Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

[DrkSdBls]

It's easy to understand, and it's easy to see one of those statements is not true, but false. Everyone is either an atheist or a theist. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

Clearly, it isn't.

I've explained it to you pretty plainly. If you want to claim you're somehow exempt from the English language, go right ahead.

Somehow, you seam to be under the impression that the "English Language" is some sort of universal Law which we all have to abide by.

That is but one of your Logical Fallacies.

Your second is that you assume that the English Language is Logical in Nature.

Just because the English language does not contain a word for a Alternate to Atheism and Theism does not mean there is none.

You are now moving into insults, and I'm not interested. Goodbye, I hope you work out how to actually use the language.

I'm sorry that you seam to interpret anything I said as an Insult (although, you're own Tone since beginning this has been contemptuous at best.)

 

[DrkSdBls]

Human. But, when you can't reconcile the difference, it means you don't know, or rather, you don't believe. Maybe you want to say that you believe in *some* god, you just don't know which one.

I'd like to add something about connotation. Atheist sounds bad, right? Agnostic sounds like you are trying, right? Theist, well go you! Like I said, depends on the crowd. If I was to say to my Dad that I was an atheist, he would probably sigh and shake his head. If I was to tell one of my friends on campus in MCB(molecular and cellular biology) they'd probably share my belief or atleast understand it.

To some people, calling themselves an atheist is like giving up. There is this idea that atheists aren't trustworthy, are selfish, etc. We want to be normal. I can honestly say that I tried.. and it didn't work. I didn't give up, I set myself free. Why pretend?

So, do you want to believe or do you believe?

Lets take this in a slightly different direction.

Do you Believe in Aliens?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Actually, this is incorrect. Atheism is defined as the logical conjugate of theism. If you are a theist, then you are a theist (obviously). If you are not a theist, then, by definition, you are an atheist (read: not-theist).

Trilateral Logic? Everything comes in 2s, 3s, and sometimes 5s (depending on the direction of observation). There is not only either 'true' or 'false' but a median value of 'indetermination'.

This applies (Loosely) to human Logical Concepts as well, including the Meaning of Simple words.

.........

I had this explained to me many years ago but for the Life of me, I fail at doing it justice and I can't seem to access the Related Web Page.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Actually, (to return to the original post....) that Darwinian evolution is as good a reason as any to not be racist. After all, with modern genetic evidence to support us, we can easily see that we are but a few thousand base-pairs apart from our not-so-distant ancestors of african origin (that basically means all of humanity), so why should we base any dogma to the few that have a large phonotypical effect?

Finally, someone who knows whats important!

The Subject of the Thread really should take Precedent to all other. Bellman really should have taken this to Private Message, now that it occurs to me. (not that it hasn't been fun.)

 

[The Bellman]

Somehow, you seam to be under the impression that the "English Language" is some sort of universal Law which we all have to abide by.

Umm...no, I don't.

That is but one of your Logical Fallacies.

You haven't identified any of my logical fallacies so far; this one obviously isn't, since it's not even something I believe.

Your second is that you assume that the English Language is Logical in Nature.

Wrong again. Perhaps you should stop telling me what I assume.

Just because the English language does not contain a word for a Alternate to Atheism and Theism does not mean there is none.

It does within the English language, sorry to tell you. Every person is either theist or not theist (atheist). I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Trilateral Logic? Everything comes in 2s, 3s, and sometimes 5s (depending on the direction of observation). There is not only either 'true' or 'false' but a median value of 'indetermination'.

In certain systems, yes: the energy of a quantum particle can only take certain values (e.g., an electron can have a total energy of, say, 1eV, 3eV, 5eV, or 7eV, but nothing outside or in between.

But all systems abide by the law of excluded middle: "x is in A, else it is in ¬A". Someone is a theist, or else they are an atheist. Atheism is defined as the set of all people who aren't theist. Since someone must either be a theist or not a theist (by the law of excluded middle), this logic is boolean.

Someone is either in T or in ¬T, where T is the set of all theists, and ¬T is the set of all non-theists (aka atheists).

This applies (Loosely) to human Logical Concepts as well, including the Meaning of Simple words.

.........

I had this explained to me many years ago but for the Life of me, I fail at doing it justice and I can't seem to access the Related Web Page.

I think that website may be equivocating non-boolean logic with boolean logic: in some circumstances, general logic simplifies to boolean logic ("Either 0 or 1"), whilst in others it simplifies to quantum logic ("Either 0, or 1, or both"), or to trinary logic ("Either 0, or 1, or 2, or 3"), etc.

That is, the logic that applies to a system will nearly always simplify (e.g., it will simplify to boolean logic). What that website is doing, I think, is equating one specific logical system with another when though they are, in fact, unequal.





Basically, atheism is defined as the logical conjuagte of theism, and therefore, by the law of excluded middle, one must either be an atheist or a theist.
You could, of course, define atheism as something other than the logical conjugate of theism, but I have seen no attempt to do so beyond your unjustified assertions.








.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Umm...no, I don't.


You haven't identified any of my logical fallacies so far; this one obviously isn't, since it's not even something I believe.

What you realy believe is not nearly so important as what you Imply. You put so much emphasis on how "Important" it is that If I don't use the English Language according to Your High Standard that I somehow fail to understand simple Logic.

Sorry but that's wrong. I don't even care if you're a English Teacher by Profession; You're taking this far to seriously!

Wrong again. Perhaps you should stop telling me what I assume.

I'm not. You're telling me.

Lets see if you can stop telling me what I believe.

It does within the English language, sorry to tell you. Every person is either theist or not theist (atheist). I know you don't like that, but that's the way it is.

Then you want I should try explaining this to you in another Language?

How's this for a Word: A\Theist!

 

[DrkSdBls]

In certain systems, yes: the energy of a quantum particle can only take certain values (e.g., an electron can have a total energy of, say, 1eV, 3eV, 5eV, or 7eV, but nothing outside or in between.

But all systems abide by the law of excluded middle: "x is in A, else it is in ¬A". Someone is a theist, or else they are an atheist. Atheism is defined as the set of all people who aren't theist. Since someone must either be a theist or not a theist (by the law of excluded middle), this logic is boolean

Someone is either in T or in ¬T, where T is the set of all theists, and ¬T is the set of all non-theists (aka atheists).


I think that website may be equivocating non-boolean logic with boolean logic: in some circumstances, general logic simplifies to boolean logic ("Either 0 or 1"), whilst in others it simplifies to quantum logic ("Either 0, or 1, or both"), or to trinary logic ("Either 0, or 1, or 2, or 3"), etc.

That is, the logic that applies to a system will nearly always simplify (e.g., it will simplify to boolean logic). What that website is doing, I think, is equating one specific logical system with another when though they are, in fact, unequal.





Basically, atheism is defined as the logical conjuagte of theism, and therefore, by the law of excluded middle, one must either be an atheist or a theist.
You could, of course, define atheism as something other than the logical conjugate of theism, but I have seen no attempt to do so beyond your unjustified assertions.
.

Of course, you haven't given me any reason to conclude that "Neither" is an impossible stance. By what logical Reasoning do you Exclude the Middle path? Afterall, if it can be reached regarding Sexuality, It can be reached for Theism too.

Of course, now that I think about it, What logical Basis does any three stances really have?

 

[The Bellman]

What you realy believe is not nearly so important as what you Imply. You put so much emphasis on how "Important" it is that If I don't use the English Language according to Your High Standard that I somehow fail to understand simple Logic.

Except that I have nowhere done that. I don't believe I've mentioned logic at all.

Lets see if you can stop telling me what I believe.

I have nowhere even attempted to do so. I have merely told you the labels which are applicable depending on what you believe.

Then you want I should try explaining this to you in another Language?

No, because we're talking about the English language.

How's this for a Word: A\Theist!

It's not a word. Or even a 'Word'.

Of course, you haven't given me any reason to conclude that "Neither" is an impossible stance. By what logical Reasoning do you Exclude the Middle path? Afterall, if it can be reached regarding Sexuality, It can be reached for Theism too.

There is no 'middle path' since atheism is defined as the absense of theism. There's no third alternative; if you aren't a theist, then you are an atheist by definition.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Of course, you haven't given me any reason to conclude that "Neither" is an impossible stance. By what logical Reasoning do you Exclude the Middle path?

By definition of the middle. Do you agree that something

Afterall, if it can be reached regarding Sexuality, It can be reached for Theism too.

Not quite. Someone is either heterosexual or not heterosexual.What alternative is there?
To be honest, I think you have misunderstood the nature of the excluded middle.

Of course, now that I think about it, What logical Basis does any three stances really have?

What three stances are those? Atheism, theism, and (atheism+theism)?

 

[necroforest]

This calls for fuzzy set theory!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This calls for fuzzy set theory!

Hiss...

 

[DrkSdBls]

Except that I have nowhere done that. I don't believe I've mentioned logic at all.


I have nowhere even attempted to do so. I have merely told you the labels which are applicable depending on what you believe.


No, because we're talking about the English language.


It's not a word. Or even a 'Word'.


There is no 'middle path' since atheism is defined as the absense of theism. There's no third alternative; if you aren't a theist, then you are an atheist by definition.

Ok, to save a lot more brainstrain, I'm going to have to just agree to disagree with you from now on. You could have saved us all a lot of time and Effort had you worded your original post properly but, Que Cera Cera.

I do not concider myself to be either Atheist nor Theist. If you can not understand where I'm coming from then I'm sorry but you really aren't going to change my mind with your current Arguement.

 

[DrkSdBls]

By definition of the middle. Do you agree that something

...?

Did You mean to continue a thought there? Or was that your point 'cause I must have missed it.

Not quite. Someone is either heterosexual or not heterosexual.What alternative is there?
To be honest, I think you have misunderstood the nature of the excluded middle.

Hmmm.........

I see what your getting at, though I disagree with your conclusion.

See, it's the same with any logical conjuagte of any concept; White or Not White, Male or Not Male, Blue-eyed or Not Blue-eyed.

But just because "Not Blue-eyed" is the logical conjuagte of "Blued-eyed" does not also mean that "Not Blue-eyed" = Green-eyed. Now, while it is true that Green-eyed is also "Not Blue-eyed," that same is not true that someone who is "Not Blue-eyed" must be Green-eyed.

As a matter of Fact, I am Both Blue-eyed And Green-eyed. So, in effect, I am Blue-eyed and Not Blue-eyed at the same time.

That same can also be true to Sexuality. One can be both heterosexual and not heterosexual, though in this way, which ever is true is in relation to just who is making that determination. Still, either way, the Question as to the definition of heterosexuality still plays a big part in whether someone would judge Somebody (Or themselves) as such.

What three stances are those? Atheism, theism, and (atheism+theism)?

Atheism, Theism, and the Potential to either, I would say.

 

[godlessagnostic]

...?

Atheism, Theism, and the Potential to either, I would say.

Pantheism is not quite theism, and that's definatly another view. Robinson Jeffers is the most famous pantheist I've heard off but mabey one of the philophers in the 18th century or the founding fathers was also. Theism is defined as the belief in one or more divinties or dieties. Pantheism is the belief nature, the universe or just existence itself is God (ultimate reality). There are no trancendental powers there as their are in theism. Deism is by definition not theism even though it's really hard to draw a line sometimes (impossible with quite a few Christians as they all have very differing points of God that much of the time contrast with the Bible and are drawn from personal experience, but hey that's just my view point). I'm sure there are even more than that but those two are the really large ones.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...?

Did You mean to continue a thought there? Or was that your point 'cause I must have missed it.

Aha, yes, my apologies. I don't write my replies all too linearly, and though I try to tie up all the loose ends...

Anyway.

You: Of course, you haven't given me any reason to conclude that "Neither" is an impossible stance. By what logical Reasoning do you Exclude the Middle path?

Me: By the nature of the middle. Do you agree that something either is or is not A? If so, then the law of excluded middle follows directly from this statement. If not, then why not? Can you give an example of something that is both A and ¬A (or, indeed, neither A nor ¬A), giving clear definitions of A?

Hmmm.........

I see what your getting at, though I disagree with your conclusion.

See, it's the same with any logical conjuagte of any concept; White or Not White, Male or Not Male, Blue-eyed or Not Blue-eyed.

Agreed.

But just because "Not Blue-eyed" is the logical conjuagte of "Blued-eyed" does not also mean that "Not Blue-eyed" = Green-eyed. Now, while it is true that Green-eyed is also "Not Blue-eyed," that same is not true that someone who is "Not Blue-eyed" must be Green-eyed.

Agreed. This is elementary set theory:

In English: "a is an element of A" does not imply "A is an element of a".
For example, all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs; the former statement does not imply the latter statement.

As a matter of Fact, I am Both Blue-eyed And Green-eyed. So, in effect, I am Blue-eyed and Not Blue-eyed at the same time.

Equivocation. Define the term 'blue-eyed'.

That same can also be true to Sexuality. One can be both heterosexual and not heterosexual, though in this way, which ever is true is in relation to just who is making that determination. Still, either way, the Question as to the definition of heterosexuality still plays a big part in whether someone would judge Somebody (Or themselves) as such.

Indeed. If heterosexuality is defined as the state of only being sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender, then one cannot be simultaneously heterosexual and not-heterosexual.

If heterosexuality is defined as being sexually attracted to at least members of the opposite gender, then one still cannot be simultaneously heterosexual and not-heterosexual: one either is or is not attracted to the opposite gender at any given time, irrespective of one's other sexual preferences.

Atheism, Theism, and the Potential to either, I would say.

I don't understand the third term. What do you mean by 'potential to either'?

 

[The Bellman]

Ok, to save a lot more brainstrain, I'm going to have to just agree to disagree with you from now on. You could have saved us all a lot of time and Effort had you worded your original post properly but, Que Cera Cera.

My original post was worded properly, thanks.

I do not concider myself to be either Atheist nor Theist. If you can not understand where I'm coming from then I'm sorry but you really aren't going to change my mind with your current Arguement.

You can consider yourself to be whatever you want. You can consider yourself to be a Martian, or a ghost, or an invertebrate. It doesn't change what you actually are. You're either a theist or an atheist by definition - everybody is - whether you like the terms or not. Sorry.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Pantheism is not quite theism, and that's definatly another view. Robinson Jeffers is the most famous pantheist I've heard off but mabey one of the philophers in the 18th century or the founding fathers was also. Theism is defined as the belief in one or more divinties or dieties. Pantheism is the belief nature, the universe or just existence itself is God (ultimate reality). There are no trancendental powers there as their are in theism. Deism is by definition not theism even though it's really hard to draw a line sometimes (impossible with quite a few Christians as they all have very differing points of God that much of the time contrast with the Bible and are drawn from personal experience, but hey that's just my view point). I'm sure there are even more than that but those two are the really large ones.

Thank you! Finally, someone said Pantheism (I was trying very hard not to say it in the attempt to provoke someone to think of it themselves.)

Ofcourse, I'm not a Pantheist in a Literal since though I do follow along those lines. But I like the Line "There are no trancendental powers there as their are in theism" 'cause it really is the focus of my philosophy. The Universe itself has all the Infinite power of "God" without actually being a "God." So, in effect, I belief in all the Power of god without believing that there must be anything or person to embody those powers.

I can never say to myself "I do not believe in God" nor could I ever say to myself "I believe in a God." Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Aha, yes, my apologies. I don't write my replies all too linearly, and though I try to tie up all the loose ends...

Anyway.

Yeah, I do that too. Bad habit, isn't it?

You: Of course, you haven't given me any reason to conclude that "Neither" is an impossible stance. By what logical Reasoning do you Exclude the Middle path?

Me: By the nature of the middle. Do you agree that something either is or is not A? If so, then the law of excluded middle follows directly from this statement. If not, then why not? Can you give an example of something that is both A and ¬A (or, indeed, neither A nor ¬A), giving clear definitions of A?

Actually, Somebody (I think you) used 1, -1 earily and I think it works far better since you'll have to give a value to A eventually anyway.

See, you're relating the Numbers 1 = Theism and -1 to be Atheism. While, in theory it works until you remember that -1 is actually 2 less then 1. Just because -1 is the direct opposite of 1, it doesn't mean that -1 is the logical conjuagte of 1 because -1 carries with it a whole diffenent meaning besides "Not 1."

1 is a value of 0 + 1
-1 is a Value of 0 - 1
0 = 0

See, -1 has no direct relation to 1. -1 is a value in relation to 0, not to 1.

Anyway, you relate Atheism to -1 while, in reality, Atheism is better represented by 0 as 0 means "no value". -1 actually means less then nothing.

So, Theism would be 1 (with something), Atheism would be 0 (with nothing), and -1 would be less then nothing.

Obviously, -1 would not theoretically apply in this logic (unless you cound Militant Atheism. )

Eitherway, this is beside the point cause it doesn't really relate to my point but I just thought I'd get that out of the way.

Actually, I kind of lost my point after typing that.... I respond again once I gotten back on track.

Equivocation. Define the term 'blue-eyed'.

To have Blue eyes. Though, I suppose, the term gets a little fuddled where it comes to whether or not someone is concidered "Naturally Blue-eyed" (As in being born with Blue-eyes.)

Indeed. If heterosexuality is defined as the state of only being sexually attracted to members of the opposite gender, then one cannot be simultaneously heterosexual and not-heterosexual.

If heterosexuality is defined as being sexually attracted to at least members of the opposite gender, then one still cannot be simultaneously heterosexual and not-heterosexual: one either is or is not attracted to the opposite gender at any given time, irrespective of one's other sexual preferences.

Indeed. But can the same be said of Homosexually? Is Homosexually defined as only being attracted to the same Gender?

My point being that Sexually is Not defined so strickly as Heterosexual or Homosexual, Bisexual or Asexual, even within the Words themselves. The Words themselves hold no true meaning in relation to the person inwhich they are being used to classify. Human Sexuality is (at best) a Sliding Scale (though a 3-Dimentional "scale" as it doesn't just have 2 sides. I wonder, what is that shape; a line with 3 distinct ending points?)

I don't understand the third term. What do you mean by 'potential to either'?

Actually, I was at a lost for a word to put there so don't put to much importance on 'potential to either'. I made up "A\Theism" earlier just for a joke but it'll do for now. It's meaning is in relation to it's alternates. "Theism" is a flawed word in that by it's given definition, it excludes any reasonable conclusion as to what constitutes "God." And "Atheism" is so further flawed in that it is a direct logical conjuagte of that Flawed Word; It is it's "Evil(er) Twin."

Really, it's no wonder A\Theism is even further convoluted, being related to the Evil Duo!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank you! Finally, someone said Pantheism (I was trying very hard not to say it in the attempt to provoke someone to think of it themselves.)

On the contrary, I think you were equivocating strong atheism with weak atheism.

Ofcourse, I'm not a Pantheist in a Literal since though I do follow along those lines. But I like the Line "There are no trancendental powers there as their are in theism" 'cause it really is the focus of my philosophy. The Universe itself has all the Infinite power of "God" without actually being a "God." So, in effect, I belief in all the Power of god without believing that there must be anything or person to embody those powers.

So what has these powers? What is a god? And why is the former not a latter?

I can never say to myself "I do not believe in God" nor could I ever say to myself "I believe in a God." Why is this so hard to understand?

It isn't. This stance is called 'weak atheism'. The term 'atheism' simply refers to theological stances which are not theistic (i.e., an atheist is any person who does not say "I believe in the existance of (a) deity(ies)"). You fall under that catagory.

The issue, then, is: what constitutes belief in a deity? Indeed, what is a deity?