The old thread reached its post limit, so this is a continuation. I'm doing this mostly for the benefit of my discussion with Kokomojojo, which has gone on for some time (too long for me to bring everyone else up to speed). Other people are free to chime in or continue conversations from the old thread. - - - Updated - - - Hi Kokomojojo, The other thread was locked due to length (common enough, and one is encouraged to make "part 2" threads), so I figured since the discussion is related, we could continue it here. I've copied my last post. Certainly we agree that it is possible to believe that something is false. That is not the difference I was trying to point out. The answer to whether your position counts as belief only relies on the question "do you accept that there is an odd number of leaves" (or whatever), to which Person C's answer would be "no". He would not answer "neither" because the question doesn't specify a second statement (and "neither" only applies to two statements at a time). There certainly are other statements that follow from the statement "there is an odd number of leaves" but the definition follow only from the question if he accepts the original statement. That is exactly what I'm saying. Judging from how vehemently we both hold our positions, I'm guessing we mean different things by the words. If you can go through the following and point out at what point you disagree, we can figure out where. Consider person C. Does he disbelieve odds? By definition, disbelieve means "not believe", so does he not believe odds? By the virtue of the not operator, if belief is yes, then disbelief is no and vice versa. We consider the definition of belief, i.e. accept as true, does he accept odds as true? No. So he answers "disbelieving odds" with yes. At the same time, consider your other wording, "does he believe [not odds]?". Not odds is evens, so does he believe evens? The definition of believe means does he accept it as true? He does not, so his answer to "believes not odds" is no. Since the two propositions have different truth values, they cannot be the same thing. Consequentially, it seems to me having two variables is a more accurate boolean logic than trying to cram a variable with a middle ground "neither" into the boolean logic.
First here is the OP from Atheist 1 so we do not lose sight of what the thread is about. Why do atheists assault Christians, Muslims, Jews, and all those who govern themselves with a theistic moral compass by demanding everyone else conform to their atheist agenda [aka religion]? It seems if we want to be fair about this, theistic based religions should have the same freedom from atheists and secular religions that they demand from theists? Hence the question, how do we obtain freedom from atheists? Especially now government has become so popular to force theists to conform to their religious agenda? Due to some peoples misconceptions in the last thread this has 'nothing' to do with any imagined conspiracy which is off topic. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=455194&p=1066150484#post1066150484
Unless I missed something you were doing ok till you got to this point: At the same time, consider your other wording, "does he believe [not odds]?". Not odds is evens, so does he believe evens? The definition of believe means does he accept it as true? He does not, so his answer to "believes not odds" is no. so once again that has to be set up as: is odds T is odds F T or F validates the belief. The rest is semantics Your original problem was binary, where I answered neither with regard to my belief, but knew that it had to be either odd or even which was outside the scope of what you wanted to demonstrate so I was limited to giving a binary response. In the binary example if not odds, yes then evens and that settles the odd/even question.
No your contention is that atheism is a religion and try's to force its agenda on theists, you have no evidence for this and it constitutes a conspiracy theory whether you like it or not. It is not off topic but totally on topic to your allegations.
Swensson was kind enough to start this thread at my request, so you did not poison or hijack the other thread with this thing you've been doing. By the way, nice job on just demanding still that atheism is a religion and then disappearing after that. Good job. I accept your acquiescence. But, back to this. The charge of 'conspiracy theories' is not baseless, evidenced by what you repeated here. A conspiracy is a plotting or carrying out, by a group, something unlawful and/or harmful. You've accused a group of this, two or more if you're treating the atheists and government(s) or agencies in question as separate entities. What you've concocted is an enormous conspiracy theory. You should actually clear this up before tackling anything else, and your algebra equations about leaves on trees and who believes what about them is not going to do that. You're accusing atheists of acting together to assault ' those who govern themselves with a theistic moral compass ', through the agency of a 'popular government' by carrying out the 'atheist agenda'. If you want these to be facts in any measure, it's up to you to back your assertions, that a)atheists are acting as a group, b)they are controlling the government, c)there exists an atheist agenda, d)explaining what that agenda is while you're at it, and e)show exactly where and how the government is carrying that out. >>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<
this thread, the supporting evidence, regards specific proven events not theories, and I have no intention of arguing whatever it is you think is a conspiracy because the subject conspiracy is OFF TOPIC, therefore both posts, yours and RR for purposely running the OP OFF TOPIC has been reported.
Thanks but I have no longer have a reason to continue posting in this thread. I proved all the OP points in the previous thread and they just want to waste my time with rerun repeat. If you want to take this up in email on the other side fine.
I am a member of the freedom from atheism organization . You guys should sign up also . Great info on their site
I took a look at their Facebook site and in fairness some of the things other atheists have done is quite appalling, but I would say I have nothing in common with them other than a lack of belief in gods. Being atheist tells people nothing about your world view, morals or the type of person you are. If there are atheist organisations who are banding together with the intention of attacking religion then in threads like this people should be naming them, but they do not represent my views anymore than I would suggest Radical Islam would represent a theist such as yourself.
No worries. I will reply here for now, if you want to take it in messages, that's fine. It should be noted that we have established that we have certain disagreements. Even if your proofs were correct, it should be pretty clear that the arguments you've been presented with are not the arguments you've been addressing (even if that is the fault of others), which is something you should bear in mind for future discussions on the topic with other people. Nobody has asked the question "is odds true?", we've only asked the question "do you accept that odds is true", because that's the definition of belief. Whether odds is true and whether a person believes odds is true are different statements and will be following different rules. It's not really clear from your list here whether these are questions to be asked of person C or questions about the world in general (and some other things). As such, I'm not 100% on exactly which proposition in my argument you had an issue with. Could you clarify?
