"Parsimony is rarely used in the scientific sense"

[Ryushikaze]

Or so said the fuckhead who, for some ineffable reason, decided to hijack a thread in order to spend numerous posts attempting to 'correct' me on my usage of it when discussing the viability of a theory.

There are more details, and his actual posts in the "Stupid Debaters" thread in HOS, but I thought the topic might be interesting to bring up in a less venting manner.

The idiot's claim is such- the first given definition of parsimony in the dictionary is of frugality. The second- and by his reckoning far less important- is the scientific usage, and the first is used far more often.

Now, I was curious about two things. Firstly, is there ANY truth at all that parsimony means frugality more often than simplicity of explanation- I mean, when was the last time you actually referred to someone as being parsimonious in the actual frugal sense?
I'm sure he's simply talking out his ass, but hey, throw the floor open, I may be proven partially wrong.

Secondly- has the same thing happened to you? What definition of what word was being forced upon you? How'd you deal with it?

[Talanth]

When I read the word I imediatly think of the first definition. I also do use it in conversation ocasionaly. Maybe thats just because of the way I was brought up: we're a very bookish family.

When in a descusion like the one you've described I always quote a dictionary definition, usualy Oxford so there are no complaints about using uncomon scources, and specificly state which of the definitions I'm useing. If they still insist that the word also meens something elce I just reply with a 'Yes? And? So?'

[Vicious]

Or so said the fuckhead who, for some ineffable reason, decided to hijack a thread in order to spend numerous posts attempting to 'correct' me on my usage of it when discussing the viability of a theory.

There are more details, and his actual posts in the "Stupid Debaters" thread in HOS, but I thought the topic might be interesting to bring up in a less venting manner.

The idiot's claim is such- the first given definition of parsimony in the dictionary is of frugality. The second- and by his reckoning far less important- is the scientific usage, and the first is used far more often.

Now, I was curious about two things. Firstly, is there ANY truth at all that parsimony means frugality more often than simplicity of explanation- I mean, when was the last time you actually referred to someone as being parsimonious in the actual frugal sense?
I'm sure he's simply talking out his ass, but hey, throw the floor open, I may be proven partially wrong.

Secondly- has the same thing happened to you? What definition of what word was being forced upon you? How'd you deal with it?

This moron's point hinges on the fact that the order in which definitions appear determines their corresponding level of applicability. This is an idiotic concept. The definitions in a dictionary are, by and large (insofar as their prevalence in common usage), equal. Because of the way English is structured we wind up with words that may have several meanings. The order in which definitions are presented is based upon common usage and nothing more (note that definitions pertaining to specific fields, i.e. mathematics, biology, etc, will be categorized together for ease of accessability).

For example, "having been predestined; fated" is as legitimate a meaning for "fatal" as "causing or capable of causing death", though the former has fallen out of common usage (I've pulled these definitions from the front of my dictionary, as they are perfectly suitable and are used to illustrate the ordering of definitions there as well).

The lack of common usage (real or perceived) is not sufficient to declare a definition "less important". Until the word or definition is striken from the dictionary due to it having fallen out of usage nearly completely (which the scientific definition of parsimony certainly has not!), every definition is valid.

In short, he's a fucking moron and is simply tossing out a red herring, and a very poor one at that, to sidetrack the argument.

In regards to your question regarding personal usage of parsimony, the former (having to do with finances) is not one I hear frequently, but I have heard it and seen it in passing, mostly in older literature and when talking with some friends of mine who are more book-read.

Note: I am using the American Heritage College Dictionary, as my only copy of the OED is very, very old.

[Zero]

It doesn't matter which definition is more common. The applicability of an idea is based on the idea itself, not the common usage of a word. He's semantics whoring.

[Vicious]

It doesn't matter which definition is more common. The applicability of an idea is based on the idea itself, not the common usage of a word. He's semantics whoring.

And in two sentences you managed to get across what I took three paragraphs to say. Damnit!

[Ryushikaze]

It doesn't matter which definition is more common. The applicability of an idea is based on the idea itself, not the common usage of a word. He's semantics whoring.

Oh, I knew he was semantics whoring and wrong. I was just curious if he was plainly lying out his ass, or attempting to horribly skew the facts.

When in a descusion like the one you've described I always quote a dictionary definition

Now, here's the thing, I've quoted the scientific definition of parsimony, from a dictionary, for him. He was utterly unphased by it, and simply repeated his claims.

Of course, he's also claiming that insufficient and parsimonious are synonymous, which along with some other behaviour, is leading me to suspect he might not be all there.

[Talanth]

[doot]A few pages short of a Dictionary sort of thing?[/doot]

I've had more than a few debates like that. Unfortunatly some people just don't know when to back down. I may even be one of them.

[Ryushikaze]

Update: His latest post is both a perfect example and comedy gold. Crossposted in HOS.

Update: Sorry to Triple Post, but COMEDY GOLD.

Originally Posted by Ryushikaze:
Actually, I have a history of name calling- and not much of one at that- when my opponent refuses to debate properly, regurgitates the same argument or claim at me again and again, refuses to offer proof, or make appeals as to my motives. But no, I feel no need to insult you Lychon. I feel pity. That this is even important enough to pursue, this far, to the point of telling me I am wrong about a definition I have already quoted for you, and attempting to put all sorts of spin on the matter just to try and claim a victory, it's just plain sad. I'm going to begin ignoring anything in this vein- as I should have awhile ago, it is terribly off topic and I think it's scaring off other people- from now on, but I will say this. You are wrong. Insufficient is insufficient in context.



Well, I’m glad that you admit to having a serious psychological problem which manifests itself in the form of verbal abuse (step one is realizing the problem). Now, let’s move on to the pith of your argument, if we can even call it an “argument” at all. You have accused me of being a nitpicker when in fact I have made a quite valid, quite legitimate point in regards to your linguistics. Your most recent post paints a portrait of a most desperate and illogical person, one who strives to secure victory in the face of futility while delving into the nether realms of hypocrisy. To disprove your entire stance, let us first take a gander at the definition of both “parsimonious” and “parsimony,” provided to us by the good people over at Merriam-Webster.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online:
par•si•mo•ni•ous: exhibiting or marked by parsimony; especially : frugal to the point of stinginess

par•si•mo•ny: 1 A : the quality of being careful with money or resources : thrift B : the quality or state of being stingy
2 : economy in the use of means to an end; especially : economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor



I trust you were able to understand the above definitions. As you may already be aware, “parsimonious” is the adjective that derives from the noun “parsimony.” As I have already stated in my previous posts, “parsimonious,” and even the noun it derives from, apply primarily to fiscal or economical matters, and are used overwhelmingly to denote economic simplicity or economic frugality. In an attempt to mask your blunder, you attempted to portray the use of “parsimonious” as deriving from an alternate definition, one that is predominantly reserved for scientific inquiries into subjects such as cladistics or penology. Given the nature of your original argument, it is evident that you fail to demonstrate any kind of substantial scientific disquisition. On the contrary, you are merely remarking on the qualities of a certain theory, and in essence stating that it is insufficient in proving or securing consideration for its ultimate proposal. Hence, although your use of the word “parsimonious” can be understood to some degree, in the context of the referred application it is quite obscure and unwonted.

Now, if you wish to continue your denial of plain evidence, I will be more than happy to sustain this discussion with you. Per your recent post, however, I fear that you will abandon our quaint little tête-à-tête, so I say in a perhaps premature conclusion that you are most definitively in error here, good sir. You cannot be more wrong: insufficient is a better and wholly sufficient substitute for the rather obscure “parsimonious.”

In regards to your condescending “pity,” I assure you that it is entirely misplaced. If you believe that the expression of sarcastic commiseration provides an adequate defense mechanism against insurmountable attacks of logic and rationale, then by all means, use it. Unfortunately, it only serves to make your own arguments and ideas seem all the more incredible.

Originally Posted by Ryushikaze:
Insufficient means 'not sufficient'. This meaning is directly opposite the scientific definition of parsimony- which, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary is an equally valid and contextually appropriate way to use the word- and my intended meaning of the phrase- that the explanation I gave was a workable explanation without any needless fluff, or in other words, it sufficed. Now, you may disagree with my explanation being sufficient, but that is a whole other kettle of fish.



Insufficient is by no means “directly opposite” the scientific definition of parsimony- in fact, it can be quite similar, particularly in the case to which we are referring. Even though I have already established the improper use of the obscure, scientific definition of “parsimonious,” I will indulge you in an elucidation of why insufficient and “parsimonious” are not opposites. When a certain parsimony is considered as a possible solution to a given complication, it is meant (by definition) to be the simplest explanation amongst other possible explanations. However, for any benefit to be derived from said parsimony, the concepts of pragmatism and practicality must inevitably be consulted, especially if the subject matter is scientific in nature. Scientific and philosophical studies over the centuries are testimony that the first or simplest solution to a problem is not sufficient to explain natural phenomena (e.g. Earth being flat, Sun revolving around the Earth, etc…). Hence, the parsimony turns out to be INSUFFICIENT. Therefore, choosing the word “parsimonious” in your original post was not only a blunder when considering the person you were communicating with, but it was also too obscure and unspecific in your contextual application. Next time, instead of being so preoccupied with defending false logic, try doing a little thinking with the old noggin, eh? If I were you, I would edit your original post and replace “parsimonious” with “insufficient.”

Originally Posted by Ryushikaze:
You are also wrong about the scientific definition being rarely used. Do a google search on parsimony. You'll find the vast majority of entries that aren't simply dictionary sites are using it in the scientific/ Ockham's Razor sense, not the frugal.

Now then, back to the conspiracy theories.



If you candidly believe that you can use the popularity of sites such as Google or Wikipedia to back up false generalizations, then my good sir, you are in for disastrous disappointment. Not only have I cited the definition of “parsimonious” and “parsimony” by Merriam-Webster up above, but I have also proved your original and improper utilization of these words. You are plainly wrong to state that the primary definition of “parsimonious” is of a scientific nature. Every dictionary I have ever owned or have ever browsed defines “parsimonious” first and foremost in the context of economic frugality, and only thereafter mentions Occam’s Razor. In fact, if you reread the Merriam-Webster definition up above, you’ll see that even the secondary definition, which mentions Occam’s Razor, is in the context of economic simplicity. So please, spare me your dances around the rosebush and start using proper English. If you do not have this ability, then I recommend you take some time out of your day to visit a library.

I look forward to your response.

-LYCHON

P.S. (Excessive number of 'shock' smileys here)

Now, I said in a previous post to him that I was planning on ignoring him, or rather simply not answering him, but seriously, he's fucking hilarious.

[Wyrm]

Well, I'll have to laugh along with you. Parsimony is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Some explanations are more parsimonious than others. Insufficiency, on the other hand, is all-or-nothing. The two cannot be synonomous.

[Spacebeard]

So, his position is that only the first definition listed in Merriam-Webster may be used? Two can play that game...

Now, let's move on to the pith of your argument...

Main Entry: 1pith
Pronunciation: 'pith
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pitha; akin to Middle Dutch & Middle Low German pit pith, pit
1 a : a usually continuous central strand of spongy tissue in the stems of most vascular plants that probably functions chiefly in storage b : any of various loose spongy plant tissues that resemble true pith c : the soft or spongy interior of a part of the body
2 a : the essential part : CORE b : substantial quality (as of meaning)
3 : IMPORTANCE

My good sir, I trust you were able to understand the above definitions and their impact on your "argument", if one may use the word "argument" to describe your descent to the abyssal nadir of hypocrisy. I have presented you with uncontestable evidence that the word "pith" applies primarily to the subject of botany, and is used overwhelmingly to denote a strand of spongy tissue in the stems of most vasular plants. In a futile attempt to mask your egregious error, you attempted to portray the use of "pith" as deriving from an alternate defintion, one that predominantly refers to the essential part of a thesis. You, sir, are clearly in error. The good people at Merriam-Webster list the botanical definition first, and your use of the arcane alternate definition is ipso facto quite obscure and unwonted.

... let us first take a gander at the definition ...

Main Entry: 1gan·der
Pronunciation: 'gan-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gandra; akin to Old English gOs goose
1 : an adult male goose
2 : SIMPLETON

I say, good sir, you have verily outdone yourself. Your gravely misguided diction paints a portrait of an illogical man flailing away in desperation. As you may already be aware, "gander" is the noun that is used to name an adult male goose. You, sir, attempted to use an alternate definition describing a visual examination, even when faced with conclusive and insurmountable evidence that the ornithological definition is the only one that will be accepted in our quaint little discourse. Your denial of plain evidence wounds me, sir, and as a man of conscience I will not - no, I must not - allow it to continue.

[Vicious]

This individual smacks of a fundie in debating style. He has no ground on which to stand, and is resorting to semantics, red herrings and strawmen to try and distract you from the core of the argument.

I've written up rebuttals to his arguments in your second post, as well as including the definitions. Note that I didn't address his first two paragraphs, as they are pure style over substance and are largly ad hominems.

par•si•mo•ni•ous: exhibiting or marked by parsimony; especially : frugal to the point of stinginess

par•si•mo•ny: 1 A : the quality of being careful with money or resources : thrift B : the quality or state of being stingy
2 : economy in the use of means to an end; especially : economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor

Emphasis mine. Parimonious can be taken to mean simply exhibiting parsimony, while parsimony can be taken to mean the simplest explanation or answer to a phenomenon in accords with Occam's razor (this is a key concept for my next point).

Insufficient is by no means “directly opposite” the scientific definition of parsimony- in fact, it can be quite similar, particularly in the case to which we are referring.

in·suf·fi·cient: not sufficient : INADEQUATE <insufficient funds>; especially : lacking adequate power, capacity, or competence <insufficient bandwidth> (note that inadequate is a synonym of insufficient, hence it's capitalization)

There is no similarity in definition between parsimony and insufficient. A theory would be insufficient if it lacked the capacity to explain an observed phenomenon, taking all known evidence into account. This, of course, is the opposite of a theory which is parsimonious! Note that a theory may be insufficient to explain a given phenomenon at a given point in time, but at a later point may in fact be parsimonious due to advances in our knowledge. Science is not static. We can explain things today that were unknown 100 years ago, and things which we can't explain today may be explained tomorrow.

Even though I have already established the improper use of the obscure, scientific definition of “parsimonious,” I will indulge you in an elucidation of why insufficient and “parsimonious” are not opposites. When a certain parsimony is considered as a possible solution to a given complication (this is an extremely convoluted and incorrect way of saying "When a theory is considered to be parsimonious", I think), it is meant (by definition) to be the simplest explanation amongst other possible explanations. However, for any benefit to be derived from said parsimony, the concepts of pragmatism and practicality must inevitably be consulted, especially if the subject matter is scientific in nature. Scientific and philosophical studies over the centuries are testimony that the first or simplest solution to a problem is not sufficient to explain natural phenomena (e.g. Earth being flat, Sun revolving around the Earth, etc…).

Here, he is attempting to use parsimony to prove that it isn't applicable to science (anyone else find this especially ironic? ), however he is in error in how parsimony is used in science. He is failing to account for the fact that parsimony, according to his quoted definition, takes Occam's razor into account. Now, "the Earth is flat", to use his example, is perhaps the simplest answer on it's own (it's one sentence and involves a single surface concept), but Occam's razor rules it out, and thus so does parsimony by default.

:
Oc·cam's razor
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

This is using his source, so there can be no obfuscation. Now, Occam's razor clearly states that the requirements for a theory should not be multiplied unnecessarily, however all theories must first be able to account for all known evidence, either explaining what it means or explaining why it doesn't fit the model. "The Earth is flat" does not accout for why we can circumnavigate the planet, why we see a curved horizon and a curved shadow on the moon, etc, other than, in modern times, to bring massive conspiracies, mass-hallucinations and any other manner of "explanations" for the apparent spherical nature of the Earth. The Earth being sphereical (actually, it is slightly ellipsoid, but we don't need that level of detail here) is the simplest explanation that accounts for the available evidence, so it is the accepted explanation. And yes, I am not assuming that he doesn't believe the Earth is spherical, only using his own example to explain why parsimony does in-fact rule it out.

In this instance, what appears to be semantics (the emphasis on unnecessarily in the definition of Occam's razor) is the crux of the point. Because Occam's razor inherently accounts for necessary complexity in a theory, it only cuts out those that are forced to included extraneous details in order to explain a phenomenon.

As to his appeal to pragmatism and practicality, I can't figure out what he means. Ask him for clarification, because otherwise I'm going to assume he's talking out of his ass.

His last paragraph is nothing more than him stroking his own ego.

@Spacebeard: That's fucking brilliant!

[Ryushikaze]

This individual smacks of a fundie in debating style. He has no ground on which to stand, and is resorting to semantics, red herrings and strawmen to try and distract you from the core of the argument.

Conspiracy theorist, but six of one, half dozen of the other.

As for asking him: I'm currently resolved to not responding to him- I suspect half of his reason for this semantics whoring is attention whoring and I don't want to give him the pleasure. Besides, I don't think he even knows what the hell he's talking about.

If he decides to press the point, I'm definitely going to be using your points against him, though I honestly doubt they'll have much effect. He's convinced, the evidence be damned. Conspiracy theorist and all.

[Vicious]

This individual smacks of a fundie in debating style. He has no ground on which to stand, and is resorting to semantics, red herrings and strawmen to try and distract you from the core of the argument.

Conspiracy theorist, but six of one, half dozen of the other.

As for asking him: I'm currently resolved to not responding to him- I suspect half of his reason for this semantics whoring is attention whoring and I don't want to give him the pleasure. Besides, I don't think he even knows what the hell he's talking about.

Don't worry about it. It was just a suggestion should the debate continue. From his vocabulary, I'd say you're probably write. There are those who use vocabulary 99% of the world goes "...huh?" to, such as SDN's own Kuroneko, and then there are those who use big, less-commonly used words to sound really important. He smacks of the latter.

If he decides to press the point, I'm definitely going to be using your points against him, though I honestly doubt they'll have much effect. He's convinced, the evidence be damned. Conspiracy theorist and all.

Agreed, but it gave me something to do for awhile.

[Ryushikaze]

It gets better and better...

Would people stop referring to Atheism as a religion? It's not.

It lacks requirement one, and that is belief in the supernatural- not to mention all of the other trappings of a religion.

Arriana, Nominus was disagreeing with you, and honestly, I think you're making a very hasty generalization. Blaiming Atheism for people being self centered is the same as the same as blaming video games for violent behaviour. The problem lies not in the game or the lack of belief in the divine, but the person themself.

And Arriana, it also becomes very easy to absolve yourself of responsibility when your religion can, and very easily is twisted into the belief that you can be forgiven for anything, that everything's already determined, or other such beliefs which make your actions irrelevant to your expected reward.

Here we have yet another example of word confusion. Atheism may not be a religion in the traditional or primary sense, but it can nevertheless be classified as thus based on the following secondary definition of "religion," as offered to us by dictionary.com:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Or perhaps you would like Merriam-Webster's take on the definition of religion:

A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

So, just as you were previously confused about the proper use of the word "parsimonious," you now again are imprecise in stating that atheism is not a religion. Atheism simply denotes a disbelief in a supreme or higher being, which does not disqualify the atheistic creed from being a religion.

Hence, atheism, along with agnosticism, is a valid and true religion, although in quite a different sense than Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, etc...

-LYCHON

::rolls eyes:: Yep, he's a semantics whoring nutjob. Note, with Irony, his usage of a secondary definition. Anyways, one of the mods told him to quit.

It flew over his head completely.

Lychon, do not mar this thread with your awful semantics arguments. Also do not do that thing where you put entire paragraphs in bold text and then condescend to other members with "mmmkay" or "bow down" or whatever.

Hey, when I'm right, I'm right. But point well taken. I've proven that both atheism and agnosticism can be classified as religions; therefore they probably shouldn't have been removed from the poll list in the first place. But 10-4 once again on the "bow downs" and the "OMG I smurfing rode you like a station wagon in the 60s!" I'll tone that crap down.

-LYCHON

He's also bullshitting about atheism requiring strong belief in the nonexistence of god.

[/quote]

[Ryushikaze]

Well, he's been banned, but his last post is quite telling, both of his insanity and ignorance. The best part is his ::feigns shock:: usage of SECONDARY DEFINITIONS in order to equivocate in order to claim atheism is a religion.

Without further ado- the final spiral

Yes, when you're right, you are right. Problem is, Lychon, you aren't. You are woefully ignorant of what the principal of parsimony is, as demonstrated by your absolute bollocks mangling of it over in the FF8 forum. What you failed- or perhaps willfully neglected- to note was that the second definition of Parsimony specifies "in accordance with Okham's razor". This means that the explanation must be both simple AND fit all of the evidence. Your strawman verion- the earth is flat- fails the second category. Lastly, I'd like to point out that it's not just me who disagrees with you on this. It's scientists in general, incuding notables such as Einstein, who wrote "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" or, in handy bite size format, "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." The simplest theory isn't always the best, because the simplest often requires more assumptions than the more complex theory which makes far less assumption, or because it simply does not actually address the evidence. For example, your earth is flat does not take into account circumnavigation, curved horizions, the curved shadow on the moon, or any of the physical evidence.

Mistaken you are, my dear Ryushikaze. You continue to delude yourself about my nonexistent lack of knowledge, especially in regards to the concept of parsimony. I have already addressed all primary and secondary definitions of the word “parsimony,” as well as the adjective that stems from it, “parsimonious.” The problem of your semantic application is that you utterly (and quite pitifully) misinterpret the concept of Occam’s Razor in association with the word “parsimony.” In the context of your original use, the word was employed to denote the fragility of a certain argument. It would have been much more advisable and much more accurate to use the word “insufficient” instead of the obscure parsimonious. Not only was your word selection poor and unwonted, but you failed to recognize the principle to which parsimony applies. This principle, of course, is the concept of economic simplicity and economic frugality, both which had absolutely nothing at all to do with your initial post regarding the Viator’s theories. Now, you can continue to use clichés such as “straw man” this or “straw man” that, but in the end you are simply defending a sophism. To correctly apply the use of the word parsimony as you wished to do, one must invariably be immersed in a scientific or otherwise academic context. In your original post in the Final Fantasy VIII forums, you showed entirely no evidence in support or in opposition to the argument that was being discussed, therefore your entire defense that you were using “parsimony” in a scientific context becomes wholly null and void. On the contrary, you were simply commenting on the insufficiency of Viator’s theory in backing up a certain proposal. Hence, you would have been much better off using the word “insufficient” rather than the obscure “parsimonious.” Was it not Leonardo Da Vinci who stated “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”? In an attempt to flaunt your misconstrued vocabulary, you have actually come out sounding grandiloquent and turgid. Finally, why on Earth would you bring up concepts of “circumnavigation, curved horizons, moon shadow…”? These ideas only go to bolster my claim that an initial parsimony describing natural phenomena or otherwise is insufficient to completely explain reality (key word here = insufficient :)). I find that it is extremely deceptive and mendacious of you to continue this altercation with me once more after your stance was proven erroneous and you conceded by not persisting in the dispute. Nevertheless, I await your response. Now, let’s move on to the rest of your writings regarding theism and atheism.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural higher power. This automatically negates it from the useful definition of religion. The second definition can be stretched to include Atheism, yes, but it can be stretched to include just about anything you want, including sex, horse betting, and polo racing. Of course, the definitions include "actively pursue" and "with faith", both of which also exlcude Atheism. One does not pursue Atheism, and lack of belief is the basis of it.

I’m not quite sure if you meant to be serious or not with your above rubbish, but I will disprove it quite the same. Atheism and agnosticism can both be classified as religions as simply and easily as Christianity or Islam can be. To state that atheism is disqualified from the label of “religion” because its core argument is the denial of the existence of higher or Supreme Being is a primitive and false declaration. As with parsimony, there are secondary and even tertiary definitions of religion, which are especially necessary when defining the tangible concept of religion, which at times can be quite encompassing and even nebulous. First off, let me being by reciting some of the definitions I offered before of “religion,” as published by respected lexicographers:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Making statements like “that definition can be stretched to include whatever you want” is simply irrelevant, and false. There is no law or universal doctrine that requires a certain belief to have a concept of a higher being for it to be classified as a religion. This is your subjective illusion, and it does not coexist well with the standard definition of what religion is. Any person who possesses certain doctrines of belief that serve to fulfill a question undefined in worldly life and supported by philosophical contemplations, to which he/she adheres to faithfully and with “ardor,” can be claimed to be following a certain religion. Unfortunately, you have somehow become quite bewildered in regards to the philosophies of atheism and nihilism. Atheism can be pursued, and quite voraciously and faithfully at that. Nihilism, on the other hand, which you seem to have no concept of, is closer to your statements about “lack of belief.” Atheism most definitely does not denote lack of belief. The only thing atheism concedes on the level of superficial classifications is the denial of higher or Supreme Being. Subjective grouping of atheism with your preconceived notions of falsehood is unadvisable in dialectics.

As for your 'god has not been proven to exist' spiel... let's take the terms and play with them to show the lack of logic. Space whales have not been proven to exist, but people around the world believe in these mystical space beings and claim to talk to them all the time. There, however, is no evidence to prove they exist beyond these anectodes, and many people claim that the whales are undetectable by any actual manner. Rational thought says that with no evidence to actually validate the existence of these whales, there is no reason to assume that they do exist. It takes more faith to believe in that which cannot be detected in any way, shape, or form, than it does to lack that belief. Remember, the burden of proof is always on the positive claim (in this case, the existence of the whales) and that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, especially if a much simpler and equally valid explanation is available.

Now you truly take the cake for the greatest sophism in the world! Your complete lack of logic here astounds me to my very core! I will attempt once again to reiterate my argument in regards to the existence of God, and hopefully this time you will understand my process. First off, the idea that the burden of proof is always on the positive is completely and utterly false beyond all contest. In most situations, as in the situation of whether or not a Supreme Being exists, a polarization occurs that is balanced on neutrality. Neutrality, in this case, can be loosely regarded as agnosticism, which in the simplest of definitions is a doubt in the existence of higher or Supreme Beings. Logic can be followed to assertive philosophical denouements that strongly support both the nonexistence and existence of God, or Supreme Being. These denouements are theoretical speculations that have neither been confirmed nor disproved. To make an argument on the principle of comparison between “space whales” and theistic or atheistic beliefs reduces our entire debate to utter distortion. The cognitive processes in reference to the actuality of a Supreme Being are a natural manifestation of an intelligent being that have been present for almost as long as Homo sapiens have walked upon Earth. There are volumes upon volumes upon volumes of philosophical work that seek to confirm the definite possibility or impossibility of a Supreme Being, and to this day there is still no definite proof. Therefore, since there is no definite proof to swing certain individuals away from neutrality (i.e. agnosticism) and towards polarization, it is an equally colossal leap of faith for one to acquire the philosophy of atheism as it is for one to acquire the philosophy of theism. It is most imprudent and thoughtless to state that theism requires more faith than atheism, or to even classify one as “positive” and the other as “negative.” The mere fact that you did classify in such a manner suggests a strong and improper bias. In fact, I would even venture to say that atheists, who go in the face of centuries of tradition and face being ostracized by society, take a greater “leap of faith” in their beliefs as opposed to someone who simply maintains the faith of his/her parents without questioning it. In the natural course of an intelligent beings life, the questions of origin and end will inevitably influence and direct the being’s choices and life, to at least some degree. We are discussing religion here, a concept that posits questions central to every aspect of existence and life. Your argument about “space whales” and whatnot is not only an entirely different principle of speculation, but it is also completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I find it ironic that you mention "I bet anyone can argue almost any belief as a kind of religion." because that's what you're doing, and with a lack of one at that.

Actually, I was arguing about two religions: agnosticism and atheism. The statement of mine that you referenced was made to note that individuals such as yourself, who attempt to constrain and impede the concept of religion, are in fact too subjective and too biased from their own illusions to realize that there is no absolute border that separates religion from basic creed. Especially when we are discussing concepts that involve cosmogony, cosmology, dimension, God, and personal belief, it is completely disgraceful and downright wicked to constrict the infinitude of space into a line of text simply to satisfy and justify the value of your own existence and suppositions. Here I am reminded of a news report I witnessed several weeks ago, where the anchor was discussing how one of the branches of the US military only recognized 32 set religions, and would not allow a surviving relative of a deceased soldier to display a religious symbol on the grave of their loved one because it did not meet the “recognized” religions, and hence was not even a religion. Lol, the times are changing. You do know that the Inquisition is over, right?

Finally, I'd like to say thanks for bringing up the 50/50 bit. It lets me play a number game and show the flaw in Pascal's wager. Assuming, as you do, that Theism and Atheism have equal predictive validity, then there is an equal chance for there being a divine being as not. But wait a second! There are hundreds of thousands of gods in belief systems all around the world! Well, mainly India, but anyways, even allowing that each pantheistic belief system can count as a single godset- and heck, not to be unfair to the Judaic's, will group them together too- minimizing the fraction by doing as much god consolidating without mixing up different pantheons, One is still left with at minimum (AKA off the top of my head) 15 pantheons, and likely a lot more- I could do research here to see what the actual max is, but it's redundant to the excercise. At minimum, this leaves us with 50% chance of no god, and a 3.3333333~ chance of the existence of any particular godset, nevermind the much reduced chances in a per god comparison.

Well actually, you make no use of Blaise Pascal’s genius in your above methods, so do not think that referencing his name will give you greater plausibility. The considerations of pantheons here is completely irrelevant because they play absolutely no role in determining logical or philosophical conclusions about the possibility of a Supreme Being. I can make up 50 billion more pantheons for you to figure in your broken mathematics, but then you would simply be evaluating the universe according to my imagination, not according to empiricism or rationalism, as Descartes and Kant have taught us. Finally, I mean not to say that atheism and theism are respective to each other as a 50/50 probability. You are imagining this concepts for reasons unbeknowest to me. My arguments merely posit a polarization around agnosticism, with the poles being represented by atheism and theism.

To sum up- Atheism isn't a beleif, it is the lack of one. If one is fervent against god, it is because the claims of the theists are so extraordinary as to be ludicrous.

You are confusing atheism with nihilism. Atheism does not denote lack of belief. It simply denotes a denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, which makes absolutely no bearing on belief. Belief does not have to center on a Supreme Being, and one does not have to believe that theistic claims are “ludicrous” to be an atheist. Atheism, as well as agnosticism, is an entirely separate philosophical belief system, and it is most definitely a religion.

-LYCHON

So many words, so little substance.
So, yeah. If anyone wants to play name that fallacy, have a go. Oi.

[Vicious]

*sigh* I see that he completely ignored everything about parsimony and regurgitated his drivel once again. Also, the fact that he failed to grasp the concept of an example (as in when you referred to the curved horizon etc) is staggering. The rest of it I don't feel like dissecting, mainly because he makes his points way too long and I'm tired from work. Also, seeing as he's been banned, I don't suppose there'd be much point to it.

Regarding his distortion of atheism: by the definitions he quoted for a religion, a political campaign could be considered a religion (a cause to which one approachs with ardor and/or zeal). This is obviously ludicrous, and the fact that he refuses to apply common sense to the situation reveals his stupidity. Atheism can be viewed the same way. It requires no faith, only the lack of faith. To be Atheist is to say "There is no God". Since there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to the existence of a deity, this is the logical stance to take. If there was evidence proving (or at least indicating) the existence of God, then he would have a point that Atheists were denying something that was there. Pointing out that something non-existent doesn't exist does not require a leap of faith.