• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism is not a default position

Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Shad said:
Covered this in another response for the most part.

You ignore the logical counters, you ignore the purpose of dictionaries. You have no counter argument beside complaining. I cut right to the heart of the discussion by rendering one sides claim as untenable. Just as poking holes in the usages of theory, as in it's just a theory, into it's proper scientific context when talking about evolution. It's not like one can not search for theory under your username and find you arguing for theory in it's proper context. Yet you decline to do so here.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Dictionaries describe usages - there is no such thing as a correct definition. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
But yes, there is a scientific definition of theory - I'm not sure what you think I am declining.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Sorry. What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical counter thus showing the definition of "lack of" if taken to it's full logical conclusion is untenable. Hence my rock counter is completely valid. The counter does not work on "rejection of" since rejection requires a mind. Such arguments are covered in introduction to logic hence logic 101
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Shad said:
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical counter thus showing the definition of "lack of" if taken to it's full logical conclusion is untenable. Hence my rock counter is completely valid. The counter does not work on "rejection of" since rejection requires a mind. Such arguments are covered in introduction to logic hence logic 101
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I can't make sense of that comment. Why are you talking about rocks again?
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Dictionaries describe usages - there is no such thing as a correct definition. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
But yes, there is a scientific definition of theory - I'm not sure what you think I am declining.
Click to expand...

You will argue for a use of a word in the correct context but decline to do with atheism. Nothing more than that.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Nope. That is nuts - rocks don't think mate. What on earth is making you repeat that?
Click to expand...

Does not matter if rocks do not have beliefs as you defined atheism as "lack of belief". Plenty of objects lack a belief thus would be atheists just as people claim babies are atheists.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Shad said:
Does not matter if rocks do not have beliefs as you defined atheism as "lack of belief". Plenty of objects lack a belief thus would be atheists just as people claim babies are atheists.
Click to expand...
Why this fixation on rocks? What made you think they have philosophical opinions? This seems just crazy to me, who cares what philosophical odeas you think rocks have? And what the heck has that got to do with me?
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
What argument? Please write a complete sentence. What are you accusing me of?
Click to expand...

Okay, people are arguing for a "lack of belief" as one definition for atheism. If true all objects which lack a belief are atheist; rocks, trees, etc. Only "rejection of" works as rejection requires consideration of a position/claim which rocks can not do. This renders the babies are atheist view untenable. In an ad hoc rescue you try to use slang which is not valid English and still in error.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Shad said:
Okay, people are arguing for a "lack of belief" as one definition for atheism. If true all objects which lack a belief are atheist; rocks, trees, etc. Only "rejection of" works as rejection requires consideration of a position/claim which rocks can not do. This renders the babies are atheist view untenable. In an ad hoc rescue you try to use slang which is not valid English and still in error.
Click to expand...
Who cares what rocks think mate? Rocks don't think. What are you talking about?

I don't mean to offend you, but rocks don't have beliefs mate. This is going nowhere.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Why this fixation on rocks? What made you think they have philosophical opinions? This seems just crazy to me, who cares what philosophical odeas you think rocks have? And what the heck has that got to do with me?
Click to expand...

It is due to a flawed definition in which rocks as an example render the definition untenable. More so if atheism is a philosophical opinion than lack of is a lack of opinion
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Shad said:
It is due to a flawed definition in which rocks as an example render the definition untenable. More so if atheism is a philosophical opinion than lack of is a lack of opinion
Click to expand...
What is the point of refuting a usage? All definitions are flawed - so what? Can you not see past these rocks you have imagined?
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Who cares what rocks think mate? Rocks don't think. What are you talking about?

I don't mean to offend you, but rocks don't have beliefs mate. This is going nowhere.
Click to expand...

I made it simple as possible. I can not reduce it any further without introducing your to logic 101.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top