Atheism is a faith.

[RandFan]

He's referring to the fact that earlier in this thread, people, including myself, gave him a rasher of ◊◊◊◊ because he printed eight definitions of "faith", picked three, then interchanged those three whenever he saw fit.

And if you start using multiple definitions of "arrogant" interchangeably, I'll do the same thing to you.

I wouldn't expect anything less.

I'm assuming, though, that you'll stick to the one you gave above, something we could never get Huntster to commit to.

I should point out that I wasn't trying to prove that arrogance is what the dictionary says that it is. I was trying to find a point of agreement with chriswl who is dubious as to the very notion of arrogance. I did not demand that he accept that there was such a thing as arrogance simply because there existed a definition for it.

I never understood argument via dictionary definition.

God

The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

See, atheism is wrong. The dictionary defines God and therefore God exists.

Such argument reminds me of The Miracle On 34th Street where the judge rules Kris Kringle to be the real Santa Claus because Ed knows the Post Office would never recieve mail on behalf of a fictional charachter.

That being said, should one choose to argue via dictionary definition one should stick to the definition.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I never understood argument via dictionary definition.

An address or composition intended to convince or persuade by the agency or instrumentality of formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc. as found in a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language.

I hope that helps.

 

[RandFan]

An address or composition intended to convince or persuade by the agency or instrumentality of formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc. as found in a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language.

I hope that helps.

Smartass.

 

[Taffer]

An address or composition intended to convince or persuade by the agency or instrumentality of formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc. as found in a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language.

I hope that helps.

 

[The Atheist]

This is where the duality of the term "skeptic" comes into play. There are (my terminology here) 'mundane' skeptics (i.e. randi, "ghosts don't exist until we have proof", etc), and then there are 'epistemic' skeptics "we cannot know anything for certain".

Alrighty then. Where do you find me a label in that "sceptical" arena?

I've never liked the term "sceptical" used as a title for myself, except under lack of a better one. Let's get the meaning of the sucker out of the way first this time, eh?

Sorry to refer to Oxford:

person who doubts truth of. (esp religious) doctrine or theory, etc.; person inclined to question truth of facts or statements of claims; philosopher who questions the possibility of knowledge

My own tendency would be to use the word when I am, in fact, sceptical of something which seems inflated or incorrect. Taking politics as an example, I'm pretty sceptical about every comment ever uttered by every one of them. I may eventually end up believing some are honest, but in the lack of proof, I'll be sceptical, alright. I'm not in the least sceptical about claims and incidences of "paranormality".

In here, an overwhelming preponderance of threads are about subjects in which there's no truth to question - gods, psychics, etc. No facts, no data, purely faith. Pseudo-science is a different area, and one where the literal meaning of "sceptical" best applies.

Whenever a subject such as psychics come up, I just go straight to, "utter and complete BS", no scepticism required. Back to arrogance, I guess, but I just can't see anything to question.

 

[The Atheist]

ditto

Marvellous stuff.

 

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Atheism is a faith.
Why no, no it isn't! It is an absence of faith - not the same as all (but if it makes you feel better to think so, knock yourself out!!!!).

As I stated earlier, this is impossible. Atheism, at its core, is defined as "without theism." There is no faith statement made, and no claim asserted. An absence of a particular faith is not a faith itself.

 

[RandFan]

As I stated earlier, this is impossible. Atheism, at its core, is defined as "without theism." There is no faith statement made, and no claim asserted. An absence of a particular faith is not a faith itself.

You actually seem to be in agreement with fuelair.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Again, compared to you, it's a piece of cake.

Ok, fair enough. So can you answer my questions?

You really want to ride the merry-go-round again, don't you?

Based on the Bible is it ok to kill apostates? Is it ok to own slaves? Is it ok to kill your children?

I'm not going to play interpretation games again with you.

Quote:
When you're involved, I know nothing. Even my wildest guesses are proven wrong.

You flatter me but in truth I'm just telling you what is in the Bible.

Yeah, you're damned sure trying, however, I've read it.

You see, unlike most believers I actually read the Bible, all of it. I have never lied to you, not once. Almost everything that I claimed was in the Bible I backed up with chapter and verse. I never took anything out of context. I gave it to you warts and all. Why is that a problem?

Because it's not an accurate statement.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Interesting...................

Let's see if you get a full ration of BS on dictionary definitions...........

For example, I say that "arrogance" means the outside toe on a feline's front right foot......................

I'm guessing this is important but I don't understand. Please to explain?

Nope.

Not to you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RandFan
I'm guessing this is important but I don't understand. Please to explain?

He's referring to the fact that earlier in this thread, people, including myself, gave him a rasher of ◊◊◊◊ because he printed eight definitions of "faith", picked three, then interchanged those three whenever he saw fit.

And if you start using multiple definitions of "arrogant" interchangeably, I'll do the same thing to you. I'm assuming, though, that you'll stick to the one you gave above, something we could never get Huntster to commit to.

"Arrogance" means the outside toe on a feline's front right foot. I'll stick to that.

 

[RandFan]

You really want to ride the merry-go-round again, don't you?

Why does there need to be a merry-go-round?

I'm not going to play interpretation games again with you.

How does one misinterpret killing children and owning slaves? Not a very good dodge Huntster.

Yeah, you're damned sure trying, however, I've read it.

Really? Why didn't you know about the genocide, killing of chidren, acceptance of slavery, brutality, mysoginy, etc.?

Because it's not an accurate statement.

In what way?

 

[RandFan]

Nope.

Not to you.

Then why address me in the first place? Were you not trying to communicate something?

 

[Beerina]

And not collecting stamps is still a hobby.

And not living in Louisiana is still an address.

And not being a pharmacist is still a job.

And not-biology is still a college major.

And not pitching is still playing baseball.

And not drinking Scotch is still a form of alcoholism.

And not having a 3-way with Morgan Webb and Anne Hathaway is still being one suave dude.

 

[Ginarley]

Damn straight I admit it! I'm a burden on society, a leech on tax-payers dollars, a menace to the elderly, a drunken, rowdy student, and just generally a slob. And I'm damn proud of it!

Seconded

Seems to me sleeping really is a bad thing - I fall asleep for a measly few hours and agnosticism rears its ugly head into the debate.

Agnosticism is fence sitting - I used to call myself agnostic with the view that people could believe what they wanted to believe and that while I didn't really believe in any god that any religion portrayed, I could still see the sense in some kind of supernatural type being. However once I got more into what science could really achieve and exactly what it meant to allow for a deity of some description, I quickly dropped the half-hearted approach of agnosticism and adopted atheism. It is okay to say you don't know (science is all about this) but I often think agnostics call themselves agnostic to avoid offending people - you can weasel yourself out of an awkward conversation with your catholic girlfriends parents as an agnostic but not as an atheist! I suspect most agnostics are really atheists who don't quite have the conviction to state it openly. The problem with agnosticism is that it all seems such a reasonable approach but it's really a bit of a cop-out.

Now to really shake things up - do you need faith to be agnostic?

 

[CapelDodger]

Cheers (I agree also that checking back through the posts in this thread is BAAADD idea, I have read every single one of them and my brain's still reeling from it!)

I assumed, when you said you would, that you were being ironic. That's action beyond the call of duty.

 

[joobz]

That's an interesting dichotomy, hatred of arrogance versus hatred of hypocrisy. I wonder how many of us fit into one camp or the other?

Arrogance dosn't bother me particularly. At worst I find it irritating, often amusing and occasionally even admirable. At least its honest. Hypocrisy, on the other hand makes my skin crawl.

I don't know if I'd consider it a dichotomy. rather that arrogance is the primary precursor to hypocrisy. The arrogant assumption that the rules someone sets for others doesn't apply to themself.

 

[The Atheist]

Seconded

Right, that's it! I'm voting ACT next election - fend for yourselves ya bastids!

Seems to me sleeping really is a bad thing - I fall asleep for a measly few hours and agnosticism rears its ugly head into the debate.

Agnosticism is fence sitting - I used to call myself agnostic with the view that people could believe what they wanted to believe and that while I didn't really believe in any god that any religion portrayed, I could still see the sense in some kind of supernatural type being. However once I got more into what science could really achieve and exactly what it meant to allow for a deity of some description, I quickly dropped the half-hearted approach of agnosticism and adopted atheism. It is okay to say you don't know (science is all about this) but I often think agnostics call themselves agnostic to avoid offending people - you can weasel yourself out of an awkward conversation with your catholic girlfriends parents as an agnostic but not as an atheist! I suspect most agnostics are really atheists who don't quite have the conviction to state it openly. The problem with agnosticism is that it all seems such a reasonable approach but it's really a bit of a cop-out.

Now to really shake things up - do you need faith to be agnostic?

You really are a ####-stirrer aren't you?

I'm with you entirely on the cop-out and fence-sitting.

I guess you could argue agnostics have to have faith that god/s is/are actually unknowable, because that is an odd opinion. The gods we've had rise and fall to date have all been pretty avaricious, jealous and demanding types who not only want their views to be known, but have carved them in stone. Agnostics hold a completely contrary view to that. This is getting dangerously close to going back to where we were when we tried to define "faith". Do you have faith that the sun's going to rise tomorrow?

 

[CapelDodger]

That is a fair question.
where CapelDodger mentioned his hatred for hypocrisy, I have a near undying hatred for arrogance.

We're never going to get along terribly well. But hey, there it is. Arrogance does not preclude civility. Icy politeness is better than none at all. Time was whipper-snapper students had to endure a lot more arrogance from chaps my age than they do today.

 

[RandFan]

Arrogance does not preclude civility.

Agreed.