ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th March 2017, 01:58 PM   #1441
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The term 'gluten-free' is a term used to describe a food that normally contains gluten but in this instance does not. That's why you never see adverts for gluten-free prawns or gluten-free spinach. To make your analogy work you need to prove not only that religiosity is the default position for humans, but that God is evidentially present in their lives.
If only that were so. The number of things I've seen gluten-free on that are absurdly not a product that normally contains gluten are legion. Do you live in a jurisdiction where such things are regulated better? Heck you can say "made with real chicken" and as long as there is any amount of "real chicken" in it, you're technically disco. Doesn't mean it's remotely a real chicken product you are biting into. We're used to that kind of thing as skeptics, right?

As to what I need to do to make my analogy work, I think you are mistaken as to what I am using my analogy to accomplish. I need to do no such thing as I'm not trying to advance any such agenda and have been explicitly arguing the opposite. Again, if you are looking for something you tend to find it. Confirmation bias. As skeptics, we're supposed to be used to that too. It's always harder for everyone to see in themselves.

I'm astounded I'm still being told things like "you need to prove not only that religiosity is the default position for humans, but that God is evidentially present in their lives." at this point after this many pages of posting. As someone with views probably pretty close to yours in most ways, I find it pretty incredible.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:13 PM   #1442
Thor 2
Graduate Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Covered that. I've doing everything in my power to be explicit as possible that I'm not implying any other connection other than inclusion among other beliefs, and or foods in the diet. It's hard not to anticipate the way the confirmation bias reads these things at this point.

I've said a bunch of things just like that throughout my mentioning these type of things. The problem, I'm guessing, is that some of you guys are just hypersensitive to someone attempting to make the belief that atheism is just as much a model that needs to be accepted, or requires just as much faith, or whatever hogwash someone ELSE is selling that you see atheism and belief system in the same sentence and your bells go off. You're over-compensating. Such extreme measures are not required to fend off such silly arguments WHEN they are made. It's not that clever of a trick on the part of anyone that might use it, and there ARE other perfectly reasonable ways for using language like this in the course of a conversation.

Context DOES matter guys. I'm completely on the same page in that specific regard. I keep repeating this, but it's a hard thick skin to cut through.

If I was suggesting something about the gluten-free analogy applied in that regard to atheism, you'd be right to point it out. But I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate a point, not seg-way into an underhanded terribad argument I've repeated numerous times I have no interest in advancing.

The highlighted above is a good example of why I, (and I expect others), have difficulty understanding what you are on about. Why the long convoluted sentences?

If I understand what you are saying, and I can't be sure of this, you think atheists are hypersensitive to the idea, presented by some, that atheism requires faith.

If this is true then I, as an atheist, certainly resent being told this, although I can't see this as being hypersensitive.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:26 PM   #1443
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
"Lack of belief" is a loaded expression. "Lack" implies deficiency... It should be "non-belief", as stated earlier.
Whatever word you want to use man. Lack does not in any sort of way necessarily imply deficiency. Is it sometimes used that way, sure. That's not equivalent to being a loaded expression.

The issue with non-belief for me is that it's really ambiguous potentially in a lot of contexts.

Regardless of what model you are talking about (we need not be discussing god) there is definable difference between:
1) Having a viewpoint about the validity of a model that endorses it.
2) Having a viewpoint about the validity of a model the does not endorse it.
3) Not having a view at all on the model, for one of any number of reasons.

All of these things are different from one another in a significant enough way for me to often want to differentiate between them when I discuss views on mental models. Applying the "heavy" and unnecessarily baggage laden terms of discussing the question of a god-thing belief...

1) theistic
2) atheistic
3) agnostic

I'll stop to make clear having a viewpoint does not necessarily involve certainty or casting any sort of final word in the matter as I'm using the term (which seems consistent with how most people use the term viewpoint). I tend to use belief and viewpoint interchangeably, but belief does have the disadvantage of carrying baggage for some people who read it and leap to thoughts about how the belief or viewpoint is justified...like getting it all mucked up with the concept of faith...which doesn't interest me at all within the context of this point. Keeping that in mind, someone who says the are agnostic because they just can't know for certain or be sure about something like god isn't agnostic by this definition so much as they are possibly just avoiding the question. They can be agnostic or Dutch by any definition they want to use, as long as they make that clear, but it's not my preferred terminology for reasons that for me come down to usefulness of the term in that specific topics I tend to talk about.

The default viewpoint here is under this criteria, agnostic. A newborn baby has a different relationship with a mental model that they've never even considered than someone who rejects it after any number of approaches of evaluating it. You can choose to call them equivalent, but that seems to blur information unnecessarily, and is my experience more often done for laziness. There is more burden on someone to accept a model than there is to not accept it. That goes without saying for many of us. But just because that's true doesn't mean never having considered it is equivalent to someone who has thought about it a great deal. Neither accepts the model, such is true by definition, but beyond that...there are differences in the relationship of the model to the mind evaluating it.

