What being an atheist means in practical terms

Yes he is. He makes no actual points other than to demand his terminology be used, and he calls others "wrong" by pretending they meant what they didn't mean as they used the words differently than he demands.

That's what I mean by not being consistent and not having good faith conversation. But that doesn't have to happen and doesn't always happen with mere changes in language. We can switch from English to French or Vietnamese and make the same points or arguments and we often do.

The problem isn't the language itself.

 

Yes, you're right, this should work as long as the dialogue partners are acting in good faith.

Nói hay lắm

 

I think of it like raising a child who has not yet figured out the meaning of the words he uses, so he points to his head and says I have a tummy ache.
Now as a responsible parent I correct the children by saying no that is not your tummy, that is your head and this is your tummy.

Words have meanings, and you can choose to ignore them if you like or use them correctly.

I havent seen good faith here, only political agenda, nice try though

Thats ok, I accept your dodge as a concession

Imagine your children running around pointing to their head calling it their stomach! Some people have the a purely most idiotic approach on the planet, that since I know what the meaning of what the child is talking about we should have a discussion grounded in stupidity rather than correcting the children so if nothing else if they are willing to learn that they at least dont sound stupid and are able to effectively communicate with others.

Yes I am dealing with incredible flaws in reasoning in all these threads since my opponents have the idea they can substitute political rhetoric for logic under the guise of reason.

Thats why grammar is also so incredibly important, it helps arguing over abjectly stupid reasoning like this:

who can have an honest debate with anyone that posts that level of dishonesty?

Agnostic, as I have cited several sources of the definition has one 'logical', 'rational' result in any sense you choose to use it, that is neutral, any other conclusion is faulty reasoning or more than likely in reality simply a false narrative being pedaled by obtuse agenda driven politics.

Your side posted this nothingness burger of stupidity:

There is nothing in any definition of agnostic that allows for a commitment on, (ie choosing) either side. Im doing a community service by teaching the proper usage of the word, no its not your tummy its your head, now we all know what you are talking about.

 

What are Bertrand Russell's Views on religion and morality?


What are Bertrand Russell’s Views on religion and morality?
Give your answer with reference to the writings of Bertrand Russell.

An Agnostic

Russell called himself an agnostic. In other words he neither believed nor disbelieved in the existence of God. Such an attitude was natural in a man who had a scientific outlook on life and who called himself a Rationalist.

https://neoenglish.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/what-are-bertrand-russell’s-views-on-religion-and-morality-give-your-answer-with-reference-to-the-writings-of-bertrand-russell/

Now as far as neoatheists are concerned they are special, they claim its totally rational to simultaneously disbelieve and not disbelieve!

As long as we know that when you point to your head that you really mean your tummy, no need for correction, that is perfectly acceptable use of the language, according to neoatheist reasoning of course.

We have people here that are running in total opposition to known definitions and understanding of words by philosophers on their side of the equation. They very simply defy logic and reason.

Thats ok though this discussion as do others proves beyond a shadow of doubt neoatheists atheology is completely and obtusely irrational.

 

Oh Koko, you are grasping at straws.

 

Quoting Bertrand Russells position?

The above post looks like a post designed solely to troll me doesnt it?
So much for a good faith discussion!

 

the meaning of the word atheist is someone who lacks belief in God that includes agnostics.

I see no valid reason to accept your meaning and reject the one I already accepted you haven't made a good enough case.

Further attempting to insult me only means you don't have a case. I just had better accept it or you're going to try and belittle me oh I'm a big boy so you can try with all your might, none of this is personal to me.

 

I posted stanford several times who proved lack,without,and absent 'cannot' be used in an intelligent discussion to compare with theist and agnostic. You are in denial of and ignoring the facts.

Sorry if you feel I attempted to insult you, that was certainly not my intention, however that is how parents approach teaching a child the meaning of a word.

You put their hand on their head and you say this is your head, then you put it on their tummy and tell them this is your tummy, I have first hand experience with this and it works every time. However this is abstract and you cant put your hand on atheist, theist or agnostic, lack, without, or absent so therefore it requires the use of advanced grammar, logic and reasoning skills.

You have the citations proving validity of argument, you choose to ignore it without a valid rebuttal.

Even Bertrand Russel shot neoatheist atheology down.

 

If I'm in denial of facts, why bother talking to me?

Don't play coy.

There is no absolute fact when it comes to the meaning of language there is just how it's used.

 

If he wasn't, he wouldn't me our dear Kokopuff.

 

How else would you know if it were not for me?
Yeh I quoted stanford and they blew oxford right out of the water, to deny their superior reasoning and correctness, especially with no rebuttal as is the case here with neoatheists, is a pathetic case of an invincible ignorance fallacy

but language is the principle method of human communication, and thats a 'fact'.

 

You're still splitting Harris between two different types of the atheists.

 

My side is using atheist in a context that allows for intellectual discussion in a university philosophy dept, as a proposition, that matches theist and agnostic, that requires a mental process of someone with a functional rational brain. I have no idea how you think you can design any of them into 'compatible' propositions with theist and agnostic since you do not need a brain to be identified as atheist with any of then, (absence, lack, without), so do tell us how you plan to accomplish this miracle?

 

Koko still thinks everything has to be a proposition. He can't compute a definition that isn't a proposition.

 

RE: What being an atheist means in practical terms
SUBTOPICS: Is there a single definition? Are the multiple possible definitions?
※→ et al,

INTRO: I tried to find this in my response in Posting #587, but just could not find it. This morning I stumbled upon it looking for something different.

It is difficult to know when the issues of atheism and theism were first debated. The problem is not simply the lack of ancient texts, serious though that deficiency is; for there is also an interpretative-cum-philosophical question: what are atheism and theism? Thales of Miletus (died c.546 BC), by tradition the first philosopher, was accused of atheism, yet it seems that what he was held guilty of was infidelity to a civic religion not disbelief in a single ultimate source of being. We simply have no evidence as to whether he had opinions concerning the latter.
SOURCE: Atheism and Theism (Great Debates in Philosophy), Copyright © J.J.C. Smart and J.J. Haldane, Second Edition published 2003 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pg 3​

(COMMENT)

IF you are concerned about the contemporary meaning of the term, THEN just say what you mean (long hand). It is the best way to avoid tiresome criticism.

(AΩ)

Much of the contemporary debate, at its core, is monotheism → as supplemented by whatever teaching you happen to favor. While the better discussions attempt to keep the debate at arm's length, Abrahamic Religions are the ones that have been most confrontational over the last millennium. But none of the Abrahamic Religions escape the realm of the metaphysical.
.
An alternative perspective.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

there isn't any real intellectual discussion to be had here you are arguing about semantics.

Agnostics are atheist.

 

emphasis added
Bingo!
the above is where you end up researching the philosophy of the time in question, the real etymology of words.

In those days the deities were law makers, and to be absent or without a god (or group of gods) you would have been considered to be an outlaw. Thats a good find, Im impressed, it matches the material I read when I was a kid.

Then you have another style of research that goes no further than a contemporary dictionary, complete with indefensible blind statements that provide no contribution to the thread whatsoever, and are as useless as the 'yes it is/'no it aint', 'yes it is'/'no it aint' stupidity we see typically from defenseless entrenched denialists, and neoatheists and their apologists now days incapable of rationally arguing their unsupported opinions. Now they had to stoop to throwing sentience out the window. Like seriously? LMAO

 

No research necessary into what words mean.

 

Thank you for proving my points!
Game,set,match!

 

Perhaps think before you engage in pointless semantics.

 

Yes. Been saying that for a while now.

 

He never tells us what his points are. He just demands his terminology and thumps his chest endlessly. His points must be a secret.

 

they cant! their positions are nonsequitur to facts of the argument they try to jam down everyones throats, pretty tough to say what they mean when they dont understand what they mean in the first place.

Of course they seem to think they can make up for it by projection and ad hom. lol

I wonder why do neoatheists do that anyway? Just look foolish with that nonsense.

None of them can with exception to the atheist that calls himself xsmithx was capable of validating anything they claim.

are they that far removed from reality that they cant even bother checking the meaning of the words they use?

So far all the neoatheist claims wound up going over the deep end, if not sooner, like here, later like the swensson arguments.

 

This "neoatheist" thing is basically just word games.

The real deciding factor concerning whether one is an atheist has to do with what happens when decisions are made in one's life.

Is there ever any consideration of a god or gods?

If yes, you aren't an atheist. If no, then you are.

It really makes no sense to try to make it more complex than that.

 

Thank you for expressing interest in my particular case. I will try to answer this to the best of my abilities. I got out of my depression through re-examining the way I see the world and concluded there is a higher power working in my life. I still stick to the belief that almost everything I was taught about the nature of God within Christianity is wrong.

Am I better off now? I say no. I see less beauty in the world. I look upon this life with less awe than I used to. But at least the conclusion I came to about some vague higher purpose helps me get out of bed every morning and go through the motions of living.