Who has the burden of proof?

[ImmortalFlame]

??? So anyone that is not sure (has no proof )

Again, these are two different things. Certainty and proof are not synonymous. A person can consider something they believe to be absolutely true, but still do so without what could be considered proof.

cannot be closer to theism than atheism? That is silly.

That's not quite what I said. I said - as I have been saying for pages upon pages now - that you cannot "be closer to" or "tend toward" or "be whatever %" atheist or theist. They are mutually exclusive positions with regards to a yes/no proposition. You can ONLY be 100% atheist or 100% theist - you cannot be both or neither, and you cannot be partly one and partly the other. If you believe there is a God, but don't claim certainty, you are an agnostic theist - but you are still "100%" a theist, and if I do not believe there is a God, but do not claim to know that no God exists, I am an agnostic atheist - but I am still "100%" an atheist.

It's exactly the same with any yes/no proposition. You either do or you do not. You either own a camel, or you do not own a camel. You cannot "be closer to owning a camel than not owning a camel" - you either DO or you DO NOT. That's exactly how it is with atheism and theism.

I can be closer to Republican ideology than Democrat ideology and still be an independant. Or are you saying that an independent must be a Democrat or Republican? That is silly. People talk all the time about people being left of center or right of center.

That's because political ideologies are sets of beliefs and ideals. Atheism and theism deal exclusively with one of two possible responses to a single claim. In the exact same way that the question "Did you vote Republican?" can only have one of two possible answers - yes or no. "Do you believe God exists?" has only two possible answers - yes (theism) or no (atheism). Neither theism nor atheism alone carry a set of beliefs beyond the response to that specific claim - anything else you believe, whether you be a Christian, a deist or a satanist, is irrelevant with regards to the single response to that single question, in the exact same way that what political policies you tend to agree with is irrelevant to the question of whether or not you voted for a specific party.

I can say that I am closer to the North Pole than someone in Argentina. Would you respond, "that is impossible, because either you are at the North pole or at the south pole."

That's not a remotely accurate comparison. Belief is a yes/no proposition.

I guess it is impossible, everything I write will appear as word salad to you.

No it isn't. Just the parts that make no sense.

You do not understand the difference between metaphor and being literal.

Now you're just being silly. I've used metaphors repeatedly myself in order to illustrate my arguments - metaphors that you have never once addressed.

I imagine you will now complain that Republican and Democrat is word salad because some Democrats are theists and some Republicans are atheists.

Again, now you're just being silly. I called what you wrote earlier "word salad" because it made no sense and was filled with undefined terminology and nonsensical phrases like "You think that agnostic qualifies atheism" and "I believe that uncertainty is the human condition and belief and/or disbelief are directions". This makes no sense without elaboration, metaphor or otherwise.

Anyway, I am thru with this because after hundreds of post you still do not understand what I am saying.

Considering you have done nothing but put words in my mouth, invent definitions, ignore the facts that we present and refuse to address any actual arguments I've made thus far, my irony meter just broke.

 

[McBell]

Well, I claim to know....and do so for cause and effect.
The universe(one word) is the effect.....and God is the Cause.

SCIENCE!

What caused god?

Oops, there goes science...

 

[Thief]

What caused god?

Oops, there goes science...

Here comes Spirit........oops!

 

[raw_thought]

As I have repeatedly said this debate is silly semantics. I go by the definition I gave in post 591 and you do not.
Its as if we were in a debate about the definition of "cleave".
You say that it means to join.
I say it means to separate.
Anyway, an argument about semantics is boring.

 

[Thief]

As for the convoluted argument that atheism is the disbelief in God and therefore it is not the belief that there is no God, but rather the lack of belief in God,
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
FROM Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
If one continues with the absurd definition of atheist as one that does not believe in God, but does not believe that God doesn’t exist, one’s definition logically implies that an atheist does not believe in God and does not not believe in God, which is the definition of agnostic! As I said, previously it is absurd to say that atheist and agnostic are 2 words for the same concept!

not not.....who's there?
(sorry...it was there)

Could you conceded that belief is what you hold as true?
If so....then believing there is no God....is a belief.

Think of it as stepping over a line.
It's one side or the other....but the action taken is an action of belief.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I have repeatedly said this debate is silly semantics. I go by the defintion I gave in post 591 and you do not.
Its as if we were in a debate about the definition of "cleave".
You say that it means to join.
I say it means to seperate.
Anyway, an argument about semantics is boring.

Both meanings are correct. "Cleave" and "cleave" are homonyms. They're two diiferent words with separate meanings and etymologies that just happened to end up with the same spelling and pronunciation.

 

[idav]

Here comes Spirit........oops!

What caused spirit?

 

[raw_thought]

Both meanings are correct. "Cleave" and "cleave" are homonyms. They're two different words with separate meanings and etymologies that just happened to end up with the same spelling and pronunciation.

Exactly!!! That was my point and why the argument about the definition of disbelief is so absurd.It's silly semantics. I had to show that my side was not "ignorant" "stupid" etc and all the other ad hominums that my opponents threw at me. *
Anyway, I know now that it is stupid to respond to trolls.
Here is my definition of 'disbelief"
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
My opponent has other definitions, that are also in the dictionary. As I said, its like getting into an argument about if "cleave" means join together or separate.
* As Rodney King said, " can't we all just get along?" :yes: LOL

 

[raw_thought]

not not.....who's there?
(sorry...it was there)

Could you conceded that belief is what you hold as true?
If so....then believing there is no God....is a belief.

Think of it as stepping over a line.
It's one side or the other....but the action taken is an action of belief.

I think you have me confused with my opposition. I have consistently said that atheism is the belief that there is no God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly!!! That was my point and why the argument about the definition of disbelief is so absurd.It's silly semantics.

That's a false analogy. The word "disbelief" doesn't have the same issues as the word "cleave".

I had to show that my side was not "ignorant" "stupid" etc and all the other ad hominums that my opponents threw at me.
Anyway, I know now that it is stupid to respond to trolls.
Here is my definition of 'disbelief"
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
My opponent has other definitions, that are also in the dictionary. As I said, its like getting into an argument about if "cleave" means join together or separate.

Right: when you want to insist on one definition, it's the straightforward meaning of the word,but when the other side does it, it's "silly semantics". From my perspective, it looks like you're just making excuses to dismiss someone else's point of view.

 

[raw_thought]

Read the dictionary definition of "disbelief" I gave from the dictionary. Now compare it to my opponents definition. They are different. It is the same issue as the word "disbelief" had for our debate.
Please read my posts, and theirs. They are the one's with the ad hominums, not me. They were the one's that said that I was ignorant, a fool etc because I went with the definition I found in the dictionary. And, yes, like the word "cleave" "disbelief" has two definitions. One , and mine, is the rejection of a belief as untrue. The other definition , that my opponent's have is different.

 

[raw_thought]

That's a false analogy. The word "disbelief" doesn't have the same issues as the word "cleave".

Right: when you want to insist on one definition, it's the straightforward meaning of the word,but when the other side does it, it's "silly semantics". From my perspective, it looks like you're just making excuses to dismiss someone else's point of view.

No I am saying that an argument over what definition is correct, Cleave= to join vs cleave = to separate is silly semantics. Similarly, my definition is correct and theirs is also found in the dictionary. Unfortunately, they called me ignorant etc because I sided with the definition of "disbelief" I gave from the dictionary. And so like a fool, I spent many posts defending that dictionary definition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the dictionary definition of "disbelief" I gave from the dictionary. Now compare it to my opponents definition. They are different.

That's the double standard I'm talking about: you take a definition out of one dictionary and it's "the dictionary definition," but whey take a definition out of another dictionary and you call "my opponent's definition" as if they pulled it out of their butt.

You want a dictionary definition? Here's one for you:

Lack of faith

disbelief: definition of disbelief in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I have repeatedly said this debate is silly semantics. I go by the definition I gave in post 591 and you do not.

It's not just semantics. It's about understanding the terminology and the idea that belief and knowledge are two distinct things, and your lack of understanding of basic concepts such as the fact that agnosticism and atheism/theism aren't mutually exclusive and that belief in God is a yes/no proposition.

Its as if we were in a debate about the definition of "cleave".
You say that it means to join.
I say it means to separate.
Anyway, an argument about semantics is boring.

It's really very simple. Do you think that belief in God is a yes/no proposition?

Exactly!!! That was my point and why the argument about the definition of disbelief is so absurd.It's silly semantics. I had to show that my side was not "ignorant" "stupid" etc and all the other ad hominums that my opponents threw at me. *

Except for the fact that you repeatedly asserted that YOUR definition was the more accurate one. An ad hominem is when you insult someone in lieu of having an actual response. It's not an ad hominem if you qualify your position with an argument. For example, here is an example of an ad hominem:

You're wrong because you're ignorant.

On the other hand, this isn't an ad hominem:

Your assertion that trees are made out of cake doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We can cut down trees and even taste what is inside of them, and no trees have ever been discovered that are made of cake. All of the evidence, and the experiences of bilions of people, lead to the conclusion that trees are made from wood - not cake. I can only assume that you are extremely ignorant of trees in order to make such a categorically incorrect statement.

Anyway, I know now that it is stupid to respond to trolls.
Here is my definition of 'disbelief"
“the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”
Disbelief - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
My opponent has other definitions, that are also in the dictionary. As I said, its like getting into an argument about if "cleave" means join together or separate.

Actually, it's like someone trying to argue that "being punched" is an emotion because they found a definition somewhere that says an emotion is "a strong feeling", and they consider being punched to fit that definition.

Also, you ignored the first definition on that very page:
a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real

Once again, I remind you, that YOU were the on who first brought up dictionaries and repeatedly asserted that your definitions were "the most accurate". Only now are you reverting to this position that you are not interested in semantics.

Read the dictionary definition of "disbelief" I gave from the dictionary. Now compare it to my opponents definition. They are different. It is the same issue as the word "disbelief" had for our debate.

Except I also gave you four different definitions of disbelief WHICH ALL AGREED WITH MINE - INCLUDING the one on the page you used to get YOUR definition from.

Please read my posts, and theirs. They are the one's with the ad hominums, not me. They were the one's that said that I was ignorant, a fool etc because I went with the definition I found in the dictionary.

No, I called you ignorant because you have repeatedly displayed a lack of knowledge about these subjects. That's precisely what ignorance means - it is a lack of knowledge or information of a particular subject. It's not an ad hominem.

And, yes, like the word "cleave" "disbelief" has two definitions. One , and mine, is the rejection of a belief as untrue.

And yet you haven't provided a single definition that says that.

The other definition , that my opponent's have is different.

You're right, because mine actually comes from the actual definition of the word.

 

[raw_thought]

I have said over and over and over about how this debate, what dictionary definition of "disbelief" is better is silly semantics. I have even said that basically we are in agreement. But that only made them insult me more.
Anyway, i have learned my lesson, do not respond to trolls.
* I had hoped that it was obvious that I was saying that the debate about which dictionary definition of "disbelief" is better is silly semantics.

 

[raw_thought]

immortalflame, please, just go back, read my posts and see what happens when you use the definition of "disbelief" that i gave from the dictionary. My arguments are clear.
Like I said, its like getting into a debate about , does cleave mean separate or join. As for the difference between belief and knowledge, we already solved that many posts ago.
Anyway, troll on!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have said over and over and over about how this debate, what dictionary definition of "disbelief" is better is silly semantics. I have even said that basically we are in agreement. But that only made them insult me more.
Anyway, i have learned my lesson, do not respond to trolls.
* I had hoped that it was obvious that I was saying that the debate about which dictionary definition of "disbelief" is better is silly semantics.

Disbelieve just means to not believe something, doesn't it?

 

[raw_thought]

That's the double standard I'm talking about: you take a definition out of one dictionary and it's "the dictionary definition," but whey take a definition out of another dictionary and you call "my opponent's definition" as if they pulled it out of their butt.

You want a dictionary definition? Here's one for you:



disbelief: definition of disbelief in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I said that my definition of disbelief is in the dictionary and so is theirs!!!!!!!!! That our debate is silly semantics, like arguing about the definition of cleave.
A typical strawman, I never said that they pulled their definition from their butt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have said over and over and over about how this debate, what dictionary definition of "disbelief" is better is silly semantics. I have even said that basically we are in agreement. But that only made them insult me more.
Anyway, i have learned my lesson, do not respond to trolls.
* I had hoped that it was obvious that I was saying that the debate about which dictionary definition of "disbelief" is better is silly semantics.

If you were actually intersted in anything other than "silly semantics", you could have just asked people what they meant by the terms they're using instead of going off on this tangent.

 

[raw_thought]

I already knew what their definitions were!!! I was defending the definition in the dictionary that they called ignorant etc.