(November 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Sure.  I mean, have you asked your beagle though?  You never know.  Mine seems to worship at the alter of Discordia.

(November 28, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Hammy Wrote: I'll give you yet another example, Neo, on how 'debunking' Aquinas doesn't really take any real 'debunking' exactly, and it's really nothing more than a game that I shall call "Spot The Non-Sequitur". Wanna play? Here we go. Here's the so-called fourth of Aquinas's ways, the one about God's so-called perfection:

Wikipedia Wrote:1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.

Yep.

Quote:2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.

Yep.

Quote:3. there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.

Yep.

Quote:4. Hence God exists.

*cough* *cough* non-sequitur *cough* *cough*

Can you spot the non-sequitur?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_degree

And, to quibble a little more, the 3rd point here is false as well if it's really saying that there's necessarily one object that has ALL properties to the maximum degree. That's another non-sequitur if that is what it is saying.  There's no reason to believe that one object exists that has all of those degrees to their maximum. There may be one object that is the most intelligent, another object that is the most divine, another object that is the strongest, another object that is the fastest, for example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that one object has all those things, to say otherwise is yet again just another non-sequitur.

(November 28, 2017 at 5:45 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 28, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That's fair enough. I guess if atheism is described as lack of belief and lack of disbelief, i see no difference between that and agnosticism, or even apathy.

I'm with you on this one. By their definition, my beagle is an atheist. So's my big toenail.

The problem, though, is that "-ism" is usually used to describe a deliberate position or system of thought, and an "-ist" is usually used to describe someone who holds that position or adheres to that system of thought.

(November 28, 2017 at 10:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: There's another reason premise three fails.  An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy.  Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time.  The entity in question is incoherent.  Thus the fourth way fails.  But die-hard kool-aid drinkers like Neo will deny it to their utmost.  The fourth way is a really shitty argument.  I'm surprised that anyone defends it.

(November 28, 2017 at 10:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 28, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Hammy Wrote: I'll give you yet another example, Neo, on how 'debunking' Aquinas doesn't really take any real 'debunking' exactly, and it's really nothing more than a game that I shall call "Spot The Non-Sequitur". Wanna play? Here we go. Here's the so-called fourth of Aquinas's ways, the one about God's so-called perfection:

Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
*cough* *cough* non-sequitur *cough* *cough*

Can you spot the non-sequitur?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_degree

And, to quibble a little more, the 3rd point here is false as well if it's really saying that there's necessarily one object that has ALL properties to the maximum degree. That's another non-sequitur if that is what it is saying.  There's no reason to believe that one object exists that has all of those degrees to their maximum. There may be one object that is the most intelligent, another object that is the most divine, another object that is the strongest, another object that is the fastest, for example, there's absolutely no reason to believe that one object has all those things, to say otherwise is yet again just another non-sequitur.

There's another reason premise three fails.  An object which contained all perfections (whatever that means) would include perfect justice and perfect mercy.  Since justice consists in giving people what they deserve, and mercy consists in giving people less than they deserve, the two can't be perfectly fulfilled at the same time.  The entity in question is incoherent.  Thus the fourth way fails.  But die-hard kool-aid drinkers like Neo will deny it to their utmost.  The fourth way is a really shitty argument.  I'm surprised that anyone defends it.

(November 28, 2017 at 6:04 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You have a beagle?  +1 rep

Quote:I may just be assuming.  I'm pretty sure, however, that he lacks a belief in the X-tian God of the Bible, since his reading ability is poor, and he won't sit down and listen with much attention when I try to read the Bible to him.

(November 28, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Hammy Wrote: I mean that the hole is available for anyone to fill with anything.

(November 28, 2017 at 11:08 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 28, 2017 at 5:16 pm)Hammy Wrote: I mean that the hole is available for anyone to fill with anything.

Do I even need to say it?

(November 28, 2017 at 10:37 pm)Cyberman Wrote:

(November 28, 2017 at 5:45 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'm with you on this one. By their definition, my beagle is an atheist. So's my big toenail.

The problem, though, is that "-ism" is usually used to describe a deliberate position or system of thought, and an "-ist" is usually used to describe someone who holds that position or adheres to that system of thought.

Correct. The suffix "-ism" in this case is attached to the word "theism". The prefix "a-" negates it. Hence "not a theist". But obviously that only means I don't believe the things I thought I do, and do believe those I thought I don't. Thanks for you and CL pointing it out to me; I probably would never have known the contents of my mind without you to guide me.

*exits thread

Quote:That's fair enough. I guess if atheism is described as lack of belief and lack of disbelief, i see no difference between that and agnosticism, or even apathy.