Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

[DrkSdBls]

My original post was worded properly, thanks.

You:

Just an aside here - yes, you are. Everybody is an atheist or a theist. Basically, 'atheist' means 'not a theist'. You must be one of the two.

You could have said "That's your beliefs and I'm fine with you believing that" and we all would have been just fine.

But no, you had to give that stick a little twist.

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.

But, why Would I concider myself something that I'm not?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

I'll stop you there.
Atheism is the logical conjugate of theism in that anyone who isn't a theist is automatically an atheist. So if we take '1' to be theism, then atheism is every single number that isn't 1. Someone telling you that they are an atheist merely tells you that they are not a theist; it doesn't give you any more information about their position on the number line, as it were.

And this ties in quite nicely with the reality of the situation: atheism in general is the logical conjugate of theism, but there are two mutually exclusive catagories of atheism: weak and strong.

That is, one is either a theist, a weak atheist, or a strong atheist. The terminology is confusing, but that is just a quirk of English.

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.)

Which is why I asked you to define 'blue-eyed'. What do you mean by 'blue': the wavelength of light corresponding to the iris itself? To the covering over the iris (natural or otherwise)? The wavelength as viewed by an external observer?
What do you mean by 'eyes'? Does this require both eyes? Just one eye? Biological eyes? Artifical eyes? What of those born with one eye? With more than two eyes?

A good definition is one that is unambiguous.

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

That is how I define homosexuality, yes.

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?)

Human sexuality is... convoluted. However, one can still make catagorical statements. I, for example, use the following with regards to human males and females:

• Heterosexuality: to be attracted to only members of the opposite gender
• Bisexuality: to be attracted to members of both genders
• Homosexuality: to be attracted to only members of the same gender
• Asexuality: to be not attracted to members of either gender

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."

If the term 'theism' is ill-defined, then we cannot take the logical conjugate, and so the argument fails.

I define theism as "Belief in the existance of at least one deity". But what constitutes a deity? That is a question I have yet to give a general answer to. Nevertheless, theism itself is now defined well enough for us to take the logical conjugate. Do you agree?

 

[DrkSdBls]

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

Again, I choose not to even use the word "Atheist" solely because the weak/strong Adjective means next to nothing in relation to the word "Atheist". I choose not to use the word because to do so, it implys that I do not believe in any God. That is incorrect. It is a word that just does not apply.

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

The Power to Create, to Destory, to Give Life, to Take life, to exist since the beginning of Time, to Exist til the end of Time, It makes Fire burn (from a simple Matchhead to a Star), To manage to control a Process that is infinitely more complex then we can conceive as easily as Breathing!

How is this universe not a Miracle in and of itself?

Why must a "god" be a third, outside force? Why must it be defined as Supernatural?

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.

More like, I am without Atheism.

But seriously, I can not call myself an "Atheist" because that just isn't true.

It would be so much easier if Labels did not exist. Then I could be more honest when telling the truth.

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

I've been asking that since this debate started.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I'll stop you there.
Atheism is the logical conjugate of theism in that anyone who isn't a theist is automatically an atheist. So if we take '1' to be theism, then atheism is every single number that isn't 1. Someone telling you that they are an atheist merely tells you that they are not a theist; it doesn't give you any more information about their position on the number line, as it were.

So, what you meant to say is:
Theism = a number
Atheism = Not a number

At least then all the numbers can be used to address where you fall in Theism.

Of course, there are those who still hold that 0 is not a number.

And this ties in quite nicely with the reality of the situation: atheism in general is the logical conjugate of theism, but there are two mutually exclusive catagories of atheism: weak and strong.

That is, one is either a theist, a weak atheist, or a strong atheist. The terminology is confusing, but that is just a quirk of English.

Oh, I'm not arguing there. We've already established that English is a poor System to convey ideas Properly.

Which is why I asked you to define 'blue-eyed'. What do you mean by 'blue': the wavelength of light corresponding to the iris itself? To the covering over the iris (natural or otherwise)? The wavelength as viewed by an external observer?
What do you mean by 'eyes'? Does this require both eyes? Just one eye? Biological eyes? Artifical eyes? What of those born with one eye? With more than two eyes?

A good definition is one that is unambiguous.

Not trying to be unambiguous. When I say Blue, I mean in every accepted meaning of the word. Even if there are many shades of blue, they are all still blue by definition.

That is how I define homosexuality, yes.

You would be among the dwindling few. Most people would concider someone who has only a Passing interest in the same gender as Homosexual. Whether or not this person is both a "Practicing" Heterosexual and only interested in Heterosexual relationships means nothing to the use of the word.

To most, it's an either/or circumstance. You're either One or the other. If you're not 100% heterosexual, then you're 100% Homosexual. Not-Heterosexual = Homosexual.

You see, to the general Mindset, to use a word is to accept all the many subtile meanings related to that word. To use the word "Atheist" not Only means "Not-Theist" but also has meanings that vary to the person using it as well as the person who's making a judgement of the other person based on that description. Whether or not those other meanings are valid are inconsequential. Afterall, the meaning of a word exists only in the mind, not in a text book.

Human sexuality is... convoluted. However, one can still make catagorical statements. I, for example, use the following with regards to human males and females:

• Heterosexuality: to be attracted to only members of the opposite gender
• Bisexuality: to be attracted to members of both genders
• Homosexuality: to be attracted to only members of the same gender
• Asexuality: to be not attracted to members of either gender

Wouldn't it be nice, if it all really worked like that?

If the term 'theism' is ill-defined, then we cannot take the logical conjugate, and so the argument fails.

I define theism as "Belief in the existance of at least one deity". But what constitutes a deity? That is a question I have yet to give a general answer to. Nevertheless, theism itself is now defined well enough for us to take the logical conjugate. Do you agree?

I'll agree only to that Atheism is the best word concidering.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Again, I choose not to even use the word "Atheist" solely because the weak/strong Adjective means next to nothing in relation to the word "Atheist".

On the contrary, I define the terms thusly:

• To be a weak atheist is to make no affirmation as to the existance of deities.
• To be a strong atheist is to make the affirmation "Deities do not exist".
• To be a theist is to make the affirmation "Deities exist".

I choose not to use the word because to do so, it implys that I do not believe in any God. That is incorrect. It is a word that just does not apply.

If it is incorrect to say "DrkSdBls does not believe deities exist", then you are a theist.

The Power to Create, to Destory, to Give Life, to Take life, to exist since the beginning of Time, to Exist til the end of Time, It makes Fire burn (from a simple Matchhead to a Star), To manage to control a Process that is infinitely more complex then we can conceive as easily as Breathing!

To create/destroy what?

What is life? To what can it be given?

All matter/energy exists since the dawn of time, and will exist till the end of time. Indeed, it likely exists/existed before time began (insofar as that statment makes sense). Is matter eligable for godhood?

Fires burn because of various chemical reactions. Is a god a chemical reaction (among other things)? I should also point out that stars do not burn in the same sense as a matchhead: they are hot, and emit light, but they are not aflame.

Are you implying with the last point that a god is omnipotent?

How is this universe not a Miracle in and of itself?

Depends entirely on what you mean by 'miracle'.

Why must a "god" be a third, outside force? Why must it be defined as Supernatural?

Because it is appealing to humans. Supernatural gods are useless to us, by the (conventional) definition of 'supernatural'.

More like, I am without Atheism.

But seriously, I can not call myself an "Atheist" because that just isn't true.

If you are going by my definitions of the words, then that would mean you are a theist: you believe that at least one deity exists.

I've been asking that since this debate started.

And what conclusion have you come to, if any?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, what you meant to say is:
Theism = a number
Atheism = Not a number

No. If everyone has a number, then:

Theist = someone with the number n
Atheism = someone with a number that isn't n

Where n is some arbitrary number.

At least then all the numbers can be used to address where you fall in Theism.

Alas, no: theistic belief is not linear. The only common feature with any and all theistic belief systems is that at least one deity is believed to exist, have existed, and/or will exist.

Of course, there are those who still hold that 0 is not a number.

Those people are wrong 0 is the identity of the addition operator in the set of real numbers (that is, a + 0 = 0 + a = a)

Not trying to be unambiguous. When I say Blue, I mean in every accepted meaning of the word. Even if there are many shades of blue, they are all still blue by definition.

I am not arguing over the definition of 'blue' itself; that, I think, we can take as a given. What I am asking is, what is the thing whose colour determines the colour of the eye? The eye itself is a plethora of colours: red, white, etc. Even the iris is rarely one colour group.

You would be among the dwindling few. Most people would concider someone who has only a Passing interest in the same gender as Homosexual.

Even if they were equally attracted to the opposite gender as well? I have strong doubts that my definition is anything but the majority.

Whether or not this person is both a "Practicing" Heterosexual and only interested in Heterosexual relationships means nothing to the use of the word.

Indeed. My definition of homosexuality pertains to sexual desire, not the act of sex itself.

To most, it's an either/or circumstance. You're either One or the other. If you're not 100% heterosexual, then you're 100% Homosexual. Not-Heterosexual = Homosexual.

No. As I explained below, there are two more catagories: bisexuality and asexuality. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive catagories.

You see, to the general Mindset, to use a word is to accept all the many subtile meanings related to that word.

Perhaps. But we are not discussing the general mindset.

To use the word "Atheist" not Only means "Not-Theist" but also has meanings that vary to the person using it as well as the person who's making a judgement of the other person based on that description. Whether or not those other meanings are valid are inconsequential. Afterall, the meaning of a word exists only in the mind, not in a text book.

Except dictionaries, of course
But even a person's colloquial definition of 'atheism' is strictly defined (albiet technically only). The connotations and subtleties are part of that definition.

Wouldn't it be nice, if it all really worked like that?

I fail to see the flaw in my definitions. Would you care to point them out?

 

[Skaloop]

I choose not to use the word because to do so, it implys that I do not believe in any God. That is incorrect.

So you do believe in a god?

 

[The Bellman]

You:

You could have said "That's your beliefs and I'm fine with you believing that" and we all would have been just fine.

But no, you had to give that stick a little twist.

"a little twist"? I didn't have to do anything. I chose to correct your falsehood.

But, why Would I concider myself something that I'm not?

I've no idea. Why would you? You seem to want to not consider yourself either a theist or an atheist, so presumably you can answer that question for yourself.

 

[NailsII]

Maybe I should have added this earlier, it may have cut the thread a little short though.

Darwin was not a racist, he was one of the first to explore the possibility of a recent common ancestor between white europeans and their darker skinned freinds - despite superficial differences in appearance.

In "The Descent of Man" he expores this in detail, no doubt urged by a chance meeting with John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who became a close friend.

 

[DrkSdBls]

On the contrary, I define the terms thusly:

• To be a weak atheist is to make no affirmation as to the existance of deities.
• To be a strong atheist is to make the affirmation "Deities do not exist".
• To be a theist is to make the affirmation "Deities exist".

Indeed, Purhaps to you as you have contemplated and mediated on the subject Personally and come to this conclusion. But this is not the same for everybody. The General consensus of a word is how that word is used commonly, usually without an Adjective.

Most people will take the Stance you are either Theist or Atheist, with Theist believing in God (usually, they assume by the word "God" they take it as Their God) and Atheist Believing (stress "Believe") that there is no God (as well as several other Synonyms that they believe means the same thing.)

This is the Foundation of Most people who have not taken your approach of the Meaning of the words. Sometimes, once they learn the Word "Agnostic," they'll accept it into their Understanding as being somewhere between Theist and Atheist (though they'll often take Liberties as to Where on the scale the Agnostic is closer to based on their own conjecturing.)

I know this cause my sister just learned the Word "Agnostic" and I had a trial of a time trying to get the meaning through to her.

If it is incorrect to say "DrkSdBls does not believe deities exist", then you are a theist.

Yet, it's also true that it is incorrect to say "DrkSdBls does believe deities exist."

To create/destroy what?

Creation and Destruction happens every Second. What is so hard to understand that it's possible that the same force that allows planets to form is the same force that causes Atoms to break apart?

What is life? To what can it be given?

What is Life? Hmmmm... Tough question. Does it even exist at all?

Life is a complex process of Chemicals, Matter and Energy. So is the rest of the Universe. Does that define the Universe as alive?

All matter/energy exists since the dawn of time, and will exist till the end of time. Indeed, it likely exists/existed before time began (insofar as that statment makes sense). Is matter eligable for godhood?

Matter? Matter makes up only part of the Universe.

Our Finger Nails only make up part of us. Do Finger Nails constitute Humanity?

Fires burn because of various chemical reactions. Is a god a chemical reaction (among other things)? I should also point out that stars do not burn in the same sense as a matchhead: they are hot, and emit light, but they are not aflame.

Yes, I know how they work. Doesn't mean the same base process doesn't cause both.

Are you implying with the last point that a god is omnipotent?

What do you mean by "Omnipotent."

Omnipotent, within the confines of our universe means, literally, as powerful and unlimited as to the extent of said universe. Any amount of Power the exceeds this universe would only be concidered "Omnipotent" to this universe by conceeding that that there is another Universe seperate to this one. But, to conceed that, one must also conceed that such an "Omnipotent" being, would not be Literally "All Powerful" to their Universe.

I had an interesting conversion with Chalnoth about this using Virtual Worlds as an example. In a Virtual world, the Programmer would, in Theory, the most Omnipotent Being in that universe but such a universe can only exist within another Universe (Ours). A "User" of that Virtual Universe would certainly have great (virtual God-like)power within that universe but only to the Limits of that Universe and even then, only what would be accessable to them. But, a virtual Person within that Virtual Universe would have next to no Power of control over that universe besides what has been "Scripted" into their Program.

Anyway, the other conversation was far more riveting.

Depends entirely on what you mean by 'miracle'.

Was using it as a figure of speach there, but I personally ascribe no "Metaphysical" or "Supernatural" Meaning to it.

If you are going by my definitions of the words, then that would mean you are a theist: you believe that at least one deity exists.

If you stick your foot into the water and a Catfish bites onto your big toe, does that make you a Fisherman?

And what conclusion have you come to, if any?

This is the way I've come to look at it.

Imagine you're in a long dark Tunnel yet at one end, you see a Light. There is no turning back so you walk towards that Light. You walk for what seems like an Eternity but you never seem to get any closer. What do you conclude:

• The Light is Moving away from you at the same pace as you.
• You're not actually moving.
• There is no end to the Tunnel and the Light is just to distract you from the fact.
• The Light has no source. This is your existance. There is nothing more.
• There is no Light. It's just a figment of your Deluted mind.

Could you make any conclusions?

 

[DrkSdBls]

No. If everyone has a number, then:

Theist = someone with the number n
Atheism = someone with a number that isn't n

Where n is some arbitrary number.

Actually, now you've lost me. Someone with a number that isn't n would still be a number.

If Theist = n and c = equals Christianity, c still = n
And, if Atheist = -n
But If Hindu = h, h does not = c, h is a number other then n which means h does not = n

So, h does not = n which means h also = -n

Alas, no: theistic belief is not linear. The only common feature with any and all theistic belief systems is that at least one deity is believed to exist, have existed, and/or will exist.

I didn't mean to say that the number represented a Value. At least, It doesn't have to.

All I meant was that To be theist would mean you would be given a number. To be a Atheist, you would not be given a number.

Those people are wrong 0 is the identity of the addition operator in the set of real numbers (that is, a + 0 = 0 + a = a)

Yeah. Of course, there are still those that hold the Earth to be Flat too. Doesn't mean that it can't be taken into an equation.

I am not arguing over the definition of 'blue' itself; that, I think, we can take as a given. What I am asking is, what is the thing whose colour determines the colour of the eye? The eye itself is a plethora of colours: red, white, etc. Even the iris is rarely one colour group.

Well, sure and it kind of goes to my point. The color of your eyes (the predominant color) is what your eyes are classified by but those Classifications break down when you get technical about it and begin to disect the Many different Hues and other color effecting factors, such as my eyes having no predominant color.

Even if they were equally attracted to the opposite gender as well? I have strong doubts that my definition is anything but the majority.

That's what I mean. To someone with no Distinction, to have attraction to the same Gender (regardless to equal attraction to the opposite Gender) defines you same Homosexual.

Indeed. My definition of homosexuality pertains to sexual desire, not the act of sex itself.

Of course, then you would also have to get into the different Distinctions of "Attraction."

No. As I explained below, there are two more catagories: bisexuality and asexuality. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive catagories.

I wasn't forgetting them.

Of course, Bisexuality has been often held to be a "Transistion" period, not an actual Orientation, of those who have not yet come to accept themselves as Homosexual.

And, as I've always thought of it, Asexually is a Position of someone too terrified to delve into their Sexual-Psyche...... with the exception of eunuchs.

Doesn't matter what the words really mean to people who already decided for themselves what they're going to believe.

Perhaps. But we are not discussing the general mindset.

On the Contrary, that's exactly what we're dealing with. I never meant the Technical Defination when we started this and stated quite clearly that this was my Philosophic Stance based on my own understancing of what I am.

Except dictionaries, of course
But even a person's colloquial definition of 'atheism' is strictly defined (albiet technically only). The connotations and subtleties are part of that definition.

Except with words that have indefiniate (and sometimes misleading) additional meanings. These such words bring with them problems that often prevent you from even using that word, even when you mean it: When was the last time you said out load "I'm feeling a quite Gay today."?

I fail to see the flaw in my definitions. Would you care to point them out?

It wasn't your definitions, it was the fact that human sexuality isn't defined so categorically.

 

[DrkSdBls]

"a little twist"? I didn't have to do anything. I chose to correct your falsehood.

As I did yours.

I've no idea. Why would you? You seem to want to not consider yourself either a theist or an atheist, so presumably you can answer that question for yourself.

And I have. You're the only person that seams to have a problem with the answer.

 

[The Bellman]

As I did yours.

Nope.

And I have. You're the only person that seams to have a problem with the answer.

What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Indeed, Purhaps to you as you have contemplated and mediated on the subject Personally and come to this conclusion. But this is not the same for everybody. The General consensus of a word is how that word is used commonly, usually without an Adjective.

Most people will take the Stance you are either Theist or Atheist, with Theist believing in God (usually, they assume by the word "God" they take it as Their God) and Atheist Believing (stress "Believe") that there is no God (as well as several other Synonyms that they believe means the same thing.)

This is the Foundation of Most people who have not taken your approach of the Meaning of the words. Sometimes, once they learn the Word "Agnostic," they'll accept it into their Understanding as being somewhere between Theist and Atheist (though they'll often take Liberties as to Where on the scale the Agnostic is closer to based on their own conjecturing.)

I disagree. I formulated my definitions to encompass the conventional definition of the words by all peoples. For example, self-proclaimed atheists stress the importance of the fact that atheism is defined soley in terms of theism (i.e., they effectively define the set "atheism" as the logical conjugate of the set "theism"). With this established, they then stress the importance of the difference between what they call 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.

Yet, it's also true that it is incorrect to say "DrkSdBls does believe deities exist."

Then you are an atheist: you do not think the statement "Deities exist" is true (note the difference between 'do not think... is true' and 'think... is false').
Specifically, you are a weak atheist: you ascribe no truth value to the statement "Deities exist".

Creation and Destruction happens every Second. What is so hard to understand that it's possible that the same force that allows planets to form is the same force that causes Atoms to break apart?

Because that's just not true: planets form because of the the force of gravity, and atoms 'break apart' because of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

What is Life? Hmmmm... Tough question. Does it even exist at all?

I consider a physical system to be alive if it is a self-replictor.

Life is a complex process of Chemicals, Matter and Energy. So is the rest of the Universe. Does that define the Universe as alive?

Under my definition, no Well, actually, I don't know...

Matter? Matter makes up only part of the Universe.

Our Finger Nails only make up part of us. Do Finger Nails constitute Humanity?

My point was that you said that 'existing for eternity' granted one the status of godhood. Since matter fulfills that capacity...

Yes, I know how they work. Doesn't mean the same base process doesn't cause both.

Indeed. However, it turns out that the 'base process' is different: one is chemical combustion, the other nuclear fusion. Their only common link is that they use atoms.

If you stick your foot into the water and a Catfish bites onto your big toe, does that make you a Fisherman?

Depends on what you mean by 'fisherman'; arguably, I would have caught the catfish

This is the way I've come to look at it.

Imagine you're in a long dark Tunnel yet at one end, you see a Light. There is no turning back so you walk towards that Light. You walk for what seems like an Eternity but you never seem to get any closer. What do you conclude:

• The Light is Moving away from you at the same pace as you.
• You're not actually moving.
• There is no end to the Tunnel and the Light is just to distract you from the fact.
• The Light has no source. This is your existance. There is nothing more.
• There is no Light. It's just a figment of your Deluted mind.

Could you make any conclusions?

All those explanations explain the data (such that it is). However, while science is the method by which we pick the explanation that is most likely to be true, there is nothing to distinguish the above.

So no, you couldn't make any conclusive conclusion.

Actually, now you've lost me. Someone with a number that isn't n would still be a number.

Yes, that's my point.

If Theist = n and c = equals Christianity, c still = n
And, if Atheist = -n
But If Hindu = h, h does not = c, h is a number other then n which means h does not = n

So, h does not = n which means h also = -n

No, n is a single number given to anyone who is a theist, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, whatever. The number given to Christians is the same number given to Hindus: n.

Atheism, then, is anyone whos number isn't n, since n is only given to theists (whatever their flavour).

I didn't mean to say that the number represented a Value. At least, It doesn't have to.

All I meant was that To be theist would mean you would be given a number. To be a Atheist, you would not be given a number.

If we are going by my system, then no: atheists get the number a, and theists get the number b, where a and b are specific numbers.

Well, sure and it kind of goes to my point. The color of your eyes (the predominant color) is what your eyes are classified by but those Classifications break down when you get technical about it and begin to disect the Many different Hues and other color effecting factors, such as my eyes having no predominant color.

Which is why I asked for 'blue-eyed' to be well-defined. A well-defined definition of 'blue-eyed' allows us to take the logical conjugate, but an ill-defined definition does not.

That's what I mean. To someone with no Distinction, to have attraction to the same Gender (regardless to equal attraction to the opposite Gender) defines you same Homosexual.

Of course, then you would also have to get into the different Distinctions of "Attraction."

Sexual attraction has demonstratable biological (neurological, endocrinological, etc) and psychological (behavioural, etc) markers that we can look for: it is well-defined.

Except with words that have indefiniate (and sometimes misleading) additional meanings. These such words bring with them problems that often prevent you from even using that word, even when you mean it: When was the last time you said out load "I'm feeling a quite Gay today."?

I agree that there is a limit to how rigourous we can make our definitions. But if we assume that we agree on grammatical and syntactical words, then we can define everything else in terms of them. This is especially useful when dealing with nebulous words such as group labels.

It wasn't your definitions, it was the fact that human sexuality isn't defined so categorically.

On the contrary, I just gave catagorical definitions of human sexuality. Indeed, few people deviate from the definitions I gave.

 

[FishFace]

I disagree. I formulated my definitions to encompass the conventional definition of the words by all peoples. For example, self-proclaimed atheists stress the importance of the fact that atheism is defined soley in terms of theism (i.e., they effectively define the set "atheism" as the logical conjugate of the set "theism"). With this established, they then stress the importance of the difference between what they call 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.


Then you are an atheist: you do not think the statement "Deities exist" is true (note the difference between 'do not think... is true' and 'think... is false').
Specifically, you are a weak atheist: you ascribe no truth value to the statement "Deities exist".

Subject - predicate form:

Let A be a person, BA(x) mean "A believes that x" and G be God exists.

A is a theist: BA(G)
A is not a theist: ¬BA(G)
A is an atheist: ¬BA(G)
A does not believe God exists: ¬BA(G)
A believes God does not exist: BA(¬G)

Note that:

BA(¬G) --> ¬BA(G) if A is to avoid cognitive dissonance. This means that believing that God does not exist implies one is an atheist. Hence the final two positions are both atheistic.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Nope.

Yep. (You really want to start this? )

What are you talking about? That doesn't even make sense.

*Sigh*

You said

I've no idea. Why would you? You seem to want to not consider yourself either a theist or an atheist, so presumably you can answer that question for yourself.

I said

And I have. You're the only person that seams to have a problem with the answer.

I have an answer to that question; "I won't concider myself something that I'm not." What doesn't make sense?

 

[DrkSdBls]

I disagree. I formulated my definitions to encompass the conventional definition of the words by all peoples. For example, self-proclaimed atheists stress the importance of the fact that atheism is defined soley in terms of theism (i.e., they effectively define the set "atheism" as the logical conjugate of the set "theism"). With this established, they then stress the importance of the difference between what they call 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.

Of course, Christians define themselves as "Compassiate, Loving, Tolerant People" too.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with ya.

Because that's just not true: planets form because of the the force of gravity, and atoms 'break apart' because of the strong and weak nuclear forces.

And what's Gravity?

I consider a physical system to be alive if it is a self-replictor.

Is that all? And if we one day create Self-replicating Machines, would they too be defined as alive?

Under my definition, no Well, actually, I don't know...

Exactly. Under Your definition. That's the problem. Personal Definations (even those that are shared by others) mean little. A lot of times, we just have to trust our senses. We know what is alive when we see it, even if we can't give a perfect definition of "Alive."

My point was that you said that 'existing for eternity' granted one the status of godhood. Since matter fulfills that capacity...

Again, Matter is one aspect of something much larger. If we grant Matter the status of Godhood, then we also must Grant Energy the same. Then, we'd must draw the line between Matter and Energy or conceed they are the same thing.

Indeed. However, it turns out that the 'base process' is different: one is chemical combustion, the other nuclear fusion. Their only common link is that they use atoms.

Alright. I meant that both chemical combustion and nuclear fusion are connected, Not that they are Literally the same.

Depends on what you mean by 'fisherman'; arguably, I would have caught the catfish

Is that the conventional definition of Fisherman?

All those explanations explain the data (such that it is). However, while science is the method by which we pick the explanation that is most likely to be true, there is nothing to distinguish the above.

So no, you couldn't make any conclusive conclusion.

Then does that answer your question?

Yes, that's my point.


No, n is a single number given to anyone who is a theist, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, whatever. The number given to Christians is the same number given to Hindus: n.

Atheism, then, is anyone whos number isn't n, since n is only given to theists (whatever their flavour).

I swear, you keep changing your meaning.

Nah, seriously. I get what you mean But I think my reasoning made more sense.

Which is why I asked for 'blue-eyed' to be well-defined. A well-defined definition of 'blue-eyed' allows us to take the logical conjugate, but an ill-defined definition does not.

Unfortunately, I do not know any way to define 'blue-eyed' other then it's conventional definition.

That's what I mean. To someone with no Distinction, to have attraction to the same Gender (regardless to equal attraction to the opposite Gender) defines you same Homosexual.

You seemed to begin to quote this one for some reason yet passed so I wasn't sure you wanted to respond or not.

Sexual attraction has demonstratable biological (neurological, endocrinological, etc) and psychological (behavioural, etc) markers that we can look for: it is well-defined.

But, my point being, is that one form of Attraction is not the same as another and which ever Atraction is used to determine Sexual Orientation is relative to whom is making that determination.

Example:
A Man, who is in no Way attracted to the Male form, yet has a distint attraction to Crossdressers.

By your Understanding, what is his Sexuality?

I agree that there is a limit to how rigourous we can make our definitions. But if we assume that we agree on grammatical and syntactical words, then we can define everything else in terms of them. This is especially useful when dealing with nebulous words such as group labels.

