From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on
Jeckyl wrote:
> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message
>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message
>>>> Jeckyl wrote:
>>>>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message

>>>>>> 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.
> 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.

Yes, you are.

>
> Belief is anything you hold to be true (especially without proof)
> Faith is firm belief (usually with no proof)

In the context of A-Theism and Theism, the "especially without proof"
part is the key element of the definition, otherwise the discussion
and definitions become meaningless.

A-Theism is the ANTONYM of Theism, ipso facto.


> Religion is a set of believe, valud and codes of ethics.
>
> I've not conflated anything

Yes, you were perverting the context of belief and non-belief.

You are circularly asserting that non-belief is a belief, which is
a tautological absurdity.


>
>>>>>>>>> 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".

Kent is often confused, as he's a rabid bible-thumper who lives
in a world of ignorance and denial.

> I take it that someone pointed that out, and he couldn't (or wouldn't) see
> the difference.

One of the primary characteristics of a theist.


>
> FYI see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Standard_of_proof


From: _ Prof. Jonez _ on
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
> 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 :-)

You mean they beleive they 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.

Exactly.

A-theism is the *antonym* of theism, ipso facto.



>
>> 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: _ Prof. Jonez _ on
DanielSan wrote:
> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, they do not. You can't positively claim a neutral position.
>
>> You can call it a
>> negative claim if you wish, but it is still an affirmation of their
>> faith.
>
> Is "bald" a hair color?
>
> Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?
>
>>
>> Atheism is a religiobn, just as sure as Christianity is.
>>
>>> Where is your proof the any religion is correct?
>>>
>>
>> There is none - where is your proof that there are no gods?
>
> I can answer this. First, please narrow it down a bit, though. Please show
> the parameters for which "god" you want me to start with.

How about the most grotesque, perverse and misanthropic god ever
imagined by man ?


From: Martin Phipps on
On May 4, 10:28 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...(a)dont.spam> wrote in messagenews: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.

The reason why dictionaries give more than one definition for a word
is precisely because words can have different meanings to different
people and these meanings won't always agree. If you define
"atheist" as someone who believes gods do not exist then you are NOT
including people who simply don't believe in any particular god, even
though the latter group does include people who believe that gods do
not exist.

Martin

From: Martin Phipps on
On May 5, 1:02 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...(a)jonez.net> wrote:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "Martin Phipps" <martinphip...(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.

It can be both. There can be reasoning leading to belief but there
cannot be reasoning after belief, not if by by belief we mean
"absolute certainty" - and not then there is the possibility that
reasoning may continue and beliefs can be changed.

Martin