Atheisms and the supernatural

[night912]

That's your proposition of truth regarding the nature and existence of God/gods. And presumably it's based on some kind of reasoning. In a philosophical setting such as this, when you posit a proposition of truth, you are expected to offer the reasoning by which you arrived at it, for an analysis of the logic within it, by those you proposed your truth, to. Just as when the theist proposes theism as a truth claim, to you, he is likewise expected to offer the reasoning by which he arrived at that position, for logical analysis, by you, and others.

You can claim your "disbelief" as your justification for asserting this truth claim, but what you believe or don't believe carries no weight at all, logically. And so will rightly be ignored by anyone seeking a logical reason to accept your assertion as valid.

You are wrong here. The simple reason why is because, you misunderstood what the proposition is in this particular discussion/debate.

For this case here, the existence of a god(s) is not the proposition. Rather, the proposition here is, only the disbelief/lack of belief in the existence of a god(s), and not all the entirety of supernatural.

 

[PureX]

You are wrong here. The simple reason why is because, you misunderstood what the proposition is in this particular discussion/debate.

For this case here, the existence of a god(s) is not the proposition. Rather, the proposition here is, only the disbelief/lack of belief in the existence of a god(s), and not all the entirety of supernatural.

Well, If you believe nothing, and you propose nothing, then why are you even speaking?

 

[Goddess Kit]

Well, If you believe nothing, and you propose nothing, then why are you even speaking?

Wouldn't you speak out against a religion in which you do not believe attempting to place into secular law that which you must obey despite not being a part of that religion?

 

[PureX]

Wouldn't you speak out against a religion in which you do not believe attempting to place into secular law that which you must obey despite not being a part of that religion?

Sure, but that has nothing whatever to do with the validity of theism, or atheism, as philosophical propositions. Theism is not religion. And atheism is not the aversion to religion.

 

[night912]

Well, If you believe nothing, and you propose nothing, then why are you even speaking?

The reason for speaking is to explain to you so that you might be able to understand that; I can clearly believe in something, and clearly proposed something, and yet, you can failed to realize and/or understood what was being proposed.

 

[PureX]

The reason for speaking is to explain to you so that you might be able to understand that; I can clearly believe in something, and clearly proposed something, and yet, you can failed to realize and/or understood what was being proposed.

Then you didn't do a very good job proposing it, did you.

No one but ourselves cares what we believe or disbelieve. And if we propose something to be true, the people we propose it to would appreciate knowing how we arrived at that conclusion. "Belief" or "unbelief" does not explain how we arrived at it. And carries no logical weight with anyone but ourselves, anyway. So the requirements are clear: propose your 'truth' clearly and concisely, and then explain the reasoning by which you determined it's truthfulness. Or ... well, be quiet.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What are the criteria used to test the existence of supernatural things?

People say mostly experience. I haven't seen anything supernatural. But I do know you can't, by definition, detect (find evidence)by the senses. I notice a lot is confirmed say by religious text and tradition.

 

[Goddess Kit]

A great deal more is confirmed by self-serving bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

OMG yes another who thinks that no religion is a religion.

The line is not that easy to draw, There are many churches and religions that believe in God that declare we are not religion, and everybody else believes in religion. Non-belief in God crosses many lines of 'belief and non-belief in what ever.'

I consider such denial egocentric, and considering what one believes or not believes above others who believe differently, and name call them religions. The word religion has a number of definitions, but nonetheless it is not based on what one believes and nd does not believe. I consider 'religion' simply what people believe and not believe as individuals, groups, organized, disorganized, sanforized, disestaishmentized, or whateverized.

Religion has become a stone word that people throw at other people who believe differently.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you really think using the word "queer" to refer to homosexuals is not biased??? Or that the use of the word "gay", is not irrational? And if I am to try and point this out to someone who now routinely abuses these words in this way, how can I possibly do that if, as you claim, their usage is now deemed "correct"?

Once again, the meaning of words shifts.

No, using 'gay' to refer to homosexuals is not irrational. Nor is using 'queer' biased necessarily. This is NOT abuse of the language. it is a shift in the language.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Humans certainly do argue about such silly things.

 

[shunyadragon]

Humans certainly do argue about such silly things.

Frog hairs, and turtle wings.

 

[ChristineM]

I disagree. Each of those answers encompasses everything in the universe with the exception of that one thing. That's not what an opposite is.

In binary logic, as i stated, "not" something is the opposite

 

[ChristineM]

Heyo said: ↑
What is the opposite of 5?
What is the opposite of red?
What is the opposite of apple?


What is the opposite of North Pole, please?

Regards

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People say mostly experience. I haven't seen anything supernatural. But I do know you can't, by definition, detect (find evidence)by the senses.

If we were talking about real phenomena with real effects, why would that be?

I notice a lot is confirmed say by religious text and tradition.

So belief in those supernatural things can only ever be justified as much as belief in those religious texts and traditions is?

BTW: look back through the last few posts where you've been talking about the supernatural; do you understand why I say that the concept is meaningless?

 

[Willamena]

You said it yourself:

Or, in a more formal language, the opposite of 5 is the set of all things that are not 5. Pink is not the set of all things that are not 5.

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.

Here is a more complete answer: Negation - Wikipedia
(Warning: includes logic. Logic is not for everyone.)

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.

 

[Polymath257]

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

The concept of 'opposite' is ambiguous. More precisely, it is context sensitive.

For example, is the opposite of a proton an electron or an anti-proton?

 

[night912]

Then you didn't do a very good job proposing it, did you.

Someone who has done the best job at proposing still can't make the blind see.

No one but ourselves cares what we believe or disbelieve. And if we propose something to be true, the people we propose it to would appreciate knowing how we arrived at that conclusion. "Belief" or "unbelief" does not explain how we arrived at it.

Those people must first recognize the proposition that is being presented to them. If they can't, then no logical reasoning is necessary because they won't be able to grasp any explanation for the proposition.

And carries no logical weight with anyone but ourselves, anyway. So the requirements are clear: propose your 'truth' clearly and concisely, and then explain the reasoning by which you determined it's truthfulness.

Again, someone who has done the best job at proposing still can't make the blind see.

Or ... well, be quiet.

One cannot hear the proposition being presented if one choose to only listen to their own and not from the one that they are demanding the proposition from.

So sorry, but I'm not responsible for your lack of understanding and refusal to want to understand.

 

[night912]

Do you really think using the word "queer" to refer to homosexuals is not biased??? Or that the use of the word "gay", is not irrational? And if I am to try and point this out to someone who now routinely abuses these words in this way, how can I possibly do that if, as you claim, their usage is now deemed "correct"?

Your beliefs are irrelevant and not a logical reason for your justification for getting to your conclusion.

 

[night912]

How, logically, does common usage become the determining criteria for what is correct usage? How does "common" = "correct".

I'll await your reasoning on this.

Umm.... that's the basics of how Propositional Logic is based upon and how it works.