[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

He just keeps asking the same thing over and over, even though you have answered him.

No one has answered me.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

I asked him to make his case [that belief has nothing to do with arguments] in post #1143... He made the choice to ignore my request, however...

Belief has nothing to do with arguments. Philosophy says so. Why do you deny philosophy?

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

This is a circular definition. Defining 'supernatural' by using the term 'natural' is circular. If you are going to define 'supernatural' in this way, you have to define 'natural' as well.

I thought it was a buzzword. Are you confused?

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What you are explaining exists by proof of identity.

You are trying to justify supporting evidence is what creates a theory. If there is no theory, what is there to support?

Oddly enough, you don't. You can start with an equation, either in logic or in mathematics. You can start with the simple existence of a thing. You don't even have to observe it or ask any question about it.

Proof of identity? What form does that need to be presented in? License? Passport? Social Security Card?

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What you are explaining exists by proof of identity.

You are trying to justify supporting evidence is what creates a theory. If there is no theory, what is there to support?

Oddly enough, you don't. You can start with an equation, either in logic or in mathematics. You can start with the simple existence of a thing. You don't even have to observe it or ask any question about it.

How do you determine that something exists?

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Why do you repeatedly ask questions, but with no intention of learning?

How can we learn if we don't ask questions?

 

[Quaestio]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Which of the Bobsey Twins made that ridiculous claim?

Into the Night

Here are the relevant quotes from the post exchange:

You never 'cite sources'. You claim they are "Holy links" (It's lucky you never studied at a University, you'd get tossed out with that argument for refusing to cite references).

I not only have, but taught there.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The understanding need not be agreed upon in order to communicate.

The and cow horse fling upside down. Religion bulverism flaccid says running tree fly swatter.

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

What you are explaining exists by proof of identity.

Is there anything that does not exist by your definition?

You are trying to justify supporting evidence is what creates a theory. If there is no theory, what is there to support?

I didn’t say anything about supporting evidence. But you have to build a theory first. An explanation without any attempts to test it or any means to test it is arbitrary.

Oddly enough, you don't. You can start with an equation, either in logic or in mathematics. You can start with the simple existence of a thing. You don't even have to observe it or ask any question about it.

So now you’re saying you don’t start with a theory. And if you’re not trying to explain anything, what does the theory do? It’s not a theory if it doesn’t explain something. And if there are no questions, then there is no explanation.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

The and cow horse fling upside down. Religion bulverism flaccid says running tree fly swatter.

NOW you've got it! You can speak ITNgfm speak!

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

no, a religion is defined by definitions

By definition!

and your definition makes zero sense to anyone with any logical thinking process.

Argument of the stone. Buzzword fallacy. Logic isn't a process. It is a closed functional system, like mathematics.

Being an atheist is not dependent on an argument of faith in the religious sense,

Yes it is.

it simply is not,

Yes it is.

no matter how much you vehemently claim something.

Two way street, dude.

This is what the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy says about religion and philosophy:

There is no such thing as a 'standard encyclopedia of philosophy'. False authority fallacy.

...deleted Holy Link and Quote...
As an atheist I don't have a sacred reality

Buzzword fallacy.

and reverence or awe is also non-existent.

Buzzword fallacy.

And then I am not even talking about "prayer/ritualized meditations".

Irrelevance fallacy.

In other words atheism in the views of the Stanford university's encyclopedia of philosophy.
Your definition doesn't seem to be what the Stanford university sees as "religion".

False authority fallacy.

I have already proven that atheism is not a religion,

You have proven nothing. Atheism is based on an argument of faith. It has extending arguments from that initial argument of faith. It is a religion.

with philosophy, with all kinds of available definitions

You have used no philosophy, your definitions come from a false authority.

and explanations

You have given no explanations, only fallacies.

and you have ignored each and everyone because you are completely entrenched in an irrational definition that makes no sense whatsoever.

No, I ignore them because they are false authorities.

Wrong, totally wrong.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

...deleted nonsensical portion...
and there is that word game again, circular argument. Circular arguments are everywhere, it is not what makes a religion a religion.

