Atheism is not a default position

[`mud]

"I find it very difficult explaining the obvious"
Where in the hell have I heard that !
~
'mud

 

[Shad]

Sorry, mate. I have tried to communicate as best I can. I keep saying that all definitions are flawed, none are logically consistent in all contexts.

Some are consistent. Also you must show how all are not logical. Go for it, I will wait. Until you do so I dismiss this assertion as being an assertion.

There is absolutely no point whatsoever in attacking a usage.

Yes there is since the usage is the only factor in the argument

I don't know how else to explain this to you - but you ignore it, so there is not really anything I can say.
Attacking a definition acheives nothing, it does not address the argument, it does not refute the position being described - all it does is prevent the other person from finishing their sentence. I'm sorry that I could not explain this to you better.

The argument is based on a definition, defeat the definition and the argument fails as well since it is unsound.

 

[Bunyip]

Some are consistent. Also you must show how all are not logical. Go for it, I will wait. Until you do so I dismiss this assertion as being an assertion.



Yes there is since the usage is the only factor in the argument

The definition is not the argument. I can't be bothered repeating that again.
The argument is not based on a definition, defeating the definition of atheism whoever you are talking to applied stops you from ever even getting to the argument, let alone defeats it.

There is no point attacking a usage, I am clearly unable to communicate that simple point to you. Let's just stop going around in this silly circle where you just ignore everything I say anyway.

Why do you keep posting to me, only to ignore every word I say anyway? What is the point?

 

[Shad]

The definition is not the argument. I can't be bothered repeating that again.

The definition is the only inference the argument has, defeat the definition and the inference disappears.

The argument is not based on a definition, defeating the definition of atheism whoever you are talking to applied stops you from ever even getting to the argument, let alone defeats it.

Yet you have used context, which is used in definition, to argue just such a case. The argument is therefore based on a defination as inference between an opening premise and conclusion. Defeat the premise which uses the definition the argument becomes invalid and unsound

There is no point attacking a usage, I am clearly unable to communicate that simple point to you. Let's just stop going around in this silly circle where you just ignore everything I say anyway.

No you want me to stop attacking a usage since it is the core of your argument. Special pleading, nothing more.

Why do you keep posting to me, only to ignore every word I say anyway? What is the point?

I reject what you say, I do not ignore it. There is a difference, maybe you will figure this out one day.

 

[Bunyip]

The definition is the only inference the argument has, defeat the definition and the inference disappears.

The definition is not even an argument.

Yet you have used context, which is used in definition, to argue just such a case. The argument is therefore based on a defination as inference between an opening premise and conclusion. Defeat the premise which uses the definition the argument becomes invalid and unsound

No, the definition os not the argument.

No you want me to stop attacking a usage since it is the core of your argument. Special pleading, nothing more.

It forms no part of my argument whatsoever, and never did. You are barking up m the wrong tree.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Not at all, if you understand/realise/experience the difference between "I am this" and "I am".

By all means ... explain the difference. Please.

 

[Shad]

The definition is not even an argument. No, the definition os not the argument.

The definition is a core part of the reason leading to the conclusion babies are atheist. In fact it is the only inference. Go read your own comment again since you probably forgot in your flip/flopping between claims.

It forms no part of my argument whatsoever, and never did. You are barking up m the wrong tree.

Pure nonsense. You have accepted your own sophistry, nothing I can do about that. You change definition when it suits your argument, nothing more

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/i-see-no-value-in-atheism.176319/page-2#post-4262673
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/i-see-no-value-in-atheism.176319/page-2#post-4262671
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-default-position.178008/page-61#post-4376719

 

[Bunyip]

Shad

That is all nonsense Shad, Definitions are not arguments. I don't care to continue this exchange.

 

[Shad]

Shad

That is all nonsense Shad, Definitions are not arguments. I don't care to continue this exchange.

I told you a number of times that the definition you use are used as premises which are used as inference between a position and state of a subject has. It is not my problem that you have issues in reading and argument comprehension. Nor is it my issue you contradict yourself when it suits your argument.

 

[Bunyip]

I told you a number of times that the definition you use are used as premises which are used as inference between a position and state of a subject has. It is not my problem that you have issues in reading and argument comprehension. Nor is it my issue you contradict yourself when it suits your argument.

Yes and the fact that I did not use it as a premis keeps escaping you apparently, as does the fact that disproving a definition is pointless.

 

[Shad]

Yes and the fact that I did not use them as premises keeps escaping you apparently,

Statements contain premises whether you are aware of this or not. Again not my problem you lack reading and argumentation comprehension.

"Babies are capable of not having a belief. P1 Atheism is the position of not having a belief in theism. P2 It is not a rejection as such that must be considered, it is simply the absence of a theistic belief. P2a Something I assume is true of babies." C

There was quick lesson in statements, premises and conclusions in argumentation. If you need further lesson apply to a university for logic and philosophy classes

 

[Thief]

I predict this thread will run over the 3,000 marker.

all the while.....atheism is NOT the default position.

 

[Willamena]

You can't 'defeat' a usage. All definitions are only useful in the right context. The usages are not flawed just because they are meaningless in a different context. The same goes for all definitions of atheism.

Actually, that would be a flaw. Fortunately, being posed in a different context doesn't make any words meaningless. It will almost certainly lose sense, but without meaning it can't lose sense.

 

[`mud]

That coin toss landed on it's edge !
~
'mud

 

[atanu]

By all means ... explain the difference. Please.

Do you think that it can be done by intellectual means? As much as one tries to define and know "I am", the "I am" gets encapsulated in some body form or some thought form. This is called conditioned "I".

"I am", contrary to "I am this", is devoid of any bodily or mental boundary.

 

[Ouroboros]

That coin toss landed on it's edge !
~
'mud

hang on. Are you saying that the toss (verb) itself landed on its own edge? Or are you saying the coin landed on its edge after the toss? Which side of the edge? Huh? You know, I think I'm going to declare myself as an atossist. I don't believe in coins being tossed.

 

[`mud]

hey Ouro,
I meant that it handed on 'it's edges' one of the three and a half,
but I was inclining towards the narrowest one,
minus the obviously disguised double crown.
Everyone knows that, don't they ?
"On it's true honest written words from the mighty creator on parchment in the library of such entities."
"it's edge"
So be it forever.
NuffStuff
'mud

 

[Ouroboros]

hey Ouro,
I meant that it handed on 'it's edges' one of the three and a half,
but I was inclining towards the narrowest one,
minus the obviously disguised double crown.
Everyone knows that, don't they ?
"On it's true honest written words from the mighty creator on parchment in the library of such entities."
"it's edge"
So be it forever.
NuffStuff
'mud

A more impressive stunt would be to land the coin on the inside.

 

[McBell]

I predict this thread will run over the 3,000 marker.

all the while.....atheism is NOT the default position.

Again I ask:
What is the default position?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Do you think that it can be done by intellectual means?

Based on how things have been going here, I'm not convinced that you're going to be the one to accomplish it ... but I'm not prepared to rule it out universally.

As much as one tries to define and know "I am", the "I am" gets encapsulated in some body form or some thought form. This is called conditioned "I".

Great. Now ...

Q. - Could you please explain what an "unconditioned I" is?

"I am", contrary to "I am this", is devoid of any bodily or mental boundary.

Try uttering words without a mouth and a brain or to conceive of an identity (or even an idea) without a brain. If you're going to assert that it's possible for things like that to happen, then you're invited to conjure up some evidence. Until you can do that, you might as well be talking about invisible, telekinetic peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. They're as equally plausible as the murky incoherence you're spooning up now.

And I mean that in the sunniest, rainbows-n-lollipops fashion imaginable.