Atheisms and the supernatural

[ecco]

I would LOVE to hear the logic behind this bit of sophistry!

Look in the mirror. See the nose on your face.

 

[Heyo]

As your statement says, all things that are not 5 are part of that set. So pink is part of that set, as pink is a thing.

Else you are contradicting yourself.

An element of a set is not the set.

Negation is not opposition.

Negation gives us the entire set of things that are not 5. Opposition gives us a relative component that contrasts with 5.

(not)x is not equal to -x.

If opposition is defined other than as negation, it is arbitrary.
To go back to the initial question, the "opposite" of belief would be {disbelief, knowledge, negation, ...}. Which is again a set but with arbitrary members, depending on the axis you draw belief on (and your interlocutors willingness to accept that that axis even exists).
And as it is a set you can not find the opposite, only an opposite. Also the opposite of the opposite is than not the thing itself. E.g. an opposite of knowledge would be ignorance - which is not belief.
I like my opposite defined as negation, it makes rational thinking easier.

 

[ecco]

But these are wildly biased and irrational common misuses of these words.

So, you are against the evolution of language.

I guess you would have been upset by the man on the right replying "DUH" instead of just replying with another "GRUNT".


Well, whether you like it or not, whether you accept the reasons or not, languages do evolve. Dictionaries include changes to language when those changes have become part of the vernacular. Live with it.

Which is why it's important not to allow common ignorance, bias, and the linguistic misuse it generates to override our logic, and reason, and intelligent debate about the ideas we're supposedly using these words to share, and investigate.

One example of "ignorant linguistic misuse" is making up one's own definitions.
Another example of "ignorant linguistic misuse" is refusing to accept dictionary definitions.

One way to counter this is to make the offender aware of the errors of his ways.

 

[PureX]

Look in the mirror. See the nose on your face.

No logic forthcoming, I see.

 

[PureX]

So, you are against the evolution of language.

Atheism is no more defined by it's "unbelief" than homosexuality is defined by it's "gaiety". You all can try to use the dictionary to justify your biased, irrational, gibberish til the cows come home, and it's NEVER going to be anything more than what it is: biased, irrational gibberish. Dictionaries are full of it, because people are biased, irrational, idiots.

 

[ecco]

People who don't believe the christian god but do believe in god are deist?
...
God that interacts with humanity isn't solely owned by christian dogma
...
Thousands of people believe god interact with creation. Not deism at all. Tell them that, they'd probably faint. They depend on god's interaction. That's how they understand who god is.

Let's clarify. This all began with your comment...

Eh. Sometimes I think atheism for some is more about the christian version of god more so than the supernatural itself. It does depend on how they define the term.

Again, no. Atheism is about any and all versions of god/gods/God; Christian, Deist, Hindu, Muslim.

I would venture to add the most atheists also do not believe in ghosts.

 

[ecco]

Are you saying that "demon spirit possession" doesn't affect the body?

"demon spirit possession" does not affect the body because there is no such thing as a demon that has a spirit.

In the case of so-called "demon spirit possession," something is causing distress to an individual, but it is not possession by a demon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"demon spirit possession" does not affect the body because there is no such thing as a demon that has a spirit.

In the case of so-called "demon spirit possession," something is causing distress to an individual, but it is not possession by a demon.

FYI: I think that the idea of demonic possession is ridiculous. I just wanted to find out if @Unveiled Artist 's position was at least internally consistent. Seems it isn't.

 

[ecco]

In any case, would you now like to present some actual substantiation for your assertion quoted above?

already did

Uh huh. Then why can't you show it?

already did

Well, here we go ... again.

You make an unsubstantiated assertion.
I ask you to provide evidence to support your assertion.
You say something like "I already did", when, in fact, you haven't.

If you did, then show us all, me and the peanut gallery, where you "already did".

If you can't or you won't or you try to duck and dodge by telling me I should look it up, then once again you have shown the veracity of your comments for all to see.

 

[Willamena]

An element of a set is not the set.

Every element of that set, if held to be the set of opposites, is an opposite. Pink is in that set.

If opposition is defined other than as negation, it is arbitrary.
To go back to the initial question, the "opposite" of belief would be {disbelief, knowledge, negation, ...}. Which is again a set but with arbitrary members, depending on the axis you draw belief on (and your interlocutors willingness to accept that that axis even exists).
And as it is a set you can not find the opposite, only an opposite. Also the opposite of the opposite is than not the thing itself. E.g. an opposite of knowledge would be ignorance - which is not belief.
I like my opposite defined as negation, it makes rational thinking easier.

It is not "other than negation," it's just not the same as negation. Opposites are included in the set that is the negation.

If you want to deny that elements of that set are opposites, then -5 is not the opposite of 5 (according to your logic) because it is in that set.

An opposite relates to the subject word or phrase via meaning. The opposite is not so much a particular element as it is a particularly meaningful element in the context of the discussion in which it arises.

 

[paarsurrey]

Depends on your context, in a magnet, as the earth is, the south pole is opposite of the north pole

Yes, it is considered a perfect opposite. If we like to find the opposite of South Pole, it will be none else than the North Pole. This is a test of the perfect opposite.
Likewise other opposites/antonyms could be tested. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let's clarify. This all began with your comment...


Again, no. Atheism is about any and all versions of god/gods/God; Christian, Deist, Hindu, Muslim.

I would venture to add the most atheists also do not believe in ghosts.

How does this relate to deism?

I know people who believe in the abrahamic god are theists. I generalized but to correct myself some who believe in gods are deists and have mediums to talk to gods.

-

Are you referring to the OP?

 

[ecco]

Atheism is no more defined by it's "unbelief" than homosexuality is defined by it's "gaiety".

You are the one who believes the definition of homosexuality includes the word "gaiety".

I don't.

The makers of dictionaries don't.

So your assertion is nothing more than a strawman (not to be confused with a man made of straw).

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
/ˌhōməˌsekSHəˈwalədē/
noun

1. the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex.

Note: no mention of gaiety.

You all can try to use the dictionary to justify your biased, irrational, gibberish til the cows come home

In your comment above, you used 19 words. All but one were used correctly as defined in dictionaries.

That one exception is the word "til". "Til" has seen the end of its lifetime...

Actually, it is a distinctive word that existed in English at least a century before until, both as a preposition meaning “to” and a conjunction meaning “until.” It has seen continuous use in English since the 12th century and is a perfectly legitimate synonym of until.​

So, even with "til" you do follow dictionary definitions and the commonly accepted usage of words.

They only time you don't is when it suits your purpose-of-the-moment.

That sounds hypocritical.

and it's NEVER going to be anything more than what it is: biased, irrational gibberish.
...
people are biased, irrational, idiots.

Would you classify people who refuse to accept change as "biased, irrational, idiots"?

I would.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

FYI: I think that the idea of demonic possession is ridiculous. I just wanted to find out if @Unveiled Artist 's position was at least internally consistent. Seems it isn't.

It doesn't. It's the peoples experience not the demon itself.

I noticed everytime a demon is spoken of it's related to a negative event or emotion not the supernatural.

 

[ecco]

FYI: I think that the idea of demonic possession is ridiculous. I just wanted to find out if @Unveiled Artist 's position was at least internally consistent. Seems it isn't.

I understand.

 

[ecco]

I know people who believe in the abrahamic god are theists. I generalized but to correct myself some who believe in gods are deists and have mediums to talk to gods.

?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

?

Christians are theist
Some religions who believe in gods are deists (they usually have a medium between them and their gods)

The comment you took of mine refers to deism. I was wondering if you meant the OP in your comment?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't. It's the peoples experience not the demon itself.

I have no idea what you're trying to tell me.

I noticed everytime a demon is spoken of it's related to a negative event or emotion not the supernatural.

And I still have no idea what you mean by "supernatural."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If opposition is defined other than as negation, it is arbitrary.

You're in a plane heading due north. You see another plane nearby heading northeast. Are the two planes on opposite headings?

 

[Heyo]

You're in a plane heading due north. You see another plane nearby heading northeast. Are the two planes on opposite headings?

You'll know if you wait a minute. (When the other plane crashes into yours.)