The default position...

[Bunyip]

"is" is an identify claim. Logically, if x is y than necessarily y is x. But it doesn't really matter. The quoted claim is just as ridiculous and clearly wrong as "all atheists are theists" even if you try to weasel your way out of identity.


And what is the adjectival definition? Is there a dictionary IN THE WHOLE ****ING WORLD that defines this adjective such that theists can be "athiests" with respect to anything? NO. You just make crap up and then go on and on about how others won't debate or won't engage in constructive dialogue while you insist your personal definitions are facts (and refuse to support your position in any other way).

You are wildly attacking a suite of events that did not occur Legion.

 

[Curious George]

"is" is an identify claim. Logically, if x is y than necessarily y is x. But it doesn't really matter. The quoted claim is just as ridiculous and clearly wrong as "all atheists are theists" even if you try to weasel your way out of identity.

.

Well this is taking a turn for the worse.

However, I am forced to point out that "all theists are atheists" does not also mean all atheists are theists, but rather some atheist are theist.

This is a classic "if all weebles are wobbles, are all wobbles weebles? The answer of course is not necessarily.

But if atheist is to mean not theist then no theist can be an atheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think you need to re-read the thread.

Why? Because your actual posts are irrelevant?

I am not asserting any definition as fact - in fact I stated quite the opposite

Yes, you've contradicted yourself:

A theist by definition believes a God exists. That is what it means to be theist.

naturally, all theists are also atheists

I said that there is no universally accepted definition.

naturally, all theists are also atheists

Hardly insisting on one.

naturally, all theists are also atheists

Nor did I state that 'all theists are atheist', or 'all atheists are theist'.

naturally, all theists are also atheists

 

[Bunyip]

Why? Because your actual posts are irrelevant?

Yes, you've contradicted yourself:





Hardly insisting on one.

Quote mines are not a useful or honest argument mate. You can edit any statement into absurdity if you think there is a point to it. I don't.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quote mines

So sorry that I use your quite clear assertions to be in contradiction with other quite clear assertions. Feel free to show how MY quotes of you are as bereft of accuracy as your attempt to say that I ascribed to you the position that "atheists are rocks". You can't. Because unlike you, I actually DO quote WHAT YOU HAVE CLEARLY said, and I don't hid behind petitions for honest dialogue whilst inaccurately presenting the posts of others AND dishonestly claiming that direct quotes of my posts aren't my own views.

 

[Bunyip]

So sorry that I use your quite clear assertions to be in contradiction with other quite clear assertions. Feel free to show how MY quotes of you are as bereft of accuracy as your attempt to say that I ascribed to you the position that "atheists are rocks". You can't. Because unlike you, I actually DO quote WHAT YOU HAVE CLEARLY said, and I don't hid behind petitions for honest dialogue whilst inaccurately presenting the posts of others AND dishonestly claiming that direct quotes of my posts aren't my own views.

Legion, this is just ridiculous. Goodbye.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

However, I am forced to point out that "all theists are atheists" does not also mean all atheists are theists, but rather some atheist are theist.

It does according to logic (at least "standard" or "classical" logic). This is why we require extensions of classical logic to account for mental state predicates like "believe" (I know you are familiar with my "go to" example of superman and clark kent; the reason classical logic fails in that example if identity, which requires that "if x is y" then necessarily "y is x".

This is a classic "if all weebles are wobbles, are all wobbles weebles? The answer of course is not necessarily.

The answer is classically necessarily according to (classical) logic. Linguistically, my use of identity is trivially and obviously, because language doesn't adhere to the rules of logic. But I'm not requiring it do this (quite the opposite). I would prefer that the nonsense claim that "all atheists are theists" or vice verse be dismissed as obviously wrong because it totally contradicts the usage of the English language by any and all speakers except 1.

 

[Curious George]

It does according to logic (at least "standard" or "classical" logic). This is why we require extensions of classical logic to account for mental state predicates like "believe" (I know you are familiar with my "go to" example of superman and clark kent; the reason classical logic fails in that example if identity, which requires that "if x is y" then necessarily "y is x".


The answer is classically necessarily according to (classical) logic. Linguistically, my use of identity is trivially and obviously, because language doesn't adhere to the rules of logic. But I'm not requiring it do this (quite the opposite). I would prefer that the nonsense claim that "all atheists are theists" or vice verse be dismissed as obviously wrong because it totally contradicts the usage of the English language by any and all speakers except 1.

Yes I am familiar with your go to superman. This has helped me a lot. And with superman and Clark Kent we are talking about an individual not a group. But the same applies. If there is only one dog in the world and that one dog is a bulldog then all the dog is a bulldog, and the bulldog is a dog.

But if there are many dogs, and one says bulldogs are dogs, then we still get some dogs are bulldogs. That some can be "all" if we add the only dogs are bulldogs.

But I am pretty sure our language follows this classic logic (or at least tries to do so). Math follows this as well but math deals with specific numbers usually. This changes when we use sets and are no longer dealing with specific numbers.



For instance we can say that x is a real number, but not all real numbers are x.

I am sorry, I don't know how to write this mathematically anymore. But I am pretty sure that we do change the is to "belongs to the set" R. So there is a different notation for "is" and "belongs to" I can't quite remember. So perhaps that is the mix-up?

However colloquially a laymen like myself would still use the to be verbs.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Math follows this as well but math deals with specific numbers usually.

Actually neither of the above is true. My apologies, but being somewhat in love with mathematics I feel inclined to address the completely irrelevant (and informally "correct") claim that math conforms to the pattern described or that it deals with specific numbers. Take the real number line: given any interval, there exists more numbers that are never specifically dealt with than there exists any numbers which are.
More relevantly, you raise a very good and absolutely essential point: equivalence vs. equality. In logic, we take every ascription of a property to any group as unqualified s.t. if x=y than y=x (and the linguistic formulation of the former would be "if x is y than y is x"). Clearly, this isn't generally true, for reasons such as those you point out. Of course, in general there isn't any word that isn't polysemous and in general the basic unit of language consists of constructions, and to the extent that we can informally define words we do so according to usage, not by asserting that "all theists are atheists" in contradiction to logic and usage and defended by asserting that poor grammar can defend what no dictionary, logic, or linguistic theory does.

This changes when we use sets and are no longer dealing with specific numbers.

Not exactly. For instance:

For instance we can say that x is a real number, but not all real numbers are x.

You are absolutely correct but with one caveat: we wouldn't say that this example is true in mathematics because "x is a real number" is equivalent to "x is an element of R" not "x=R", which would be required to validly go from "x is a real number" to "x is [or isn't] all real numbers".

I am sorry, I don't know how to write this mathematically anymore.

Good point. Because formally we have the problem that
"there exists an x s.t. x is an element of R" vs. "x is R". In logic, "is" denotes equality & equivalence. In mathematics we have to be more careful, and by "x is a real number" we mean "x is an element of R" not "x is R"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually, (Curious George), you had an even better point I didn't think of: Bunyip, you have defined polytheists as a "subset" of the "set" of theists. Sets are defined formally, mathematically, and clearly. Your "definition" that "all theists are also atheists" entails, under any interpretation, that there exists no set such that [s.t.] theists are anything other than a subset of atheists.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, (Curious George), you had an even better point I didn't think of: Bunyip, you have defined polytheists as a "subset" of the "set" of theists. Sets are defined formally, mathematically, and clearly. Your "definition" that "all theists are also atheists" entails, under any interpretation, that there exists no set such that [s.t.] theists are anything other than a subset of atheists.

Correct.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Correct.

This just gets better. According to you, there exists a set (which you don't define) of atheists, and all theists are subsets (also not defined) of this set?

 

[leibowde84]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they cause me issue. I can employ these definitions fine. However these definitions are problematic. They are poorly defined. Another definition exists that is better. This other definition doesn't lead to equivocation, doesn't classify the same position with mutually exclusive terms, and causes far less confusion. This other definition leads to clarity of thought and efficient communication. I am not saying I take issue with your definitions, just that they are not as good as mine. I am not saying we cannot use your definitions for discussion, just that mine are better. I am not saying your definitions cannot work, just that mine work better. I am not saying your definitions have no approximation to truth, just that mine are closer approximations.

No, these definitions do not cause me issue. I just understand why they are more problematic that my definitions. If you do not understand why they are more problematic we can certainly run through it again.

I understand why YOU THINK that yours are better. I think you couldn't be more wrong. I believe the opposite. We might have to agree to disagree on this one. But, saying things like, "mine are better" makes you appear a bit pretentious. "I'm right ... you're wrong ... deal with it" <<< what you sound like.

 

[leibowde84]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they cause me issue. I can employ these definitions fine. However these definitions are problematic. They are poorly defined. Another definition exists that is better. This other definition doesn't lead to equivocation, doesn't classify the same position with mutually exclusive terms, and causes far less confusion. This other definition leads to clarity of thought and efficient communication. I am not saying I take issue with your definitions, just that they are not as good as mine. I am not saying we cannot use your definitions for discussion, just that mine are better. I am not saying your definitions cannot work, just that mine work better. I am not saying your definitions have no approximation to truth, just that mine are closer approximations.

No, these definitions do not cause me issue. I just understand why they are more problematic that my definitions. If you do not understand why they are more problematic we can certainly run through it again.

FYI, I have yet to see a more childish comment than this one ... I am honestly surprised by it, as you usually aren't so immature with your points.

 

[atanu]

You are incorrect. Disbelief includes those who are incapable of belief. And "lack" in this context means "to be without".

dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun

1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

Is "incapabilty of belief" same as "inabilty to accept"?

No. Not the same. One is just included in the other.

After due thought, I am unable to accept your view on this matter.

Why?

Your claim, shown in red in the top quote "..... who are incapable of belief" is not same as the actual definition in green "inability to accept that something is true or real."

I am able to judge that you are wrong and thus I am not unable to ACCEPT your proposition as true or real.

A stone or a child has no such ability to judge and reject.

(I very well know that this thread is more humorous and a better thread than "The post is the winner".)

 

[atanu]

If I asked them, it wouldn't be "implicit". If they are "ok" with the term as being accurate, they then become "explicit" atheists.

You must come to realise someday that this "Implicit" thingy is a theory, a philosophical position, and not the reality.

 

[outhouse]

You must come to realise someday that this "Implicit" thingy is a theory, a philosophical position, and not the reality.

You cannot substantiate that at all.

Implicit is the definition of one branch of atheism, there is no theory about it in context.

 

[outhouse]

"all theists are atheists"

Is not a credible statement, as an atheist is a description of those who are NOT theist.

 

[leibowde84]

Your claim, shown in red in the top quote "..... who are incapable of belief" is not same as the actual definition in green "inability to accept that something is true or real."

I am able to judge that you are wrong and thus I am not unable to ACCEPT your proposition as true or real.

A stone or a child has no such ability to judge and reject.

(I very well know that this thread is more humorous and a better thread than "The post is the winner".)

You asked me if they were the same. I said, "no, one is merely included in the other", which is 100% accurate. Here's why (and this should be pretty obvious):

Belief = acceptance that something is true or real without sufficient evidence.

If one is "unable to accept that anything is true or real", how would they be able to "accept that something is true or real" without sufficient evidence. If you are unable to accept that something is true or real, you are also unable to believe in it, by definition. This is because "belief" requires the "ability to accept that something is true".

Where are you getting confused?

 

[leibowde84]

You must come to realise someday that this "Implicit" thingy is a theory, a philosophical position, and not the reality.

We are merely going by the meaning of a general term. There is no "theory" or "philosophical position", as there is no declaration involved in any way, hence the term "implicit". The term "implicit" is real, and the term "atheism" is real. Now, we disagree on how inclusive "atheism" is, but that doesn't actually provide a counter argument. You are expressing mere claims without any support. For some reason the fact that it bothers you (for some strange reason) to categorize babies as "atheist by definition alone" (implicit atheism) is being used as evidence. But, that feeling of uneasiness is irrelevant to what the terms actually mean.