3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 10:38 AM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 02:17 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 11:49 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  

Quote:I shall respond to the numbers.

1. That may be so, you say that's a negative thing. Not sure why. The point is to be the most logically sound I'm order to hold a position of believing the most truths, and the least non-truths.

I thought I'd provided adequate reason for why I think it's a negative thing. How is depending on evidence, which so far has not illuminated anything towards an actual truth, worthwhile? You will have accept that your your position promotes evidence to be obtainable, as you imply it provides you the means for believing the most truths. So far zero truths have been rendered.

Personally, I find this statement(The point is to be the most logically sound I'm order to hold a position of believing the most truths, and the least non-truth) to be strange towards addressing a deity. I would propose you hold an equal amount of truths and non-truths given you make no assertions, and would hopefully believe the same number. What do you have in your base assumptions which suggests to you that evidence is available? Or if you have nothing like this, I would presume this is your stance as evidence is the only means we have to formulate truth. I went past this position several years ago, as I recognized I have little reason to sit back and depend on this position as it offers me nothing philosophically, unless I really expect some form of progress towards addressing this question within my lifetime, which of course I do't. If this changes I will admit I'm wrong and adjust my position as necessary. As such, I'm obligated to play and would rather make assertions of what I believe to be viable, than hold the pretence of holding the most truths, which actually returns 0 truths at the moment.



Quote:That's why "safe assumptions" is a bullshit concept and no assumptions should be accepted, "safe" or not. I'm not even gonna get into the burden of proof point added in there.

We all make assumptions, for some reason you believe that you don't. I hold no evidence that evidence cannot be obtained. You hold no evidence that evidence can be. Which makes more sense?

Quote:2. There's no inherent purpose to positions. It's not a hard concept for most to grasp, don't know why you think differently. What's the purpose of agnosticism? There is none either. You can make up your own based on your reason for using that label but that doesn't give the label a purpose.

Of course there's a purpose, why don't you identify as someone who lacks belief in bigfoot? It doesn't have to have a material output, it may give you some purpose towards displaying your opposition to theism, it may be just for the hell of it. That doesn't mean it lacks purpose. If you really believe your atheism holds no purpose, I cannot fathom why we're discussing it.

Quote:3. Again, an equal stance I hold from this statement until the last bit that makes no sense whatsoever.. You keep claiming a difference that isn't there. Why do you not understand, saying we have no evidence for a god is just saying we don't have evidence for a God. You keep saying it means the position asserts we can find evidence... Bit where does it say that? That's you presuming and adding things that aren't there. Don't add things to concepts that aren't there, it's intellectually dishonest and insulting to logical arguments.

I really don't understand what is difficult about this to grasp.

There is no evidence available.
You request evidence to justify any position(hence your burden of proof suggestion).
But there is none for any position, so why are you asking for it?
From this request, I can only deduce that you believe evidence is coming, or you will be dead and your beliefs become redundant. You're obligated to play.

Depending on empiricism(via evidence) means you're depending on your senses, and as such believe them to be capable of obtaining evidence to address the question of a deity, it also results in a naturalistic conclusion due to the means you've chosen to assess the issue. I would prefer to rationalise it. Naturalism would be more appropriate if evidence was present to account for it.

Quote:It may seem like a weak backpedaling position to you, in a way you can be right. But that's in attempt to be the most accurate in holding correct stances.
It seems to want to hold no stance, so I don't see it as correct or worthwhile. If you're going to play, at least go on the field. But then your opposition are theists., so you want to score without being on the field.

This just boils to, Even though we consider ourselfs the same labels, under askewed meanings, you are fine making an assumption in the realm of knowledge. I am not. We all make assumptions in everyday life, but that doesn't mean it's justified to make grand assumptions about truth/knowledge claims.

Yes, overall it is saying I Know close to 0 truths. Tautological logic is something I'm comfortable saying I know. For the rest, I'm fine with I don't know as a logically accurate proclamation.

I don't get your "obligated" to go on the field retort. Why? Is it something that grants us more knowledge? Does it have a benefit? Does that make people more open to stating less false claims? I don't see how it does anything not pointless.

I don't know how many times you will not get this. The position of skepticism doesn't require evidence for justification. Evidence may be unattainable and that doesn't matter.

