3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 12:42 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
This is why we can't have nice things.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
24-01-2014, 12:46 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:38 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 12:28 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I did not insult you until you showed your contempt for me. Contempt which seems based on inaccurate assumptions. Its a bit unwarranted. Its like you're either jealous, or practicing as an asshole.

I don't need any practice in being an asshole, I am quite well-versed.

I didn't wan't to make the assumption that you were already an asshole; nor did I mean to imply that you weren't good at it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Fixt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 12:51 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:34 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  ^^^ One example of Chippy's penchant for pathologically making up as he goes along that I was referring to. See also: "unintelligible popositions".

I presume the addition of "pathologically" is supposed to give your claims some sort of authority. What you haven't realized is that you are making up stuff about me in the process of accusing me of making up stuff.

So what have I posted that is "unintelligible"?

You also misspelled propositions but I'm not making a song and dance about it like you do spaz.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 12:54 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:46 AM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
24-01-2014, 12:56 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:29 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 12:20 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  Okay but, about my request.......

I've noted your request.

Since you have been following this thread, do you think that Tourettes has been "wiping the walls" with my "pussy ass"? If you do then show me where this has happened.

Tourettes also claims that what I have been addressing to him is "unintelligible". Do you understand what I have been addressing to him? If what I addressed to him is unintelligible then there would be no point in addressing your request because the answers to BSs three questions will likely be more complicated than anything I have addressed to Tourettes.

I think it was in this thread, can't be sure but I'm not going back to look, that I've already noted my distaste for Taq's posting style. Not just noted, but directed right at him. He can be amusing at times but his presence in this thread has been rather......distracting. That's why I tend to opt out of responding to these spats between you all. I don't care, that's not how I roll, if you will.

I get sucked into the sack-up name calling thing from time to time, but then I tend to drink a bit and post mainly at night after a few. Sue me.

What I'm getting at is that this thing between you and Taq is of no concern of mine, I'd like to get to the nitty gritty of the OP because BS and I have been going round and round with no clear gains made. I thought I had just given up on this thread, but you entering the fray presents a chance for some real academic thought to be put forth, and I'd like to see what you have to say.

For the record, I don't think that BS's position (as to him solely identifying as agnostic rather than atheist, that's fine) is necessarily wrong, I simply disagree with his notion that my position as identifying as an atheist is rationally incoherent.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like evenheathen's post
24-01-2014, 12:59 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:56 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 12:29 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I've noted your request.

Since you have been following this thread, do you think that Tourettes has been "wiping the walls" with my "pussy ass"? If you do then show me where this has happened.

Tourettes also claims that what I have been addressing to him is "unintelligible". Do you understand what I have been addressing to him? If what I addressed to him is unintelligible then there would be no point in addressing your request because the answers to BSs three questions will likely be more complicated than anything I have addressed to Tourettes.

I think it was in this thread, can't be sure but I'm not going back to look, that I've already noted my distaste for Taq's posting style. Not just noted, but directed right at him. He can be amusing at times but his presence in this thread has been rather......distracting. That's why I tend to opt out of responding to these spats between you all. I don't care, that's not how I roll, if you will.

I get sucked into the sack-up name calling thing from time to time, but then I tend to drink a bit and post mainly at night after a few. Sue me.

What I'm getting at is that this thing between you and Taq is of no concern of mine, I'd like to get to the nitty gritty of the OP because BS and I have been going round and round with no clear gains made. I thought I had just given up on this thread, but you entering the fray presents a chance for some real academic thought to be put forth, and I'd like to see what you have to say.

For the record, I don't think that BS's position (as to him solely identifying as agnostic rather than atheist, that's fine) is necessarily wrong, I simply disagree with his notion that my position as identifying as an atheist is rationally incoherent.

Fair enough.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 01:10 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 12:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Does anyone think that in this thread or anywhere else Tourettes has been "wiping the walls" with my "pussy ass"?

I think it is anatomically impossible.

But I'd pay good money to see it attempted.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
24-01-2014, 01:13 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 01:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 12:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Does anyone think that in this thread or anywhere else Tourettes has been "wiping the walls" with my "pussy ass"?

I think it is anatomically impossible.

But I'd pay good money to see it attempted.

Big Grin

(24-01-2014 12:42 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  This is why we can't have nice things.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
24-01-2014, 01:19 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Chippy, I'm not sure that Taq is showing signs of coprographia. He doesn't seem to actually be making many (if any) of these images, and they don't seem to be involuntary. Even if he had tourettes expressed through coprographia, and was creating obscenities involunarily as he typed, he could simply delete them after the tic had expressed itself, before posting voluntarily. I do not see compelling evidence that Taq suffers from Tourette's. I questioned the nick name not in support of Taq, but because I know others here who actually have it. Although it may manifest in the way they post... It's not a spastic flow of obscenities and insults. So why not pick a different nick name for the local attack dog?

Taq, have you been diagnosed with Tourette's?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 01:26 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 05:35 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(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.








[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: