Xev,
Yes...
Love,
Nelson
Yes...
Love,
Nelson
Atheism, anti-identification, and faith
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Raithere--interesting
Remember your tables? 2x1=2, 2x2=4 ....
Four is a rational answer for 2x2. It is demonstrable.
But what about the kids you knew who would learn the obvious ones such as 2x2=4 or 10x10=100 who struggled with the less-obvious answers? Even 6x6 presented difficulties for some of my classmates, and I had particular troubles with the 12's between 12x6 and 12x9. (Yes, I can, in fact, remember third grade.
So four, like atheism, is a rational answer, even if one does not understand the mechanisms involved. One can answer the question 2x2=(?) without knowing how to multiply.
In this sense, while atheism is a "rational" answer, there are, indeed, questions of consistency. And if, as you have asserted, the consistency of a person is irrelevant to the paradigm applied ... well?
* * * * *
One need not attempt to lump "Christians" together in order to consider the results of adopting a Christian vision of the world. That is, one cannot draw boundaries based on behavior and say that "Christianity" exists within this and use that platform to criticize Christianity. As we know, Christians, like all groups of people are diverse even within their own boundaries. One cannot, for instance, criticize Donald Wildmon and draw the conclusion that all Christians are as stupid as he. However, we can look at the concepts motivating behavior. We can also examine the results of Christianity within the context of the individual. In terms of the motivating concepts, it is possible, for instance, to survey a number of Christian behaviors and find certain common principles from which those behaviors derive.
And the result is the focus.
I cannot say, for instance, that all Christians hate homosexuals. However, I can look at the specific result of X number of Christians in an environment voting to suspend civil rights and ask, Why do they share this common sentiment? Even Old Testament prohibitions do not suffice in this case, since at the height of, say, Oregon's battle in 1992, the churches and their congregations were split over the issue. God's condemnation or Christ's love? In the end, none of it is particularly important to the issue we have between us. However, prevalent among the condemning Christians is the expectation of the worst in people; "homosexual agenda", "recruiting kids to be gay", ad nauseam.
Does this, for instance, coincide with concerns of recidivism in criminals? That is, in the United States, has the issue of crime and punishment ever truly escaped the base presumptions of the nation's Christian heritage? Jobs are harder to find with convictions on one's record. One need not even resort to stupid examples like letting a rape convict babysit your children. One can look at the devastating impact of the drug war, in which American minorities took the brunt of the senseless impact. People serving time for possession reenter the world often with felonies on their record. Getting a decent job? Of course, what are people to think if you've been in prison? They are, after all, presuming the worst in you, that you are inherently bad.
Thus, I focus often on this common result among Christians, the presumption of worst in people. For the record, that is derived from the simple principle that we are born unfit for God and require undeserved intervention on our behalf by Jesus. Baptists do not think of their faith as the same as Catholics, yet this presumption of the worst is common to both.
* * * * *
However, given that rational/irrational is the comparison typically describing the advantage of atheism over theism, I find it quite hilarious that said "rationality" of atheism is an arbitrary rationality based on arbitrary (irrational) standards.
Perhaps all will become clear shortly ....
In that sense, I find the broad statement of proofs being purely subjective inadequate. It doesn't come up particularly often. What looks the most like it is the failure of the theist to properly express what is, in fact, an ineffable concept--and thus prone to difficulties in expression--and the selfish perspective of the atheist that will not put forth the effort to read carefully. Quite frankly, if I applied the same standards to my fellow posters that I see people applying to each other in this case, I would find most of this community to be not worthy of addressing me. However, I believe in a flexible standard of perception and a malleable concept of expression.
Every once in a while, it occurs to me that perhaps I should take a week and, in demonstration of what I see, act like I see many of my fellow posters acting. I generally decide against it because I really don't expect the most part of our fellow posters understanding it.
But I'm perfectly happy to apply what's being described to me in order to see if anyone recognizes it.
Which is, in fact, relevant to this very topic and what I'm promising to try to clarify shortly ....
In the meantime, you're welcome to demonstrate your accusation.
I'll make a note that the consistency of a person is irrelevant.
Now then, this hint-hint routine:
I'm surprised, on the one hand, and quite disappointed on the other. It seems the atheists are in full-scale retreat.
Understanding that neither Xev (1.04.02), Adam (12.11.01), or yourself, Raithere (3.29.02) were around for the thickest theist/atheist battles I do find it interesting that the position currently being expressed by atheists in more recent considerations of atheism is, in fact, a full-scale retreat. To wit:
Because while I hold with Cris and other atheists of Sciforums' history in many of their criticisms of Christianity and other religions, I am wary of the atheist position for the many reasons I've expressed in other posts.
Now, not only am I asked to take something outside my experience on faith, but I'm now being told that objectivity and rationality, at best, have nothing to do with atheism, and at worst, are mere concessions made by atheists toward their own desire.
Furthermore, in accord with your proposed lack of personal consistency, I do find it quite amusing that atheists reject one subjective dominion (e.g. god/religion) while accepting others for profit (e.g. state, economy, justice). Such a lack of integrity speaks poorly of people.
I don't mind that my perception is inaccurate; such is the limitation of being one mortal soul. But I find it quite ludicrous that I should be asked to accept on faith that something observed is false, and furthermore that the rationality and objectivity which spawns the experiences noted should apparently be false.
Perhaps a lack of integrity speaks toward it.
I'd like to believe otherwise, and I do according to my irrational faith in human nature.
Being that I got down in the trenches and argued beside the atheists against the largely-Christian crusaders, I'm left wondering what the point was. I admit to that frustration at least. And it's a shame sitting here reading through the dismantling of the atheist construction by atheists. You're handing the Christians a lot of what they were seeking to establish before. In the last few weeks, I've seen an uncanny amount of that going on, from refusals to recognize principles of right and wrong because they were also mentioned in a religious text to the question of who ever claimed that atheists were rational or objective. I've even seen someone try to redefine the word atheist in order to include the possibility of an atheist recognizing the existence of God. This was about as funny as watching a Christian advocate play Peter to his Christ.
In essence, I've seen atheists reducing atheism to a religion. Good show, that. Disappointing to say the least.
You are, in fact, entitled to your own lack of integrity ... whoops, sorry, I mean consistency ... so I won't take issue with that.
I would, actually, go so far as to say my current questions about atheism and atheists are quite well answered. And I thank our atheists for that effort.
thanx much,
Tiassa
How did you learn multiplication?
Remember your tables? 2x1=2, 2x2=4 ....
Four is a rational answer for 2x2. It is demonstrable.
But what about the kids you knew who would learn the obvious ones such as 2x2=4 or 10x10=100 who struggled with the less-obvious answers? Even 6x6 presented difficulties for some of my classmates, and I had particular troubles with the 12's between 12x6 and 12x9. (Yes, I can, in fact, remember third grade.
So four, like atheism, is a rational answer, even if one does not understand the mechanisms involved. One can answer the question 2x2=(?) without knowing how to multiply.
In this sense, while atheism is a "rational" answer, there are, indeed, questions of consistency. And if, as you have asserted, the consistency of a person is irrelevant to the paradigm applied ... well?
* * * * *
One need not attempt to lump "Christians" together in order to consider the results of adopting a Christian vision of the world. That is, one cannot draw boundaries based on behavior and say that "Christianity" exists within this and use that platform to criticize Christianity. As we know, Christians, like all groups of people are diverse even within their own boundaries. One cannot, for instance, criticize Donald Wildmon and draw the conclusion that all Christians are as stupid as he. However, we can look at the concepts motivating behavior. We can also examine the results of Christianity within the context of the individual. In terms of the motivating concepts, it is possible, for instance, to survey a number of Christian behaviors and find certain common principles from which those behaviors derive.
And the result is the focus.
I cannot say, for instance, that all Christians hate homosexuals. However, I can look at the specific result of X number of Christians in an environment voting to suspend civil rights and ask, Why do they share this common sentiment? Even Old Testament prohibitions do not suffice in this case, since at the height of, say, Oregon's battle in 1992, the churches and their congregations were split over the issue. God's condemnation or Christ's love? In the end, none of it is particularly important to the issue we have between us. However, prevalent among the condemning Christians is the expectation of the worst in people; "homosexual agenda", "recruiting kids to be gay", ad nauseam.
Does this, for instance, coincide with concerns of recidivism in criminals? That is, in the United States, has the issue of crime and punishment ever truly escaped the base presumptions of the nation's Christian heritage? Jobs are harder to find with convictions on one's record. One need not even resort to stupid examples like letting a rape convict babysit your children. One can look at the devastating impact of the drug war, in which American minorities took the brunt of the senseless impact. People serving time for possession reenter the world often with felonies on their record. Getting a decent job? Of course, what are people to think if you've been in prison? They are, after all, presuming the worst in you, that you are inherently bad.
Thus, I focus often on this common result among Christians, the presumption of worst in people. For the record, that is derived from the simple principle that we are born unfit for God and require undeserved intervention on our behalf by Jesus. Baptists do not think of their faith as the same as Catholics, yet this presumption of the worst is common to both.
* * * * *
Well, I'm glad we agree on this.
However, given that rational/irrational is the comparison typically describing the advantage of atheism over theism, I find it quite hilarious that said "rationality" of atheism is an arbitrary rationality based on arbitrary (irrational) standards.
Perhaps all will become clear shortly ....
And in this, I'm glad we can agree as well.
To measure the value of something in someone else's regard according to one's own criteria for measurement is always inaccurate. It works well enough, but when you say religion has no measurable result, you're merely applying your own, limited comparison. As Christian advocates have always been fond of pointing out, Christian faith gets a lot done. While the argument fails in many contexts, in the present discussion it is worth noting that "without measurable results" is a bad result unless one measures conscientiously.
Among other things, yes.
Woo-hoo. It's not that I wish to sound flippant, but I do intend to make a couple of things a little more clear for us all ....
Regarded as suspect or rejected outright?
While I agree with you on this, if I reserve a point of disagreement (Jan's arguments notwithstanding) it's that a lack of perception does not necessarily mean a lack of the existence of evidence. I find most of Sciforums' theistic posters to be myopic at best, idiotic at worst, and that is respecting the diversity of that flock. As such, while I do see an utterly asympathetic failure of the atheist to understand what are, in fact, quite common concepts in philosophy, I'm not about to lend my efforts to making it clear for these posters. However, on those occasions, the pure subjectivity perceived in those proofs is frequently the choice of the person perceiving.
In that sense, I find the broad statement of proofs being purely subjective inadequate. It doesn't come up particularly often. What looks the most like it is the failure of the theist to properly express what is, in fact, an ineffable concept--and thus prone to difficulties in expression--and the selfish perspective of the atheist that will not put forth the effort to read carefully. Quite frankly, if I applied the same standards to my fellow posters that I see people applying to each other in this case, I would find most of this community to be not worthy of addressing me. However, I believe in a flexible standard of perception and a malleable concept of expression.
Every once in a while, it occurs to me that perhaps I should take a week and, in demonstration of what I see, act like I see many of my fellow posters acting. I generally decide against it because I really don't expect the most part of our fellow posters understanding it.
But I'm perfectly happy to apply what's being described to me in order to see if anyone recognizes it.
Which is, in fact, relevant to this very topic and what I'm promising to try to clarify shortly ....
Well, on the one hand, the Christians. To the other, and to a degree, the atheists until recently. This, indeed, is part of that mysterious hint-hint routine I'm after.
I love the recent revival of the ad hominem complaint. You all remind me so much of Tony1 that it makes me smile.
In the meantime, you're welcome to demonstrate your accusation.
Um ....
The consistency of a person? As in, integrity?
I'll make a note that the consistency of a person is irrelevant.
Now then, this hint-hint routine:
I'm surprised, on the one hand, and quite disappointed on the other. It seems the atheists are in full-scale retreat.
Understanding that neither Xev (1.04.02), Adam (12.11.01), or yourself, Raithere (3.29.02) were around for the thickest theist/atheist battles I do find it interesting that the position currently being expressed by atheists in more recent considerations of atheism is, in fact, a full-scale retreat. To wit:
Now, I have to admit that the topic post in this thread recognizes something along the lines of Cris' sentiments. In fact, my own atheistic experience reflects much of the atheist-based criticisms most familiar to Sciforums. The current flight from objectivity characterized in posts by Xev, Adam, and now you, Raithere, is, I admit, a surprise.
Because while I hold with Cris and other atheists of Sciforums' history in many of their criticisms of Christianity and other religions, I am wary of the atheist position for the many reasons I've expressed in other posts.
Now, not only am I asked to take something outside my experience on faith, but I'm now being told that objectivity and rationality, at best, have nothing to do with atheism, and at worst, are mere concessions made by atheists toward their own desire.
Furthermore, in accord with your proposed lack of personal consistency, I do find it quite amusing that atheists reject one subjective dominion (e.g. god/religion) while accepting others for profit (e.g. state, economy, justice). Such a lack of integrity speaks poorly of people.
I don't mind that my perception is inaccurate; such is the limitation of being one mortal soul. But I find it quite ludicrous that I should be asked to accept on faith that something observed is false, and furthermore that the rationality and objectivity which spawns the experiences noted should apparently be false.
Perhaps a lack of integrity speaks toward it.
I'd like to believe otherwise, and I do according to my irrational faith in human nature.
Being that I got down in the trenches and argued beside the atheists against the largely-Christian crusaders, I'm left wondering what the point was. I admit to that frustration at least. And it's a shame sitting here reading through the dismantling of the atheist construction by atheists. You're handing the Christians a lot of what they were seeking to establish before. In the last few weeks, I've seen an uncanny amount of that going on, from refusals to recognize principles of right and wrong because they were also mentioned in a religious text to the question of who ever claimed that atheists were rational or objective. I've even seen someone try to redefine the word atheist in order to include the possibility of an atheist recognizing the existence of God. This was about as funny as watching a Christian advocate play Peter to his Christ.
In essence, I've seen atheists reducing atheism to a religion. Good show, that. Disappointing to say the least.
You are, in fact, entitled to your own lack of integrity ... whoops, sorry, I mean consistency ... so I won't take issue with that.
I would, actually, go so far as to say my current questions about atheism and atheists are quite well answered. And I thank our atheists for that effort.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Tiassa:
Hardly. And nobody is retreating in front of your mighty wit and wisdom, Tiassa. No battles were lost.
I have claimed that athiesm is an oasis of rationality in the face of the irrational. You have yet to respond, and when one strips your posts of the wordiness, your thesis becomes:
Nobody is rational 100% of the time, thus it is irrational to ever be rational.
Perhaps this is a straw man. I prefer to think of it as a reductio ad absurtium.
I prefer to think of the debate here as simply debate, a way of finding a bit of truth. I do not think of it as a battle. Retreat? Hardly.
You came in with an immature conception of athiesm. Raithere and others have attempted to set the record straight. Along the way, I conceded several points that I hardly ever considered tenents. That hardly constitutes retreat.
You have yet to substantiate your claim that athiesm is being reduced to a religion. As athiesm is the exact opposite of religion, the burden of proof is on you.
Hardly. And nobody is retreating in front of your mighty wit and wisdom, Tiassa. No battles were lost.
I have claimed that athiesm is an oasis of rationality in the face of the irrational. You have yet to respond, and when one strips your posts of the wordiness, your thesis becomes:
Nobody is rational 100% of the time, thus it is irrational to ever be rational.
Perhaps this is a straw man. I prefer to think of it as a reductio ad absurtium.
I prefer to think of the debate here as simply debate, a way of finding a bit of truth. I do not think of it as a battle. Retreat? Hardly.
You came in with an immature conception of athiesm. Raithere and others have attempted to set the record straight. Along the way, I conceded several points that I hardly ever considered tenents. That hardly constitutes retreat.
You have yet to substantiate your claim that athiesm is being reduced to a religion. As athiesm is the exact opposite of religion, the burden of proof is on you.
Tiassa, you've said atheism is a full-scale retreat, atheists here are backpeddling on their objectivity, and so on. I would suggest that the philosophies of various users are not changing, only your perceptions and thoughts about atheism are changing. Perhaps, being raised in the USA, you have experienced atheism only as an act of rejection of christianity, and now are in contact with people who are not like that.
Re: Raithere--interesting
Originally posted by tiassa
In this sense, while atheism is a "rational" answer, there are, indeed, questions of consistency. And if, as you have asserted, the consistency of a person is irrelevant to the paradigm applied ... well?
You missed my points in this paragraph:
1. Atheism is simply a statement of disbelief. While generally, it is the result of rational and/or logical inquiry and may indicate a general paradigm of the person asserting it no paradigm is inherent in the statement of disbelief. No more so does the claim of being a theist.
2. The consistency of the athiest is irrelevant to the theism vs atheism argument.
However, given that rational/irrational is the comparison typically describing the advantage of atheism over theism, I find it quite hilarious that said "rationality" of atheism is an arbitrary rationality based on arbitrary (irrational) standards.
It's not. It's based upon formal logic and the lack of empirical evidence. There is nothing irrational or arbitrary about the argument. Care to prove otherwise?
It works well enough, but when you say religion has no measurable result, you're merely applying your own, limited comparison. As Christian advocates have always been fond of pointing out, Christian faith gets a lot done. While the argument fails in many contexts, in the present discussion it is worth noting that "without measurable results" is a bad result unless one measures conscientiously.
I'm not referring to the psychological influences of belief and it influence upon the actions of the believer. I am speaking empirically. Theists are not statistically healthier, richer, nor do they live longer no matter how often they pray. Astronomy is no more statistically accurate in it's predictions than chance or is left so broad in it's predictions that it can almost always be considered "accurate" and is thus meaningless. These are both valid results and is part of what I meant when I said "no measureable results".
And where do you get your presumption that "without measureable results" = "bad result"? Care to prove it?
Regarded as suspect or rejected outright?
Beliefs for which contradict strong empirical evidence are rejected outright by a skeptic. Beliefs for which there is no empirical evidence for or against and for which there is a logical argument for are very suspect. Even beliefs for which there is empirical evidence are suspect… the strength of the belief is dependent upon the weight of the evidence. But note that I am speaking about skeptics here, not atheists. There is nothing in the definition of an atheist that makes skepticism a necessary component of it.
a lack of perception does not necessarily mean a lack of the existence of evidence.
Agreed. And this is why a skeptics certainty rarely 100%. Certainty, however, is not necessarily an "either/or" concept. There can be degrees of certainty. If I have not looked in my bedroom for my keys I cannot be in the least bit certain they are not in there. If, however, I have been looking in my bedroom for 2 hours without finding them my certainty that they are not there rises dramatically. Further if see that my keys are on the kitchen table I can quite certain that they are not in the bedroom.
What looks the most like it is the failure of the theist to properly express what is, in fact, an ineffable concept--and thus prone to difficulties in expression--and the selfish perspective of the atheist that will not put forth the effort to read carefully.
I understand the theists' references to this type of "proof". I have beliefs that are largely dependant upon my own, subjective, experiences as well though I take pains to make sure they are logically sound and do not contradict empirical evidence. (Largely, that is why I am here. Debate forces me to examine and clarify my positions and lets me examine alternatives.)
However, in order to carry on a debate one must be able to express one's POV, appeal to ignorance is not a valid argument. I would also argue that if one cannot express a belief verbally that one has a relatively poor understanding of it in the first place. Finally, a purely subjective experience is not proof and eye-witness testimony is notoriously prone to error.
Quite frankly, if I applied the same standards to my fellow posters that I see people applying to each other in this case, I would find most of this community to be not worthy of addressing me. However, I believe in a flexible standard of perception and a malleable concept of expression.
Certainly. Dialogue requires that one be able to perceive the other's position in order to make any relevant comment about it.
I love the recent revival of the ad hominem complaint.
I do not raise the ad hominem complaint due to some perceived slight or slander of my person. I draw it out in regard to a logical fallacy that you are using in your argument. Fact is, in the logical argument of atheism vs theism, a statement against the individual has no relevancy. It is also begging the question.
I will point out, again, that you're identifying a set category beliefs, labeling it atheism, and then attempting to refute the soundness of atheist argument based upon you own definition of what atheism is. This is a straw man argument. Atheism is not what you are arguing against. Again, I will suggest that the paradigm you have a problem with is based upon a mechanistic/deterministic philosophy or perhaps pure objectivity. From the little information you've given about it, it's hard to tell for sure. If that's what you want to debate then you need to start addressing your arguments against it and stop mislabeling it as atheism.
Um ....The consistency of a person? As in, integrity?
I'll make a note that the consistency of a person is irrelevant.
Sorry, I should have more clear. You obviously had trouble inferring my meaning. I will attempt to be more explicit. The full expression of what I meant by that sentence is:
The consistency of the paradigm(s) of belief of the individual presenting a logical argument of atheism vs theism (or any logical argument for that matter) does not affect the validity of the argument itself. It is irrelevant to the argument.
I'm surprised, on the one hand, and quite disappointed on the other. It seems the atheists are in full-scale retreat.
In retreat? I posit that you have yet to give an argument against atheism. What you have done (and seem to tend to do) is present a rather specious form of disagreement :
You redefine atheism to suit your needs, broadening it to include the entire scope and range of methods of belief for an individual. This is not what atheism is. If you wish to debate something other than atheism please present it.
You present as your example a very small subset of the category of people called atheists and present them as typical without proof, citing only your personal "experience" and (as presented above) include their entire range of belief. This is equivalent to me using the snake-handling-Pentecostals as a typical example of a theist.
You frequently rage far off topic and to unproven assertions in search of "proof". The problem with this "shotgun" approach is that it continually broadens the argument. Eventually, any counter argument will collapse due to the increasing, and finally overwhelming, number of your unproven points that your opponent must attempt to address. Biblicists use this method all the time when arguing against evolution yet never prove their own assertions.
This method is specious. It is not actually debate nor is it a true argument in any formal or logical sense though it presents itself as such. It never gets around to actually proving the argument of the person using it and never formally addresses the argument it is being used against. It simply continues to increase the number of unproven points until the opponent gives up or runs out of time. It also gives the appearance of keeping one's opponent "on the run" since they must chase after a continuously increasing number of unproven assertions.
In other words; Keep to the point and prove your assertions (either before you claim them as proof or upon questioning). This form of "shotgun" or "kitchen sink" disagreement is not formal argument or even debate.
~Raithere
Originally posted by tiassa
In this sense, while atheism is a "rational" answer, there are, indeed, questions of consistency. And if, as you have asserted, the consistency of a person is irrelevant to the paradigm applied ... well?
You missed my points in this paragraph:
1. Atheism is simply a statement of disbelief. While generally, it is the result of rational and/or logical inquiry and may indicate a general paradigm of the person asserting it no paradigm is inherent in the statement of disbelief. No more so does the claim of being a theist.
2. The consistency of the athiest is irrelevant to the theism vs atheism argument.
However, given that rational/irrational is the comparison typically describing the advantage of atheism over theism, I find it quite hilarious that said "rationality" of atheism is an arbitrary rationality based on arbitrary (irrational) standards.
It's not. It's based upon formal logic and the lack of empirical evidence. There is nothing irrational or arbitrary about the argument. Care to prove otherwise?
It works well enough, but when you say religion has no measurable result, you're merely applying your own, limited comparison. As Christian advocates have always been fond of pointing out, Christian faith gets a lot done. While the argument fails in many contexts, in the present discussion it is worth noting that "without measurable results" is a bad result unless one measures conscientiously.
I'm not referring to the psychological influences of belief and it influence upon the actions of the believer. I am speaking empirically. Theists are not statistically healthier, richer, nor do they live longer no matter how often they pray. Astronomy is no more statistically accurate in it's predictions than chance or is left so broad in it's predictions that it can almost always be considered "accurate" and is thus meaningless. These are both valid results and is part of what I meant when I said "no measureable results".
And where do you get your presumption that "without measureable results" = "bad result"? Care to prove it?
Regarded as suspect or rejected outright?
Beliefs for which contradict strong empirical evidence are rejected outright by a skeptic. Beliefs for which there is no empirical evidence for or against and for which there is a logical argument for are very suspect. Even beliefs for which there is empirical evidence are suspect… the strength of the belief is dependent upon the weight of the evidence. But note that I am speaking about skeptics here, not atheists. There is nothing in the definition of an atheist that makes skepticism a necessary component of it.
a lack of perception does not necessarily mean a lack of the existence of evidence.
Agreed. And this is why a skeptics certainty rarely 100%. Certainty, however, is not necessarily an "either/or" concept. There can be degrees of certainty. If I have not looked in my bedroom for my keys I cannot be in the least bit certain they are not in there. If, however, I have been looking in my bedroom for 2 hours without finding them my certainty that they are not there rises dramatically. Further if see that my keys are on the kitchen table I can quite certain that they are not in the bedroom.
What looks the most like it is the failure of the theist to properly express what is, in fact, an ineffable concept--and thus prone to difficulties in expression--and the selfish perspective of the atheist that will not put forth the effort to read carefully.
I understand the theists' references to this type of "proof". I have beliefs that are largely dependant upon my own, subjective, experiences as well though I take pains to make sure they are logically sound and do not contradict empirical evidence. (Largely, that is why I am here. Debate forces me to examine and clarify my positions and lets me examine alternatives.)
However, in order to carry on a debate one must be able to express one's POV, appeal to ignorance is not a valid argument. I would also argue that if one cannot express a belief verbally that one has a relatively poor understanding of it in the first place. Finally, a purely subjective experience is not proof and eye-witness testimony is notoriously prone to error.
Quite frankly, if I applied the same standards to my fellow posters that I see people applying to each other in this case, I would find most of this community to be not worthy of addressing me. However, I believe in a flexible standard of perception and a malleable concept of expression.
Certainly. Dialogue requires that one be able to perceive the other's position in order to make any relevant comment about it.
I love the recent revival of the ad hominem complaint.
I do not raise the ad hominem complaint due to some perceived slight or slander of my person. I draw it out in regard to a logical fallacy that you are using in your argument. Fact is, in the logical argument of atheism vs theism, a statement against the individual has no relevancy. It is also begging the question.
I will point out, again, that you're identifying a set category beliefs, labeling it atheism, and then attempting to refute the soundness of atheist argument based upon you own definition of what atheism is. This is a straw man argument. Atheism is not what you are arguing against. Again, I will suggest that the paradigm you have a problem with is based upon a mechanistic/deterministic philosophy or perhaps pure objectivity. From the little information you've given about it, it's hard to tell for sure. If that's what you want to debate then you need to start addressing your arguments against it and stop mislabeling it as atheism.
Um ....The consistency of a person? As in, integrity?
I'll make a note that the consistency of a person is irrelevant.
Sorry, I should have more clear. You obviously had trouble inferring my meaning. I will attempt to be more explicit. The full expression of what I meant by that sentence is:
The consistency of the paradigm(s) of belief of the individual presenting a logical argument of atheism vs theism (or any logical argument for that matter) does not affect the validity of the argument itself. It is irrelevant to the argument.
I'm surprised, on the one hand, and quite disappointed on the other. It seems the atheists are in full-scale retreat.
In retreat? I posit that you have yet to give an argument against atheism. What you have done (and seem to tend to do) is present a rather specious form of disagreement :
You redefine atheism to suit your needs, broadening it to include the entire scope and range of methods of belief for an individual. This is not what atheism is. If you wish to debate something other than atheism please present it.
You present as your example a very small subset of the category of people called atheists and present them as typical without proof, citing only your personal "experience" and (as presented above) include their entire range of belief. This is equivalent to me using the snake-handling-Pentecostals as a typical example of a theist.
You frequently rage far off topic and to unproven assertions in search of "proof". The problem with this "shotgun" approach is that it continually broadens the argument. Eventually, any counter argument will collapse due to the increasing, and finally overwhelming, number of your unproven points that your opponent must attempt to address. Biblicists use this method all the time when arguing against evolution yet never prove their own assertions.
This method is specious. It is not actually debate nor is it a true argument in any formal or logical sense though it presents itself as such. It never gets around to actually proving the argument of the person using it and never formally addresses the argument it is being used against. It simply continues to increase the number of unproven points until the opponent gives up or runs out of time. It also gives the appearance of keeping one's opponent "on the run" since they must chase after a continuously increasing number of unproven assertions.
In other words; Keep to the point and prove your assertions (either before you claim them as proof or upon questioning). This form of "shotgun" or "kitchen sink" disagreement is not formal argument or even debate.
~Raithere
Xev
What would you like me to answer for you?
Because personally, I think of you as more intelligent than to behave that way. You don't get it yet, Xev ... I'm trying to be accepting of what the current atheists of Sciforums are telling me. That the last major voices of atheism were wrong and, to judge by the tone of their words, therefore unnecessarily cruel.
An island of rationality is still arbitrary. Unless you can show me the rational beginnings of the platform.
I mean, take Raithere, who has noted that personal consistency has nothing to do with atheism. That's a pretty hard blow against the conception of atheism I had when I started this topic. After all, I had awarded atheism a certain integrity in its processes, and I was a little confused when R told me that I such respect was inappropriate.
But atheism has no objective base, is constructed on the whim of the individual, and defines rationality irrationality. And, apparently, it accepts the possibility of God more openly than I have ever known it to. This is considerably contrary to what I've helped argue in defense of atheism on prior occasions. I will remember not to do so now. Atheism is being reduced to a religion because its foundation and justifications are reduced to affinity. You're merely clinging to faith.
thanx,
Tiassa
Actually, Xev, if you look at Cris' statement, cited above, it holds the distinction of being the "former" atheist position at Sciforums. Atheism only becomes so flexible as to accept the possibility of God in recent weeks; atheism is the mere "appearance of rationality".
Just a note, and then I'll carry on with life: if I recall, you've tangled with T1. Do you realize how much like him you sound?
What would you like me to answer for you?
Because personally, I think of you as more intelligent than to behave that way. You don't get it yet, Xev ... I'm trying to be accepting of what the current atheists of Sciforums are telling me. That the last major voices of atheism were wrong and, to judge by the tone of their words, therefore unnecessarily cruel.
An island of rationality is still arbitrary. Unless you can show me the rational beginnings of the platform.
See, this is why I take the T1 poke. Both your form and your actual words are starting to sound like his.
The conception of atheism stressed by the atheist posters in this topic is weaker than the one I respected, has less credibility than the one I respected, and is arbitrary instead of founded in a search for the rational. It is no longer standing in the same place on the field that it was, and seems to have taken a few steps backward. That's why I call it a retreat.
Must be the time spent with immature atheists.
And they have. Atheism is as arbitrary as anything else. See, Xev, the only thing resembling a problem that I have with this is that it's a surprise.
I mean, take Raithere, who has noted that personal consistency has nothing to do with atheism. That's a pretty hard blow against the conception of atheism I had when I started this topic. After all, I had awarded atheism a certain integrity in its processes, and I was a little confused when R told me that I such respect was inappropriate.
Well, you see, Xev, this is another problem of being arbitrary in objectivism. You, personally, may not be in any retreat, but atheism is because this atheist troika has undercut prior, hard-fought, hard-won explanations of atheism which assign it a certain integrity and dignity of process.
The particular twist by which you missed the point on this particular aspect of the discussion is incredibly familiar.
But atheism has no objective base, is constructed on the whim of the individual, and defines rationality irrationality. And, apparently, it accepts the possibility of God more openly than I have ever known it to. This is considerably contrary to what I've helped argue in defense of atheism on prior occasions. I will remember not to do so now. Atheism is being reduced to a religion because its foundation and justifications are reduced to affinity. You're merely clinging to faith.
thanx,
Tiassa
Last edited:
That was sad, Adam
It's kind of like God in the "old atheism" of Sciforums: Stop asking me to believe in what cannot be seen or otherwise substantiate.
In other words, it's a nice proposal, Adam, but not very likely.
thanx,
Tiassa
Adam, learn to read. Period.
I would actually suggest that the current defense of atheism is weaker than it used to be, and has less integrity.
Yes, your rejection of Wicca was so educated, Adam. And those contributors to Reid's topic ... they had religion pegged, didn't they? Guess what, Sciforums atheists are still focused on Christianity. If they weren't, they wouldn't make such broad, unsubstantial statements as to denounce all religions according to the faults of Chrisitanity.
It's kind of like God in the "old atheism" of Sciforums: Stop asking me to believe in what cannot be seen or otherwise substantiate.
In other words, it's a nice proposal, Adam, but not very likely.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa:
I actually enjoyed my scuffles with Tony. He was well read, and intelligent. I find his leaving a pity, but....
I wonder why you bring him up? Merely to insult, or as an attempt at well poisioning?
Tiassa, I thought this had been clarified for you:
Athiests agree on very little. Cris is not our spokesman. Thus, I have no obligation to follow his veiws on anything.
And since when did this handle of athiests at sciforums speak for us all? I've always accepted the possibility of God's existance. And since when was it merely the appearance of rationality?
No it's not. Be rational when you can, would be the beginning of the platform.
More well poisioning, ho hum, ho hum.
I've lost your respect?
*Sobs*
Seriously, it's hardly arbitrary to be rational when you can. Or maybe it is. But all philosophical systems are fairly arbitrary.
Or your own immaturity and inability to question what Cris told you.
Does TruthSeeker speak for all Christians? So why should Cris speak for all athiests?
Jesus Christ on a crutch! Tiassa, we've been over this. Athiests aren't necessarily Objectivists, or else I'd have my own cult and 'mister'.
It has as much an objective base as anything else. There is no real reason to trust our senses, yet we do.
To a certain degree, in that what we build on the foundation of 'no God, or irrational, or irrelevent' is personal. So fucking what?
Bullshit. Athiesm does not use a special definition of 'rationality'.
You want us to prove a negative?
I'm heartbroken at my loss.
Get over yourself, Tiassa.
Only in your eyes. Not in reality.
Tiassa, grow up. Period.
That's what I gleaned from your statements as well.
Is that what this is all about? Dear lord, Tiassa, get the fuck over it.
Who asked you to believe? Get over yourself, Tiassa. I doubt many athiests want you to 'convert' - although perhaps you have been asked?
I actually enjoyed my scuffles with Tony. He was well read, and intelligent. I find his leaving a pity, but....
I wonder why you bring him up? Merely to insult, or as an attempt at well poisioning?
Tiassa, I thought this had been clarified for you:
Athiests agree on very little. Cris is not our spokesman. Thus, I have no obligation to follow his veiws on anything.
And since when did this handle of athiests at sciforums speak for us all? I've always accepted the possibility of God's existance. And since when was it merely the appearance of rationality?
No it's not. Be rational when you can, would be the beginning of the platform.
More well poisioning, ho hum, ho hum.
I've lost your respect?
*Sobs*
Seriously, it's hardly arbitrary to be rational when you can. Or maybe it is. But all philosophical systems are fairly arbitrary.
Or your own immaturity and inability to question what Cris told you.
Does TruthSeeker speak for all Christians? So why should Cris speak for all athiests?
Jesus Christ on a crutch! Tiassa, we've been over this. Athiests aren't necessarily Objectivists, or else I'd have my own cult and 'mister'.
It has as much an objective base as anything else. There is no real reason to trust our senses, yet we do.
To a certain degree, in that what we build on the foundation of 'no God, or irrational, or irrelevent' is personal. So fucking what?
Bullshit. Athiesm does not use a special definition of 'rationality'.
You want us to prove a negative?
I'm heartbroken at my loss.
Get over yourself, Tiassa.
Only in your eyes. Not in reality.
Tiassa, grow up. Period.
That's what I gleaned from your statements as well.
Is that what this is all about? Dear lord, Tiassa, get the fuck over it.
Who asked you to believe? Get over yourself, Tiassa. I doubt many athiests want you to 'convert' - although perhaps you have been asked?
Raithere
The consistency of the atheist is relevant to the results of atheism, which are the criteria upon which I judge philosophical positions.
For instance, my own experience among atheists: they did, in fact, operate with severe integrity, and unfortunately that is what created the problematic results.
Understand, I have no problem with this whatsoever, but I two factors combined make this topic exceptionally entertaining. First is the timing of it; until my recent discussions with Adam, I respected what the atheists at Sciforums had established as representative of atheism. It is only now, in examination of the results of that representation that atheists say the representation is wrong. That tickles me. Secondly, the lack of any "old atheist" voice--that is, the lack of any commentary from the atheists who hold (or held) the former position of atheists at Sciforums--is intriguing.
I just don't think such an argument should be used in regard to atheism.
However, where you're wrong is where we find ourselves. We're in a metaphysical arena, and nothing of metaphysics should be stated particularly definitively. Why? Because metaphysics deals with the ineffable, with that which defies explanation.
By your standard, then, one might reject religion not based on its lack of evidence (for such a rejection would be an arbitrary application of the standards leading to that rejection) but on a lack of understanding. At least, you've opened the door for the possibility. We probably could have recognized that condition in the first place if we chose to. But it's interesting that we get to it at this point.
When what's at stake is the integrity of the application, I think it's quite important to examine the integrity of the individual in said application.
Anyone who has read former posts of mine concerning atheism and theism knows that I reject such a principle when it's put up by Christians. Consider the basis of my wrath against Christianity: it's been a hideous scourge on knowledge, has taken a massive human toll, and it appears that the concepts within the religion still support such behavior. Christians would lament that I shouldn't be looking at that, and instead looking at the Bible--but not one part of the Bible, rather look here and here and here. What the argument came down to is essentially what you're telling me here. That consistency in the individual has no relationship to the integrity of the idea held. Mechanistic/deterministic? I'll agree to that. But that mechanistic and deterministic result is an observed result of holding an atheist position.
Which is why this topic is becoming so fascinating. I'm being told to ignore the result as it relates to the idea. I'm being told that the idea itself is an arbitrary application. And I've even been told that the idea is not what it is but rather something else. What, does anyone wonder why I think the atheism being explained to me in this and other recent topics looks like a religion?
Think, for a moment, of Xev, who has noted herself in the past as an "evangelical atheist". Just imagine that an evangelical atheist is talking to a confused young theist. How does the atheist explain the idea? At present, it seems atheism is an anomaly, something chosen for apparently no real reason at all. What do I mean no real reason? Well, what is the significance of there being no god?
And what, then, of the consistency of the person? As long as the argument has integrity unto itself, that's fine. But I might point out here that such a position has no particular bearing on or for others. It has no advantage, it exclusively regards itself, and that's part of the problem I would complain about anyway. The result of choosing atheism has, in terms of the individual, brought great consequences in my own life. The result has included detriment to other individuals of my association.
And it does seem like a bad joke, in that sense. On the one hand, I've been asked recently to take on faith that the observed is not true, and, to the other, I'm being told that the integrity of a person doesn't matter ... how?
In this sense, atheism seems like a fairly random rejection, and I know this isn't so. But I find it interesting that in rejecting god the atheist rejects a paradigm that would otherwise have dominion over him but which pays him none. Likewise, I find it interesting that an atheist has no obligation to cut out any other subjective paradigms. The accepted paradigms, of course, bring an observable reward. It's not a stretch to believe that integrity has nothing to do with atheism, but I won't take it to heart because I have such an irrational faith in people that they won't be that ... uh ... well, I guess that is the problem, isn't it?
I find it quite interesting that one of the hitches to communication 'twixt us seems to be the difference between your focus on the individual atheist, and my focus on the world at large. See, according to my accusations against the idea of atheism, such a result is expected. Atheism is about the individual within the human species, not about the species' need for the individual. That the nature of how one's choices affect others is not apparent to anyone in this debate but me speaks, on the one hand, toward a fundamental issue we might be able to resolve, and to the other, toward my own lament of a certain selfishness in perspective.
Redefine ... ha! That's pathetic, Raithere, given recent attempts by atheist supporters to redefine atheism. In one case (in this topic), you even took a moment to correct that redefinition. In another topic, a self-described atheist presented circumstances that made him out to be agnostic. And, when presented with that point, insisted on his atheism. And you say I'm redefining atheism?
All I can go on, Raithere, is what atheists tell me. That the present line is contradictory to what atheists used to describe is fine with me. It's an interesting shift, I admit. Fascinating, in fact.
So like I said, if you wish to rebut your fellow atheists, do so directly. Your lament of redefinition lacks any real observable integrity. We can have a topic, if you like.
thanx,
Tiassa
It should also be noted that atheism is also a choice. It is delineated by perception and interpretation. The criteria for interpretation are wholly subjective. In general, I agree with you.
In the direct issue of whether or not there's a god, I agree with you. However, I don't see that point on the table.
The consistency of the atheist is relevant to the results of atheism, which are the criteria upon which I judge philosophical positions.
For instance, my own experience among atheists: they did, in fact, operate with severe integrity, and unfortunately that is what created the problematic results.
It has no objective or rational foundation. The alleged rationality of the atheist assertion is a deviation from irrationality; it is a statistically unusual application of "rational" principles. It is the rejection of one type of myth in the face of accepting many others.
Understand, I have no problem with this whatsoever, but I two factors combined make this topic exceptionally entertaining. First is the timing of it; until my recent discussions with Adam, I respected what the atheists at Sciforums had established as representative of atheism. It is only now, in examination of the results of that representation that atheists say the representation is wrong. That tickles me. Secondly, the lack of any "old atheist" voice--that is, the lack of any commentary from the atheists who hold (or held) the former position of atheists at Sciforums--is intriguing.
In other words, you're comparing the "selfish" results--what a philosophy gets you directly? This I won't object to. But if health, wealth, and longevity are your criteria of comparison, well, frankly, that fits right with my expectation.
Actually, astronomers are quite accurate in their predictions. I mean, I have MoonDock, which is a small application that can give me the phases of the moon for the next, oh, thousand years, I think. It can also predict moonrise, moonset, and some statistics about the path. It's pretty cool.
If your lack of measurable results comes about because you're measuring incorrectly or incompletely, the result cannot be said to be accurate. Easy enough?
I agree, in general. It's a matter of integrity. I mean consistency. But, as I see, we're getting to that.
True. In 2 hours, though, can you search your room well enough to conclude the keys aren't there? In terms of your example, you're making an erroneous assumption that Creationists, for instance, make. You're assuming the process finished, or relatively so. Specifically, you're posing a finite circumstance against a not-necessarily finite circumstance. You are, in essence, making the analogy that the search can be concluded, period.
I just don't think such an argument should be used in regard to atheism.
Exactly.
However, where you're wrong is where we find ourselves. We're in a metaphysical arena, and nothing of metaphysics should be stated particularly definitively. Why? Because metaphysics deals with the ineffable, with that which defies explanation.
By your standard, then, one might reject religion not based on its lack of evidence (for such a rejection would be an arbitrary application of the standards leading to that rejection) but on a lack of understanding. At least, you've opened the door for the possibility. We probably could have recognized that condition in the first place if we chose to. But it's interesting that we get to it at this point.
This is one of those things that I'm happy we can agree on.
Consider, if you would, what would happen if I was to be arrested for smoking dope and tried to mount a religious-freedom defense. The facts are that while I have a reasonable library of occult material, none of it is focused on any one religion and there exists no collection of icons, symbols, or otherwise that represent that faith. Philosophically, a lack of personal consistency in me does not mean my philosophy is invalid, but practically speaking it means I don't have much of a foundation to demonstrate the acceptability of marijuana within a religious paradigm.
When what's at stake is the integrity of the application, I think it's quite important to examine the integrity of the individual in said application.
To take it to an extreme demonstration, that would be like saying that all I did was squeeze the trigger, and that the bullet is what hurt the guy.
Anyone who has read former posts of mine concerning atheism and theism knows that I reject such a principle when it's put up by Christians. Consider the basis of my wrath against Christianity: it's been a hideous scourge on knowledge, has taken a massive human toll, and it appears that the concepts within the religion still support such behavior. Christians would lament that I shouldn't be looking at that, and instead looking at the Bible--but not one part of the Bible, rather look here and here and here. What the argument came down to is essentially what you're telling me here. That consistency in the individual has no relationship to the integrity of the idea held. Mechanistic/deterministic? I'll agree to that. But that mechanistic and deterministic result is an observed result of holding an atheist position.
Which is why this topic is becoming so fascinating. I'm being told to ignore the result as it relates to the idea. I'm being told that the idea itself is an arbitrary application. And I've even been told that the idea is not what it is but rather something else. What, does anyone wonder why I think the atheism being explained to me in this and other recent topics looks like a religion?
It is a measurement of the value of the idea in life.
Think, for a moment, of Xev, who has noted herself in the past as an "evangelical atheist". Just imagine that an evangelical atheist is talking to a confused young theist. How does the atheist explain the idea? At present, it seems atheism is an anomaly, something chosen for apparently no real reason at all. What do I mean no real reason? Well, what is the significance of there being no god?
And what, then, of the consistency of the person? As long as the argument has integrity unto itself, that's fine. But I might point out here that such a position has no particular bearing on or for others. It has no advantage, it exclusively regards itself, and that's part of the problem I would complain about anyway. The result of choosing atheism has, in terms of the individual, brought great consequences in my own life. The result has included detriment to other individuals of my association.
And it does seem like a bad joke, in that sense. On the one hand, I've been asked recently to take on faith that the observed is not true, and, to the other, I'm being told that the integrity of a person doesn't matter ... how?
In this sense, atheism seems like a fairly random rejection, and I know this isn't so. But I find it interesting that in rejecting god the atheist rejects a paradigm that would otherwise have dominion over him but which pays him none. Likewise, I find it interesting that an atheist has no obligation to cut out any other subjective paradigms. The accepted paradigms, of course, bring an observable reward. It's not a stretch to believe that integrity has nothing to do with atheism, but I won't take it to heart because I have such an irrational faith in people that they won't be that ... uh ... well, I guess that is the problem, isn't it?
I find it quite interesting that one of the hitches to communication 'twixt us seems to be the difference between your focus on the individual atheist, and my focus on the world at large. See, according to my accusations against the idea of atheism, such a result is expected. Atheism is about the individual within the human species, not about the species' need for the individual. That the nature of how one's choices affect others is not apparent to anyone in this debate but me speaks, on the one hand, toward a fundamental issue we might be able to resolve, and to the other, toward my own lament of a certain selfishness in perspective.
In retreat. Yes. The principles of atheism which I have addressed do, in fact, have a long history at Sciforums, and are established argumentatively. You can disagree with those old topics, I could care less. But I'm hardly "redefining" anything. Rather, I'm respecting what atheists before you have said and, in light of the current redefinition, downsizing, and scaling back of the atheist idea, I'm happy to respect that. So, unfortunately, Raithere, your complaint here is absolutely full of shit. If you wish to rebut the former atheist position as assembled by atheists at Sciforums, please do so.
Redefine ... ha! That's pathetic, Raithere, given recent attempts by atheist supporters to redefine atheism. In one case (in this topic), you even took a moment to correct that redefinition. In another topic, a self-described atheist presented circumstances that made him out to be agnostic. And, when presented with that point, insisted on his atheism. And you say I'm redefining atheism?
All I can go on, Raithere, is what atheists tell me. That the present line is contradictory to what atheists used to describe is fine with me. It's an interesting shift, I admit. Fascinating, in fact.
So like I said, if you wish to rebut your fellow atheists, do so directly. Your lament of redefinition lacks any real observable integrity. We can have a topic, if you like.
thanx,
Tiassa
Re: Raithere
Perhaps some cites would help clarify what Atheism is, hopefully, for some atheists as well as you Tiassa. I'll get to your reply when I have some more time.
~Raithere
If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", p. 463. Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite several other well-known non-theists in history who used or implied this definition of 'atheism', including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...]
[Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist", p. 99. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word `atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14. Prometheus, 1984.
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", p. 3. Prometheus, 1980.]
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Perhaps some cites would help clarify what Atheism is, hopefully, for some atheists as well as you Tiassa. I'll get to your reply when I have some more time.
~Raithere
If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
[Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", p. 463. Temple University Press, 1990.]
Martin goes on to cite several other well-known non-theists in history who used or implied this definition of 'atheism', including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god -- both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...]
[Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist", p. 99. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word `atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14. Prometheus, 1984.
The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", p. 3. Prometheus, 1980.]
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Excellent, Raithere
Unfortunately, if that has any bearing on the issue for you, then I can comfortably say that you've missed the point.
Let's try this in the form of two questions that go together quite nicely:
• Why are you an atheist?
• What does it matter?
Now, I'll even go so far as to explain the point.
One of my long issues with atheism is that among atheists in my experience, there existed a basic, dualistic issue that can be marked to exist whether or not the individual consciously addresses it. It is, in fact, a question that permeates any label of limitations in society, be it atheist, Christian, Communist, &c.
The question is of what's important. A nation composed purely of Christians or purely of atheists would make no difference if each of those ideas, for instance, elevate the self as being of primary importance.
In my criticisms of Christianity, it often seems that moralism is a reaction to greed; the Christian seeks salvation, and obeys in exchange for that profit. Consider the nobility of accusing your neighbor of witchcraft in terms of Matthew 25, for instance. Torturing someone and burning them at the stake seems neither loving nor compliant with the Commandments.
In this sense, Christianity poses a challenge to society by raising the needs of the individual (in the face of God's existence) above the needs of society. The Christian rebuttal that such a focus is unfair might hold water, except that the symptom observed is almost universal and can be held to be a consistent result of Christianity. Thus, one seeking their ideal might (and, as history shows, do) achieve that goal at the expense of someone else's wellbeing or liberty.
Likewise, atheism. Where I claim you're missing the point is in the mode of your response. In this case, the references on atheism you've provided are much like the Christian providing me a bible verse to contradict the observed result.
In atheism, once one is freed of the fetters of God, one still must exist and function in the world. Can we agree on this principle, at least?
Because here's where it becomes relevant to the present topic.
What Cris has often described (example cited a few posts above) on behalf of atheism is both a dictionary definition and an examination of how that definition functions in the world. Despite the shortcomings I see possible according to that approach, I advocated it in relevant debates because (A) it accords with experience, and (B) it is an attempt to examine the practical value of the idea.
And so, after a couple of years of leaving it at that, I decided to enumerate the possible shortcomings, which also happen to be issues I've experienced.
Thus questions about the rational foundation of atheism, but only to be told that there is no rational foundation, or that the rational foundation can be arbitrarily applied. Much like I can memorize a multiplication table without learning multiplication, I can easily reject God without ever considering the application of that rejection, and that's at least part of what I'm wondering about.
Under the "old" atheism, we might be able to hold a discussion about how the tenet of atheism applies in life and even explore the factors contributing to "irresponsible" atheism (for, after all, what one does with their atheism is up to them). Instead, what I have before me is a "new" atheism that applies logic similar to logics rejected by atheists in Christian justificaitons for the lack of rational foundation. I find it accidentally hypocritical, but I'm also aware that neither you nor Xev nor Adam have ever openly agreed with the "old" definition of atheism used in these forums.
I must admit, the resistance shown to exploring what's beneath the surface of the atheist condition is enlightening.
I would say, for instance, that your dictionary definition provided on 5.11.02 differs from your current academic exposition, and furthermore, differs from the conditions insisted on by other atheist posters. Even providing a Webster's definition which clearly defined the principle in question as being agnostic, the poster still insisted on atheist as the descriptive term.
But I am, indeed, curious toward what's so difficult about the relationship between the labels people choose for themselves and how those labels affect their behavior. It seems that few people want to examine that relationship.
Oh, well.
thanx,
Tiassa
Unfortunately, if that has any bearing on the issue for you, then I can comfortably say that you've missed the point.
Let's try this in the form of two questions that go together quite nicely:
• Why are you an atheist?
• What does it matter?
Now, I'll even go so far as to explain the point.
One of my long issues with atheism is that among atheists in my experience, there existed a basic, dualistic issue that can be marked to exist whether or not the individual consciously addresses it. It is, in fact, a question that permeates any label of limitations in society, be it atheist, Christian, Communist, &c.
The question is of what's important. A nation composed purely of Christians or purely of atheists would make no difference if each of those ideas, for instance, elevate the self as being of primary importance.
In my criticisms of Christianity, it often seems that moralism is a reaction to greed; the Christian seeks salvation, and obeys in exchange for that profit. Consider the nobility of accusing your neighbor of witchcraft in terms of Matthew 25, for instance. Torturing someone and burning them at the stake seems neither loving nor compliant with the Commandments.
In this sense, Christianity poses a challenge to society by raising the needs of the individual (in the face of God's existence) above the needs of society. The Christian rebuttal that such a focus is unfair might hold water, except that the symptom observed is almost universal and can be held to be a consistent result of Christianity. Thus, one seeking their ideal might (and, as history shows, do) achieve that goal at the expense of someone else's wellbeing or liberty.
Likewise, atheism. Where I claim you're missing the point is in the mode of your response. In this case, the references on atheism you've provided are much like the Christian providing me a bible verse to contradict the observed result.
In atheism, once one is freed of the fetters of God, one still must exist and function in the world. Can we agree on this principle, at least?
Because here's where it becomes relevant to the present topic.
What Cris has often described (example cited a few posts above) on behalf of atheism is both a dictionary definition and an examination of how that definition functions in the world. Despite the shortcomings I see possible according to that approach, I advocated it in relevant debates because (A) it accords with experience, and (B) it is an attempt to examine the practical value of the idea.
And so, after a couple of years of leaving it at that, I decided to enumerate the possible shortcomings, which also happen to be issues I've experienced.
Thus questions about the rational foundation of atheism, but only to be told that there is no rational foundation, or that the rational foundation can be arbitrarily applied. Much like I can memorize a multiplication table without learning multiplication, I can easily reject God without ever considering the application of that rejection, and that's at least part of what I'm wondering about.
Under the "old" atheism, we might be able to hold a discussion about how the tenet of atheism applies in life and even explore the factors contributing to "irresponsible" atheism (for, after all, what one does with their atheism is up to them). Instead, what I have before me is a "new" atheism that applies logic similar to logics rejected by atheists in Christian justificaitons for the lack of rational foundation. I find it accidentally hypocritical, but I'm also aware that neither you nor Xev nor Adam have ever openly agreed with the "old" definition of atheism used in these forums.
I must admit, the resistance shown to exploring what's beneath the surface of the atheist condition is enlightening.
I would say, for instance, that your dictionary definition provided on 5.11.02 differs from your current academic exposition, and furthermore, differs from the conditions insisted on by other atheist posters. Even providing a Webster's definition which clearly defined the principle in question as being agnostic, the poster still insisted on atheist as the descriptive term.
But I am, indeed, curious toward what's so difficult about the relationship between the labels people choose for themselves and how those labels affect their behavior. It seems that few people want to examine that relationship.
Oh, well.
thanx,
Tiassa
Perhaps I should take a lesson from the atheists
For instance, does it actually matter what religion one does or doesn't hold? In surface-level arguments, no it doesn't. But the atheists at Sciforums used to be capable of describing what was important about atheism. Namely, rationality. In the functional sense, the benefit of atheism was the lack of religious fetters guiding one's morality. That is, an atheist had no obligation to obey a principle that is contradictory to the moral needs of a situation. Short of the moral implications, it doesn't matter what one believes.
Someone--I think it may have been you--once asked me who said atheists were rationalists.
Well, excuse the fuck out of me for applying the argumentative definition that has reigned here for two years. It has, in its own way, become the standard.
Now, as to that, I'm perfectly happy to accept the current position that atheism holds that God might exist, and that there is no rationality in the atheist position. I'm also happy to hold atheists to that. But given the common term used to describe yourselves, I think the desperate need to avoid common regard or definition is a little cowardly at worst, merely silly at best.
The appearance of rationality is what atheism becomes when an atheist backs away from a thematic rationality in life. The decision to regard God as the atheist does suddenly loses its rational basis, as the rational conclusion becomes much like memorizing multiplication tables. It's kind of a faith recitation when there are no rational anchors for rationality. The Catholics, as I've oft noted, are exceptionally rational within their paradigm. But the rationality breaks down because it has no rational foundation. If you exscind the rational foundation from atheism ... that's fine.
But you ought to go back and peruse those two years worth of atheist/theist topics. I think you'll find a tremendous amount in there to refute. That is, I think you'll find many representations of atheism that you will not wish to represent you. Those should be addressed.
It's merely a matter of integrity. Nothing big.
Think about it for a moment.
I'm the one lamenting the tendency of atheists to become so objectivist as to be detrimental.
Just think about it, dear.
Now, would you call such objectivism mature in the context we're discussing maturity? That selfishness that comes from accepting that the self is the only objectively real thing?
And Cris and I questioned each other whenever such issues came up. Too bad on both counts, Xev.
And if you'd paid any attention around here, you would have learned that no Christian speaks for any other.
And perhaps you haven't figured it out yet, but Cris is not the only atheist to echo such sentiments as I've noted in this topic. As I said, it was the standard until recently. If you go back and look at what other atheists have contributed to atheist/theist topics, you might see that. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between the old position and the new. The new simply attempts to define itself for the sake of defining. At least, that's what it looks like. The "old" position actually tried to examine what people believed and how it related to the functional, living experience. It tried to make a useful conclusion out of the debate instead of merely pronouncing itself to exist.
As a matter of fact, you've provided an excellent comparison. Where TS, T1, KB, BC, and others may not have been able to agree on just about anything relating to Christian faith, I can say that the only real difference between the old and the new atheism is that the new atheism dislikes being thought of as rationalist. Rational, sure ... the new atheism wishes for that. But its inability to address itself in terms of functional integrity makes it just another cheap belief like being a Ford or Chevy family.
Do you understand the concept of a lack of integrity?
You shouldn't generalize about atheism, remember?
To the other, though, you're the one who put the "island of rationality" in front of me. In other words, rationality is based in irrationality. With nothing better to go on, you pick a square one and call it rational. Subjective objectivity. Much like the Catholics in that sense.
And, whether your attitude accepts it or not, it's still a proper statement that it accepts God more than I've known it to. We used to call the "maybe" position by another name.
What, I shouldn't be upset that I've spent a good deal of effort defending what apparently is a bullshit lie? How well does that speak of atheism, then?
People seem to worry about lumping atheists together as a common group. This is well beside the point. However, when viewing atheism, one might ask what its results are. As one goes from atheist to atheist, will they see any consistent result that attests to the merits of the atheist position?
One need not hold Christians as a uniform group to undertake that examination. Very little about T1, BC, KB, or TS is standard in their faith. But if one looks and sees that kind of buffoonery resulting from the adoption of the Christian position, why would one pursue that result?
Likewise of atheism. It has no apparent practical value, since it affects no other part of your life and has no interaction with your decision-making process.
Your island of rationality is a faith statement. It means that you have faith that your starting point is rational.
Or, to put it another way, at least know what you're reacting to.
Get the fuck over yourself, Xev. Are you a law student or something? Or Adam's agent? I mean, even I don't have that high of an opinion of myself; I would never have imagined that it would require two of you to argue for one person.
In the end, Xev, it's been most educational. I'm thinking I should take a note from the atheists. That way, I need no integrity and I can sit around and rip on people for the hell of it. It must be fun.
Would you like the actual answer for this topic, Xev? Because as I head off for a few hours of sleep, I'm smiling. Of all the possible resolutions of this topic, I hadn't imagined we would ever reach the point we have. I've always known that atheism statistically carries with it a certain selfishness that would, in fact, be worth exploring someday. I can't find a polite way to put it: I accept wholeheartedly what the atheists have told me about their position in this topic. I'm disappointed because I had better respect for atheism than atheists apparently do. I had thought of atheism in a very noble sense. One based in integrity and rationality. I can only apologize for that error.
I'm not joking when I say it's been most educational. I always knew it was a human problem, and not a problem of labels, but I always expected the Christians to step up a notch. I never expected the atheists to step down.
We know you're not all the same. But damn, there are some common results among the atheist flock.
thanx,
Tiassa
Quite frankly, I brought it up because he, like you, would bitch about the number of words in my posts, restate them inaccurately in order to have a point to refute, and loved to hide behind the phrase ad hominem. I found the approach to debate largely distasteful, and I find it quite sad when people whose intelligence I respect choose such a poor argumentative tack.
Well, I think we're aware that Cris is not your spokesman. Rather, I find the shift in attitude among atheists both intriguing and amusing.
What you fail to grasp both as relates to Cris and as relates to the appearance of rationality is in this retreat from rationality.
For instance, does it actually matter what religion one does or doesn't hold? In surface-level arguments, no it doesn't. But the atheists at Sciforums used to be capable of describing what was important about atheism. Namely, rationality. In the functional sense, the benefit of atheism was the lack of religious fetters guiding one's morality. That is, an atheist had no obligation to obey a principle that is contradictory to the moral needs of a situation. Short of the moral implications, it doesn't matter what one believes.
Someone--I think it may have been you--once asked me who said atheists were rationalists.
Well, excuse the fuck out of me for applying the argumentative definition that has reigned here for two years. It has, in its own way, become the standard.
Now, as to that, I'm perfectly happy to accept the current position that atheism holds that God might exist, and that there is no rationality in the atheist position. I'm also happy to hold atheists to that. But given the common term used to describe yourselves, I think the desperate need to avoid common regard or definition is a little cowardly at worst, merely silly at best.
The appearance of rationality is what atheism becomes when an atheist backs away from a thematic rationality in life. The decision to regard God as the atheist does suddenly loses its rational basis, as the rational conclusion becomes much like memorizing multiplication tables. It's kind of a faith recitation when there are no rational anchors for rationality. The Catholics, as I've oft noted, are exceptionally rational within their paradigm. But the rationality breaks down because it has no rational foundation. If you exscind the rational foundation from atheism ... that's fine.
But you ought to go back and peruse those two years worth of atheist/theist topics. I think you'll find a tremendous amount in there to refute. That is, I think you'll find many representations of atheism that you will not wish to represent you. Those should be addressed.
It's merely a matter of integrity. Nothing big.
Much like that rational platform of the Catholics?
Well, Xev, it's just that I thought higher of you than that. It's perfectly fine with me if you want to demand the same rhetorical liberty as T1. It clarifies exactly how little, in the end, can be addressed. I just figured an intelligent person might have an intelligent foundation for their beliefs. More fool me.
You seem to be making that effort.
Which leads us back to square Zen.
Right, Xev.
Think about it for a moment.
I'm the one lamenting the tendency of atheists to become so objectivist as to be detrimental.
Just think about it, dear.
Now, would you call such objectivism mature in the context we're discussing maturity? That selfishness that comes from accepting that the self is the only objectively real thing?
And Cris and I questioned each other whenever such issues came up. Too bad on both counts, Xev.
And if you'd paid any attention around here, you would have learned that no Christian speaks for any other.
And perhaps you haven't figured it out yet, but Cris is not the only atheist to echo such sentiments as I've noted in this topic. As I said, it was the standard until recently. If you go back and look at what other atheists have contributed to atheist/theist topics, you might see that. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between the old position and the new. The new simply attempts to define itself for the sake of defining. At least, that's what it looks like. The "old" position actually tried to examine what people believed and how it related to the functional, living experience. It tried to make a useful conclusion out of the debate instead of merely pronouncing itself to exist.
As a matter of fact, you've provided an excellent comparison. Where TS, T1, KB, BC, and others may not have been able to agree on just about anything relating to Christian faith, I can say that the only real difference between the old and the new atheism is that the new atheism dislikes being thought of as rationalist. Rational, sure ... the new atheism wishes for that. But its inability to address itself in terms of functional integrity makes it just another cheap belief like being a Ford or Chevy family.
Well Jesus Christ on a pony, Xev, I agree we've been over this. The objective choice of atheism, by the description I've received here, is the equivalent to cheating on a math test.
Now there you go. If atheism has as much objective base as anything else, it has zero objective base.
Well, it's like the Christians who want the label but don't want the burden. That's fucking what. It's the selective choice to be rational.
Do you understand the concept of a lack of integrity?
How dare you speak for all atheists!
You shouldn't generalize about atheism, remember?
To the other, though, you're the one who put the "island of rationality" in front of me. In other words, rationality is based in irrationality. With nothing better to go on, you pick a square one and call it rational. Subjective objectivity. Much like the Catholics in that sense.
Atheism is supposed to be more than an arbitrary assumption, Xev. I figure you have reasons for being atheist.
And, whether your attitude accepts it or not, it's still a proper statement that it accepts God more than I've known it to. We used to call the "maybe" position by another name.
And go fuck yourself.
What, I shouldn't be upset that I've spent a good deal of effort defending what apparently is a bullshit lie? How well does that speak of atheism, then?
People seem to worry about lumping atheists together as a common group. This is well beside the point. However, when viewing atheism, one might ask what its results are. As one goes from atheist to atheist, will they see any consistent result that attests to the merits of the atheist position?
One need not hold Christians as a uniform group to undertake that examination. Very little about T1, BC, KB, or TS is standard in their faith. But if one looks and sees that kind of buffoonery resulting from the adoption of the Christian position, why would one pursue that result?
Likewise of atheism. It has no apparent practical value, since it affects no other part of your life and has no interaction with your decision-making process.
Coming from you, Xev ... that's, uh ... worthwhile.
Your island of rationality is a faith statement. It means that you have faith that your starting point is rational.
Well, you can only glean that if you leave words out of the sentence. So the same note to your alleged literacy.
Or, to put it another way, at least know what you're reacting to.
How much are you charging Adam for your services?
Get the fuck over yourself, Xev. Are you a law student or something? Or Adam's agent? I mean, even I don't have that high of an opinion of myself; I would never have imagined that it would require two of you to argue for one person.
When Adam advised me that my experience was false, he asked me to take on faith that what he was telling me is true.
In the end, Xev, it's been most educational. I'm thinking I should take a note from the atheists. That way, I need no integrity and I can sit around and rip on people for the hell of it. It must be fun.
Would you like the actual answer for this topic, Xev? Because as I head off for a few hours of sleep, I'm smiling. Of all the possible resolutions of this topic, I hadn't imagined we would ever reach the point we have. I've always known that atheism statistically carries with it a certain selfishness that would, in fact, be worth exploring someday. I can't find a polite way to put it: I accept wholeheartedly what the atheists have told me about their position in this topic. I'm disappointed because I had better respect for atheism than atheists apparently do. I had thought of atheism in a very noble sense. One based in integrity and rationality. I can only apologize for that error.
I'm not joking when I say it's been most educational. I always knew it was a human problem, and not a problem of labels, but I always expected the Christians to step up a notch. I never expected the atheists to step down.
We know you're not all the same. But damn, there are some common results among the atheist flock.
thanx,
Tiassa
Tiassa
Xev is not on my payroll yet. Could it simply be she has noticed that your posts over the past few months have, in many cases, degraded from very interesting commentaries to ten-page personal attacks? Personally, I prefer not to discuss a topic by saying things like "That's because you're a fucking ignorant racist", but each to his/her own.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I think your experience with atheists was false. That was not my intention. Rather, I think your experience with atheists is merely limitied and not necessarily representative of all atheism, and may also be coloured greatly by your own upbringing which you say partially occurred in a religion-oriented school. I don't think personaly experience can be false; but the ideas we get from experiences can be illogical, ill-informed, or just plain old wrong.
Xev is not on my payroll yet. Could it simply be she has noticed that your posts over the past few months have, in many cases, degraded from very interesting commentaries to ten-page personal attacks? Personally, I prefer not to discuss a topic by saying things like "That's because you're a fucking ignorant racist", but each to his/her own.
Nope.
I mean, I suppose it could be.
But you'd think she'd ask me about it if that was the case. Or, at least, you'd think she would pick a different tack than she did.
I mean, that thing about me attacking you ... that was pretty pathetic. I would think that she would be intelligent enough to consider your bashing for the sake of bashing, your refusal to be anything but flippant or bitter ... you know, observant?
Sad, sad, sad.
It's ironic, too, that you point out the length of my posts while justifying Xev's behavior. After all, you're one of the people who has openly admitted that you don't read those posts of mine that you respond to. In light of Xev's line about attacking, I find this quite hilarious. All things considered, I think the two of you should just get a room and get it out of your systems.
Mind you, I don't mind posters defending each other. But I would hope that either of you had a point.
Silly, silly me.
--Tiassa
Nope.
I mean, I suppose it could be.
But you'd think she'd ask me about it if that was the case. Or, at least, you'd think she would pick a different tack than she did.
I mean, that thing about me attacking you ... that was pretty pathetic. I would think that she would be intelligent enough to consider your bashing for the sake of bashing, your refusal to be anything but flippant or bitter ... you know, observant?
Sad, sad, sad.
It's ironic, too, that you point out the length of my posts while justifying Xev's behavior. After all, you're one of the people who has openly admitted that you don't read those posts of mine that you respond to. In light of Xev's line about attacking, I find this quite hilarious. All things considered, I think the two of you should just get a room and get it out of your systems.
Mind you, I don't mind posters defending each other. But I would hope that either of you had a point.
Silly, silly me.
--Tiassa
Just change the sentence like you always do, Adam
• Such as your earlier and still-running failure to examine the identity-politic of the native American tribes, or, in this case, the monster under the bed. Rhetoric is nice, but your rhetoric seems to be omitting functional reality. (Tiassa)
• I'm not sure I ever mentined any native American tribes. I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. How did I fail in something which has not been under discussion? Very strange. If, by some chance, you referred to such in your rhetorical meanderings, then I probably did not not respond and instead tried to find a point somewhere. (Adam)
• That's the point. I mentioned it. (Tiassa)
Or this part of the same discussion:
• I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. (Adam; see above)
• That's for you to answer, since we don't know anything on the subject of Adam. But I will propose a couple of options for you:
- You weren't reading the posts you were responding to.
- You don't give a fnck. (Tiassa)
• I will present a third option. You tend to ramble. A lot. You can run several paragraphs without saying anything. Some people like the sound of their own voice (or the look of their typed words in this medium). You rarely make points, but rather talk and talk and talk and then claim everyone else lacks points. Try, for once, just clearly stating your points, with reason. (Adam)
And from these examples, we can see a couple things.
(A) You are not reading the posts. This is evident when you wrote, I'm not sure I ever mentined (sic) any native American tribes. I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. How did I fail in something which has not been under discussion?
(B) We see the reason for (A) when you write, You tend to ramble. A lot.
