Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Almost there]

A dictionary. You mean the things that are privately owned and operated? The things that took decades to get the update on the word "gay"? The things that routinely botch scientific and mathematical definitions, and then refuse to change despite being told by experts that they're wrong?

Let's work through this together.

"Moral" means what? We both have a good idea. Now, do "immoral" and "amoral" mean the same thing? No, they don't, do they? Amoral would refer to something that is neither morally good nor immoral, but lacks morals altogether, right? So the "a-" prefix means "without" and the "theism" root word means "belief in god". So your 50 years of studying this topic have been using an improper understanding.

And your Stalin comment was quite despicable. Good to see you are completely unapologetic and that you think all atheists want to commit mass murder.

I'm missing your point. I've said for decades that atheism is amoral. The word "moral" does not a apply to an atheist world view since they believe everything is an accident of nature. Any "morals" they apply come from whatever morals they choose to acquire over their lifetime. And they are ever shifting.

Regarding your comment about dictionaries: Are you arguing that there is no specific meaning applied to words, that it is all a mush and words can just be redefined to fit one's world view? Seriously?

 

[Almost there]

One who does not believe in a god does not necessarily believe that a god does not exist.

One who does not believe in a god could also believe the subject is unknowable.

You keep saying you've been studying this for years, and yet you're saying things that are obviously wrong.

You are trying too hard to parse words. You are attempting to argue that, in essence, atheist = agnostic.

And how did we get into the weeds on word definitions anyway? It's a waste of time.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Regarding your comment about dictionaries: Are you arguing that there is no specific meaning applied to words, that it is all a mush and words can just be redefined to fit one's world view? Seriously?

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words change meaning all the time, and as long as the group understands the meanings of the words used, communication is possible. If you moved to a town where everyone called apples "oranges" and oranges "apples", you'd be the one introducing confusion by using the words like you're used to.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are trying too hard to parse words. You are attempting to argue that, in essence, atheist = agnostic.

See my chart below for the way that "atheist" and "agnostic" are used today.

And how did we get into the weeds on word definitions anyway? It's a waste of time.

Christians insist on starting these non productive discussions because they need a straw man definition of "atheism" to knock down, that's how.

 

[Shadow]

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words change meaning all the time, and as long as the group understands the meanings of the words used, communication is possible. If you moved to a town where everyone called apples "oranges" and oranges "apples", you'd be the one introducing confusion by using the words like you're used to.

So if a group of mathamaticans say that 2+2=5 and people object, it is the people who object who are the "introducing confusion" because that mathamaticans have the right to redefine numbers in-spite of historical precedents?

 

[Almost there]

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words change meaning all the time, and as long as the group understands the meanings of the words used, communication is possible. If you moved to a town where everyone called apples "oranges" and oranges "apples", you'd be the one introducing confusion by using the words like you're used to.

So you are arguing the meaning of words still.

 

[Almost there]

See my chart below for the way that "atheist" and "agnostic" are used today.



Christians insist on starting these non productive discussions because they need a straw man definition of "atheism" to knock down, that's how.

I'm actually aware of that chart. The comical part is that it makes the word "atheist" like the word "safe".

i.e. it has no meaning until a qualifier is applied.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm missing your point. I've said for decades that atheism is amoral. The word "moral" does not a apply to an atheist world view since they believe everything is an accident of nature. Any "morals" they apply come from whatever morals they choose to acquire over their lifetime. And they are ever shifting.

I'm talking about the prefix "a-", not about morality. Although, incidentally, you seem to think that Stalin's actions were a result of his atheism.

I don't know how you could have possibly missed the point.

Regarding your comment about dictionaries: Are you arguing that there is no specific meaning applied to words, that it is all a mush and words can just be redefined to fit one's world view? Seriously?

Something is wrong with your ability to understand people. I said nothing like that. I simply said that dictionaries are not accurate, that they do not reflect word usage.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is not about islam, but about Christianity and atheism.
Christianity rests on historical facts and atheism on the belief that there is no God.

So yes we should look at what and why we believe what we believe.

What I gave you is something called a counter example. Your position is unreasonable, and I used a counter example to illustrate it.

 

[Almost there]

What I gave you is something called a counter example. Your position is unreasonable, and I used a counter example to illustrate it.

OK. I'll let them sit there and let the lurker decide for themself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK. I'll let them sit there and let the lurker decide for themself.

You're quoting a comment of mine that was directed at someone else.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm a professional mathematician.

Whatever.

I have views on the truths of certain unproved or unprovable statements, axioms especially. So does every other professional mathematician.

And I asked you directly what your view is on the conclusion I derived from my axioms. I asked you whether it is an eternal truth. You flat out ignored my question, and redacted it from your quotes of me.

To be brutally honest, you're the only person I've met on this site that I'm actually interested in talking to and understanding. There are a few other educated people, but they are either dishonest or disinterested in engaging. Everyone else is just a cartoonish representation of a Christian, and many are so unbelievably stupid that I cannot tell if they are genuine or if they are atheists pretending to be a stupid Christian.

So I am very disappointed when you dodge serious, tough questions from me. It is a tough question because I already know the answer. You have no escape from it.

You told me one of the things which you believe with unquestionable certainty, and you backed it up with a truth table. Truth tables assume the validity of the law of non-contradiction. So I don't think I'm misrepresenting you if I presume that you hold the law of non-contradiction to be unquestionably true. But quantum mechanics strongly implies that the law of non-contradiction is not even true in this very universe, so it cannot be an eternal truth. I know you know this, so what gives?

I'm sure you do.

But Constructivists consider the diagonalization argument invalid. Indeed, they only accept real numbers for which there is a finite representation, finite description, finite formula, or finite computer program. This gives them a countable set of real numbers. Obviously, you would be struggling to give an example of a specific number they've left out.

You're proving my point. There are no eternal truths. Just things which we accept as tentatively true, such as axioms.

I was. It's commonly used that way.

If you were confused by me mixing symbols from the (&, |) pair and the (/\, \/) pair, I apologise.



Huh?

"And" in common spoken language is different from the "·" operator. Your statement was ambiguous. Sort of like saying sinx+y when you really mean sin(x+y). No point in you dying on that hill. Just move on.

As I said, I'm a professional mathematician. I'm also, on this forum, anonymous, so I'm not going to list my publications for you.

Based on this statement, and that you told me you're not a PhD, and that you seem to be American, I speculate that you're a PhD student. That does not make you a mathematician. I'm sorry but that's the reality.

No, it doesn't.



And the false statement I allegedly made was...?

It would have been more clear to you had you not redacted my statements. You hold that 2+2=4 with absolute certainty. I showed why certainty in this is not absolute.

I take it that you are conceding that your question was poorly worded, and that you meant "given a line and a point not on it, how many distinct lines parallel to the given line can be drawn through the given point?"

Um, no, I stated the exact opposite. "Line" is well defined, as is "parallel" and so my question was not worded poorly.

The point is that Euclid's fifth postulate is not an eternal truth. It's just an assumption, and we can take it or leave it. Take it, and parallel lines cross by assumption. Leave it, and you have to prove that they cross - but that is known to be impossible - and also you can then have geometry on a sphere where the other axioms still hold.

In that case, which definition of "line" did you mean? I'm aware of several.

The basic definition from geometry.

And in which space do these lines exist?

Does not need to be specified.

The answer depends on what you're talking about. Do the "lines" exist on the surface of a sphere? In Euclidean space? In something like this?

Hopefully my point is clear now.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So if a group of mathamaticans say that 2+2=5 and people object, it is the people who object who are the "introducing confusion" because that mathamaticans have the right to redefine numbers in-spite of historical precedents?

If a group decides to switch the definitions of "4" and "5" and can communicate effectively within that group, yes, of course you'd be introducing confusion by not using those words the way the group uses them.

That's the way language works. It evolves. If it didn't, we'd exclusively be using old English definitions of words.

 

[Shadow]

If a group decides to switch the definitions of "4" and "5" and can communicate effectively within that group, yes, of course you'd be introducing confusion by not using those words the way the group uses them.

That's the way language works. It evolves. If it didn't, we'd exclusively be using old English definitions of words.

I think George Orwell will be turning in his grave and was hoping 2+2=5 would ring alarm bells, but ok.

I agree that language evolves, but ultimately language has to correspond to something. 4 (the concept) has to equal 4 (the real property/measurement), and that's why Mathematicians don't arbitrarily change 4 to 5. The "denial" definition of atheism appears to date back hundreds or even thousands of years. It must have had enough utility to be defined that way that it was true enough to correspond to "something". (i.e. the definition of atheism as "denial" was not accidental). Yet the "lack of belief" definition is one that is very recent (back probably to 1976 with Anthony Flew's "The Presumption of Atheism") and has only come in to widespread usage in the last 20 years.

Given that the definition of atheism as "denial" of the existence of god was acceptable for many centuries, what has changed in the past twenty to forty years to mean that an "evolution" of the definition of atheism to "lack of belief" is now necessary?

 

[Radagast]

To be fair, the quote in blue is just one of many opinions on the philosophy of mathematics. Some view them as some sort of platonic ideal, the other as something discovered, and others as a man-made creation very similar to a language.

Well, the quote in blue does express mathematical Platonism, which includes the idea that mathematics is discovered. Most professional mathematicians tend to hold some version of that (and, when it comes to natural numbers, most kindergarten teachers too).

The idea that mathematics is a man-made creation is fairly common, but mostly outside of mathematics itself.

 

[Radagast]

You told me one of the things which you believe with unquestionable certainty, and you backed it up with a truth table. Truth tables assume the validity of the law of non-contradiction. So I don't think I'm misrepresenting you if I presume that you hold the law of non-contradiction to be unquestionably true.

As I said earlier, I had carefully picked out an example proposition, namely (P => R & Q => R) => (P \/ Q => R), which is constructively true. I can prove it without the law of the excluded middle and without truth tables. But the law of non-contradiction is indeed unquestionably true.

But quantum mechanics strongly implies that the law of non-contradiction is not even true in this very universe

What makes you think that? Nothing in quantum mechanics contradicts the law of non-contradiction.

"And" in common spoken language is different from the "·" operator. Your statement was ambiguous.

Huh? I thought I threw in enough brackets to make it unambiguous. And, as it happens, I virtually never use "·" for logical "and."

and that you told me you're not a PhD

Never said that. I have a PhD, but obviously I'm not going to post a scan of my certificate or anything like that.

I showed why certainty in this is not absolute.

You did? Was that what that thing about families was meant to prove?

"Line" is well defined

It is? Are you using Euclid's definition, or one of the more modern ones?

The point is that Euclid's fifth postulate is not an eternal truth.

In fact, it is an eternal truth about the Euclidean plane.

For great circles on the surface of a sphere, it is an eternal truth that any two will intersect. But a sphere, or indeed any Riemannian manifold, can be seen as an object embedded within Euclidean space, so one must distinguish the lines within the manifold from Euclidean lines.

 

[Radagast]

I'm talking about the prefix "a-"

It's a prefix with a range of meanings:

"Amoral" -- lacking a moral sense
"Acephalous" -- without a head
"Asymmetric" -- lacking symmetry
"Ahistorical" -- lacking historical perspective or context
"Amillennialist" -- rejecting the belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ
"Agnosticism" -- the view that the existence of god(s), certainty in general, or some other subject is/are unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable

 

[Radagast]

Given that the definition of atheism as "denial" of the existence of god was acceptable for many centuries, what has changed in the past twenty to forty years to mean that an "evolution" of the definition of atheism to "lack of belief" is now necessary?

Particular since "agnostic" is a perfectly good word for describing the "lack of belief" option.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's a prefix with a range of meanings:

"Amoral" -- lacking a moral sense
"Acephalous" -- without a head
"Asymmetric" -- lacking symmetry
"Ahistorical" -- lacking historical perspective or context

Those are all the same.

"Amillennialist" -- rejecting the belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ

Or, "without" such a belief.

"Agnosticism" -- the view that the existence of god(s), certainty in general, or some other subject is/are unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable

Gnosticism is the belief that deities can be "known" in some sense. Agnosticism is... I'll let you fill that in.

 

[Radagast]

Or, "without" such a belief.

Well, no, "Amillennialist" doesn't mean that, it means someone who rejects the belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ. It's a very specific theological position.

Gnosticism is the belief that deities can be "known" in some sense.

Well, no, "Gnosticism" doesn't mean that.