Wow...really tough to get rid of you and your "I am better than you" attitude — Frank Apisa
For the record, "the quality of my writing" has gotten me op ed pieces and op ed sized pieces published in major newspapers across the country...including the BIG one...The New York Times. It got me a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine. ALL of which were published without so much as a single comma being changed. — Frank Apisa
So do not give me any of your "I am better than you" shit about quality of writing. — Frank Apisa
I considered your comments above to be bullshit...and I so described them. It was a shortcut...a cut-to-the-chase kind of thing. — Frank Apisa
If you want to climb down off your high horse and actually discuss it with me...do it. If, instead, you want to continue to tell me that you are not going to have a discussion with me...BY HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH ME...have a ball. — Frank Apisa
I am enjoying this as much as I would a discussion on the actual topic. — Frank Apisa
A person who claims adherence to "atheism" will view the other side as lacking proof, but that doesn't instantiate "atheism" any more than God is proven true by claiming "atheism" lacks proof. — Daniel Cox
The interpretation of "atheism" is commonly about atheists demanding proof for something to exist. If you "do not believe in God", which is another interpretation of atheism, mainly made by theists, you need to accept that it is a belief and therefore the opposite, "there is a God", might be true. This would mean that it's rather an agnostic point of view. — Christoffer
My position, what I know emphatically is I'm being held in existence by an "Entity" and that "Entity" is holding me in existence. The definition of words can't gain any traction on the experience. — Daniel Cox
I don't believe in god." Perhaps that person should internalize that in the first-person, and in so doing would never proffer it in the second-person to someone they know rejects that projection? — Daniel Cox
I'm not in charge of another's education. Someone here who holds an opposing view, Tim Wood I think is his name, was challenging me over the part about being held in existence by God. Claimed something about that being my nomenclature and didn't map onto reality. — Daniel Cox
The space exploring teapot is an unnecessary platonic idea. I'm leaving shortly, after my e-bike is fully charged, to Mt. Rubidoux where I will be passing out flyers for my soap ministry. Flyers with pictures of my Dad putting the Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux April 4th, 1963 using Angel #7187. Is it an intrinsic necessity you are made aware of this fact? No. So it is with the teapot. — Daniel Cox
Obviously you are having a bit of trouble with the language used in this kind of discussion. — Frank Apisa
I call your attention to the fact that
a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
...is not the same as...
b) I "believe no gods exist."
They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.
The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.) — Frank Apisa
ASIDE: The singular is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. It should be "gods" or "at least one god." The use of "God" as you used it seems to be pointing to one particular god. And the use of "believe in" is off the charts. — Frank Apisa
But I appreciate that you finally step back from the way of writing you did before.
I call your attention to the fact that
a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
...is not the same as...
b) I "believe no gods exist."
They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.
The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.) — Frank Apisa
Please explain how the difference between A and B is more than just in their phrasing. They both refer to a "belief" in the non-existence in God or Gods. — Christoffer
Then why are you writing in the way you do? — Christoffer
I doubt any major publication would allow that type of writing. — Christoffer
Christoffer
431
↪Frank Apisa
Yes, you are correct about the grammars. But taking things out of context like this is not very linguistically pragmatic. The semantics, as I mentioned, does not erase the core of how I classify between different standpoints. — Christoffer
Devans99
1.4k
↪Frank Apisa
Interesting point. I think that statement (a) is not clear. It could be interpreted as a belief that no gods exist at all. I've tried to rephrase it below to make the distinction clearer:
a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
a1) I do not have any beliefs in the existence of any particular gods.
b) I "believe no gods exist."
b1) I hold a belief that no gods exist.
So (a1) leaves room for some sort of agnosticism; there is no explicit belief that God does not exist, just a lack of belief that any particular god exists?
Whereas (b1) is an active believe that no gods exist at all. — Devans99
Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa
So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa
Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post. — Christoffer
I'm on a mission, I help people with knowledge and science. — Daniel Cox
Christoffer
433
Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa
Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post. — Christoffer
I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa
I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa
I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths — Devans99
Devans99
1.4k
I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa
It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.
Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution).
Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not.
I think everyone does something similar, consciously or sub-consciously, we assign probabilities to inductive propositions. — Devans99
It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.
Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution). — Devans99
You also have a set of beliefs which you have such a high conviction in that your psychology prevents you from being conscious of the logical faults with your rationalisations. — S
Christoffer
435
I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa
It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer to Daniel Cox. He brought up the same kind of question about my definitions of atheism as you did and I put forth an answer to why I define atheism in the way I do and why I don't agree on atheism to be defined in numerous vague definitions. — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.