Onyx8 wrote:...or "an atheist"

Yes just like virtually everything else is an atheist.

Sadegh wrote:That's a sarcastic comment meant to lampoon people saying babies must be atheists strictly because they lack a belief in a deity, just like many other things, including the aforementioned integers do.

All of this, and all your other objections, were dealt with comprehensively in the post I linked you to.

What, that post 77?

Yes. Have fun with it.

Oh goody:

hackenslash wrote:Is a brick bald? Of course it is, because it doesn't have hair. It doesn't have to be capable of having hair to qualify as bald.

What is your verdict on what color the integers have, O Great One?

Lack of a property is not a property per se.

Sadegh wrote:Oh goody:

hackenslash wrote:Is a brick bald? Of course it is, because it doesn't have hair. It doesn't have to be capable of having hair to qualify as bald.

What is your verdict on what color the integers have, O Great One?

They're colourless. Note the privative.

I tended to think that they're black because they don't reflect any light, just like a brick is bald because it has no hair. Remember all properties can be assigned to anything, and they are never restricted to certain classes of objects.

Sadegh wrote:I tended to think that they're black because they don't reflect any light, just like a brick is bald because it has no hair. Remember all properties can be assigned to anything, and they are never restricted to certain classes of objects.

lack of a property is not a property per se.

Sadegh wrote:I tended to think that they're black because they don't reflect any light, just like a brick is bald because it has no hair. Remember all properties can be assigned to anything, and they are never restricted to certain classes of objects.

Atheism isn't a property, genius.

And your attempt at an appeal to ridicule was also dealt with in that post. Why don't you try attacking it in its entirety, rather than simply pulling out fragments that you're going to fail to land cheap shots at. All your objections are addressed therein, including this little bout of fuckwittery.

I now know that you aren't Mick. Even he did better than you're doing now, and he was fucking atrocious.

Don't fret, though. You'll always be Mick to me.

hackenslash wrote:

Sadegh wrote:I tended to think that they're black because they don't reflect any light, just like a brick is bald because it has no hair. Remember all properties can be assigned to anything, and they are never restricted to certain classes of objects.

Atheism isn't a property, genius.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

"a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing"

This excludes atheism how?

Sadegh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Sadegh wrote:I tended to think that they're black because they don't reflect any light, just like a brick is bald because it has no hair. Remember all properties can be assigned to anything, and they are never restricted to certain classes of objects.

Atheism isn't a property, genius.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

"a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing"

This excludes atheism how?

lack of a property is not a property per se.

Atheism is the lack of belief. A theist has the property that (s)he believes in god of Gods. An atheist lacks that property.

scott1328 wrote:lack of a property is not a property per se.

Of course it is, otherwise "colorlessness" wouldn't be a property. It is.

scott1328 wrote:Atheism is the lack of belief. A theist has the property that (s)he believes in god of Gods.

Implicit in the use of "(s)he" is that atheist is being limited to objects with the property of personhood, which a newborn baby doesn't fully have.

Sadegh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:Atheism is the lack of belief. A theist has the property that (s)he believes in god of Gods.

Implicit in the use of "(s)he" is that atheist is being limited to objects with the property of personhood, which a newborn baby doesn't fully have.

read for comprehension. I said a theist has the property that (s)he believes in god.

Sadegh wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

"a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing"

This excludes atheism how?

If you'd actually dealt with the post in question, you'd already know how I answer this question, namely that a privative doesn't describe a property, but the absence of one. Atheism is still a privative, and not a property. I'd hesitate to call theism a property, although it would certainly fit your argumentum ad lexicum nicely. I'll let you have theist, but not the corollary privative.

You should go for the fuckwittery world title. You have to be in with a shot.

Good to see you Hack!

You too! I've missed you most of all.

hackenslash wrote:

Sadegh wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

"a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing"

This excludes atheism how?

If you'd actually dealt with the post in question, you'd already know how I answer this question, namely that a privative doesn't describe a property, but the absence of one.

Interesting. I'll ask on the Philosophy Stack Exchange and see what comes of it.

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

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. I don't need to ask anybody, because I've dealt with the issue comprehensively. I'd be happy if somebody could show anything remotely wrong with that post, and I'd have no trouble admitting I was wrong, but all I've seen from anybody, you included, is objections that were already defeated in that post.

Feel free to go and check with your mates and see if they can do any better than you. You'll be disappointed, though.

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.