(C) We can reasonably conclude that the reason you considered native American tribes as not under discussion is because you did not read that part of the post. And we can reasonably conclude that you did not read the post because you are unable to. You did, in fact, ask me to dumb it down for you.
So I apologize about the word "openly", Adam. But you ought to treat it like any number of my posts where you simply omit words. Here, we can simply use an ellipsus: After all, you're one of the people who has ... admitted that you don't read those posts of mine that you respond to.
Is that better? I would hate to leave the word "openly" out there. And the omission should be easy enough for you to make, as is observed by your habit of changing phrases of mine in order to have a response to them.
And that, incidentally, is another strike against your credibility. As I recall, we've got that dispute going for the moment, as well.
In the end, Adam, you might want to take a moment and consider that you're correcting your own words in your last post, much like you did over issues of religious bigotry. Given your complaint that I tend to ramble, perhaps you should think twice about that lowest common denominator and what happens when you rely on it. It would seem that what you're pointing out with your corrections is that you have been incapable of stating yourself clearly. The connection between this and your preference for brief posts is apparent. And, daresay, the connection between that and your rejection of philosophical literature in favor of action. You know, Ebert's criticizing the dialogue in Star Wars II, as if that's really the focus. Inverse of the problem, perhaps? He demands philosophy in the place of action? Nonetheless, the point is valid. The "action-based" genres, while entertaining, serve to muddy communication by mixing metaphors inappropriately in search of rhythm and "originality". All factors point toward a failure of communication, and I, for one, am happy to drop it squarely atop you.
Like I keep saying in this topic: I'm perfectly willing to accept the answers I'm getting from atheists. Why, I wonder, are the atheists dissatisfied with that? Perhaps it's a matter of me apparently reading you wrong again? Perhaps you might consider stating your case better?
thanx,
Tiassa
Actually, as I read through, you may be correct in one aspect. But in that case, I would urge you to read the sentence as you normally read mine, and simply remove a word or two. Namely, the word, openly. Such as this exchange in The Problem With Atheism:
• Such as your earlier and still-running failure to examine the identity-politic of the native American tribes, or, in this case, the monster under the bed. Rhetoric is nice, but your rhetoric seems to be omitting functional reality. (Tiassa)
• I'm not sure I ever mentined any native American tribes. I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. How did I fail in something which has not been under discussion? Very strange. If, by some chance, you referred to such in your rhetorical meanderings, then I probably did not not respond and instead tried to find a point somewhere. (Adam)
• That's the point. I mentioned it. (Tiassa)
Or this part of the same discussion:
• I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. (Adam; see above)
• That's for you to answer, since we don't know anything on the subject of Adam. But I will propose a couple of options for you:
- You weren't reading the posts you were responding to.
- You don't give a fnck. (Tiassa)
• I will present a third option. You tend to ramble. A lot. You can run several paragraphs without saying anything. Some people like the sound of their own voice (or the look of their typed words in this medium). You rarely make points, but rather talk and talk and talk and then claim everyone else lacks points. Try, for once, just clearly stating your points, with reason. (Adam)
And from these examples, we can see a couple things.
(A) You are not reading the posts. This is evident when you wrote, I'm not sure I ever mentined (sic) any native American tribes. I'm not sure they have been relevant to any topic I have discussed at sciforums. How did I fail in something which has not been under discussion?
(B) We see the reason for (A) when you write, You tend to ramble. A lot.
(C) We can reasonably conclude that the reason you considered native American tribes as not under discussion is because you did not read that part of the post. And we can reasonably conclude that you did not read the post because you are unable to. You did, in fact, ask me to dumb it down for you.
So I apologize about the word "openly", Adam. But you ought to treat it like any number of my posts where you simply omit words. Here, we can simply use an ellipsus: After all, you're one of the people who has ... admitted that you don't read those posts of mine that you respond to.
Is that better? I would hate to leave the word "openly" out there. And the omission should be easy enough for you to make, as is observed by your habit of changing phrases of mine in order to have a response to them.
And that, incidentally, is another strike against your credibility. As I recall, we've got that dispute going for the moment, as well.
In the end, Adam, you might want to take a moment and consider that you're correcting your own words in your last post, much like you did over issues of religious bigotry. Given your complaint that I tend to ramble, perhaps you should think twice about that lowest common denominator and what happens when you rely on it. It would seem that what you're pointing out with your corrections is that you have been incapable of stating yourself clearly. The connection between this and your preference for brief posts is apparent. And, daresay, the connection between that and your rejection of philosophical literature in favor of action. You know, Ebert's criticizing the dialogue in Star Wars II, as if that's really the focus. Inverse of the problem, perhaps? He demands philosophy in the place of action? Nonetheless, the point is valid. The "action-based" genres, while entertaining, serve to muddy communication by mixing metaphors inappropriately in search of rhythm and "originality". All factors point toward a failure of communication, and I, for one, am happy to drop it squarely atop you.
Like I keep saying in this topic: I'm perfectly willing to accept the answers I'm getting from atheists. Why, I wonder, are the atheists dissatisfied with that? Perhaps it's a matter of me apparently reading you wrong again? Perhaps you might consider stating your case better?
thanx,
Tiassa
A subjective presentation...
Well, I had prepared a bit more of a response but didn't get a chance to post it. I was also going to redress the issue to get back to the main points. I'll paraphrase in response to this post.
Originally posted by tiassa
• Why are you an atheist?
I arrived at atheism through skeptical analysis, beginning with my former Christian faith. Around the age of 12 I began noting logical fallacies in the dogma handed to me. Of course, I didn't understand "logical fallacies" as such then I just knew that some of the things they were saying didn't make sense or were self-contradictory. Eventually (around the age of 16) I came to a modified "Christianity" not dissimilar to Nelson's. During that phase I started to examine other religions and philosophies, as Nelson has, trying to determine underlying truths. During college I took several philosophy classes, including logic, and several physics courses. This new understanding allowed me to further examine my beliefs and the arguments supporting them. Eventually and somewhat reluctantly, I found myself to be an atheist. I continue in this process of "self-awareness" to this moment.
Unlike your experience with it, I find my current position quite enjoyable and fulfilling. The universe is full of experiences and mystery awaiting discovery. Humans are amazing; the heights to which we can soar and the depths to which we can plummet (although I wish we'd do more soaring than plummeting). I find our struggle between evil/selfishness and good/altruism to be poignant and fascinating. I find chaos theory to be a wonderful, objective, basis for morality: The butterfly effect indicates that any action of mine may have tremendous consequences. As a result it is my duty to make those actions positive or "good" whenever possible. I find the recent developments in quantum physics to be astounding, with far reaching affect into the disparate realms of philosophy, consciousness, universality, truth, and causation.
• What does it matter?
It depends on what you mean. Here's a list I comprised from your question "provide some affirmative presentation of what the absence of God gets them.:
1. I don't have to get up early to go to church on Sunday morning. 2. I don't have to worry about some omnipotent bastard burning me for eternity because I said "God dammit, Mother, I had sex before marriage." 3. I don't have to concede my intellect in lieu of some ordained minister's opinion. 4. I don't have to worry if said minister's interpretation of an ancient text is correct, it's irrelevant. 5. I'm free to believe that homosexuality is okay, even if it isn't my choice. 6. I'm free to believe that animals have rights. 7. I'm free to think that women and children have rights and authority over their lives. 8. I'm free to judge people "good" based upon what they do and say rather than on how closely their beliefs match mine. 9. I'm free to judge people "evil" based upon their words and deeds rather than upon some religious authority. 10. I'm free to ask and find answers for all those questions religions would rather I not ask.
Please note that this is in no particular order, just off the top of my head.
If you'd like more examples, let me know.
~Raithere
Well, I had prepared a bit more of a response but didn't get a chance to post it. I was also going to redress the issue to get back to the main points. I'll paraphrase in response to this post.
Originally posted by tiassa
• Why are you an atheist?
I arrived at atheism through skeptical analysis, beginning with my former Christian faith. Around the age of 12 I began noting logical fallacies in the dogma handed to me. Of course, I didn't understand "logical fallacies" as such then I just knew that some of the things they were saying didn't make sense or were self-contradictory. Eventually (around the age of 16) I came to a modified "Christianity" not dissimilar to Nelson's. During that phase I started to examine other religions and philosophies, as Nelson has, trying to determine underlying truths. During college I took several philosophy classes, including logic, and several physics courses. This new understanding allowed me to further examine my beliefs and the arguments supporting them. Eventually and somewhat reluctantly, I found myself to be an atheist. I continue in this process of "self-awareness" to this moment.
Unlike your experience with it, I find my current position quite enjoyable and fulfilling. The universe is full of experiences and mystery awaiting discovery. Humans are amazing; the heights to which we can soar and the depths to which we can plummet (although I wish we'd do more soaring than plummeting). I find our struggle between evil/selfishness and good/altruism to be poignant and fascinating. I find chaos theory to be a wonderful, objective, basis for morality: The butterfly effect indicates that any action of mine may have tremendous consequences. As a result it is my duty to make those actions positive or "good" whenever possible. I find the recent developments in quantum physics to be astounding, with far reaching affect into the disparate realms of philosophy, consciousness, universality, truth, and causation.
• What does it matter?
It depends on what you mean. Here's a list I comprised from your question "provide some affirmative presentation of what the absence of God gets them.:
1. I don't have to get up early to go to church on Sunday morning. 2. I don't have to worry about some omnipotent bastard burning me for eternity because I said "God dammit, Mother, I had sex before marriage." 3. I don't have to concede my intellect in lieu of some ordained minister's opinion. 4. I don't have to worry if said minister's interpretation of an ancient text is correct, it's irrelevant. 5. I'm free to believe that homosexuality is okay, even if it isn't my choice. 6. I'm free to believe that animals have rights. 7. I'm free to think that women and children have rights and authority over their lives. 8. I'm free to judge people "good" based upon what they do and say rather than on how closely their beliefs match mine. 9. I'm free to judge people "evil" based upon their words and deeds rather than upon some religious authority. 10. I'm free to ask and find answers for all those questions religions would rather I not ask.
Please note that this is in no particular order, just off the top of my head.
If you'd like more examples, let me know.
~Raithere