Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1151  
Old 11th February 2017, 05:16 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,891
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
Atheism is the non acceptance of a truth claim with regard to a specific class of entity. Do babies and rocks accept the truth claim? Obviously not. And therefore
They have no knowledge of the claim and can't refuse to accept it.

I would prefer non-theist in reference to beings that have no knowledge of the truth claim they aren't in a position to refuse to accept, atheist in reference to beings who have knowledge of the truth claim and are in a position to refuse to accept.

But I shrugs my shoulders, they are basically two categories of the same thing, beings that don't or can't accept the existence of god either through understanding and rejection or alternatively ignorance of the entire concept.

Who am I to impose my preference on others, some sort of claimant of universal knowledge?
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
  #1152  
Old 11th February 2017, 05:46 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,303
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
This argument ultimately depends upon one thing : whether or not that which is defined as atheist has to possess knowledge of what atheist actually
means. If the answer is yes then babies and rocks cannot be atheist. If the answer is no then babies and rocks can be atheist. It is really that simple

It is fallacious to claim that an object or entity has to possess knowledge of its traits or characteristics for such descriptions to be valid. Because taken
to its logical conclusion it would mean no object could be described at all. And only entities with sufficient language comprehension could be described

Babies do not know they are atheist but neither do they know they are babies
Rocks does not know they are atheist but neither do they know they are rocks

And so if descriptions of objects or entities can be applied to them without them being aware of them
it makes zero sense for this to arbitrarily apply to only some of those descriptions and not all of them

Atheism is the non acceptance of a truth claim with regard to a specific class of entity. Do babies and rocks accept the truth claim? Obviously not. And therefore
they have to be regarded as atheist. Unless it is specifically stipulated that the non acceptance of the truth claim actually requires knowledge and understanding
of what it is. Now it does not. So then no matter how ridiculous it might sound babies and rocks are still atheist. Argument from incredulity does not change this

Both people and rocks can be regarded as "atheist", but for different reasons. But to say a rock is not theistic is a bit like saying it is not a kangaroo.

Nobody cares if rocks are theistic or atheistic anyway, so their status as believers or non-believers, even if it were possible [which it is not], is moot.

Rocks can't vote for or against creationism in science classes. They don't go on holy crusades, or atheist bus campaigns. They don't do a lot of things. They just do rock things, which are not human things.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
  #1153  
Old 11th February 2017, 07:14 PM
surreptitious57 surreptitious57 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 644
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/po....html#p2057827

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/no...by-t45672.html

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/no...st-t50451.html
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
  #1154  
Old 11th February 2017, 08:43 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
This argument ultimately depends upon one thing : whether or not that which is defined as atheist has to possess knowledge of what atheist actually means.
Not true and nowhere near as robust as the way I've explained it.

It's not at all about whether one needs to possess knowledge, it's about whether the thing can possess that trait, in this case the ability to have a position on the existence of gods.


Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
If the answer is yes then babies and rocks cannot be atheist. If the answer is no then babies and rocks can be atheist. It is really that simple

It is fallacious to claim that an object or entity has to possess knowledge of its traits or characteristics for such descriptions to be valid. Because taken
to its logical conclusion it would mean no object could be described at all. And only entities with sufficient language comprehension could be described
Ahhh I see now why you wrote the above - to knock it down. Bizarre. Anyway, your first paragraph's argument was nothing to do with the discussion because it's obviously flawed.




Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
Babies do not know they are atheist but neither do they know they are babies
Rocks does not know they are atheist but neither do they know they are rocks
Babies will grow up and either believe in gods and be a theist, or not believe in gods and be an atheist. Rocks will never do either.



Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
And so if descriptions of objects or entities can be applied to them without them being aware of them
it makes zero sense for this to arbitrarily apply to only some of those descriptions and not all of them
Like I say - it was a poor argument in the first instance. Perhaps you want to try addressing a better argument?


Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
Atheism is the non acceptance of a truth claim with regard to a specific class of entity. Do babies and rocks accept the truth claim? Obviously not. And therefore
they have to be regarded as atheist.
Can babies and rocks accept that truth claim? Obviously not, so they can't not accept it either. Neither have the ability to accept or not accept - it's a category mistake to assume they do.


Quote:
surreptitious57 said View Post
Unless it is specifically stipulated that the non acceptance of the truth claim actually requires knowledge and understanding
of what it is. Now it does not. So then no matter how ridiculous it might sound babies and rocks are still atheist. Argument from incredulity does not change this
No argument from incredulity has been made. Instead, the argument provided so far is describing the contention as a category mistake.

Perhaps it would be wise of you to look into what this means:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Quote:
A category mistake, or category error, or categorical mistake, or mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.
My bold.

I would comfortably say that ascribing atheism to a rock is a clarifying example of a category mistake.

As mentioned in the description above, the arguments I have encountered for babies and rocks being atheist fall firmly into either semantic arguments or ontological arguments - the former needs to be considered as prescriptive rather than descriptive, and the latter is a clear example of assigning an attribute to something that cannot possess that attribute.
Like Goldenmane liked this post
Thank Goldenmane thanked this post
  #1155  
Old 11th February 2017, 08:44 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions


Why?
  #1156  
Old 11th February 2017, 09:20 PM
Iron Chariots's Avatar
Iron Chariots Iron Chariots is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orange
Posts: 80
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Well said. Of course one does not need to know what an atheist is to be one.
Approximately 360,000 babies are born every day.
If someone could show me a god believing baby I'd be happy to withdraw my statement that all babies are born atheist. Atheist being one who has no belief in a god, any god, even a pixie god , fluffy rattle toy god or genocidal maniac bible god.
  #1157  
Old 11th February 2017, 10:04 PM
Iron Chariots's Avatar
Iron Chariots Iron Chariots is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orange
Posts: 80
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Rocks? mmm

Dissecting ptutts assertions has taken 116 odd pages when ptutt offered nothing of consequence. Maybe this is why.
ptuut has applied many smokescreens and diversions, while still offering nothing . I'm not one to go around in circles, life is very short and we have a societal cancer in front of us called Christianity.
Christians: They worship a genocidal maniac and sell it as love, they believe without evidence, but just because they want to and the see the end of humanity as a glorious thing.
ptutt is a coward, a coward for battling facts with nonsense, motivated by their fear of mortality and fear of losing their fantasy escape from it.
I've told ptuut as much, though I doubt they will ever admit to it. These people are addicts. Addicted to their escape fantasy and unless they come to a point when they are honest with themselves, they will stay an addict. Think alcoholic or gambling addict. There is no helping them until they admit they need help.
ptuut could have come here looking for help but I suspect ptuut was here to tell us all we are wrong for the glory of their invisible sky wizard.

If anyone here wants to advance atheism, it will be done very slowly by trying to help addicts that don't want help. Much better advancement can be made by advising people who are not addicts but fence sitters, those that are general public that don't think Christianity is a bad thing or think a good thing but don't worry about it. This majority of people will allow the cancer of Christianity to invade every aspect of our lives. This is what they want to do. These cowards.
Any atheist who wants to stand up is not just fighting 2000 years of obvious pro christian propaganda but propaganda that has put itself into every day to day, even in our language, even in the last 3 non religious novels I've read, even in the local paper, everywhere.

Last edited by Iron Chariots; 11th February 2017 at 10:06 PM.
  #1158  
Old 11th February 2017, 11:51 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is offline
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,239
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Iron Chariots said View Post
Well said. Of course one does not need to know what an atheist is to be one.
Approximately 360,000 babies are born every day.
If someone could show me a god believing baby I'd be happy to withdraw my statement that all babies are born atheist. Atheist being one who has no belief in a god, any god, even a pixie god , fluffy rattle toy god or genocidal maniac bible god.
I put it to you that you cannot demonstrate that a baby does not possess something functionally akin to belief in something like a deity. Whist the baby cannot formulate and communicate an actual concept, it behaves exactly as though it has an expectation that something - something it literally cannot comprehend - will respond to its cries and render comfort.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

  #1159  
Old 11th February 2017, 11:55 PM
Goldenmane's Avatar
Goldenmane Goldenmane is offline
Cuss-tard
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 7,239
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Iron Chariots said View Post
ptutt is a coward
That's not how we do things here, mate. I'd suggest that you might want to reacquaint yourself with the rules, and why the rules are what they are. They are not fucking arbitrary, and are enforced without fear or favour.

Just a friendly heads-up.
__________________
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

Like Spearthrower, hackenslash liked this post
  #1160  
Old 12th February 2017, 01:03 AM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Argument about atheist rocks = derail. Please find a different thread for that.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Laugh at Spearthrower, hackenslash laughed at this post
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.