Whats your religion

[DeathStrudel]

An argument can be valid without being sound.

umm....not really, the definition of valid is sound

Absolutely incorrect.

I looked up valid and it said "sound" so it's entirely correct

How am I expected to have any kind of rational discourse if you refuse to acknowledge even basic critical thinking skills?

How am I expected to have any kind of rational discourse if you refuse read the fucking dictionary?

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Ugh, you're insufferable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief (opinion)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief (confidence or trust in something)


Two completely different definitions, not to mention three-fourths of the sites I visited agree with me over you (Google, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary, and TheFreeDictionary).

Stop being a giant idiot, troll, or both (if possible).

 

[ProtoKun7]

Alright, calm down now. Back to the original topic.
And Blood Fetish, just because you don't agree with someone's view doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Blood Fetish]

When something is valid that means it is logically consistent. When something is sound that means it is both valid and the premises are correct. These are different things, and it is disconcerting that you are fighting this so much.

 

[DeathStrudel]

Ugh, you're insufferable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief (opinion)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief (confidence or trust in something)


Two completely different definitions, not to mention three-fourths of the sites I visited agree with me over you (Google, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary, and TheFreeDictionary).

Stop being a giant idiot, troll, or both (if possible).

words have more than one definition. If a definition of the word belief is opinion then the definition of the word can be opinion no matter how many definitions don't use that word. you should take your own advice.

 

[Deleted member 473940]

As far as for religion goes...
I am a confused guy lol.
Not quite sure what to believe and what not to.
Does that make me an athiest o.O?

 

[BobTheJoeBob]

As far as for religion goes...
I am a confused guy lol.
Not quite sure what to believe and what not to.
Does that make me an athiest o.O?

Makes you more agnostic than atheist.

 

[Pyrmon]

Ugh, you're insufferable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief (opinion)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief (confidence or trust in something)


Two completely different definitions, not to mention three-fourths of the sites I visited agree with me over you (Google, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary, and TheFreeDictionary).

Stop being a giant idiot, troll, or both (if possible).

According to those definitions I was right.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

According to those definitions I was right.

Which ones? I can only see you being correct if the word "opinion" was stated or implied.

@strudel: I'm done with you, brah.

 

[DeathStrudel]

When something is valid that means it is logically consistent. When something is sound that means it is both valid and the premises are correct. These are different things, and it is disconcerting that you are fighting this so much.

sorry, it's only because of youre "Absolutely incorrect" post, because i have certainly seen definitions that define valid as sound as well as saying that they are synonyms, but overall I would say your definition is more correct, I just havent really though about it before

 

[Sterling]

When something is valid that means it is logically consistent. When something is sound that means it is both valid and the premises are correct. These are different things, and it is disconcerting that you are fighting this so much.

Yes, in physical terms that is correct. Faith on the other hand is not exact, or a physical manifestation. It's a phenomenon that is deeply seated in many, and cannot be explained. A lot of times it relies much on human nature to spread it's ideas. Does this make belief invalid? No, folly perhaps, but it's validity has yet to be proved or disproved. Since it likely never will be fully explained either, I figure it's something you figure out when you die. Which nobody (unless you believe in Jesus or similar figures) has risen again or ever will.

 

[DeathStrudel]

@strudel: I'm done with you, brah.

lol, I'm bout to go smoke some buds with the boys anyway so peace out

 

[xtreme1]

I love when people have to get the definitions of these words to prove their point with technicalities.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

do you know how a dictionary works? you just proved yourself wrong I hope you know

No, I did not actually. There are plenty of definitions of a word, as "belief" shows just by itself. And here in the United States, you should know, we use "belief" as a synonym for "faith," and not "opinion," as it shows in the dictionary. Yet, belief can be both.

And, just so you know, the dictionary is not the linguistic law of the land, as jargon, slang, colloquialisms, and connotations show. People rule the language. Dictionaries are just a tool we use to provide a logical divide between words.

For example, if I pointed at the color blue and called it "violet," and it caught on with the populace (for whatever reason), the definitions that we know of now would be switched.

in a dictionary, the first definition is the most used one, and the first one for belief is opinion, and you referred to atheism as an opinion, so yes, you did prove yourself wrong

No it's not. Aside from what I just said about the Americans and how we use the word belief, not every dictionary is the same.

I have to agree here. When the word "holocaust" is used, I find that it is used to refer to the historical event. In Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, the first definition is "a sacrifice consumed by fire." This refers to the ancient Greek tradition of burning meat-offerings to their gods.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/...mp;t=1302387989

 

[Pyrmon]

According to those definitions I was right.

Which ones? I can only see you being correct if the word "opinion" was stated or implied.

@strudel: I'm done with you, brah.

An Atheist is confident that God doesn't exist, no?

 

[joeylamngam]

Just woundering what your guys religion is. Cause RELIGION RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is my religion

and GOD

 

[Blood Fetish]

An Atheist is confident that God doesn't exist, no?

An atheist is confident that no verifiable evidence has been given for the existence of god. If some new evidence came out tomorrow then I would consider it, but that is not likely.

 

[Pyrmon]

An Atheist is confident that God doesn't exist, no?

An atheist is confident that no verifiable evidence has been given for the existence of god. If some new evidence came out tomorrow then I would consider it, but that is not likely.

Then, by extension, he is confident in the non existence of God.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

An Atheist is confident that God doesn't exist, no?

An atheist is confident that no verifiable evidence has been given for the existence of god. If some new evidence came out tomorrow then I would consider it, but that is not likely.

If you'd allow me, I think Richard Dawkins provides a supplement to your claim: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawk...nl_b_32164.html

Spoiler

Contrary to what is sometimes alleged, evolution is a predictive science. If you pick any hitherto unstudied species and subject it to minute scrutiny, any evolutionist will confidently predict that each individual will be observed to do everything in its power, in the particular way of the species - plant, herbivore, carnivore, nectivore or whatever it is - to survive and propagate the DNA that rides inside it. We won't be around long enough to test the prediction but we can say, with great confidence, that if a comet strikes Earth and wipes out the mammals, a new fauna will rise to fill their shoes, just as the mammals filled those of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And the range of parts played by the new cast of life's drama will be similar in broad outline, though not in detail, to the roles played by the mammals, and the dinosaurs before them, and the mammal-like reptiles before the dinosaurs. The same rules are predictably being followed, in millions of species all over the globe, and for hundreds of millions of years. Such a general observation requires an entirely different explanatory principle from the anthropic principle that explains one-off events like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe, by luck. That entirely different principle is natural selection.

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

 

[Sterling]

An Atheist is confident that God doesn't exist, no?

An atheist is confident that no verifiable evidence has been given for the existence of god. If some new evidence came out tomorrow then I would consider it, but that is not likely.

I'm not sure it will even be verifiable. Even if it were, what would it take to convert you? If God came to you and gave you your most want desire, would you be able to get others to believe?