have to accept the definitions and preconditions. Otherwise you can define all beings of the world as „atheists“. For example:  * Stones are not theists, thus they are atheists. That statement is false.  * Monkeys are not theists, thus they are atheists. That statement is false.  * The early ancestors of the human beings were not theists, thus they were atheists. That statement is false.  * The newborn humans are not theists, thus they are atheists. That statement is false.

The definitions and preconditions forbid your false intentions.

Phyllo wrote:

„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.“ **

No. Most of the human ancestors were no theists, no atheists, no atheist, no godbelievers, and probably even no believers, because in nature believe does not count much.

The dividing into categories does not only depend on logic but also on definitions and preconditions. So it is not the logic allone that decides what can how be divded into categories.

Your understanding is false, Mutcer. Like I said nearly thousand times. Your preconditions and definitions are false. Each syllogism depends on preconditions and definitions. If you want to say that if X and X are the same as Y, then Y is X, you have to know whether this is true in any case; X and X are not necessarily the same as Y, and a newborn is not Y but a newborn.

An antitheist is also not a theist. According to you a newborn must also be an antitheist, because according to you it is not a theist, but you did not say that literally, because if you said such a nonsense even literally, it would be too obvious what your intention is. In both of your threads you are talking nonsense, Mutcer. It has merely to do with your wishful thinking and nothing else; so it also has nothing to do with reality, and it also has nothing to do with logic, because you do not accept preconditions and definitions. although they are absolutely necessary for logic.

You do not accept preconditions and definitions. Preconditions and definitions can and do influence logical statements.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes. And even all definitions and preconditions are false, regardles whether they refer to human children, especially to human newborns, or to the most of the human ancestors.

See also here (**|**] it is not the only example - there are a great many examples).

Amorphos wrote:

„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 don’t provide a better or more advanced product [adult human]. »Arriving« in terms of cultural and industrial advancement for nations, isn’t 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?“ **

„Arriving“ in terms of cultural and industrial development is very important, because many other important things are based on them. And, yes, the longer growing up periods have proved us.

How do you exactly mean by the term „child-like form“? Do you mean it metaphorically or in the sense of the neoteny, the neoteny hypothesis? Or even both?

A child-like form is very important.

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

Amorphos wrote:

„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..“ **

The problem is that humans are not able to culturally exist wthout dualism.

And don't forget the development of the machines (**|**)!

Mutcer wrote:

„Does a newborn baby hold the belief that a god exists?“ **

A newborn baby? Hold the belief? Hold? Belief? A newborn baby?

What is your problem, Mutcer?

Mutcer wrote:

„Atheism is the neutral term or what we are when we are born.“ **

False!

No humam was, is, an will be born as an atheist, or an antitheist, or a theist, or a godbeliever. No human.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

False!

Newborn babies and other babies as well as other children are neither „atheists“, „antitheists“, „theists“ nor „neutral“.

727) Arminius, 30.05.2015, 00:01, 01:04, 02:43, 03:22, 04:28, 04:40, 15:44, 17:13, 17:23, 17:45, 19:05, 19:41, 22:48, 23:11, 23:21, 23:32 (3079-3099)

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

Failure is more probable because of the fragility of the „bubbles“ or „balloons“.

Amorphos wrote:

„What are these balloons?“ **

These „balloons“ or „bubbles“ are groups or societies - I call them „cultures“ - with a same identity (they can but do not need to be nations) like, for example, the Occidental culture. But these „balloons“ or „bubbles“ can also be smaller groups as they were e.g. before the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“ which led to the establishment of the agriculture and to the first towns, thus to more fragile „balloons“ or „bubbles“. And because of the historical fact that these groups became bigger and bigger they also became more fragile, thus, to use the metaphor again, this small „balloons“ or „bubbles“ became big „balloons“ or „bubbles“.

Outside and - especially (!) - inside of these „balloons“ or „bubbles“ and their developments there are also contrary developments, and the latter are often the reason for the bursts of the „balloons“ or „bubbles“ , especially of the big „balloons“ or „bubbles“.

Now you can conclude that it is almost impossible to start as a big „balloon“ or „bubble“, but it is not entirely impossible, if the „balloon“ or „bubble“ can be inflated in a very short time (as I said: almost impossible).

In the case of China one has to say that it is a ca. 4000 years old „balloon“ or „bubble“, thus the preconditions are given that it will not fail because of its cultural tradition, but it is probable that it will fail because of the changed situations and the fact that all current cultures are - more or less - also old „balloons“ or „bubbles“ and escape responsibility more and more, so China will probably fail because of the latter.