I'm not ceding ground to people making terrible arguments about the equivalence of belief and non-belief by distinguishing things in this manner. Those arguments remain terrible, regardless of how I choose to define words. My choice is based on reducing the ambiguity inherent in the language because I find it gets in the way... a lot when we discuss these things. People start making arguments that are simply true because they are true by definition without even realizing it. It's a mess. At some point in the context of certain conversations, it just doesn't make sense to insist that a newborn baby is an atheist. It's possible depending on how you define words, but really only because you've chosen to define it that way...which means there are still rational reasons for being an atheist, dogmatic reasons for being an atheist, submissive reasons for being an atheist, emotional reasons for being an atheist, basically all the same reasons can be theists. I say rational meaning, internally logically consistent...not meaning I approve of every assumption within that rational construct. You can disagree with someone and identify them as being rational, but wrong because you disagree with their assumptions. It's actually really useful if you want to have a back and forth conversation with them that gets anywhere...besides simply saying...WRONG you're irrational. That's not a rational response unless they are actually making a logical error. Also "rational people" make logical errors all the time. Rational person is pretty much an oxymoron. That's why we're all fighting the good fight here. Calling them irrational, particularly early in the conversation is often jumping the gun and may not be particularly useful a comment even if the shoe fits.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:30 PM   #1444
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your attempt to tie those words together simply doesn't work, though. In your usage, an "atheistic belief system" would be all belief systems that are not based on a theistic belief system.
That's specifically NOT what I said though.

It's not how I'm using the word.

I don't know how to argue with you about how I'm using the word.

I specifically state the opposite of this a number of times. At some point you might want to consider you are looking for something to disagree with here.

an atheistic belief system is any given set of beliefs that includes not believing in god. I've said as much multiple times. I've said what it DOESN'T mean right after because you guys KEEP pushing this on me.

Are you screwing with me here or what?
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:43 PM   #1445
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
There's the rub. The "system" bit. Or are we going to invoke Gödel?
I'm sorry the use of the word system does not imply anything undo here.

It's all the same mind, and the mind has a number of beliefs. Pointing out that a mind has one belief carries with it no implication that it is in any specific way related to any of the other beliefs.

All of this comes down to treating this particular topic differently in kind than any other mental model.

I'm an atheist. I don't do that. I get why many theists do. It astounds me how many atheists feel the need to turn this into a specialized question with different rules.

Just because my belief system doesn't include the belief that Taylor Swift is in reality a chicken, doesn't mean if someone creates a word for such a belief like Swiftchickenist that I can't describe my belief system reasonably as aswiftchikenistic to differentiate it from people's belief systems that include this belief. It doesn't mean I'm admitting to some sort of unstated relationship between my views on the subject and how I believe coffee should be prepared. Just because it is a belief system within my mind, doesn't imply any particular sort of relationship beyond it being my mind's system of beliefs. Just saying...it's a system...so it's related SOMEHOW...well sure...it's in my head. In that way atheistic belief systems ARE factually related to the other beliefs they share. But again, that's only true because you INSIST on the wacky usage of system here that is completely inappropriate to the context.

Can beliefs in beliefs systems be connected in significant ways? Absolutely. Is it implied by usage of the word system in that regard? No. It isn't. You guys again don't need to build this massive wall to keep out a massively ridiculous argument. It's OKAY to soften your use of language in this regard...it doesn't open any flood gates. The argument you are buttressing against is still *****. Stop giving it more influence than it deserves.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:49 PM   #1446
Egg
Graduate Poster
 
Egg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Just because my belief system doesn't include the belief that Taylor Swift is in reality a chicken, doesn't mean if someone creates a word for such a belief like Swiftchickenist that I can't describe my belief system reasonably as aswiftchikenistic to differentiate it from people's belief systems that include this belief.
WRONG! There is no aswiftchikenistic belief system!!

Just messin' with ya - carry on...
__________________

"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler
“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb
“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer
Egg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:51 PM   #1447
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'm not interested in blame, either. I just understand that atheism does not have a belief system, full stop. Therefore, when you talk about an "atheistic belief system", you clearly do not understand something.
Wareyin, does it make a dent in your conception of this situation if I tell you point blank (in my view AGAIN) that I completely agree with you that atheism does not have a belief system?

I don't know what else to say.

Using the words "atheistic belief system" regardless of considering the context in which they use DO NOT suggest that atheism has a belief system.

CONTEXT MATTERS
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:54 PM   #1448
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
That's specifically NOT what I said though.

It's not how I'm using the word.

I don't know how to argue with you about how I'm using the word.

I specifically state the opposite of this a number of times. At some point you might want to consider you are looking for something to disagree with here.

an atheistic belief system is any given set of beliefs that includes not believing in god. I've said as much multiple times. I've said what it DOESN'T mean right after because you guys KEEP pushing this on me.

Are you screwing with me here or what?
Your claim is, as you state: an atheistic belief system is any given set of beliefs that includes not believing in god. This specifically applies to a things like the Germ Theory of Disease, as it does not include a belief in God. If not, please explain why not.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:56 PM   #1449
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The highlighted above is a good example of why I, (and I expect others), have difficulty understanding what you are on about. Why the long convoluted sentences?

If I understand what you are saying, and I can't be sure of this, you think atheists are hypersensitive to the idea, presented by some, that atheism requires faith.

If this is true then I, as an atheist, certainly resent being told this, although I can't see this as being hypersensitive.
Suffice it to say, I agree you have difficulty understanding what I'm on about.

I think I'm reaching a point where the effort put into being understood is not just diminishing returns, but is actively pissing people off.

I'd suggest not drawing any further conclusions personally from anything I post Thor. Only because you seem to be upset about things I've never attempted to communicate and I'm sort of more interested in talking about ideas I actually have.

I've spent pages and pages discussing what people insist I must believe and then blaming me for not being clear enough.

If that's the degree of your self-awareness of the role bias has played in the communication break down, that's fine. Get back to skepticism.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:58 PM   #1450
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by Egg View Post
WRONG! There is no aswiftchikenistic belief system!!

Just messin' with ya - carry on...
SERIOUSLY, right?
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 02:58 PM   #1451
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Wareyin, does it make a dent in your conception of this situation if I tell you point blank (in my view AGAIN) that I completely agree with you that atheism does not have a belief system?

I don't know what else to say.

Using the words "atheistic belief system" regardless of considering the context in which they use DO NOT suggest that atheism has a belief system.

CONTEXT MATTERS
Context matters, sure. But as you agree that atheism does not have a belief system, then why are you contradicting yourself by talking about atheistic belief systems?

Also, I go a step further. Atheism does not have a belief system, and Atheism is not a belief system.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:02 PM   #1452
Thor 2
Graduate Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Presumably, then, one cannot be either an atheist or a theist unless they have the capacity for making a decision about god (or gods), then? You've decided that babies can't be either. What about mentally deficient people, such as adults with down syndrome? Do you allow them to be theists or atheists? Do they have to take some sort of test to prove their mental faculties are up to the task?

What about folks who have never been introduced to the idea of a god? Say some remote tribe in the Amazon rainforest, or similar? Are they similarly not atheists because they aren't rejecting or denying god or gods?

I don't need to reject or deny god. I just don't believe in god.

A point well made. You could add those in our own society who have not been subjected to religious indoctrination.

I have two children, now adults, who were spared a religious upbringing and are both atheists. They look on the religious with bemusement and even some amusement.

By far the greater number of my friends are atheist also and their experience with their own children has been the same.

I am sure most of these folk are well equipped with the capacity to make decisions about god but are not really confronted with the question.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:05 PM   #1453
Thor 2
Graduate Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Suffice it to say, I agree you have difficulty understanding what I'm on about.

I think I'm reaching a point where the effort put into being understood is not just diminishing returns, but is actively pissing people off.

I'd suggest not drawing any further conclusions personally from anything I post Thor. Only because you seem to be upset about things I've never attempted to communicate and I'm sort of more interested in talking about ideas I actually have.

I've spent pages and pages discussing what people insist I must believe and then blaming me for not being clear enough.

If that's the degree of your self-awareness of the role bias has played in the communication break down, that's fine. Get back to skepticism.

Now why would that be?
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:08 PM   #1454
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
A point well made. You could add those in our own society who have not been subjected to religious indoctrination.

I have two children, now adults, who were spared a religious upbringing and are both atheists. They look on the religious with bemusement and even some amusement.

By far the greater number of my friends are atheist also and their experience with their own children has been the same.

I am sure most of these folk are well equipped with the capacity to make decisions about god but are not really confronted with the question.
Using such loaded terms as 'reject' or 'deny' god makes me think of the angry atheist. This person seems to be who a lot of theists think we all are. Someone who knows god exists, but rejects him. An athiest who stands with raised fists, yelling at the sky "I reject you, God!"

I'm more like your kids.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:13 PM   #1455
Thor 2
Graduate Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Using such loaded terms as 'reject' or 'deny' god makes me think of the angry atheist. This person seems to be who a lot of theists think we all are. Someone who knows god exists, but rejects him. An athiest who stands with raised fists, yelling at the sky "I reject you, God!"

I'm more like your kids.

Yes, "God Haters" all of them, which is the term a certain canine was trying to hang on us.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:13 PM   #1456
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
If only that were so. The number of things I've seen gluten-free on that are absurdly not a product that normally contains gluten are legion. Do you live in a jurisdiction where such things are regulated better? Heck you can say "made with real chicken" and as long as there is any amount of "real chicken" in it, you're technically disco. Doesn't mean it's remotely a real chicken product you are biting into. We're used to that kind of thing as skeptics, right?
Here is something we agree with. Because gluten-free is a fad right now, a ridiculous number of products that never had gluten to begin with now have prominent "gluten-free" labels.

Quote:
As to what I need to do to make my analogy work, I think you are mistaken as to what I am using my analogy to accomplish. I need to do no such thing as I'm not trying to advance any such agenda and have been explicitly arguing the opposite. Again, if you are looking for something you tend to find it. Confirmation bias. As skeptics, we're supposed to be used to that too. It's always harder for everyone to see in themselves.

I'm astounded I'm still being told things like "you need to prove not only that religiosity is the default position for humans, but that God is evidentially present in their lives." at this point after this many pages of posting. As someone with views probably pretty close to yours in most ways, I find it pretty incredible.
Your analogy does imply that theism is the default, though, just like eating gluten is the default.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:15 PM   #1457
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your claim is, as you state: an atheistic belief system is any given set of beliefs that includes not believing in god. This specifically applies to a things like the Germ Theory of Disease, as it does not include a belief in God. If not, please explain why not.
In order to answer this question without unnecessary ambiguity, we need to get settled how we are both using the word atheist and agnostic to a degree. Part of the problem is we're jumping contexts. I was speaking within the context of belief systems people have. If you want to talk about systems of related beliefs or even unrelated beliefs outside that context, I would have to ask whether that system has a defined position at all on the question. Germ Theory does not. If it doesn't, it seems like an agnostic belief system, the beliefs within the set do not include a position of the validity of the any theistic model. Germ Theory unlike most grown adults, has a pretty good excuse for being agnostic and having no position on the matter. I think you're probably zeroing in the not believing in god distinction from rejecting god models, in a way that includes people that have no view on the topic, tentative or otherwise. This isn't a distinction I'm too focused on. If it's important to you, feel free to substitute "not believing in god" for a stronger wording if there is a distinction that is meaningful for you there. Feel free then to include that group under agnostic belief systems if you prefer. I don't care. Germ Theory is squarely agnostic on the subject by the way I would discuss it, because germ theory doesn't consider the matter at all. I have, and have made a working view on the matter. Therefore my belief system is an atheistic one. If I tend to ignore the agnostic belief systems when I've discussed it in the past, it isn't because I don't acknowledge they exist. When I mean atheistic, I don't really include them. I know others like to group them together, or define agnostic differently so that there's no where else for them to go. But again, that makes a lot of conclusion true by virtue of definition rather than a distinction between beliefs, so I tend to avoid them.

I know, words words words. I post to enjoy myself too, you know. It just looks different.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:18 PM   #1458
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Context matters, sure. But as you agree that atheism does not have a belief system, then why are you contradicting yourself by talking about atheistic belief systems?

Also, I go a step further. Atheism does not have a belief system, and Atheism is not a belief system.
Because I'm NOT CONTRADICTING myself.

Your interpretation of my meaning is contradictory.

That doesn't mean the point I'm making is.

Again...see communication break down.

It also helps if you don't assume from the outset that the most likely explanation is a consistent contradiction, and begin looking for things you might not have picked up on immediately that could help explain this insistence that you might be missing something.

For one reason or another you are. Because I assure you, there is no contradiction here. You're assertion that simply using the words "atheistic belief systems" means that I'm contradicting myself flies in the face of the fact that context matters.

Is it possible to contradict myself in the manner you described while using those words? Yes.

Is that what I'm doing, no.

At some point you need to move beyond saying "YOU USED THOSE WORDS!"

I have no response to that, it's not an argument. Well more accurately, I fundamentally disagree with your assumption because that's now how language works.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:23 PM   #1459
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
In order to answer this question without unnecessary ambiguity, we need to get settled how we are both using the word atheist and agnostic to a degree. Part of the problem is we're jumping contexts. I was speaking within the context of belief systems people have. If you want to talk about systems of related beliefs or even unrelated beliefs outside that context, I would have to ask whether that system has a defined position at all on the question. Germ Theory does not. If it doesn't, it seems like an agnostic belief system, the beliefs within the set do not include a position of the validity of the any theistic model. Germ Theory unlike most grown adults, has a pretty good excuse for being agnostic and having no position on the matter. I think you're probably zeroing in the not believing in god distinction from rejecting god models, in a way that includes people that have no view on the topic, tentative or otherwise. This isn't a distinction I'm too focused on. If it's important to you, feel free to substitute "not believing in god" for a stronger wording if there is a distinction that is meaningful for you there. Feel free then to include that group under agnostic belief systems if you prefer. I don't care. Germ Theory is squarely agnostic on the subject by the way I would discuss it, because germ theory doesn't consider the matter at all. I have, and have made a working view on the matter. Therefore my belief system is an atheistic one. If I tend to ignore the agnostic belief systems when I've discussed it in the past, it isn't because I don't acknowledge they exist. When I mean atheistic, I don't really include them. I know others like to group them together, or define agnostic differently so that there's no where else for them to go. But again, that makes a lot of conclusion true by virtue of definition rather than a distinction between beliefs, so I tend to avoid them.

I know, words words words. I post to enjoy myself too, you know. It just looks different.
Well, I am glad to see you are finally enjoying yourself.

I think we are coming at this from different perspectives. I think one has to be taught or convinced to be a theist, and that one has to maintain that belief. I'd define an atheist, as I have this whole time, only as one who doesn't believe in a god or gods. I don't really differentiate between agnostic and athiest, as they both do not believe in God or gods. You don't have to have studied the matter and made a conscious decision, you don't have to reject god like some kind of angry teenager rebelling against his parents, if you aren't a theist, you are an atheist. Without god.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:25 PM   #1460
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Here is something we agree with. Because gluten-free is a fad right now, a ridiculous number of products that never had gluten to begin with now have prominent "gluten-free" labels.
Man, I can tell by reading you we could fill a book with what we agree about, much of it what you've insisted we don't. This whole thing is really very silly.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your analogy does imply that theism is the default, though, just like eating gluten is the default.
It doesn't imply that. You've inferred that.

Analogies are used in a context, just like words.

