We Are All Born Atheist

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"] but there are people here who say that babies are atheist. I find that to be a big ignorant to be honest, seeing as how they dont have a choice in the matter. kipohippo021

I agree with this totally. Its like classifying people as good programmers and bad programmers, even tho a lot of them are not even programmers.

how about nonconsent?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Atheism is NOT a belief. That is a huge misconception. It is merely a LACK of belief.

ihateaynrand

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

I lol'ed hysterically when I read this.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!

Espada12

Yea... what?

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"][QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Alright, to explain: atheism can be reasonably defined in two ways, the first being 'the belief that God does not exist', and secondly 'a lack of belief in God'. Clearly whether newborns are atheist depends on which definition of atheism is being used. TC is using the latter definition, and as such, I believe he's right.ihateaynrand

They're resorting to semantics because there's nothing else they can do to subvert my argument. It's completely infallible.

A lack of belief in a GOD = believing there is no GodEspada12

i don't know if this has been asked already, but i have a question for the religious folks...

if a baby or child dies before he or she is capable of understanding the concept of god or religion, do they get a free pass to heaven? and what about the mentally challenged?

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="kipohippo021"] Agreed, it all depends on what defenition of atheism you are using. For all dicsussion purposes, tc should define this. The confusion comes from tc, not defining this. BluRayHiDef

They're resorting to semantics because there's nothing else they can do to subvert my argument. It's completely infallible.

A lack of belief is not a belief. Just like lacking a job is not a job. Or lacking a habit is not a habit. Or lacking an interest is not an interest.Danm_999

Different things are different. Atheist are arguing semantics here, unlike those other things God is based on faith, atheist do not believe there is a God. A lack of belief is the same thing as believing there is no God.

Lacking a job isn't a job because of what a job is. A job is actual employment so lacking one wouldn't be a job this is based on FACT.

Lacking belief in God is belief because God is based on faith rather than fact. If you lack belief then you do not believe in God. God can be real or not you just don't believe he is.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief in a GOD = believing there is no Godihateaynrand

Yea... one group is called agnostics and the other is called atheists. We are talking about atheists right now bro.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]I agree that he's being a little too certain that his definition is the single correct one. But constructive debate can only really follow if we adhere to his definition for the purposes of argument. It's a perfectly reasonable one, and in any debate such as this, it's important to use rigourous definitions of words in order to prevent language-based confusion. I take your point with that, um, charming vignette you constructed, but that isn't a context in which rigour is vital in relation to the definition of 'theory', because it's absolutely clear what he (or she, I don't judge) means by it in that context. By contrast, if 'atheism' were not defined here, there would be massive amounts of confusion.ihateaynrand

If he came and simply proposed the alternate definition and say "hey guys, lets pretend this is the definition and see where it gets us" (in which case he would be honest about it in stead of trying to ignore that his definition is purely philosophical) I would have raised absolutely no objection.

And I think that answers the incomparability of the two contexts (science & every day life - philosophy & every day life); that is I dont believe he came off like that because he aimed to solve those issues. But, hey, I am just assuming.

On the other hand maybe he came off agressive because he sort of knew what reactions he would get or because although it is a philosophical discussion, the thread merely ask for a "yes I agree", "no I dont agree".

In the first case, if elaborated, it would be simply a justification of the use of philosophy, and in the second, the opposite of a justification.

At least to me, if you start a discussion by proposing a thesis and then you expect only the above two (at least thats how I read the OP), then the discussion that will be created cant be philosophical one since, to me at least, a philosophical discussion mustnt have such restrictions. On the contrary, the opening thesis should be just a hint of what will come.

So to sum it up, to me, the whole thread seemed very unphilosophical in nature and only utilised philosophy to form the initial thesis.

I label the nature of the thread as overrestrictive. What I mean by nature? I already explained it but I'll try again.

The OP simply asks "do you agree, or disagree". What sort of philosophical and constructive dialogue could that help?

Yes the answers can be more elaborate than "yes I agree" or "no I dont agree", but the elaboration couldnt be something much more constructive.

Those who would agree would just probably commend on the smart use of etymology (or something similar) and those who disagree would tell him its just semantics.

How philosophical does that seem to you?

Or rather, tell me iyo, what philosophical aspirations this thread has (aside from the use of philosophy to form the initial thesis).

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief in a GOD = believing there is no GodEspada12

Yea... one group is called agnostics and the other is called atheists. We are talking about atheists right now bro.

[QUOTE="kipohippo021"][QUOTE="Installing"]

So, an opinion always equals a belief, and not a lack of belief?

Or does it not matter since every non belief is apparently a belief in itself?

In that case no one can say that they lack belief in anything, but only that they believe that they don't believe something. Really?

Danm_999

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief in a GOD = believing there is no GodEspada12

Yea... one group is called agnostics and the other is called atheists. We are talking about atheists right now bro.

Indeed, thats why we have two words.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="kipohippo021"] Agreed, it all depends on what defenition of atheism you are using. For all dicsussion purposes, tc should define this. The confusion comes from tc, not defining this. BluRayHiDef

They're resorting to semantics because there's nothing else they can do to subvert my argument. It's completely infallible.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I really dont think he is doing it to have a clear-cut basis for his argument without if's and but's which could weaken his point or make others go "nah get out of here". Indication for me is that he even tried to prove it through etymology/morphology of the word "atheism" (but I guess that can be a "tool" of philosophy).

If he came and simply proposed the alternate definition and say "hey guys, lets pretend this is the definition and see where it gets us" (in which case he would be honest about it in stead of trying to ignore that his definition is purely philosophical) I would have raised absolutely no objection.

And I think that answers the incomparability of the two contexts (science & every day life - philosophy & every day life); that is I dont believe he came off like that because he aimed to solve those issues. But, hey, I am just assuming.

On the other hand maybe he came off agressive because he sort of knew what reactions he would get or because although it is a philosophical discussion, the thread merely ask for a "yes I agree", "no I dont agree".

In the first case, if elaborated, it would be simply a justification of the use of philosophy, and in the second, the opposite of a justification.

At least to me, if you start a discussion by proposing a thesis and then you expect only the above two (at least thats how I read the OP), then the discussion that will be created cant be philosophical one since, to me at least, a philosophical discussion mustnt have such restrictions. On the contrary, the opening thesis should be just a hint of what will come.

So to sum it up, to me, the whole thread seemed very unphilosophical in nature and only utilised philosophy to form the initial thesis.

Teenaged

I label the nature of the thread as overrestrictive. What I mean by nature? I already explained it but I'll try again.

The OP simply asks "do you agree, or disagree". What sort of philosophical and constructive dialogue could that help?

Yes the answers can be more elaborate than "yes I agree" or "no I dont agree", but the elaboration couldnt be something much more constructive.

Those who would agree would just probably commend on the smart use of etymology (or something similar) and those who disagree would tell him its just semantics.

How philosophical does that seem to you?

Or rather, tell me iyo, what philosophical aspirations this thread has (aside from the use of philosophy to form the initial thesis).

How should I rephrase my question in order to incite discussion?

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]

I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.

Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.

GazaAli

No need to be hostile since you got it wrong. When I said "crazy", I meant not believing in anything, like not believing in TNT explosion, water vaporation...etc get it ?

As your looking down on those people, some of them built the pyramids, other built the hanging gardens of Babylon, other came up woth numbers...etc

Science is an accumolative process, if you think we are where we are because we are too smart and clever then you are wrong.

I am supposed to be convinced that these people some how knew more about beyond the world than we do now? I highly doubt that.

I don't believe because believing is absolutely pointless because nobody could possibly know or comprehend what exists beyond our physical "here and now". I am sure if there is a higher power it is so ridiculously advanced it could care less about humanities endeavors.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]What does it mean to you to 'believe in a lack of belief'? Until you've defined that, your sentence is meaningless at best.ihateaynrand

Yea... what?

A lack of belief = a belief something doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]No. If you believe there is no God, you claim that God doesn't exist. If you lack a belief in God, you don't. The distinction is very real and has been well-recognised for an awfully long time.ihateaynrand

Yea... one group is called agnostics and the other is called atheists. We are talking about atheists right now bro.

Agnostic atheism is still not atheism and either way that just sounds like another cop out term for atheists.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I really dont think he is doing it to have a clear-cut basis for his argument without if's and but's which could weaken his point or make others go "nah get out of here". Indication for me is that he even tried to prove it through etymology/morphology of the word "atheism" (but I guess that can be a "tool" of philosophy).

If he came and simply proposed the alternate definition and say "hey guys, lets pretend this is the definition and see where it gets us" (in which case he would be honest about it in stead of trying to ignore that his definition is purely philosophical) I would have raised absolutely no objection.

And I think that answers the incomparability of the two contexts (science & every day life - philosophy & every day life); that is I dont believe he came off like that because he aimed to solve those issues. But, hey, I am just assuming.

On the other hand maybe he came off agressive because he sort of knew what reactions he would get or because although it is a philosophical discussion, the thread merely ask for a "yes I agree", "no I dont agree".

In the first case, if elaborated, it would be simply a justification of the use of philosophy, and in the second, the opposite of a justification.

At least to me, if you start a discussion by proposing a thesis and then you expect only the above two (at least thats how I read the OP), then the discussion that will be created cant be philosophical one since, to me at least, a philosophical discussion mustnt have such restrictions. On the contrary, the opening thesis should be just a hint of what will come.

So to sum it up, to me, the whole thread seemed very unphilosophical in nature and only utilised philosophy to form the initial thesis.

Teenaged

I label the nature of the thread as overrestrictive. What I mean by nature? I already explained it but I'll try again.

The OP simply asks "do you agree, or disagree". What sort of philosophical and constructive dialogue could that help?

Yes the answers can be more elaborate than "yes I agree" or "no I dont agree", but the elaboration couldnt be something much more constructive.

Those who would agree would just probably commend on the smart use of etymology (or something similar) and those who disagree would tell him its just semantics.

How philosophical does that seem to you?

Or rather, tell me iyo, what philosophical aspirations this thread has (aside from the use of philosophy to form the initial thesis).

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

A lack of belief is not a belief. Just like lacking a job is not a job. Or lacking a habit is not a habit. Or lacking an interest is not an interest.Espada12

Different things are different. Atheist are arguing semantics here, unlike those other things God is based on faith, atheist do not believe there is a God. A lack of belief is the same thing as believing there is no God.

Lacking a job isn't a job because of what a job is. A job is actual employment so lacking one wouldn't be a job this is based on FACT.

Lacking belief in God is belief because God is based on faith rather than fact. If you lack belief then you do not believe in God. God can be real or not you just don't believe he is.

Hey Fox, I got a question. Can you tell me what Nihilism is exactly? Honest question. I always thought it was a belief, or positive claim, that God or a Deity does not exist, completely disregarding that there may possibly be evidence to prove otherwise....tocool340

Now, you're just being foolish. Smoking cigarettes is a habit. Not smoking cigarettes is NOT a habit. Hence, not believing in god is not a belief. If you deny this, then there's no point in continuing.BluRayHiDef

How should I rephrase my question in order to incite discussion?

BluRayHiDef

"Offer your own definition of "atheism" (or any related term) and how you believe your definition changes our perception of certain things"

[QUOTE="Espada12"]All this look like is atheist trying to cop-out of having a belief system.

Danm_999

They don't want to look like a belief system when it really is. You have no proof that God doesn't exist so you basically have faith he doesn't exist.

A lack of belief = a belief something doesn't exist.Espada12

No. If you believe there is no God, you claim that God doesn't exist. If you lack a belief in God, you don't. The distinction is very real and has been well-recognised for an awfully long time.ihateaynrand

I would argue most atheists tend to be those that have belief there is no God, gods or the supernatural. Truly, those that "lack belief" entirely are rare. And I would think "apatheism" would better define those people. They don't care to get involved. Anyone who gets involved in a debate over God's existence, is clearly putting forward the notion that a God does not exist, or at least, is highly unlikely to exist.

It may not be a belief in the sense theism is a belief, but it most certainly is a belief, or at the very least, an ideologyfoxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]All this look like is atheist trying to cop-out of having a belief system.

Espada12

They don't want to look like a belief system when it really is. You have no proof that God doesn't exist so you basically have faith he doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]A lack of belief = a belief something doesn't exist.ihateaynrand

No. If you believe there is no God, you claim that God doesn't exist. If you lack a belief in God, you don't. The distinction is very real and has been well-recognised for an awfully long time.ihateaynrand

It's been disproven by your post :lol:? And I already responded to that and the terms are agnostic and atheist, we are referring to atheist, so please stop wasting my time bro.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Perhaps you and I have different conceptions of philosophy; while (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems to you that he was being overrestrictive, it seems to me that he was merely defining his terms with sufficient rigour to allow an argument to proceed. If he didn't, the thread would really be doomed to petty squabbles over the meaning of 'atheism' (which admittedly happened anyway).ihateaynrand

I label the nature of the thread as overrestrictive. What I mean by nature? I already explained it but I'll try again.

The OP simply asks "do you agree, or disagree". What sort of philosophical and constructive dialogue could that help?

Yes the answers can be more elaborate than "yes I agree" or "no I dont agree", but the elaboration couldnt be something much more constructive.

Those who would agree would just probably commend on the smart use of etymology (or something similar) and those who disagree would tell him its just semantics.

How philosophical does that seem to you?

Or rather, tell me iyo, what philosophical aspirations this thread has (aside from the use of philosophy to form the initial thesis).

In fact I told you he should make it clear that this is purely philosophical so that others dont just stand there being expected to answer to something along the lines of "Yes thats awesome"/"No man thats stupid bleh" (/exaggeration and simplification).

The very nature of the OP (and the way he responds) is what rightfully imo gives the impression to many that he is just proposing his definition as THE definition. The definition being specific has nothing to do with that, and its something I didnt complain about.

Again, this is assuming an atheist is aware of the beliefs in God or supernatural beings, or as I have proposed earlier in this thread as a definition, a strong atheism (one who knows of the beliefs in God, and rejects them). Atheism in its simpliest form, is a lack of a belief. This can mean many things, and at face value, is not a belief.Danm_999

I'm going to go out a limb here and say that this day and age almost everyone who is an atheist rejects religion rather than not knowing about it.

If theists want to label atheism as a belief I don't mind.

So what. I believe fairies don't exist too. :P

It's been disproven by your post :lol:? And I already responded to that and the terms are agnostic and atheist, we are referring to atheist, so please stop wasting my time bro.Espada12

Oh gee whiz.

As usual an argument in OT turns into a ridiculous semantic circlejerk completely ignoring the TC's point. You should have renamed the title. We are all born not knowing making us more logically prone to disbelief since there is no proof that deities of any sort actually exist.

See if people then will actually start arguing your point instead of pointing fingers and being all "Yew used the wrong term! ;d Let's not label teh babies derp, derp"

And to those claiming some people label babies as atheis saying it's "wrong". I've heard terms like "Christian children", "Muslim children" etc more times than I can count "atheit babies".

I assume you agree theses people are "wrong" too?

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yea... what?

Espada12

A lack of belief = a belief something doesn't exist.

A lack of belief is just that...a lack of belief. This is such a basic concept that there is really no way to break it down any further. How can you have a belief if you lack a belief. How can you have a name if you lack a name? How can you have a job if you lack a job? This is so elementary. I can't believe that you can't understand this. What's sad is that you'll read this and just refute it.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont label his strict definition as overrestrictive.

I label the nature of the thread as overrestrictive. What I mean by nature? I already explained it but I'll try again.

The OP simply asks "do you agree, or disagree". What sort of philosophical and constructive dialogue could that help?

Yes the answers can be more elaborate than "yes I agree" or "no I dont agree", but the elaboration couldnt be something much more constructive.

Those who would agree would just probably commend on the smart use of etymology (or something similar) and those who disagree would tell him its just semantics.

How philosophical does that seem to you?

Or rather, tell me iyo, what philosophical aspirations this thread has (aside from the use of philosophy to form the initial thesis).

Teenaged

In fact I told you he should make it clear that this is purely philosophical so that others dont just stand there being expected to answer to something along the lines of "Yes thats awesome"/"No man thats stupid bleh" (/exaggeration and simplification).

The very nature of the OP (and the way he responds) is what rightfully imo gives the impression to many that he is just proposing his definition as THE definition. The definition being specific has nothing to do with that, and its something I didnt complain about.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

Again, this is assuming an atheist is aware of the beliefs in God or supernatural beings, or as I have proposed earlier in this thread as a definition, a strong atheism (one who knows of the beliefs in God, and rejects them). Atheism in its simpliest form, is a lack of a belief. This can mean many things, and at face value, is not a belief.Espada12

I'm going to go out a limb here and say that this day and age almost everyone who is an atheist rejects religion rather than not knowing about it.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]If you don't have a definition of that, why did you construct a definition that depends upon it?BluRayHiDef

A lack of belief = a belief something doesn't exist.

A lack of belief is just that...a lack of belief. This is such a basic concept that there is really no way to break it down any further. How can you have a belief if you lack a belief. How can you have name if you lack a name? How can you have a job if you lack a job? This is so elementary. I can't believe that you can't understand this. What's sad is that you'll read this and just refute it.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

A lack of belief = a belief something doesn't exist.

Danm_999

A lack of belief is just that...a lack of belief. This is such a basic concept that there is really no way to break it down any further. How can you have a belief if you lack a belief. How can you have name if you lack a name? How can you have a job if you lack a job? This is so elementary. I can't believe that you can't understand this. What's sad is that you'll read this and just refute it.

It's sad that this is preventing anyone from actually engaging in meaningful discussion.

Of course it's purely philosophical. It couldn't be anything but. Questions of theism and atheism are fully in the realm of philosophy, and thus one can reasonably draw from the philosophical language-game in defining 'atheism'.ihateaynrand

Since that isnt true and a myriad of words (imo all words and notions) can be a very good subject of philosophy, merely seeing the terms "atheism" or "theism" isnt that much of a hint of the discussion that follows and at the very least they dont negate the "attitude" of the initiator of a discussion on them.

Lastly, just because atheism and theism (or anything related) are common subject of philosophy, doesnt mean that philosophy always interferes so much in their definition or that those words arent very frequently being discussed pragmatically.

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Of course it's purely philosophical. It couldn't be anything but. Questions of theism and atheism are fully in the realm of philosophy, and thus one can reasonably draw from the philosophical language-game in defining 'atheism'.Teenaged

Since that isnt true and a myriad of words (imo all words and notions) can be a very good subject of philosophy, merely seeing the terms "atheism" or "theism" isnt that much of a hint of the discussion that follows and at the very least they dont negate the "attitude" of the initiator of a discussion on them.

Lastly, just because atheism and theism (or anything related) are common subject of philosophy, doesnt mean that philosophy always interferes so much in their definition or that those words arent very frequently being discussed pragmatically.

Why are you still arguing about words and philosophical contexts? Why not actually try and disprove my argument?

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Of course it's purely philosophical. It couldn't be anything but. Questions of theism and atheism are fully in the realm of philosophy, and thus one can reasonably draw from the philosophical language-game in defining 'atheism'.Teenaged

Since that isnt true and a myriad of words (imo all words and notions) can be a very good subject of philosophy, merely seeing the terms "atheism" or "theism" isnt that much of a hint of the discussion that follows and at the very least they dont negate the "attitude" of the initiator of a discussion on them.

Lastly, just because atheism and theism (or anything related) are common subject of philosophy, doesnt mean that philosophy always interferes so much in their definition or that those words arent very frequently being discussed pragmatically.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Of course it's purely philosophical. It couldn't be anything but. Questions of theism and atheism are fully in the realm of philosophy, and thus one can reasonably draw from the philosophical language-game in defining 'atheism'.BluRayHiDef

Since that isnt true and a myriad of words (imo all words and notions) can be a very good subject of philosophy, merely seeing the terms "atheism" or "theism" isnt that much of a hint of the discussion that follows and at the very least they dont negate the "attitude" of the initiator of a discussion on them.

Lastly, just because atheism and theism (or anything related) are common subject of philosophy, doesnt mean that philosophy always interferes so much in their definition or that those words arent very frequently being discussed pragmatically.

Why are you still arguing about words and philosophical contexts? Why not actually try and disprove my argument?

I never rejected your argument in purely philosophical contexts.

You should know better than asking me (suggestively) why I discuss about the importanc eof philosophical contexts when you are the one who used that as an argument; that the philosophical context is the appropriate one.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]You seem to think that only words whose "object" of reference pertains to philosophical matters can be discussed on a purely philosophical context.

Since that isnt true and a myriad of words (imo all words and notions) can be a very good subject of philosophy, merely seeing the terms "atheism" or "theism" isnt that much of a hint of the discussion that follows and at the very least they dont negate the "attitude" of the initiator of a discussion on them.

Lastly, just because atheism and theism (or anything related) are common subject of philosophy, doesnt mean that philosophy always interferes so much in their definition or that those words arent very frequently being discussed pragmatically.

Teenaged

Why are you still arguing about words and philosophical contexts? Why not actually try and disprove my argument?

I never rejected your argument in purely philosophical contexts.

You should know better than asking me (suggestively) why I discuss about the importanc eof philosophical contexts when you are the one who used that as an argument; that the philosophical context is the appropriate one.

Then, why are you in this thread?

Dystopian-X

A lack of belief is just that...a lack of belief. This is such a basic concept that there is really no way to break it down any further. How can you have a belief if you lacka belief. How can you have name if you lack a name? How can you have a job if you lack a job? This is so elementary. I can't believe that you can't understand this. What's sad is that you'll read this and just refute it.BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]Of course it's purely philosophical. It couldn't be anything but. Questions of theism and atheism are fully in the realm of philosophy, and thus one can reasonably draw from the philosophical language-game in defining 'atheism'.ihateaynrand

Since that isnt true and a myriad of words (imo all words and notions) can be a very good subject of philosophy, merely seeing the terms "atheism" or "theism" isnt that much of a hint of the discussion that follows and at the very least they dont negate the "attitude" of the initiator of a discussion on them.

Lastly, just because atheism and theism (or anything related) are common subject of philosophy, doesnt mean that philosophy always interferes so much in their definition or that those words arent very frequently being discussed pragmatically.

"Meaningful" is defined by the target of the discussion at hand.

The only way I could agree with this is if I played around and suggested that any and all discussions regardless of subject entail even an ounce of philosophical thought. In which case that also invalidates the supposed special position of notions such as atheism in the "realm" of philosophy (at least to the degree you make it out to be).

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Why are you still arguing about words and philosophical contexts? Why not actually try and disprove my argument?

BluRayHiDef

I never rejected your argument in purely philosophical contexts.

You should know better than asking me (suggestively) why I discuss about the importanc eof philosophical contexts when you are the one who used that as an argument; that the philosophical context is the appropriate one.

Then, why are you in this thread?

And if you are implying I am off topic, so are you by asking me what I am doing here.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Why do you still think I am tryong to disprove your argument altogether?

I never rejected your argument in purely philosophical contexts.

You should know better than asking me (suggestively) why I discuss about the importanc eof philosophical contexts when you are the one who used that as an argument; that the philosophical context is the appropriate one.

Teenaged

Then, why are you in this thread?

And if you are implying I am off topic, so are you by asking me what I am doing here.

If one can't point out that someone is off topic, then how shall they be made aware that their irrelevant posts are unwanted? Making an off-topic post is okay when it is pointing out that someone else is off-topic. Such a post is made not to indulge in an irrelevant conversation, but to make it known that it should stop.

I don't you think can make that kind of assessment since infants aren't really thinking of much at all except hungry, sleepy, etc.LJS9502_basic