kennyc wrote::nono:

Here's another instance of the sort of thing I'm talking about.

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.

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:

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.

Sorry, you're right. I should have said "In order to demonstrate an idea is not true....". And there is value in doing that.

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?!?

If I hadn't been reading your contributions to this site for some time, I'd be amazed at how you misrepresent what Marshall is attempting to publicize with his "Reason Station." It clearly says in the article posted in the OP that Marshall wants to "promote separation of church and state, and to tell people about using free thought, reason and logic." That isn't adversarial, it's a positive statement regarding ideals that he thinks worthy of promotion. Nor is it parasitic in the slightest.

It seems to me that you've taken Mayor Fouts' description of what he thinks of Marshall's ideas as the gospel truth. There is nothing in the article that says that Marshall was planning on putting up anything along the lines of the proposed Freedom From Religion sign from last year. It's true that I didn't understand what you were attempting to say with your phrase of "adversarial and parasitic." However, since that phrase is the result of you (without any basis) apparently conflating the planned sign from last year with Marshall's proposal, I can see how it happened.

E T A: Happy Easter, Mick. I hear that it's a big day on the calendar for folks like you, and I sincerely wish you well.

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.

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?

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.

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--I think it is laughable and it wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class--it would only suggest that the stronger definition is wrong, not illogical.

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.

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

I see our friend Donning Kruger has returned.

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

Oh wait,it's based on evidence. You know, that inconvenience supernaturalists keep avoiding?

Mick wrote:I think it is laughable

But then you think a magic man is real. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your sagacity.

Mick wrote:and it wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class

Tell that to Steve Gimbel. You know, an actual tenured philosopher whose own writings on this subject are largely concordant with my own.

Mick wrote:it would only suggest that the stronger definition is wrong, not illogical.

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

mrjonno wrote:They are already a minority in the UK where most marriages have no religious representative present

I can obviously only speak for myself but among my generation that seems to be the majority. Every "friend" wedding I've been to (with people my age) was a humanist wedding. Whereas every "family" one (with people 10+ years older than me) was a Christian/Church wedding.

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.

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.

Actually, if you're fixated on the etymological meaning, it is simply a-theos; and that is, as you first said, without god. However, nothing about that speaks about a belief state. That aside, you're in danger of committing the etymological fallacy--you should look it up.

Mick

Fucking shut up.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Mick

Fucking shut up.

That hurt my feelings.