Which is why I can not think of Theist and Atheist in other way other then a Label, regardless of what others concider me to be "Defined as."

I should be free to say "I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist."

On the contrary, I just gave catagorical definitions of human sexuality. Indeed, few people deviate from the definitions I gave.

On the contrary. You gave catagorical definitions of human sexuality defined by a rigid and narrow point of view that attempts to Define Humans by their Sexuality.

But Human Sexuality is not really like that. The truth is that we Humans have no "Set Sexual Orientation." Sexuality, Yours, Mine, everyone's, is actually more of a Sliding Scale where one's Orientation could be anywhere on that Scale at any given moment. Even using your List as a guild as to where on that Scale someone lies is flawed because someone can be anywhere between.

 

[The Bellman]

I have an answer to that question; "I won't concider myself something that I'm not." What doesn't make sense?

This grows increasingly futile. It's clear you're not interested in actually addressing the issue, so have fun. You, like everyone else, are by definition either a theist or an atheist, whether you like those terms or not, and you have not offered anything at all to the contrary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And what's Gravity?

One of four fundamental forces. Specifically, objects with mass are attracted to each other proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance

In any case, my point is that the cause of planetary formation is not necessarily the same as the cause of radioactive decay.

Is that all? And if we one day create Self-replicating Machines, would they too be defined as alive?

Yup. Why should life be any more specific?

Exactly. Under Your definition. That's the problem. Personal Definations (even those that are shared by others) mean little. A lot of times, we just have to trust our senses. We know what is alive when we see it, even if we can't give a perfect definition of "Alive."

Is a virus alive?

Again, Matter is one aspect of something much larger. If we grant Matter the status of Godhood, then we also must Grant Energy the same. Then, we'd must draw the line between Matter and Energy or conceed they are the same thing.

Matter and energy are the same thing. For stationary matter:

Alright. I meant that both chemical combustion and nuclear fusion are connected, Not that they are Literally the same.

Connected how?

Is that the conventional definition of Fisherman?

Does it matter? Let's use whatever definition you used when you wrote the sentence.

Then does that answer your question?

I didn't have a question:
"If you are going by my definitions of the words, then that would mean you are a theist: you believe that at least one deity exists."

I swear, you keep changing your meaning.

Nah, seriously. I get what you mean But I think my reasoning made more sense.

How so?

Unfortunately, I do not know any way to define 'blue-eyed' other then it's conventional definition.

Then your analogy fails.

But, my point being, is that one form of Attraction is not the same as another and which ever Atraction is used to determine Sexual Orientation is relative to whom is making that determination.

Example:
A Man, who is in no Way attracted to the Male form, yet has a distint attraction to Crossdressers.

By your Understanding, what is his Sexuality?

He is not homosexual. That is all we can say. He is likely heterosexual, but it is possible that he non-human females, or inanimate objects. These fringe alternatives would be classed under asexuality (as opposed to homo-, bi-, and hetero- sexuality).

Which is why I can not think of Theist and Atheist in other way other then a Label, regardless of what others concider me to be "Defined as."

I should be free to say "I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist."

The words 'theist' and 'atheist' are only ever used as labels. By my definitions of them, you are a theist.

You are welcome to define them in such a way that they are not mutually exclusive, but this would preclude any meaningful conversation with the average person regarding such terms (i.e., non-mutually exclusive definitions of the terms goes against the core concepts of them).

On the contrary. You gave catagorical definitions of human sexuality defined by a rigid and narrow point of view that attempts to Define Humans by their Sexuality.

But Human Sexuality is not really like that. The truth is that we Humans have no "Set Sexual Orientation." Sexuality, Yours, Mine, everyone's, is actually more of a Sliding Scale where one's Orientation could be anywhere on that Scale at any given moment. Even using your List as a guild as to where on that Scale someone lies is flawed because someone can be anywhere between.

I disagree: everyone can be placed into one of the four catagories (i.e., homo-, hetero-, bi-, or a- sexuality).

 

[ProphetMarecavallo]

Darwinism is a religion

Darwinism is a religion?