Who is an atheist?

Full story: The Sydney Morning Herald

In my last blog there was a moderately spectacular blue between various parties .

Comments (Page 454)

Showing posts 9,061 - 9,080 of9,182
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9469
Aug 19, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I really have no idea what the third-largest immigrant population is, after Hispanics.
Chinese - MAndarin or Cantonese

Chinese Immigrants in the United States

By Aaron Matteo Terrazas and Bhavna Devani
Migration Policy Institute
Click here for larger version of map. Due to compatibility issues, you may need to download the map for it to load properly.

Related Articles:

•China: From Exceptional Case to Global Participant

•After-School Institutions in Chinese and Korean Immigrant Communities: A Model for Others?

•Becoming American/Becoming New Yorkers: The Second Generation in a Majority Minority City

•The "Brain Gain" Race Begins with Foreign Students

June 2008

Source Spotlights are often updated as new data become available. Please click here to find the most recent version of this Spotlight.

The 1980 census recorded the foreign born from China as the 10th-largest immigrant group in the United States. By 2006, the number of Chinese immigrants had increased nearly fivefold, making them the third-largest immigrant group in the United States after the Mexican and Filipino foreign born.

Although half of the immigrants from China have settled in just two states — California and New York — their numbers are increasing rapidly in states such as Wyoming and Nebraska, which previously attracted relatively few Chinese immigrants (for more information on immigrants by state, please see the 2006 ACS/Census Data Tool on the MPI Data Hub).

http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/d...
UidiotRaceMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9470
Aug 19, 2013
 
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Ich auch. Ich habe gelernt in schule.
<quoted text>
Agree 100%. But we already have made a lot of progress towards a common language, thanks to the british empire, and people largely recognize the benifits of a common language. Now if only if the brits had colonized the japs and the koreans, we would know what all they are upto.
But the (tremendous) benifits of a formal or at least a more rational language is not understood by most today, simply because most have not experienced its benifits. If the vedics had not turned pacifist, maybe things might have been different. Which is why the need for some of us to push for it.
Auf Weidersehen.
Why colonize its brutal enslavement of others instead Establish realtionship through exchange cultures.... Why are you a War monger animal? WBHAHhAHHAHA

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9471
Aug 20, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
In the US? English and Spanish are the two dominant languages, due to population.
There is certainly a language that is third on the list, but I have no idea which one that would be-- it would depend on where in the world the immigrants came from.
I guarantee it ain't the language I grew up in.

Laffin.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9472
Aug 20, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Agnostic literally means "without knowledge" or "without knowing".
It is usually used to mean "cannot know" or "it is impossible to know" and typically this is in context with gods or supernatural elements.
You can be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.
The atheist has no faith in gods, and the agnostic thinks it's impossible to know anything about gods.
Easy as pie.
OK
.
Agnostic =
1. Knows not if god exists
AND OR
2. Also those who think existence of a god can not be proven.
Atheist = has no faith in god (god = omnipotent and omniscient entity), but faith is belief (belief = hold arg. as true with out logical or empirical support)
.
So now Agnostic = Atheist, according to you as the two positions are same, if you work it out.
.
What about those who KNOW that a god does not exist or can not exist, ie have proof that a god does not exist (like me). What do you call those people.
(or even those who believe there is no god ie have no proof god does not exist, but hold on to the arg. all the same)
.
The group of people who say "their is no god" have no name now.I used to call myself agnostic when I did not know, like when I was 13. Then I kept questioning and learning and now I have many proofs that a god [god as defined properly as an entity with omnipotence and omniscience], does not exist and can not exist, which is when I called myself ATHEIST (with confidence).
.
If you are agnostic ie have no knowledge / proof that god exists, but then you automatically also say god DOES NOT EXIT, without any proof to support the argument of its non existence, then you are a believer of the argument "god does not exist"
Which is irrational.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9473
Aug 20, 2013
 
The problem is how those dictionaries define words.

Which is why we need concerted effort to rationalize languages, so at least every word is well defined and uses only other well defines words to define itself, and also every word should have only one definition.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9474
Aug 20, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are negative labels/descriptions applied to sociopathic behavior.
Are you trying to equate these with **atheism** now?
That **is** a common LIE from True Believer™ bigots.
Sheesh but you are a moron.
homeopath = Practitioner of homeopathy (homeopathy doctors).
Ex of pedophile was chosen as it was easy to understand, not to malign by association.

You are overly sensitive, I can picture you pouting your lips.

Be critical and dispassionate if you want a rationalist AND an atheist like me (I define atheist as one who takes the position that a god like entity does not / can not exist) to take you seriously.

Since I am also a rationalist, so you should be able to work it out that I also have sufficient proof and knowledge that a god like entity (having omnipotence and omniscience) does not exist and can not exist.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9475
Aug 20, 2013
 
UidiotRaceMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text> Why colonize its brutal enslavement of others instead Establish realtionship through exchange cultures.... Why are you a War monger animal? WBHAHhAHHAHA
I did not justify colonization, just noting neutrally the cause for english to be wide spread.

If the english had been pacifists, then English would today only be spoken in tiny island of UK, not even Ireland. And we would not have it as the international language it is today.

Is it better that all the people of the world suddenly turn rationalists and realize the immense benefits of a common language for all peoples of the world and then proceed to make an international language made up out of all the different languages spoken everywhere so the question of yours and ours does not arise? Sure. But has not happened yet.
Normand Winnipeg

Winnipeg, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9476
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Normand Winnipeg wrote:
--- "AN atheist is a being that rejects GOD'S WAYS AND therefor rejects GOD"--- because there is one and only True GOD as it is written and implied from Genesis to Revelation thousands and thousands of places...Thankyou...
---Repeat, Yes and if We read GOD'S HOLY SCRIPTURES, WE will see the Truth and the Truth will set us free from the evil ones and the lies and deceptions...
Amused

Brookfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9477
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Normand Winnipeg wrote:
<quoted text>---Repeat, Yes and if We read GOD'S HOLY SCRIPTURES, WE will see the Truth and the Truth will set us free from the evil ones and the lies and deceptions...
Using the bible to prove the truth of the bible. More circular reasoning, like a dog chasing its own tail.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9478
Aug 20, 2013
 
There are only three positions POSSIBLE regarding existence of god

1. God exists = theist.
2. God doesn't exist = atheist.(absence of god, not absence of belief of god)
3. Don't know = agnostic.

That is how majority use the words theist, atheist and agnostic.
Dictionaries should be updated, to keep things simple and clear and unambiguous.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9479
Aug 20, 2013
 
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not justify colonization, just noting neutrally the cause for english to be wide spread.
If the english had been pacifists, then English would today only be spoken in tiny island of UK, not even Ireland. And we would not have it as the international language it is today.
Is it better that all the people of the world suddenly turn rationalists and realize the immense benefits of a common language for all peoples of the world and then proceed to make an international language made up out of all the different languages spoken everywhere so the question of yours and ours does not arise? Sure. But has not happened yet.
Esperanto.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9480
Aug 20, 2013
 
One can not 'not know' if god exists or not, and simultaneously also know that a god does not exist.

The positions agnostic and atheist,(as well as theist) are all mutually exclusive positions.
LCNlin

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9481
Aug 20, 2013
 
one cube parsec wrote:
There are only three positions POSSIBLE regarding existence of god
1. God exists = theist.
2. God doesn't exist = atheist.(absence of god, not absence of belief of god)
3. Don't know = agnostic.
That is how majority use the words theist, atheist and agnostic.
Dictionaries should be updated, to keep things simple and clear and unambiguous.
Philosophy of religion a bit more complicated than a dictionary,
just saying.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9482
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LCNlin wrote:
<quoted text>
Philosophy of religion a bit more complicated than a dictionary,
just saying.
Religion is not a real philosophy. The theologians don't even claim it to be a philosophy. They instead are those who are well versed in the art of 'double think'.

The position that a god can not exist (and hence does not exist) is well known to many since three millenia now. But is society ready for such knowledge? That is the question.

We have much to do before that. We need another source of morality (reason to be good in personal life) other than god and god fear, before we can bring down god.

So it is time we embark upon the scientific discovery of goodness and develop the subject of goodness (RATIONALIZED CIVICS) ie reasons why and how rules of society or constraints of behaviour make society most progressive, happy and peaceful. That is those (set of) rules that maximize the well being of society and its individuals ( and also of the unborn), for longest together constitute what is GOOD. It must be a learning process, like drug trials that do populations studies, ie we introduce a rule on a study population and observe the effects over a period of time. Hence I use term SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF CIVICS.

Further when children are made aware how a law / rule/ behaviour effects society, we finally are a rational civilized society.

Then religion and god wont be needed anymore.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9483
Aug 20, 2013
 
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
You cant define primal cause as you failed defining cause itself. You can't use the word 'cause' in the definition of cause itself. That makes the word very meaningless, as the definitation is meaningless.
Once cause if well defined, Primal Cause would be easy.
(No offense intended, just being direct, Have become very mellowed in my approach while conversing with people lately, but slip off to my old ways sometimes!, just that I don't know how else to out it, and not be rude).
-----

I guess you are right about being easy to define the Primal Cause. The first to cause then as the universe proceeded into expansion other things were caused. It's like the Biblical injunction to grow and multiply. To fill the universe and subdue it.(Gen.1:28)

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9484
Aug 20, 2013
 
one cube parsec wrote:
One can not 'not know' if god exists or not, and simultaneously also know that a god does not exist.
The positions agnostic and atheist,(as well as theist) are all mutually exclusive positions.
-----

Surely you must not be an atheist with this testimony that one cannot know if God exists or not. Actually atheists do claim to know that God does not exist.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9485
Aug 20, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Esperanto.
Very Interesting. I did not know much about this, thank you. Why only European tho?

DO not know much about this lang, if rules are rational or how formal.

Also-
No need for A priori languages, much easier have a language with words already in use in other prevalent languages. Easier to gradually change rules of existing languages into more rational ones.

Vedic Sanskrit was once constructed for philosophers and thinkers out of words from prakrits and pali languages (pra = older, krit = lang)(root for polis ie town. so = lang. of city). The grammar was then developed by linguists after much discussion and applied to this accumulated vocabulary, which was made highly formal and canonical, with strict constraints like all words need be well defined, ie use other well defined words in their definitions recursively, and there should be one to one correlation between word symbols and their meanings. Thus no synonyms possible. Only words with SIMILAR meanings possible.

[Even the Devnagri Script is highly rationalized, with every human phones (phonemes?/ smallest units of human sound) having unique symbol assigned to it, and every symbol denotes only one sound (smallest unit of human sound). Here the inconsistencies like 'go' and 'to' are not possible.

Further all vowels are understood to be pronounceable separately like 'a'(rum) or 'A'(barn) or 'e'(See) or 'o'(go) or 'oo'(to) or 'ae'(cat) or 'ea'(fate). 13 vowels are known and represented by unique symbols. Also all known consonant sounds (those that can only be pronounced in conjunction with a vowel) like 'ba'(ba, baa, bea, bae, bo, boo, bee). You can replace consonant 'b' with any other like 't' or 'k' or 'm' or 'n'....

So Devnagri Script can be very effectively used to exactly express any sound or combinations of sounds humanly possible, thus any phonetic language can be written unambiguously and perfectly using this script.]

So we already have the science, we just need to use it, or develop it further.
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9486
Aug 20, 2013
 
Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Surely you must not be an atheist with this testimony that one cannot know if God exists or not. Actually atheists do claim to know that God does not exist.
Nowhere in that post is there a declaration of MY position on existence of god. So how did you reach such a conclusion?
.
It ws just logical exposition that the two positions of- "dont know" and "know does not exist" are mutually exclusive.(as in one person can not hold both positions).
.
=======
.
I was an agnostic, when I had no proof either way, and used to be aligned to the "kettle on the moon" argument (or Bertrand Russell's "teapot in orbit around the earth" example).

But now that I have definite conclusive proof that a god (omniscient omnipotent entity) CAN NOT exist, I am confident that a god does not exist (god as defined earlier, not creator or prime cause or first cause).
.
I got to three conclusive proofs fairly easily as soon as I defined god properly, like in any thesis, you need to spend time on definitions first before anything else.
.
So I am a rational atheist.(WHICH IS STRONGLY ATHEIST).
one cube parsec

Delhi, India

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9487
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Ben_Masada wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
I guess you are right about being easy to define the Primal Cause. The first to cause then as the universe proceeded into expansion other things were caused. It's like the Biblical injunction to grow and multiply. To fill the universe and subdue it.(Gen.1:28)
Easy????

You haven't even defined cause yet, and defining primal cause is easy for you?

Dear, all you have is the (your) definition of 'primal'= first.(as in before all others. Cause could be a horse or elephant, without a proper definition. I had already given you a hint, but you cared not for it.(Is 'cause' a physical entity, if not what is its nature,...).

You are far from defining "First Cause", if you have no idea what "cause" is.(NO 'cause' is that which causes things to happen- wont do!)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9488
Aug 20, 2013
 
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Very Interesting. I did not know much about this, thank you. Why only European tho?
DO not know much about this lang, if rules are rational or how formal.
One goal of the language is that everything is regular: even the verb 'to be' is conjugated the same way as all other verbs. It is European mainly because the people who invented it were.
Also-
No need for A priori languages, much easier have a language with words already in use in other prevalent languages. Easier to gradually change rules of existing languages into more rational ones.
I am not sure I agree. It would seem to be easier to make things regular right at the beginning rather than have gradual changes. All natural languages are filled with 'exceptions' to their general rules. The verbs for 'to be' and 'to go' are particular messy in many cases.

Of course, another issue is whether to use an alphabet and whether it should be the Roman one. If you want a language that is 'universal' in the sense of having aspects of ALL existing languages, you will have basic issues with this and how it is written: right to left, left to right, top to bottom, etc.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 9,061 - 9,080 of9,182
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••