Yep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he follows
--> @ShilaYep, words have the same meaning whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, they are spelled the same too.It should also be the same with Taoism which is what he followsYes, believe it or not, even if you are a Taoist, words have the same meaning.
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explainOh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.
This is the exact same thing as arguing that something is wrong because it’s illegal. In that example, according to your logic, the state would be the “objective standard” for morality.
--> @SidewalkerIf you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explainOh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.i know the definitionsplease explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED
Atheists like Christians have to deal with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make clear their positions.
If you think ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions then you don't know what the words ONTOLOGICAL and EPISTEMOLOGICAL mean.please explainOh pulease, just get a dictionary, look up all three words, try to understand the definition of all three words and you will see that the statement "ATHEISM has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions" is simply an innane statement.i know the definitionsplease explain specifically how these concepts are REQUIRED
--> @ShilaAtheists like Christians have to deal with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make clear their positions.how do you use ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions to make your position clear ?
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.
Your argument hinges on the idea that if we don’t obey God’s moral code we will be sent to hell, but the “objective result” of going to hell is irrelevant to the question of whether said repercussions are moral.
Whether his word can be overruled is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity.
--> @TarikWhat do you think my original statement was?Double_R replied: That morality can only make sense of it is objective.So first of all, you have yet to explain why god is objectively, the moral standard.I did that already and all you did was reject my reasoning with no explanation as to whyA logically invalid explanation is not an explanation, and I’ve explained why it is invalid multiple times.Once again, might =/= right. Your argument hinges on the idea that if we don’t obey God’s moral code we will be sent to hell, but the “objective result” of going to hell is irrelevant to the question of whether said repercussions are moral.This is the exact same thing as arguing that something is wrong because it’s illegal. In that example, according to your logic, the state would be the “objective standard” for morality.What He can do doesn’t and shouldn’t overrule what He will do, therefore it remains objective.Double_R replied: Whether his word can be overruled is irrelevant to the concept of objectivity.
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".
In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?".
That morality can only make sense of it is objective.That’s not much different from saying my only conception of morality is that which aligns with god.
Well if you knew what morality was (at least my understanding of it) you would see that your question is redundant in the sense that it already has the answer, morality is the religious path one must follow to achieve eternal bliss, any deviation from that is the literal example of immorality.
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes", "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific godsbeing unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemologyepistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you knowwith emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
I know what the principles of your religious faith are, and I know just how important that innane burden of proof game is to your fundamentalism, I but you don't have to let it make you completely incoherent about everything.Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.But don't worry, you can still turn Atheism into a religion if you want, you haven't lost your ability to blather on about the childish burden of proof game, you can be as irrational as you want, nobody expects more from you, you can even evangelize your faith here, but you don't get to insist that we join your cult.
--> @ShilaIn these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?".anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"the minimum qualification is simplyto be unconvinced of the reality of any specific godsbeing unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemologyepistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you knowwith emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
Most Atheists are better informed and educated knowing what they are up against having declared they are nonbelievers or Atheists. They have to be prepared to answer why they chose atheism and why they are going against conventional beliefs and what are the rational and bases for their atheism.In short they knowledge base is questioned, which is the very roots of epistemology.
--> @ShilaMost Atheists are better informed and educated knowing what they are up against having declared they are nonbelievers or Atheists. They have to be prepared to answer why they chose atheism and why they are going against conventional beliefs and what are the rational and bases for their atheism.In short they knowledge base is questioned, which is the very roots of epistemology.why does any atheist need to "justify" what they are merely UNCONVINCED of ?
To prove there is a rationale behind their lack of conviction.Same reason why Theists are are asked to prove or show evidence there is a god.
--> @ShilaTo prove there is a rationale behind their lack of conviction.Same reason why Theists are are asked to prove or show evidence there is a god.do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?what about PANGU ?why don't you believe in PANGU ?
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?what about PANGU ?why don't you believe in PANGU ?I have not touched topics on Krishna or Pangu or other gods.You are claiming you god is Krishna. “why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”Your profile says you follow Taoism. Are you lying or just confused?
--> @Shilado you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?what about PANGU ?why don't you believe in PANGU ?I have not touched topics on Krishna or Pangu or other gods.You are claiming you god is Krishna. “why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”Your profile says you follow Taoism. Are you lying or just confused?try answering at least one of my two questions first
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions". You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.
“why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord krishna is a real god ?”
--> @Shilado you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)
None of this is atheism. All of this is in the realm of skepticism.
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
