A****** is a bad word?

[SnakeLord]

they do espouse that issues of religion/god do not offer an influencing contribution to their personal lives though ...

I'm sure a specific context will vary from person to person that says that. How I see it, if I were to say such a thing, is in the context that there is no god in this house. There are no religious observances, we do not abide by religious laws, (yes I understand these share a commonality with the laws of society - stick with me), or have any influence in our personal lives with concerns to gods. However.. we do know religious people, we do hear the words soul, heaven and god in movies and music, our children are currently in an establishment that demands they be fed the idea of gods and religious worship etc etc - in that context yes, nobody can escape from it even if they wanted to.

Look, it's not one of my statements so I am probably not the person you would need to answer it.

hence trying to redefine your designation as a "non-theist" seems more like a valued ideal than a deserving title

You can call me whatever you want. There was never a day when I stood on a large box in the middle of town with a loudspeaker declaring "I am an atheist". It's what I am called by theists. I, unlike some here perhaps, don't really care what someone calls me. You can call me a non-theist, an atheist, an unbeliever, an infidel whatever.. It's inconsequential to my lack of belief in gods.

problems arise when the inquiring mind is curtailed by pre-existing beliefs

I wouldn't know, I've always been an atheist and I am a man with a scientific mind. The problem generally seems to be that the theist just doesn't like being questioned - he just likes to make the claims. (This reminds me that I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked 8 times on the other thread).

my point is that your position as an atheist is more diametrically opposed to theism than mine was

The problem here is that you don't know me at all, but - needless to say - you are now in a position that is instantly bias to mine. You are of course wrong, but that's bound to happen when you pretend that you know someone else. The only thing I am opposed to are unsupported claims and those that continually make them and then run when asked to support those claims.

what is a problem is when you clamour for a definition of atheism being the non-belief of god, when your (virtual) behavior indicates the exact opposite

It would seem that you see something that isn't there because of your preset beliefs. I'm sure the text you believe in adamantly has some quite harsh words to say about my kind. How, once you've read it and believe it, can I not be seen in a negative way by your kind?

 

[superluminal]

superluminal


if I spent 50% of my recreational online time on golf forums asserting that golf doesn't offer a controlling element in my life, what would that suggest?

That golf itself has no meaning for you, but you really don't want golf interfering with your life. Just like religion has no meaning for us, and we don't want religion interfering in our lives. So we become anti-golf activists. How does that translate into anything other than we want golf out of public affairs?

You seem to be insisting that we think or feel something that we have told you time and time again that we don't. Why do you think we are all lying?

I really have zero interest in a god itself. It's a children's fantasy and it's truly amazing to me that anyone puts a shred of credibility in the idea. What I am interested in is not having to put up with policy or unfair accommodation made made for such an unfounded delusion. Really. I'm not lying about this.

You're forgetting a crucial point here. No one organizes golfers into politicaly interested groups with an agenda of manipulating society and ensuring that we are all good little golf fans. If they did, I'd be posting in the "why golf is a bad thing" forum. I still wouldn't give a shit about golf itself.

See?

 

[Michael]

I guess one of the last places you would expect to encounter a person who doesn't play golf is on a forum discussing golf

I guess one of the last things you would expect to see is people rallying together to strengthen their conviction by expressing different issues why they don't eat peanut butter (usually by pointing out the shortcomings of those who do)

somehow it seems you have glossed over a few issues

Haa the point was about a sura not sciforums.

 

[Michael]

Infidel.

exactly

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
hence trying to redefine your designation as a "non-theist" seems more like a valued ideal than a deserving title
”
You can call me whatever you want. There was never a day when I stood on a large box in the middle of town with a loudspeaker declaring "I am an atheist".

Instead you regularly commit to public forums and even host your own personal website to establish your beliefs

It's what I am called by theists. I, unlike some here perhaps, don't really care what someone calls me. You can call me a non-theist, an atheist, an unbeliever, an infidel whatever.. It's inconsequential to my lack of belief in gods.

ok - so at least the bit in italics is clear

“
problems arise when the inquiring mind is curtailed by pre-existing beliefs
”
I wouldn't know, I've always been an atheist and I am a man with a scientific mind. The problem generally seems to be that the theist just doesn't like being questioned - he just likes to make the claims. (This reminds me that I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked 8 times on the other thread).

if you demand that evidence be asserted while contravening the standards by which evidence is validated/invalidated, it certainly suggests (pre-existing) issues of belief are afoot ....

“
my point is that your position as an atheist is more diametrically opposed to theism than mine was
”
The problem here is that you don't know me at all, but - needless to say - you are now in a position that is instantly bias to mine. You are of course wrong, but that's bound to happen when you pretend that you know someone else.

coming from a guy who just asserted I was never an atheist?

The only thing I am opposed to are unsupported claims and those that continually make them and then run when asked to support those claims.

once again, if one doesn't believe in the support, it places one in a position that is very difficult to be budged from (aka - bias)

“
what is a problem is when you clamour for a definition of atheism being the non-belief of god, when your (virtual) behavior indicates the exact opposite
”
It would seem that you see something that isn't there because of your preset beliefs. I'm sure the text you believe in adamantly has some quite harsh words to say about my kind. How, once you've read it and believe it, can I not be seen in a negative way by your kind?

well ....
Do you regularly commit to public forum sites like this? Yes
Do you host a personal website dedicated to espousing atheistic claims? Yes

Assuming that you also live in a world that only has 24 hours in a day, its not clear how I am seeing something that isn't there

 

[Michael]

What is the politically correct term for those who do not believe in God?

By language?

how about "fair-minded humanist"?


Say O fair-minded level headed humanist
I do not think the way you think
Nor do I appraoch life as you do
Nor will I ever think the way you think
Nor will you ever worship what I worship
To you is your fair-minded humanist approach to life, and to me is my religion.

 

[Michael]

making any sense yet?

 

[Sarkus]

I think you should back track to greenberg's offerings of "atheist", "ex-theist" and "theist"

Why did I expect you to respond with a decent response?

If harking back to greenberg's offerings will help you, by all means do so. I have no need.
What I wrote is valid whether you take atheist, theist, ex-theist, non-theist, ill-theist, ab-theist, un-theist, anything you choose at all.

The point is, to have the interest in religion and in why religious people in particular appear to choose to suspend their rationality can be sod-all to do with their theism or lack thereof, whether they were, are, will be, have been, intend to be theist, atheist or anything else.

To think otherwise, as you seem to do, and have been called up on it, is simply wrong.

 

[Sarkus]

they do espouse that issues of religion/god do not offer an influencing contribution to their personal lives though ...

If anything it is the other way round - in that they are fed up with the fact that issues of religion / god DO influence their personal lives - when they wish they wouldn't!

Afterall - why should the object in which they either believe doesn't exist - or at least does not believe exists - have such an influence?
THAT in itself interests people - regardless of belief.

If 80% of the population found golf interesting and I didn't - I would be interested not in the golf but in WHY they found it so interesting. This is very different to finding the golf itself interesting.

You obviously can not see the difference... or if you can then you fail to demonstrate that particular visual ability.

 

[S.A.M.]

how about "fair-minded humanist"?

Like Mao Tse-tung? Stalin?

 

[lightgigantic]

That golf itself has no meaning for you, but you really don't want golf interfering with your life. Just like religion has no meaning for us, and we don't want religion interfering in our lives.

in what ways does religion interfere with your life?
(When I was an atheist I found that the best way to avoid interference was not to publicly seek out forums that discuss theistic issues)

So we become anti-golf activists. How does that translate into anything other than we want golf out of public affairs?

if you can personally live a life that is practically untouched by religion, its not clear why you have to make mountains out of molehills

You seem to be insisting that we think or feel something that we have told you time and time again that we don't. Why do you think we are all lying?

the particular issue is whether atheism is definable without reference to theism
the more you commit to countering theistic discussion, the more you illustrate yourselves as existing outside of such a catagory

I really have zero interest in a god itself. It's a children's fantasy and it's truly amazing to me that anyone puts a shred of credibility in the idea. What I am interested in is not having to put up with policy or unfair accommodation made made for such an unfounded delusion. Really. I'm not lying about this.

and what exactly is the unfair accommodation made by theism?
When I was an atheist I never encountered it

You're forgetting a crucial point here. No one organizes golfers into politicaly interested groups with an agenda of manipulating society and ensuring that we are all good little golf fans. If they did, I'd be posting in the "why golf is a bad thing" forum. I still wouldn't give a shit about golf itself.

See?

seems like your paranoia has unfolded a delusional world for you
Even though you want to persecute theists for their thought crimes, its not clear how theists are persecuting you for yours

 

[SnakeLord]

Instead you regularly commit to public forums and even host your own personal website to establish your beliefs

Correctly: My lack of belief, but ok. Nowhere in there is me giving myself a specific label. Once again you can call me anything you want and those titles ultimately come from your kind, because without your kind there would be no label for my kind.

ok - so at least the bit in italics is clear

The bit not in italics: "It's inconsequential to my lack of belief in gods" is merely to state that whatever you call me does not impact my lack of belief. You can call me a purple Mongolian if you desire to, it doesn't change anything.

if you demand that evidence be asserted while contravening the standards by which evidence is validated/invalidated, it certainly suggests (pre-existing) issues of belief are afoot

I haven't 'contravened' anything - there is your error. Of course your statement, which is vastly misguided to begin with, leaves the door wide open for anyone to claim anything they so choose, demand that they are qualified and assert that they can never support their claims but that you must do it for them by various obscure and unobtainable methods. One such method is your claim to "getting rid of lust". I state clearly that I don't have any. This to you is clearly not good enough so what can I do now especially given that you offer no way with which to measure current levels of lustiness? Frankly your kind need to learn how to be more specific.

Example: Lenny the leprechaun exists. That is the reality of the matter. Now, your arguments preclude you from challenging that or asking me to supply evidence unless you now do what I say which is.. Well, you need to remove all traces of shyness otherwise Lenny will not show himself to you, (among other things).

Where do we go from here?

coming from a guy who just asserted I was never an atheist?

Actually I asserted both.However, you're right. I take the statement back. Out of interest though could you then define atheist to me in relation to you being one?

if one doesn't believe in the support, it places one in a position that is very difficult to be budged from (aka - bias)

So how do you go about establishing that this thing is support? If for instance I said to you that the existence of marzipan is support for the claim that leprechauns exist you would be justified in disagreeing that marzipan is evidence of the existence of leprechauns. I could then provide you with your own statement quoted above. You are ultimately saying that you only think marzipan isn't evidence of leprechauns because you're bias. The statement is clearly nonseniscal.

Do you regularly commit to public forum sites like this? Yes

As stated quite clearly, I have an interest in the subject matter. Going from here to the claim that I therefore have a belief in gods is simply ludicrous.

Do you host a personal website dedicated to espousing atheistic claims? Yes

No. I host a personal website dedicated to debating theistic claims.

Assuming that you also live in a world that only has 24 hours in a day, its not clear how I am seeing something that isn't there

Well given that you have around 1,000 more posts than I, maybe you can inform yourself over whether you can comfortably fit the time in during that 24 hour day with plenty of time to spare. What are you saying to me exactly?

 

[Michael]

Like Mao Tse-tung? Stalin?

do you think they are fairminded? If yes then for you yes, if no then why the strawman?

 

[S.A.M.]

do you think they are fairminded? If yes then for you yes, if no then why the strawman?

just a reminder that atheist != fairminded humanist?

Say O one who believes as Mao and Stalin
I do not think the way you think
Nor do I appraoch life as you do
Nor will I ever think the way you think
Nor will you ever worship what I worship
To you is your approach to life, and to me is my religion.

Like this?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

Instead you regularly commit to public forums and even host your own personal website to establish your beliefs
”
Correctly: My lack of belief, but ok. Nowhere in there is me giving myself a specific label. Once again you can call me anything you want and those titles ultimately come from your kind, because without your kind there would be no label for my kind.

without my kind you would not even be definable or have a web site

“
ok - so at least the bit in italics is clear
”
The bit not in italics: "It's inconsequential to my lack of belief in gods" is merely to state that whatever you call me does not impact my lack of belief. You can call me a purple Mongolian if you desire to, it doesn't change anything.

true I could call you anything - the name itself wouldn't impact on the qualities you manifest to warrant such a label (unless it was particularly obnoxious or flattering)

“
if you demand that evidence be asserted while contravening the standards by which evidence is validated/invalidated, it certainly suggests (pre-existing) issues of belief are afoot
”
I haven't 'contravened' anything - there is your error.

yes you have

there is a claim
there is also a claim that a process exists to validate the claim

not only have you not applied the process or know what the process entails, you cannot even inquire properly about the process. Instead you prefer to use it as a platform for lodging your preconceived beliefs

“
coming from a guy who just asserted I was never an atheist?
”
Actually I asserted both.However, you're right. I take the statement back. Out of interest though could you then define atheist to me in relation to you being one?

A person who for all practical purposes treats god(s) as non-existent

“
if one doesn't believe in the support, it places one in a position that is very difficult to be budged from (aka - bias)
”
So how do you go about establishing that this thing is support? If for instance I said to you that the existence of marzipan is support for the claim that leprechauns exist you would be justified in disagreeing that marzipan is evidence of the existence of leprechauns. I could then provide you with your own statement quoted above. You are ultimately saying that you only think marzipan isn't evidence of leprechauns because you're bias. The statement is clearly nonseniscal.

a good indication would be to examine what callibre of person is making this claim
if I can't find any philosophically astute references, I might be dissuaded from any further inquiry

“
Do you regularly commit to public forum sites like this? Yes
”
As stated quite clearly, I have an interest in the subject matter. Going from here to the claim that I therefore have a belief in gods is simply ludicrous.

it was meant to illustrate a commitment to a belief

“
Do you host a personal website dedicated to espousing atheistic claims? Yes
”
No. I host a personal website dedicated to debating theistic claims.

fits snuggly in with a host of web-savvy zany atheists

“
Assuming that you also live in a world that only has 24 hours in a day, its not clear how I am seeing something that isn't there
”
Well given that you have around 1,000 more posts than I, maybe you can inform yourself over whether you can comfortably fit the time in during that 24 hour day with plenty of time to spare. What are you saying to me exactly?

"welcome to the club"
:cheers::cheers:

 

[SnakeLord]

without my kind you would not even be definable or have a web site

Yeah, that's just what I said. You make the claims, people like me question those claims.

not only have you not applied the process or know what the process entails, you cannot even inquire properly about the process.

I resent the lie. Need I really go through this forum and copy/paste every time I have asked you to explain the process to me in depth? All I have got from you so far is that I should refrain from lust and envy etc. I claim to have done so. Unless there is a way to establish my current level of lustiness and given your arguments, there's very little you can say. You could of course deny my claim. Is it then up to me to support that claim that I have made or you? You have been arguing here that it is somehow up to you to support my claim that I am lust free. I find it perplexing.

a good indication would be to examine what callibre of person is making this claim

In line with what conditions and utilising what type of examinations?

if I can't find any philosophically astute references, I might be dissuaded from any further inquiry

Does a claim being written down improve the reality of the claim?

it was meant to illustrate a commitment to a belief

If so it would be wrong. I have a lack of belief. As stated earlier: You make the claims, people like me question those claims. I am not with a belief, I am questioning your belief. You absolutely must navigate this hurdle if you ever want to get anywhere. It is partly for this reason that I contended you've never been an atheist.

fits snuggly in with a host of web-savvy zany atheists

Is there some hidden argument in here? Are you disagreeing with my statement?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

without my kind you would not even be definable or have a web site
”
Yeah, that's just what I said. You make the claims, people like me question those claims.

so its not clear what your issues are for accepting the term "atheist" as inappropriate

“
not only have you not applied the process or know what the process entails, you cannot even inquire properly about the process.
”
I resent the lie. Need I really go through this forum and copy/paste every time I have asked you to explain the process to me in depth? All I have got from you so far is that I should refrain from lust and envy etc. I claim to have done so. Unless there is a way to establish my current level of lustiness and given your arguments, there's very little you can say. You could of course deny my claim. Is it then up to me to support that claim that I have made or you? You have been arguing here that it is somehow up to you to support my claim that I am lust free. I find it perplexing.

actually I have received a range of responses, ranging from "to be free from lust is delusional" to "gee I am already free from lust"
to say the least, reading between the lines is quite easy ....

“

a good indication would be to examine what callibre of person is making this claim
”
In line with what conditions and utilising what type of examinations?

well for a start, who apart from you, is making the claim about marzipan and leprechauns

“
if I can't find any philosophically astute references, I might be dissuaded from any further inquiry
”
Does a claim being written down improve the reality of the claim?

if it is written down in an intelligible fashion with a host of commentaries for further clarification, yes

“
it was meant to illustrate a commitment to a belief
”
If so it would be wrong. I have a lack of belief. As stated earlier: You make the claims, people like me question those claims. I am not with a belief, I am questioning your belief. You absolutely must navigate this hurdle if you ever want to get anywhere.

you run into hypocrisy when there are clear examples of you promoting your belief

It is partly for this reason that I contended you've never been an atheist.

the only difference between your atheism and mine was that I never had to go running into assemblies of theists to assert my status quo

“
fits snuggly in with a host of web-savvy zany atheists
”
Is there some hidden argument in here? Are you disagreeing with my statement?

you've made a site that reflects your beliefs

 

[SnakeLord]

so its not clear what your issues are for accepting the term "atheist" as inappropriate

Eh? Where did I say any word was inappropriate?

actually I have received a range of responses, ranging from "to be free from lust is delusional"

You're being dishonest unless you mean from other people, but then I fail to see its relevance here.

Furthermore I notice once again you have shifted to avoid describing the process but will undoubtedly once more accuse me of not inquring as to the process when you forget that you ignored me asking. There was also another question in there that you chose to ignore in favour of making a dishonest or irrelevant statement.

well for a start, who apart from you, is making the claim about marzipan and leprechauns

Why are you espousing argumentum ad populum as the way to go in response to my question that asked you specifically what experiment and under what conditions you test the person making the claims? You test the person by finding out how popular his claim is? We can discuss the claim to evidence once you have answered the question concerning the person.

if it is written down in an intelligible fashion with a host of commentaries for further clarification, yes

So.. something being written down makes that something more real?

you run into hypocrisy when there are clear examples of you promoting your belief

Well no, given that the issue comes down to a lack of understanding on your part.

the only difference between your atheism and mine was that I never had to go running into assemblies of theists to assert my status quo

Running into assemblies of theists on a science forum? How would that come about? You don't strike me as the scientific type. Needless to say, I have an interest in the subject matter, you clearly didn't.

you've made a site that reflects your beliefs

Incorrect. But keep saying it if you think the more you say it the more true it becomes.

 

[S.A.M.]

A condition that cannot be applied to the supernatural where nothing can be shown as real, true, or functional.

Right now, a mind downloaded into a computer can be categorised as supernatural.

An opinion which is pretty much irrelevant if the final product actually functions.

Pretty much applies to any belief.

 

[(Q)]

Like Mao Tse-tung? Stalin?

Red herrings, sam. They were not humanists. They were despots who replaced the belief in gods with the belief that they themselves were the gods.