Are Bricks Atheists?
 Posts: 872
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM Posted: 6 years ago Atheism as classically defined: "The lack of belief in a God/deity"
P1. Atheists lack belief in a God. P2. Bricks lack belief in a God. C: Bricks are atheists. Thoughts? "I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings" |
 Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM Posted: 6 years ago Usually we only claim that sentient beings can think and believe things.
|
 Posts: 1,340
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: Bricks can't consciously think. . |
|
Posts: 1,340
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:39:21 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: Bricks can't consciously think. At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: . |
 Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: This. You can't lack a belief in gods if you can't understand what God is Wall of Fail Devil worship much? - SD Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD "you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler |
|
Posts: 872
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: Yes, but atheism isn't defined about what someone thinks. From what I understand, atheism isn't "I think that God(s) don't exist", but rather "I don't think that God(s) exist". As in, "I lack any belief that God(s) exist". Therefore you're describing a mental void that any inanimate object is capable of possessing. "I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings" |
|
Posts: 872
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:45:27 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM, Microsuck wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: But that definition doesn't require one to consciously think or understand God. "I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings" |
 Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:46:20 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: Atheism is defined as the disbelief in the existance of God. Disbelief means that they must consciously know the difference between belief and disbelief, which bricks cannot do. |
|
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:46:30 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: Atheist as classifically defined: "A person that lacks a belief in a god." Bricks aren't people, so they don't meet the first requirement.
Illicit minor. http://en.wikipedia.org... |
|
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:47:17 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: Yes, but the question isn't "Are bricks atheism" the question is "Are bricks atheists" and "atheist" is defined to be a person. From what I understand, atheism isn't "I think that God(s) don't exist", but rather "I don't think that God(s) exist". As in, "I lack any belief that God(s) exist". Therefore you're describing a mental void that any inanimate object is capable of possessing. |
 Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:48:25 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:46:30 PM, drafterman wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: Do you think the term "dead people" should be done away with?
|
|
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:50:02 PM Posted: 6 years ago Why don't we just cut to the punchline here. Even if you could, and did, demonstrate that bricks are atheists.
... So what? What relevance do you believe this conclusion holds for anything? I mean, you're wrong and I stand by you being wrong, but I'm still interesting in what you think the significance of you being right would be. |
 Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:53:00 PM Posted: 6 years ago In order to be an atheist you have to not only lack belief in God(s) as all inanimate objects do. You have to consciously believe that they don't exist. Thought and consciousness are presupposed. This is a bit of a silly question.
|
|
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:54:22 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:48:25 PM, Rusty wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:46:30 PM, drafterman wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: As a colloquialism it doesn't have a place in the type of logically inference the OP is trying to enforce here, so shouldn't be introduced without some sort of additioanl explicit qualifications. Again, I'm not sure of the relevance here as well, since making "dead people" atheists in this sense would still have other absurd conseequences like, say, vegegarianism. A vegetarian is a person that doesn't eat meat. Does that mean dead people are vegetarians? Hell, they're vegans! I'm willing to accept dead people as atheists as much as I'm willing to accept them as vegetarians, but I think doing so requires a deliberate abandonment of common sense and ignorance of implicit criteria which are unsaid in the name of not making casual conversation so cumbersome as to be pointless. However, when we get into any sort of rigorous logic, we must inherit the burden of explicitly stating those cumbersome criteria in the name of being explicit demonstration of the force of our inferrences and conclusions.
|
|
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:54:31 PM Posted: 6 years ago Actually, what I was saying doesn't seem to work anyhow. I don't think that I would say that a caterpillar who has undergone metamorphosis is still a caterpillar, instead of a butterfly, even if I call it a metamorphosed caterpillar.
|
 Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:56:54 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: This is incorrect because atheism = "belief that God/deity does not exist." Atheism is a declaration of belief, plain and simple. However, if you take "lack of belief in a God/deity" to be equal to "belief that God/deity does not exist", then it is acceptable otherwise it is not. Why? Because "lack of belief" is NOT a declaration of belief. As you said, a rock can have a "lack of belief." ************* At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:Exactly, and as such they lack belief.At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:Bricks can't consciously think. ************* At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:What do you expect: garbage in, garbage out. Usually we use proper definitions so by your reasoning we would need to throw the "lack of belief" definition of atheism out. ************* At 5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM, Microsuck wrote:Actually, it's about the only time you can! **************** WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something. |
|
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:56:58 PM Posted: 6 years ago I mean, obviously I think that dead people are people because of my religious views, but I'm saying I don't think that this logic is good.
|
 Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 12:59:00 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: Actually I think that bricks are hard atheists. See what I did there? |
|
Posts: 1,340
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:00:33 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:59:00 PM, Meatros wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: That comment made me hard. . |
|
Posts: 1,340
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:01:01 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 1:00:33 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:59:00 PM, Meatros wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: 1,000 comment bitches! . |
|
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:08:10 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 1:00:33 PM, westernmarch wrote:Gay derailed.At 5/29/2012 12:59:00 PM, Meatros wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something. |
 Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:29:59 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM, Microsuck wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: The Fool: if you dont understand you can't have a believe. I would say this is a lack or belief. at best the non-existence of one . . "The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL |
|
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:30:59 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:45:27 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM, Microsuck wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: The Fool: So then its Ghost word. That is a word that doesn't represent anything in the world. "The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL |
|
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:33:52 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: Inanimate objects do not have any mental capacity. Atheism requires a formulation of an opinion, and rocks cannot formulate opinions. |
|
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:33:54 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:48:25 PM, Rusty wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:46:30 PM, drafterman wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: The Fool: words can be re-appropriated. "The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL |
|
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:34:26 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 1:30:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:Ergo, a bad definition.At 5/29/2012 12:45:27 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM, Microsuck wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: WOS : At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote: : Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something. |
|
Posts: 872
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:41:50 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 12:46:20 PM, tkubok wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: But disbelief is defined as a lack of belief, rather then a belief that God doesn't exist. Therefore consciousness is no longer a requirement as it is no longer a requirement to think anything, but rather to lack belief. "I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings" |
|
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:41:50 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 1:33:52 PM, royalpaladin wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: The Fool: I dont really consider my self an atheist at all, For the term presummed that there is a god too be lacking. I think we should be able to have our own unified and liberated definition. You have to remember that the purpose of laveling people athiest in the bible is intentionally the to make it okay for thiest to develop hate toward you, and treat us as lesser. Even burn us at the stake if we never got secularized, without having to be held morally responsible. Because God or at least manipulation the God words say so. Notice they keep trying to twist the reality of atheism with the bible definition. They really HATE US "The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL |
|
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:43:37 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 1:34:26 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:At 5/29/2012 1:30:59 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:Ergo, a bad definition.At 5/29/2012 12:45:27 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:42:12 PM, Microsuck wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:38:37 PM, westernmarch wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:33:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote: The Fool: ah you got it. Its about time. Like the non-existence of the mind is bad defintion. "The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL |
|
Posts: 872
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
5/29/2012 1:44:33 PM Posted: 6 years ago At 5/29/2012 1:33:52 PM, royalpaladin wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:44:23 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:At 5/29/2012 12:35:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote: Why does atheism require the formulation of an opinion? If all atheism is, is a mere "lack of belief", what about that requires consciousness? It does not take consciousness to lack a belief in something. "I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings" |