Threads about Theism and what it is

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're not good at analogies are you... That's an example yeah, but you could pick devices like GPUs, WLANs or even programming languages.

I felt the need to respond to this. Because what we're talking about is not hardware that adheres to a different usage of "X", but where usage of "X" on their hardware is clearly defined in their specification, even if it differs from someone else's usage. We're talking about "off-specification" usage here, or usage of something for which there is an ambiguous specification.

Take an example where two people are trying to use the SAME programming language. There is documentation describing this programming language and usage of it in detail, and if I want to use it, I literally have to adhere to that documentation. But let's say that, by going deep into the binary source supporting the very programming language itself, and on my machine only, I have somehow replaced the "for" keyword with "while" and vice versa, because I thought this was more fitting, or I had Wheaties for breakfast the morning I did it, or whatever. That's what we're talking about here. So that when I go to compile my program on someone else's machine that is attempting to use the same programming language (except unaltered from the actual standard), my program is going to crash and burn if it uses "for" or "while" loops.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well you're right about one thing, they're useless communication devices for you, but for religions they're still running a different version than you are. And me being outside of both religions and antitheism I could care less what to call God, if not for tradition of mystics around the world.

We are not a hive mind trying to achieve consensus. Especially with God and gods, there is no real meaning to it. The gods of my ancestors were antropomorphic and legendary presentations of nature, history, human psyche and shamanistic vision. The methodology and meanings of their god-beliefs was wildly different (and I emphasize the wild here) from literary based societies. Even if you and I don't believe those gods, what should we call those them today if not gods?


I quote: Don't appear to be wrong AT ALL COSTS. Some things you said seemed quite overboard regarding the level of discussion we should be at to be honest, but perhaps that's an American way to talk, not sure. It might be my cultural upbringing based view seeing that as more hostile than in your culture.


Well you certainly have your ideas of me. I've reversed many positions I've held since I've registered on this site. Look with new eyes at man you've not seen in a few days.


Say we stay in established definitions in every language and stop our language from developing as well as scratch out any less common but established usages. Now in some places of the world you'd just a man following the doctrine of atheism or someone who rejects or even fights God. Does it feel good?

I decided, when reading your post, to interpret the word "that" with a new meaning I have given it, which is "in consideration of monkeys." I also decided to use my new definition for the word "not", which is "regarding or attributable to a belief in the moon being literally made of cheese." Lastly, the word "as" also has a new definition for me, which is "a place where wild figs grow." So, unfortunately, your post made absolutely no sense to me. But this is no problem, is it?

 

[Jumi]

I felt the need to respond to this. Because what we're talking about is not hardware that adheres to a different usage of "X", but where usage of "X" on their hardware is clearly defined in their specification, even if it differs from someone else's usage. We're talking about "off-specification" usage here, or usage of something for which there is an ambiguous specification.

You don't really get to use every hardware by just honestly following what specifications should have. I know I'm simplifying a bit here but that's why opensource drivers etc are sometimes terrible garbage by just trying to follow specs.

Take an example where two people are trying to use the SAME programming language. There is documentation describing this programming language and usage of it in detail, and if I want to use it, I literally have to adhere to that documentation.

It's getting better these days, but if you tried TASM or MASM or the varieties of C and C++ back in the day you'd feel like punching yourself in the face if you believed that they were like the other...

But let's say that, by going deep into the binary source supporting the very programming language itself, and on my machine only, I have somehow replaced the "for" keyword with "while" and vice versa, because I thought this was more fitting, or I had Wheaties for breakfast the morning I did it, or whatever. That's what we're talking about here. So that when I go to compile my program on someone else's machine that is attempting to use the same programming language (except unaltered from the actual standard), my program is going to crash and burn if it uses "for" or "while" loops.

The machine language instructions are just conditional jumps so while and for are basically the same, if my memory serves right. Error checking can get pretty interesting if you play close to hardware...

 

[Jumi]

So, unfortunately, your post made absolutely no sense to me. But this is no problem, is it?

Well that's just the problem with the doctrine of atheism, I guess.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The machine language instructions are just conditional jumps so while and for are basically the same, if my memory serves right. Error checking can get pretty interesting if you play close to hardware...

And this is supposedly relevant to my point. Aye aye aye...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well that's just the problem with the doctrine of atheism, I guess.

Precisely... and by this, I mean "full of legumes."

 

[Jumi]

And this is supposedly relevant to my point. Aye aye aye...

That was the part of my post that you thought was the most important?

Perhaps you should try to be clear about what point you had. Because I thought your point was that things follow documentation neatly and my point was that they don't always do that.

 

[Jumi]

Precisely... and by this, I mean "full of legumes."

Yeah got your sarcasm the first time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have you read some of the threads debating the definition of atheism around here? In those threads, it doesn't matter how many dictionary definitions someone throws out. People argue about nuances endlessly with it. When I first joined, I found it oddly amusing. Then, it happened so routinely I started finding it oddly annoying. Now, I attempt to be indifferent.

Such threads do have their value. Dictionary definitions are incredibly poor reference points for understanding complex topics. I find the dictionary definitions for both atheism and theism woefully inadequate to convey the depths. But especially for theism. The definitions only beg another question. What are gods? What does it mean to "believe in" that?

A good point, that:

"God" is a powerful personage, who, IMHO, can destroy my soul in Hell or redeem it at will, allowing me to receive a free gift via trust.

I like practical, working definitions.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That was the part of my post that you thought was the most important?

Perhaps you should try to be clear about what point you had. Because I thought your point was that things follow documentation neatly and my point was that they don't always do that.

And I understand that. I actually never said they didn't. What I have been saying is that they should. Do you disagree?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah got your sarcasm the first time.

Here I was, prepared to just dismiss your reply outright... but then I saw the emoji! And due to that simple inclusion of such a powerful and undeniable source of raw, graphical power, I have no choice but to begrudgingly admit that you sir, have handily defeated me. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

 

[Jumi]

Here I was, prepared to just dismiss your reply outright... but then I saw the emoji! And due to that simple inclusion of such a powerful and undeniable source of raw, graphical power, I have no choice but to begrudgingly admit that you sir, have handily defeated me. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

At least you are consistent in being rude. You have so many pet peeves that tick you off so hard that it's better we don't communicate again.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

At least you are consistent in being rude. You have so many pet peeves that tick you off so hard that it's better we don't communicate again.

Okie doke.

 

[Segev Moran]

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

I bet you are a chicken and didn't pay the site it's fair win of 100$!!!!

 

[Quintessence]

I bet you are a chicken and didn't pay the site it's fair win of 100$!!!!

Nah, but when we have a thread debating the definition of atheism (for the 30th+ time) that is nearing 20 pages, plus a half a dozen related threads, I still call that a "point granted" win.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why don't these happen when the question is at least as complicated (if not a great deal more complicated) than debating about what atheism is?

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

A Theist doesn't try to duck the positive assertion, if we called ourselves 'a-naturalists' and tried to frame our belief as a mere disbelief of the alternative- I'd expect to be called out on that too!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For atheism, the 'lack of belief' definition didn't appear in dictionaries until the 1980/90s.

From the Century Dictionary, 1897:

atheism
[...]
3. A practical indifference to and disregard of God; godlessness.

http://www.global-language.com/century/

From the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1887):

Atheism
[...]
See atheal [note: "atheal" is defined as "without God"]
[...]
Disregard of duty to God.

Atheist
[...]
2. One who practically denies the existence of God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

https://archive.org/stream/oed01arch#page/499/mode/1up

 

[paarsurrey]

Why don't these happen when the question is at least as complicated (if not a great deal more complicated) than debating about what atheism is?

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

My understanding is that belief in "G-d " is most natural, simple and reasonable belief and humanity has accepted it to be usual and Atheism, I believe, Atheism they consider unusual, sorry to express my understanding, no hurt intended, please.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why don't these happen when the question is at least as complicated (if not a great deal more complicated) than debating about what atheism is?

(I'd bet a hundred bucks this thread will not only never get featured, but fall off the first page within 48 hours)

For those of us who see atheism as nothing more or less than the complement of theism (i.e. two options forming a MECE set - everyone belongs to exactly one category), trying to define atheism is also trying to define theism.

 

[Augustus]

From the Century Dictionary, 1897:


http://www.global-language.com/century/

From the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1887):

https://archive.org/stream/oed01arch#page/499/mode/1up

All of these are couched re: monotheism. I know you understand the difference.