And in the case of the so-called „world society“ one has to say that it will probably fail before it will really start (to blow up itself as a „balloons“ or „bubbles“ in a very short time [see above]).

Amorphos wrote:

„Interesting theory, but it also implies an accumulative strength ~ the bubbles have got bigger.“ **

Yes. But because of the contrary developments I mentioned (see above) this strength shrinks by degrees, at last exponentially.

Amorphos wrote:

„Why do balloons equal failure?“ **

They do what balloons usually do.

Amorphos wrote:

„And why have you given sphere’s of influence and meaning such a fragile and singular shape?“ **

They are fragile, but not always to the same degree, because of differences of age and influences. You may also compare them with living beings. Living beings are fragile, if you compare them with their environment, the influences. Thus these „balloons“ or „bubbles“ are not exactly as fragile as the real balloons and bubbles and also not exactly as fragile as living beings. And they are relatively singular because they have no other chance for existence.

Amorphos wrote:

„Can you define a single bubble?“ **

The best analogy are living beings, especially the immun systems of living beings. Immun systems are fragile, if you compare them with the environment, the influences. The „weapons“ of an immun system and those of a culture are similar. Probably you know them from science - especially from biology / medicine (immun system) and from evolution / history (cultures).

Amorphos wrote:

„And why have you given sphere’s of influence and meaning such a fragile and singular shape? Can you define a single bubble?“ **

All societies are cultural „bubbles“ or „balloons“. So also a so-called „world society“ has no other chance than defending its „bubble“ or „balloon“ by its cultural „immun system“ (b.t.w.: this „immun system“ does not work well yet - compare for example: UNO), and if it is not able to defend itself, then it disappears, thus its „bubble“ or „balloon“ bursts.

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.“ **

This world is full of living beings. Each living being has an immun system. Immun systems are relatively fragile (see above). Nevertheless: the world is full of living beings.

One living being goes, another living being comes. One group goes, another group comes. One culture goes, another culture comes. ....

Phyllo wrote:

„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.“ **

He ignores almost everything.

It is just catastrophic.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

Such a nonsense!

Mutcer, it is useless. You do not read my posts, otherwise you would know what I am saying. Your preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. Thus your conclusions are also false.

So why should I continue this „conservation“?

Many ILP members misuse philosophy and thus also ILP. Why is the misuse of philosophy not the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named „I Love Philosophy„? The ILP subforum „Religion and Spirituality“ is especially misused by those ILP members. The other subforums are less misused but also not free from misuse. Many ILP members circumvernt the valid rules (for example those that refer to ad hominems) by using false or partly false definitions, preconditions (premises) in order to troll, to derail threads, and to enforce ideologies or other political orders that have nothing to do with philosophy. Thus they are always off-topic and in violation of ILP rules but not or seldom of the main ILP rule: „ad hominems are not allowed“.

Philosophy is not liberalism.

The misuse of philosophy should be the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum, especiall then, if it is named „I Love Philosophy“.

Copied post in another thread.

Jr Wells wrote:

„I think that you are underestimating him. He ignores nothing.“ **

I think you have read no single post of this thread. Mutcer's mistakes, errors, flaws are too obvious. If you had read my and his posts of the last pages, you would have noticed that. Please, read the posts.

Without rules, without preconditions (premises) and definitions logic would not work. Mutcer either (a) ignores preconditions (premises) and definitions, or (b) his used preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. And it is always one of the both (a, b).

If one says that „non-atheists are atheists“ by ignoring that preconditions (premises) and definitions are absoluetely necessary for logic, then that statement is false. According to that statement e.g. all stones, all trees, all dogs, all cats, all monkeys, all ancestors of the humans, all humans are „atheists“, and that is false.

Copied post in another thread.

Zinnat wrote:

„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.“ **

Okay. But if this process of „naivete“, how you call it, continues and produces more and more „naivete“, then it is not even possible anymore to talk about themes like „tweaking the definitions“.

Orb wrote:

„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.“ **

A misuse would be nearly impossible to discover? Logical rules are better known than „ad hominem“ rules. So a misuse is easier to discover by using logical rules than it is by using „ad hominem“ rules. „Ad hominem“ rules have more room for interpretation than logical rules. Thus ILP needs more quality, more intelligence and careful attention:

James S. Saint 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.

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..

Let's have a third interim result for the question: „Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?“.

We have 67% for „yes“, 24% for „no“, and 9% for „I don't know“.

Please vote!

The first interim result from January, 12, 2015:

Arminius wrote:

„50% for »yes«, 30% for »no«, and 20% for »I don't know«.“ ** **

The second interim result from May, 27, 2015:

Arminius wrote:

„61% for »yes«, 28% for »no«, and 11% for »I don't know«.“ ** **

Within 3 (three) days (**|**) 6% more for „yes“ (61% => 67%) ...!

Please read the last post of this page!

Orb wrote:

„Arminius, how are ad hominem rules differ from logical ones?“ **

For example by political correctness, because political correctness has nothing to do with logical correctness, often even not with correctness.

Orb wrote:

„Can't they be subsumed under logic as well?“ **

They can, yes, but they often are not or at least not correctly but e.g. political correctly.

The logical rules should be the main rules, and the „ad hominem“ rules should be subsumed under them.

Orb wrote:

„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)“ **

Unfortunately propriety is often misused, and not seldom caused by „ad hominem“ rules, although they are wanted to prevent misuse, but they do not satisfactorily work, because misusers can easily circumvent „ad hominem“ rules and nevertheless be in violation of them by using other methods, especially such methods I mentioned several times in this thread.

The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be the subordinated rules. Such regulations strengthen both logic and propriety. They lead to the lack of people who like ad hominems.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Philosophy cannot be misused because it cannot be properly used in the first place. There is no »proper« use for a language game.“ **

Philosophy can be misused, and unfotuntaely I have to add: in this times of misusing everything can be misused.

Feel free to feel like being misused.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„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.«“ **

Okay, dear Wittgensteinian, but philosophy and linguistics are nonetheless not the same. Logic and mathematics are also not the same.

I like your focus on language. However, a little bit differentiation is okay, isn't it?

Jr Wells wrote:

„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.“ **

Okay, if you want to call it „stronger“, but to me the right word in this case is „weaker“, because he lacks the acceptance of e.g. philosophical, especially logical rules on a philosophy forum called „I Love Philosophy“.

However. Probably you remember this:

Arminius wrote:

„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«).“ ** **

I mean if the „ad hominem“ rules do not satisfactorily work, then there is already a lack of regulation, at least in an applied sense.

Zinnat wrote:

„As some people consider as wiki the word of the god, here is a quote from the theism page of wiki.“ **

Wiki is their false god. Most of those people who have no traditional god anymore „tinker“ a new god, at least a false god. Wiki is one of the current thousand false gods.

728) Arminius, 31.05.2015, 01:56, 02:12, 03:42, 18:36, 19:09, 21:04, 22:10, 23:50 (3095-3102)

Jr Wells wrote:

„There are many other strengths that need to be exercised too (he is currently stronger on some of them and growing in strength).“ **

Strengths are strengths. Weaknesses are weaknesses.

Jr Wells wrote:

„What are the qualities (strengths) of a good philosopher?

Maybe this is an idea for another thread.“ **

Do you intend to open such a thread?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Correct the language problems (semantics) through definitions and the philosophy problems (conundrums and mysteries) go away.“ **

The philosophy problems go away but not the philosophy itself. Philosophy is something like a subspecies of language.

Amorphos wrote:

„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?“ **

If the last human „bubble“ will burst, then there will probably already be a stronger „bubble“ of machines (robots, androids). Machines (robots, androids) are not humans; so the first birth of a so-called „human V2“ will merely have a chance then, if humans will be still alive (unless the machines will make a mistake - but the probability that they will is very low). So first of all we should speak about the future of the „humans V1“, as you would call them, and about the future of A.I. ....

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Language is more than that. Language is not merely communication, it is also information, it is a kind of pre-science and pre-philosophy. Without language one could not precisely say what is scientifically and philosophically meant. Language is needed for almost everything humans culturally do. Without language humans were no humans. Without language there were no science at all, no philosophy at all.

If you used langauga only for communication, you would know nothing. If you used language only for information, you would know everything that you want to know but not for what it is worth.

Zoot Allures wrote:

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.«

....“ **

I know all that. The reason why like your focus on language has much to do with the fact that I studied linguistics, although not only linguistics, and that language is one of the greatest phenomena. Regarding the ordinary language and philosophy, I have to say that Heidegger was the one who used the ordinary language for philosophy the most perfectly; but sometimes the ordinary language is more difficult to use for philosophy than the more elaborated high-level language; however, one should prefer the ordinary language but also use the more elaborated high-level language for pohilosophy, because the ordinary language lacks the elaborated forms of the high-level language and the high-level language runs into danger of being misunderstood by the recipients.

Jr Wells wrote:

„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.“ **

Agreed!

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

As I have said several times: Your conclusions are false, because your premises (preconditions) are false.

Mutcer wrote:

„But calling them atheist does tell us quite a bit about the word atheist.“ **

No. It covers and clouds that word, so that its meaning becomes a „new“ meaning (comparable with the words in Orwells „newspeek“).

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

No. That would not be the „natural state“ and also not the „neutral“ state, if it is based on newborn humans, because they have nothing to do with beliefs in god, they are not able to believe in god and - above all - not able to think about any belief in god.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

That is utter nonsense, a nonsensical wordplay, used in order to make out of all humans atheists.

B.t.w.: What is a „negative acriminal“? A newborn hyena?

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

No. Absolutely no. Mutcer, you have to consider definitions and preconditions (premises) - as I told you several times. It is not allowed to connect newborns with „theists“, „atheists“, „antitheists“, because they can't be classified as such, the answer to the question of such a classification is always. NOT DEFINED!

Mutcer wrote:

„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)“ **

Your #4 and #5 are false. Human newborns are NOT theists, are NOT non-theists are NOT atheists, are NOT antitheists. The question whether newborns are theists, atheists (non-theists), antitheists can only be answered with NO or with NOT DEFINED!

Mutcer wrote:

„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 exist

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.‹ **

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.“ **

A newborn is not able to hold the belief that a god exists. Therfore a newborn has nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism. Each logic (syllogisms and so on) fails when it comes to connect newborns with theists, atheists, and antitheists. It is not possible by definition, and all premises (preconditions) that connect them are false.

Mutcer wrote:

„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.“ **

It is sufficient. Of course. Each logic (syllogisms and so on) fails when it comes to connect newborns with theists, atheists, and antitheists. It is not possible by definition, and all premises (preconditions) that connect them are false.

Mutcer, you are completely ignoring the meanings/definitions of the words/concepts of „newborn“, „baby“, „child“, and „theist“, „atheist“, „antitheist“.

Your next ignoring step is that all your premises (preconditions) are also false.

So all your conclusions can be nothing else than false.

Mutcer wrote:

„So which category do newborn babies fall into?“ **

In no category.

Your categories have nothing to do with newborn babies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there are the following three categories: elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?

Only human beings - thus no other living beings - are able to use language (I mean the human language - of course!). It was the language that made out of prehumans humans.

729) Arminius, 01.06.2015, 00:00, 01:14, 02:23, 03:14, 16:35 (3103-3107)

The goal of Hollywood is obvious.

I meant that it can be only „H1“ who creates „H2“, and therefore we should be interested in the future of „H1“, because „H2“ has not been created yet, thus „H2“ will be created in the furture or never.

No tricks?

Perhaps you know this too: Passport (Klaus Doldinger u.a.), Looking Thru, 1973.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.t.w.: Why is there no YouTube version of Frank Zappa's „Purple Lagoon“ from his live lp „Zappa in New York“? Do you know that?

Thank you. Unfortunately I can't start it because of the UMG.

730) Herr Schütze, 02.06.2015, 04:42 (3108)

@ Mücke

„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).

„Den Rücken kehren“? Ja, aber wohin wollen Sie denn? Es ist in anderen Ländern noch schlimmer.

„Ein Land, was die die rechtschaffenen Menschen belügt, betrügt“, gibt es nicht. Länder können nicht belügen und betrügen. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich „Menschen“ nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die die rechtschaffenen Menschen dieses Landes belogen, betrogen belügen, betrügen, belügen werden, betrügen werden.

„Ein Land, was die die rechtschaffenen Menschen ... um die Früchte ihrer Lebensarbeitszeit bringt“, gibt es nicht. Länder können das nicht. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich „Menschen“ nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die die rechtschaffenen Menschen dieses Landes um die Früchte ihrer Lebensarbeitszeit brachten, bringen und bringen werden.

„Ein Land, was ... nicht maßhält“, gibt es nicht. Länder können nicht maßhalten. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich „Menschen“ nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die nicht maßhielten, nicht maßhalten und nicht maßhalten werden.

„Ein Land, was ... auf die kleinen Leute spuckt“, gibt es nicht. Länder können nicht spucken. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich „Menschen“ nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die dauf die kleinen Leute spuckten, spucken und spuicken werden.

Das Land kann nichts dafür. Nennen sie also bitte die Namen der herrschenden Menschen - Sie wirken sonst unglaubwürdig (vielleicht zu recht).

Das Land, das Sie meinen, heißt auch nicht „BRD“, sondern Deutschland. „BRD“ ist ein „DDR“-Kürzel, das lediglich Auskunft über die echte oder angebliche Herrschaftsform eines Systems in einem bestimmten Land gibt (oftmals noch mehr über die, die glauben zu wissen, wie das zu bewerten sei), aber rein gar nichts über das Land selbst.

==>