If I used that analogy in order to demonstrate the point that theism is the default, then it would be improper use of analogy.

But that's not the context in which I used the analogy.

That's the dimension I think is being lost here.

Analogies are meaningless without a context in which they are being used. It's all in terms of what they are attempting to illuistrate. If that's not clear, ask before you point out its short-comings. It's trivial to point out differences in any given analogy. That doesn't make them inapprpriate in context. The MORE obviously different the items in an analogy are in other ways is often an advantage in clarifying the point. It makes you focus on the specific variable you are trying to talk about.

I'm not saying...hey these two things are alike in ALL WAYS! DO YOU ACCEPT THIS! HA! I've trapped you with my cunning gluten plan.

I mean, I'd need a pencil thin mustache with those curly ends to pull that off. If it seems that crazy, maybe that's not what is going on, ya know?

That you guys put that much effort into seeking out and destroying such attempts is laudable...I'm simply pointing out that you may have established a bias that is making you see these attempts where they do not exist.

Only because I'm a glaring example of this...which I'm in a better position to appreciate than you.

Last edited by Crunkus; 20th March 2017 at 03:29 PM.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:28 PM   #1461
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Because I'm NOT CONTRADICTING myself.

Your interpretation of my meaning is contradictory.

That doesn't mean the point I'm making is.

Again...see communication break down.

It also helps if you don't assume from the outset that the most likely explanation is a consistent contradiction, and begin looking for things you might not have picked up on immediately that could help explain this insistence that you might be missing something.

For one reason or another you are. Because I assure you, there is no contradiction here. You're assertion that simply using the words "atheistic belief systems" means that I'm contradicting myself flies in the face of the fact that context matters.

Is it possible to contradict myself in the manner you described while using those words? Yes.

Is that what I'm doing, no.

At some point you need to move beyond saying "YOU USED THOSE WORDS!"

I have no response to that, it's not an argument. Well more accurately, I fundamentally disagree with your assumption because that's now how language works.
It's pretty simple. If you agree that Atheism does not have a belief system, then talking about atheistic belief systems is a contradiction in terms.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:32 PM   #1462
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Man, I can tell by reading you we could fill a book with what we agree about, much of it what you've insisted we don't. This whole thing is really very silly.
I'm sure we agree on a lot of things, as well. This was a clear, unambiguous, un-selfcontradictory example that I felt moved to comment on, because of how rare that appears.



Quote:
It doesn't imply that. You've inferred that.

Analogies are used in a context, just like words.

If I used that analogy in order to demonstrate the point that theism is the default, then it would be improper use of analogy.

But that's not the context in which I used the analogy.

That's the dimension I think is being lost here.

Analogies are meaningless without a context in which they are being used.

I'm not saying...hey these two things are alike in ALL WAYS! DO YOU ACCEPT THIS! HA! I've trapped you with my cunning gluten plan.

I mean, I'd need a pencil thin mustache with those curly ends to pull that off.

That you guys put that much effort into seeking out and destroying such attempts is laudable...I'm simply pointing out that you may have established a bias that is making you see these attempts where they do not exist.

Only because I'm a glaring example of this...which I'm in a better position to appreciate than you.
Well, have you considered that perhaps it's not a good analogy, what with all the blatant differences and gaping holes people keep bringing up?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:42 PM   #1463
Crunkus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Well, I am glad to see you are finally enjoying yourself.

I think we are coming at this from different perspectives. I think one has to be taught or convinced to be a theist, and that one has to maintain that belief.
...and I believe the same thing. That's actually consistent with the way I talk about the situation. I also think there's a useful distinction between someone who has never been asked or considered a question or even has the capacity to understand the question and someone who has made an honest appraisal of the model, and fails to accept it as valid. I feel the same way whether you are talking about God or Coldplay.

In other words, I don't think it is as simple as saying you start out atheist. It's a nice soundbite, and it's true if you specifically define it in a way to be so, but you can't adequately be said to really have a position on something you aren't even aware of...and there are lots of varieties of how we justify not believing in something. There are TERRIBLE reasons for being atheist (regardless of whether I believe in the conclusion)...and that is lost in the shuffle. As an atheist, I'm not sure what there is to be afraid of with allowing for that. I mentioned earlier that I thought it was actually a bit weird to both find theism non-falsifiable and to say you don't believe in god because there isn't enough evidence. I don't believe in models of god that are non-falsifiable, and it's not because there isn't enough evidence. That's not how non-falsifiable theories are evaluated. One of the perks of believing in a non-falsifiable theory is you really don't have to be objective. There's already noting objective about believing in one.

This isn't to say I personally acknowledge theists who have rational, falsifiable models. To this subset, I don't believe in their models because I profoundly disagree with the relevance and details of the evidence that is part and parcel of their argument.

The reasoning actually differs on the particulars of the model.

That, and there's the smell.

Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I'd define an atheist, as I have this whole time, only as one who doesn't believe in a god or gods. I don't really differentiate between agnostic and athiest, as they both do not believe in God or gods. You don't have to have studied the matter and made a conscious decision, you don't have to reject god like some kind of angry teenager rebelling against his parents, if you aren't a theist, you are an atheist. Without god.
That's fine and that's your right...but there are contexts in which that makes the discussion unnecessarily confusing. I'd suggest not holding to it absolutely. Words can mean different things in different contexts, and its ideas that are important. If a compelling reason can be offered to use a word differently in a specific manner of speaking...try rolling with it. It might not be clear right away what you're avoiding, but once in a while you might be surprised. I know I have before.
Crunkus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:53 PM   #1464
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,991
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
...and I believe the same thing. That's actually consistent with the way I talk about the situation. I also think there's a useful distinction between someone who has never been asked or considered a question or even has the capacity to understand the question and someone who has made an honest appraisal of the model, and fails to accept it as valid. I feel the same way whether you are talking about God or Coldplay.
Actually, I can work with your Coldplay analogy. You're either a fan, or you're not. If you've never heard of them, you're still not a fan. You don't need to appraise a model, or understand music theory, or any such thing. Similarly, you either choose to be a theist, or you don't. Not deciding is possible even if you don't consider the question, or study theism. If you have not chosen to believe in God or gods, then you are without belief in God or gods. And, as that is the definition of an atheist, bingo bango, Bob's your uncle, unless you choose to believe, you are an atheist.

Quote:
In other words, I don't think it is as simple as saying you start out atheist. It's a nice soundbite, and it's true if you specifically define it in a way to be so, but you can't adequately be said to really have a position on something you aren't even aware of...and there are lots of varieties of how we justify not believing in something. There are TERRIBLE reasons for being atheist (regardless of whether I believe in the conclusion)...and that is lost in the shuffle. As an atheist, I'm not sure what there is to be afraid of with allowing for that. I mentioned earlier that I thought it was actually a bit weird to both find theism non-falsifiable and to say you don't believe in god because there isn't enough evidence. I don't believe in models of god that are non-falsifiable, and it's not because there isn't enough evidence. That's not how non-falsifiable theories are evaluated. One of the perks of believing in a non-falsifiable theory is you really don't have to be objective. There's already noting objective about believing in one.

This isn't to say I personally acknowledge theists who have rational, falsifiable models. To this subset, I don't believe in their models because I profoundly disagree with the relevance and details of the evidence that is part and parcel of their argument.

The reasoning actually differs on the particulars of the model.

That, and there's the smell.



That's fine and that's your right...but there are contexts in which that makes the discussion unnecessarily confusing. I'd suggest not holding to it absolutely. Words can mean different things in different contexts, and its ideas that are important. If a compelling reason can be offered to use a word differently in a specific manner of speaking...try rolling with it. It might not be clear right away what you're avoiding, but once in a while you might be surprised. I know I have before.
If I read a compelling reason to alter the definitions I use, I'll try to remember your advice.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 04:15 PM   #1465
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
I mentioned earlier that I thought it was actually a bit weird to both find theism non-falsifiable and to say you don't believe in god because there isn't enough evidence.
It's not just a question of falsifiability. In McLean v Arkansas,1974, one of the Creationism as Science cases, an Amicus Curiae brief was filed by a group of scientists listing five defining characteristics of science; falsifiability was number four, number one was that science is concerned solely with the natural universe. Science, and its principles, have no interest in the super-natural.

A couple of years ago, I began writing an analysis of my own atheism (it's still a work in progress). This is the relevant paragraph:

"One the other hand, having lost my religious faith once, what would it take for me to believe again? I've asked myself this question more than once. I have spent decades overcoming my religious indoctrination and still find it difficult to put it all firmly behind me. So God should have a bit of an advantage, one would think. Still, having found simple faith insufficient, I'm going to need something more than promises and threats; I'm going to have to be shown something that can have no other possible explanation. What would that be? To be fair (can you do other than play fair with an omniscient being?), I can't demand something ridiculous (a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it). It's a problem. Then I realized it isn't my problem, it's God's. If He is everything He's supposed to be, He knows better than anyone, even me, how to bring me back. In other words I should let go and let God, to borrow a favorite phrase of the faithful, and that is exactly what I've done. So far, though, the aether has been silent."

And so, I'm done with that part of it.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
__________________
Ahh, screw it!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 05:43 PM   #1466
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,364
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
Suffice it to say, I agree you have difficulty understanding what I'm on about.
So do you.

Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
I think I'm reaching a point where the effort put into being understood is not just diminishing returns, but is actively pissing people off.
Correct. I resent your attempts to instruct me what I may or may not believe. You cannot dictate what you think I might believe or not and attempting to do so will have inevitable consequences.

Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
I'd suggest not drawing any further conclusions personally from anything I post Thor. Only because you seem to be upset about things I've never attempted to communicate and I'm sort of more interested in talking about ideas I actually have.
Have whatever ideas you want. Atheism is fine with that. Theism is not. Do not try to dictate what ideas I or anyone else holds, TYVM.

Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
I've spent pages and pages discussing what people insist I must believe and then blaming me for not being clear enough.
Sorry. Walls of abstruse text do not lend themselves to clarity. Brevity is the soul of wit. Were I to make such a presentation in a professional context, I would be told to foxtrot right oscar in no uncertain terms. What exactly makes YOU a special snowflake? You have been so unclear that I really couldn't say for sure if you are a god botherer or not.

Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
If that's the degree of your self-awareness of the role bias has played in the communication break down, that's fine. Get back to skepticism.
You intentionally chose to descend into a rabbit hole of verbosity. Nobody else. You can hardly thereafter complain when others take an intellectual machete to your verbose thicket, can you?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 07:40 PM   #1467
Thor 2
Graduate Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So do you.

Correct. I resent your attempts to instruct me what I may or may not believe. You cannot dictate what you think I might believe or not and attempting to do so will have inevitable consequences.

Have whatever ideas you want. Atheism is fine with that. Theism is not. Do not try to dictate what ideas I or anyone else holds, TYVM.

Sorry. Walls of abstruse text do not lend themselves to clarity. Brevity is the soul of wit. Were I to make such a presentation in a professional context, I would be told to foxtrot right oscar in no uncertain terms. What exactly makes YOU a special snowflake? You have been so unclear that I really couldn't say for sure if you are a god botherer or not.


You intentionally chose to descend into a rabbit hole of verbosity. Nobody else. You can hardly thereafter complain when others take an intellectual machete to your verbose thicket, can you?

Indeed abaddon, well summed up. Should be a telling blow but I bet it's not.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 10:14 PM   #1468
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
It's not just a question of falsifiability. In McLean v Arkansas,1974, one of the Creationism as Science cases, an Amicus Curiae brief was filed by a group of scientists listing five defining characteristics of science; falsifiability was number four, number one was that science is concerned solely with the natural universe. Science, and its principles, have no interest in the super-natural.

A couple of years ago, I began writing an analysis of my own atheism (it's still a work in progress). This is the relevant paragraph:

"One the other hand, having lost my religious faith once, what would it take for me to believe again? I've asked myself this question more than once. I have spent decades overcoming my religious indoctrination and still find it difficult to put it all firmly behind me. So God should have a bit of an advantage, one would think. Still, having found simple faith insufficient, I'm going to need something more than promises and threats; I'm going to have to be shown something that can have no other possible explanation. What would that be? To be fair (can you do other than play fair with an omniscient being?), I can't demand something ridiculous (a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it). It's a problem. Then I realized it isn't my problem, it's God's. If He is everything He's supposed to be, He knows better than anyone, even me, how to bring me back. In other words I should let go and let God, to borrow a favorite phrase of the faithful, and that is exactly what I've done. So far, though, the aether has been silent."

And so, I'm done with that part of it.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night after dreaming you had been caste into Hell?

Lots of ex-Christians do.

Behind all that "God is Love Crap" is the promise of eternal Hellfire should you not believe and Love God. In other words, it's either "Love me or suffer in fire forever". These are the convictions of a Psycopath.

Last edited by Jules Galen; 20th March 2017 at 10:18 PM.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 10:43 PM   #1469
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,711
At some point we're going to have to start conversing with religious folks and religious apologists the same way they do to us.

Bob: Well Ted I'm a Baptist
Ted: Wait are you a Baptist or an Acatholic?
Bob: What?
Ted: Well do you really believe in a Baptist philosophy, or just an Acatholic one? Or perhaps you are just catholignostic.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 11:48 PM   #1470
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The highlighted above is a good example of why I, (and I expect others), have difficulty understanding what you are on about. Why the long convoluted sentences?
Sometimes I have the impression that Crunkus is doing the "Sokal experiment" with us. I usually skim his comments and I don't stop if I don't read something clear.

Take care with analogies. Diets, babies or mammoths can show any thing if taken too literally in an analogy.

Last edited by David Mo; 20th March 2017 at 11:50 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 12:23 AM   #1471
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,023
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
At some point we're going to have to start conversing with religious folks and religious apologists the same way they do to us.

Bob: Well Ted I'm a Baptist
Ted: Wait are you a Baptist or an Acatholic?
Bob: What?
Ted: Well do you really believe in a Baptist philosophy, or just an Acatholic one? Or perhaps you are just catholignostic.
Bob: Well Ted I believe in God.
Ted: No Bob you’re denying that you don’t believe in God.
Bob: No Ted I really do believe in God.
Ted: Well Bob I don’t believe in God and I can’t see how anyone possibly can. So you’re denying the non-existence God.
__________________
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 21st March 2017 at 12:28 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 12:23 AM   #1472
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Crunkus View Post
This isn't to say I personally acknowledge theists who have rational, falsifiable models. To this subset, I don't believe in their models because I profoundly disagree with the relevance and details of the evidence that is part and parcel of their argument.
My previous comment that you have ignored:

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Everybody needs a model. But the authoritative model of theists is accepted by Faith or Revelation. It is an irrational adhesion. Credo in unum deum patrem omnipotentem is very different from Sapere aude.
It is possible that some irrationalist atheist exists (perhaps Nietzsche), but I don’t know any theist (except Descartes perhaps) that doesn`t justify his belief in God by Faith or Revelation. No theist model can be falsifiable. What proof that God doesn't exist would be accepted by a theist that bases his belief on Faith? Can you show how it is possible?
This is the main difference between atheists and theists that shows why the latter are more prone to conservative and authoritative beliefs. And more intolerant.

Last edited by David Mo; 21st March 2017 at 12:33 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 12:51 AM   #1473
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Bob: Well Ted I believe in God.
Ted: No Bob you’re denying that you don’t believe in God.
Bob: No Ted I really do believe in God.
Ted: Well Bob I don’t believe in God and I can’t see how anyone possibly can. So you’re denying the non-existence God.
You've just given me an idea. Next time a theist starts to bandy around the negative-descriptor terms "atheist" or "atheism", I shall respond in kind with the terms "a-atheist" and "a-atheism" in place of "theist" and "theism"!
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 01:03 AM   #1474
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,012
If someone self-describes as an atheist but cannot bring themselves to assert there is no god, then they are the natural prey of the god botherer. From the theist's point of view, pseudo-atheism marks you as a questioner, god-curious, and fertile soil for THE EVERLASTING WORD OF THE LORD.

But there is a remedy. Come on over to the real atheist camp. Use these magic words to fight against magic man: "I don't believe in god because there is no god to believe in."

Problem solved.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 01:25 AM   #1475
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If someone self-describes as an atheist but cannot bring themselves to assert there is no god, then they are the natural prey of the god botherer. From the theist's point of view, pseudo-atheism marks you as a questioner, god-curious, and fertile soil for THE EVERLASTING WORD OF THE LORD.

But there is a remedy. Come on over to the real atheist camp. Use these magic words to fight against magic man: "I don't believe in god because there is no god to believe in."

Problem solved.
Most theists would probably consider me to be an atheist, despite my not being 100% certain there is no God. But there's one thing about which I'm certain - I refuse to worship a God who tolerates a flaw in the process of DNA repair and replication, such that a few mutated genes are all that's needed to create a cancerous cell, then a full-blown tumour, the latter resulting in many instances in a hideously painful death, at least in the absence of 24/7 palliative care, and one moreover that can strike at any age, young children included. In fact, the existence of cancer is sufficient grounds in my opinion for rejecting a-atheism, since it makes light of a major design fault, one with palpably inhumane consequences.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry

Last edited by meccanoman; 21st March 2017 at 02:09 AM.
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 02:16 AM   #1476
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,711
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Sometimes I have the impression that Crunkus is doing the "Sokal experiment" with us.
The degree of difficulty in believing that the entire internet isn't one big Sokal Experiment is immense more often then not.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 03:01 AM   #1477
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Most theists would probably consider me to be an atheist, despite my not being 100% certain there is no God. But there's one thing about which I'm certain - I refuse to worship a God who tolerates a flaw in the process of DNA repair and replication, such that a few mutated genes are all that's needed to create a cancerous cell, then a full-blown tumour, the latter resulting in many instances in a hideously painful death, at least in the absence of 24/7 palliative care, and one moreover that can strike at any age, young children included. In fact, the existence of cancer is sufficient grounds in my opinion for rejecting a-atheism, since it makes light of a major design fault, one with palpably inhumane consequences.
I don't know if your argument reaches 100% of certainty but it is very near of it.
To be good, omnipotent and omniscient is logically incompatible with being the creator of these awful things. Bertrand Russell said that nobody can believe in God in a hospital for children with cancer. You can agree some nunaces but the sentence remains basically true.
The only escape for a theist is to claim that God's designs are inscrutable. But this removes all possibility to know what this inscrutable god wants of us.

In doing so, the theist eludes the refutation but at the cost of to abandon any meaningful language.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 03:21 AM   #1478
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If someone self-describes as an atheist but cannot bring themselves to assert there is no god, then they are the natural prey of the god botherer. From the theist's point of view, pseudo-atheism marks you as a questioner, god-curious, and fertile soil for THE EVERLASTING WORD OF THE LORD.

But there is a remedy. Come on over to the real atheist camp. Use these magic words to fight against magic man: "I don't believe in god because there is no god to believe in."

Problem solved.
People have asked me if I believe there is no God, and I'll say...probably. I mean, there could be elves, too....just not very likely. However, I think elves are more probable than the Biblical God - or any other type of God mankind has ever dreamed up.

But, with things like Gods, Elves, the Easter Bunny, etc....it's impossible to prove that they don't exist: but "that they don't exist" is my working hypothesis, anyways.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 03:50 AM   #1479
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,711
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
People have asked me if I believe there is no God, and I'll say...probably. I mean, there could be elves, too....just not very likely. However, I think elves are more probable than the Biblical God - or any other type of God mankind has ever dreamed up.

But, with things like Gods, Elves, the Easter Bunny, etc....it's impossible to prove that they don't exist: but "that they don't exist" is my working hypothesis, anyways.
And my entire point during the discussion is as long as we feel that we have to phrase stuff in this language; this soft, passive, apologetic, wishy-washy, cowering language we will always be seen as wrong.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 08:00 AM   #1480
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,231
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night after dreaming you had been caste into Hell?

Lots of ex-Christians do.

Behind all that "God is Love Crap" is the promise of eternal Hellfire should you not believe and Love God. In other words, it's either "Love me or suffer in fire forever". These are the convictions of a Psycopath.
No, never had those dreams. Never knew anybody who did (except you?). And psychopath? Nah, it's just good people believing what they've been taught.

You can't accurately judge the general by the extremes.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
__________________
Ahh, screw it!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.