How do you define "Athesim"?

[NIX]

Not believing is every bit as much a cognitive activity as believing is.

It doesn't matter what you are actively 'not believing' in; one thing, a set of things, a sub-set of things.

Not believing is an (cognitive) activity. Lack of awareness (or cognition) is a state of being (or condition).

 

[NIX]

Is a person in a coma an atheist?

 

[Willamena]

Is a person in a coma an atheist?

Or a person asleep. Just so.

 

[Willamena]

an atheist is a person not only rejects any belief of god, but also reject anything out of the science

Why science?

 

[Falvlun]

Can you tell me where you're going with this?

A made-up scenario involving "gargles" and petting puppies doesn't have a whole lot of direct practical application, no.

Whether falv's underlying point she was trying to illustrate has a practical application... I think that's a question for her to answer, since it was her point to make.

My question isn't about Gargles, but about sets. Specifically, you had said, "if 'the puppies you have had' is equivalent to 'no puppies', and Bob has petted no puppies, then Bob has petted the puppies he has had (i.e. none)."

The lack of distinction between the positive ("Bob petted puppies") and the negative ("Bob did not pet puppies") is what's disturbing. The empty set is unique.

Not sure where either of you are going with this.

My "petted puppies" example was a direct correlation to Peng's "babies reject god concepts" argument, so I'm still confused why he insists that it has no real world applications.

I agree with Willamena. You can't claim someone has petted puppies when they haven't pet puppies. If the set is empty, you simply can't say that they have petted them.

Break down your sentence, Peng: Bob has petted/ the puppies he has had. The second half equals zero. Okay. But the problem is the first half. Bob has petted. What has he petted? Nothing. Therefore, he hasn't petted. Therefore, the statement is false.

It is also interesting to note that philosophers have been fighting over whether valid conclusions can be made when empty sets are employed in the premise. The current position is that they can be, but classically, they weren't. Why not? Because they created misleading conclusions. Imagine that!

 

[Falvlun]

Not believing is an (cognitive) activity. Lack of awareness (or cognition) is a state of being (or condition).

I like the way you phrased this. I'll probably steal it for some later debate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My question isn't about Gargles, but about sets. Specifically, you had said, "if 'the puppies you have had' is equivalent to 'no puppies', and Bob has petted no puppies, then Bob has petted the puppies he has had (i.e. none)."

The lack of distinction between the positive ("Bob petted puppies") and the negative ("Bob did not pet puppies") is what's disturbing. The empty set is unique.

Except the positive here works out to "Bob petted zero puppies", which IS equivalent to "Bob did not pet puppies."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure where either of you are going with this.

My "petted puppies" example was a direct correlation to Peng's "babies reject god concepts" argument, so I'm still confused why he insists that it has no real world applications.

I agree with Willamena. You can't claim someone has petted puppies when they haven't pet puppies. If the set is empty, you simply can't say that they have petted them.

Break down your sentence, Peng: Bob has petted/ the puppies he has had. The second half equals zero. Okay. But the problem is the first half. Bob has petted. What has he petted? Nothing. Therefore, he hasn't petted. Therefore, the statement is false.

It is also interesting to note that philosophers have been fighting over whether valid conclusions can be made when empty sets are employed in the premise. The current position is that they can be, but classically, they weren't. Why not? Because they created misleading conclusions. Imagine that!

So... if Bob has not petted any puppies, then the statement "Bob has petted zero puppies" is false? Are you sure?

 

[skywrath32]

Atheism for me simply means. The lack of evidence for a certain someone to believe in God.
In my own understanding, Atheists falls in to two groups
1. Fake atheism or Someone who says that he/she is an atheist because his/her God didnt answer his/her prayers.
2. Real Atheists. Someone who dont really believe in god. Again. Real Atheists are classified into two.
a. In Born Atheism. Lacks of knowledge about religions. The person was born without any religion.
b. Chosen Atheism. Has knowledge about religions, Chose to be an atheist.

For me, No one can disprove or prove atheism because we dont have the full knowledge about the universe.

 

[idav]

A person could be introduced to all sorts of deistic type beliefs and can choose not to invest belief without completely rejecting on the basis that there is not sufficient evidence to say one way or another.

 

[Willamena]

So... if Bob has not petted any puppies, then the statement "Bob has petted zero puppies" is false? Are you sure?

Impossibility tends to lend falseness to claims.

 

[Falvlun]

Except the positive here works out to "Bob petted zero puppies", which IS equivalent to "Bob did not pet puppies."

Do you recall the ham sandwich syllogism I gave earlier?

1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal life.

From the Wiki on the fallacy of four terms, which is a type of equivocation: The word "nothing" in the example above has two meanings, as presented: "nothing is better" means the thing being named has the highest value possible; "better than nothing" only means that the thing being described has some value. Therefore, "nothing" acts as two different words in this example, thus creating the fallacy of four terms.

Words don't exist in a vaccuum. Their meaning is often derived from the context. If you say that somebody "petted nothing" that is equivalent to "did not pet". The problem is that your sentence doesn't say "nothing". It indicates a set of things. You can't use the same interpretation that is derived from the conjunction of "petted nothing" when you replace the nothing with something. You are trying to use the same meaning, when context dictates, like the "nothing" in the ham sandwich, that they would be interpreted as two different meanings in normal circumstances.

 

[Falvlun]

A person could be introduced to all sorts of deistic type beliefs and can choose not to invest belief without completely rejecting on the basis that there is not sufficient evidence to say one way or another.

The problem with that is that this is true of nearly everything, and especially other things we choose not to believe in, like trolls and fairies and aliens.

Unless you think that the evidence is perfectly in balance both for and against, then you have either a belief or disbelief. 100% certainty is not a requirement to obtain a belief, and indeed, I would argue that most of our beliefs aren't or can't be 100% certain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you recall the ham sandwich syllogism I gave earlier?

1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal life.

Yes, I remember. I think it showed a misunderstanding of my position.

From the Wiki on the fallacy of four terms, which is a type of equivocation: The word "nothing" in the example above has two meanings, as presented: "nothing is better" means the thing being named has the highest value possible; "better than nothing" only means that the thing being described has some value. Therefore, "nothing" acts as two different words in this example, thus creating the fallacy of four terms.

For the fallacy of four terms to apply here, an empty set would have to not be an example of a set. Is this your position? If so, please explain.

Words don't exist in a vaccuum. Their meaning is often derived from the context. If you say that somebody "petted nothing" that is equivalent to "did not pet". The problem is that your sentence doesn't say "nothing". It indicates a set of things.

A set of things with no members.

You can't use the same interpretation that is derived from the conjunction of "petted nothing" when you replace the nothing with something. You are trying to use the same meaning, when context dictates, like the "nothing" in the ham sandwich, that they would be interpreted as two different meanings in normal circumstances.

No, I'm not. What's really going on is that you're engaging in special pleading: you're saying that what is true about the general case is false in a specific case to which the general case applies. That's what this whole thing boils down to: you're arguing that the empty set is not actually a set, but it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's what it boils down to for me: the statement "If Bob has petted all the puppies that he has, then Bob is a Gargle" can be re-phrased like this:

Does Bob have any puppies that he has not petted?
- if yes, then Bob is not a Gargle.
- if no, then Bob is a Gargle.

Edit:

This is true in the general sense, right? In normal circumstances (which you seem to put a lot of stock in for some reason), the output of this if-statement will accurately reflect whether a person is a Gargle. If the set "puppies Bob has, but has not petted" is empty, then Bob is a Gargle. Do you agree?

Now what happens when you try to apply it to the case where Bob has no puppies and has not petted any puppies? The set "puppies Bob has, but has not petted" is empty. This makes him a Gargle.

Edit 2: for this formulation not to work, you have to add special conditions that would never come into play "in normal circumstances", so if you're going to appeal to "normal circumstances" as the basis for your position, then these special conditions aren't available to you.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, I remember. I think it showed a misunderstanding of my position.

Have you addressed my contention that equating the "lack of belief" a baby has with the "lack of belief" you claim adult atheists have is an equivocation?

For the fallacy of four terms to apply here, an empty set would have to not be an example of a set. Is this your position? If so, please explain.

When people read "Bob petted nothing", they don't equate the word "petted nothing" with a set. That's not the meaning of the phrase "petted nothing". The same goes with the phrase "petted puppies he has had". "Set" is not the meaning.

The meaning of the phrase "petted nothing" is "did not pet".
The meaning of the phrase "petted the puppies he has had" is "some puppies have been petted, specifically, the ones he has had."


The meanings are different, hence it is equivocation to claim that they can be used interchangeably.

Just like in the ham sandwich syllogism, the phrasing and normal intended meaning, is the deciding aspect. After all, you could read it so that the "nothing" in the ham sandwich syllogism does mean the same thing in both instances (The syllogism may be unsound, since the premises wouldn't be true, but it would be valid then). The problem is that wouldn't be how "nothing" is normally interpreted in those particular contexts, so it would be misleading and confusing.

A set of things with no members.

No, I'm not. What's really going on is that you're engaging in special pleading: you're saying that what is true about the general case is false in a specific case to which the general case applies. That's what this whole thing boils down to: you're arguing that the empty set is not actually a set, but it is.

No, I am saying that how we normally use language matters, and if your argument depends upon a purposefully misleading statement, then it's not a very good argument.

The general case is that the phrasing "rejected all the god concepts he was familiar with" indicates that some god concepts were rejected. That is how it will be interpreted 100% of the time. Your argument is dependent upon an unholy alliance between math and language, and that this should trump normal usage. I believe that's the special pleading.

 

[Falvlun]

Here's what it boils down to for me: the statement "If Bob has petted all the puppies that he has, then Bob is a Gargle" can be re-phrased like this:

Does Bob have any puppies that he has not petted?
- if yes, then Bob is not a Gargle.
- if no, then Bob is a Gargle.

Your rephrasing doesn't make it any better. :/ Nobody would consider Bob a Gargle if the conditions are to pet puppies you have, and Bob has never owned nor petted a puppy. I mean, requirements for clubs would be in complete disarray if anybody who simple never had done them were allowed to join.

Edit:

This is true in the general sense, right? In normal circumstances (which you seem to put a lot of stock in for some reason), the output of this if-statement will accurately reflect whether a person is a Gargle. If the set "puppies Bob has, but has not petted" is empty, then Bob is a Gargle. Do you agree?

No... Bob didn't have any puppies and he didn't pet any, both of which are conditions for being a Gargle.

And why shouldn't I put high stock in normal circumstances? I don't go around defining words simply to debate online about them with other nerds. I do it so that I can have a normal conversation with a normal person. This isn't just some waste-of-time mind masturbation for me (thought it is that too ). I want it applicable, not just theoretical.

Now what happens when you try to apply it to the case where Bob has no puppies and has not petted any puppies? The set "puppies Bob has, but has not petted" is empty. This makes him a Gargle.

Gargles are people who have petted puppies, specifically the puppies they have owned. You can't pet an empty set, nor can you own them. If your sets are empty, you can't be a Gargle. Sorry Bob.

Edit 2: for this formulation not to work, you have to add special conditions that would never come into play "in normal circumstances", so if you're going to appeal to "normal circumstances" as the basis for your position, then these special conditions aren't available to you.

I have no clue what you are talking about here. Normal circumstances doesn't dictate that we must talk about empty sets as if they were something. Normal circumstances doesn't dictate that we interpret the sentence "Bob has petted the puppies he has had" as indicative that Bob hasn't, in fact, petted any puppies.

The special condition you are adding, however, is that we must use a mathematical worldview to dictate the meaning of how we speak. And yet, that is manifestly not the case. I see no reason to accept your premise.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you recall the ham sandwich syllogism I gave earlier?

1. Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal life.

From the Wiki on the fallacy of four terms, which is a type of equivocation: The word "nothing" in the example above has two meanings, as presented: "nothing is better" means the thing being named has the highest value possible; "better than nothing" only means that the thing being described has some value. Therefore, "nothing" acts as two different words in this example, thus creating the fallacy of four terms.

Words don't exist in a vaccuum. Their meaning is often derived from the context.

Good message.

The other day someone shouted at me, "You have proven crap!"

"Thanks," I answered. "If I can prove crap, I can prove anything."

You have proven crap! = You have not proven a single thing.

But as you say, words don't exist in a vacuum. It's another reason I tend to disregard dictionaries a bit. They can't possibly cover all possible meanings which can be created by different contexts. I rarely even think of words as standalone units of meaning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you addressed my contention that equating the "lack of belief" a baby has with the "lack of belief" you claim adult atheists have is an equivocation?

Yes, I did address it: I dismissed it as an unsupported (and somewhat baffling) assertion. If you want me to consider it, you'll have to give an argument for why it's correct.

When people read "Bob petted nothing", they don't equate the word "petted nothing" with a set. That's not the meaning of the phrase "petted nothing". The same goes with the phrase "petted puppies he has had". "Set" is not the meaning.

The meaning of the phrase "petted nothing" is "did not pet".
The meaning of the phrase "petted the puppies he has had" is "some puppies have been petted, specifically, the ones he has had."

When Bob has had no puppies, what is the meaning of "the puppies Bob has had"?

You're creating a logical contradiction and then complaining that the results go against common sense. This is unreasonable.

If Bob has no puppies and we accept your meanings of those phrases, then what you're effectively saying is "some puppies have been petted, specifically, no puppies at all." You might as well be talking about square circles.

The meanings are different, hence it is equivocation to claim that they can be used interchangeably.

They were made the same by the way you phrased the hypothetical.

Just like in the ham sandwich syllogism, the phrasing and normal intended meaning, is the deciding aspect. After all, you could read it so that the "nothing" in the ham sandwich syllogism does mean the same thing in both instances (The syllogism may be unsound, since the premises wouldn't be true, but it would be valid then). The problem is that wouldn't be how "nothing" is normally interpreted in those particular contexts, so it would be misleading and confusing.

I'm still not sure how this applies. I didn't commit any false equivocation, so your points about false equivocations are irrelevant.

No, I am saying that how we normally use language matters, and if your argument depends upon a purposefully misleading statement, then it's not a very good argument.

Bloody hell. The whole scenario is based on misleading statements! You set it up that way!

If the way you have defined the term "Gargle" is universally true (i.e. if "a person if a Gargle if..." actually works as a general statement), then it has to be correct when it's applied to any particular person. If the phrase "the puppies that the person has had" implies that the person in question has had a non-zero number of puppies, then when you try it to a person who has never had a puppy, the question of whether the person is a Gargle blows up: the inherent contradictions that result mean that you can't even evaluate whether the person is a Gargle.

If this is true, then the way you've defined "Gargle" can't be said to be true. It would be like saying "a person is a Gargle if square circles are round."

... then followed by an argument over how this person can't be a Gargle because "in normal conversation", square things aren't round.

The general case is that the phrasing "rejected all the god concepts he was familiar with" indicates that some god concepts were rejected. That is how it will be interpreted 100% of the time. Your argument is dependent upon an unholy alliance between math and language, and that this should trump normal usage. I believe that's the special pleading.

In the general case, the phrase "rejected all the god concepts he was familiar with" can be re-written as "never accepted or was neutral toward a god concept he was familiar with." This is how it will be interpreted 100% of the time.

... until people become uneasy with the fact that this implies that someone who has never become familiar with any god concept is an atheist.

Edit - BTW: it's not an "unholy alliance between math and language" to say that the way we communicate should be consistent with logic.

 

[outhouse]

this has gone sideways

one is either a theist, or not

or not can equal, lack of belief, no belief, discounting belief, and ignorance of belief