That, and arguments extending from that circular argument IS what makes a religion.

Well let us start with the most basic of all basic religious tenets:

GOD EXISTS!!!!

Easy, I did it. And there are many more, none of which are more basic as god exists.

I can show you another one:

GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

There. That's a religious tenet too.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, it’s how people use words in common conversation. Not anyone consciously deciding what a word means.

No, it's because some one consciously decided what a word means.

That depends on what you mean by “through the use of philosophy.”

Just exactly that.

Technical uses are defined by those in that field,

That is also true. Those words are not defined by philosophy

either de novo for emerging technologies or new concepts,

Another example.

Just because you can find examples of words that are defined by other means than philosophy doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't define any word. Philosophy defines 'religion'. It also defines 'science', 'mathematics', logic', and assists in defining some words in logic and mathematics like 'argument', 'theory', etc.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

nonsense comments repeating the same nonsensical things that are totally illogical to the definition of religion. Religion is based on the belief that gods/god/spirituality exists. Basic religious tenet is:

The website bible knowledge states as the 12 tenets of christian religion:

1. Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal salvation with god the father

2. we are saved by grace through faith, not by works

3. JC is the son of god

4. the incarnation of JC

5. the resurrection of JC

6. the ascension of JC

7. the doctrine of the trinity

8. the holy bible is the inspired and infallible word of god

9. baptized with the holy spirit at salvation

10. renewed - regeneration by the holy spirit

11. the doctrine of hell

12. the return of JC

None of which have any comparison with the only basic view of atheism. Gods do not exist.

Also it seems you are incredibly hard of reading, buddhism is based on spirituality. .

No, Buddhism is not based on the belief of any god, gods, or spirit.
Religions do not require 'tenets'. Religions do not require a belief in any god or gods.
Atheism is a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

How so ? Please explain in detail how this works.

Already did... multiple times. Pay attention.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

As stated time and time again, one liner word games and no real responses.

Buzzword fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Yes, at least you seem to have very little "feeling" with reality because you claim all kinds of nonsensical things repeated with claims of fallacy, calling things lies, etc. etc. etc.

Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Faith can have something to do with religion but can also have nothing to do with religion.

True. I've already explained this. Pay attention.

And I already explained how buddhism is a religion.

No, you didn't. Buddhism believes in no god, gods, or any spirit.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

It's not a fallacy. It's a self-evident fact.

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Try reality next time.

Buzzword fallacy.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Sin is a religious transgression.

No, it is simply a transgression against another. It has nothing to do with religion at all.

Morality does not need religion;

So you say. Where do you get your morals from, then?

it's a human construct,

Void argument fallacy.

If you need your religion to tell you what is moral, that's your issue.

And so it is. Where do you get YOUR morals from?

Would you rape and kill if you didn't think god was looking? Do you have a list of sins you would like to commit if they were not "sins"?

Irrelevant. Answer the question put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

He (and his parrot) thinks "citing a reference" is just typing the words "Science says so" or "Philosophy says so" or "theories speak for themselves". And he claims that he taught at a University? LOL!

Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, it's because some one consciously decided what a word means.

Just exactly that.

That is also true. Those words are not defined by philosophy

Another example.

Just because you can find examples of words that are defined by other means than philosophy doesn't mean that philosophy doesn't define any word. Philosophy defines 'religion'. It also defines 'science', 'mathematics', logic', and assists in defining some words in logic and mathematics like 'argument', 'theory', etc.

Philosophy defines nothing. People define things.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, it is simply a transgression against another. It has nothing to do with religion at all.

So you say. Where do you get your morals from, then?

Void argument fallacy.

And so it is. Where do you get YOUR morals from?

Irrelevant. Answer the question put to you.

Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

That's your problem because you refuse to accept commonly agreed upon definitions. You can't communicate without a common language. If you make up your own definitions, you can't expect anyone else to understand your meaning.

Inversion fallacy. YOU are asking for the definition of every word. YOU are asking for them repeatedly, even when they've already been defined.