Are Dogs Atheist?

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#421  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:00 pm

hackenslash wrote:Yes, because asking navel-gazers will get to the nub of it.


Indeed, why ask philosophers about a philosophy question? I've never heard anything so ridiculous.

hackenslash wrote:You might try actually dealing with the post in question. If you have to go check with somebody else, you really aren't up to the challenge.


You've been extremely antagonistic to anything I say at all from the get-go, to the point that I think you have an axe to grind, so I'm trying something a little bit different.

hackenslash wrote:Edit: You could even check an English corpus to find out what a privative is, and how one is denoted using standard prefixes and suffixes.


I did find the following:

"a privative attribute, quality, or proposition"

I might check a thesaurus (no this is not what corpora are for) and see what possible synonyms for "attribute" or "quality" are out there. :think:
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#422  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:07 pm

But while we're on the subject of "navel-gazers" it doesn't look like any of the criteria for something being a property here exclude "atheism":

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/

E.g.:

We have talked above in a way that might give the impression that predication is an activity that we perform, e.g., when we say or think that a certain apple is red. Although some philosophers might think of it in this way, predication is typically viewed as a special link that connects a property to a thing in a way that gives rise to a proposition, understood as a complex featuring the property and the thing as constituents with different roles: the latter occurs as logical subject or argument, as is often said, and the former as attributed to such an argument. A proposition is also typically viewed as a mind-independent entity that exists whether we think of it or not and that may be true or false. If true (the predication is veridical), the argument instantiates (exemplifies) the property and is called an instance of that property. For example, if there is a red apple, the proposition in which the apple occurs as logical subject and the property red as attributed to it is veridical; the apple thus exemplifies this property and is an instance of it. It is often assumed nowadays that, when an object exemplifies a property, there is a further (complex) entity, a state of affairs, having the property (or perhaps some counterpart of it in the natural world; see §5.4) and the object as constituents (Armstrong 1997); states of affairs are typically taken to fulfill the theoretical roles of truthmakers (the entities that make true propositions true) and causal relata (the entities connected by causal relations). Not all philosophers, however, distinguish between propositions and states of affairs; Russell (1903) acknowledges only propositions and, for a recent example, so does Gaskin (2008).


Well atheism certainly meets the predication criterion for something a property.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#423  Postby hackenslash » Sep 18, 2015 11:09 pm

Sadegh wrote:Indeed, why ask philosophers about a philosophy question?


I've seen philosophy stack exchange. Teuton would love it. More ISBN numbers than you can shake a stick at. Philosophy, not so much. It serves as nothing more than a vindication of Whitehead's summary of Western philosophy. Knowing what other people have thought isn't philosophy, it's being a librarian.

Anyhoo, while it's broadly a philosophy question, more narrowly it's a semantic question. Again, all dealt with in that post. Did you even bother to read it beyond scanning for something you thought an easy knock-down?

I've never heard anything so ridiculous.


That's probably because you don't hear what you type. I've highlighted several things you've said that were considerably more ridiculous than this.

You've been extremely antagonistic to anything I say at all from the get-go, to the point that I think you have an axe to grind, so I'm trying something a little bit different.


I'm only antagonistic toward bollocks. When you say something that isn't bollocks, or that I agree with, I'll say so. I have no problem voicing my agreement even with those with whom I generally disagree. Ask around about me.

I did find the following:

"a privative attribute, quality, or proposition"

I might check a thesaurus (no this is not what corpora are for) and see what possible synonyms for "attribute" or "quality" are out there. :think:


Don't know where you found this, but a privative is simply a word denoting the absence of something. MW again:

constituting or predicating privation or absence of a quality
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#424  Postby scott1328 » Sep 18, 2015 11:10 pm

Sadegh wrote:But while we're on the subject of "navel-gazers" it doesn't look like any of the criteria for something being a property here exclude "atheism":

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/

E.g.:

We have talked above in a way that might give the impression that predication is an activity that we perform, e.g., when we say or think that a certain apple is red. Although some philosophers might think of it in this way, predication is typically viewed as a special link that connects a property to a thing in a way that gives rise to a proposition, understood as a complex featuring the property and the thing as constituents with different roles: the latter occurs as logical subject or argument, as is often said, and the former as attributed to such an argument. A proposition is also typically viewed as a mind-independent entity that exists whether we think of it or not and that may be true or false. If true (the predication is veridical), the argument instantiates (exemplifies) the property and is called an instance of that property. For example, if there is a red apple, the proposition in which the apple occurs as logical subject and the property red as attributed to it is veridical; the apple thus exemplifies this property and is an instance of it. It is often assumed nowadays that, when an object exemplifies a property, there is a further (complex) entity, a state of affairs, having the property (or perhaps some counterpart of it in the natural world; see §5.4) and the object as constituents (Armstrong 1997); states of affairs are typically taken to fulfill the theoretical roles of truthmakers (the entities that make true propositions true) and causal relata (the entities connected by causal relations). Not all philosophers, however, distinguish between propositions and states of affairs; Russell (1903) acknowledges only propositions and, for a recent example, so does Gaskin (2008).


Well atheism certainly meets the predication criterion for something a property.

a predicate is not a property
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8717
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#425  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:10 pm

hackenslash wrote:Feel free to go and check with your mates


The point in fact is that they're not my mates at all; indeed I've never posted on this particular Stack Exchange before and can only expect total neutrality, which I can't from someone who came here with an axe to grind against me harboring delusions about how I'm someone named "Mick".

The point really is to show that there is a world beyond that of the opinionated bozos who tend to clutter up "skeptical" forums.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#426  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:12 pm

scott1328 wrote:a predicate is not a property


You're right, a predicate isn't a property. It's what relates a subject and a property, e.g. "Bertrand Russell was an atheist" (had the property of being an atheist).
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#427  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:13 pm

hackenslash wrote:I've seen philosophy stack exchange. Teuton would love it. More ISBN numbers than you can shake a stick at.


Yes that's all I've seen as well. :lol:
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#428  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:14 pm

hackenslash wrote:Anyhoo, while it's broadly a philosophy question, more narrowly it's a semantic question. Again, all dealt with in that post. Did you even bother to read it beyond scanning for something you thought an easy knock-down?


Yeah, read the whole thing. Still don't think babies are atheists.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#429  Postby hackenslash » Sep 18, 2015 11:15 pm

Well, apart form the fact that you only went and quoted Stanford in true Mick fashion (not a well-regarded source among real thinkers, not least because it gets so much wrong), I'm not seeing in there where it lists 'not a theist' as a predicate or a property. I think you're trying too hard not to be wrong when you simply are.

Deal with the fucking post. If you are half the logician you think you are, it should be trivial for you to point out the flaws without citing such idiotic cock as the Stanford dictionary-of-the-colour-of-belly-button-lint. Frankly, you'd be better of citing Fox fucking news, because at least that would be funny.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#430  Postby hackenslash » Sep 18, 2015 11:18 pm

Sadegh wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Anyhoo, while it's broadly a philosophy question, more narrowly it's a semantic question. Again, all dealt with in that post. Did you even bother to read it beyond scanning for something you thought an easy knock-down?


Yeah, read the whole thing. Still don't think babies are atheists.


Can't actually raise a single coherent counter, undercutter, rebuttal or even sentence that wasn't already dealt within that very post.

That's because you still have your own definition front and centre, despite that post showing how deeply flawed it is.

Still wrong, and you still have exactly fuck all to offer against it other than your own personal prejudice against anything that doesn't genuflect to your alleged logical superiority.

I've dealt with carpet-biting morons with more fucking competence.

You have precisely nothing.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#431  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:18 pm

hackenslash wrote:Well, apart form the fact that you only went and quoted Stanford in true Mick fashion (not a well-regarded source among real thinkers, not least because it gets so much wrong)


Oh I'll bet. Thomas Eshuis said the same thing and could never come up with an example of how SEP is wrong. Funny how these claims work.

hackenslash wrote:I'm not seeing in there where it lists 'not a theist' as a predicate or a property.


All it "lists" in that excerpt is the property of redness. I somehow doubt that was meant to be an exhaustive list of all properties that can be predicated with subjects. And as it so happens "is an atheist" can be predicated with a subject. No?
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#432  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:20 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Sadegh wrote:
hackenslash wrote:Anyhoo, while it's broadly a philosophy question, more narrowly it's a semantic question. Again, all dealt with in that post. Did you even bother to read it beyond scanning for something you thought an easy knock-down?


Yeah, read the whole thing. Still don't think babies are atheists.


Can't actually raise a single coherent counter, undercutter, rebuttal or even sentence that wasn't already dealt within that very post.


Nothing "in that post" addressed whether every property should be treated as strictly binary.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#433  Postby hackenslash » Sep 18, 2015 11:22 pm

Sadegh wrote:
scott1328 wrote:a predicate is not a property


You're right, a predicate isn't a property. It's what relates a subject and a property, e.g. "Bertrand Russell was an atheist" (had the property of not being a theist).


FIFY to show the problem.

Here's another one:

Mars has the property of not being blue.

How does that work for you? Still think a privative is a property?
Last edited by hackenslash on Sep 18, 2015 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#434  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:23 pm

We could ask for example whether forum user hackenslash has the property of having stopped beating his wife before or after the midnight of September 1 2015 CE in GMT time.

Limiting this to "yes" or "no" rather than a third option probably isn't what we want though.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#435  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:23 pm

hackenslash wrote:FIFY for accuracy.


However you want to word it, it's still a property.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#436  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:27 pm

Oh look, my first answer:

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que ... individual

If "is a theist" is a property, then so must be "is an atheist". In other words, if P is a property, then so is not(P). This question was addressed recently here : http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que ... a-property The answer given by Shane is most satisfactory. It is not at all clear why your friend would think that atheism is the "lack" of a property.


lmao
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#437  Postby hackenslash » Sep 18, 2015 11:28 pm

Sadegh wrote:
hackenslash wrote:FIFY for accuracy.


However you want to word it, it's still a property.


I corrected that. Look again. Is 'not blue' a property?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#438  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:30 pm

hackenslash wrote:
Sadegh wrote:
hackenslash wrote:FIFY for accuracy.


However you want to word it, it's still a property.


I corrected that. Look again. Is 'not blue' a property?


Apparently, at least according to a number of metaphysicians, it is, and you don't have the slam-dunk case for strict adherence to the notion of purely sparse properties that you think you do.
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#439  Postby hackenslash » Sep 18, 2015 11:32 pm

Sadegh wrote:Oh look, my first answer:

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que ... individual

If "is a theist" is a property, then so must be "is an atheist". In other words, if P is a property, then so is not(P). This question was addressed recently here : http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/que ... a-property The answer given by Shane is most satisfactory. It is not at all clear why your friend would think that atheism is the "lack" of a property.


lmao


I refer the honourable gentleman and his attendant navel-gazer to my earlier comment. He even says it's not at all clear why I think atheism is the absence of property (and I'm yet to be convinced that theism is a property, as opposed to just being symptomatic of stupidity, which IS a property). That tells you all you need to know. Feel free to direct him to my post and see if he can do better than you have, which wouldn't be difficult, because you've done precisely the square root of fuck all.

It's apparent that verecundiam is your favourite fallacy.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21813
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Are Dogs Atheist?

#440  Postby Sadegh » Sep 18, 2015 11:34 pm

Also since this is a semantic issue it's worth noting that when I took formal semantics there was absolutely nothing in the curriculum that forbade properties of objects in a set from including negation, conjunction or disjunction or any combination thereof but hell that's all navel-gazing anyway, right?
La guerra è bella perché inaugura la sognata metallizzazione del corpo umano.
(War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamed-of metalization of the human body.)

— F.T. Marinetti
User avatar
Sadegh
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 1546

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest