Is atheism a belief?

[GrandizerII]

Better than your claims of nothing exploding into the universe or living stuff coming from dead stuff.

Who said that "nothing exploded into the universe"? Or is this a strawman you keep erecting?

And what's the logical problem with living stuff arising from nonliving stuff? It's not a problem under naturalism because life isn't some supernatural entity that needs to be breathed into beings in order for them to then live ... Also, nonliving is not equivalent to dead, so please avoid this equivocating next time.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

Do you believe everything people point out?  That's why you do research.  It someone tells you something, check it out for yourself.

A "dictionary" is an authority for defining terms.  That's what we were looking at.  Defining a term.  If you ask someone to define something, then complain because they used a definition from the dictionary, then it sounds pretty ridiculous.  Then why even ask them for a definition?  Why not give your own definition, then move from there?  If I look for a definition, I'm not going to assume there's a specific one you want.  I just go to something that is objective, and relatively unbiased, and that's what I share.

No M4X.  That was not my point.

Again you want to cite 'The Dictionary' as 'The Authority'.

Now, admittedly, in your country there very well just might be 'Dictionary Police' or some such legal group who can and do go around insisting/demanding/dictating/enforcing how the people there use the words.

*Shrug*

What people, including myself, have asked you for is your way of using words. Of your mind's definition of words. Now, again, you might be in fear of your country's 'Dictionary Police' and hence feel you must conform to said dictionary.

How that's a bit clearer. Cheers.

It's not even that.  You want to cherry pick definitions.  If we can't agree on how something is defined, then there's no way to go from A to B, so no point in going round-n-round.  Yet you're insistent that we should.  Sorry, but no thanks.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I stated it. 

Better than your claims of nothing exploding into the universe or living stuff coming from dead stuff.

Keep hearing "it happened", so I ask for proof or even how you know.  I get a bunch of excuses.  One fail, the next lemming pulls the same excuses.

Yes M4X, we know you keep stating it. Which is why we are explaining our veiws/meanings/etc back to you.

I, for one, am not saying our reality simply popped into being from nothing.

As for the evidence of what tuose who've spent their entire lives studying?

As we look out into the space around us we are, due to fixed upper speed at which a photon can travel, are also effectivly looking backwards in time.

I know it's a trippy thing to get your head around but... that's pretty much what it is.

So... the take away from this is that, eventually, no matter which way we look. 'Up' from the North Pole or 'Down' from the South Pole. We see back to about 13 billion years ago/away and in every direction we see the same glow.

If we listen with radio, not relying of fragile photons to carry their essence, we hear the same constant hiss permiating reality.

Thats the 'Evidence'. We look out and 'Back' untill we come to a point/place beyond which? We do not know.

But lots of very clever people are thinking about such things and trying to figure out ways to learn more about such things so that we know more and can maybe work out beyond/before that.

Hence why the actuall detection of 'Gravity waves' is such a big deal. As we get better at detecting them and mapping them then, potentially, we can see beyond the points at which our other systems fail.

Cheers.

---

At work.

No M4X.  That was not my point.

Again you want to cite 'The Dictionary' as 'The Authority'.

Now, admittedly, in your country there very well just might be 'Dictionary Police' or some such legal group who can and do go around insisting/demanding/dictating/enforcing how the people there use the words.

*Shrug*

What people, including myself, have asked you for is your way of using words. Of your mind's definition of words. Now, again, you might be in fear of your country's 'Dictionary Police' and hence feel you must conform to said dictionary.

How that's a bit clearer. Cheers.

It's not even that.  You want to cherry pick definitions.  If we can't agree on how something is defined, then there's no way to go from A to B, so no point in going round-n-round.  Yet you're insistent that we should.  Sorry, but no thanks.

No M4X, I don't.

I want to agree on a mutual understanding. I want to have my thoughts meet your thoughts 'Half way', as it were.

Pointing to how Sargent Fnerd dictates that the word 'Wednesday' MUST be used gets us no closer to understanding the meaning.of the word that is wednesday.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Better than your claims of nothing exploding into the universe or living stuff coming from dead stuff.

Who said that "nothing exploded into the universe"? Or is this a strawman you keep erecting?

And what's the logical problem with living stuff arising from nonliving stuff? It's not a problem under naturalism because life isn't some supernatural entity that needs to be breathed into beings in order for them to then live ... Also, nonliving is not equivalent to dead, so please avoid this equivocating next time.

Better question. Who said there was a "magic sky fairy?"

I'm not a proponent of naturalism, and it's not realistic to accommodate everybody's version of it.  If saying "dead" bothers you, then I'll keep that in mind when addressing you.

---

At work.

I stated it. 

Better than your claims of nothing exploding into the universe or living stuff coming from dead stuff.

Keep hearing "it happened", so I ask for proof or even how you know.  I get a bunch of excuses.  One fail, the next lemming pulls the same excuses.

Yes M4X, we know you keep stating it. Which is why we are explaining our veiws/meanings/etc back to you.

I, for one, am not saying our reality simply popped into being from nothing.

As for the evidence of what tuose who've spent their entire lives studying?

As we look out into the space around us we are, due to fixed upper speed at which a photon can travel, are also effectivly looking backwards in time.

I know it's a trippy thing to get your head around but... that's pretty much what it is.

So... the take away from this is that, eventually, no matter which way we look. 'Up' from the North Pole or 'Down' from the South Pole. We see back to about 13 billion years ago/away and in every direction we see the same glow.

If we listen with radio, not relying of fragile photons to carry their essence, we hear the same constant hiss permiating reality.

Thats the 'Evidence'. We look out and 'Back' untill we come to a point/place beyond which?  We do not know.

But lots of very clever people are thinking about such things and trying to figure out ways to learn more about such things so that we know more and can maybe work out beyond/before that.

Hence why the actuall detection of 'Gravity waves' is such a big deal. As we get better at detecting them and mapping them then, potentially, we can see beyond the points at which our other systems fail.

Cheers.

---

At work.

It's not even that.  You want to cherry pick definitions.  If we can't agree on how something is defined, then there's no way to go from A to B, so no point in going round-n-round.  Yet you're insistent that we should.  Sorry, but no thanks.

No M4X, I don't.

I want to agree on a mutual understanding.  I want to have my thoughts meet your thoughts 'Half way', as it were.

Pointing to how Sargent Fnerd dictates that the word 'Wednesday' MUST be used gets us no closer to understanding the meaning.of the word that is wednesday.

Cool.  How about you propose a definition then and we can go from there?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Cool.  How about you propose a definition then and we can go from there?

You wish me to give you my thoughts on a/the word 'Deity'?

Okay then.

It's an anthropomorphised 'Meme' that's out grown or, perhaps, 'Escaped' its use as part of a toolset for people without writing to both remember things and pass down such knowlede to younger minds.

Over time the rhetorical meme tool changed in its use and function in the language and the societies in which it was used.

Becoming more and more an explanation of 'Why' something mysterious/untoward/etc happened instead of being connected to the stored information of events that had happened.

How do I use the word? Simply as a piece of rhetoric when with freinds when we gather to share pastimes or as humour such as 'May his noodly appendage comfort you with its touch. Ramen'.

Hope that helps.

Your turn.

[downbeatplumb]

At work.

Cool.  How about you propose a definition then and we can go from there?

You wish me to give you my thoughts on a/the word 'Deity'?

Okay then.

It's an anthropomorphised 'Meme' that's out grown or, perhaps, 'Escaped' its use as part of a toolset for people without writing to both remember things and pass down such knowlede to younger minds.

Over time the rhetorical meme tool changed in its use and function in the language and the societies in which it was used.

Becoming more and more an explanation of 'Why' something mysterious/untoward/etc happened instead of being connected to the stored information of events that had happened.

How do I use the word? Simply as a piece of rhetoric when with freinds when we gather to share pastimes or as humour such as 'May his noodly appendage comfort you with its touch. Ramen'.

Hope that helps.

Your turn.

I think god is a mixture of anthropomorphism of concepts, such as love, morality etc, mixed with an attempt to explain stuff without having to really think about them.

That is my definition of god.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

At work.

Cool.  How about you propose a definition then and we can go from there?

You wish me to give you my thoughts on a/the word 'Deity'?

Okay then.

It's an anthropomorphised 'Meme' that's out grown or, perhaps, 'Escaped' its use as part of a toolset for people without writing to both remember things and pass down such knowlede to younger minds.

Over time the rhetorical meme tool changed in its use and function in the language and the societies in which it was used.

Becoming more and more an explanation of 'Why' something mysterious/untoward/etc happened instead of being connected to the stored information of events that had happened.

How do I use the word? Simply as a piece of rhetoric when with freinds when we gather to share pastimes or as humour such as 'May his noodly appendage comfort you with its touch. Ramen'.

Hope that helps.

Your turn.

Noted. This is why I use definitions from objective sources.  It's not because I think you're a mean person or you don't care about what is true, but because it's based on personal bias.

Definitions don't mean we agree with the ideology behind what we're stating.  It's just assumed for the sake of understanding.  This is why I prefer conversations that are objective.

If I would've subjectively defined it without the dictionary, you would've compared it to how you define it subjectively.  This is why it would never go anywhere, which is why I don't go out of my way to get into these type of discussions.

If it were just you sharing from personal experience or why you believe the way you do, then I would be more likely to take interest in how you personally view something or someone, but in that type of conversation, I'm more of an audience and less of a participant.

All good here.  Can we move on now?  If not, feel free to add whatever you feel the need to.

---

At work.


You wish me to give you my thoughts on a/the word 'Deity'?

Okay then.

It's an anthropomorphised 'Meme' that's out grown or, perhaps, 'Escaped' its use as part of a toolset for people without writing to both remember things and pass down such knowlede to younger minds.

Over time the rhetorical meme tool changed in its use and function in the language and the societies in which it was used.

Becoming more and more an explanation of 'Why' something mysterious/untoward/etc happened instead of being connected to the stored information of events that had happened.

How do I use the word? Simply as a piece of rhetoric when with freinds when we gather to share pastimes or as humour such as 'May his noodly appendage comfort you with its touch. Ramen'.

Hope that helps.

Your turn.

I think god is a mixture of anthropomorphism of concepts, such as love, morality etc, mixed with an attempt to explain stuff without having to really think about them.

That is my definition of god.

You could think something is made of sparkles and fairy dust, but that doesn't mean that's what something is.  There seems to be this underlying conception with nonreligious people that those who believe in God don't think, but in most cases, you would be wrong.

[Amarok]

So he's still insisting we define god 

---

You could think something is made of sparkles and fairy dust, but that doesn't mean that's what something is.  There seems to be this underlying conception with nonreligious people that those who believe in God don't think, but in most cases, you would be wrong.

Observation says otherwise

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I feel a distinct disconnect.

You ask me for how I use/define a term and I give it to you.

Your reply then seems to indicate... I am not sure what.

You then alude to 'Objective meaning' which, I assume, is your reffering back to a dictionary.

You do understand that a dictionary is only 'Objective' in that you can point to a physical book. With pages, printed words in cogent sentences etc.

Now, two dictionaries of the same printing will be identical and so with the same definitions etc.

But two dictionaries from different publications or different editions will not necessarily agree with one another?

Hence, side by side, the two different publications, they would then fit your useage/definition of 'Subjective'. Since they would 'No longer agree' with each other.


Please. Explain to me how my previous post was not objective?

I can (And have) pointed to the academic research from which I've drawn my words/ideas. Said academic research is, by definition, objective.

How do you actually tell or otherwise determine if another person's posted sentence is actually subjective or objective?

Where is your definition of a diety/god in response/reply?

I've shown you mine. Don't you think its polite to show me yours?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

So he's still insisting we define god 

---

You could think something is made of sparkles and fairy dust, but that doesn't mean that's what something is.  There seems to be this underlying conception with nonreligious people that those who believe in God don't think, but in most cases, you would be wrong.

Observation says otherwise

People will generally see what they want to see.  You are no exception.