If evidence is unknowable for a claim. There's no logical reason to accept the claim.

Even others like Chippy have seem how question 2 is flawed. Your responses seem to indicate you think you're asking, "what is your individual purpose for identifying as an atheist?" But that's not what you've asked. THE purpose to atheism doesn't exist, THE purpose to agnosticism doesn't exist either

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(23-01-2014 07:00 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 06:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  My observation is that, when set off by whatever triggers you, you behave like a dick. And that is a huge contrast to your rational self. It doesn't fit. It doesn't belong with a person who is as intelligent as you are. It makes no sense. Hence, you make no sense. I see a person I can respect on many levels - who suddenly displays this huge flaw. Something is very wrong there. And I wonder if you are even aware. Are you?

I just don't share your values. That is all. Something is "wrong" in relation to some set of values. I place no value in indulging people like cheapthrillseaker or Tourettes or any other adamant idiot.

Quote:Most often, people who act like you do so because they need it as a crutch. But you need no such crutch. So - why?

Indeed. I have no need for a crutch or a compensatory charade. Again, I don't share your values and consequently your perception. That you would group me with Tourettes just shows how ill-considered your analysis of me is. There are single posts that I have made that have more factual content than all of Tourettes posts combined. Also, when I do insult people I don't use other people's humour and deliver it as if I originated it.

It didn't take much work to reveal the psychoticism of Cheapthrillseaker. It is evident that she has some sort of psychotic condition that makes her paranoid, most likely paranoid schizophrenia. I don't think the forum needs a replacement absols. I have no problem with psychotic people so long as they are in treatment and have their condition managed and don't post their insanity. If someone posts their madness then I have the right to respond to it. There are forums that indulge psychotic people where they are allowed to post any insanity they want other than threats of suicide or threats against other people. If Cheapthrillseaker wants to post her insanity then she should seek out one of these forums. She isn't owed any special treatment. Also if she learnt to self-censor her psychotic thoughts she would increase her chances of finding gainful employment. Allowing her to post incoherent nonsense and paranoid delusions doesn't help her, if anything it hurts her.

Well, that's a bunch of info I never asked for. Smile

Didn't change my mind about what I thought about you though. You are still not a cohesive personality. I wasn't talking about your attitudes but about the way you act.

[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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
24-01-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 03:16 AM)Chippy Wrote:  In practical terms I am atheistic because the probabilities that I have assigned to the likelihood of the existence of any deities are so small they do not influence my behaviour in any active way.

Nothing like that has appeared and it is premature to assume that naturalism is unable to explain the ultimate origin of the universe and abiogenesis.

Just as follow up and thinking about what you're written.

It seems you identify with atheism to demonstrate that you don't identify as a theist. I can understand this if you live in a predominantly theist area, as you would be away from the norm.

I live where theists are the exception, so the term atheist is virtually redundant.

Regarding your naturalism statement, I always have real issues with determining what happened. at the singularity for example. If you use theoretical physics to theorise what occurred, we are assessing a possible cause within the result of the cause.
That is, we are trying to assess what caused existence (time, space, matter) while being within existence. This appears nonsensical for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 04:54 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 05:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Brownshirt,
Is this a 2-way now, between you and Chippy, or would you still welcome other people's answers to your questions?

No of course it's not. Fire away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 08:46 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 02:32 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Nah attack dog doesn't work at all.

I called him tourettes due to his constant random rambling responses, use of expletives and irrelevant meme posting.

You call me names because you have nothing left. You have been called countless times on your disingenuous tactics and intellectual dishonesty here and all you get now is ridicule. Too bad, little fail troll.

All you have, and done, is abusing anyone who disagrees with you.You need to grow up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 05:30 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 05:34 PM by Brownshirt.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 10:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 02:17 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  I thought I'd provided adequate reason for why I think it's a negative thing. How is depending on evidence, which so far has not illuminated anything towards an actual truth, worthwhile? You will have accept that your your position promotes evidence to be obtainable, as you imply it provides you the means for believing the most truths. So far zero truths have been rendered.

Personally, I find this statement(The point is to be the most logically sound I'm order to hold a position of believing the most truths, and the least non-truth) to be strange towards addressing a deity. I would propose you hold an equal amount of truths and non-truths given you make no assertions, and would hopefully believe the same number. What do you have in your base assumptions which suggests to you that evidence is available? Or if you have nothing like this, I would presume this is your stance as evidence is the only means we have to formulate truth. I went past this position several years ago, as I recognized I have little reason to sit back and depend on this position as it offers me nothing philosophically, unless I really expect some form of progress towards addressing this question within my lifetime, which of course I do't. If this changes I will admit I'm wrong and adjust my position as necessary. As such, I'm obligated to play and would rather make assertions of what I believe to be viable, than hold the pretence of holding the most truths, which actually returns 0 truths at the moment.




We all make assumptions, for some reason you believe that you don't. I hold no evidence that evidence cannot be obtained. You hold no evidence that evidence can be. Which makes more sense?


Of course there's a purpose, why don't you identify as someone who lacks belief in bigfoot? It doesn't have to have a material output, it may give you some purpose towards displaying your opposition to theism, it may be just for the hell of it. That doesn't mean it lacks purpose. If you really believe your atheism holds no purpose, I cannot fathom why we're discussing it.


I really don't understand what is difficult about this to grasp.

There is no evidence available.
You request evidence to justify any position(hence your burden of proof suggestion).
But there is none for any position, so why are you asking for it?
From this request, I can only deduce that you believe evidence is coming, or you will be dead and your beliefs become redundant. You're obligated to play.

Depending on empiricism(via evidence) means you're depending on your senses, and as such believe them to be capable of obtaining evidence to address the question of a deity, it also results in a naturalistic conclusion due to the means you've chosen to assess the issue. I would prefer to rationalise it. Naturalism would be more appropriate if evidence was present to account for it.

It seems to want to hold no stance, so I don't see it as correct or worthwhile. If you're going to play, at least go on the field. But then your opposition are theists., so you want to score without being on the field.

This just boils to, Even though we consider ourselfs the same labels, under askewed meanings, you are fine making an assumption in the realm of knowledge. I am not. We all make assumptions in everyday life, but that doesn't mean it's justified to make grand assumptions about truth/knowledge claims.

Yes, overall it is saying I Know close to 0 truths. Tautological logic is something I'm comfortable saying I know. For the rest, I'm fine with I don't know as a logically accurate proclamation.

I don't get your "obligated" to go on the field retort. Why? Is it something that grants us more knowledge? Does it have a benefit? Does that make people more open to stating less false claims? I don't see how it does anything not pointless.

I don't know how many times you will not get this. The position of skepticism doesn't require evidence for justification. Evidence may be unattainable and that doesn't matter.

If evidence is unknowable for a claim. There's no logical reason to accept the claim.

Even others like Chippy have seem how question 2 is flawed. Your responses seem to indicate you think you're asking, "what is your individual purpose for identifying as an atheist?" But that's not what you've asked. THE purpose to atheism doesn't exist, THE purpose to agnosticism doesn't exist either

Interestingly I was going to rephrase the question, but you beat me to the punch. To me that question 'why do you identify as an atheist' is inherent in the purpose of atheism. I would say atheism and agnosticism's purpose is to provide a label to those who have reached an atheistic or agnostic conclusion. Why you reached this conclusion will be different for many, this is the same as any conclusion really.

You said:
Quote:I don't know how many times you will not get this. The position of skepticism doesn't require evidence for justification. Evidence may be unattainable and that doesn't matter.

If evidence is unknowable for a claim. There's no logical reason to accept the claim.

I understand your position, yes you require evidence to accept a claim. I have made no claim apart from the fact that i believe evidence is not available.
Your scepticism requires that I produce evidence to verify this claim of evidence not being available. You position appears contrived to promote that we can understand everything which exists as we have evidence of it. Anything which we have no proof of, may as well not exist, even if it does.

I'm looking for a position which can guide me towards a truth, or what I feel justified to believe. It's seems such a futile exercise to depend on evidence in the interim of no evidence being present. We all know there's none.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 08:20 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Actually I called Mak generic and narrow minded. Generic because we've seen those tired, same-ol attitudes of his hundreds of times before.

No there was nothing generic about Maklelan and it is a bit rich of you--someone that contributes nothing to the forum and just post "memes"--to call someone else "generic". Posting memes--other peoples jokes that have been posted possibly thousands of times--is as "generic" as you can be.

Quote: I think several of us here have a knee-jerk response using the term "troll" due to the number of times we see the same exact reaction and verbiage from those who pop by to set us all straight.

No, you resort to labeling because you have no response.

Quote: Gets boring after awhile.

You and Tourette's Chimp are amongst the most boring people on this forum. Don't you think we've all seen the memes that you and Tourettes's Chimp compulsively post?

Quote:It's unfortunate for newbies that arrive and use the same tired crap and maybe not so eloquent of us.

That sentence makes no sense, it is ungrammatical.

Quote:But your responses aren't very diverse either, Chippy.

You mainly post memes so you are in no position to make that accusation.

Quote:You say it's not condescending......... care to explain that?

No.

Quote:As has been tested and proven by you - superiority may well be true of any member on a particular subject but condescending (better than you) attitudes glazing knowledge doesn't seem to add sustainable value.

That doesn't mean anything, I can't parse it.

Quote:I think often the information is missed entirely due to a human reaction to the nastiness. Since the ability to deliver data with nastiness has been mastered might I suggest you try a different method if only for sake of variety? And would you consider a human reaction to nastiness a weakness or a strength?

You contribute nothing substantive to the forum and no one really gives a shit what you think. Look at this thread. There are many people wanting to know what I think about a matter. I neither want or need your worthless advice. You are a middle-aged woman that compulsively posts internet memes--why would I take your advice?

Quote:Speaking of 'sustainable" - why is it that you hold such value in someone's ability to hold "sustainable argumentation"?

The phrase is "sustained argumentation".

Quote: I propose that just because argumentation is of high value to You doesn't mean that's the definition of what is required for membership here. I did check and didn't see that listed as necessary.

Correct spelling and grammar isn't a requirement of membership either but that doesn't entail that they are of no value or that they are irrelevant.

Quote: You might want to bear in mind that some might have the skills for such but do not wish to spend their time that way. Just because someone doesn't engage you, Chippy, in argumentation might indicate they know less. Sure. But it might also mean they simply do not wish to encourage you.

Your empty hypotheticals are not worth bearing in mind. If my grandmother had testicles it might mean she is actually my grandfather. No one cares what something "might mean"--anything might mean anything. What matters is what something is likely to mean an what it actually does mean.

Quote:I am totally hurt that you'd use my "little pee girl" as an example of what NOT to do with pic application in threads. Now..........that............that hurt since I use that pic when someone's made me laugh. I won't argue about you doing that. I'll simply point out that you did so and it was a willful stab when I've chosen to be decent to you. It was a deliberate nastiness that you could have easily avoided. You may be smart but you seem to lack character.

You and Tourette's Chimp post memes because neither of you have anything interesting to post. Neither of you are intelligent, knowledgeable or witty so you just clog threads with your memes as if it is something only you can do.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 07:19 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 08:46 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You call me names because you have nothing left. You have been called countless times on your disingenuous tactics and intellectual dishonesty here and all you get now is ridicule. Too bad, little fail troll.

No, you are called names because they are apt. You are now called Tourette's Chimp because you behave like a lab chimp with brain damage that has been taught how to use the image tag. You are a 'tard and many people laugh at you when you do your lab chimp shtick.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 07:42 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 07:19 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:46 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You call me names because you have nothing left. You have been called countless times on your disingenuous tactics and intellectual dishonesty here and all you get now is ridicule. Too bad, little fail troll.

No, you are called names because they are apt. You are now called Tourette's Chimp because you behave like a lab chimp with brain damage that has been taught how to use the image tag. You are a 'tard and many people laugh at you when you do your lab chimp shtick.

Well you are just a rabid little ball of wishful thinking. And a loud-mouthed punk to boot.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 05:03 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:46 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You call me names because you have nothing left. You have been called countless times on your disingenuous tactics and intellectual dishonesty here and all you get now is ridicule. Too bad, little fail troll.

All you have, and done, is abusing anyone who disagrees with you.You need to grow up.

Bullshit. You have a serious projection problem, chump.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: