Freedom From Atheism

hardly, contrarian because your propositions are not rational despite you lack belief they are not.

- - - Updated - - -

of course, but how does that stop them from continuing to operate as a religion in a society that does not even know what a religion is?

 

The example didn't have anyone with a position on religion, and it illustrated what I said it did.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

'Your propositions are not rational despite you lack belief they are not' doesn't make sense. Was that your Sarah Palin impression?

The government isn't a religion.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

no it did not, the premise was irrational therefore the conclusion you based upon the premise is irrational

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any idea why I am laughing my ass off right now?

Oh and prove it about the gubmint btw.

 

The First Amendment.

 

great concept on 'paper', so what?

and I suppose you think that stops the gubmint from establishing a religion in a country where no understands what religion is?

 

So what religion did the government establish? Also, why didn't our Founding Fathers know what religion was or did they know and just not tell us? They were very well educated so you would think that they would have figured all of that out, unless of course you think you are smarter than they are.

 

so are you another one who thinks the only think that is religion is a sky pilot spaghetti monster?

 

Only when trying to prove a point, other times I could care less. I did notice you dodged my question though, so I'll ask it again. What religion did the government establish?

 

After 84 pages of this, I have come to the conclusion that by your definition you will never free yourself from the paranoia and conspiracies that fill your head, so I guess the answer is for you only, you don't. Even if you managed to understand that atheists are not banding together to get you, I rather suspect you would find some other group to blame for the world you long for disappearing.

So you are just going to have to live with it, tough (*)(*)(*)(*) really.

 

Nope. I'm done babysitting.

 

I gave you this:

I can add another few:
"to think that something is true, correct, or real" (Cambridge dictionary)
"Accept that (something) is true" (Oxford dictionary)
"accept as true; take to be true" (vocabulary.com)
"convinced of the truth of a statement or allegation." (law.com)

The one I can see you gave a long time ago was

It seems this is consistent with mine, much emphasis on confidence, and where there isn't that, there is "conviction", "assume", "be persuaded". All of these seem to not be fulfilled by an agnostic, and he would have to say "not belief" rather than "belief". The number of leaves can be indeterminate, but whether he believes it is not.

 

so then you changed your mind and we in fact do agree on the definitions.

agnostics believe they cannot know, we have been calling it indeterminate for the sake of easy discussion so "not fulfilled" does not make sense, unless you are again illegally joining and combining terms.

 

swensson just posted my definition, seems its right out of the dictionary. What conspiracy? I never said anything about or made any conspiracy claims. Seems you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up again. Sure they are, they are a political movement and they are out to demolish all theist religions. Why do you insist on making (*)(*)(*)(*) up all the time.

 

It is you who have made things up, 84 pages in which you unsuccessfully argue that Atheism is a religion and you wish to be free of it.
Trouble is that it isn't and there is no band of atheists against you, it's in your head.
As I said tough (*)(*)(*)(*), you will not be free of it.
Learn to live with it, it's the only choice you got.
And Swensson showed the flaw in your logic, I know it, everybody knows it but you still insist otherwise. As I said all in you little conspiracy filled head.

 

Well, if that is your definition then the problem is your logic not being consistent with the definition (or if you will, the definition you've given isn't the definition you use). Here you make some statements, but they're not consistent with the definition you gave earlier:

Similarly, your rule that you have to believe either one or the other falls when belief requires confidence, because you can lack confidence in either without disbelieving that either odds or evens must be true.

We ask person C "do you disbelieve?" and he must answer the opposite to what he would have answered if we asked "do you believe?". He asks himself "do you believe?", looks at the definition and finds that the answer is "no". His answer to disbelieve, being the opposite of that, is then "yes".

This is the logic derived from first principles. If you have rules that contradict that, I'd say those are more in question that the stuff above is.

Edit: Or the problem is more specifically in the disbelief thing. However, there we have the same thing, you have given the definition that disbelief = !belief, yet you complain when I want to conclude that for an agnostic, disbelief = !belief = !(no) = yes.

 

I apologise, I have misunderstood one of your sentences, I will write a new response in a minute.

 

Sorry about the multiple responses, I misread one of your sentences, I read "No its not belief means accept as true" as "No, its not [belief means accept as true]" rather than "No its not, belief means accept as true", ie that you were challenging the idea that "belief" means "accept as true". In the future, please use punctuation. If I have misread this further, please correct me.

So for starters, both your definition and mine give confidence as a central concept. That being said, I would say that means in practice pretty much the same things as "accept as true", and I would say the logic works the same for either. I prefer using the confidence wording because it's less likely to construct ambiguous sentences.

Note that if belief requires you to have confidence in a statement, or to accept it as true, rather than sitting on the fence, then it is possible to believe it has to be one of them but not believe in odds or believe in evens. This means that under the definition you now say we agree on, your statement that you cannot disbelieve one without disbelieving the other isn't necessarily true.

Let's do this from first principles. We ask person C if he disbelieves "odds". He knows that disbelieving odds is the same as not believing odds, so it must have the opposite answer to the question whether he believes odds. So he asks himself that. He finds that he does not have confidence in odds, nor does he accept that it is true (although he does acknowledge the possibility that it might be), so he answers "no" to the question of belief. He knows that disbelief is the opposite of that, so he answers "yes" to whether he disbelieves.

 

nope its my bad I got a phone call and was rushed, (*)(*)(*)(*) poor grammar.

What that was supposed to mean:
Belief in its root form means acceptance of a position of a proposition.
Then which ever position is accepted is considered true.
You are skipping a step in the logic and illegally combining, I did not.

Therefore belief can accept that the proposition is true, false, unknown. Likewise good, bad, indifferent and so forth.

stated in the affirmative:
You can believe something is true.
You can believe something is false.

likewise stated in the negative:
You can disbelieve something is true. (creates a double negation means you believe its false)
You can disbelieve something is false. (creates a double negation means you believe its true)

likewise stated in the negative:
You can lack believe something is true.(creates a double negation means you believe its false)
You can lack believe something is false.(creates a double negation means you believe its true)

As I have proven in formal logic, merely word games. Its very simple first order stuff.

You can lack believe a proposition cannot be answered as either true or false so you take no position on either. (agnostic).

Where you are getting all tangled up is that you think belief means acceptance of a proposition strictly to true when it can be believed to be false or unknown.

and degrees of belief are still 'belief'.

The word belief only means that you believe your choice is true. Confidence means you have faith in your belief. Again you are going to degrees and all that will do is muddy your waters more.

 

(also the same as 'believing its not odds')

if he disbelieves odds he has 2 other choices,
1) believe evens
2) disbelieve evens

if he disbelieves odds and he disbelieves evens then he must choose agnostic (the answer cant be known) for it to be rational.

Technically if you disbelieve odds and do not continue to say you also disbelieve evens then you are misleading whoever you are talking with because if you simply state that you disblieve odds and end it there the implication is that you believe evens.

When you asked me that question I immediately told you neither, answer cant be known.

I hope thats clear now about the belief, I accept my choice of what to belief as true. Just because I believe soemthing does not mean I believe its true, I may also believe the opposite that its false. ie: I believe this that and the other is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Seriously this is not obvious to you?

 

not bad, 9 complete misrepresentations of everything from the my position to the status of the argument. why dont you just post all that butthurt somewhere else and try to refrain from posting so many lies in one post. I think that a record second only to the nazi.

 

And yet rather than attempt to rebut them the best you can do is a childish bunch of insults and reference to the nazi's!
Still if you enjoy being ass(*)(*)(*)(*)ed on PF carry on.

 

If you find my simply calling out the truth insulting dont blame me. Stop making all those false claims and I will stop calling them out. Simple solution, it starts with you.

 

You are not calling them out, you are attacking the poster, you cannot call them out since they are true.

 

There is a big difference between attacking the poster and the stupidity someone posts.

You have nor anyone else has even dented my arguments much less countered any of them, and to post anything claiming you or anyone else did is a lie. If you think a post saying such things are not lies then tell you what you do. You find what I said and what ever you imagine negated 'any' my points to prove it, didnt happen and aint gonna happen. run along now.