3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 08:29 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 07:45 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 05:03 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

You don't know what projection is you fuck wit. All you do is post abuse and memes. That is your shtick, your circus tricks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:37 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 07:42 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Well you are just a rabid little ball of wishful thinking. And a loud-mouthed punk to boot.

You are a worthless turd that contributes nothing to the forum and lacks any ability to contribute anything of value to the forum. You are internet trash and more people here are coming to realise that. Your greatest contribution to humanity will be to the nitrogen cycle when you die. Moronic Tourette's chimp.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:49 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 08:29 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 07:45 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Bullshit. You have a serious projection problem, chump.

You don't know what projection is you fuck wit. All you do is post abuse and memes. That is your shtick, your circus tricks.



(24-01-2014 08:37 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 07:42 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Well you are just a rabid little ball of wishful thinking. And a loud-mouthed punk to boot.

You are a worthless turd that contributes nothing to the forum and lacks any ability to contribute anything of value to the forum. You are internet trash and more people here are coming to realise that. Your greatest contribution to humanity will be to the nitrogen cycle when you die. Moronic Tourette's chimp.

[Image: U_Mad_Bro.jpeg]


[Image: 1.gif]

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, 09:34 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 08:49 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:29 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You don't know what projection is you fuck wit. All you do is post abuse and memes. That is your shtick, your circus tricks.



(24-01-2014 08:37 PM)Chippy Wrote:  You are a worthless turd that contributes nothing to the forum and lacks any ability to contribute anything of value to the forum. You are internet trash and more people here are coming to realise that. Your greatest contribution to humanity will be to the nitrogen cycle when you die. Moronic Tourette's chimp.

[Image: U_Mad_Bro.jpeg]


[Image: 1.gif]

Pointing out facts are not indicative of being mad. Do you lack substance in real life as well, or is this your real life?

I think you're just happy for some form of interaction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 04:53 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

IRL it just never comes up. It's just another philosophical conclusion that I have amongst many. I also have a view about the philosophy of mathematics--that too has no purpose as such beyond the general purpose of wanting to have a worldview that is consistent--as much as is possible--with reality.

Quote: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.

I have problems with it too. It may turn out to be outside the limits of explanation. I just don't know. It is unlikely to be resolved in my lifetime. We just have to let physics run its course for another 100 years or so and see what happens.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 09:34 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Pointing out facts are not indicative of being mad. Do you lack substance in real life as well, or is this your real life?

Tourette's Chimp stumbles over fundamental conceptual distinctions. I told him that it that it is incapable of creating a humorous meme. He created a crap one and then told me that I was wrong. I reiterated my statement and it didn't understand. Clearly I did not think it was a humorous meme and hence not a meme because no one would use it. That conceptual distinction was just too complicated for our Tourette's Chimp.

Quote:I think you're just happy for some form of interaction.

It is some sort of shut-in Tourette's chimp so online interaction is all that it has.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 10:02 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
BS, look at this. It's Tourette's Chimp being challenged to a debate and it refuses. The Tourette's Chimp was banned from that forum. You can see the same old tropes in Tourette's Chimps posts.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 10:15 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Tourette's Chimp, is there a topic that you actually do have knowledge about?

Your posts at atheistforums.org are just as cognitively vacuous and emotive as those you make here. You seem to think that you can refute an argument by merely expressing incredulity using a (stale) internet meme.

What an utter jerk off you are!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 11:45 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2014 12:21 AM by DLJ.)
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 04:54 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(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.

Thanks. Although I think I have only a little to add (now that some semblance of rational discussion has started to emerge from the melee).

btw, please forgive my initial reticence regarding your original questions but I guess you've realised now that your initial approach mirrored the style of the fly-by trolls that we often get here and you've witnessed the jadednessosity of many here.

The modified questions would have probably been received more graciously.
Although, I have been enjoying some of the Chipslaps along the way. Blush


I'll try to summarise from what I have been reading here (in particular, your post #1577)... apologies if I have misunderstood.

Original questions:
1. Why do you have an active lack of belief? The position comes across as one who wants to be recognised as one who negates any form of god but not have to prove anything.
2. What is the purpose of atheism?
3. Why believe evidence is (or will be) available to confirm or negate a god?

Modified questions:
Taking membership of this forum as an active rather than passive position:
1. Why do you actively identify as an atheist?
2. To what end?
3. Is the demand for evidence for theistic positions reasonable and why?

To cut my response short, I'll use Chippy's post #1579 as a baseline.

1. Chippy's response:
I don't have active non-belief in general only in relation to those gods that have been seriously proposed as existing and that I know much about, namely Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah. On the basis of what I know about these gods their existence is extremely unlikely, i.e. it is more probable that I will win the first prize in a national lottery than it is that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real.

I think the concept of a god is logically coherent so the existence of a god is logically possible. I am not an igtheist because I am unconvinced that the concept of a god is incoherent. Were I an igtheist I would be able to rule out all gods because the notion would be logically incoherent. I would be able to confidently say that the probability of any god existing is zero.

However, if something is logically possible then the probability that the thing exists must be greater than zero. Any deity that is logically coherent and hence logically possible must have some non-zero probability of existing. The probability of some as yet undefined god existing is higher than the probability that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real but not much more so. This category of gods is improbable because of the lack of positive evidence. I don't have a narrative about these gods so I can't make specific conclusions but the absence of positive evidence for their existence leaves them improbable.

The intrinsic probability of FSM and Zeus existing is very, very small because the first is a parody and the second is very unparsimonious but both must have a non-zero probability. I can't categorically rule out the existence of FSM or Zeus because both are logically possible. The probability of FSM and Zeus existing is even smaller than that of Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah.
+ my 2 cents:
It can be a convenient label that quickly establishes a stance for debate purposes.
I will say I'm Welsh (on my father's side) if I want to distinguish myself from or antagonise loud English bar-trash.
I will say I am Jewish (on my mother's side) for similar reasons but I have to be careful with this one when in Indonesia, Malaysia etc.
I might just say 'Free Thinker' if I'm not in argumentative-mode.

Recently however, I have started using the term 'abolitionist' as explained here.

2. Camaraderie, solidarity and bloody-mindedness.

There is a declared intent to TTA that makes it a little different (compared to more debate-focused fora (forums, forii, whatever)). The TTA site, as a whole, was created to create a community.
At times, it gets a little too in-groupy, a little too over-protective (hence criticism of being no better than a religion) for my taste but in here (this forum), there is an attempt to provide a supportive safe-haven... a sanctuary (?!).

At the same time, it is still a forum for debates and discussions. The shifts between community and debate forum have caused strain at times.

I'm sure I don't have to explain why solidarity matters.
I too, am lucky enough to live in a non-theocratic society so it is not so important here but I often travel to other countries where there is greater risk in identifying as e.g. a non-muslim, so ra-ra-ra, solidarnosc, comrade!

3. Chippy's response:
The eventual non-arrival of the messiah, Jesus and Judgement after say 1000 years will render Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively even more unlikely to be true than they currently are. Other than that it is unlikely that there will be any specific evidence to confirm or negate the existence of a god. I am uncertain what such evidence would even consist in for either case.

If it can be demonstrated conclusively that theism is logically incoherent then that would show that no confirmatory evidence will ever appear. But aside from that possibility I can't think of any piece of evidence which would either definitively confirm or negate the existence of deity in general. Even the appearance of someone claiming to be Jesus that had apparently supernatural abilities would not conclusively establish that it was in fact a deity--it could be a malevolent alien using some advanced technology. There exists no test to determine if a thing that claims to be a deity is in actuality a deity.

So should I really say I am agnostic rather than atheistic. Probably, but if I did so it might give the wrong impression that I am deliberating about Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah or some other proposed deity when I'm not. 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.

How did I assign the probabilities? With Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah with reference to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness and the historical knowledge regarding the origin of their respective scriptures. With the other as yet undefined deities with reference to the absence of any positive evidence. How do I know what to deem positive evidence? It would have to be something that naturalism is entirely incapable of explaining. 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.
To which, you replied:
(24-01-2014 04:53 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

To which I will add:
I do organisational assessments for a living.
There are different forms of evidence gathered in different ways e.g.:
Observation
Inspection
Re-perform / re-calculate
Interviews.

Some can be likened to the scientific method but caution is required i.e. Interviews are great for a 'culture' assessment but useless for establishing facts.
Vice versa for Re-calculation.

The aim is to be as objective as possible and objectivity requires a scale/axioms.

Zero on the scale = 'Non-existent' i.e. lack of evidence. But in truth, 0 usually means 'not enough evidence gathered to justify a 1 (on a 0-5 scale).

It is generally accepted that the most objective results will be gained by using an external assessor (from without, rather than from within) but that does not mean that internal assessments are useless. It's just that more caution is required when basing decisions on the (potentially more subjective) results of an internal (i.e. self-)assessment.

So given all that, the consistent skeptic will be best advised to establish baselines by asking:
"What do you believe and why?"

But this is the internet... why expect consistency?

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
25-01-2014, 01:02 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(24-01-2014 11:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 04:54 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  No of course it's not. Fire away.

Thanks. Although I think I have only a little to add (now that some semblance of rational discussion has started to emerge from the melee).

btw, please forgive my initial reticence regarding your original questions but I guess you've realised now that your initial approach mirrored the style of the fly-by trolls that we often get here and you've witnessed the jadednessosity of many here.

The modified questions would have probably been received more graciously.
Although, I have been enjoying some of the Chipslaps along the way. Blush


I'll try to summarise from what I have been reading here (in particular, your post #1577)... apologies if I have misunderstood.

Original questions:
1. Why do you have an active lack of belief? The position comes across as one who wants to be recognised as one who negates any form of god but not have to prove anything.
2. What is the purpose of atheism?
3. Why believe evidence is (or will be) available to confirm or negate a god?

Modified questions:
Taking membership of this forum as an active rather than passive position:
1. Why do you actively identify as an atheist?
2. To what end?
3. Is the demand for evidence for theistic positions reasonable and why?

To cut my response short, I'll use Chippy's post #1579 as a baseline.

1. Chippy's response:
I don't have active non-belief in general only in relation to those gods that have been seriously proposed as existing and that I know much about, namely Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah. On the basis of what I know about these gods their existence is extremely unlikely, i.e. it is more probable that I will win the first prize in a national lottery than it is that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real.

I think the concept of a god is logically coherent so the existence of a god is logically possible. I am not an igtheist because I am unconvinced that the concept of a god is incoherent. Were I an igtheist I would be able to rule out all gods because the notion would be logically incoherent. I would be able to confidently say that the probability of any god existing is zero.

However, if something is logically possible then the probability that the thing exists must be greater than zero. Any deity that is logically coherent and hence logically possible must have some non-zero probability of existing. The probability of some as yet undefined god existing is higher than the probability that Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah are real but not much more so. This category of gods is improbable because of the lack of positive evidence. I don't have a narrative about these gods so I can't make specific conclusions but the absence of positive evidence for their existence leaves them improbable.

The intrinsic probability of FSM and Zeus existing is very, very small because the first is a parody and the second is very unparsimonious but both must have a non-zero probability. I can't categorically rule out the existence of FSM or Zeus because both are logically possible. The probability of FSM and Zeus existing is even smaller than that of Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah.
+ my 2 cents:
It can be a convenient label that quickly establishes a stance for debate purposes.
I will say I'm Welsh (on my father's side) if I want to distinguish myself from or antagonise loud English bar-trash.
I will say I am Jewish (on my mother's side) for similar reasons but I have to be careful with this one when in Indonesia, Malaysia etc.
I might just say 'Free Thinker' if I'm not in argumentative-mode.

Recently however, I have started using the term 'abolitionist' as explained here.

2. Camaraderie, solidarity and bloody-mindedness.

There is a declared intent to TTA that makes it a little different (compared to more debate-focused fora (forums, forii, whatever)). The TTA site, as a whole, was created to create a community.
At times, it gets a little too in-groupy, a little too over-protective (hence criticism of being no better than a religion) for my taste but in here (this forum), there is an attempt to provide a supportive safe-haven... a sanctuary (?!).

At the same time, it is still a forum for debates and discussions. The shifts between community and debate forum have caused strain at times.

I'm sure I don't have to explain why solidarity matters.
I too, am lucky enough to live in a non-theocratic society so it is not so important here but I often travel to other countries where there is greater risk in identifying as e.g. a non-muslim, so ra-ra-ra, solidarnosc, comrade!

3. Chippy's response:
The eventual non-arrival of the messiah, Jesus and Judgement after say 1000 years will render Judaism, Christianity and Islam respectively even more unlikely to be true than they currently are. Other than that it is unlikely that there will be any specific evidence to confirm or negate the existence of a god. I am uncertain what such evidence would even consist in for either case.

If it can be demonstrated conclusively that theism is logically incoherent then that would show that no confirmatory evidence will ever appear. But aside from that possibility I can't think of any piece of evidence which would either definitively confirm or negate the existence of deity in general. Even the appearance of someone claiming to be Jesus that had apparently supernatural abilities would not conclusively establish that it was in fact a deity--it could be a malevolent alien using some advanced technology. There exists no test to determine if a thing that claims to be a deity is in actuality a deity.

So should I really say I am agnostic rather than atheistic. Probably, but if I did so it might give the wrong impression that I am deliberating about Yahweh, the Trinity or Allah or some other proposed deity when I'm not. 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.

How did I assign the probabilities? With Yahweh, the Trinity and Allah with reference to the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness and the historical knowledge regarding the origin of their respective scriptures. With the other as yet undefined deities with reference to the absence of any positive evidence. How do I know what to deem positive evidence? It would have to be something that naturalism is entirely incapable of explaining. 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.
To which, you replied:
(24-01-2014 04:53 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  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.

To which I will add:
I do organisational assessments for a living.
There are different forms of evidence gathered in different ways e.g.:
Observation
Inspection
Re-perform / re-calculate
Interviews.

Some can be likened to the scientific method but caution is required i.e. Interviews are great for a 'culture' assessment but useless for establishing facts.
Vice versa for Re-calculation.

The aim is to be as objective as possible and objectivity requires a scale/axioms.

Zero on the scale = 'Non-existent' i.e. lack of evidence. But in truth, 0 usually means 'not enough evidence gathered to justify a 1 (on a 0-5 scale).

It is generally accepted that the most objective results will be gained by using an external assessor (from without, rather than from within) but that does not mean that internal assessments are useless. It's just that more caution is required when basing decisions on the (potentially more subjective) results of an internal (i.e. self-)assessment.

So given all that, the consistent skeptic will be best advised to establish baselines by asking:
"What do you believe and why?"

But this is the internet... why expect consistency?

Wink

I agree with everything you wrote. I use caution (in the same context as you specified above) to the point where self-assessment is pretty much worthless.

I can see what you're saying re: my questions. It seems everyone is so delicate when looking to defend their position. I do believe there is a fundamental epistemological difference between atheist and what I deem to be agnostic, so my questions are probably not going to be received well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: