Semantics of "I don't believe in God".

Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by lixluke, Aug 19, 2008.

?

Which one is correct?

  1. A

    7 vote(s)
    38.9%
  2. B

    3 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. C

    8 vote(s)
    44.4%
  1. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    yes i think that b is more open. open minds are better minds.

    but what if some did not believe in god because they believe in something else. say another religon. say, i dont beleive in god because i believe in satan and satan says that god does not exist. or i dont believe in god because im an anamist.

    It a hypothetical question so all you satanists dont need to come out and correct me as to what satan says or doesnt say.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I think you mean animist.
    Who are you referring to when you talk about satanists ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    thankls for correcting my speeling.

    um satanists. someone that worships satan, is there any other kind?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I think your post insinuated there are satanists on SciForums..
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2008
  8. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    haha

    no. i just afraid that some ones going to say soje like but satan believes in god, god is his arch enemy or something to that extent.

    satan experts? better?
     
  9. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, not better.. who are the satan experts ?

    Edit: Never mind, I probably misunderstood.
     
  10. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    and what do you have against satanists?
     
  11. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I never claimed any stance on them.
     
  12. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    you suggested that i thought that there where satanists here.


    (not that it matters)
     
  13. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, I thought that you suggested that there were satanists here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To be honest for a second there I thought you were one of those characters that equals atheists with satanists..
     
  14. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    well i did. there might be

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    no very distinc groups. would be very hard to be an atheist and a satanist at the same time. atheists dont just not believe in a particular supreme being.

    though the church lady would suggest that atheism is the devils work

    no im not in that camp.

    i have nothing against atheists or people of any other faith/religon/belief sytem. that is unless they start dumping on mine.

    where were we?
     
  15. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok, just out of interest. In which "camp" are you ?
     
  16. 007 Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    opps im burning this compu
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2008
  17. buckybeam Registered Member

    Messages:
    272
    im not fond of camping.
     
  18. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What does this mean.. ?
     
  19. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, I meant what religion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Someone saying that might be saying they don't believe in the "God" of religions, like the Abrahamic ones, or the "Christian God", say.

    If I was asked, if I believe in God (although I've presented this before) I would ask what they mean, do they mean the biblical one, or something else?

    The thing about not believing in a pre-packaged kind, to me, is it cannot also preclude the existence of another kind.
    Atheists claim that there is no evidence for such a thing; what they appear to be saying is: "you can only believe in a God that doesn't "exist" as those who claim there is a pre-packaged version exists".

    A non-existent God, is still a "god" though; a god that atheists believe in the non-existence of. Their belief is based on just as much faith, in that sense. Or lack of as much faith, based on a lack of evidence, of the personal kind (the only kind that matters).

    Besides, my "god" does exist - I know that because I exist, ipso facto my god must too. Quite straighforward really. But that doesn't require my belief in some book, or in fact in a single word anyone else has to say about my god's existence.

    Try arguing with that lot.
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Straightforward? Where's the logic in that assertion? Your use of ipso facto is not warranted because there's nothing inherent in the definitions of the words you're using, or in the communal observations of those of us who are reading them, that makes your point obvious.

    "She is a citizen of Iran who entered this country illegally and was convicted of espionage. Ipso facto she has no right to apply for a U.S. passport." That's the correct use of the phrase.

    It's one thing to say you "believe" a god exists because beliefs can be based on hopes, hunches, logic errors, instinct or misinformation. But this is a place of science and you can't say here that you "know" something so controversial without providing evidence for it. If you're saying that your existence is evidence for the existence of a god you're going to have to present your reasoning and allow it to be tested and peer-reviewed.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2008
  22. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    I think you mean to say: "there's nothing inherent in my definitions of the words you're using".

    If instead I said: "I do exist - I know this because I'm breathing, seeing and hearing, doing things that affirm my existence constantly - even dreaming. Quite straightforward really", can you see any difference? Bearing in mind that I am under no obligation whatever to believe, or even understand, what definition you apply to the concept of "god".
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2008
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No dude. You're the one who chose to throw in the grandiose phrase ipso facto without looking it up first. Ipso facto presumes that there is a standard, uncontroversial definition of all terms in use, and that there is an uncontroversial consensus regarding all observations and reasoning cited. In short, it's Latin for "duh." You used standard words that have standard definitions and your conclusion did not follow from your premise.

    Your existence does not constitute unremarkable, universally acknowledged evidence for the existence of a god. If your assertion is that your existence does indeed constitute evidence for the existence of a god, then you're not allowed to toss it off as an ipso facto summary argument. This is not my ruling, this is simply how the convention of ipso facto works.

    Since this website is a place of science, since the Linguistics subforum is one of our science boards even though linguistics is only a "soft" science, since the scientific method is therefore to be observed at all times, and since I am the Moderator here, let me make this clear:

    If you present an assertion and anyone challenges it, that is a peer review, which is one of the steps in the scientific method. You are required to immediately present evidence to support your assertion, before you are permitted to pursue your argument any further or to post it a second time, on this thread or any other. Failure to abide by this convention constitutes trolling, which is a violation of the rules of SciForums.

    Please present your evidence or desist.

    Saying, "I was joking," is also good. I'm famous for my inability to grasp sarcasm.
     

Share This Page