I can feel your anger

[Gambit]

Wow, you people are really hurting my ego; I thought when I bowed out you would abandon this thread as futile. Seemingly not. Anyway, have we found out who did it yet? I'm going to go for the pope, in the vatican, with his big pointy hat.

Edit: Has anyone else noticed that I'm the first/last post per page maestro?

[Skepsis]

Yup. I'm a little curious as to why you didn't explain yourself, instead of making me guess, but whatevs.

Little curious as to why you didn't simply understand it, as I'm using the definition in a way not dissimilar from the way you are using them, besides how I defined why a set must inform its subsets,

Their action is motivated by the set of beliefs. If the set of beliefs were theistic, they would be motivated by theism; similarly, if the set of beliefs were atheistic, they would be motivated by atheism.

You now have to explain why everything in the world ins't motivated by a-unicornism. If a set of beliefs were a-unicornistic, they would be motivated by a-unicornism. Basically everything fall under a lack of any belief, and so your classifications are useless.

That's all a bunch of bullshit, frankly. The sets are given all of their meaning by the propositions included in them.

Cool, can I dismiss your objections by simply saying "That's all a bunch of bullshit"?
If you include atheism as a set despite the fact that it is a lack of belief, and you claim that sets are given meaning by the propositions included in them, then a-unicornism is a conglomerate of every single belief in existence besides the belief that unicorns exist and the subsets of that belief.

You are spouting a bunch of nonsense.

[CliveStaples]

Little curious as to why you didn't simply understand it, as I'm using the definition in a way not dissimilar from the way you are using them, besides how I defined why a set must inform its subsets,

You just used the word "cornerstone" a bunch, with a bunch of vaguely-referenced implicit relationships between beliefs. It's easier if you just give the explicit relationship.

You now have to explain why everything in the world ins't motivated by a-unicornism. If a set of beliefs were a-unicornistic, they would be motivated by a-unicornism. Basically everything fall under a lack of any belief, and so your classifications are useless.

Not useless, I think--at least, not because of the structure of it. Some motivations are more interesting than others. A-unicornism is a trivial motivation because nobody believes in unicorns. Atheism is not a trivial motivation, because many people aren't atheists.

Cool, can I dismiss your objections by simply saying "That's all a bunch of bullshit"?

Sure! It would actually be one of the most polite responses I've gotten on this forum.

If you include atheism as a set despite the fact that it is a lack of belief, and you claim that sets are given meaning by the propositions included in them, then a-unicornism is a conglomerate of every single belief in existence besides the belief that unicorns exist and the subsets of that belief.

You are spouting a bunch of nonsense.

It seems that you're mistaken about something. What set, exactly, do you think I've defined "atheism" to be? Because I haven't actually defined it as a set of propositions; it's a class of belief systems (for like the seventh time).

A-unicornism would be, what, the collection of all belief systems that don't implement unicornism? That's not a very interesting partition of belief systems. But there's lots of uninteresting partitions of belief systems. Wake-up-at-6:00-am-and-do-12-pushups-while-singing-Hello-Dolly-ism and a-Wake-up-at-6:00-am-and-do-12-pushups-while-singing-Hello-Dolly-ism are another uninteresting partition.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, precisely the same motivation that one can get from atheism eh? Mr A and Mr B disagree.

[Skepsis]

You just used the word "cornerstone" a bunch, with a bunch of vaguely-referenced implicit relationships between beliefs. It's easier if you just give the explicit relationship.

Criticism accepted.

A-unicornism is a trivial motivation because nobody believes in unicorns. Atheism is not a trivial motivation, because many people aren't atheists.

Re-read that for me. Then tell me if it makes sense.

Sure! It would actually be one of the most polite responses I've gotten on this forum.

You get what you give.

It seems that you're mistaken about something. What set, exactly, do you think I've defined "atheism" to be? Because I haven't actually defined it as a set of propositions; it's a class of belief systems (for like the seventh time).

A-unicornism would be, what, the collection of all belief systems that don't implement unicornism? That's not a very interesting partition of belief systems. But there's lots of uninteresting partitions of belief systems. Wake-up-at-6:00-am-and-do-12-pushups-while-singing-Hello-Dolly-ism and a-Wake-up-at-6:00-am-and-do-12-pushups-while-singing-Hello-Dolly-ism are another uninteresting partition.

The reason you can't use atheism as a class of belief systems remains that it is useless as a descriptor. Any set of beliefs that don't include theism? That is too broad to be useful. You can't use atheism as the umbrella simply because you wouldn't be including *just* nihilism, secular humanism, etc, but also evey single redundant belief it also describes. Your "wake-up-at-6:00-am-and-do-12-pushups-while-singing analogy perfectly demonstrates the infinite possibilities that could fall into an unbrella that is only meant to describe a lack of a position. It isn't meant ot describe everything but theism, that isn't what atheism is.
How do you not understand? I can understand you perfectly, Why can't you take in what my message is? Am I bad at wording it?
Are you simply too theistic ?
Oh well.

[Selliedjoup]

People can kill for any reason and will justify it by whatever means they feel necessary. Placing the onus on religion is a very weak argument. If religion wasn't around people would be killing for another 'reason'.

This portrayal of an atheist world being utopian is pie in the sky stuff.

Quite true, being right doesn't neccesarily make you a nice person.

It doesn't however stop you being right.

But it takes religion to create this shit

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...5tFNy7Q0wA

And when you try to deny reality to maintain your baseless belief in a stone age creation fairytale and worse, try to pass it off as a credible alternative then you will earn my considerable ire.

Claiming to be right without justification seems to be another shared trait of some atheists and theists.

I respect these theists more as at least they follow a code, some atheists read a few books, use some flawed arguments and claim to possess 'truth'. All very dire.

---

People can kill for any reason and will justify it by whatever means they feel necessary. Placing the onus on religion is a very weak argument. If religion wasn't around people would be killing for another 'reason'.

This portrayal of an atheist world being utopian is pie in the sky stuff.

Yeah people can kill for any reason, even if the reason is 'fun'. Yobbos around here attack people for fun. Their completely amoral.

The point I'm making is that you can't really kill for atheism. You're killing for a lack of belief essentially. Besides, how has Stalin killed for atheism? Just because he was an atheist doesn't automatically mean he did it for that reason. He killed many atheists too. The religious in the past actually and openly announced why they did what they did.

I'm guessing you're attempting to imply I'm immoral for daring to criticise atheism. Interesting that you think that, if your claim uses any form of logic to reach your conclusion you should be able to defend it without claiming I'm immoral or just giving out pointless insults. Why do people on forums think others give a shit on how they're viewed?

Where did I say Stalin killed for atheism? I said people use any reason to justify killing, blaming religion is all too easy.

---

OK, then why not call it what it is? Some people are arrogant; whether they are atheist, theist, agnostic or otherwise. I've already stated that I don't like how some of Hawking's theories are so readily accepted, just because of who he is. I don't wish to labor the point, but he does have a lot more credibility than some evangelist preacher who claims to have God's power to heal.

I think any atheist who attempts to portray their views as 'correct' and belittles any non-atheist as deluded simply because they don't hold the same view is arrogant.

Somehow Hawking's belief transcends what it is, it's just another person's belief. If people think it holds more weight, this is where scientists begin to replace ministers/priests, which is in itself, ironic.

[/quote]

Also, while I agree with a lot of what militant atheists do; at least in their doggedness at stopping religion from encroaching on government and law, sometimes it goes a little too extremist. By which I mean, when outright propaganda and lies are used, it takes away from what the movement should be about. Plus you have the victims who go into a religious debate armed with this piece of info, which turns out to be completely untrue.

I don't like self-righteous people in general, however, it is pretty difficult to assign that label to any one group of people, when you think about it. The majority of us are self-righteous to some degree. It's a very dominant human trait, which has its uses. It is also a trait that I think will die out in time, as we evolve socially and create more advanced supporting technologies. As for now, don't let it frustrate you too much, there are more productive things you could ponder on.
[/quote]

[Gambit]

Quite true, being right doesn't neccesarily make you a nice person.

It doesn't however stop you being right.

But it takes religion to create this shit

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...5tFNy7Q0wA

And when you try to deny reality to maintain your baseless belief in a stone age creation fairytale and worse, try to pass it off as a credible alternative then you will earn my considerable ire.

Claiming to be right without justification seems to be another shared trait of some atheists and theists.

I respect these theists more as at least they follow a code, some atheists read a few books, use some flawed arguments and claim to possess 'truth'. All very dire.

---

Yeah people can kill for any reason, even if the reason is 'fun'. Yobbos around here attack people for fun. Their completely amoral.

The point I'm making is that you can't really kill for atheism. You're killing for a lack of belief essentially. Besides, how has Stalin killed for atheism? Just because he was an atheist doesn't automatically mean he did it for that reason. He killed many atheists too. The religious in the past actually and openly announced why they did what they did.

I'm guessing you're attempting to imply I'm immoral for daring to criticise atheism. Interesting that you think that, if your claim uses any form of logic to reach your conclusion you should be able to defend it without claiming I'm immoral or just giving out pointless insults. Why do people on forums think others give a shit on how they're viewed?

Where did I say Stalin killed for atheism? I said people use any reason to justify killing, blaming religion is all too easy.

---

OK, then why not call it what it is? Some people are arrogant; whether they are atheist, theist, agnostic or otherwise. I've already stated that I don't like how some of Hawking's theories are so readily accepted, just because of who he is. I don't wish to labor the point, but he does have a lot more credibility than some evangelist preacher who claims to have God's power to heal.

I think any atheist who attempts to portray their views as 'correct' and belittles any non-atheist as deluded simply because they don't hold the same view is arrogant.

Somehow Hawking's belief transcends what it is, it's just another person's belief. If people think it holds more weight, this is where scientists begin to replace ministers/priests, which is in itself, ironic.

Also, while I agree with a lot of what militant atheists do; at least in their doggedness at stopping religion from encroaching on government and law, sometimes it goes a little too extremist. By which I mean, when outright propaganda and lies are used, it takes away from what the movement should be about. Plus you have the victims who go into a religious debate armed with this piece of info, which turns out to be completely untrue.

I don't like self-righteous people in general, however, it is pretty difficult to assign that label to any one group of people, when you think about it. The majority of us are self-righteous to some degree. It's a very dominant human trait, which has its uses. It is also a trait that I think will die out in time, as we evolve socially and create more advanced supporting technologies. As for now, don't let it frustrate you too much, there are more productive things you could ponder on.

[/quote]

Did someone murder Selliedjoup when he was halfway through replying to my comment?

[Selliedjoup]

I just intensely dislike the supposed intellectual high-ground many atheists attempt to give themselves. It just reeks of self-righteousness, again like some religious groups.

Oh, the irony.

Why is it ironic? The only high ground I take is admitting I don't know.

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

---

Claiming to be right without justification seems to be another shared trait of some atheists and theists.

I respect these theists more as at least they follow a code, some atheists read a few books, use some flawed arguments and claim to possess 'truth'. All very dire.

---

I'm guessing you're attempting to imply I'm immoral for daring to criticise atheism. Interesting that you think that, if your claim uses any form of logic to reach your conclusion you should be able to defend it without claiming I'm immoral or just giving out pointless insults. Why do people on forums think others give a shit on how they're viewed?

Where did I say Stalin killed for atheism? I said people use any reason to justify killing, blaming religion is all too easy.

---

I think any atheist who attempts to portray their views as 'correct' and belittles any non-atheist as deluded simply because they don't hold the same view is arrogant.

Somehow Hawking's belief transcends what it is, it's just another person's belief. If people think it holds more weight, this is where scientists begin to replace ministers/priests, which is in itself, ironic.

Also, while I agree with a lot of what militant atheists do; at least in their doggedness at stopping religion from encroaching on government and law, sometimes it goes a little too extremist. By which I mean, when outright propaganda and lies are used, it takes away from what the movement should be about. Plus you have the victims who go into a religious debate armed with this piece of info, which turns out to be completely untrue.

I don't like self-righteous people in general, however, it is pretty difficult to assign that label to any one group of people, when you think about it. The majority of us are self-righteous to some degree. It's a very dominant human trait, which has its uses. It is also a trait that I think will die out in time, as we evolve socially and create more advanced supporting technologies. As for now, don't let it frustrate you too much, there are more productive things you could ponder on.

Did someone murder Selliedjoup when he was halfway through replying to my comment?

No I had to go. I must admit I find it amusing how some people here pretend to be some sort of paragon of virtue and then make a stupidly aggressive comment. Good cop, bad cop approach only works if it's not too obvious.

[Gambit]

Oh, the irony.

Why is it ironic? The only high ground I take is admitting I don't know.

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

---

Also, while I agree with a lot of what militant atheists do; at least in their doggedness at stopping religion from encroaching on government and law, sometimes it goes a little too extremist. By which I mean, when outright propaganda and lies are used, it takes away from what the movement should be about. Plus you have the victims who go into a religious debate armed with this piece of info, which turns out to be completely untrue.


Did someone murder Selliedjoup when he was halfway through replying to my comment?

No I had to go. I must admit I find it amusing how some people here pretend to be some sort of paragon of virtue and then make a stupidly aggressive comment. Good cop, bad cop approach only works if it's not too obvious.

I feel like I'm missing your point; due in part to the high volumes of alcohol I have consumed at this juncture in the conversation. However, in your given scenario I am neither good cop or bad cop - I'm Irish, motherfucker. The very thought of being any kind of cop sickens me to my very core. The same rule applies to army, navy, sas, special forces and all other ass kissing mercenaries you'd care to mention.

Now, as far as my personal opinion on this confo or any other: I am generally a nice person. I detest aggressiveness, arrogance, self-righteousness and unjustifiable, self-assured attitudes in all their forms. This isn't to say that I'm not guilty of them myself, and I won't stand here and wave my dick around as if my shit don't stink.

In absence of me being able to formulate a proper argument; which in fairness is due to an advanced - and by advanced I mean way advanced - state of inebriation. Tittie waffles. Tittie waffles till your pooper gives out and you're as incontinent as a resident at the 5 time winner of the incontinent home for world's biggest shit<---- interchangeable with anal porn stars, of course.

[Selliedjoup]

Stereo types rule.

Atheists generally possess all of the traits you list above, so why are you here? Unless you don't enjoy flinging shit around (as I obviously do). however that doesn't mean I don't mean everything I say.

If one person could explain why the total amount of energy equalling zero, or 'time' not beginning at the big bang (thereby removing causality) I will be on my merry way, until then I'll stick around and wait for the "get fucked you cunt" to somehow equate to the explanation I'm seeking.