3 questions for atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2014, 09:49 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 09:14 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 08:19 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  don't really care either way. Not believing in something defined and having no opinion on something undefined don't really seem to differ much in terms of psychological state to me. If you are that dedicated to splitting hairs over something that results in such trivial difference of psychological preoccupancy with a concept (barring being an atheist activist) then go ahead an have at it. I don't see the point though.

The difference for me is pretending to hold some sort of ability to be able to validate/authenticate existence. This manifests in various ways when dealing with people of faith. If they don't mess with my life,they can believe whatever they want, I really don't care. I find the arrogance and conceit of most atheists I've met to be really lacking in respect for people's belief. Sure, it makes no sense to me, but who am I to tell them what to do? I find it interesting that they do believe rather than finding it a source to mock.

The atheist position seems solely a response to theism, I'm saying agnosticism is a position which stands alone.

Quote:I don't use the term "atheist" to rebel. I am not an anti-theist. I am however, anti-fundamentalist.

Then I don't understand why you would identify as an atheist, theists may call you one, but who cares. I think most people are anti-fundamentalist anything.

Quote:Because even though I have logically deduced them to be logically invalid, I am a fallible creature. And yes, we virtually "know" nothing if you mean "know" in the sense of absolute certainty. I simply reject this notion of yours that it's impossible to develop a position on something that falls into the realm of human comprehension simply by claiming knowledge on it is "unknowable." Why is knowledge on humanly conceived deities "unknowable?" If you are making the claim that we can't know for certain, then right on. If not, then what's the fucking point? Might as well claim that you can't take a position on any matter at all if any conceivable thing will always fall under unknowable (and then agnostic really IS a worthless tag since it would be the only justifiable choice for anything). What's your criteria for defining something as unknowable? It's clearly not just epistemologically unknowable gods, because I have no qualms with you on that (other than the labeling) and yet we still seem to be in a disagreement on something.

Of course you would. If it falls into the realm of human comprehension, it would no longer be unknowable. You want me to tell you a conceivable thing which is unknowable? The "fucking point" is I don't proclaim the ability to possess the ability to know. Lack of evidence doesn't provide evidence for anything, either way. I'm not saying humanly conceived deities are unknowable, I'm saying I believe the riddle of existence in general is unknowable. This includes/precludes a deity.

Do you believe that existence has an answer (a cause)? I'm not implying a deity, it could be random too, but why can we not consider that as a byproduct of the universe that we might not ever solve it.


Quote:And here comes the topic of ightheism! What is a god? You and I seem to have two separate ideas pop in our heads first at the mention of that word, as does everyone else. And for the record, you do seem the make the assumption that it's not "knowable." If the conditions are self-evidently unknowable (ie: epistemological unknowable by default), then fine, but what about ones that aren't, by default, epistemological unknowables? What about a case by case basis? Are you agnostic in regards to all gods, and that by default ALL gods fall under the category of unknowable? Because if so this seems to be a major source of disagreement between us.

Definitely, I think IF a god exists it's not knowable, or it would have been known to man now. I could be wrong, that's my assumption. It's a case by case basis, I don't spend any time considering gods who may exist and how they would be knowable. No I'm not agnostic to all gods. What gods would not be unknowable? That's a question I never thought I'd ask.

Well, I guess I've satisfied--- or am at least as satisfied as I could possibly be---with what it is you believe and where you are coming from. I still gotta say, I think the bulk of this argument is over semantics. Since I got what I wanted, I'll leave you be now.

Oh, and don't mind the resident bulldog; give him a bone and he will chomp on it for hours (in fact I'm not sure he knows how to do much else).

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tartarus Sauce's post
08-01-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 09:43 PM)sporehux Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 09:20 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Agnosticism doesn't give any validity to fundies at all, it claims we cannot know or that theists are not justified in their beliefs, so there's no basis for any fundamentalism at all.

My view of Agnosticism is not "we don't know" to every god ever conceived. That just goes down a ridiculous path.

To judge something as more improbable than probable you should consider it invalid (atheist, not Agnostic)

Space faring Aliens: It's more probable to think they exist because of the size of the universe and so on
Alien agnosticism is a valid stance:
Abduction evidence is absurd and fits more with human ego: abduction disbelief (Atheistic) is more rational.

Agnosticism should be the brief point in time you are investigating a subject to validate the evidence:

To say to children (especially) that an invisible entity that endorses all the horrors in the bible could be real, and an eternity of torture in hell fire awaits them unless they choose one unproveable deity over another.

All because your too lazy to read the Bible and make a decision on its validity
you just say well it may be true, that is why i could not continue claiming Agnosticism

How do you propose that you are in any position to assess what is probable. Also 49% does not equal invalid.

Reading the bible has nothing to do with validating it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 10:07 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 09:44 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Oh bless you tourettes.. You think I'm addressing you. Love it

I thought no such thing. But I am addressing you. Deal with it.

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
08-01-2014, 10:12 PM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
OH WAIT! There is one more thing, and I'm sorry if you addressed this somewhere in the previous 800+ posts, but why DID you choose the name Brownshirt?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 12:49 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 10:07 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 09:44 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  Oh bless you tourettes.. You think I'm addressing you. Love it

I thought no such thing. But I am addressing you. Deal with it.

[Image: minipom.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 12:53 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 10:12 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  OH WAIT! There is one more thing, and I'm sorry if you addressed this somewhere in the previous 800+ posts, but why DID you choose the name Brownshirt?

To be fair I've only made about 1/3. Anyway, I have a brownshirt for wearing at work shirt which is poo colour to show my indirect disdain for the workplace. Luckily brownshirt only needs to lose an r and it becomes brownshit.

There's no nazi connection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brownshirt's post
09-01-2014, 12:57 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(09-01-2014 12:53 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  To be fair I've only made about 1/3. Anyway, I have a brownshirt for wearing at work shirt which is poo colour to show my indirect disdain for the workplace. Luckily brownshirt only needs to lose an r and it becomes brownshit.

There's no nazi connection.

You like to be smeared with shit? Why doesn't that come as a big fuckin' surprise?

-- Max

I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I am not afraid to go out of it that way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 01:01 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
Thanks for your input Max.

If i misspell shirt it actually doesn't change to shit, it still remains a shirt. Why am I not surprised that you thought it changed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 01:37 AM
RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 09:52 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 09:43 PM)sporehux Wrote:  To judge something as more improbable than probable you should consider it invalid (atheist, not Agnostic)

Space faring Aliens: It's more probable to think they exist because of the size of the universe and so on
Alien agnosticism is a valid stance:
Abduction evidence is absurd and fits more with human ego: abduction disbelief (Atheistic) is more rational.

Agnosticism should be the brief point in time you are investigating a subject to validate the evidence:

To say to children (especially) that an invisible entity that endorses all the horrors in the bible could be real, and an eternity of torture in hell fire awaits them unless they choose one unproveable deity over another.

All because your too lazy to read the Bible and make a decision on its validity
you just say well it may be true, that is why i could not continue claiming Agnosticism

How do you propose that you are in any position to assess what is probable. Also 49% does not equal invalid.

Reading the bible has nothing to do with validating it.
I have a personal relationship with probability.

Reading the bible is a major cause of Atheism especially if you compare it to Gilgamesh and other pre monotheism religions.

So how do you propose to validate it without reading it do tell.
G

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2014, 05:30 AM
Re: RE: 3 questions for atheists
(08-01-2014 07:42 PM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(08-01-2014 06:24 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Oh boy, I can foresee this heading into igtheist territory.

So, yes, the contention seems to be mostly semantics. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that "atheist" encompasses a lack of belief in an epistemologically unknowable god because I'm not an advocate for giving labels to epistemological unknowables. You give an epistemological unknowable a label and all of the sudden you've given it a form to attach conceptions to, and I don't think I need to explain why that doesn't work.

I consider myself an atheist in regards to the very much humanly conceived images of deities which most certainly do not fall under the category of "epistemological unknowable," and that's what I've always conceived the word "atheist" to entail. If you must have a breakdown:

Psychologically, I am atheist---I do not worry about the existence of gods or concern myself with them in my day to day routine or how these hypothetical beings would react to my actions, because I don't think they exist.
Logically, I am atheist---for all logical pathways I follow and all evidence presented to me point in the direction of gods being manmade constructs with no basis in external reality.
Epistemologically, I am agnostic---1. Even though I consider them logically invalid, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they could exist regardless ( I just don't think it's rational to assume they do). 2. The case of unknowable gods, which I have no opinion on since I can't have one (although as I've said, I don't think it's justifiable to give such entities/forces/whatever-ma-bobs the label "god" at this point).

Hence I consider myself agnostic atheist or if you still really have problems with that you can interchange it with weak atheist.

Is everything clear now?


I think atheist does automatically dismiss any form of god defined or undefined. There's no evidence for an undefined god either, so I would presume you would lack belief as well?

Some might describe me as an atheist as I don't live my life based on religious dogma, go to church, prey etc. I simply do not describe myself based on what someone else does, it makes no sense. You could also call me a non-latte drinker, but why would you? Atheist seems terribly anachronistic there's nothing to rebel against anymore.

I don't get how you separate logic and epistemology, you use logic to develop your epistemology. If you're agnostic you make no claims on the ability to assess chance.
You seem to be working on the assumption as you're 99.99% sure a teapot isn't revolving around the moon, you're agnostic. If you work on that basis you virtually know nothing. It still makes the tag worthless.

What should I call the thing a me bobs then, deity is a concept, nothing more. People may give it different attributes based on their own perception of what is must be, I make no assumptions about that. Actually that's not true, I would say a deity is a cause of "what is", if it exists.

If someone is gnostic anything, you would either think them mad or illogical. So this is not a worthwhile tag either.

I am gnostic in regards to the can I am holding. I know it is a 7up can. It says it is, tastes like it is, and I took it from a box of other 7up cans. Am I mad it illogical? No, your point is so eschewed I don't know what you're basing it off.

You keep assuming and saying you think atheists assert things or make claims that have no connection to being atheist. Besides that, many atheists in this "community" come from a skeptical basis, which comes from trying to look evidence without making any claims or assumptions beforehand.

To the commonly held definitions, if you lack any active belief in a deity, you are an atheist. I think you would fit that label but I wouldn't call you that for any reason because I've got no reason to go around telling people what term they should use to describe themselves.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: