Religions > Atheism > Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist")
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MG" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 06:35:17 AM |
| Object: |
Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods. The truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
If an atheist did not understand the term "god or gods" then they could
not understand what belief it was that they lack, that makes them an
atheist. So they could not believe that they were an atheist.
Now... there are a lot of little tricks that some atheists try to get
out of this. None of them work.
The most popular is to argue like this:
A: "Someone tells me that 'pog is red' - but I can believe them without
understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a constitutive term is
not required for a belief involving that term."
Nope - what you believe is that "the entity named 'pog' is red" - and
that is a different belief from believing "pog is red". The difference
occurs because of what philosphers sometimes call "referential opacity"
in "intentional contexts". Belief is what is sometimes called an
intentional context (so is desire, hope, etc.). This means that you
cannot substitute co-referential terms and guarantee preserving truth
value. A good example, is that Oedipus believed "Jocasta will be my
wife", but he did not believe "my mother will be my wife", even though
Jocasta was both his mother (he had no idea of that) and his wife to be.
He desired to sleep with his wife, but did not desire to sleep with his
mother, even though his wife was his mother.
Another try is this:
B: "Someone tells me that 'pog exists' - but I can lack a belief that
pog exists without understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a
constitutive term is not required for a lack of belief in the existence
of whatever it might be they think they refer to."
Correct - but that is not the issue! Yes, you can lack a belief without
understanding the meaning of a constitutive term of that belief. BUT you
cannot *believe* that you lack that belief without understanding which
belief it is that you lack, and for that you need to understand it's
constitutive terms.
Another one:
C: "The word 'god' is used in so many different way by different
religions, most of them completely contradictory, that the term is
completely meaningless to me. But I lack a belief in any of them (or at
least all the ones I've come across) so I believe I am an atheist but
the term 'god' remains meaningless to me".
This is an interesting attempt but only because it raises several
interesting issues concerning langauge and meaning.
Firstly, it confuses a multiplicity of contradictory meanings with
meaninglessness by assuming that we have one word when we have, in
effect, either 1) many senses of the same word or 2) different words
(the choice between these two descriptions is ultimately arbitrary).
For example, the word "wicked" means (roughly) "something bad". It also
means (roughly) "something good". Both uses are current in English and
they clearly contradict each other. Have we, therefore, a meaningless
word "wicked"? No. Have we two words with different meanings, or one
word with radically different senses? Yes - you decide which description
you prefer. But you can't claim that it is meaningless just because it
gets used by different people in different contexts in many different
(often contradictory) ways.
Secondly, (if we assume each usage is internally consistent) the only
way one can judge two different words as contradicting each other would
be if one understood both meanings. Hence each would be meaningful.
Thirdly, the usage of the term "god" does allow us to form a *clear
enough* "god" concept to to form a judgement about when we lack a belief
in the existence of such things. Any atheist who says that they have no
idea what "god" means is either being disengenuous or is confused about
what it is for a term ot have meaning - generally, its the latter.
Another attempt....
D: "Every definition of 'god' that I've come across is self
contradictory in some way. I lack a belief in the existence of
self-contradictory entities, so 'god' is meaningless and I believe I am
an atheist."
More interesting issues...
Fourthly, (and this is very contentious) a self-contradictory deginition
is not meaningless. A sentence or concept is not meaningless if it is
*understood* and in order to determine that a sentence or concept is
self-contradictory it must be understood what is being said.
If I define "pog" = "a triangle with four sides" some people will say
"that is meaningless" - when what they actually mean is "that is
impossible - there can be no such entity - when I try to think of such
an entity I cannot". None of these is the same as the sentence or
concept being meaningless. The very fact that someone can make such
judgements about "pog" demonstrates that they understand what "pog" means.
I say this is contentious because many poeple think that all meaningfull
concepts must be possibly instantiatable. I'm not convinced, especially
because mathematicians frequently prove that certain entirely meaningful
and clearly defined concepts are not instantiated.
Fifthly, it is a mistake to think that to understand a concept term it
must be stated in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
Relatively few entirely meaningful concepts in ordinary languages are
amenable to strict definition. Try defining "game" and you'll see what I
mean. Try defiining "love", etc. Meaningful terms do not require
definition. If they did langauge learning could not even get started,
for to learn the first word we would need to already know words in which
the meaning of the first word would be defined.
I expect I'll get the same responses I have in the past when I've
mentioned all this.
And just to make it clear - I lack a belief in the existence of gods.
Goober.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 02:40:23 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
If that is true, then he'd not call the ones that it does not
describe, atheists. He'd call them something else. But that would be
his issue to deal with, WRT any problems it creates for him.
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
The meanings of words change. Look at "liberal" and "conservative".
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
That's confusing to this "dumb" reader. You seem to be talking about
the existence of a word. It seems to me that in whatever sense a word
"exists", if it is a word, it exists in the domain of a language, not
of a group or institution. The *meaning* it is given may vary by user
or user group, subculture, etc. In atheism, it means a fictional
being believed to exist by certain theists, typically the Abrahamic
faiths. In theism, it means a real being who is etc. etc.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
That is true of religion.
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists including both the
ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
I like yours just fine, but if you are going to say that the
definition of "atheist" is up to atheists to decide, then you aren't
going to be the only one with an opinion. Some atheists will promote
the standard dictionary definitions, and their reasons should be
considered, IMO.
Please, pretty please, address these explanations instead of accusing
me of doing things I'm not, and using it as an hominem excuse to
dismiss them.
I am addressing your questions.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 03:34:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:40:23 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
If that is true, then he'd not call the ones that it does not
describe, atheists. He'd call them something else. But that would be
his issue to deal with, WRT any problems it creates for him.
And he'd be wrong.
I am as atheist as I was 57 years ago.
The other words he wants to use are either linguistically incorrect
or even less accurate than his meaning of "atheist".
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
It invents a position that we don't actually have (apart from those
whose use of English is sloppy) because our actual one doesn't even
exist in the minds of the theist majority.
The big problem is that instead of acknowledging their mistake, too
many people take us to task over it.
Most atheists use exactly the same language about God as they would
about Santa Claus. Those who say there's no God say exactly the same
thing about Santa Claus. Those who see God as a cultural phenomenon
see Santa in that light. Those who believe God doesn't exist say the
same thing about Santa. Those who don't believe in God also don't
believe in Santa Claus either.
The problem is that these all mean slightly different things. even
though they don't see the differences in meaning, they are there.
Eg "not believe" isn't the same thing as "believe in not", etc.
And its compounded when the theist majority filter it through their
presumption that their deity exists.
Some people watch baseball, I don't.
Some people collect stamps, I don't.
Some people believe in something they call "God". I don't.
Some people speak Serbo-Croat. I don't.
All of these are non-events.
The meanings of words change. Look at "liberal" and "conservative".
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
That's confusing to this "dumb" reader. You seem to be talking about
the existence of a word. It seems to me that in whatever sense a word
"exists", if it is a word, it exists in the domain of a language, not
of a group or institution. The *meaning* it is given may vary by user
or user group, subculture, etc. In atheism, it means a fictional
No. It means part of somebody else's religious belief. It stops there.
being believed to exist by certain theists, typically the Abrahamic
faiths. In theism, it means a real being who is etc. etc.
Then define it in a way that is both justified and accurate for
everybody.
Until then it remains what I have observed: that people called
Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in something they call "God" as
part of their religion.
Which is both parsimonious and accurate.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
That is true of religion.
But the point is that this is all it means outside their religion.
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists including both the
ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
I like yours just fine, but if you are going to say that the
definition of "atheist" is up to atheists to decide, then you aren't
going to be the only one with an opinion. Some atheists will promote
the standard dictionary definitions, and their reasons should be
considered, IMO.
Sigh.
IT IS A "STANDARD DICTIONARY DEFINITION" in most dictionaries.
The problem is that too many people who don't know how to use
dictionaries skip past it, and think they get to decide which one to
use, instead of the context of the person being described.
Please, pretty please, address these explanations instead of accusing
me of doing things I'm not, and using it as an hominem excuse to
dismiss them.
I am addressing your questions.
At last. But you're still arguing against fact.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 04:03:09 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:40:23 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
If that is true, then he'd not call the ones that it does not
describe, atheists. He'd call them something else. But that would be
his issue to deal with, WRT any problems it creates for him.
And he'd be wrong.
I am as atheist as I was 57 years ago.
Were you arguing about the definition, back then?
The other words he wants to use are either linguistically incorrect
or even less accurate than his meaning of "atheist".
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
Without trying to sound disapproving, you are sounding like a
prescriptivist. Prescriptivists and descriptivists seem to disapprove
of one another's approach.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
It invents a position that we don't actually have (apart from those
whose use of English is sloppy) because our actual one doesn't even
exist in the minds of the theist majority.
Hey, I understand. The term "atheist" has even been applied to people
who believe in a god, but not in the god of the person or institution
applying the term to them. It is similar to Islamicists calling
Christians infidels.
The big problem is that instead of acknowledging their mistake, too
many people take us to task over it.
Most atheists use exactly the same language about God as they would
about Santa Claus. Those who say there's no God say exactly the same
thing about Santa Claus. Those who see God as a cultural phenomenon
see Santa in that light. Those who believe God doesn't exist say the
same thing about Santa. Those who don't believe in God also don't
believe in Santa Claus either.
The problem is that these all mean slightly different things. even
though they don't see the differences in meaning, they are there.
Eg "not believe" isn't the same thing as "believe in not", etc.
And its compounded when the theist majority filter it through their
presumption that their deity exists.
Some people watch baseball, I don't.
Some people collect stamps, I don't.
Some people believe in something they call "God". I don't.
Some people speak Serbo-Croat. I don't.
All of these are non-events.
The meanings of words change. Look at "liberal" and "conservative".
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
That's confusing to this "dumb" reader. You seem to be talking about
the existence of a word. It seems to me that in whatever sense a word
"exists", if it is a word, it exists in the domain of a language, not
of a group or institution. The *meaning* it is given may vary by user
or user group, subculture, etc. In atheism, it means a fictional
No. It means part of somebody else's religious belief. It stops there.
being believed to exist by certain theists, typically the Abrahamic
faiths. In theism, it means a real being who is etc. etc.
Then define it in a way that is both justified and accurate for
everybody.
Until then it remains what I have observed: that people called
Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in something they call "God" as
part of their religion.
Which is both parsimonious and accurate.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
That is true of religion.
But the point is that this is all it means outside their religion.
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists including both the
ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
I like yours just fine, but if you are going to say that the
definition of "atheist" is up to atheists to decide, then you aren't
going to be the only one with an opinion. Some atheists will promote
the standard dictionary definitions, and their reasons should be
considered, IMO.
Sigh.
IT IS A "STANDARD DICTIONARY DEFINITION" in most dictionaries.
The problem is that too many people who don't know how to use
dictionaries skip past it, and think they get to decide which one to
use, instead of the context of the person being described.
Please, pretty please, address these explanations instead of accusing
me of doing things I'm not, and using it as an hominem excuse to
dismiss them.
I am addressing your questions.
At last. But you're still arguing against fact.
Yeah, but I'm dumb. Remember?
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 04:14:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:03:09 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:40:23 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
If that is true, then he'd not call the ones that it does not
describe, atheists. He'd call them something else. But that would be
his issue to deal with, WRT any problems it creates for him.
And he'd be wrong.
I am as atheist as I was 57 years ago.
Were you arguing about the definition, back then?
I didn't hear the word until 9 years later.
The other words he wants to use are either linguistically incorrect
or even less accurate than his meaning of "atheist".
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
Without trying to sound disapproving, you are sounding like a
prescriptivist. Prescriptivists and descriptivists seem to disapprove
of one another's approach.
Nope.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
It invents a position that we don't actually have (apart from those
whose use of English is sloppy) because our actual one doesn't even
exist in the minds of the theist majority.
Hey, I understand. The term "atheist" has even been applied to people
who believe in a god, but not in the god of the person or institution
applying the term to them. It is similar to Islamicists calling
Christians infidels.
The big problem is that instead of acknowledging their mistake, too
many people take us to task over it.
Most atheists use exactly the same language about God as they would
about Santa Claus. Those who say there's no God say exactly the same
thing about Santa Claus. Those who see God as a cultural phenomenon
see Santa in that light. Those who believe God doesn't exist say the
same thing about Santa. Those who don't believe in God also don't
believe in Santa Claus either.
The problem is that these all mean slightly different things. even
though they don't see the differences in meaning, they are there.
Eg "not believe" isn't the same thing as "believe in not", etc.
And its compounded when the theist majority filter it through their
presumption that their deity exists.
Some people watch baseball, I don't.
Some people collect stamps, I don't.
Some people believe in something they call "God". I don't.
Some people speak Serbo-Croat. I don't.
All of these are non-events.
The meanings of words change. Look at "liberal" and "conservative".
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
That's confusing to this "dumb" reader. You seem to be talking about
the existence of a word. It seems to me that in whatever sense a word
"exists", if it is a word, it exists in the domain of a language, not
of a group or institution. The *meaning* it is given may vary by user
or user group, subculture, etc. In atheism, it means a fictional
No. It means part of somebody else's religious belief. It stops there.
being believed to exist by certain theists, typically the Abrahamic
faiths. In theism, it means a real being who is etc. etc.
Then define it in a way that is both justified and accurate for
everybody.
Until then it remains what I have observed: that people called
Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in something they call "God" as
part of their religion.
Which is both parsimonious and accurate.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
That is true of religion.
But the point is that this is all it means outside their religion.
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists including both the
ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
I like yours just fine, but if you are going to say that the
definition of "atheist" is up to atheists to decide, then you aren't
going to be the only one with an opinion. Some atheists will promote
the standard dictionary definitions, and their reasons should be
considered, IMO.
Sigh.
IT IS A "STANDARD DICTIONARY DEFINITION" in most dictionaries.
The problem is that too many people who don't know how to use
dictionaries skip past it, and think they get to decide which one to
use, instead of the context of the person being described.
Please, pretty please, address these explanations instead of accusing
me of doing things I'm not, and using it as an hominem excuse to
dismiss them.
I am addressing your questions.
At last. But you're still arguing against fact.
Yeah, but I'm dumb. Remember?
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 08:10:25 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[snip]
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
Completely begs the question. It begs the question because it assumes
precisely what is at issue - that the linguistically priveliged group
for specifying the meaning of "atheist" are a group failing to match
that picked out by common usage of the term "atheist".
It invents a position that we don't actually have (apart from those
whose use of English is sloppy) because our actual one doesn't even
exist in the minds of the theist majority.
Again, circular. As Tonto once said, what do you mean "we" whiteman?
Here's how the argument seems to go:
CL: "atheist" (contrary to common usage which gets it wrong) means
anyone who's not a theist.
Why should we accept that meaning for "atheist" as the correct usage,
over that of common usage?
CL: Because I am an atheist and only we atheists get to determine the
meaning of "atheist", not theists or the majority or anyone else.
Ah, so your authority in this matter depends on your assertion that you
are an atheist. If there is no reason ot think that you are an atheist,
there is no reason to accept your definition of "atheist". So, why do
you think that you're an atheist?
CL: Because I am not a theist - and that is all it takes to be an
atheist - that is what "atheist" means.
So you've said, but that brings us back to the earlier question: why
should we accept *that* as what "atheist" means?
CL: Because I am an atheist and it is only we atheists who determine the
meaning of "atheist". Are you deaf?
Not deaf - just pressing you for a non-circular answer. Even granting
that only atheists get to determine what "atheist" means, I repeat the
relevant question - how do you know you're an *atheist*?
It seems that you claim to be an authority on the meaning of "atheist",
in part, because you claim to be an atheist. (The other part being that
only atheists speak with authority on the meaning of "atheist".) But
whether you are right to think you are an atheist depends on whether you
speak with the appropriate authority on the meaning of the term "atheist".
Goober
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 10:49:54 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
CL: "atheist" ... means
anyone who's not a theist.
Why should we accept that meaning for "atheist"
Because 'asymmetry' means an absence of symmetry.
'A-' anything denotes an absence of that, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 12:43:32 PM |
|
|
In article <vv-dnSpkG6WrfHLcRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Goober wrote:
CL: "atheist" ... means
anyone who's not a theist.
Why should we accept that meaning for "atheist"
Because 'asymmetry' means an absence of symmetry.
'A-' anything denotes an absence of that, moron.
Then 'agnostic' means absence of knowledge, in particaular absence of
knowledge of the impossibility of gods because there is no convincing
evidence of any such thing.
Thus Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is not only anti-theist, he is
anti-agnostic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 04:00:41 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... absence of
knowledge of the impossibility of gods
Argument from ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 05:04:32 PM |
|
|
In article <BsidnURpZLvgt23cRVn-vg@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... absence of
knowledge of the impossibility of gods
Argument from ignorance.
Point of fact.
Unless Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, can provide evidence that
there is evidence of the impossibility of gods.
Well, can ya, punk?
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
22 Jan 2005 01:41:28 AM |
|
|
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
CL: "atheist" ... means anyone who's not a theist.
Why should we accept that meaning for "atheist"
Because 'asymmetry' means an absence of symmetry.
'A-' anything denotes an absence of that, moron.
ROTFL
abut
agent
amass
Need I go on?
Goober.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
22 Jan 2005 10:30:02 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:41:28 -0800, Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> let us all know that:
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
CL: "atheist" ... means anyone who's not a theist.
Why should we accept that meaning for "atheist"
Because 'asymmetry' means an absence of symmetry.
'A-' anything denotes an absence of that, moron.
ROTFL
abut
agent
amass
Need I go on?
Yes, because those aren't created with the privative prefix "a-".
Try again, fucktard.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
23 Jan 2005 08:43:19 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:41:28 -0800, Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> let us all know that:
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
CL: "atheist" ... means anyone who's not a theist.
Why should we accept that meaning for "atheist"
Because 'asymmetry' means an absence of symmetry.
'A-' anything denotes an absence of that, moron.
ROTFL
abut
agent
amass
Need I go on?
Yes, because those aren't created with the privative prefix "a-".
Try again, fucktard.
But that was not the claim made. (I'm sure you can read, if you give it
a try.) The claim made was, and I quote:
"'A-' anything denotes an absence of that, moron."
And the examples given are examples of "A-" something that are manifest
counter-examples to that claim. Therefore, the claim is false.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: OT: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
23 Jan 2005 11:33:37 AM |
|
|
MG, I'm just going to poke this into this thread because I hope it makes
it more likely that you'll see it. If you have the time and are inclined
to, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the issues being discussed
in the thread, "How do I know God Exists?" The person I had mentioned
before, Dianelos Georgoudis, that I had thought had "disappeared" has
come back with a flurry of interesting responses. I'd especially be
interested in hearing what you think of his exchange with Publius (since
my postings tend not to be as "tight" and cogent as theirs). It is a lot
to wade through, though, so I understand it may not fit your desire to
come to aa for some lighter ruminating.
Ted
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 08:34:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:10:25 -0800, Goober <go.away@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[snip]
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
Completely begs the question. It begs the question because it assumes
precisely what is at issue - that the linguistically priveliged group
for specifying the meaning of "atheist" are a group failing to match
that picked out by common usage of the term "atheist".
What part of "when it is the label that describes our position, the
only correct definition is a description of our position" are you
pretending you don't understand?
It begs no question. At most it is tautological.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 12:02:47 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:10:25 -0800, Goober <go.away@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[snip]
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
Completely begs the question. It begs the question because it assumes
precisely what is at issue - that the linguistically priveliged group
for specifying the meaning of "atheist" are a group failing to match
that picked out by common usage of the term "atheist".
What part of "when it is the label that describes our position, the
only correct definition is a description of our position" are you
pretending you don't understand?
It begs no question. At most it is tautological.
In a sense, it is, itself a definition of "correct definition", as
follows, but it does not make Lee's point, since the criterion for
"correct" is indexed to, or relative to, the position of any person
who belongs to a group of like thinkers.
To wit:
Correct definition: the definition (of a label) that is a description
of our position.
The label of anyone who says this about his label, is covered by it.
WRT person who is a member of group of people whose positions are
sufficiently similar for him to characterize his position as "our
position", the correct definition of the word will be just that
definition that describes that shared position. For example those
label themselves as atheists, for whom "God's existence is not
logically possible" is a description of their position would be
correct to define their "label" such that , those who believe God's
existence is logically possible are not atheists. Lee is saying in
effect that his adversaries in this discussion are using "atheist"
correctly, relative to their own groups.
What Lee should say is "my" position meaning his position.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
21 Jan 2005 06:08:26 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:10:25 -0800, Goober <go.away@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[snip]
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
Completely begs the question. It begs the question because it assumes
precisely what is at issue - that the linguistically priveliged group
for specifying the meaning of "atheist" are a group failing to match
that picked out by common usage of the term "atheist".
What part of "when it is the label that describes our position, the
only correct definition is a description of our position" are you
pretending you don't understand?
1) try to avoid complex questions, as your above.
2) The text in quotation marks in not in the post, nor was it in the
post to which my above is a response. So your question give the
impression that you are a troll. I will understand no part of sentences
that do not appear.
3) Notwithstanding (2) let's take your above remark as it stands.
In your case the label in question is "atheist" and the correct
description of your position is "lacks a theistic belief". So replacing
these terms we have:
"when 'atheist' is the label that describes the position 'lacks a
theistic belief', the only correct definition [of 'atheist'] is a
description of the position 'lacks a theistic belief'"
That is quite clearly true! For a label to perfectly describe some
position it must be defined in terms of that position. BUT so is this:
"when 'atheist' is the label that describes the position 'beleives that
there are no gods', the only correct definition [of 'atheist'] is a
description of the position 'beleives that there are no gods'".
So your claim does *nothing* to tell us which family of definitions is
"the only correct one". Only one correctly identifies *you*. Your
mistake is to implicitly suppose that "our" refers to all and only
atheists. It doesn't.
Sometimes 'atheist' is the label that describes the position 'lacks a
theistic belief'. Other times (most of the time, in fact) 'atheist' is
the label that describes the position 'believes that there are no gods'.
Your circularity lies in your claim that the only correct definition of
"atheist" is whatever definition picks out "our" position, where "our"
position is defined as the position of *atheists* under "our" definition.
Goober.
It begs no question. At most it is tautological.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 09:59:39 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:10:25 -0800, Goober <go.away@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[snip]
I may be wrong but it seems to rest on common usage. There is
nothing
wrong with your suggesting a more technical definition, but the
fact
is, the word "atheist" has connotations and denotations that come
from
its use in society, which includes theists.
And common usage gets it wrong, just as it gets a whole slew of
other
words that are outside its expertise wrong.
The problem is that the common usage understanding of the word
"atheist" is based on premises that don't even apply to atheists.
Completely begs the question. It begs the question because it
assumes
precisely what is at issue - that the linguistically priveliged
group
for specifying the meaning of "atheist" are a group failing to match
that picked out by common usage of the term "atheist".
What part of "when it is the label that describes our position, the
only correct definition is a description of our position" are you
pretending you don't understand?
"Our", of course. As MG has already indicated with his Tonto quote.
Chris Lee does not speak for everyone who calls themselves "atheist",
as evidenced by both tergiversant and MG. "Our" evidently means only
"Chris Lee and those who agree with his definition of 'atheist' (if
any)". And some who _meet_ the Chris Lee definition of "atheist" are
_not_ included in that group, most pertinently those to whom Chris Lee
is replying (tergiversant and MG). Thus Lee's use of "our" is
completely question-begging. And possibly the only correct meaning for
"our" there is "Chris Lee's". Let's see how the correct tautology
would look: When it is the label that describes Chris Lee's position,
the only correct definition is a description of Chris Lee's position.
Evidently there is only a single atheist by Chris Lee's definition,
that being Chris Lee.
It begs no question.
Incorrect.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 10:30:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just not-too-cleverly-disguised theists. Note how they are
putting out the same diversionary arguments your side always does
instead of sticking to the issue, your irrational religious belief there
might be a magic invisible space pixie who created the universe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 12:32:27 PM |
|
|
In article <hOKdnQdKa6wJQXLcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just not-too-cleverly-disguised theists. Note how they are
putting out the same diversionary arguments your side always does
instead of sticking to the issue, your irrational religious belief there
might be a magic invisible space pixie who created the universe?
Actually the issue is Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's irrational
religious belief that anybody gives but himself ever gives a damn about
magic invisible space pixies.
Now on the issue of Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's irrrational
religious belief that he can know without evidence that gods are
impossible...
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 04:08:09 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <hOKdnQdKa6wJQXLcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just not-too-cleverly-disguised theists. Note how they are
putting out the same diversionary arguments your side always does
instead of sticking to the issue, your irrational religious belief there
might be a magic invisible space pixie who created the universe?
Actually the issue is Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's irrational
religious belief that anybody gives but himself ever gives a damn about
magic invisible space pixies.
Then, if not a magic invisible space pixie, what exactly is this 'god'
thingy you argue _ad ignorantiam_ there might be because there is no
proof there are not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 05:21:15 PM |
|
|
In article <CpSdnaJRHJRUtm3cRVn-sg@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <hOKdnQdKa6wJQXLcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just not-too-cleverly-disguised theists. Note how they are
putting out the same diversionary arguments your side always does
instead of sticking to the issue, your irrational religious belief there
might be a magic invisible space pixie who created the universe?
Actually the issue is Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's irrational
religious belief that anybody gives but himself ever gives a damn about
magic invisible space pixies.
Then, if not a magic invisible space pixie, what exactly is this 'god'
thingy you argue _ad ignorantiam_ there might be because there is no
proof there are not?
What I actually argue, that Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, tries to
misrepresent is that as a practicing agnostic I cannot reject a thing as
possibile without evidence that it is impossible, nor reject its
impossibililty without evidence of its possibility.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is trying to pervert my rejections of
unproven claims into assertions, which I have not made.
But in everyones eyes but his own, Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon,
fails miserably.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 10:39:00 AM |
|
|
Long wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just ... theists.
They self-identify as atheists, which is all that is required to
demolish Lee's argument that those who _call_ themselves "atheist" get
to define what "atheist" means. Lee's reasoning is demolished via
Reductio ad absurdum -- the same person could be atheist and
non-atheist at the same time under Lee's rule. Thanks for helping with
the reductio, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 12:23:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Long wrote:
wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just ... theists.
They self-identify as atheists ...
Lots of people 'self-identify' [sic] as Napoleon. Does that make them
really Napoleon? No.
Those two are just not-too-cleverly-disguised theists. Note how they are
putting out the same diversionary arguments your side always does
instead of sticking to the issue, your irrational religious belief there
might be a magic invisible space pixie who created the universe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 01:14:13 PM |
|
|
In article <uICdnVzCX9iSanLcRVn-1w@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Long wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just ... theists.
They self-identify as atheists ...
Lots of people 'self-identify' [sic] as Napoleon. Does that make them
really Napoleon? No.
But those who do not so identify are very often not Napolean.
Those two are just not-too-cleverly-disguised theists.
Then Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is an even more well disguised
theist and a troll to boot. The evidence for these is the way he
continually attempts to brings disrespect to atheism and agnosticism by
falsely representing them as being foolish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 01:06:36 PM |
|
|
Long wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Long wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... tergiversant and MG. ...
Those two are just ... theists.
They self-identify as atheists ...
Lots of people 'self-identify' [sic] as Napoleon.
Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi from Septic. Doubly so. The only thing
relevant to the Lee rebuttal is the self-identification, because the
_only_ thing Lee invokes for authority is his own self-identification
as atheist. (When other self-identifying atheists use the same
authority to exclude Lee from what _they_ say are "atheists", Lee has
no defense -- his rationale has been reduced to absurdity
(contradiction).) No suprise, I suppose, that Septic, the completely
fallacious and clueless old idiot fool of alt.atheism, doesn't
understand this.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 02:36:08 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is
no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
Argumentum ad Populum? Fallacy.
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
Demonstrate. All it seems to rest on is the meaning of words common to
all of us.
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't
exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
Fallacy of Equivocation, as already discussed.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
Incorrect, since tergiversant is outside the religion yet shares the
definition. MG is outside the religion yet shares the meaning of
"God".
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists
Begs the question.
including both the ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
Inclusiveness is a sham criterion. Your definition plus anyone named
"Keith Johnson" is more inclusive yet. Better?
Please, pretty please, address these explanations instead of accusing
me of doing things I'm not, and using it as an hominem excuse to
dismiss them.
How about you address these counters, instead of pretending that
they've not been seen before.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 05:18:46 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 19 Jan 2005 12:36:08 -0800, let us
all know that:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is
no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
Argumentum ad Populum?
Nope.
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
Demonstrate.
No, you have to demonstrate that it does apply.
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't
exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
Fallacy of Equivocation,
Dial-A-Fallacy fallacy.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
Incorrect, since tergiversant is outside the religion yet shares the
definition.
No.
MG is outside the religion yet shares the meaning of
"God".
Doubtful.
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists
Begs the question.
No it doesn't.
including both the ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
Inclusiveness is a sham criterion.
No, it's not.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 08:09:43 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on 19 Jan 2005 12:36:08 -0800, let us
all know that:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net>
wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some
theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists,
but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever
he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a
definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there
is
no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed
several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
Argumentum ad Populum?
Nope.
Yep.
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
Demonstrate.
No,
Yes.
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't
exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
Fallacy of Equivocation,
Dial-A-Fallacy fallacy.
No Dial-A-Fallacy fallacy.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
Incorrect, since tergiversant is outside the religion yet shares the
definition.
No.
Yes.
MG is outside the religion yet shares the meaning of
"God".
Doubtful.
Not doubtful.
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists
Begs the question.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
including both the ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
Inclusiveness is a sham criterion.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
(Arguing with Don is so easy, since virtually every assertion of his is
simply false.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
23 Jan 2005 04:52:49 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106186983.906612.63480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
... Arguing ...
I doubt it. It would be simply amazing if Jeffrey A. Wrong EVER produced
anything but sophistry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
23 Jan 2005 09:06:14 PM |
|
|
In article <tbKdnZdNb5e9s2ncRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Long" <long@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106186983.906612.63480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
... Arguing ...
I doubt it. It would be simply amazing if Jeffrey A. Wrong EVER produced
anything but sophistry.
There is no requirement that an argument be valid, so that what is
sophistry is a form of argument.
Even such sophistry as Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, produces so
regularly is argument, just not valid arguemnt.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
