3 questions for atheists
Thread Closed 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2014, 03:52 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(22-01-2014 07:18 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 10:16 AM)Dom Wrote:  Chippy, what a weirdo you are!

Look at the post that precedes your post. Read it closely.

Quote: On one hand, you can think perfectly clearly.

There is no "on the one hand". I can think perfectly clearly.

Quote: On the other hand, all the clear thinking in the world cannot keep you from being an utter ass.

There is no "On the other hand" either: I can think perfectly clearly.

Quote:There is something very wrong with you.

No, there is something very wrong with Tourettes and Cheapthrillseaker and pointing that out doesn't mean that there is "something very wrong with" me. At worst you could accuse me of lacking etiquette but it is evident to anyone that is prepared to be honest that Tourettes and Cheapthrillseaker both exhibit disordered and disturbed behaviour. I'm not paranoid, I don't have an obsession with posting images, my posts are not only coherent they are lucid and I don't appear to have tics that I resolve by obsessive posting of dross.

You don't "point things out" in those matters. On one hand ( yes, I will continue to use this because you are not a cohesive personality), you are very good at pointing things out. But, on the other hand, there comes a point where you are unable to restrain yourself and all kinds of crap comes spilling out of your mouth. And you just can't stop being a dick.

Maybe the concept of "tourettes" bothers you so much because it expresses the part of you that is so very irrational and abrasive. You ARE tourettes. You just fancy yourself smarter about it.

Perhaps you need to spend some time looking at yourself, maybe you spend so much time learning about everything under the sun so you don't have to face your own self?

I am taking the time to talk to you about this because it is really a shame - a smart, well read, articulate person like you ending up in the viper's pit and melee sections where no one will venture when they are looking for intelligent discourse, but where people go to throw around memes and attack each other.

So you behave in a way that makes you end up here, and once here, you complain about people throwing around attacks and insults and memes?

Maybe time to look at why you are here and not in a civil section of the board?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
23-01-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(22-01-2014 09:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  atheism as a position lacks a rationale behind it,

I understood what you said (in a different post) regarding anti-theism. But this statement on Atheism (above) I don't quite follow.


Lack of belief doesn't really require a position - does it?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
23-01-2014, 08:11 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 02:27 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 01:34 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Just to prove you a chickenshit fucking liar, start reading at post 63 and make sure you hit 70 and 86 along the way. You are just as willfully fucking ignorant as BrownShitStainsAllOverChippysMouth is.

But I know that you won't read this anyway since you've gone back into hiding. You have a big fucking mouth with people who care about being polite, but you run like the rabbit you are when the shit gets real. No surprise. Pussy.

Is that your version of addressing a question? Bless. Hobo

Do you have to be coherent at work, or in life, or does just consist of yelling "hungry" at your mum?

Hey. Pussy wannabe internet stalker rentboi. Don't ever PM me again. This is your only warning.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!

Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77

You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
23-01-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(22-01-2014 08:28 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  What is rational to you? Saying I lack belief, like a rock does? It it acts like a rock, and thinks like a rock, what is it?

Without pouring back over so many pages - who said "I lack belief like a rock does"? I'm just wondering who. And why would anyone here discuss the *thoughts* of a rock? In fact - why are you discussing the *thoughts* of a rock?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
23-01-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 12:19 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 12:00 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  [Image: 37b.png]

Is that Chas in his formative years?

You and Chippy can go fuck yourselves. I have nothing to do with what Taq posts.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 9 users Like Chas's post
23-01-2014, 11:29 AM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(22-01-2014 11:10 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 10:16 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  I can definitely tell you like to be proactive about your beliefs lol. Like an evangelical agnostic, you knock on our door and tell us we are wrong and you are right. The only way I could be proactive in my beliefs is if I went around trying to deconvert people. I won't do that. I think everyone should have the space to follow their own path and make their own discoveries. I really try not to judge people unless their beliefs harm other people like religious extremists and people like the Pearls.

What part of atheism is defensible? The lack of belief due to a lack of evidence, assumes evidence is available or you wouldn't be basing your conclusion on that.

Assessing this as a crime scene is the incorrect path to take due to the obvious lack of evidence for any solution. I don't care if someone doesn't believe, I want to know how you reached this conclusion. If you solely reached it as you thought the bible was bollocks that's incomplete and lazy from my perspective.

Still waiting for someone to outline why atheists differentiate between belief and knowledge, we know why theists do, but why do you?

Please stop making assertions or there's no reason to think you are honest in wanting to understand or make a point. Again... lack of evidence doesn't assume evidence is knowable. It's irrelevant in the point if evidence is knowable, unknown, or not knowable. It's a point on it's own separate from whether or not things are known.

I gave you a reason and an example of why philosophically there's a distinction between believe and knowledge well over a week ago. It was one of my first posts in this thread. You scoffed it off. Didn't give a logical retort, just dismissed it. And there is multiple philological arguments upon what knowledge and belief are. Asserting one is more accurate over the other would lead to more worthless label discussion.

Why are you answering questions, repeatedly, that you've ignored about yourself? Others and I asked several questions about your agnostic position and you ignored them giving questions as responses. If you care about being intellectually honest, answer questions to how you came to your conclusion.

So far you've given 1 reason I saw. You repeated it many times, but it's not substantiated that we are a product of a system we can't know it's origin. That's an assertion if it's not backed up with any examples of ways that takes hold.

Maybe you should just answer those 3 initial questions in relation to agnosticism. Though question 2 is flawed as I've mentioned before, it presumes a purpose but since I see you asking that question about atheism still, I guess that bit didn't click with you. There isn't an inherent purpose if you haven't figured it out.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
23-01-2014, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 05:35 PM by Adrianime.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Everytime I see brownshirt try to explain his stance it goes like this:

How I feel is: *puts out the definition of agnostic atheism*.
But the atheistic stance is not rational because: *puts out incorrect definition of atheism*.
So instead I take the rational position of agnosticism: *puts out incorrect definition of agnosticism*.
Agnostic atheism makes no sense because: *puts out incorrect definition of atheism* and *puts out incorrect definition of agnosticism*.
Thus, you guys are all wrong, and I am right.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Adrianime's post
23-01-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 05:10 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Everytime I see brownshirt ...

Everytime I see his username all I can think of is that one time when ManlyGirl hollered at me from the laundry room, "Bob, how the fuck did you manage to get shit on your shirt?" ... Can't help it. ... (Okay, maybe it was technically more than one time.)

Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-01-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 02:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Atheism - lacking positive belief in gods.

Yes I realise this is one definition of atheism. I'm contesting the value of this position, unless it's suitably justified depending on a lack belief is the same as a non assertion.
If you're a nihilist, naturalist etc then a lack of belief is implied from these positions. Defining yourself on an implication is rather bizarre. For example, I'm agnostic, but see no reason to propose what I lack belief in as it offers nothing useful to the topic, nor says nothing about the position I do hold. I would rather make an assertion about what I do believe. This is also where I believe the typical atheist version of agnostic is both incorrect and lazy.

Quote:If a god is undefined, then it lacks evidence, and thus a good rational thinker and skeptic would not posit positive belief in such a thing (I would in fact argue it's not possible to articulate positive belief in something undefined). Anything posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Lacking positive evidence for undefined gods, one should logically lack belief in their existence; and hence be atheistic in regards to them.

Your key assumption is highlighted here, and is very symptomatic of the vast majority of atheists. A kid would posit the position of not believing in something without evidence.
Your entire assumption rests on the ability TO assess the evidence. If you presume we can obtain the necessary evidence, what evidence do you have which justifies this view? If you don't presume this, you're depending on evidence despite having no reason to do so. The inherent lack of evidence to account for existence means depending on the lack of it, as a reason is insufficient to justify your view. I lack belief in many things, yet none of my views illustrate this. I suspect many atheists just substitute it as an anti-theist position.

Quote:If the god concept is defined it can then be assessed and judge and evaluated by evidence, either for or against it's existence. If the evidence turns out to be lacking or in complete contradiction to specific god concepts and claims, then it's only logical to lack belief that such gods exist as described until better evidence is presented. If you're being a good skeptic, you should doubt claims that lack sufficient evidence; and as this relates to a god concept, the correct term is atheism.

Everyone is an atheist to some extent or another. A Christian is an atheist in regards to all other god concepts except for their particular interpretation of Yahweh or Jesus. All of us are atheistic to god concepts that have yet to be defined or envisioned (you cannot believe in Mormonism before Smith invented it), because to posit positive belief in something, you need to quantify to some degree what you have belief in. Any amount of qualification is by it's very nature a definition, and thus even the most ineffable and vague god concepts have at least some definition; and are therefore not entirely undefined.

Also, your use of agnosticism is misleading. Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether something is knowable or known (gnostic) in comparison to being unknowable or unknown (agnostic); it is compatible with either theism or atheism. If you lack positive belief in gods (defined or not), but are open to the possibility that latter evidence might change your opinion; then you are an agnostic atheist. Ironically enough, just like most of the people on this forum

Gnostic is only used in a religious sense of knowing. http://www.iep.utm.edu/gnostic/ The attempts to show that gnosticism/agnosticism as "knowing"/"not knowing" respectively are both wrong and simplistic. If you look into the origin of both the words they show the original intention of the words. The usage of these terms is solely by those who identify as atheists, and appears as a simple dodge to not having to justify your position. As an agnostic I believe that we lack the senses/ability to address this question in any meaningful way. Your dependence on evidence is in direct conflict to this, as shown I outlined above in the "unknown" vs "unknowable" dichotomy.

How would you propose that the view of a deity is unknown (potential knowable) could be viewed as similar (hence use of the term agnostic) with the view that it is unknowable? Stating agnosticism is either unknown or unknowable is bizarre. Saying it's unknown is obvious and add no value to anyone's position, and given gnosticism is not "to know" the use of these terms in this simplistic manner is both misleading and superfluous.
Find all posts by this user
23-01-2014, 05:37 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 08:07 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 09:25 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  atheism as a position lacks a rationale behind it,

I understood what you said (in a different post) regarding anti-theism. But this statement on Atheism (above) I don't quite follow.


Lack of belief doesn't really require a position - does it?

The lack of belief is a conclusion you've reached. You will have made assumptions to reach this conclusion, hopefully beyond the lack of evidence and if you understand what prejudices you hold you can rationalise your atheism appropriately. Given that you were surprised by my analogy of many here claim to hold the same belief a rock holds, I find it contradictory that you say "Lack of belief doesn't really require a position".
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: