![Nono :nono:](http://www.rationalskepticism.org/images/smilies/icon_nono.gif)
![Nono :nono:](http://www.rationalskepticism.org/images/smilies/icon_nono.gif)
![Nono :nono:](http://www.rationalskepticism.org/images/smilies/icon_nono.gif)
to not upset Christians....
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Shrunk wrote:In order to demonstrate an idea is false, it is not necessary to demonstrate that its opposite is true. Pretty basic logic, I would have thought.
Mick wrote:Shrunk wrote:In order to demonstrate an idea is false, it is not necessary to demonstrate that its opposite is true. Pretty basic logic, I would have thought.
Um, if by opposite you mean contradictory, then a demonstration that one proposition is false entails that its contradictory is true.
Mick wrote:You're not understanding. By adversarial and parasitic, I mean that his focus seems to be on just being contrary to theism or the varying religions rather than focusing on developing naturalism as a worldview. By extension, his efforts look parasitic, because his philosophy is defined in terms of religion (particularly what it is not) rather than develop a sort of conceptual independence. Catholicism doesn't do this in the same way and to the same extent, not at all. This fellow needs to define naturalism without constantly referring back to religion. It's like a politician whose only platform is "I'm not the incumbent!" It gets old. Okay, naturalists, we get it--you're not us. But what are you?!?
Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists.
Mick wrote: What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism.
Mick wrote: Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists.
Ah an appeal to popularity fallacy.
Do we need to explain to you, again, why that particular definition is both illogical and patently wrong?Mick wrote: What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism.
It commits them to nothing, but what they've said. W.L. Craig arguments like these are just silly.Mick wrote: Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.
Translation: They won't kowtow to my cherished beliefs.
Calilasseia wrote:Try because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, doesn't erect assertions. It consists simply of a refusal to treat unsupported supernaturalist assertions as fact. You've been told this often enough, so it's not as if you're lacking the requisite education here.
Mick wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists.
Ah an appeal to popularity fallacy.
Do we need to explain to you, again, why that particular definition is both illogical and patently wrong?Mick wrote: What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism.
It commits them to nothing, but what they've said. W.L. Craig arguments like these are just silly.Mick wrote: Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.
Translation: They won't kowtow to my cherished beliefs.
I'm curious: why is that definition illogical?
Mick wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Try because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, doesn't erect assertions. It consists simply of a refusal to treat unsupported supernaturalist assertions as fact. You've been told this often enough, so it's not as if you're lacking the requisite education here.
I think it is laughable and it wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class
Mick wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Try because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, doesn't erect assertions. It consists simply of a refusal to treat unsupported supernaturalist assertions as fact. You've been told this often enough, so it's not as if you're lacking the requisite education here.
presuming that your definition is correct
Mick wrote:I think it is laughable
Mick wrote:and it wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class
Mick wrote:it would only suggest that the stronger definition is wrong, not illogical.
mrjonno wrote:They are already a minority in the UK where most marriages have no religious representative present
mrjonno wrote:If you live in a society where atheism is the norm, there are few European countries like that, then no one asks 'why do you not believe in god' they ask 'why do you believe in god'.
Let's face it even in the US in 2-3 generations a 'Christian' wedding will be rarer than a 'gay' one is these days. They are already a minority in the UK where most marriages have no religious representative present
Scot Dutchy wrote:mrjonno wrote:If you live in a society where atheism is the norm, there are few European countries like that, then no one asks 'why do you not believe in god' they ask 'why do you believe in god'.
Let's face it even in the US in 2-3 generations a 'Christian' wedding will be rarer than a 'gay' one is these days. They are already a minority in the UK where most marriages have no religious representative present
You cant have a xtian wedding here. Just a plain old civil wedding which by the way in many European countries but seeing as the forum has been taken over by Americans who are still living 20 years behind us I suppose we will have to suffer all the drivel coming from that side of the pond.
Maybe it is about time to divide the forum into two sections.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Mick wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:Mick wrote:It is interesting to see that this organization is adopting the standard approach to atheism, the affirmation that no deity exists.
Ah an appeal to popularity fallacy.
Do we need to explain to you, again, why that particular definition is both illogical and patently wrong?Mick wrote: What's more, the sign they proposed commits them to the metaphysical view of naturalism.
It commits them to nothing, but what they've said. W.L. Craig arguments like these are just silly.Mick wrote: Otherwise, they appear adversarial and parasitic.
Translation: They won't kowtow to my cherished beliefs.
I'm curious: why is that definition illogical?
Because a- theism. simply means without theism, without a belief in gods.
Not the believe in the non-existence of gods.
Again this has been pointed out to you several times in the past.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest