Atheism is not a default position

[Curious George]

Hopefully, sooner or later the point that arguing against definitions is pointless will finally be made. Then a logical error that has long been an obstacle to meaningful discussion will be laid to rest and people can move on to discussing things that do matter. Like what people mean when they say something, rather than what definition of a word they used.

Perhaps, I am not too sure such will happen. But if it does, I will buy your first round and we can all have a laugh at our threads.

 

[Thief]

Hopefully, sooner or later the point that arguing against definitions is pointless will finally be made. Then a logical error that has long been an obstacle to meaningful discussion will be laid to rest and people can move on to discussing things that do matter. Like what people mean when they say something, rather than what definition of a word they used.

this means you're done here right?

 

[Curious George]

this means you're done here right?

Lol, did you confuse this thread with the last post is the winner thread also.

 

[Thief]

Lol, did you confuse this thread with the last post is the winner thread also.

everybody else has......

how about you?....got a line to draw?

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps, I am not too sure such will happen. But if it does, I will buy your first round and we can all have a laugh at our threads.

It is such a simple misconception, I may completely lose my mind otherwise. And yeah mate, beer or two with you would be great.

 

[Curious George]

everybody else has......

how about you?....got a line to draw?

A line on which page to quit? Nah, I figured I would play it by ear.

And yes, I see that everyone else has also thought this was the last to post wins thread. I alluded to this with the "also" in my post to you. I assumed a poet such as yourself would have been keenly aware of the word choice.

 

[Shad]

What is the point? You could point out such logical counters to all definitions - so what is the point?

Empty assertion. Start showing logical errors in definitions of other words.

The definition is the sole point of inference, defeat the definition the inference fails as does the argument.

I know, and I keep explaining to you why it is a useless tactic, but you ignore everything I say. Why would I want to refute your 'logical counter' to a definition that like all definitions is imperfect and contextual?

It is a valid tool to counter illogical positions and arguments. You wish to ignore this fact in favour of your illogical definition as it is the only point of inference you have.

Why would I want to refute a logical counter to a definition I never thought was universally applicable anyway - and which forms no part of my argument? You keep insisting that I refute your logical counter to a definition I am not even defending. [/quote]

After reading your flip-flopping between what you claim to support to me and what you post to other people, frankly I no longer believe yoy are not defending a definition nor using it. You deny using the definition then turn around and use it right after the denial as per below.

Atheism is the default under some definitions and contexts, and not in others. What does it even matter?

Why would I need to do that? I am not positing a definition mate. [/quote]

You are using a definition, you just are not openly saying "Word X means this" as per above. You attempt to hide your definition but anyone can find this with a tiny amount of reading comprehension.

You are ignoring everything I say and demanding that I refute your logical argument against a definition that I am not employing and never thought for a second was universally correct.

No, I am dismissing what you say as invalid and unsound. You are making a statement which is universal enough to apply as the default position for every human. That is a universal statement...

At least tell me why you think I am obliged to refute your logical counter to a definition I am not arguing for, when you know that I think refuting definitions is absolutely pointless anyway?

If you can not defeat the counter it still stands as valid and sound. For example see below. This is a valid deductive argument. However is it sound? If you point out a single redhead that is not dumb, say a genius, then the argument is not sound. In order for my argument to stand I must show that your evidence is false, that X redhead is still dumb or not a genius. Complaining about the defeat does nothing to render my argument sound or the defeater invalid.

All redheads are dumb
Bob is a redhead
Therefore Bob is dumb.

Atheism is the default under some definitions and contexts, and not in others. What does it even matter?

I thought you weren't defining atheism....

It matters since it is the topic of the OP. Seriously.... You might as well withdraw from the whole thread if you think it does not matter in a thread in which it does matter...

 

[Bunyip]

Empty assertion. Start showing logical errors in definitions of other words.

Why? What would be the point? I could do that with all definitions.

The definition is the sole point of inference, defeat the definition the inference fails as does the argument.

What? No, not at all. The definitions just describe the position your opponent is trying to explain to you. It is not the argument at all, it is a word they are using to try describe it to you. That's all.

 

[Shad]

Why? What would be the point? I could do that with all definitions.

Saying you could and showing you can are completely different. So pick a words and lets see you do it.

What? No, not at all. The definitions just describe the position your opponent is trying to explain to you. It is not the argument at all, it is a word they are using to try describe it to you. That's all.

The argument is based on inference of the definition. Describing a position is a form of argumentation.

 

[Bunyip]

Saying you could and showing you can are completely different. So pick a words and lets see you do it.

Ok. Sure. Pick away.

The argument is based on inference of the definition. Describing a position is a form of argumentation.

Yes, which is a categoric error of logic. Describing a position is just describing a position, not a form of argumentation.[/Quote]

 

[Shad]

Ok. Sure. Pick away.

I will leave it up to you, you made the claim, go for it

Yes, which is a categoric error of logic. Describing a position is just describing a position, not a form of argumentation.

Nope it is not since the only point of the default position of atheism is based on inference from the definition. Describing a position is a form of argumentation as it shows reasoning. It may not be detailed but it is still a form of argumentation. The description contains a conclusion which is the end result of argumentation.

 

[Bunyip]

I will leave it up to you, you made the claim, go for it



Nope it is not since the only point of the default position of atheism is based on inference from the definition.

Exactly, so who cares? I don't

. Describing a position is a form of argumentation as it shows reasoning.

No, it is the person trying to explain their argument, not the argument.

It may not be detailed but it is still a form of argumentation. The description contains a conclusion which is the end result of argumentation.

No, you are just arguing with the way somebody is trying to explain themself - they don't get as far as making an argument.

 

[Shad]

Exactly, so who cares? I don't.

People care as a few people are attempting to infer a "default position" based on an illogical argument. Beside this if you do not care why bother posting in this thread?

No, it is the person trying to explain their argument, not the argument.No, you are just arguing with the way somebody is trying to explain themself - they don't get as far as making an argument.

Which is supporting an argument and conclusion which is a form of argumentation

 

[Bunyip]

People care as a few people are attempting to infer a "default position" based on an illogical argument. Beside this if you do not care why bother posting in this thread?

Because it is a common usage, and you can not change that by saying it is illogical.

Which is supporting an argument and conclusion which is a form of argumentation

Why not just ride with it and let em' get to the actual argument?

 

[Willamena]

I don't.

I made the point because it is not a flaw in the definitions of atheism being discussed either - all definitions are similarly 'flawed'. There is no such thing as a correct definition of atheism, theism, God, or now helium that covers all usages and contexts. Which is why all this arguing over which is the correct definition, along with people trying to refute each others definitions is an exercise in futility.

The definition of helium given was excellent, very good. But it does not apply universally to,all contexts and meanings of 'helium'. That is not a fault, it is just how language works.

Same with the definitions of atheism and God being proffered, most of them are excellent. But they do not apply universally to all contexts and meanings of 'atheism' or 'God'. This is not a fault, it is just how language works.

People arguing about which is the correct definition, and trying to 'refute', or 'disprove' definitions are labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works. There is no 'correct' definition for most terms that applies universally to all possible usages and contexts.

Why would a 'correct' definition capture all uses of a word? Definition is just the essence, and is present in all uses.

 

[Willamena]

What? Laying around on the ground? Left behind in taxicabs? As prizes in Happy Meals?

No. You are taking what I say surprisingly literally. Ideas reside in contexts, in perspectives, in points of view.

I'm skeptical about that claim. Ideas-as-objects strikes me as a leaden conceptualization.

Nevertheless.

I cannot grasp your need to anthropomorphize ideas. Anyway, those "rational conclusion statements" are formed in the brain, right? Or can they be formed elsewhere?

Reducing idea to the categorically meaningess brain detracts from what is being said.

Skepticism can be applied to religion without resulting in atheism, correct?

Yes.

Doubt is a method? Incredulity is a method? Thinking is a method?

No. That's "skeptical." Skepticism is a practical method of analysis by doubt.

Q. - Isn't theism also a method?

Not that I'm aware, but I'm not well versed in it.

 

[Bunyip]

Why would a 'correct' definition capture all uses of a word? Definition is just the essence, and is present in all uses.

No it isn't. Correct definitions are correct only in a specific context.

 

[Willamena]

No it isn't. Correct definitions are correct only in a specific context.

The essence is present in all contexts for a use, too.

(I should specify, for words with a similar root.)

 

[`mud]

Default....Position
The origen of a cause.
~
Atheism....theism
The effect of one's beliefs.
~
Ignorance....knowledge
The effect of one's gnosis.
~
Words....ideas
The effect of one's doing.
~
Spirit....influence
The effect of one's existence.
~
Trying to make sense of this thread.
I think I've failed in doing that.
~
'mud

 

[Bunyip]

The essence is present in all contexts for a use, too.

(I should specify, for words with a similar root.)

The essence maybe, but not the definition.