Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[Gustav]

My point was that anyone trained to rely only on that which he could see would never have the imagination to dream of what could be

poorly worded tho i understand the gist of what you say

in any case eyeball a jibe towards the high priests of science

like your pal copernicus, they are still at it tho quite removed from the stone age reasoning and imagination that you and your ilk practice

 

[S.A.M.]

poorly worded tho i understand the gist of what you say

in any case eyeball a jibe towards the high priests of science

like your pal copernicus, they are still at it tho quite removed from the stone age reasoning and imagination that you and your ilk practice

Look higher

 

[Cris]

Re Fransis Collins and his book “The Language of God,”

As director of the Human Genome Project, Collins participated in one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history. His book, however, reveals that a stellar career in science offers no guarantee of a scientific frame of mind.

Very curious.

 

[Cris]

sam,

Yeah, I wonder, which one would you choose? The Piraha life, with its emphasis only on personal direct experience? Or the life you have now, the result of assumptions, hypotheses, dreams, mindless entertainment and the orgies of fiction?

Piraha?

I'm having real trouble here seeing what you have in mind. I assume you want to insult the atheist perspective but all I see is descriptions of theism - baseless speculations, fantasies, the fiction and mythology of the quran and the bible, and so on.

Piraha seems to refer to a language of some Amazonian Indians - is that what you had in mind?

Not sure how any of what you say relates to my life. Ahh - yes the assumptions part.

 

[Cris]

sam,

Atheism is the position of No. Of proving a negative. It goes nowhere.

That isn't English.

What are you trying to say?

 

[S.A.M.]

Re Fransis Collins and his book “The Language of God,”

As director of the Human Genome Project, Collins participated in one of the greatest scientific achievements in human history. His book, however, reveals that a stellar career in science offers no guarantee of a scientific frame of mind.

Very curious.

That wiki was obviously edited by an atheist. I find Collins to be more rigorous than Dawkins for example, who goes about spinning fantasies with no empirical testing.

sam,

Piraha?

I'm having real trouble here seeing what you have in mind. I assume you want to insult the atheist perspective but all I see is descriptions of theism - baseless speculations, fantasies, the fiction and mythology of the quran and the bible, and so on.

Piraha seems to refer to a language of some Amazonian Indians - is that what you had in mind?

Not sure how any of what you say relates to my life. Ahh - yes the assumptions part.

sam,

That isn't English.

What are you trying to say?

Where is that abundant intelligence I keep hearing about????

On a more serious note, if you believe only in direct perception, you should read how the Piraha [a people, not a language] interpret reality. I doubt you even recognise how much of your reality is not based on perception.

To the other, we have yet to figure out how to prove a negative in the absence of a positive claim. Hence, atheism as a direction for development of the mind for instance, goes nowhere

 

[(Q)]

Correct, however science is not religion and religion is not science.

An excellent point, Sam. And, while I couldn't agree more with you, I would feel it inappropriate not to point out that those who recognize and acknowledge that fact probably shouldn't go about ignoring one in favor of the other. Considering that religion has had many centuries to demonstrate its value with little to no success, ignoring it is going to become essential to our survival.

Should we then also ignore science? Or, should we embrace it?

 

[S.A.M.]

You can't demonstrate anything to those who cannot see. Like the Piraha, atheists are handicapped by one dimensional thinking and anything they cannot comprehend is a strange "other" dimension to them.

As for your "survival", where are atheists being massacred as a group? A million Muslims have died in the last few years for no reason at all.

 

[Cris]

sam,

You can't demonstrate anything to those who cannot see. Like the Piraha, atheists are handicapped by one dimensional thinking and anything they cannot comprehend is a strange "other" dimension to them.

Similarly you cannot demonstrate that claims for direct perception are any different to self delusion and fantasy.

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean like in the Piraha, where anything they cannot directly perceive does not exist?

 

[lixluke]

What forum standard? Atheism is the position that there is no such thing as God. Nothing more. Nothing less. Atheism is not a lack of belief.

 

[Cris]

sam,

You mean like in the Piraha, where anything they cannot directly perceive does not exist?

LOL. Most of us have no problem understanding that because we cannot see something that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But it also doesn't mean that it does exist.

This does not mean that because someone claims to see something that others cannot that what they claim is true.

Emotionally inspired imaginative fantasies and consequent delusions are part of human experiences. They are fact.

The problem theists have in claiming direct experiences is demonstrating how their unprecedented and incredible claims are not the more credible and believable self-delusions.

I mean the idea that there is something so super powerful that it can create an entire universe instantly, is everywhere and everywhen, is invisible, and is unobservable, and speaks to its subjects via mythical texts - versus - a simply understood self-delusion.

You do not have credibility on your side.

 

[S.A.M.]

This does not mean that because someone claims to see something that others cannot that what they claim is true.

So if we claim there is a canoe still present around the bend, its not true because the Piraha cannot see it? They have no direct experience of it?

I mean the idea that there is something so super powerful that it can create an entire universe instantly, is everywhere and everywhen, is invisible, and is unobservable, and speaks to its subjects via mythical texts - versus - a simply understood self-delusion.

You do not have credibility on your side.

Perhaps you could consider joining the Piraha, they would completely understand your point of view.

I don't of course.

 

[Cris]

sam,

So if we claim there is a canoe still present around the bend, its not true because the Piraha cannot see it? They have no direct experience of it?

Why would you say that after what I said. Did you not understand?

I don't of course.

What don't you get? It's not difficult.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

Why would you say that after what I said. Did you not understand?

What don't you get? It's not difficult.

I understood alright, I don't need to see the canoe around the bend to know its there.

Have you decided what an atheist is?

 

[iceaura]

My point was that anyone trained to rely only on that which he could see would never have the imagination to dream of what could be

And yet the most imaginative among us seem to also be the more likely atheistic - with even the theistic among them seldom sharing the standard theologies or extant theistic religions.

And many of the less theistic of peoples - such as the Piraha, apparently, but other examples exist - live by hunting and fishing. So the following is obviously smug cultural arrogance, of the cruder sort typical of the early Western theistic explorers in the New World, Africa, India, etc.

Probably why the Piraha haven't moved very far from the animal kingdom.
- - -
You mean like in the Piraha, where anything they cannot directly perceive does not exist?

Unless you can present us with techniques of hunting and fishing and gathering that do not involve imagination.

Your description of the atheistic as "trained to rely only on that which they can see" seems to be fairly obviously at variance with the evidence.

Chris's definition, on the other hand, seems to fit reasonably well.

 

[S.A.M.]

And yet the most imaginative among us seem to also be the more likely atheistic

You're kidding right? Atheists, imaginative? Just look at the spread around this forum. Who would you consider the most imaginative people here?

Your description of the atheistic as "trained to rely only on that which they can see" seems to be fairly obviously at variance with the evidence.

Really?
You mean they don't rely on evidence for everything?

Chris's definition, on the other hand, seems to fit reasonably well.

By mixing science and religion? We know what those people are like.

 

[Cris]

sam,

I understood alright, I don't need to see the canoe around the bend to know its there.

And those who have not seen it cannot know it is there, they only have your word for it, and neither can they know it is not there. Now if you claimed there was a canoe and it was a mile high, they would not know it is there and because such things are unprecedented they might well not believe you, but still they would not know it was there or wasn't there. Such is the atheist position regarding claims for gods. Unlike the canoe we have no way to go look for ourselves.

Have you decided what an atheist is?

Yes, it is a useless label, since those who use it have entrenched positions on what it means, and there are many conflicting assertions. So as a mechanism for communication using agreed definitions it has no value.

I'll continue to not apply it to myself.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

And those who have not seen it cannot know it is there, they only have your word for it, and neither can they know it is not there. Now if you claimed there was a canoe and it was a mile high, they would not know it is there and because such things are unprecedented they might well not believe you, but still they would not know it was there or wasn't there. Such is the atheist position regarding claims for gods. Unlike the canoe we have no way to go look for ourselves.

No, the atheist position is not that. Why is this so confusing for you? The atheist position is that deities do not exist.

Yes, it is a useless label, since those who use it have entrenched positions on what it means, and there are many conflicting assertions. So as a mechanism for communication using agreed definitions it has no value.

I'll continue to not apply it to myself.

Thats something useful to come out of this thread then

 

[Cris]

sam,

No, the atheist position is not that. Why is this so confusing for you? The atheist position is that deities do not exist.

Suit yourself. It doesn't achieve anything.