(August 9, 2012 at 8:37 pm)MountOlympus Wrote: Clive, I get it. You're an intelligent prick. I apologize that being an atheist does not require of someone to be an intelligent prick.

You're right. It doesn't require intelligence.


BOOM!

(August 9, 2012 at 8:53 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 8:37 pm)MountOlympus Wrote: Clive, I get it. You're an intelligent prick. I apologize that being an atheist does not require of someone to be an intelligent prick.

You're right. It doesn't require intelligence.


BOOM!

Remind me who said-

Quote: Which is why it irritates me that your ideological compatriot assumed I was being high-and-mighty.

(August 9, 2012 at 8:38 pm)jonb Wrote: So the mad ramble was to explain the standard formula for basic logic without reference to atheism at all, and you took how long to say that? Sorry I did not recognise you were talking at such a basic level.
So has your definition for your version of what atheism is any validity to any body other than you?

Uh, I'm not sure what you're asking. Does anyone else think my definition is valid? It hasn't been popular here, but that's only the opinion of like 5 people who have talked about it.

I proved here that my definition is equivalent to "X is an atheist if and only if X doesn't believe 'At least one god exists.'"

---

(August 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm)jonb Wrote:

(August 9, 2012 at 8:53 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: You're right. It doesn't require intelligence.


BOOM!

Remind me who said-

Quote: Which is why it irritates me that your ideological compatriot assumed I was being high-and-mighty.

I wasn't being high-and-mighty. I was being funny. =P

(August 9, 2012 at 9:02 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: I proved here that my definition is equivalent to "X is an atheist if and only if X doesn't believe 'At least one god exists.'"

I must apologise to everyone for wasting your time, and Clive I'm truly sorry, I now see where I went wrong, I mistakenly imbued you with qualities I had no right to have foisted on to you. I mistook you for somebody saying something.

Have you given up so easily Clive? Do you admit all your formulas are mere affectation, that could never be more accurate than simple English? And in that there could only be the reason why you would mention these formula is to confuse, those who oppose you, in that you think you have rigged the debate in your favour, or . . . .

(August 9, 2012 at 9:18 pm)jonb Wrote: I mistook you for somebody saying something.

Oh man, that reminds me of this one time I was walking home before dawn and a cat ambushed me with love. Anyway. That's a story for another time.

The funny thing I was thinking, is that both Jon and Clive have similar post counts, so what if they were the same person, just inhabiting a two-personality body?

Hehe, hehehe

(August 10, 2012 at 8:01 am)MountOlympus Wrote: The funny thing I was thinking, is that both Jon and Clive have similar post counts, so what if they were the same person, just inhabiting a two-personality body?

Hehe, hehehe

Now you mention it that even makes me suspicious, the face on his avatar is so closely related to my professed philosophy, this must be a fix.

Hi Clive, apologies for the delay in my reply.

(August 7, 2012 at 2:21 am)CliveStaples Wrote: What "value-attributes" do I add to atheism?

Here's an example...

Quote:Here's my definition, by the way (with an explanation of the notation and terms):

DEFINITION 1: A system S is a collection of propositions...

Atheism is not a system or any kind of collection of propositions, it is a word to describe the absence of one particular system/set of propositions. A system/proposition contains attributes. Atheism, being an absence of a system/proposition, contains no attributes. As soon as you start adding any attributes to the word atheism, you're misdefining/misrepresenting it.

Quote:Now, you claim that this definition adds 'value-attributes' to "atheism". I don't see how that's the case. Can you explain?

Just have. I don't know how I can make it any more clear without showing you a picture of oblivion with a little label 'atheism' at the bottom.

Quote:Regarding making negative generalizations about 'atheists' and 'atheism', I don't think I do that at all. Yes, there are many bad belief systems included in my definition of 'atheism'. But that doesn't mean that I'm somehow drawing the generalization "atheism is bad"...

So your fundamental, erroneous definition of atheism contains attributes which are 'bad' but that doesn't equate to atheism having any 'bad' attributes, generally speaking..?

Quote: ...or "atheism makes a belief system worse".

So adding 'bad' attributes to a system doesn't make that system 'worse'..?

Quote:I certainly don't draw negative generalizations about atheists. That would be mere prejudice.

If atheists don't do what your definition says are fundamental attributes of the label 'atheism', how can your definition be in any way accurate or applicable?

Are you reading what you're writing here because I'm starting to think you're taking me for a fool.

Quote:I don't "misdefine" anything. I gave a particular definition of 'atheism'; that doesn't mean that my definition is the 'right' one (whatever that means). My definitions is probably not what most people have in mind when they use the term "atheism".

I think I've thoroughly demonstrated that your definition is 'wrong' by any practical use of the word 'wrong'.

Quote:But I'm not equivocating.

Yes you are and I've just shown exactly how.

Quote:I've always been very specific in stating that my conclusions about 'atheism' are based on the definition of 'atheism' that I used. And I tried to be as consistent as possible in maintaining the definition throughout the argument.

A consistent but inaccurate definition is still inaccurate. Crap in, crap out.

Quote:It is good netiquette to offer relevant arguments and counter-arguments on currently-active threads. If my arguments have been off-topic, then you are right to give reproach. But the arguments I've offered, while not necessarily novel, have been relevant. If people don't want to rehash old arguments, then they don't have to respond.

Fair enough

Quote:I think you've misunderstood. I haven't thought about it in a vacuum. I've had lots of discussions with atheists, and I think my definition is very consistent with what most people mean when they say "atheism".

But it's not. In fact, it's so inconsistent that I'm not sure I believe you. To me, that shows that you either haven't been listening to the atheists with whom you've spoken or you've simply discounted the most prevalent, etymologically accurate definition of atheism in favour of your own.

Quote:What "different and conflicting values" would those be?

Off the top of my head, I've seen you refer to atheists as empiricists, scientismists, logicians and ritualists. I'd hunt down quotes but to be honest, that would be noise which could distract us from the main point: your definition of atheism is wrong consequently any conclusions you draw regarding atheism are also wrong.

Quote:

Quote:Yet here we are again! How many times do you need to be told? Atheism is not a belief system! Atheistic people simply have no theism in their belief/value systems!

That's precisely the notion that my definition captures.

No it isn't! Your definition states that atheism is a system! Please refer to my first paragraph.

Quote:

Quote:Here's something you should practice doing. Any time you find yourself thinking the term 'an atheist', instead substitute it with the term 'non-theist'. It's only a small mental adjustment but many people have told me that it's helped them avoid assignment of erroneous values/assumptions to people's positions.

This is literally equivalent to my definition.

No it's not. I'll refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave, previously.

Quote:But how do you know that I'm a "Christian" under your definition? Just because I call myself "Christian" doesn't mean I'm using your definition... Since there are many "Christians" (followers of Christ / individuals who self-identify as Christian) who don't fuck chickens every tuesday, your definition cannot be equivalent to either of those definitions of "Christian".

Bingo!! You understand the concept therefore I have to conclude that you're being disingenuous.