Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Breezy wheezy that's a doozy
A very dangerous game young man. But I am inclined to believe your game plan is near complete, ineffective but complete. Byeeee
"P.S., I'm down for changing Cyber's gender from female to non-male. Hopefully she doesn't mind, since that would just be illogical of her."
False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.
False equivalence lol, the go-to excuse for anyone that doesn't like when a valid comparison reveals something negative. Luckily, Nyar gave us a skeleton which can be used to verify it:
A = someone that is a male
B = ¬A; someone that is not a male.
Notice that all of the following are subsets of B:
females
transgender
potato!
No...
They are two different types of questions.
Are you Republican? You either are or you are not.
What are your political views... Not a binary.
Likewise, are you male? You are male or you are not.
The question. Being asked about atheism vs not atheism is binary. (Like the Republican example...)
What is your gender? is not. False equivalence.
Isn't that what I've been saying from the beginning? That you are focusing on whether a person has a specific belief (are you republican), rather than what a person's beliefs are on a given subject (what are your political views)?
@Breezy....Why is it so hard to some people to admit they were wrong? I did that in this same forum many times, even when talking to you... There's no dishonor in admitting that, but there is in pretending that you were saying something different, when you are smart enough to realize that's not true...
Luckily that's easily verifiable, isn't it? Let's see how many of my previous responses I can find, where I'm saying that people are focusing on whether a person has a specific belief, rather than what a person's beliefs are on a given subject:
1. "But such a law refers to the truth of a proposition and not our beliefs about it, right? Either God exists or He doesn't; but beliefs themselves are not binary, there are as many variations as there are thinking heads to produce them"
2. "Again, I agree a thing 'is' or 'is not;' but a persons beliefs on whether a thing 'is' or 'is not', do not fall into such a binary system."
3. "That's an uninformative way to split things up, since being unsure/neutral means you don't identify with any of the possible options."
4. "As long as people recognize that options A, B, C, and D exist, emphasizing that B, C, D are not A, or that A, D, B are not C seems obvious and redundant. Clearly, that doesn't change the fact that there are still four options."
5. "...you seem only interested in whether or not a person holds a specific belief; at which point being unsure is equivalent to not holding that believe. In contrast, I'm more interested in a persons beliefs on a specific subject, in which case, being unsure is its own separate category."
6. "I've told you about three times that I understand your argument; and I've also told you why its the wrong approach. So once again, as long as you understand that a person can believe options A, C, D, X, Y or Z, then we're perfectly agreed."
Feel free to show me where I have argued something different. I would love nothing more than to say I'm wrong; but I'm not going to say it for the sake of appearing honest. I'd rather continue being called dishonest.
Tortured semantics, I did say...
John, what you did was completely dishonest. You lied. You cheated. Do anything like it again and I will ban you.
John, what you did was completely dishonest. You lied. You cheated. Do anything like it again and I will ban you.
Edited to add: this is in reference to you changing your profile and using that to post in the Hub.
That's hilarious. Am I not an atheist when it comes to Zeus? Plenty of your fellows, and possibly you, have made that argument.
That’s not even clever. Again, if you post in that room again, you get banned. Got it?
ban him ma'am we really don't give a shit..
really toxic..
John, as to your #3...if one is unsure then they don’t believe, they might in the next 5 minutes but they do not, in fact, currently believe. How hard is that?
Holy shit... Yes the beliefs can fall anywhere, but on any particular belief one can only believe or not believe it. That's it. Why is this so difficult?
"Yes the beliefs can fall anywhere."
Great, that's all we need to agree on. Beyond that, you seem only interested in whether or not a person holds a specific belief; at which point being unsure is equivalent to not holding that believe. In contrast, I'm more interested in a persons beliefs on a specific subject, in which case, being unsure is its own separate category.
Therefore, being 'unsure/neutral' should be added to the forums options.
No. I do not agree. That's not what that means. Don't quote mine me and play these ignorant games. You can hold many beliefs. But on any particular proposition there are two possibilities.
Proposition: god exists.
Possibilities: I believe god exists.
Or: I do not believe god exists.
If you choose A you can also believe anything else.
If you choose not A it doesn't matter why you don't or what you believe in place of A. You can believe c, d, x, y or z. It's still not A.
I don't believe you don't understand this. I think you're being purposely contrary. I think you like to disagree with things even if you know you're wrong.
@Aposteriori Unum
"I don't believe you don't understand this. I think you're being purposely contrary. I think you like to disagree with things even if you know you're wrong."
Now you are getting it! This is the breezy wheezy quite contreezy way of distraction. Plays the same cards time after time.
I've told you about three times that I understand your argument; and I've also told you why its the wrong approach. So once again, as long as you understand that a person can believe options A, C, D, X, Y or Z, then we're perfectly agreed.
Those options should be reflected and available for members to choose on their profile.
It's not a matter of opinion. I'm not saying what I think ought to be or not. It's not up for debate.
"So once again, as long as you understand that a person can believe options A, C, D, X, Y or Z, then we're perfectly agreed."
A is a single proposition. C, d, x, y and z are SEPARATE propositions. C, d, x, y and z are not A.
I didn't invent logic. I don't make it up as I go along and I don't agree with you at all. You are trying to break all the rules. A=A. Not: A = A or C or x... That's the law of identity.
I would reference you to Aristotle, but I think it would be a waste of time at this point. Choose what you will, it's your right to be wrong.
At this point, its rather clear I've understood your position more than you've understood mine; you display tunnel vision.
How you love to grandiloquently validate your own posts. No it is completely untrue that you've shown more understanding of the point, you have also repeatefly made a claim for belief positions you've refused to name or comment on at all beyond the bare claim.
Belief in a deity is theism and no belief is atheism. All else are claims to knowledge or the lack thereof.
However by all means name three categories of belief you claim fall between belief and non belief in a deity, that are not knowledge claims?
Tortured semantic or deathly silence on the request is my best guess.
Tic toc....
@John 6IX Breezy
You added the word "believe" to a binary question/answer. When I say I am an atheist, I think of it in terms of binary. You add the letter a to the word theist to indicate opposite or negative of.
Do we really need to change it to: "Do you believe in god(s)? Yes or no?" To answer that question in a manner everyone is happy with how to identify people, instead of "atheist" versus "theist" ?? For example: "Yes I believe in god," or "no I do not believe in god," or finally "I am not sure." Instead of neat one word answers like atheist, theist, agnostic?
.
.
However, I do think it would be a good idea to add unsure/neutral as an option on these boards. As I am sure quite a few people fit in that category. In the meanwhile, people can simply add it to their profiles, or explain it when asked.
I think your fellows would disagree that atheist means the opposite of theist.
I suppose that is true. Would be curious to hear their arguments too,
I suppose I should clarify and say opposite in the sense of it is the negation of.
Your typical/atypical example is interesting too. When someone displays an atypical response, nobody interprets that as the 'absence' of a typical one. In this context, atypical is the opposite of typical.
"I suppose I should clarify and say opposite in the sense of it is the negation of."
Precisely.
Atheism and theism are logical negation of each other. One cannot simultaneously hold both positions. Or neither position.
Even someone entirely unaware of the concept of a deity would by definition not believe they existed, and therefore be an atheist.
Just so we're clear, beyond my responses to Logic, I've said nothing about theism vs atheism. As far as I'm concerned you're defining the beliefs before a person has stated them, and I'm looking at persons beliefs before I categorize them.
So let me ask you, which of the following options define you:
1. You believe God exists.
2. You believe God does not exist.
3. You have no beliefs on the subject.
4. Other.
So let me ask you, which of the following options define you:
1. You believe God exists.
2. You believe God does not exist.
3. You have no beliefs on the subject.
4. Other
___________________
I'm an atheist so I don't believe in a deity or deities, and do you think we won't notice you're still trying to define atheism or disbelief as a positive belief 2?
Tortured semantics is what I predicted and that's what we're getting.
Atheism is not the "belief" there is no deity. No matter how many times you claim this.
Pages