Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-18-2011, 02:13 PM   #226
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
No, the self-confessed atheist beliefs of Davin and yourself lead me to believe that you are most likely inventing a fiction in order to demonstrate a point.
You couldn't possibly dismiss the revelations of Christians as self-serving, could you?

"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 01-18-2011, 02:30 PM   #227
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
No, the self-confessed atheist beliefs of Davin and yourself lead me to believe that you are most likely inventing a fiction in order to demonstrate a point.
According to my revelation, subatomic robots invented your Jesus fiction just to mess with you.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 02:35 PM   #228
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
No, the self-confessed atheist beliefs of Davin and yourself lead me to believe that you are most likely inventing a fiction in order to demonstrate a point.
Wait a minute. Atheists are not allowed to believe in the existence of subatomic robots? Why not? Subatomic robots are not gods.

"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 01-18-2011, 03:02 PM   #229
thomastwo
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
I assumed Davin was using "revealed" in the supernatural sense. Maybe not?
thomastwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 06:36 PM   #230
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm no expert. Just a guy posting some ideas on an internet forum. If my ideas are wrong they should be easy to refute.
Your ideas always are easy to refute, and have been continuously refuted. Did you think you would win a prize for your obdurate error?

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2011, 11:30 PM   #231
Irreligious
I Live Here
 
Irreligious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
I assumed Davin was using "revealed" in the supernatural sense. Maybe not?
I don't know. What's a supernatural revelation?

"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 01-19-2011, 02:18 AM   #232
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,580
I sense we're approaching one of those magical, personal, feels good, outside of time & space moments.

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 08:39 AM   #233
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,925
Thomas might be about to reveal to us that he is actually Madame Leota's head floating in a magic crystal ball.

This is really exciting!

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011, 01:06 AM   #234
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
thomastwo wrote View Post
Empiricism provides you with no basis to rule out either of your claims.
Lacking objective evidence (empirical), gives reason to consider them to be unreal practically if not technically.

Things which exist but for which there is no evidence have identical effect in reality as things which do not exist.

They can be ruled out because their possible existence does not matter in the least.

Indeed, for a thing to be real, it must have some effect that can, in principle at least, be observed directly or indirectly.

"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 02-09-2011, 09:23 AM   #235
Ellanoor
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 79
Quote:
anthonyjfuchs wrote View Post
I've used the analogy that atheism is a belief is the same way that not subscribing to any magazines is a magazine subscription.
Atheism takes a step that the other 'nons' do not - though they could if they were being persecuted or marginalized or whatever - and when you take a positive step, I think that step has the inklings of a worldview. So atheism isn't just non-magazine subscribing, its non-magazine subscribing plus.


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...an_atheist.php

Quote:
My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values.
Oh, on a related note, I also get a lot of comments that atheism is a privative attribute which strictly speaking, lacks any specific positive qualities. This is true of the dictionary definition. It is not true of atheism in its actual usage: it carries a lot of accreted baggage, as this little cartoon illustrates.

I refuse to take you seriously.
Ellanoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 10:13 AM   #236
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
I really don't think it is magazine subscription plus. I may do all sorts of other things, I may even have a reason to not subscribe to magazines, but I don't need those reasons (and my reasons would probably be very different from most other non-magazine subscribers), to be a non-magazine subscriber. Atheism is just non-magazine subscribing, otherwise why else would you add "plus"?

While I agree that there is baggage attached to the words atheism and atheist, I make every attempt to remove that baggage. There's also baggage around the name Adolf, however I'm not going to just accept that every Adolf (or even Adolf Hitler), is some guy who wants to kill a bunch a Jews just because a bunch of people irrationally attach baggage onto the name. I know, I referenced Hitler...

Another problem is the whole comparison fail he does. Asking a biologist what a biologist is will reasonably give you a different answer than asking a biologist why he/she became a biologist.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 10:44 PM   #237
Ellanoor
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 79
I got confused for a bit reading your post, not realizing you were addressing the points made in the link I provided. Just to clarify, I put up the link because I thought it would serve as an example of - to me, it as an attempt to describe or acknowledge this "plus" side of non-magazine subscribing - not endorsing his viewpoint. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've written (though you lost me on the whole baggage-Adolf thing).

If non-magazine subscribers formed societies/groups, sought each other out online or elsewhere, for defense/support/whatever reasons, they would then step into the "plus" area. That (tiny) positive step does not make Atheism a belief system but it also doesn't make it the equivalent of non-magazine subscribing, and thus my issue with the analogies.

I refuse to take you seriously.
Ellanoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 11:43 AM   #238
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
PZ - "It is not true of atheism in its actual usage: it carries a lot of accreted baggage"

That is why I mentioned the baggage. The baggage around the word atheism comes from idiots who want to argue with atheists... who want to argue with their idea of what an atheist is, so they attach a bunch of other meanings onto the word and don't accept that their idea of what an atheist is, is very different than what most atheists are. My main objection with PZ Meyers is that it seems like he's saying that if I say I'm a "dictionary atheist", then I'm some how not acceptable, however if I have some kind of rich story behind why I became an atheist, then he'll consider me a real Scotsman atheist. So I guess I'm not a true atheist according PZ, because the reason I'm an atheist, is because I stopped believing in anything and only accepted things as true if they were backed up with evidence and made accurate predictions. And what of the people that just never believed in any gods? They're not true atheists either?

As for the "atheist plus" thing, I don't like that either. No shit we're not things that merely do not believe in any gods and there is much more to atheists than just sitting around not believing in gods. Atheism is equivelant to just not subscribing to a magazine. The other shit you're noticing about atheists is normal human shit that virtually all humans and even theists do, we're talking to each other, forming "groups", and discussing interests. Are there "theists plus" too?

There was a tribe of people that didn't ever believe in any gods, the perfect dictionary atheists, who because of their lack of belief and not understanding why anyone would believe, prompted some dude to write a book about how he became an atheist because of it. The people of this tribe were people that simply never believed in any gods, they were atheists. Maybe not your super sayen mega ultra happy atheists plus, but still atheists.



The reason why I'm posting on atheist forums is because some of the stuff I want to talk about, I want the freedom to talk about it, every other forum I've participated on has had some very bad censoring practices. So I like to say what I have to say without my efforts being deleted. That doesn't happen often on forums, not even on many atheist forums. There are atheists that are just as bad with deleting posts they don't like as Ray Comfort is. This "non-magazine subscriber plus" you talk about just sounds like normal people who don't believe in any god or gods. Why even add on "plus" to signify that just because people are atheists they don't want to hide in the basement completely isolated?

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 12:54 PM   #239
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
I agree with you, Davin, and disagree with PZ.

While I agree with PZ that every atheist has his own personal background to why they are atheists, everyone is still a dictionary atheist.

I'm not cool with the "plus" concept either. Would you call black people who joined together to fight civil rights violations "blacks plus"?

"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 02-11-2011, 10:19 PM   #240
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
I also agree with Davin and against PZ (with all due respect).

It seems to me that, discounting the actual crazy people (a negligible minority at this scale of discussion), there are just three things that separate and distinguish between theists and atheists:

Theists have different definitions of what evidence is and they have separate and incompatible rules of logic by which to make sense of the facts they can access and they interpret internal personal experiences as having external reality. Theists get much of their working data from other people who (often) know less than they do and they think that faith is a source of knowledge equal to or greater than verifiable empirical data. When they have a powerful emotional experience, their specialized information base (culture) causes them to mis-attribute it to supernatural causes. Self-delusion is not only welcome, it is regularly reinforced by human-synthesized rituals and dogma.

Atheists, who are so as a consequence of being skeptical, do not accept authority because it is too often invalidated by error, deception and psychosis. They do not accept subjective feelings as being meaningful to anyone but the one who has the experience. And they want their information to be independently verifiable in order to avoid self delusion as much as possible.

This, I think, is how each camp manages to sincerely claim a superior grip on reality. I also think I know this group's choice on that issue.

"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
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 03:38 PM.


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