Atheism is not a default position

[Bunyip]

So provide one....

Why would I be obliged to do that?

 

[Shad]

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

I can point out it is illogical and that people do not know what the word they are using means. The same way I tell a child that calls my dog "kitty" is using the word wrong. However unlike the child some people refuse to learn how to use words properly.

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

There barely has been any argument beyond simple premises and a conclusion based on a flawed definition

 

[Bunyip]

I can point out it is illogical and that people do not know what the word they are using means. The same way I tell a child that calls my dog "kitty" is using the word wrong. However unlike the child some people refuse to learn how to use words properly.

But they are using words properly.

There barely has been any argument beyond simple premises and a conclusion based on a flaw definition

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. What is a 'false definition'?

 

[Shad]

But they are using words properly.

No they are not as per my defeater of the definition used by them. It is just like a child calling a dog a kitty, they can use it all they want but it does not mean it is correct nor everyone should start using kitty instead of dog because someone else does

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. What is a 'false definition'?

I said flaw, meant flawed, never said false

 

[Bunyip]

No they are not as per my defeater of the definition used by them.

You can't 'defeat' a usage.

It is just like a child calling a dog a kitty, they can use it all they want but it does not mean it is correct nor everyone should start using kitty instead of dog because someone else does



I said flaw, meant flawed, never said false

All definitions are only useful in the right context. The usages are not flawed just because they are meaningless in a different context. The same goes for all definitions of atheism.

 

[Shad]

You can't 'defeat' a usage. All definitions are only useful in the right context. The usages are not flawed just because they are meaningless in a different context. The same goes for all definitions of atheism.

Yes you can by showing the usages is flawed and crap english. What I can not do is get people to stop using it.

Now you bring up context? Okay, son, let's see the context from the baby's point of view? Lets see the communications you have had with a baby regarding their views? You do not have any thus your context is solely the context of the one making the claim. I believe X, X is Y, babies are Y. Never mind my X can not stand against a logical counter cause context trumps logic.

 

[atanu]

Could you be more specific? Because if that's all you're going to give me to work with, my answer is inevitably going to be: All of it.

There is no need for that in this thread. You may create a separate thread, if you wish and invite me in.

Sure I can. I can explain it to you all day. It's sweet. You understand what "sweet"means? At least a ballpark idea, yes? It's a little tangy. You understand that I'm not telling you it's fiery hot ... that it isn't bitter. That is isn't salty.
The real question is: What good will any of that do? Will it convince you that it's worth tasting? Perhaps.
ANd as an additional bonus, mangoes are known to actually exist. Aren't we fortunate?

This is good. At least we can discuss.

Actually, you have said what I said. We know what sweet is because we both have tasted a common object called 'sugar'. But remember that there are many levels and flavours of 'sweetness' and the experience still remains very subjective.

Similarly, meditators or devotees who have attained a similar level of introversion of attention (from external space full of objects to internal space of mind) know the taste of touching our own base. Ignorant people however get some taste of this through deep sleep.

Name of God is "I Am" and that is closer to you than a mango on your hand or on your tongue. Most people, led by their wilful ego, do not care about that.

Note: This thread is not about Theism versus Atheism. So, if you wish to discuss the matter (in a manner respectful of both our views) you may start a thread. I have hope that we may succeed in arriving at a common understanding.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes you can by showing the usages is flawed and crap english. What I can not do is get people to stop using it.

☆Exactly. You can't stop them using it, so what is the point of trying to show it is flawed?

Now you bring up context? Okay, son, let's see the context from the baby's point of view? Lets see the communications you have had with a baby regarding their views? You do not have any thus your context is solely the context of the one making the claim. I believe X, X is Y, babies are Y. Never mind my X can not stand against a logical counter cause context trumps logic.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying there.

 

[idav]

Yes you can by showing the usages is flawed and crap english. What I can not do is get people to stop using it.

Now you bring up context? Okay, son, let's see the context from the baby's point of view? Lets see the communications you have had with a baby regarding their views? You do not have any thus your context is solely the context of the one making the claim. I believe X, X is Y, babies are Y. Never mind my X can not stand against a logical counter cause context trumps logic.

Now hold on, whether babies are going to hell for being heathen sinners is a grave matter, if you believe in that sort of thing. If theism didn't exist we wouldn't be concerned about belief and hell in the first place. Just like some implied, atheist used to be not being chritstian, so I realize this isn't the dark ages anymore. Babies are atheist because there is not some old man in the sky watching over everything.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Actually, you have said what I said. We know what sweet is because we both have tasted a common object called 'sugar'.

Shall we now quibble over what sugar tastes like?

But remember that there are many levels and flavours of 'sweetness' and the experience still remains very subjective.

Very subjective?

Are you suggesting that there's enough of an anatomical difference between us that we might safely make such a statement? Or that the chemical nature of the food being tasted somehow changes based on who is actually doing the tasting?

Because if you cannot, and all the variables remain constant, then isn't it best to simply say that taste is to some degree subjective? Are you willing to rule out the possibility that sugar tastes exactly alike to everyone and that this subjectivity you're talking about is nothing more than a by-product of our egos?

Name of God is "I Am" and that is closer to you than a mango on your hand or on your tongue. Most people, led by their wilful ego, do not care about that.

Q. - Doesn't "I am" strike you as perhaps the ultimate expression of ego?

 

[Willamena]

Why would I be obliged to do that?

You're not.

 

[Shad]

Now hold on, whether babies are going to hell for being heathen sinners is a grave matter, if you believe in that sort of thing.

I do not believe in hell nor sin

If theism didn't exist we wouldn't be concerned about belief and hell in the first place. Just like some implied, atheist used to be not being chritstian, so I realize this isn't the dark ages anymore. Babies are atheist because there is not some old man in the sky watching over everything.

So what? You also just defined God in a certain why, now prove babies do not believe in this version of God. I am all ears (eyes)

 

[Shad]

You can't 'defeat' a usage.

I can show the definition is in error and those that use it are also in error. Thus no one is obligated to accept the usage nor the argument requiring said usage.

All definitions are only useful in the right context. The usages are not flawed just because they are meaningless in a different context. The same goes for all definitions of atheism.

Not really especially if the context, a baby's mind, is not accessible. More so if context is leads to an illogical definition then I can reject the context as a context in error.

 

[Bunyip]

I can show the definition is in error and those that use it are also in error. Thus no one is obligated to accept the usage nor the argument requiring said usage.




Not really especially if the context, a baby's mind, is not accessible. More so if context is leads to an illogical definition then I can reject the context as a context in error.

I have addressed your questions in detail over and over, this is just going nowhere. I'm sorry, but that's it.

'Rejecting the concept' doesn't even make sense - let alone would it acheive anything.

 

[Shad]

I have addressed your questions in detail over and over, this is just going nowhere. I'm sorry, but that's it.

'Rejecting the concept' doesn't even make sense - let alone would it acheive anything.

Yes it is since you use a flawed definition but can not accept this fact.

Rejection the concept or what? This line is a non-sequitur. Clarify, what are you referring to

 

[Bunyip]

Yes it is since you use a flawed definition but can not accept this fact.

Rejection the concept or what? This line is a non-sequitur. Clarify, what are you referring to

My apologies - I meant 'rejecting the context'.
All definitions are flawed, why can't you accept that? There are many different definitions - none of them are without such 'flaws'.

 

[atanu]

Q. - Doesn't "I am" strike you as perhaps the ultimate expression of ego?

Not at all, if you understand/realise/experience the difference between "I am this" and "I am".

 

[Shad]

All definitions are flawed, why can't you accept that? There are many different definitions - none of them are without such 'flaws'.

Some definitions are logically consistent and some are not. I am attacking one that is inconsistent. More so you just want me to accept it as a "got you". Just like a kid calling a dog a cat I am under no obligation to use words as poorly as the kid or the "Lack of" inference by atheists. Both for the sole reason of being illogical and a failure to use a language correctly.

 

[`mud]

All I see is a very large flaw that's called definition of the source.
Every entity is a 'flaw', the variety is boundless !
~
'mud

 

[Bunyip]

Some definitions are logically consistent and some are not. I am attacking one that is inconsistent. More so you just want me to accept it as a "got you". Just like a kid calling a dog a cat I am under no obligation to use words as poorly as the kid or the "Lack of" inference by atheists. Both for the sole reason of being illogical and a failure to use a language correctly.

Sorry, mate. I have tried to communicate as best I can. I keep saying that all definitions are flawed, none are logically consistent in all contexts.
There is absolutely no point whatsoever in attacking a usage.
I don't know how else to explain this to you - but you ignore it, so there is not really anything I can say.
Attacking a definition acheives nothing, it does not address the argument, it does not refute the position being described - all it does is prevent the other person from finishing their sentence. I'm sorry that I could not explain this to you better.