Old 01-30-2011, 05:44 PM   #466
Simoon
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 176
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post

So why identify with atheism where, generally, atheists negate the existence of a god.

We've all been trying to explain the following points to you, in one way or another, for this entire thread.

Here they are again:

Theists claim a god exists, atheists simply are unconvinced by their claim. We are not negating the existence of a god. We simply are absent belief that a god exists.

Just like you are absent belief in Quarbles or star crapping penguins.

Quote:
Surely it be a more accurate reflection of your apparent non-belief as a agnostic?
We have also explained to you that we are agnostic.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions.

Agnosticism concerns lack of KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism concerns lack of BELIEF.

You do know the difference between the meanings of these 2 words, right?

Atheism is not a group or a world view. There is one and only one thing that all atheists have in common. And that is our absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Nothing more.


Quote:
It's like saying i have no view towards black people but have joined the KKK.
This exactly illustrates my point. People will disbelieve gods exist whether the term 'atheism' exists or not. Before the word atheism existed, there were people that disbelieved in the existence of gods.

We don't decide to call ourselves atheists, then take on the whatever you believe defines atheists. We disbelieve in the existence of gods, atheism is the word that describes that position.
Simoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 05:49 PM   #467
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
Yet you claim I must produce evidence, even if it is not obtainable.

Do I have to say it wears a hat or something? I don't understand your preoccupation with requiring evidence, when you admit you the possibility of not being able to obtain evidence.
Inability to obtain evidence makes it unlikely to be real. Believing in something which has no discernible likelihood of being real is useless and possibly even destructively wrong.

Something that might exist, but probably doesn't, just might have told me that you should end your participation here immediately.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 07:10 AM   #468
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
Yet you claim I must produce evidence, even if it is not obtainable.
Yes, I do.

If you are going to badger me into accepting your claim that something may exist, I am going to insist that you at least define whatever it is you expect me to accept as being possibly real. How else am I supposed to know what you're talking about? I'm not a mind-reader.

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Do I have to say it wears a hat or something? I don't understand your preoccupation with requiring evidence, when you admit you the possibility of not being able to obtain evidence.
And I don't understand your preoccupation with trying to get us to acknowledge the possibility of an allegation that you can neither define nor explain.

What's that all about?

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 11:53 AM   #469
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
Why don't you just go back to your ploy of stating I view the first cause as a he, then you can continue forever.
Hey: you said it, dipshit. If you didn't want me to infer that you believed your first-cause to be a male, maybe you shouldn't have implied it by using the pronoun "he."

I get it: you don't think this potential first-cause is male. I don't think your potential first-cause exists, so this conversation is doubly fucking pointless.

Quote:
If you misrepresent my position...
Oh, shut the fuck up.

You wrote "he," dipshit. If you didn't mean "he," you shouldn't have written "he."

It's my fault you can't use language clearly?

Quote:
Think of something new to say.
Your sister drinks camel piss. You dipshit.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 01:56 PM   #470
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
So why identify with atheism where, generally, atheists negate the existence of a god. Surely it be a more accurate reflection of your apparent non-belief as a agnostic?
It's not a matter of identifying with atheism.

Atheism is a position on a claim that a God or gods exist. Now, of course, there are groups of people who advance a cause that seeks to promote that position in society, but that is not the purpose of this particular site. We are not aligned by a common cause here; we meet here because we share a common position on theistic claims. As you may or may not be aware, theistic claims are prevalent in the societies in which the posters here live.

The majority of folks making these theistic claims in our societies give attributes to the alleged thing that they identify as a god. It is decidedly male and human-like, according to them. It is most often depicted as a white male with straight hair and sometimes sporting a beard. Despite the alleged countenance of this entity, it is also claimed by those who believe in its existence to be an invisible, non-carbon based lifeform that, apparently, hovers in an unidentified realm outside of our immediate reality. Yet, it judges human behaviors and issues commandments. It also metes out punishments and answers fervent wishes, or it chooses not to.

I am not even a little bit agnostic as it pertains to this allegation. I simply don't believe this character that many people identify as The One and Only God exists. There is no evidence of which I have been made aware that such an entity as this exists.

Is it possible that another type of god exists? I don't know because I have no idea what a god is. Calling it a "first cause" is not illuminating. Yes, quite possibly, there was a first cause for all that has ever existed. What, exactly, that first cause might have been, I really can't say. I'm not going to call it a god when I don't know what a god is and when I haven't the first clue what the "first cause" might have been, if there was a first cause.

Now that I have clarified my position (others here might not share it), do I qualify as an agnostic to you?

Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
It's like saying i have no view towards black people but have joined the KKK.
It's not at all like that. Black people are an identified group. I am commonly identified as belonging to that particular group of people. No one with sight who has ever met me anywhere I have traveled in the world has ever misidentified me as "belonging" to another group.

People who join the KKK are unequivocal in their disdain for me and the group to which they perceive I belong. That disdain is the whole purpose for the existence of the KKK. All of its members know why they joined. There is no such surety when it comes to your particular conception of a possible god, especially since nobody, but you, knows what you might conceive that to be.

Personally, I have nothing against your conception of a possible god. Without any clues from you as to what it might be, I cannot even begin to identify what it might be. So I can neither embrace it nor reject it, whatever it might be.

Hence, as it pertains to your conception of a possible god, you and I don't really have a beef, and we shouldn't be arguing about it. It's your personal business-- whatever it is that you're defending here-- and I don't want to get in the way of that when it has nothing to do with me.

"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Last edited by Irreligious; 01-31-2011 at 02:15 PM.
Irreligious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 02:33 PM   #471
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
So stating a first cause may exist would have no discernable effect on the world is like saying to a waiter I ordered eggs and you have only given me eggs.
Please, for the love of all that is sacred to you, stop trying to make analogies. They are so incredibly painful to read.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
It's not a matter of what you view to be pointless.
If only you could read this, and devlop even a smidgen of self-awareness, that would be fantastic.
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
I don't believe it does or doesn't exist, I beleive it may exist. Not the same thing.
In your Jerry74 incarnation, you said you believed IT existed. Did turning into Selly change your mind, or did you find yourself being outmaneuvered, and decided to amend your views?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 02:39 PM   #472
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
I never defined it beyong being a first cause and possibily beyond our comprehension.
And that's the epitome of Jerry's belief: Keep the definition of your deity as vague as possible, lest you create an opening that can be exploited by those mean atheists.

Jerry, what are your views on Veeblefrums? Sorry, I can't define it any further, because I don't want you to dismiss it (or did I already screw up, because I gave it a name?).

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 02:43 PM   #473
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
If you can't offer a viable alternative, considering something beyond our comprehension as possibly exsiting is a logical solution to take.
First of all, you have been offered viable alternatives.
Secondly, it does not appear to be beyond your comprehension, as you seem to think you can tell us what it is (or isn't).
Thirdly, why are you dismissing star-shitting penguins. Are penguins that shit stars something you can comprehend?
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
Your refusual is only based on your personal bias.
My personal bias against anally-extracted ideas that have zero evidence? Guilty!
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
My alternative lacks contradictory traits and/or resulting from the latest musings of a random scientist.
What contradictory traits do star-shitting penguins have that your first cause doesn't?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 03:41 PM   #474
Simoon
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 176
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
Jerry, what are your views on Veeblefrums? Sorry, I can't define it any further, because I don't want you to dismiss it (or did I already screw up, because I gave it a name?).
This hits Jerry's hypocrisy right on the nose.

He has no problems dismissing the clams of the existence of Veeblefrums, Quarbles, Star Crapping penguins or Flanbo. And his reasons for dismissing these claims (in his words, he 'doesn't consider them') are the identical reasons we dismiss the claims that a god exists.

I think he feels that he can get away with dismissing them because they are silly concepts or have silly names. Yet, they are still claims of the existence of beings that may, or may not, be hiding in the unknowable, just like Jerry's claim about a god.

Yet, when we say we are without beliefs in the existence of a god due to lack of evidence and reasoned argument to support that claim, we are guilty, according to him, of some faulty logic. But when he's without beliefs in Veeblefrums, Quarbels, Star Crapping Penguins, or Flanbo, he feels his position is on solid logical grounds, and rightly so.

Last edited by Simoon; 01-31-2011 at 04:04 PM.
Simoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 04:32 PM   #475
selliedjoup
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
Post

Quote:
Jimble wrote View Post
I doubt you've answered all my questions.

But it's K.

Enjoy dodging and bucking the others.

I doubt I've answered the questions to level you whimsically require, but they're there.

I'm not dodging a thing, I can easily accuse most here of the same thing.
selliedjoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 04:44 PM   #476
selliedjoup
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Simoon wrote View Post
We've all been trying to explain the following points to you, in one way or another, for this entire thread.

Here they are again:

Theists claim a god exists, atheists simply are unconvinced by their claim. We are not negating the existence of a god. We simply are absent belief that a god exists.

Just like you are absent belief in Quarbles or star crapping penguins.

We have also explained to you that we are agnostic.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions.
And I have already explained to you I don't buy the difference between negating the existence of a god and actively having an 'absent belief'.
They are the same thing.

You can hold a unconscious absent belief but it will not manifest itself in anyway, so in a practical sense holding an active absent belief is negating.


Quote:
Agnosticism concerns lack of KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism concerns lack of BELIEF.

You do know the difference between the meanings of these 2 words, right?
And I've already said in many other posts that your belief set results in your lack of belief. So it is still a belief, whether the conclusion is a lack if belief in something you still must apply principles when assessing whether this warrants a lack of belief or not. Portraying atheism as lacking any form of belief is stupid.

Quote:
Atheism is not a group or a world view. There is one and only one thing that all atheists have in common. And that is our absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods. Nothing more.
I would say a shared view results in a group, but of course you don't hold a view yet oddly all come to the same place under the title of atheism.



Quote:
This exactly illustrates my point. People will disbelieve gods exist whether the term 'atheism' exists or not. Before the word atheism existed, there were people that disbelieved in the existence of gods.

We don't decide to call ourselves atheists, then take on the whatever you believe defines atheists. We disbelieve in the existence of gods, atheism is the word that describes that position.
So now you disbelieve god(s) exist? I thought you held a lack of belief, not disbelief?
selliedjoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 04:46 PM   #477
selliedjoup
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
[quote=Sternwallow;627694]
Quote:
Inability to obtain evidence makes it unlikely to be real.
Fascinating, says who?

Quote:
Believing in something which has no discernible likelihood of being real is useless and possibly even destructively wrong.
Just a statement which assumes its conclusion.

Quote:
Something that might exist, but probably doesn't, just might have told me that you should end your participation here immediately.
And another.
selliedjoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 04:51 PM   #478
selliedjoup
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote View Post
Hey: you said it, dipshit. If you didn't want me to infer that you believed your first-cause to be a male, maybe you shouldn't have implied it by using the pronoun "he."

I get it: you don't think this potential first-cause is male. I don't think your potential first-cause exists, so this conversation is doubly fucking pointless.

Oh, shut the fuck up.

You wrote "he," dipshit. If you didn't mean "he," you shouldn't have written "he."

It's my fault you can't use language clearly?

Your sister drinks camel piss. You dipshit.
It seems like your whole world has imploded when I recanted the use of "he".

If I refer to something as predominantly "it" and not "he". For example, on a 10 to 1 ratio, which do you think the reader should stick to, the one used most often (i.e. "it") or the one the reader wants to see (i.e. "he")?
selliedjoup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 05:29 PM   #479
Simoon
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 176
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote View Post
And I have already explained to you I don't buy the difference between negating the existence of a god and actively having an 'absent belief'.
They are the same thing
No they're not.

This is why I asked you several times whether you now have to actively disbelieve in 'Flanbo' because you have now heard about their possible existence.

Quote:
You can hold a unconscious absent belief but it will not manifest itself in anyway, so in a practical sense holding an active absent belief is negating
How does my conscious absent belief manifest? In that I enjoy debating the subject?

So, every time I hear about some supernatural claim that has no supporting evidence or reasoned argument, I have an 'actively be absent belief'? Just like you're actively absent belief in star crapping penguins? I don't have to even consider the claim again, unless someone claims to have evidence for it. There is nothing active in my non-belief in said claim.


Quote:
And I've already said in many other posts that your belief set results in your lack of belief. So it is still a belief, whether the conclusion is a lack if belief in something you still must apply principles when assessing whether this warrants a lack of belief or not. Portraying atheism as lacking any form of belief is stupid.
What is my belief set? As far as I can tell, it's to have no beliefs in claims unsupported by evidence and reasoned argument.

Quote:
I would say a shared view results in a group, but of course you don't hold a view yet oddly all come to the same place under the title of atheism.
What is our shared view? As far as I can tell it is the view that the claim that a god exists is unconvincing.

Are all people that are unconvinced in astrology part of the same group?

Quote:
So now you disbelieve god(s) exist? I thought you held a lack of belief, not disbelief?
What do you think is the difference?. The prefix 'dis' negates the word 'belief'. So, it is having no belief.

Last edited by Simoon; 01-31-2011 at 05:45 PM.
Simoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 06:12 PM   #480
anthonyjfuchs
Obsessed Member
 
anthonyjfuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
I've already said in many other posts that your belief set results in your lack of belief.
The fact that you're repeating your nonsense does not make your repetitious nonsense any less nonsensical.

We're in agreement that the end result is a lack of belief. Move along, dipshit.

Quote:
...you still must apply principles when assessing whether this warrants a lack of belief or not.
Belief is not a choice. It is not reached through some sort of deliberation.

Did you choose to believe in the potential existence of a first-cause that is decidedly not male? Did you "apply principles when assessing whether this warrants" your belief? Or is it just something that you believe because you believe it?

Quote:
Portraying atheism as lacking any form of belief is stupid.
Portraying atheism as a thing unto itself that can have or lack anything is stupid.

Atheism is a description of a lack of belief in supernatural claims. It is not a lack of belief in all claims, nor is a thing that, itself, lacks belief.

Trade out the word "skepticism" for "atheism" in all future posts, and you'll realize what a fucking dipshit you sound like. Or you won't.

Quote:
...you don't hold a view yet oddly all come to the same place under the title of atheism.
That would tell you something were you not an obtuse dipshit.

Quote:
So now you disbelieve god(s) exist?
I've already said in many other posts that "disbelief" is meaningless.

Quote:
I thought you held a lack of belief, not disbelief?
A "lack of belief" is not a thing that can be held, any more than a lack of coin is a thing that can be held. One does not hold a lack of belief. One simply lacks belief.

And "disbelief"? Still meaningless.

Move along, dipshit.

atheist (n): one who remains unconvinced.

Last edited by anthonyjfuchs; 01-31-2011 at 06:33 PM.
anthonyjfuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational