Snakelord Your ability to split linguistic hairs is breathtaking I guess that just leaves the minor point about bringing in an issue about leprechauns to the table in a discussion about god so correct me if I am wrong you are suggesting that the onus is on the person making the claim? One can however contextualize one's beliefs by calling upon greater (or lesser) issues to determine their value. Surely you are no stranger to this. (What do you think are the implications of drawing an object .... particularly an object of authority like say a politician, god or a CEO .... with a leprechaun?) “ do you recognize that as a position of ignorance, namely because they neglect the means that comes with the claim? hence .... Answering to that onus, the first thing one would provide is a means to determine the claim. Ironically atheists are not at all eager to work with such an idea, preferring to work with the fideistic model. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .... I'm beginning to wonder whether I might be required to provide them for your benefit
You confuse words, ignore explanations & unjustifiably assume the opposite of what a person is saying yet you complain of someone spitting hares.
For the one who doesn't believe something or thinks something is silly, there is the 'onus' of common decency, at least that. If you don't believe something or if you think something is silly, then what does it say about you that you continually get yourself into situations where you say 'The onus is all on you, I don't have to do anything, it is up to you to prove your claim to me' -? It says that you are someone who does not spend his time and energy wisely: that you are just airing your vanity and wish to be respected for it.
Pictures! Pictures! I recommend hot and scantily clad metaphors with their allusions all but hanging out!
In the context of this discussion: Not at all. Of course if you think it aids your argument feel free to go right ahead. Hopefully, in either case, you've finally understood the point. Sheesh, guess not. It doesn't matter if you think the god notion is more acceptable, believable and credible than leprechauns to someone that doesn't believe in either. The onus is not on the person that believes what you claim is nonsense - regardless to whether it is in fact nonsense or not. Do you understand? If you understand just say "yes". I've already put my bet down. No. I am stating that the onus rests upon the person making the claim to positive existence, and no onus upon the person that doesn't believe that claim to positive existence. It's entirely irrelevant to the point. The first I believe in, the second I don't, the third I do and, for discussions sake, the fourth I don't. What has that got to do with my statements concerning onus? Well, I am under the impression that not believing a god exists, (or whatever else), requires one not having any knowledge that this god exists and hence.. it certainly is a position of ignorance to the reality of the claim, (if said claim is in fact real). What we should note is that it isn't really a matter of neglecting evidence etc but that one is not convinced by that claimed 'evidence'. As far as gods go, the "evidence" is typically cited as: cosmo, moral, teleo and some bits and bobs here and there. Such 'evidence' is utterly unconvincing to me - in fact I find it somewhat pathetic. There's still no onus on me to go and "prove" that a god didn't ever create a universe. I will, for the sake of this discussion, just pretend that you're the authority on atheists and their levels of eagerness. It's inconsequential because it's irrelevant. ---- It doesn't get any more "decent". The religious continue in the actions of their beliefs without being disturbed. Of course one should expect that there are limits - it is fine to believe that the government don't care about you and want to see you all poor, it's another thing entirely to then shoot the president. As far as what I would call 'acceptable limits' go, christians have gone far beyond them - but then this is understandable given our history. If you believe in Santa, I wouldn't punch you in the face - but I should not be expected to like or conform to your belief system should it impact my daily life. That of course is an issue of human rights - something my country has signed up to and something that I agree with. No, not every country has. It says that I live in a society where a great deal of people have the same silly beliefs and keep thinking I should share it too. As far as forum discussion go, it's a way for people to question and discuss that nonsense - something I don't personally think reflects negatively upon the questioner. I disagree. Tell me though - as you seem to be the authority on what is or is not "wise" - how should I be spending my time?
Snakelord Its not clear how it aids yours The problem is however that we live in a world that grants consequences to "knowledge" that are commonly termed "ignorance". So if you have two people, one arguing from the point of a claim of knowledge and the other from the point of the uninformed and/or disbelieving such a claim, what tools come to the forefront to resolve such an issue? (I assume you wouldn't satisfied to live in a country where only half of the population accepted the knowledge based claim on what side of the road to drive) hehe perhaps in a world where metaphor and analogy does not exist. Beliefs are commonly valued according to the environments (or more specifically in your case, narrative tools) that contextualize them. And from the value of beliefs comes a host of issues that determine quality on so many different levels. If you disagree, make a list of the pending social issues that have been resolved by the use of leprechauns and see what patterns emerge. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wait up, one step at a time. We were talking specifically about nanotechnology. You made the assertion that a person who does not believe it has no onus on them to know it. I asked whether you recognize this is from the position of ignorance. So IOW, you would agree that there are some problems arising at the "process" stage of the claim? Given that fideism admits that it doesn't have a "process" stage to its claim, small wonder it is the favourite pre-occupation of atheists Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Inconsequential to the point. This is completely irrelevant to the point. 'Tools' have nothing to do with onus. Again, unfortunately perhaps, this is inconsequential to the point. Yes.. Was there a question? Which was... answered fully on my last post. Inconsequential to the point. The fact that you don't believe it does probably hint that there are some problems concerning belief - wherever they arise. Again... if you say so. Of course, fideism suggest that faith is superior to reason, which wouldn't make it applicable to many atheists - but whatever, it's entirely beyond the point.
Snakelord Well I guess you can say anything ... but at the end of the day I am sure you appreciate a consensus on the value of what side of the road to drive Nonsense Tools clearly establish ownership and where the onus lies. If you don't believe me, hand a doctor a plumber's wrench I'm not sure what sterilized aspect of belief in life you think you can reference outside of issues of value and knowledge. meh As your copious posting indicates, even the belief that one can reference a sterilized aspect of life outside of issues of value and knowledge requires value and knowledge! Yes you did. But in an unclear manner. That's why I am asking you to reiterate it in the context it was asked, namely nanotechnology. And my question is whether you think those problems arise in the "process" phase of the claim. hehe "Faith is superior to reason" is, to an atheist, like chocolate cake is to a fat kid.
************* M*W: "Religion" is a 'belief system." "Atheism" means "non-belief." Therefore, atheism cannot be a belief system.
the bible thumpers so want to call it a religion. I guess so they can put ID into their theological pipe and smoke it
Perhaps you can find an example of a subcategory overriding the parameters of the category it is contextualized by.
Hi M*W, i have to disagree with you there. the reason is that unless something is proven then it is still a belief. that is not to say it is any less valid than other beliefs.
No, that's the entire point. And as for your post before that, there is nothing to be proven in atheism.
As this was the only thing even relevant to my post, I will respond - although it should be noted that the previous answer to this was fully sufficient. Only place I've seen nanobots or such things is on sci-fi programmes. I saw some nanobots on the Outer Limits and of course on Star Trek Voyager. I don't believe such things actually exist in our world right now - but might do in the future when we're on spaceships. The above statement obviously, if nanobots exist, would be ignorance to the truth of the matter but there is no onus on me to go about proving that they don't... by... umm.. whatever method it is that you might assert that I would go around doing so. Bizarrely daft statement, but feel free to support it whenever you feel able.
