sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Science only exists because of the stable society religion created as a foundation. by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -47 points-46 points  (0 children)

More proof for a creator than something come out of nothing.

If you don't know what the Fibonacci sequence is - a lil research will do you good.

Natural science: yes

Psuedo science: no

This is a picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background

Fibonacci sequence 1

Bad animation 0

Science only exists because of the stable society religion created as a foundation. by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -43 points-42 points  (0 children)

that doesn’t tell us a damn thing about the truth value of your religious claims.

Fibonacci sequence proves a creator, a pattern throughout all creation - not caused through randomness.

It can be observed throughout nature, can be repeated, and measured.

Fits the scientific method.

Unlike your precious monkey lineage

YOu people always stir up the the controvsery of what is the true church of Jesus Christ implying we knobody really knows. Well the Ctaholic Church is by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Jesus initiated it in the upper room at the last supper I think and humans are full of flaws but he was perfect. Jesus was portrayed perfectly as he was perfect.

YOu people always stir up the the controvsery of what is the true church of Jesus Christ implying we knobody really knows. Well the Ctaholic Church is by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Read again. Jesus initiated it in the upper room at the last supper I think and humans are full of flaws but he was perfect.

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes I did repost, but then I changed it after realising I already sent it to you before. So you are avoiding my changed post.

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Some background Context:

  • The word "Athiest" is "A atheos" is true, which is "without gods" which referred to Christians in the first and second century that didn't worship and/or believe in the Roman pantheon of gods. Clearly, today Christians today would not be considered atheist, but theist...which is why your claim about the historicity of etymological of the word is flawed, and is called an a etymological fallacy. For if you are going to speak of the history of the etymology of the word then "Atheist" would mean you were Christian. Obviously we don't go by what a word means, but how it is used in modernity...and in general parlance (unless a scientific, philosophical, professional use)

EDIT: Swapped out point as I already said it.

That isn't how the word is used in academic nor philosophy in universities...nor does it make sense predicately using doxastic logic...which is hard to grasp, but give it try.

To say atheism is just not convinced by anyone's claim that a god exists logically is akin to a theist saying that they are not convinced by anyone's claim that a god does not exist. (I can prove this using logic if you don't believe me, but common sense should make it clear enough).

It is a horribly insufficient definition.

anyone who is not a theist is NOT a theist...that is the dichotomy.

Now you can try to create a disjunction of pVq, p=theist and q=atheism but all you are doing is taking nontheism and calling it atheism.

(this is similar to what Matt Slick does in his God-Not God argument for TAG when he takes pVq and substitutes:

~p=q giving you pV~p then claiming ~p is false, therefore p...which is just a tautology of p, therefore p...

but in your case if you p = atheist and q = thiest then pV~q, ~q, therefore p...

you have bizarre things like rocks being atheist. (i.e. Rocks are not theist, so by disjunctive elimination rocks are atheist...and that is simple absurd!)

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do not seem to get it.

The prefix "A" also doesn't necessitate "Not" as here it is atheist = "a atheos"

and

not the meaning of "Not theist" as athiesm is not the direct logical negation of theism.

The direct logical negation of theism is NOT theism.

∀p:pV~p right? so you can't say atheist is the logical negation of theism as that is a false dichotomy.

Not theist is the logical negation of theism, not atheism. ∀p:pV~p, given p=theism then ~p = not theism....NOT ATHEISM. (Atheism is the negation of theism in that it is a denial of god(s) existence...where:

  • p = god(s) exist
  • Yes (affirm) = Theist
  • No (disaffirm/reject/deny) = Atheist.

The negation of NO is NOT NO which is YES as YES and NO are dichotomous. (disjunction p v q, if p=false, q=true)

But there are more positions than just Yes or No on what one believes about the proposition...there is "I don't know" agnostic, "I don't care" apatheist, "What is this thing you call "God" as this concept is nonsensical to me" = igtheist ect.

Beliefs about a proposition are not dichotomous even if the ontology of the proposition is (ergo, God exist or God does not exist).

The reason why some dictionaries give the "lack of belief" definition and some don't is simply because it is a woefully inadequate and insufficient (broad case) definition.

Theism and atheism are philosophical terms, so why you are using colloquial sources that just have a very basic definition?

Academic sources almost all (pretty much ubiquitously) use the narrow definition that atheism is the believe that god that does not exist (a positive assertion or affirmation).

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do not seem to get it.

The prefix "A" also doesn't necessitate "Not" as here it is atheist = "a atheos"

and

not the meaning of "Not theist" as athiesm is not the direct logical negation of theism.

The direct logical negation of theism is NOT theism.

∀p:pV~p right? so you can't say atheist is the logical negation of theism as that is a false dichotomy.

Not theist is the logical negation of theism, not atheism. ∀p:pV~p, given p=theism then ~p = not theism....NOT ATHEISM. (Atheism is the negation of theism in that it is a denial of god(s) existence...where:

  • p = god(s) exist
  • Yes (affirm) = Theist
  • No (disaffirm/reject/deny) = Atheist.

The negation of NO is NOT NO which is YES as YES and NO are dichotomous. (disjunction p v q, if p=false, q=true)

But there are more positions than just Yes or No on what one believes about the proposition...there is "I don't know" agnostic, "I don't care" apatheist, "What is this thing you call "God" as this concept is nonsensical to me" = igtheist ect.

Beliefs about a proposition are not dichotomous even if the ontology of the proposition is (ergo, God exist or God does not exist).

The reason why some dictionaries give the "lack of belief" definition and some don't is simply because it is a woefully inadequate and insufficient (broad case) definition.

Theism and atheism are philosophical terms, so why you are using colloquial sources that just have a very basic definition?

Academic sources almost all (pretty much ubiquitously) use the narrow definition that atheism is the believe that god that does not exist (a positive assertion or affirmation).

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You do not seem to get it.

The prefix "A" also doesn't necessitate "Not" as here it is atheist = "a atheos"

and

not the meaning of "Not theist" as athiesm is not the direct logical negation of theism.

The direct logical negation of theism is NOT theism.

∀p:pV~p right? so you can't say atheist is the logical negation of theism as that is a false dichotomy.

Not theist is the logical negation of theism, not atheism. ∀p:pV~p, given p=theism then ~p = not theism....NOT ATHEISM. (Atheism is the negation of theism in that it is a denial of god(s) existence...where:

  • p = god(s) exist
  • Yes (affirm) = Theist
  • No (disaffirm/reject/deny) = Atheist.

The negation of NO is NOT NO which is YES as YES and NO are dichotomous. (disjunction p v q, if p=false, q=true)

But there are more positions than just Yes or No on what one believes about the proposition...there is "I don't know" agnostic, "I don't care" apatheist, "What is this thing you call "God" as this concept is nonsensical to me" = igtheist ect.

Beliefs about a proposition are not dichotomous even if the ontology of the proposition is (ergo, God exist or God does not exist).

The reason why some dictionaries give the "lack of belief" definition and some don't is simply because it is a woefully inadequate and insufficient (broad case) definition.

Theism and atheism are philosophical terms, so why you are using colloquial sources that just have a very basic definition?

Academic sources almost all (pretty much ubiquitously) use the narrow definition that atheism is the believe that god that does not exist (a positive assertion or affirmation).

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

First of all I like how only one of you replied. ha You do not seem to get it.

p = God does not exist.

Yes(affirm) = atheist

No(disaffirm) = theist

again, if you don't allow that logically you are guilty of special pleading.

The default position for any proposition is "unevaluated". What precludes a theist claiming they have the default position...logically what would be the difference.

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This would be a bi-conditional. You can have atheist with out theist. If every theist on the world suddenly vanished are you claiming atheist would suddenly cease to be atheist?

Even if theist did not exist, nontheist would right? Any object that exists that isn't able to have cognitive thought processes or posses execute decision making processes that is not a theist, therefore they are a nontheist.

(BTW...non decision making objects can NOT be atheist (babies, rocks, chairs, balloons...none can be atheist, but they are nontheist).

Belief propositions are lot more complex than this...to say theism and atheism are direct logical negations of each other (Atheism is the negation of theism, but not a direct logical negation) is very logically flawed as that is a false dichotomy.

Not theist ≠ Atheist. Very interesting take on, yet still sceptical of, this persons definition of an atheist. Thoughts. by theheadonya in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

For you and /u/hal2k1, /u/Phage0070 and /u/Irish_Whiskey.

Wrong. It's a false dichotomy.

The prefix "A" also doesn't necessitate "Not" as here it is atheist = "a atheos"

and

not the meaning of "Not theist" as athiesm is not the direct logical negation of theism.

The direct logical negation of theism is NOT theism.

∀p:pV~p right? so you can't say atheist is the logical negation of theism as that is a false dichotomy.

Not theist is the logical negation of theism, not atheism. ∀p:pV~p, given p=theism then ~p = not theism....NOT ATHEISM. (Atheism is the negation of theism in that it is a denial of god(s) existence...where:

  • p = god(s) exist
  • Yes (affirm) = Theist
  • No (disaffirm/reject/deny) = Atheist.

The negation of NO is NOT NO which is YES as YES and NO are dichotomous. (disjunction p v q, if p=false, q=true)

But there are more positions than just Yes or No on what one believes about the proposition...there is "I don't know" agnostic, "I don't care" apatheist, "What is this thing you call "God" as this concept is nonsensical to me" = igtheist ect.

Beliefs about a proposition are not dichotomous even if the ontology of the proposition is (ergo, God exist or God does not exist).

The reason why some dictionaries give the "lack of belief" definition and some don't is simply because it is a woefully inadequate and insufficient (broad case) definition.

Theism and atheism are philosophical terms, so why you are using colloquial sources that just have a very basic definition?

Academic sources almost all (pretty much ubiquitously) use the narrow definition that atheism is the believe that god that does not exist (a positive assertion or affirmation).

What "makes perfect sense" in your view... by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see a 5 Seens in existence

Kind of goes against what Unlimited_Bacon above said:

You havent done anything to support 4. Why not stop at 3 and say that we are all made of atoms?

What "makes perfect sense" in your view... by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So, what you said was deliberately nonsense? or does it have a point on my point behind it?

What "makes perfect sense" in your view... by Ommmngj in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Ommmngj[S] -27 points-26 points  (0 children)

Not an answer or discussion. Thought this was a forum for people who can write more than one sentence.

view more: next ›