Turning around in neighbor's driveway
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Would Consumer Reports say this is a shady practice?
Next: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
From: Christopher A.Lee on 4 May 2007 10:11 On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:58:10 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >"� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >news:5a05f0F2n4dhsU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Jeckyl wrote: >>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>> news:59vq7sF2lekskU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>>>> news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>>> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >>>>>> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >>>>>> explain the universe. >>>>> Yes. That is a belief. >>>> No >>> Does a strong atheist hold that it is true? ifso , then it is a >>> belif of the strong atheist. >> Belief is the absence of Knowledge. > >Not at all .. where did you get that idea? Belief is whatever you hold to >be true, in particular things for which you have evidence and knowledge. In that case theists don't believe, they only think they do :-) But the problem is that the word "believe" actually carries too many different meanings. There are better unambiguous words and phrases which convey differences in meaning that vanish when they are replaced with "believe". Especially when theists have determined the context and meaning as their kind of belief. >see http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief "conviction of the >truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon >especially when based on examination of evidence" > >Belief CAN also apply to things for which there is no evidence / proof .. >this is sometimes also called 'Faith'. > >>>> it's a rational and logical conclusion given the facts. >>> What facts are they .. >> All of them. > >In other words, you do not have any facts at all > >>>do you have a proof that god does not exist? >> Which god in particular? > >Any will do .. the Christian God would be a good start. > >>>>>>> but agan, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a >>>>>>> religion in any useful sense of the word. >>>>>> Exactly. >>>>> There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark >>>> Yes there was. Asserting that A-theism might possibly >>>> be a "religion" is a tautological impossibility. >>> Not really .. just not in any useful way. Strong atheism has a >>> particular belief that all strong atheists share. But that is not a >>> useful definition of a religion, as then anything that people hold as >>> true could be a religion. >> Which is why it is misleading to conflate the terms belief, faith and >> religion. > >I'm not the one doing that. > >Belief is anything you hold to be true (especially with proof) >Faith is firm belief (usually with no proof) >Religion is a set of believe, valud and codes of ethics. > >I've not conflated anything > >>>>>>>>> Where is your proof the any religion is correct? >>>>>>>> There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods? >>>>>>> Atheists don't need one .. all they need is for there to be no >>>>>>> proof that there are gods .. and that justifies their position >>>>>>> completely. >>>>>> Kent doesn't quite comprehend the obvious, then again he believes >>>>>> that humans exhale Carbon Monoxide and that accusing someone >>>>>> of being pregnant who in fact isn't pregnant is *not* a false >>>>>> accusation. >>>>> I don't see that, in general, being pregnant would be a crime of >>>>> which to be accused in the first place. >>>> Would the accusation be true or false in the instance stated? >>> I have no idea of what the actual instance was. I think it likely >>> that it was not as straightforward as you are saying (ie that you've >>> simplified it possibly to make it seem more absurd) .. some important >>> detail might have been deleted. >> >> Here's the original: > >Ta > >> Kent Wills wrote: >>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote: >>>> When the jury finds that the person you accused of being pregnant is in >>>> fact not pregnant, then, ipso facto, your initial allegation/charge is >>>> false. >>> >>> If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and was seen >>> shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was probable cause >>> to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out not to be pregnant >>> doesn't mean the allegation was false. > >Ah .. it appears he is confusing "false" with "unreasonable". I take it >that someone pointed that out, and he couldn't (or wouldn't) see the >difference. > >FYI see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Standard_of_proof >
From: Jeckyl on 4 May 2007 10:28 "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote in message news:8_OdnemJBfmIoabbnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > DanielSan wrote: >> atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. >> [Random House Dictionary] > > That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY > definition. That's because one includes the other .. strong atheism (belief that god(s) does not exist) is part of weak atheism (or just 'atheism') which is lack of belief that god(s) exist. >> atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. >> [American Heritage Dictionary] > > It still includes "denial", doesn't it? What, you didn't like the > secondary definition in this case? That's because one includes the other .. strong atheism (belief that god(s) does not exist) is part of weak atheism (or just 'atheism') which is lack of belief that god(s) exist. >> atheism: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods >> [WordNet 3.0] > > That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY > definition. That's because one includes the other .. strong atheism (belief that god(s) does not exist) is part of weak atheism (or just 'atheism') which is lack of belief that god(s) exist. > Didn't like this definition either I see: > > American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - > Cite This Source > atheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)] > > Denial that there is a God. (Compare agnosticism.) Yes .. atheists will deny that god exists .. and may also deny that there is no god. >> atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities. >> [Wiktionary] > Even this poor excuse for a dictionary includes "denial" in its primary > definition. That's because one includes the other .. strong atheism (belief that god(s) does not exist) is part of weak atheism (or just 'atheism') which is lack of belief that god(s) exist. >> Want more? > Naw - you'll just selectively ignore primary definitions. That's because one includes the other .. strong atheism (belief that god(s) does not exist) is part of weak atheism (or just 'atheism') which is lack of belief that god(s) exist. >>> - NOT that it is a synonym with agnosticism. >> Agnosticism (and gnosticism) deals with the knowledge (or lack thereof) >> of spiritual matters... > You've got that backwards. Not at all >> Atheism (and theism) deals with the existence (or lack thereof) of >> deities. > It deals with BELIEF Yes .. Theists have a belief in gods, aatheist do not have a belife in gods >> Atheists do not believe in the existence of deities. Period. End of >> discussion. > No, they BELIEVE there are none No . .that is only strong atheism (ie a subset of (waek) atheism). Its really very simply Theist believes god exists Atheist does not believe god exists Strong Atheist believes god does not exist
From: Robibnikoff on 4 May 2007 10:34 "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> wrote in message news:vrSdnW0ImsD7D6fbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > Uncle Vic wrote: >> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote: >> >>> Kent Wills wrote: >>> >>>> Where's the proof that atheism is correct? Why do you run and >>>> hide when I ask about it? >>> >>> >> >> (Piggybacking) >> >> Atheism is the neutral position. Atheists make no positive claims. > > > They positively state that there are no gods. Wrong. You can call it a > negative claim if you wish, but it is still an affirmation of their faith. Wrong > Atheism is a religiobn, just as sure as Christianity is. What the hell is a "religiobn"? >> Where is your proof the any religion is correct? >> > > There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods? Where is your proof there aren't any leprechauns? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557
From: Robibnikoff on 4 May 2007 10:36 "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam(a)dont.spam> snip > > That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY > definition. So? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Deal. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557
From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on 4 May 2007 13:02
Jeckyl wrote: > "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1178264123.007452.120210(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On May 4, 3:25 pm, "� UltraMan �" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote: >> Jeckyl wrote: >>> "� UltraMan �" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>> news:59vq7sF2lekskU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>>> "� UltraMan �" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>>>> news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>>> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >>>>>> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >>>>>> explain the universe. >> >>>>> Yes. That is a belief. >> >>>> No >> >>> Does a strong atheist hold that it is true? ifso , then it is a >>> belif of the strong atheist. >> >>> Belief is the absence of Knowledge. >> >> More accurately, belief is the end of reason. > > Yes .. because once you have completed your reasoning, the result if a > belief. Nope. Belief isn't the conclusion of reason, it's the absense of reason. |