Stanfords new definition of atheism
Still bullshit
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#301 
by Fallible » Aug 20, 2017 7:35 am
Unfortunately I think Olivier was right about this.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
-
Fallible - RS Donator
- Name: Alice Pooper
- Posts: 51607
- Age: 51
- Country: Engerland na na
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#302 by VazScep » Aug 20, 2017 9:47 am
The etymology of "proposition" interests me, but I think I'd need Tracer Tong to help me out with it. The standard translation of Euclid's Elements uses the word "proposition" as mathematicians would nowadays use the word "theorem." But in many cases, what Euclid is proposing is something he can do.
There's this view of logic that any time you say that something exists, you better cough up an example, and if you say something does not exist, you better cough up the contradiction. It's a logic of deeds rather than than wishful thinkings.
There's this view of logic that any time you say that something exists, you better cough up an example, and if you say something does not exist, you better cough up the contradiction. It's a logic of deeds rather than than wishful thinkings.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
- VazScep
- Posts: 4590
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#303 by VazScep » Aug 20, 2017 9:53 am
Calling a rock an atheist might be a category error. Category errors are type errors, and programmers are extremely divided on what should and should not be a type error. A Lisp programmer might be happy to say that rocks are atheists. A Haskell programmer would say that if someone finds themselves wondering whether rocks are atheists, there's probably a bug somewhere, and such things should be chucked out immediately as errors in grammar.SafeAsMilk wrote:tuco wrote:Let me just note that babies and rocks are not capable of confirming nor negating a proposition.
I never really got the whole babies/rock comparison. Rocks cannot, in any capacity, have anything like beliefs or propositions. My baby, on the other hand, believes and disbelieves all sorts of things. Simplistic perhaps, but in terms of capability there is no comparison.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
- VazScep
- Posts: 4590
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#304 by laklak » Aug 20, 2017 2:10 pm
DIM rock
DIM rock AS variant.
DIM rock AS variant.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
-
laklak - RS Donator
- Name: Florida Man
- Posts: 20878
- Age: 70
- Country: The Great Satan
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#305 by VazScep » Aug 20, 2017 9:01 pm
I think I sense Visual Basic?laklak wrote:DIM rock
DIM rock AS variant.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
- VazScep
- Posts: 4590
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#306 by Scot Dutchy » Aug 20, 2017 9:30 pm
Yep. Variant was the biggest variable but when memory became so large who worried about a bit of ten.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
-
Scot Dutchy - Posts: 43119
- Age: 75
- Country: Nederland
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#307 by laklak » Aug 21, 2017 2:53 am
Yep. Gave up programming just after .NET
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
-
laklak - RS Donator
- Name: Florida Man
- Posts: 20878
- Age: 70
- Country: The Great Satan
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#308 by Scot Dutchy » Aug 21, 2017 8:07 am
You did have to DIM a variant as it was the default. Mind you I never agreed with default programming. We were of the same time lak as that was when I stopped as well. Visual Studio turned everything on its head. You could not even migrate VB6 programmes to Visual Studio. I managed to move into traffic micro-simulation and programming traffic lights for the last couple of years.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
-
Scot Dutchy - Posts: 43119
- Age: 75
- Country: Nederland
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#309 by Tracer Tong » Aug 27, 2017 2:21 pm
scott1328 wrote:a-theos means "without God"
It's not quite as straightforward as that, though. In fact, that seems to be a christianised meaning of a term that long predates the religion.
VazScep wrote:The etymology of "proposition" interests me, but I think I'd need Tracer Tong to help me out with it. The standard translation of Euclid's Elements uses the word "proposition" as mathematicians would nowadays use the word "theorem." But in many cases, what Euclid is proposing is something he can do.
Do you have an example of where Euclid is translated like this? I can have a look at the text to see what term he uses.
Die Alten sind weder die Juden, noch die Christen, noch die Engländer der Poesie. Sie sind nicht ein willkürlich auserwähltes Kunstvolk Gottes; noch haben sie den alleinseligmachenden Schönheitsglauben; noch besitzen sie ein Dichtungsmonopol.
-
Tracer Tong - Posts: 1605
- Country: Scotland
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#310 by Thomas Eshuis » Aug 27, 2017 2:49 pm
Except that it is, linguistically speaking.
The prefix a- tends to denote an absence of something, in this case theos or theism.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
-
Thomas Eshuis - THREAD STARTER
- Name: Thomas Eshuis
- Posts: 31091
- Age: 34
- Country: Netherlands
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#311 by Tracer Tong » Aug 27, 2017 3:08 pm
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Given recent discussions between the two of us and a review of your posting history on this site, I've decided to stop further attempts to have a productive dicussion with you.
Do with that what you will, I am just informing you, so you know what to expect.
Die Alten sind weder die Juden, noch die Christen, noch die Engländer der Poesie. Sie sind nicht ein willkürlich auserwähltes Kunstvolk Gottes; noch haben sie den alleinseligmachenden Schönheitsglauben; noch besitzen sie ein Dichtungsmonopol.
-
Tracer Tong - Posts: 1605
- Country: Scotland
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#312 by Thomas Eshuis » Aug 27, 2017 3:18 pm
Someone seems to fail to understand that pointing out falsehoods and/or flaws in someone else's post =/= having a productive discussion with said person.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
-
Thomas Eshuis - THREAD STARTER
- Name: Thomas Eshuis
- Posts: 31091
- Age: 34
- Country: Netherlands
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#313 by Tracer Tong » Aug 27, 2017 3:20 pm
Oh, so you want to try to correct my posts, but not engage in productive discussion when doing so. OK, I guess.
In that case: except it isn't, linguistically speaking, alpha privative understood.
In that case: except it isn't, linguistically speaking, alpha privative understood.
Die Alten sind weder die Juden, noch die Christen, noch die Engländer der Poesie. Sie sind nicht ein willkürlich auserwähltes Kunstvolk Gottes; noch haben sie den alleinseligmachenden Schönheitsglauben; noch besitzen sie ein Dichtungsmonopol.
-
Tracer Tong - Posts: 1605
- Country: Scotland
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#314 by scott1328 » Aug 27, 2017 3:30 pm
Tracer Tong wrote:scott1328 wrote:a-theos means "without God"
It's not quite as straightforward as that, though. In fact, that seems to be a christianised meaning of a term that long predates the religion.VazScep wrote:The etymology of "proposition" interests me, but I think I'd need Tracer Tong to help me out with it. The standard translation of Euclid's Elements uses the word "proposition" as mathematicians would nowadays use the word "theorem." But in many cases, what Euclid is proposing is something he can do.
Do you have an example of where Euclid is translated like this? I can have a look at the text to see what term he uses.
Of course words can gain an idiomatic meaning beyond the simple definitions of their roots. But other languages that adopt such words don't necessarily adopt the linguistic baggage. English, mostly through academia, has adopted not only words, stems and affixes from Latin and Greek, but also methods of composing those words and stems affixes into words that would puzzle native speakers of those languages. The prefix a- in English means "no, not, or without" and is affixed to words without regard to their origin or etymology, I.e. amoral, achromatic, atonal.
what was adopted into English? Was it the word "atheos" and its derivatives as the Greeks and Romans used it: a pejorative for the early Christians? Or, was it coined from its root words into English? I suspect something close to the original meaning was adopted but linguistic reanalysis has introduced a shifted meaning and the current dispute.
Descriptive grammarians would document how the word is used. Both by those who apply the term to themselves and those who apply it to others. Suffice to say the term has multiple conflicting definitions and tends to stop conversations in quibbles over semantics.
Non belief is more useful when one hopes to avoid these quibbles.
-
scott1328 - Name: Some call me... Tim
- Posts: 8849
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#315 by Tracer Tong » Aug 27, 2017 3:49 pm
scott1328 wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:scott1328 wrote:a-theos means "without God"
It's not quite as straightforward as that, though. In fact, that seems to be a christianised meaning of a term that long predates the religion.VazScep wrote:The etymology of "proposition" interests me, but I think I'd need Tracer Tong to help me out with it. The standard translation of Euclid's Elements uses the word "proposition" as mathematicians would nowadays use the word "theorem." But in many cases, what Euclid is proposing is something he can do.
Do you have an example of where Euclid is translated like this? I can have a look at the text to see what term he uses.
Of course words can gain an idiomatic meaning beyond the simple definitions of their roots. But other languages that adopt such words don't necessarily adopt the linguistic baggage. English, mostly through academia, has adopted not only words, stems and affixes from Latin and Greek, but also methods of composing those words and stems affixes into words that would puzzle native speakers of those languages. The prefix a- in English means "no, not, or without" and is affixed to words without regard to their origin or etymology, I.e. amoral, achromatic, atonal.
what was adopted into English? Was it the word "atheos" and its derivatives as the Greeks and Romans used it: a pejorative for the early Christians? Or, was it coined from its root words into English? I suspect something close to the original meaning was adopted but linguistic reanalysis has introduced a shifted meaning and the current dispute.
Descriptive grammarians would document how the word is used. Both by those who apply the term to themselves and those who apply it to others. Suffice to say the term has multiple conflicting definitions and tends to stop conversations in quibbles over semantics.
Non belief is more useful when one hopes to avoid these quibbles.
I'm grateful to see that you recognise usage of atheos is more complicated than your initial post implied. I suppose the wider point is that citing the Greek term standing behind our word "atheism" is probably not helpful, given the fact, for example, that the former is used of theists and frequently as a term of moral evaluation, with no corresponding doxastic sense.
Die Alten sind weder die Juden, noch die Christen, noch die Engländer der Poesie. Sie sind nicht ein willkürlich auserwähltes Kunstvolk Gottes; noch haben sie den alleinseligmachenden Schönheitsglauben; noch besitzen sie ein Dichtungsmonopol.
-
Tracer Tong - Posts: 1605
- Country: Scotland
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#316 by Thomas Eshuis » Aug 27, 2017 5:33 pm
Tracer Tong wrote:Oh, so you want to try to correct my posts, but not engage in productive discussion when doing so. OK, I guess.[http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0534553389_46568.pdf
I would love to engage in a productive discussion with you, but given your incessant condescension, failure to adress or defend points and general unwillingness to adress the point rather than the poster, I see no reason to waste more time on trying to have one with you.
Tracer Tong wrote:
In that case: except it isn't, linguistically speaking, alpha privative understood.
Ah, blindly asserting your initial blind assertion, always a strong argument, especially when it fails to adress the point being made.
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0534553389_46568.pdf
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0534553389_46568.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_privative
Alpha privative
An alpha privative or, rarely,[1] privative a (from Latin alpha prīvātīvum, from Ancient Greek α στερητικόν) is the prefix a- or an- (before vowels) that is used in Greek and in English words borrowed from Greek to express negation or absence, for example atypical, anesthetic, and analgesic.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
-
Thomas Eshuis - THREAD STARTER
- Name: Thomas Eshuis
- Posts: 31091
- Age: 34
- Country: Netherlands
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#317 by Teuton » Aug 27, 2017 5:36 pm
VazScep wrote:Calling a rock an atheist might be a category error.
Isn't it understood that atheists are people/persons, that an atheist is somebody who… and not something which…?
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
-
Teuton - Posts: 5461
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#318 by Teuton » Aug 27, 2017 5:40 pm
A very important point:
Appeals to the etymological meaning of a word are not semantically decisive!
"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."
(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)
Appeals to the etymological meaning of a word are not semantically decisive!
"What I am referring to as the etymological fallacy is the assumption that the original form or meaning of a word is, necessarily and by virtue of that very fact, its correct form or meaning. This assumption is widely held. How often do we meet the argument that because such and such a word comes from Greek, Latin, Arabic, or whatever language it might be in the particular instance, the correct meaning of the word must be what it was in the language of origin! The argument is fallacious, because the tacit assumption of an originally true or appropriate correspondence between form and meaning, upon which the argument rests, cannot be substantiated."
(Lyons, John. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 55)
"Perception does not exhaust our contact with reality; we can think too." – Timothy Williamson
-
Teuton - Posts: 5461
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#319 by Thomas Eshuis » Aug 27, 2017 5:47 pm
Not to people who are determined to make atheism into an intellectual, rather than default position.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
-
Thomas Eshuis - THREAD STARTER
- Name: Thomas Eshuis
- Posts: 31091
- Age: 34
- Country: Netherlands
Re: Stanfords new definition of atheism
#320 by Thomas Eshuis » Aug 27, 2017 5:50 pm
scott1328 wrote:
Non belief is more useful when one hopes to avoid these quibbles.
Agreed, however theists and atheists (Scot being a resident example) will still interpet that to mean the believe in non existence.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
-
Thomas Eshuis - THREAD STARTER
- Name: Thomas Eshuis
- Posts: 31091
- Age: 34
- Country: Netherlands
Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests