• 0 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2023

help-circle

  • Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

    Google:

    noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

    Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

    Me:

    Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

    Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief





  • Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

    No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.



  • Capitalism is self regulating

    It most certainly is not. The bargaining power of a corporation and individual worker are not the same. It’s why labor unions exist. Additionally governments should regulate commerce for the benefit of everyone.

    Lastly, please review and understand the differences between your and you’re, as well as their, there, and they’re. Absolutely frustrating trying to read what you wrote.



  • Given a valid structure, true premises must necessarily lead to a true conclusion. A fallacy is an invalid structure; therefore, you cannot know whether or not the conclusion is true. If you can’t know the truth value of the conclusion, you wouldn’t be correct to reject their argument.

    Using the go to example: Plato argues P1) All men are mortal, P2) Socrates is a man, C) Socrates is mortal. Valid structure, sound premises, the conclusion must be true.

    Using the smoking example: P1) Person A claims smoking is dangerous, P2) Person A smokes, C) Smoking isn’t dangerous.

    This argument is invalid in structure because Premise 2 is fallacious. Premise 1 doesn’t connect to Premise 2 to lead to the conclusion. Given no additional information, you would not be able to ascertain the truth value of the conclusion, it may or may not be true using this deductive argument.





  • For personal use I buy Visio displays, and have had nothing but success.

    I have some smaller, older Vizio TV’s that were great, no issues. I recently bought 3 large, expensive Vizio TV’s and had problems with all 3. All issues dealing with updates. Had 70" get stuck in an update cycle, no fix, even customer service couldn’t help. Other 2 repeatedly will not turn on after an update. Problem persists occasionally, but usually resolves in 5-10 minutes.

    Done with Vizio. Sony if I want to spend a lot, Samsung if I want to spend a little less.