WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [711][712][713][714][715][716][717][718][719][720] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 711) Arminius, 14.05.2015, 21:54, 22:22 22:53 (2991-2993)

2991

Yes. If there is absolutely homgenitity, then there is nothing perceptible. So absolutely homgenitity is like nothingness.

You said (**):

„Every mass, Earth or Moon, is made entirely of affectance (as is literally all things throughout the entire universe). A »heavy mass« is merely a higher concentration of affectance than a »lighter mass«. So of course the Earth, being a larger/heavier mass directly implies a greater concentration of affectance than the Moon. Weight or Mass and the degree of affectance concentration are the same thing.“ **

According to RM:AO there is no pushing and pulling; but if so: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not „migrate toward each other“ (**)?

You said (**):

„If two such concentrations of affects are in close proximity, both with lesser concentrated fields surrounding them, the two centers will begin to migrate toward each other because the concentration/density is greater between the two particles than other surrounding areas.“ **

According to RM:AO Earth and Moon must „migrate toward each other“ (**), because the „concentration/density is greater between“ Earth and Moon „than other surrounding areas“. So again: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not „migrate toward each other“?

2992

Zinnat wrote:

„Discussion in the other thread with James and Arminius gave me idea of this thread.“

What exactly gave you the „idea of this thread“?

And I am also waiting for your response „in the other thread“ (**|**).

2993

James S. Saint wrote:

„What prevents the Earth and Moon from coming together is what we call "tangential momentum" causing an orbiting. The Moon is in fact always falling toward the Earth, but by the time the Moon gets down to surface level, the Earth isn't there any more. The Moon is always "over-shooting" the Earth because the Moon has momentum tangent to its migrational fall.

Momentum is the property of an affectance traffic-jam, "mass particle", that is composed of affectance that is traveling more in one direction than others. As any particle begins to move, for whatever reason, it acquires more affectance within it that is traveling in that same direction as that movement and thus the particle keeps moving even after any reason for it to begin moving has gone away.

Particle momentum has some interesting properties.“ **

What do you exactly mean by „tangential momentum“, and why can a „tangential momentum“ cause an orbiting?

 

NACH OBEN 712) Arminius, 15.05.2015, 15:23, 17:06, 17:58 (2994-2996)

2994

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Moreno wrote:

›Of course, psychology is becoming more physicalist.‹ **

???« ** **

Psychologists refer more and more to psychiatrists. They more and more conceive of mind and brain as the same, and words like soul and spirit are off the table - at least more and more in secular portions of the West. The physicalist model is presented as having won, which is an effective propaganda technique and this is bought by more and more of the educated West. Of course there are vast numbers of studies of minds and cognitive processes in the field of psychology that do not refer to neuroscience, etc. But there is a gradual shifting to thinking of reality, including people and their minds, in physicalist terms. I think that was what I was getting at back then.“ **

They „invent“, „invent“, and „invent“ more and more „stuff“ („mental illness“ is merely one of that nonsense stuff) in order to control more and more humans, at last 99% of all humans (before all humans will be replaced by machines? [**|**]).

Moreno wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Moreno wrote:

›If only it was becoming more pagan.‹ **

???« **

Referring to Arminius other thread at that time where it was asked something like if paganism could save things.“ **

Do you mean the thread called „Will heathendom (pagandom) bring freedom back to us?“ (**|**)?

Moreno wrote:

„Paganism being vitalist, for example, where physicalism is a philosophy of death. Everything is actually dead, life is an appearance scum on the surface of a dead universe. Consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon. Brains (and thus minds) are machines. And so on.“ **

Do you believe in that?

2995

Humans can never be 100%-animals but „merely“ 98%-animals, and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes but „merely“ 98%-godwannabes.

2996

Since Galilei, Kepler, and Newton the physicists have been explaining the cause of the orbiting by two forces.

 

NACH OBEN 713) Arminius, 16.05.2015, 12:26, 14:14, 21:28 (2997-2999)

2997

My point was the difference between the explanation of the mainstream physicists and your explanation.

2998

Zinnat wrote:

„The trick is being able to entertain other or even opposite ideas at the same time.“ **

Probably we have to wait until Zinnat will have learned that „trick“.

Zinnat wrote:

„What else evidence is required when we see it happening all around automatically!“ **

What is "it"?

Zinnat wrote:

„I was talking about definitions, and they do not have evidences.“ **

So according to you the definitions are „happening all around automatically“, or what?

Zinnat wrote:

„I think that perhaps you are asking for the explanations for different definitions of nano.“ **

No.

Zinnat wrote:

„There are two different scales; micro and nano.“ **

There are more than two scales - for example 20 metric prefixes (SI prefixes). Excuse me, but I think you have no idea.

Zinnat wrote:

„But, over the time, the term nano is used more like a metaphor for all small things ....“ **

No. You are telling nonsense. „Nano“ is well defined and used as unit prefix meaning one billionth.

Zinnat wrote:

„But ... things are either misrepresented or blown out of the proportion.“ **

Which things do you mean?

Zinnat wrote:

„Almost all below 1 mm things are being called as nano and that process is nanotechnology ....“ **

That is again nonsense. There are six prefixes which mean less than nano (billionth), namely: pico (trillionth), femto (quadrillionth), atto (quintillionth), zepto (sextillionth), yocto (septillionth). For example: a proton has a diameter of about 1.6 to 1.7 femtometres.

Zinnat wrote:

„For instance, nonstick taflon coating on the utensils is now claimed to be done by nanotechnology. Tennis rackets are being claimed to be made by nanotechnology. But, strictly speaking, all these claims are false.

When we are unable to make and control even a single nano thing in normal circumstances so far, how these things can be claimed as being made by using nanotechnology!

But, the problem is that most of the people do not understand this. They get the false impression of the reality.“ **

Most of the people do not understand many things anyway - that is unfortunately normal. So there is not another problem but the same old problem, Zinnat.

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius - »But why do you not tell us your definition of ›observation‹ ? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.« ** **

Sanjay - I have been given already. Perhaps you did not notice. Here it is again -

Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.

Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.“ **

Yes, but that does not change anything of the definitions. The definitions of (for example) „observation“, „cognition“, „informnation“, „process“ can remain as constant as before.

2999

James S. Saint wrote:

„We still have a serious communication issue.“ **

Are you sure?

I asked you this:

„What do you exactly mean by „tangential momentum“, and why can a „tangential momentum“ cause an orbiting?“ ** **

And your „answer“ was merely a kind of sidestepping:

„That is something everyone already knows about, so perhaps I am not understanding your question.“ **

I know the translation of „tangential momentum“ and thus the meaning of it, at least in general, but I do not exactly know what you mean by it when it comes to cause an orbiting.

 

 

NACH OBEN 714) Arminius, 17.05.2015, 01:09, 14:50, 15:15, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00, 00:00 (3000-3003)

3000

According to RM:AO „existence is that which has affect“ (**).

3001

James S. Saint wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»In the case of the Moon, there is a vector of migration toward the Earth and also one parallel to the Earth's surface ("tangent") directly related to the orbital velocity. The combination of the two vectors causes the Moon to curve around the Earth rather than go directly at it or fly off away from it.« **

....“ **

Yes. Okay, thank you, James. But why is there a parallel vector of migration to the Earth's surface?“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„In RM:AO it is a matter of momentum and migratory acceleration (aka "force of gravity").

But „momentum“ and „migratory acceleration“ are not the same as „force of gravity“. So why „aka“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The only difference between my explanation and that of pre-relativity days is that I refer to two vector components of migratory motion rather than two vector components of forces.“ **

Yes, and according to RM:AO there are no forces in the sense of the mainstream physics, especially no pushing and pulling. Your two vector components of migratory motion have a different ontological basis or foundation than the two vector components of forces.

3002

There is a high probability that the well defined theory of a non-corrupted human is more true than the theory of a corrupted human who is called „scientist“ and depends on the money of other corrupted humans.

3003

James S. Saint wrote:

„By »why« did you mean »how did it get started« or »why is it still there«?

Both „how did it get started?“ and „why is it still there?“.

 

NACH OBEN 715) Arminius, 18.05.2015, 20:57, 22:55, 23:24 23:59 (3004-3007)

3004

It's hard to believe that just a member of a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is saying: „Thinking alone doesn't yield new information“ (**).


We need both thinking and observing. When it comes to an instinctual banality („humans as animals“), observing may be more important than thinking, but when it comes to the human culture/s and especially to science (science belongs to the Occidental culture), thinking is more important than observing (this does not mean that observing is unimportant), because it was the thinking that led to the scientifical (again: scientifical!) observation. Humans are humans because of their culture/s, naturally spoken: because of their brains. Many animals are much better observers than humans. What humans made to better oberservers was the enablement of the universal use of their brains which enabled them to a specification that led to scientification and at last to science itself. So the cause of the scientifical observation is thinking, the typical human thinking, caused by their brains and their culture/s - interactively.

3005

James S. Saint wrote:

„Science alone can never tell if anything is true, only that it hasn't been proven false ... yet.“ **

Yes. And if scientists are already corrupt and depend on other corrupt humans, then the probability becomes higher and higher that they say that, for example, „»X« has not been proven false“, although it has been proven false.

3006

Hume and Kant are good examples when it comes to the topic of this thread, because Hume and Kant are contemporaries of the enlightenment era - Kant even of two eras: the enlightenment era and the next era -, and many aspects of RM:AO are similar to many aspects of the enlightenment era, especially: rationality, metaphysics, its ontology, and science. After the enlightenment era this aspects got lost, became mere parts of science, or got into the fairway of nihilism.

But all that historical facts did not change anything of the importance of those aspects.

3007

Diekon wrote:

„And after Kant, Nietzsche ....“ **

No. After Kant: many others, especially Hegel, then many others, amongst them (for example): Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sloterdijk, ....

 

NACH OBEN 716) Arminius, 19.05.2015, 02:21, 17:34, 23:16 (3008-3010)

3008

**

x-coordinate <=> centuries (0 <=> the year 1800)
y-coordinate <=> degree (magnitude)
------------------------------------
y = (½)^x <=> philosophy
x = 2^x <=> nihilism

Currently (x = 2 ) the degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 16 times higher than the degree of philosophy (y = ¼); the current degree of philosophy (y = ¼) is 32 times lower than it was in the year 1500 (x = –3 and y = 8), the current degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 32 times higher than it was in the year 1500 (x = –3 and y = 0,125).

When mathematics and physics left philosophy they became scientific disciplines. Contemporarily the degree of nihlism was very low, almost imperceptible. Currently the degree of philosophy is as low as nihlism was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, whereas the degree of nihlism is as high as philosophy was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, - One can have the impression that nihilism is an awful revenge.

If we want to save the philosophy, then we have to fight against the nihilism. The nihilism is an enemy of both philosophy and science, but nevertheless the number of nihilistic „philosophers“ has been exponetially increasing, followed by the number of nihilistic „scientists“.

Who can stop the nihilism?

3009

The statement that there is an „inifinite difference“ between two sequenced numbers is similar to the statement that a real physical contact between two bodies or particles is not possible because of the charges of their electrons on both outside lanes of both atoms: both charges are negative (each electron always has a negative charge).

But we know that 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, and so on, and we know that we can have contact.

3010

Ecmandu wrote:

„No matter how you cut it, the distance between 0 and 1 is infinite. Saying 0+1=1 doesn't actually solve that problem.“ **

There is no problem.

Maybe Galilei exaggerated when he said that mathematics is the language of the nature. Anyway. We - the humans - have no other choice than to use our language in order to explain the observed nature (universe), because this explanation can only be done by the use of the language we have (and we have no other), scientifically spoken: by the use of linguistics and mathematics - and the intersection of both is logic.

 

NACH OBEN 717) Arminius, 20.05.2015, 15:19, 20:13, 20:59, 21:54 (3011-3014)

3011

Zinnat wrote:

„Mr. Reasonable, you people have have wrong picture of lower class. Vehicle insurance is compulsory everywhere, including India.
But, I do not think that a person surviving on minimum wages should have facilities like car. In India, a person surviving on minimum wages cannot think of two wheeler, even in the dreams, forget about car. This is precisely the difference between two countries.
Secondly, car is not a necessity by any stretch of imagination, no matter in which part of the world are you living. One has to use public transport under such circumstances, even if it takes some more time.
MR, when you are surviving on minimum wages or job guarantees, you have to live a life of survival, not luxury. It is as simple as that. Government is responsible only for the survival of the poor, not their luxuries. If one wants all, he has to come in the open ground and fight the competition.
Asking for job guarantees and minimum wages is some sort of help/donation. And, such people cannot be choosers. They are not supposed to have luxuries or live at par with those who are fighting competition. This is where liberals tend to cross the line of rationality.“ **

Zinnat, humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury, then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans poorer and poorer.

The „Brazilianisation“ of the world is a process of „3rd-world-isation“ which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly „island“ of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely populated, and very beautiful „Island“ of the 1% of all humans with a huge luxury.

The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury. So, for example, you can eschew luxury, of course, but that merely makes the distribution (allocation) of the luxury unfairer and unfairer, so that you consequently must eschew luxury, whereas the 1% of all humans can get more and more luxury, because your eschewal of luxury does not mean all humans' eschewal of luxury but the increase of other humans' luxury. At last 99% of all humans will have to eschew about 99% of all luxury (wealth), whereas 1% of all humans will have that 99% of all luxury (wealth).

3012

James S. Saint wrote:

„You (**) don't seem to understand the psychology of this site.

At ILP if you want to find out what's wrong with something or who all hates it, you don't say, »I hate this. Now who's with me?« Instead you praise the absolute perfection of it, proclaiming that it is greater than any philosopher, especially Kant and Nietzsche, or any philosophical perspective. Point out the details that you want to have criticized; »The book points out the real truth that mathematics really is the supreme understanding, fourth spatial dimensioning is unquestionably true, ... blah, blah, blah ...«.

From that, you will get what you [say that you] seek.

ILPers love to hate (it's an ego thing).“ **

Yes, at least most of them. And that ego thing is one of the main parts of the nihilism.

3013

Ecmandu wrote:

„This thread will contradict that.... not everyone is on an ego trip here, when they agree with a topic, they generally won't comment on it, and let the topic stand for itself.“ **

I did not say that „everyone is on an ego trip here“, but I said „most of them“. Perhaps you did not read my whole post (**|**).

....

Most of them.

Ecmandu wrote:

„You and James make it sound like we all have ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) - it's just parsimony that everyone generally agrees with an OP and doesn't reply to it. ILP is corrective, not „egoistic“.“ **

I was talking about most (about 80%) of the ILP members, thus not about ILP itself. Perhaps you did not read my whole post (**|**).

....

Most of them. I estimate: 80%.

3014

Ecmandu, stop being arrogant and derailing this thread. You are obviously not even smart enough to realise that you are derailing this thread.

 

NACH OBEN 718) Arminius, 21.05.2015, 02:17, 02:53, 19:22, 19:47 (3015-3018)

3015

Orb wrote:

„I can't share Your negative about it, James, since it seems to advance by Habermas the notion of some similarity with Marcuse's One Dimensional Man and and the dawn of the Wasteland. It tries to be integrative, so I hold my opinion in suspense, until, I like Reasonable have a chance to look at it.“ **

Oh, no. Not the „Frankfurt School“. That „school“ is definitely out!


- Https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alice+cooper

(Alice Cooper [Vincent Damon Furnier], School's out, 1972).

3016

Jr Wells wrote:

„I am sure that theists will not argue against the notion that atheists/agnostics have intellects equivalent to that of a newborn (if that is what atheists are arguing for).“ **

Are you really sure in that case?

3017

Don't forget that jobs have also to do with luxury (wealth). So if somemone wants to find a job, this one also needs some things which are usually luxuries and suddenly necessities in order to (get a job to) get more luxury (wealth). So luxuries, although usually not needed, can become necessities, and if they do, then merely in order to get other, thus more luxuries, not in any and every case but in order to reproduce and propagate luxury in general, regardless whether they are for anyone and everyone or not. So luxury can only find its end by disasters, catastrophes, cataclysms. Therefore I said:


Arminius wrote:

„The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury.“ ** **

3018

Do you know an established physicist who is brave enough to say: „Yes, we are going to stop the mainstream physics by establishing RM:AO“?

 

NACH OBEN 719) Arminius, 22.05.2015, 01:39, 20:09, 22:49, 23:48 (3019-3022)

3019

Orb wrote:

„Granted linguistics has a function to present objects to consciousness, but the triad goes like this:

Linguistics > objects > consciousness, and here is the clincher, beneath the level of linguistics, then, there is no presentation. What of the contention, that it is like this:
Consciousness > objects < linguistics? this would devolve the object below the level of selective awareness? Here, a functional linguistics would become inadequate to explain it. The language would still explain the function of presentation by way of symbolic transference to meaning, but that's all. It cannot go above or beneath the transference.

The object would and the objective would becom flat lined, one dimensional, and reductive.

Within an inductive language, a production of meaning would no find its place, or function, except if replaced by probable meaning and utility. the presentation would not guarantee an intended interpretation. Therefore function would become uncertain. You would not even need to delve into questions relating to »reality«.“ **

They must be considered as one way containing two ways:

1,1) Linguistics => objects => consciousness,
1,2) Consciousness => objects => linguistics.

Both ways (1,1 amd 1,2) of the one way (1) are necessary - for example: for language development and language acquisition, and also for consciousness development and consciousness acquisition.

3020

Zinnat wrote:

„Philosophy also has to be earned, besides learning. “ **

Zinnat wrote:

„Let me take two different analogies here to explain the issue. In maths, we have positive and negative numbers. Right. Here, you can say that negative numbers are »apositive«. That would be true if maths would not have zero. But, as the maths also has the concept of zero, which is specifically designed to state such a position, which is different both from positive and negative, thus you cannot define zero as apositive.“ **

According to the number theory of mathematics „zero“ is „not positive“ (which means „apositive“, „the lack of positive“) and „not negative“ (which means „anegative“, „the lack of negative“). The right alternative word for „negative“ is „antipositvie“, and the right alternative word for „positive“ is „antinegatvie“. The word „apositive“ means just „not posiitive“, thus it can be „negative“ and/or „neutral“. But „antipositive“ means „the opposite of positive“, thus „negative“, and „antinegative“ means „the opposite of negative“, thus „positive“.

Zinnat wrote:

„I'm the same way, in the real world, we have positive charged particles like photons and negative charged particles like electrons.“ **

For God's sake! Photons are not „positively charged“, the charge of photons is „0“, thus neutral („free of charge“, „chargeless“, „acharged“, „not charged“).

Zinnat wrote:

Both of these are charged but opposite ones.“ **

„No, because the charged opposite ones in an atome are protons (+) and electrons (-).

Zinnat wrote:

„And, we have neutrons also which are completely free from any charge.“ **

Like photons.

Zinnat wrote:

„But, do we call neutrons as apositive, just because they lack positive charge?“ **

We could call them „apositive“, because they are „not positive“ (see above), but we could not call them „antipsoitive“, because they are „not negative“.

Zinnat wrote:

„Or, consider electrons and neutrons the same? And, if not, how can you put all non-godbelivers into one basket? You have to differinciate between those who believe that there is no god and who do have belief of either side.“ **

There are god-believers (theists), non-godbilievers (non-theists, thus: a-theists), and anti-godbelievers (anti-theists). Compare protons (positve), neutrons (neutral), and electrons (negative) in an atome.

Zinnat wrote:

„This second anology fits perfectly on our issue in hand. Theism is like protons, positively charged and atheism is like electrons, negatively charged. But, agnosticm is different from both. It stands apart and presenting it as an opposite of positive only is unjustified.“ **

Theism is like a proton, positively charged, atheism is like a neutron, neutrally charged, and antitheism is like an electron, negatively charged.

Most ot them who call themselves „atheists“ are „antitheists“, otherwise they would not fight against theism. Real atheists are not interested in theism, but antitheists are very much interested in theism. So you can also easily verify it here, because all ILP members who call themselves „atheists“ are antitheists. Verify it!

3021

A more detailed analogy:

-------------------------------------

– A protrons consists of three quarks:
1) up quark (charge: + 2/3),
2) up quark (charge: + 2/3),
3) down quark (charge: –1/3)
---------------------------------------
= Protron (sum of charge: 1).

If we use the analogy in the way that theists are like „protrons“, then a majority of them are like up quarks (charge: +2/3), whereas a minority of them are like down quarks (charge: –1/3). The „up quark theists“ are more theistic than the „down quark atheists“.

Another example: If agnostics tend to theism, then they are „up quark theists“.

----------------------------------------------

– A neutron consists of three quarks:
1) up quark (charge: + 2/3),
2) down quark (charge: –1/3)
3) down quark (charge: –1/3)
---------------------------------------
= Neutron (sum of charge: 0).

If we use the analogy in the way that atheists are like „neutrons“, then a majority of them are like down quarks (charge: –1/3), whereas a minority of them are like up quarks (charge: +2/3). The „down quark atheists“ are more atheistic than the „up quark atheists“.

Another example: If agnostics tend to atheism, then they are „up quark atheists“.

------------------------------------------

– An electron.
(Charge: –1).

If we use the analogy in the way that antitheists are like „electrons“, then we have to state that ALL antithesist are in the same way like electrons. Their thoughs are always orbiting the „nucleus“ because of the „charged“ theism (compare: proton) not because of the „non-charged“ atheism (compare: neutron), although it is also a part of the „nucleus“.

Antitheists often claim to be what they are not, for example: „atheists“; but the reason for the antitheists' claim to be „atheists“ is just that they are orbiting the „nucleus“ because of the „charged“ theists (compare: protons); and claiming to be an "atheist" just means the antitheists' wishful thinking that they are closer to the „nucleus“than they really are.

Another example: Agnostics do never tend to antitheism.

3022

Arminius wrote:

„One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is alo impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says »God does not exist« or »I do not know that God does not exist«. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called »Indios« or »Indians« didn't even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not« / »non«, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme »anti« means »against« / »contra«. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Another example:

Are antifeminists called »afeminists«? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism ....“ ** **

Antifeminsts fight against feminists. Antifeminism (thus: not afeminism) is the opposite of feminism.

Those who oppose theists and theism are antitheists. Antitheism (thus: not atheism) is the opposite of theism.

So it is a simple but successful rhetoric trick of the antitheists to call themselves „atheists“.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning of the words „theist“, „theism“, „theology“, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words.
So the answer to the question of this thread is clear.

Mutcer wrote:

„There are many in the atheist community ....“ **

That „aitheist community“ is is probably an antitheist community, because 99% of the atheists are antitheists.

Mutcer wrote

„... who don't feel that newborn babies should be called atheists.“ **

Those who want newborns to be called „atheists“ or whatever just want more power (in this example: more power over newborns).

 

NACH OBEN 720) Arminius, 23.05.2015, 14:32, 21:41, 22:54, 22:54, 23:33 (3023-3027)

3023

Mutcer wrote:

„Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't change the fact that newborn babies are atheists.“ **

The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.

Arminius wrote:

„Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theology«, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words.
When it comes to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know what it means to be that. Additionally the legal personal freedom (which is much restricted anyway) could and would not be guaranteed.“ ** **

Mutcer wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible.“ (** **) ** **

Not necessarily true.“ **

Your statement is not true.

Mutcer wrote:

„If the god which is posited is logically impossible, then one can with 100% confidence say that the existence of such god is impossible.“ **

That is not true. Why should god be „logically impossible“? Or are you the one who wants to be god? Are you (like the most antitheists) a godwannabe? You want to be the one who dictates (by using the word "posit") that god is impossible.

Theists say that god is possible, atheists say that they do not know whether god is possible or not, and antitheists say that god is impossible (because theists say that god is possible and because, if the times are modern times, then being against theists is so hypocritically „progressive“ and can lead to more appreciation, thus power, and that is the goal). You „argue“ like an antitheist - not logically but dictatorially.

Mutcer wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says ›God does not exist‹ or ›I do not know that God does not exist‹. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.« (** **) ** **

The former would be a gnostic atheist and the latter an agnostic atheist.“ **

No.

Arminius wrote:

„The Ancient Greek morpheme »a« means »not« / »non«, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme »anti« means »against« / »contra«. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).“ (** **) ** **

It does not matter how falsely and rhetorically these words are used in the English language. Almost everyone knows what is logically meant by „a“ and „anti“, regardless how you or anyone else „translate“ them. What I was saying has to do with both linguistics and logic, what you are saying has only to do with the use of an everyday language by an English speaker. Again: An Atheist does not know and says to not know whether (it is possible that) god exists or not, but an antitheist (like you) claims to know that god does not exist in order to say the oppsite of that what a theists says. „Anti“ <=> „against“, „contra“.

Mutcer wrote:

„Do you think it is possible to know that god does exist?“ **

Do you think that it is not possible to know that god does exist? And if so: why?

Mutcer wrote:

„In most cases, antitheists are atheists.“ **

No. About 99% of all atheists are antitheists. Atheists are not interested in These themes we are talking about. Atheist are not interested in the theme "god", "theism", and so on (that is - by the way - the reason why atheists are so seldom and merely a few [about 1%]), but antitheists are interested in that, often more than theists.

Mutcer wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Newborns are no theists, no atheists, no antitheists. In order to be a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist, one has to know the meaning of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theology«, and so on.
Newborns do not know these words.“ ** **

Correct that newborns don't know those words. But you are incorrect on two other accounts ....“ **

No. I am correct in all acounts, and you are incorrect in all accounts.

If someone does not believe in god, then this one is a non-godbeliever but not necessarily an atheist or an antitheist. Theism, atheism, and antitheism require a modern society - amongst others the „isms“ stand for this requirement -, so non-modern societies have nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism, regardless whether they believe in god, or not know whether they should believe in god, or do not believe in god. They have nothing to do with „isms“, and they believe what they believe without any thinking about it.

Additionally: A newborn does not need to be a theist, an atheist, an antitheist in order to be.

Is a newborn „old“? According to you: yes, at least with a high probability; because the probability is high that a newborn will become an old human.
is a newborn „old-fashioned“? According to you: yes; because a newborn has no clothes.

3024

Mutcer wrote:

„From http://www.dictionary.com

atheist
[ey-thee-ist]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.“ **

That definition might be valid for English speaking humans, but it is not valid when it comes to philosophy, to science, especially to the original meaning of the word, because that is the only valid definition.

You may refer to the false English version, I always refer to the true original version.

3025


James S. Saint wrote:

„Emm ..., since it is an English word, how can it be false English?“ **

3026

Mutcer wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mutcer wrote:

›Unless we change the definition of atheist, then we can't change the fact that newborn babies are atheists.‹ **

The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.« ** **

Unless a newborn baby holds a belief that a god exists, then it is by definition an atheist.“ **

A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words "theism", "atheism", and "antitheism" would have no meaning at all. A newborn is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what "god" and "gods" are.

Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.

Mutcer wrote:

„Whether or not one knows what the word means isn't a requirement for one to be an atheist.“ **

It is a requirement, of course.

A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist. The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words "theism", "atheism", and "antitheism" would have no meaning at all. A newborn is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what "god" and "gods" are.

Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.

Mutcer wrote:

„However, if you can find a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what 'atheist' means to be an atheist, then I'll concede that you're right.“ **

Do you know another language besides English?

Mutcer wrote:

„If a logically impossible god is posited, one can know for sure that the existence of such god is impossible.“ **

A shoddy trick! „If a logically impossible Mutcer is posited, one can know for sure that the existence of such Mutcer is impossible.“

God is possible. Another universe outside of this is possible. We just do not know something like that, but we can believe in that, because it is possible.

Mutcer wrote:

„One is free to posit a logically impossible god or a logically possible god.“ **

I did not say that one is not free to do that.

Mutcer wrote:

„I'll posit one right now. A timeless, spaceless god named Dexter who periodically manifests himself in reality by appearing as a 19 foot tall 3 headed monster who breathes green bubbles. That's not a logically impossible god, as it can't be falsified. But if I were to posit a god which always loves Aminius and also always doesn't love Aminius, then such a god would be logically impossible - as one cannot always love something and also always not love that same something.“ **

„Love“ does not necessarily mean a typical character of a god or gods. Your example is ridiculous. Is it possible that you do not know what „god“ means?

Mutcer wrote:

„Some atheists are gnostic in their knowledge - or are gnostic atheists.“ **

No. Atheists are atheists.

Mutcer wrote:

„Atheism doesn't address the issue of whether or not it is possible that a god exists. It only addresses the issue of whether or not one holds the belief that a god exists. So to say to be an atheist, one must "not know and says to not know whether it is possible that gods exists or not" is not quite accurate.“ **

The precondition of theism, atheism, and antitheism is the believe in god or gods. Otherwise the words „theism“, „atheism“, and „antitheism“ would have no meaning at all. A newborn, for example, is not able to believe in god or gods, because a newborn does not know what „god“ and „gods“ are.

Your trial of a debate about this is based on a proton pseudos, thus on an error because of a false precondition.

Mutcer wrote:

„What is the difference between a »non-godbeliever« and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?“ **

I already said this several times.

Mutcer wrote:

„Think back to when the first person came up with the idea of a god.“ **

Which „first person“?

Mutcer wrote:

„Were all people before this person something other than atheists? If they weren't atheists, then were they theists?“ **

Neither atheists nor theists - like I said several times.

3027

James S. Saint wrote:

„So what are you saying that the ancient Greek word actually meant?“ **

James, we already had this kind of conservation. Okay, like I said several times (also in this thread): ** ** ** **

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN