Logical Examination of Atheist/Atheism, (atheology) A Logical Hipocrisy?

Lack of evidence isn't the same thing as evidence that that disproves the possibility of something outside of this universe, involved in its existence. There was no evidence of what would later become quantum mechanics either, at a particular point in time. That field changed science.

As far as I know, given that philosophical materialism is the foundation of science, still is, and that assumption says matter is fundamental, which negates any existence of something outside of this universe in the very first step, well, the foregone conclusion insures that science does not even consider it. For what would be immeasurable, out of the reach of science, has no place in science. But that does not mean something outside of this universe does not exist. Science is justg not concerned with it. Yet some of us will move from there and make claims of certainty, which is utter nonsense.

And so no one really knows the answer, and to maintain certainty is nothing more than the arrogance of the ego. So, some of us being honest intellects, recognizing the limitations of human knowledge, are agnostic. It is the only honest position to have. And I have problems with those who claim to know the Truth. Dishonest people chaff my old arse. ha ha Unless they are just stupid, non thinkers, and then it is ok. Hard to hold stupidity against folks, given some are born and doomed to that.

 

Agnostics dont run with anyone, but feel free to run with your facts and evidence driven dudes every time. there are virtually 100's if not 1000's of examples where science got it all wrong, and anything that is not corrected before you die, then you die with bad data and all the wooden nickels you bought.
Thank God for science huh?

These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong

Science is presented as trafficking in absolute truths.

On the contrary, science is a framework for interpreting, systematizing, and predicting nature based on empirical observations. That is to say, a well accepted ‘theory’ (framework for understanding/predicting nature) can always be upended with sufficiently compelling contrary evidence.

When I was a PhD student, there was a common trope that ‘conventional’ superconductors (explained by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory, in which superconductivity is caused by electrons interacting with atomic lattice vibrations) could only have a maximum transition temperature (Tc) up to 30–40K. This purported ‘BCS limit’ wasn’t a real thing. The misunderstanding stemmed from a paper from the 60s that had calculated the maximum Tc that superconductors that were known in that day could be pushed to (~30K), which was correct, but whose result was superficially misapplied. Thus, this alleged ‘BCS limit’ was widely stated as a ‘fact’ in various contexts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...nce-but-were-later-proven-wrong/#4bf777a34da2


The 10 Most Insane Medical Practices in History
The Curative Powers of Mercury
That was the thinking for centuries, when Mercury was used to treat pretty much anything and everything. Scraped your knee? Just rub a little mercury on it. Having some problems with regularity? Forget fiber, time to get some mercury up in there! If you lived more than 100 years ago, you simply weren't considered healthy if you weren't leaking silver from at least one orifice.

Mercury, as we now know, is toxic as hell.

Children's Soothing Syrups
For instance, each ounce of Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup contained 65 mg of pure morphine.

Lobotomy
Imagine if you will. You're sitting on your psychiatrist's couch, pouring your tortured heart out about how depressed you are. He listens, jotting notes on a piece of paper and nodding intently. "I think I have the solution to your depression," he says as he produces a 10-inch-long ice pick. "I'm going to jam this into your eye socket, then put it into your brain using this mallet over here. Then, I'll wiggle it around so that it shreds part of your brain. Then you won't be depressed any more. Just lie still."

Congratulations hypothetical version of yourself living in the 1940s, you've just been lobotomized!
http://www.cracked.com/article_15669_the-10-most-insane-medical-practices-in-history.html

At least lobotomy explains where modern neo-atheists that buy into the false gods of science derive their underlying genius!

Lithotomy
This Dutch blacksmith, Jan de Doot, removed his own bladder stone. Wikimedia Commons

Ancient Greek, Roman, Persian and Hindu texts refer to a procedure, known as lithotomy, for removing bladder stones. The patient would lay on their back, feet apart, while a blade was passed into the bladder through the perineum – the soft bit of flesh between the sex organ and anus. Further indignity was inflicted by surgeons inserting their fingers or surgical instruments into the rectum or urethra to assist in the removal of the stone. It was an intensely painful procedure with a mortality rate of about 50%.

Bloodletting
Losing blood, in modern medicine, is generally considered to be a bad thing. But, for about 2,000 years, bloodletting was one of the most common procedures performed by surgeons.
http://theconversation.com/five-blo...that-are-no-longer-performed-thankfully-75818

17 Science “Facts” That Are Actually Not True
Myth: Water conducts electricity
https://www.rd.com/culture/science-myths/

35 Science 'Facts' That Are Totally Wrong
https://www.businessinsider.com/sci...les-per-hour-which-isnt-fast-enough-to-kill-4

22 'facts' you learned in school that have since been proven wrong
https://www.thisisinsider.com/myths...eons-change-colors-to-camouflage-themselves-1

 

according to koko, yes. He also thinks that not playing baseball is a sport.

 

and rahl thinks that water isnt wet

 

no, because I'm not an idiot. I don't believe things that aren't true.

 

false, you believe there is no God and you cant prove your belief is true.

 

I cannot "Prove" that Lizard people do not live in Earths core....and neither can you, so I challenge you to either prove they do if you believe in them or prove they do not if you do not. Likewise, as you believe in your version of "God" and forward it as true, I challenge YOU to prove it as real.

I will then use the only data to evaluate (The Bible(s)) to dispute your hypothesis.

 

no. that is a lie you made up. I've quite clearly and repeatedly told you that I lack a belief in a god or gods.

 

ok so then you dont fully believe, or you are missing some belief or you have some but not total belief or some belief deficiency in God(s)

lack

lacked; lacking; lacks

1 : to be deficient or missing

• time is lacking for a full explanation

2 : to be short or have need of something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lack

But you see its not my problem that you chose to believe something that you cant prove. Sure you can prove it but you would need to investigate the core. Since I am an agnostic and abstain from voting one way or the other I dont have to prove anything. Theists and Atheists need to do all the proving!

 

No. I lack belief in a god or gods. that isn't a belief, or a religion. Just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

 

rahl, no matter how many times you post that rubbish you will continue being just as wrong as you were with the first.

since I am demonstrably correct, it wouldn't make sense to post a different refutation of your claim. Which is why we keep pointing out that atheism, by definition, is not a religion, just like water is not wet.

atheism, by definition, is a religion and is the belief no Gods exist.

Atheism Definition Quoted from the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words the Oxford Dictionary:

Atheism

• the belief that God does not exist.
http://www.webcitation.org/6Lm3Z4SP7

Purchase your copy of the greatest dictionary in the world
HERE, Source: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/th...MItoqj-KOz3AIVQrXACh1DEQ7UEAQYASABEgJr9fD_BwE

More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary—the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.

rahl you dont understand, when you lack 1% of the required belief to be an absolute theist, that makes you a weak theist not an atheist!

 

Sorry koko, but no matter how many threads you get your ass handed to you in, atheism will continue to remain , by definition, not a religion. It will continue meaning lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Edit: something is wrong with this post, so I deleted it. Several paragraphs in the code is not shown in the text. I'll be back.
Edit2: Ah, figured it out, I had accidentally deleted a double quote in the quotation string.

 

I don't think they're saying anyone less than absolute theist is an atheist, I think they're saying that there are those who hold it as true that god exists, and the rest do not.

Lack does indeed present two arguments, so the question becomes which one shall we pick. You seem to have taken someone else's argument (whoever said atheism is a lack of belief) which is clearly made using one definition of lack, and interpreted it using the other definition of lack. Equivocation.

Your argument seem to me to be an example of the former. A word (atheism) is used in one sense in one premise ("Atheism is the lack of belief") and another sense in some other premise ("Atheism is the belief that there is no god"). I agree that there are several distinct meanings in some of those statements, but I don't see why you attribute those to grammar rather than definition.

As in the example, "save soap and waste paper" has the problem that it's unclear what grammatical role the word "waste" has. Interpreting it as a verb or as a noun changes the structure of the grammar. However, the word atheism plays the same grammatical role in both our cases, it is just being used to mean different things.

There exists such things as arguments, ideas, notions which can be thought, and sometimes when we want to, we can put those arguments into words. The argument precedes the words. That's why we can easily phrase an argument in a different language. We start with an argument and match words to it in order to express it. The choice between "lacks completely" and "lacks sufficiently" was decided even before whoeveritwas put the idea into words.

They then match words to it. Of course, it may be that they match words poorly, in this case they matched words ambiguously. So we've ended up with an ambiguous bit of language, which one would be forgiven for misunderstanding. However, when such issues arise, as I have argued, we should supply clarifications, and we have.

As you can see, this approach is focused on transferring ideas/information. Communication. If we were to give in to your understanding, that the receiver is at liberty to choose an interpretation, then the original holder's idea is lost. There would be no ambiguous words, since they could not be trusted to impart the right bit of information, which is clearly at odds with reality.

If you are failing to receive the intent of the person who is trying to communicate with you, then communication has broken down. That might not be your fault, it may be that due to poor choice of words, you were mislead. However, through debate, we can (as we have) figure out that that's what happened, and clarify what we meant. To then maintain the mistaken interpretation in order to avoid the original meaning and intent of the argument seems to fly in the face of language as a whole.

I have no particular interest in those other conversations for now. Another person committing a fallacy does not mean that you are justified in using a fallacy yourself.

You are not required to have answers to questions which are based on an incorrect interpretation of your argument. If I say "I like the colour orange", I am not obliged to have an answer to "which tree did your orange fruit come from?".

This entire discussion is about my comment on your statement. If the example doesn't match your understanding of my argument, then you haven't understood my argument.

The pink quote is literally a stipulative definition.

It's getting into the tin foil hat territory with this. Either you're wrong, or I'm wrong, and the vast majority or linguists are wrong (on their own subject of study) and the vast majority (arguably the totality) of dictionary editors are wrong (on their own area of vocation) etc. I might go with Ockham's razor on that one.

I could add more people to that list, I was considering adding "everyone you seem ever to have spoken to", but I don't want to confuse the idea that everyone else is in agreement with the idea that anyone can be right simply by virtue of opposing you on any point. However, there is some point in pointing out that all those people who you think fail at language, the entire absurdity, could be resolved by you being wrong on this single point. That's not to say that they are right about everything, I'm just pointing out that so many of the irritations you seem to have rely heavily on this one point which you can't seem to defend very well.

My approach works really quite well, I'd argue its an approach which is consistent not only with everyday communication, but it deals with special sublanguages (like "legalese"), it is consistent with observed changes in language, it is even consistent with the formation of language.

And in particular, when my approach does not fare well, yours would fare even worse. People often produce misunderstandings, your approach doubles down on the confusion, it accepts and even encourages choosing understandings other than the intended one, like your insistence that lack must mean partial lack, even though it is not the intended idea. It dodges, seemingly deliberately the exchange of information.