- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
27 Mar 10
1 edit
since you consider yourself to be right and me wrong, yet you offer no argument supporting your claim, i must assume you think me moronic.
My argument was that the original quote uses 'atheist' in a non-standard way in order to make a political point, but that this non-standard use has an internal consistency if properly construed. My apple analogy shows the internal consistency. So, no I hadn't thought you moronic, but if you keep missing the fact that I have made an argument, I might start.
so let's put a definite on the maybe. so we know what we argue. believers are a subset of atheists, right? that is the only way your odd thief analogy would work.
Yes, that's right. Although there isn't anything particularly odd about my analogy.
oh no, i missed your "awesome" wit and sarcasm.
Whereas yours is unmissable 🙂
see those quotes? that is how they look like.
What are you saying? You are so literal minded that I need to enclose jokes in quotes?
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joe"The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in "
I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Henry Roberts
CS LEWIS
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkthen i can be as rude as you.
[b]since you consider yourself to be right and me wrong, yet you offer no argument supporting your claim, i must assume you think me moronic.
My argument was that the original quote uses 'atheist' in a non-standard way in order to make a political point, but that this non-standard use has an internal consistency if properly construed. My apple analo ...[text shortened]...
What are you saying? You are so literal minded that I need to enclose jokes in quotes?[/b]
you are a moron.
put any quotes you want to make you feel better.
My argument was that the original quote uses 'atheist' in a non-standard way in order to make a political point, but that this non-standard use has an internal consistency if properly construed
i also said that by the same logic, you are a murderer that hasn't murdered yet. yet you didn't agree with my assessment. that surely makes you consistent with your reasoning , does it not?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzithen i can be as rude as you.
then i can be as rude as you.
you are a moron.
put any quotes you want to make you feel better.
[b]My argument was that the original quote uses 'atheist' in a non-standard way in order to make a political point, but that this non-standard use has an internal consistency if properly construed
i also said that by the same logic, you are a mu ...[text shortened]... gree with my assessment. that surely makes you consistent with your reasoning , does it not?[/b]
you are a moron.
put any quotes you want to make you feel better.
I'm glad you got that off your chest 🙂
i also said that by the same logic, you are a murderer that hasn't murdered yet. yet you didn't agree with my assessment. that surely makes you consistent with your reasoning , does it not?
I'll assume you mean 'inconsistent'. In which case, no it doesn't because the one important feature that seems to have escaped you so far, is that for the original quote to work, atheism has to be construed as an active stance of rejecting claims. That's what my apple analogy demonstrates. So as an atheist, I have stolen the last apple, as a theist, you have not.
Do try to keep up.
By the way, you have already been rude to me so far beyond my normal parameters that I concluded that rudeness might be the only form of discourse that would deliver the message. So it is ironic that you think I have sanctioned your rudeness by being rude in return. You are like one of those people who is blind to the shortcomings of their own conduct, but yet is punctilious when appraising others.
Not that I mind. This is the internet after all. It's just a game, love. just a game 🙂
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkof course you have proof of me being rude, you wouldn't claim something without having proof. i would like to see that proof though. so sorry for not taking your word for it.
[b]then i can be as rude as you.
you are a moron.
put any quotes you want to make you feel better.
I'm glad you got that off your chest 🙂
i also said that by the same logic, you are a murderer that hasn't murdered yet. yet you didn't agree with my assessment. that surely makes you consistent with your reasoning , does it not? ...[text shortened]... Not that I mind. This is the internet after all. It's just a game, love. just a game 🙂[/b]
atheism is not a stance that rejects some claims, atheism is a stance that rejects ALL claims not supported by science. that is why you leave the realm of logic and enter gaga land when you claim i and all theists for that matter are imperfect atheists. that is why your argument allows me to claim all are murderers but some are imperfect murderers. once you start believing in something unsupported by science as the supreme being you stop being an atheist.
sure, if you define your own terms, you can draw any conclusions based on your initial, some flawed, premises. but if we don't have the same premises, don't you think you should convince me of your premises before you try and stick your "logic" down my throat?
or am i again a hothead that restrains from acting like a hothead?
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkpunctilious, Lol, i like that!
[b]then i can be as rude as you.
you are a moron.
put any quotes you want to make you feel better.
I'm glad you got that off your chest 🙂
i also said that by the same logic, you are a murderer that hasn't murdered yet. yet you didn't agree with my assessment. that surely makes you consistent with your reasoning , does it not? ...[text shortened]... Not that I mind. This is the internet after all. It's just a game, love. just a game 🙂[/b]
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziof course you have proof of me being rude, you wouldn't claim something without having proof. i would like to see that proof though. so sorry for not taking your word for it.
of course you have proof of me being rude, you wouldn't claim something without having proof. i would like to see that proof though. so sorry for not taking your word for it.
atheism is not a stance that rejects some claims, atheism is a stance that rejects ALL claims not supported by science. that is why you leave the realm of logic and enter gaga land ...[text shortened]... ogic" down my throat?
or am i again a hothead that restrains from acting like a hothead?
The 'proof' is there for anybody who is interested to inspect. Just look at your replies to me on a number of threads. Not that rudeness is objective.
atheism is not a stance that rejects some claims, atheism is a stance that rejects ALL claims not supported by science.
You don't get to speak for atheism. You clearly don't really understand it.
that is why your argument allows me to claim all are murderers but some are imperfect murderers. once you start believing in something unsupported by science as the supreme being you stop being an atheist.
But that is to reverse the direction of the analogy. The direction that fits the quote is as follows, Jones kills everybody else apart from one person, whereas Smith kills everybody else. They are both murderers but Smith takes the extra step. Jones is analogous to the theist, Smith to the atheist, as normally understood.
sure, if you define your own terms, you can draw any conclusions based on your initial, some flawed, premises. but if we don't have the same premises, don't you think you should convince me of your premises before you try and stick your "logic" down my throat?
The whole point of this quote is that it does define its own terms - in order to grab attention and make a political point. Nobody is being asked to believe that 'atheist' is usually used in this way. So I have no wish to convince you of the premises here, their purpose is not to be taken as true. Rather, you can follow the logic or the analogies to see how the quote does what it does. That is, you could if your literal-mindedness didn't prevent you.
or am i again a hothead that restrains from acting like a hothead?
What you still can't see that there's no contradiction there? Strange, you've had plenty of time to think it through.
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkrobbie, did you make a second account?
[b]of course you have proof of me being rude, you wouldn't claim something without having proof. i would like to see that proof though. so sorry for not taking your word for it.
The 'proof' is there for anybody who is interested to inspect. Just look at your replies to me on a number of threads. Not that rudeness is objective.
atheism is not a ...[text shortened]... s no contradiction there? Strange, you've had plenty of time to think it through.
29 Mar 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziLol, i know, Sharky is a mere shadow and a poor reflection of the reality. He is an atheist to be fair and not possessed of religious fervour to make him truly a Carrobie, although he has shown some promising signs 🙂
yeah he is a too moderate robbie anyway.
30 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzithe quote is equivalent to "Mary has apples. George has apples. Mary has 1 apple, George has 1 apple less."
the quote is equivalent to "Mary has apples. George has apples. Mary has 1 apple, George has 1 apple less."
Would you say you have to be a believer to have a problem with the above use of language? Or you have to be an apple farmer? Or could you spot a problem in that quote no matter your convictions?
I don't think it is.
The membership criterion for being an "atheist" depends not on what you have, but on what you don't have (belief in gods). Your quote is indeed somewhat nonsensical but it has little bearing on the OP.
Better would have been
"Mary has apples. George has apples. Mary has n-1 apples, George has 1 apple more."
whereby the problem dissipates.
My problem with "atheist" as I've said, is that unless preaching to the choir (as it were); it isn't the best choice of word without a supplementary description of what it is you actually mean by it.