Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"I don't believe it's tails" means you believe it's heads.
I don't believe this is true.
You toss a coin, catch it and don't show me the result.
You then ask "do you believe that it is tails?"
I have insufficient data to know that it is indeed tails. So I don't want to commit to such a statement. So I'ld have to answer "no, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism".
And you're welcome to address the rest of my post where arguments for my position are given. That's what philosophers do. They address arguments and they give arguments. They don't just nitpick the conclusion and say, "I disagree!" That's why I generally ignore your posts, because you never substantively engage what was said and never offer anything substantive in return.
I and other atheists have pointed out both the fact that your position is demonstrably inconsistent with how people use and understand language...
That is a victory in my mind.
Being familiar with your own dire form of sophism, it does not bother me in the least that you disagree, especially since you have no arguments to offer.
So they agree with you that words have objective meanings beyond common usage?
Is that what he's trying to pretend me telling him he was playing pointless word games actually meant?
Right. You answer, "No, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism," because a simple "No" is insufficient to support your position.
"I don't believe it's tails" means you believe it's heads.
If you said, "I don't believe it's tails and I don't believe it's heads," you would cause considerable confusion.
If you don't want to commit yourself to any belief you would simply say "I don't know," or "I don't accept that claim as a true-ism," as you yourself admit.
Given that you failed to answer my question about the Giants and the other three propositions I will assume that you agree with my assessment.
And you're welcome to address the rest of my post where arguments for my position are given. That's what philosophers do. They address arguments and they give arguments. They don't just nitpick the conclusion and say, "I disagree!" That's why I generally ignore your posts, because you never substantively engage what was said and never offer anything substantive in return.
Yet perhaps I should clarify:
This may be pedantic, but I have not argued for (2) in this thread, I have argued for (1). The fact that you believe a further reply is necessary than "no" (i.e. "no, I don't accept that claim as a true-ism") belies your own belief that (1) is true.
- I don't believe it is tails -> I believe it is not tails
- I don't believe it is tails -> I believe it is heads
Personally, I don't do belief. I call myself an atheist because I think that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely.
a-symmetric = not symmetrical
a-chromatic = not cloured
a-tonal = not melodious or harmonious
a-theist = not a theist
a-gnostic = not gnostic
etc.
Nope. I retain in my mind the possibility that there is a "God" person after all. I just don't consider it very likely.If you think that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely, then you believe that the existence of God is vanishingly unlikely. Ergo: you "do" belief.
Etymologies are not definitions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?