Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Moscow Metro hit by deadly suicide bombings!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Moscow Metro hit by deadly suicide bombings!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject:

So does anyone want to join my Church of Atheism? We'll meet once a week in a nice building, maybe have wine or coffee, and not talk about God. And maybe, just maybe, we'll even talk about the Moscow metro bombing. Donations will be strictly at your discretion. No tithing required.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

So does anyone want to join my Church of Atheism? We'll meet once a week in a nice building, maybe have wine or coffee, and not talk about God.

And maybe, just maybe, we'll even talk about the Moscow metro bombing.

Donations will be strictly at your discretion. No tithing required.

Can I join it, then dispute the complexities of our doctrine -- which is, evidently, "God probably doesn't exist." -- break off, and make a Reform Church of Atheism? I'm sure we can find something to disagree upon in the boundless spiritual depths of our belief system.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

bacasper wrote:

If you must say "probably," then you belong in the Church of Agnosticism, or "I'm not sure." Atheists, OTOH, are sure there is no God.

So you got it backwards, Fox. Atheists are sure, agnostics unsure. And when you begin to challenge the dictionary, you are really on shaky ground. While some dictionaries occasionally disagree, you and I at least must agree on which one to go by or risk misunderstanding. Heck, we won't even be able to properly play Scrabble Exclamation

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

Atheism is a form of theism, just as a negative number is still a number.

Also, the absence of a cat is a cat

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:43 pm Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

If you must say "probably," then you belong in the Church of Agnosticism, or "I'm not sure." Atheists, OTOH, are sure there is no God.

Yes, but this is wrong. A simple analysis of the words in question reveal that. Anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist, and an actual belief in the divine is required to be a theist. Agnosticism simply further categorizes either group. Hell, agnosticism isn't even a religion-specific term in its purest meaning; you can be agnostic about many things other than religion.

Do you believe in the divine? If so, you're a theist. If you lack belief, you're an atheist. Even if you're uncertain about some things -- and thus are also agnostic -- you still either believe, or you don't. Belief is binary. The dictionary definition doesn't take nuances like this into account, because it is focused on thoughtless common usage, not accurate philosophic description.

bacasper wrote:

And when you begin to challenge the dictionary, you are really on shaky ground.

Anyone with a college education should know the limitations of common dictionaries when it comes to complex, intellectual terms meant to be descriptive of philosophic categories. That should include everyone here.

If you want the meaning of a simple but obscure term like "effulgent" then a common dictionary is your friend. If you want the meaning of something like "atheist" on the other hand, the dictionary is an impediment that must be replaced by actual critical thinking.

bacasper wrote:

Heck, we won't even be able to properly play Scrabble Exclamation

I was under the impression that with regards to scrabble, all that mattered was a word's presence in the dictionary, not its meaning? Admittedly I haven't played it in a long time.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:54 am Post subject:

FYI guys, there are in fact atheist "churches", although I think they are more discussion groups than anything else. I kid you not. Some are putting up billboards and ads these days. And Fox, if you're going to reject the dictionary definition of it, there really is no point in debating the issue with you frankly.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I was under the impression that with regards to scrabble, all that mattered was a word's presence in the dictionary, not its meaning? Admittedly I haven't played it in a long time.

The definitions don't matter, but players must agree in a dictionary to use for challenges. That is why there is even a Scrabble dictionary (although players can agree to use any other one).

For you and I, or you and Bucheon Bum, to effectively communicate, we need to know what the other means by his words, i.e. agree on a dictionary, or the meanings of words.

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:57 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

.38 Special wrote:

Atheism is a form of theism, just as a negative number is still a number.

Also, the absence of a cat is a cat

From Ionesco's Rhinoceros wrote:

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Here is an example of a syllogism. The cat has four paws. Isidore and Fricot both have four paws. Therefore Isidore and Fricot are cats.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: My dog has got four paws.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Then it's a cat.

BERENGER [to Jean]: I've barely got the strength to go on living. Maybe I don't even want to.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician, after deep reflection]: So then logically speaking, my dog must be a cat?

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Logically, yes. But the contrary is also true.

BERENGER [to Jean]: Solitude seems to oppress me. And so does the company of other people.

JEAN [to Berenger]: You contradict yourself What oppresses you - solitude, or the company of others? You consider yourself a thinker, yet you're devoid of logic.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: Logic is a very beautiful thing.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: As long as it is not abused.

BERENGER [to Jean]: Life is an abnormal business.

JEAN: On the contrary. Nothing could be more natural, and the proof is that people go On living.

BERENGER: There are more dead people than living. And their numbers are increasing. The living are getting rarer.

JEAN: The dead don't exist, there's no getting away from that! Ah! Ah
...! [He gives a huge laugh.] Yet you're oppressed by them, too? How can you be oppressed by something that doesn't exist?

BERENGER: I sometimes wonder if I exist myself

JEAN: You don't exist, my dear Berenger, because you don't think. Start thinking, then you will.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Another syllogism. All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.

OLD GENTLEMAN: And he's got four paws. That's true. I've got a cat named Socrates.

LOGICIAN: There you are, you see

JEAN [to Berenger]: Fundamentally you're just a bluffer. And a liar. You say that life doesn't interest you. And yet there's somebody who does.

BERENGER: Who?

JEAN: Your little friend from the office who just went past. You're very fond of her!

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: So Socrates was a cat, was he?

LOGICIAN: Logic has just revealed the fact to us.

The absence of the signified is not the absence of the symbol. The absence of the symbol, however, is the absence of the signified.

Voltaire wrote:

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

A primer on Certainty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

I'll let you folks draw your own conclusions regarding atheism and the problem of certainty.

Buncheon Bum and Fox: Relax Cool

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:16 am Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Here is an example of a syllogism.
The cat has four paws. Isidore and Fricot both have four paws.
Therefore Isidore and Fricot are cats.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: My dog has got four paws.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Then it's a cat.

BERENGER [to Jean]: I've barely got the strength to go on living.
Maybe I don't even want to.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician, after deep reflection]: So then
logically speaking, my dog must be a cat?

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Logically, yes. But the contrary is also true.

BERENGER [to Jean]: Solitude seems to oppress me. And so does the
company of other people.

JEAN [to Berenger]: You contradict yourself What oppresses you -
solitude, or the company of others? You consider yourself a thinker,
yet you're devoid of logic.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: Logic is a very beautiful thing.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: As long as it is not abused.

BERENGER [to Jean]: Life is an abnormal business.

JEAN: On the contrary. Nothing could be more natural, and the proof is
that people go On living.

BERENGER: There are more dead people than living. And their numbers
are increasing. The living are getting rarer.

JEAN: The dead don't exist, there's no getting away from that! Ah! Ah
...! [He gives a huge laugh.] Yet you're oppressed by them, too? How
can you be oppressed by something that doesn't exist?

BERENGER: I sometimes wonder if I exist myself

JEAN: You don't exist, my dear Berenger, because you don't think.
Start thinking, then you will.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Another syllogism. All cats die.
Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.

OLD GENTLEMAN: And he's got four paws. That's true. I've got a cat
named Socrates.

LOGICIAN: There you are, you see

JEAN [to Berenger]: Fundamentally you're just a bluffer. And a liar.
You say that life doesn't interest you. And yet there's somebody who
does.

BERENGER: Who?

JEAN: Your little friend from the office who just went past. You're
very fond of her!

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: So Socrates was a cat, was he?

LOGICIAN: Logic has just revealed the fact to us.

Very Happy

And this has what relevance to our discussion on atheism? How does this challenge my sarcastic assertion that "the absence of a cat is a cat"?

38 Special wrote:

The absence of the signified is not the absence of
the symbol.

The absence of theism is not the term denoting the absence of theism? Is this what you're trying to say? The absence of theism is the absence of belief in God

38 Special wrote:

The absence of the symbol, however, is the absence of the signified.

The absense of the term 'atheism' is the absence of theism?
So, presumably, silence, no term at all, is the absence of theism?

Have you any idea how ridiculous this sounds? Obviously not

Let's return to clarity of thought:

Premise 1: Theism is the position that "God exists" is true
Premise 2: Atheism is the position that "God exists" is false
Premise 3: For 'atheism is a form of theism' to be true, atheism would have to be a form of believing that "God exists" is true
Premise 4: Premise 3 is false a priori
Conclusion: Atheism is not a form of theism.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:54 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

FYI guys, there are in fact atheist "churches", although I think they are more discussion groups than anything else.

So? As this thread has demonstrated, many people are genuinely ignorant about atheism. It's hardly surprising that, in some cases, they might act on their ignorance.

Of course, they could be being ironic as well.

bucheon bum wrote:

And Fox, if you're going to reject the dictionary definition of it, there really is no point in debating the issue with you frankly.

Likewise, I'm afraid there's little point in having philosophic discussions with someone who thinks (or insists on claiming, for whatever reason) that common-usage dictionaries are reliable sources of the real meanings of terms of this nature.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:10 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

For you and I, or you and Bucheon Bum, to effectively communicate, we need to know what the other means by his words, i.e. agree on a dictionary, or the meanings of words.

Well, we needn't necessarily agree; simply understanding what the other people involved in a conversation mean when they say a given word is sufficient, even if we feel it shouldn't be used that way.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:58 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

And Fox, if you're going to reject the dictionary definition of it, there really is no point in debating the issue with you frankly.

Ok Fox, where does one derive the real meanings of terms of this nature? Do tell. Where else can I find someone (educated) who uses atheism in the same context as you? I am skeptical that many professors of religion would agree with you.

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:23 am Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

.38 Special wrote:

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Here is an example of a syllogism.
The cat has four paws. Isidore and Fricot both have four paws.
Therefore Isidore and Fricot are cats.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: My dog has got four paws.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Then it's a cat.

BERENGER [to Jean]: I've barely got the strength to go on living.
Maybe I don't even want to.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician, after deep reflection]: So then
logically speaking, my dog must be a cat?

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Logically, yes. But the contrary is also true.

BERENGER [to Jean]: Solitude seems to oppress me. And so does the
company of other people.

JEAN [to Berenger]: You contradict yourself What oppresses you -
solitude, or the company of others? You consider yourself a thinker,
yet you're devoid of logic.

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: Logic is a very beautiful thing.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: As long as it is not abused.

BERENGER [to Jean]: Life is an abnormal business.

JEAN: On the contrary. Nothing could be more natural, and the proof is
that people go On living.

BERENGER: There are more dead people than living. And their numbers
are increasing. The living are getting rarer.

JEAN: The dead don't exist, there's no getting away from that! Ah! Ah
...! [He gives a huge laugh.] Yet you're oppressed by them, too? How
can you be oppressed by something that doesn't exist?

BERENGER: I sometimes wonder if I exist myself

JEAN: You don't exist, my dear Berenger, because you don't think.
Start thinking, then you will.

LOGICIAN [to the Old Gentleman]: Another syllogism. All cats die.
Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat.

OLD GENTLEMAN: And he's got four paws. That's true. I've got a cat
named Socrates.

LOGICIAN: There you are, you see

JEAN [to Berenger]: Fundamentally you're just a bluffer. And a liar.
You say that life doesn't interest you. And yet there's somebody who
does.

BERENGER: Who?

JEAN: Your little friend from the office who just went past. You're
very fond of her!

OLD GENTLEMAN [to the Logician]: So Socrates was a cat, was he?

LOGICIAN: Logic has just revealed the fact to us.

Very Happy

And this has what relevance to our discussion on atheism? How does this challenge my sarcastic assertion that "the absence of a cat is a cat"?

38 Special wrote:

The absence of the signified is not the absence of
the symbol.

The absence of theism is not the term denoting the absence of theism? Is this what you're trying to say? The absence of theism is the absence of belief in God

38 Special wrote:

The absence of the symbol, however, is the absence of the signified.

Give me one single bit of proof that God does not exist.
Show me some conclusive evidence.
Until then, your faith in the absence of God is a deification of your certainty. You make a temple of your mind and worship your "logic" as the key to knowing the unknowable.

And to answer your question, the absence of God does not mean the absence of the God-image, meanwhile the absence of the God-image results in an absence of God.

The Ionesco excerpt is a humorous illustration of applied reason. You can reason nothing just as easily as anything as they are equal.

Don't get me wrong, S.S., I'm not trying to convert you. You could worship the sun, moon, and clouds for all I am concerned.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:59 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Ok Fox, where does one derive the real meanings of terms of this nature? Do tell.

Critical thinking.

bucheon bum wrote:

Where else can I find someone (educated) who uses atheism in the same context as you?

Well, first of all, Sergio, mises, and Street Magic are all educated individuals who are in this thread agreeing atheism is not a religion. Given they don't seem to count for some reason (not sure why you'd choose to say we're not educated, but whatever), I'll add that the professors of the Philosophy department of U.W. Madison, the college I attended, would be unlikely to endorse this, "Atheism is a religion," idea. If you want to contact them and start a conversation about it, go ahead. There are also educated writers who have, in their discussion about what religion is or isn't, have disqualified atheism as a possibility. For example, Emile Durkheim's definition of religion as a system marking the distinction between the sacred and the profane clearly disqualifies atheism, which has nothing to do with such concerns.

bucheon bum wrote:

I am skeptical that many professors of religion would agree with you.

Like I said, anyone who seriously considers a common-usage dictionary definition of words like this to even be worth bringing up in a discussion of this nature just isn't worth talking to about it. Given you claimed to be of the same mind with regards to me after I rejected your dictionary definitions, I've no idea why you persist.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject:

Here's a nice brief, simplified summary of why atheism isn't a religion.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe