475732 pts ยท July 7, 2013
This has already been to the front page. Getting it there again will just change the number below:
Factorials came up more frequently in Statistics and Real Analysis than anywhere else.
What were they teaching 50 years ago? Just got my BS in Math, and factorials are like high school math.
Not necessarily. The central figure of worship in Buddhism is The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who wasn't a god, but was considered a divine being.
By all means. There's a reason a lot of modern atheists refer to themselves as "Agnostic Atheists" because it's a quick way of saying "I don't know if there's a god or gods, and I do not believe the claims that have been brought before me." as the two terms refer to different propositions. It provides more precision than the two terms that philosophically mean "I suspend judgment" and "I positively believe there are no gods", as most people have more nuanced beliefs.
Higher math has a lot of stuff like that.
Also, even philosophical academics acknowledge that the word is polysemous, and in some cases favor the usage of Strong and Weak atheism as useful. It's also worth mentioning that the guy you are replying to at the beginning of this chain learned more since making those comments and has since partially retracted his sentiment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
1) Dictionary definitions /do/ specifically cover the "lack of belief" definition of Atheism. 2) The positive disbelief definition of atheism is only really adhered to in formal academic philosophy. Colloquially, the "lack of a positive belief" definition is overwhelming. This is the reason it appears that way in the dictionary; dictionaries are descriptive of colloquial usage, not prescriptive of proper usage.
Just got my bachelors in Math. My opinion is that the vast majority of it is invented.
Just got my degree in math. This is frustratingly accurate.
The downvoters misinterpreted me. Colloquially, the /post/ is correct. Only in academic philosophy does Atheism = Positive disbelief.
Only when discussing it in strict philosophical terms. Colloquially, it's the mere lack of positive belief in a god or gods.
In strict academic philosophy, sure, that's how those terms are defined, but words are polysemous. Colloquially, atheism just lacks belief.
I mean, in this case, they're correct. You made two mistakes in your comment.
Folks here have posted the dictionary definition, which also covers lack of belief in a god or gods.
You're talking about the difference between a hard philosophical definition, and a colloquial, as I've said.
So basically your 3 propositions are covered by "Atheist"(lack belief), "Anti-theist" (positive disbelief), and Agnostic (Lack knowledge).
Hitchens made the distinction between "Atheist" and "Anti-theist" to solve that issue. Also your third one speaks to a different question.
You also might be having an issue keeping your conversations straight.
You seem to seriously have an issue inserting what you want someone to be saying into their mouths. Which, funnily enough, tells me how seriously I have to take /your/ opinion.
That's... great, dude. Tell me more about what you know I believe.
Buddhism is the first that comes to mind, but he's correct in that religions don't necessarily require a god.
So again... Is this your alt account? Because you're replying as though you're reichwinglunatic and the comments on this page are the first that the hirmus account has made in 13 years.
Is this your alt account? Because you're replying as though you're reichwinglunatic and the comments on this page are the first that the hirmus account has made in 13 years.
Only if you're playing the formal philosophy game. Colloquially this is accurate.
The theory of evolution is literally composed entirely of observations and repeatable experimentation.
I notice you keep ignoring the "belief" part of the analogy.
Atheism has a *Philosophical* definition of belief that there are no gods. Colloquially it's as defined above, evident by... the dictionary.
No, you're just trying to assert that the colloquial definition doesn't exist in the face of the hard philosophical definition.
Only if you're going by a hard philosophical definition. Colloquially this is accurate.
Factorials came up more frequently in Statistics and Real Analysis than anywhere else.
What were they teaching 50 years ago? Just got my BS in Math, and factorials are like high school math.
Not necessarily. The central figure of worship in Buddhism is The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, who wasn't a god, but was considered a divine being.
By all means. There's a reason a lot of modern atheists refer to themselves as "Agnostic Atheists" because it's a quick way of saying "I don't know if there's a god or gods, and I do not believe the claims that have been brought before me." as the two terms refer to different propositions. It provides more precision than the two terms that philosophically mean "I suspend judgment" and "I positively believe there are no gods", as most people have more nuanced beliefs.
Higher math has a lot of stuff like that.
Also, even philosophical academics acknowledge that the word is polysemous, and in some cases favor the usage of Strong and Weak atheism as useful. It's also worth mentioning that the guy you are replying to at the beginning of this chain learned more since making those comments and has since partially retracted his sentiment.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
1) Dictionary definitions /do/ specifically cover the "lack of belief" definition of Atheism. 2) The positive disbelief definition of atheism is only really adhered to in formal academic philosophy. Colloquially, the "lack of a positive belief" definition is overwhelming. This is the reason it appears that way in the dictionary; dictionaries are descriptive of colloquial usage, not prescriptive of proper usage.
Just got my bachelors in Math. My opinion is that the vast majority of it is invented.
Just got my degree in math. This is frustratingly accurate.
The downvoters misinterpreted me. Colloquially, the /post/ is correct. Only in academic philosophy does Atheism = Positive disbelief.
Only when discussing it in strict philosophical terms. Colloquially, it's the mere lack of positive belief in a god or gods.
In strict academic philosophy, sure, that's how those terms are defined, but words are polysemous. Colloquially, atheism just lacks belief.
I mean, in this case, they're correct. You made two mistakes in your comment.
Folks here have posted the dictionary definition, which also covers lack of belief in a god or gods.
You're talking about the difference between a hard philosophical definition, and a colloquial, as I've said.
So basically your 3 propositions are covered by "Atheist"(lack belief), "Anti-theist" (positive disbelief), and Agnostic (Lack knowledge).
Hitchens made the distinction between "Atheist" and "Anti-theist" to solve that issue. Also your third one speaks to a different question.
You also might be having an issue keeping your conversations straight.
You seem to seriously have an issue inserting what you want someone to be saying into their mouths. Which, funnily enough, tells me how seriously I have to take /your/ opinion.
That's... great, dude. Tell me more about what you know I believe.
Buddhism is the first that comes to mind, but he's correct in that religions don't necessarily require a god.
So again... Is this your alt account? Because you're replying as though you're reichwinglunatic and the comments on this page are the first that the hirmus account has made in 13 years.
Is this your alt account? Because you're replying as though you're reichwinglunatic and the comments on this page are the first that the hirmus account has made in 13 years.
Only if you're playing the formal philosophy game. Colloquially this is accurate.
The theory of evolution is literally composed entirely of observations and repeatable experimentation.
I notice you keep ignoring the "belief" part of the analogy.
Atheism has a *Philosophical* definition of belief that there are no gods. Colloquially it's as defined above, evident by... the dictionary.
No, you're just trying to assert that the colloquial definition doesn't exist in the face of the hard philosophical definition.
Only if you're going by a hard philosophical definition. Colloquially this is accurate.