Anyone ever stop to think...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-05-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 11:29 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 12:42 AM)Vosur Wrote:  How do you know what "most" atheists do or don't have? It sounds like you're just talking out of your ass here.

It's from what I gather online. Most atheist sites suffer from that. Online presence may be a little vivacious.

(30-05-2014 11:16 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Conduct a thought experiment: Imagine that instead of the last 2000 years of superstition and theism we had 2000 years of skepticism and open scientific investigation. Which world would be better off?

I see what you're saying. For argument sake what are the chances that 2000 years of scepticism would cause a darwinian society to emerge. Now that would be an undesirable state of affairs. Consider

None at all? Social Darwinism is not a scientific theory and does not come from skepticism. It was an attempt to distort a theory in biology and apply that distorted theory to a wholly different discipline.
It was scientific ignorance that birthed Social Darwinism not skepticism.

That aside ensuring that the history books don't have to write another story like the Burning of the Library of Alexandria is MORE than enough reason to oppose religion. That was a betrayal of all humanity that ever existed or will exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
30-05-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 10:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 03:04 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  That is the tact nearly all atheists I have met take.

The "who gives a shit" point goes both ways. You don't have to read our books, and you don't have to watch our youtube channels. To my knowledge nobody is shoving atheism and skepticism down anybodies throats.

*tack

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tact

Dictionary Wrote:2. skill or judgment in handling difficult or delicate situations; diplomacy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 12:30 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 10:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  *tack

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tact

Dictionary Wrote:2. skill or judgment in handling difficult or delicate situations; diplomacy

No. You mean path in your statement, it is grammatically incorrect otherwise; so 'tack'.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 04:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  Point of discussion is exploring ideas. Atheism isn't undermined by questioning it. At the most this becomes an opportunity to clear up misconceptions.

Actually, everything he's said in the thread either reinforces common misconceptions or purposefully uses dismissive language for matters that are decidedly more serious.

The remainder of what he's saying confirms that he's only ever dealt with atheism online, but for a while he kept trying to pretend he was talking about it's real world applications. Angry

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
BlackMason Wrote:Anyone ever stop to think?
I do a lot of it. I started from the point of wondering what is the problem with the world, and what is the correction that needs to be implimented? It took two years until I recognized that the definition of religion was incorrect, and subsequently, I recognized there is a system of words that are used that deploy a detrimental vagueness to reasoning. Three years later I began to recognize that government is inadequately organized, and three years after that I recognized that knowledge classification was inadequate for modern standards. And now I have spent six years developing the solutions to these problems. I've done a lot of thinking - reasoning.

BlackMason Wrote:So I've been doing a little thinking about all this stuff. I got to a point of thinking what's the point? What's the point of this whole atheism/theism thing.
It has to do with describing/defining reality - theists believe that a supernatural god defines reality, and atheists believe that humans define reality. The problem is that atheists do not have the systematized description to challenge the theists chaotic doctrine.

BlackMason Wrote:As atheists, most of us carry an air of arrogance like you see in the matrix. The ones that know what's going on that is.
I am above all of them - nobody understand the margin of human error, as well as me.

Quote:It seems all rather theoretical. I don't see any real life advantage being an atheist. We're not much better off than theists. All we do as atheists is argue. Shit. Is that it?
As I said before the problem is that atheists do not have the systematized description to challenge the theists chaotic doctrine; and so they are quagmired in circular logic.

Quote:Is it really so bad being a theist? You believe in god, big deal so what? I'm talking mainly about those that were not abused in the name of religion. But as compared to the "regular" theist, what advantage do we have? Does this "advantage" warrant the attitude that we treat theists with?
Atheists have the ability to challenge the theist doctrines, but the lack the ability to challenge the secular doctrines, because they are disorderly, as well.

BlackMason Wrote:Yeah I get that theists pose a threat to the education system to some degree. So as atheists we gotta fight to preserve the integrity of education.
Atheists would be wise to organize a standardized education curiculum rather than relying on the assumption that it is adequate.

BlackMason Wrote:The average theist eats, sleeps and shits the same way we do. So what if they say a prayer before that meal or when they sleep? They're just as capable as any atheist.
You have obviously shared in the atheists Kool-Aid, because atheists cannot organize a bake sale.

sanmayl Wrote:We throw our hands in the air saying "I don't know the answer" when we cannot answer a particular question. Theists, especially the fundamentalists among them don't, they have answers to every question. They have the answers on their mind and their book prior to asking the question.

The most arogant of all are people that have a dogmatic answer to all questions, they know everything - and claim absolutism. We don't know the answers to all questions, and we are humble to admit it.
The problem is that if an atheist is as keen as you describe us, we do not have a reliable system to find the answers. Organize education and that should organize all the answers so you can locate them. Shouldn't be that difficult to figures-out.

true scotsman Wrote:Hopefully we have the advantage of not being delusional. I think not being delusional is a good thing to be.
If they are delusional why do you trust them so much as to live next door to them - why would you want to be friends with them???

sanmayl Wrote:The unacceptable thing that theist fundamentalist do is that they permanently marked/labelled atheist as evil. Anyone that opposes their view is evil in their eyes, which doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense - I do not see you making any objection to true scotsman's charge that theists are inherently delusional.

Michael_Tadlock Wrote:You don't have to read our books, and you don't have to watch our youtube channels. To my knowledge nobody is shoving atheism and skepticism down anybodies throats.
Yes you are when you insist that your reasoning is superior to their and that they must submit.

WindyCityJazz Wrote:I don't think of theists as being any different than me, other than the obvious difference when it comes to religion. You're stereotyping all atheists as having this attitude, yet I have never come across an atheist that thinks of theists as being any different than an atheist in their everyday life.
You didn't comprehend true scotman's charge - enough atheists harbour the sentiment, and display it behind the Christians backs, just like insecure racists.

WindyCityJazz Wrote:They have the right to voice their opinions like the rest of us. However, their opinions are also equally open to criticism, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US! They DO NOT get a free pass!
Laugh out load And atheists that you agree with you are right, and there is no group hysteria among atheists - right?

WindyCityJazz Wrote:Well, if a person claims their particular religion to be true, then they are also claiming that all others are false. There is no in-between in that argument. Whether they state it implicitly doesn't matter, it's already implied.
And you claim that your way of running society is the only true way, or can you compromise? Why can't you write the ultimate compromise so we can live in peace and harmony?

pablo628 Wrote:I shudder to think of what the world would be like if theism were allowed to run un-checked. Besides education, imagine the laws that would be passed.
What makes you so sure that it has been adequately checked??? I think it a big patchwork of errors.

UndercoverAtheist Wrote:I am now starting to lose my interest in the atheist community, and I completely understand your current position.
Atheists do not live up to my expectations either, but I do not believe in the existence of supernatural dimention of human experience - so I have to be their ultimate leader to reason.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 01:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 12:30 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tact

No. You mean path in your statement, it is grammatically incorrect otherwise; so 'tack'.

Tact is a noun. My grammer is usually very bad, but this time I am pretty sure I got it right. I think you are referring to this definition for tack:

dictionary Wrote:a course of action or conduct, especially one differing from some preceding or other course.

Which is not what I meant. I meant 'tact'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(29-05-2014 01:48 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  So I've been doing a little thinking about all this stuff. I got to a point of thinking what's the point? What's the point of this whole atheism/theism thing. As atheists, most of us carry an air of arrogance like you see in the matrix. The ones that know what's going on that is.

It seems all rather theoretical. I don't see any real life advantage being an atheist. We're not much better off than theists. All we do as atheists is argue. Shit. Is that it?

Is it really so bad being a theist? You believe in god, big deal so what? I'm talking mainly about those that were not abused in the name of religion. But as compared to the "regular" theist, what advantage do we have? Does this "advantage" warrant the attitude that we treat theists with?

Yeah I get that theists pose a threat to the education system to some degree. So as atheists we gotta fight to preserve the integrity of education. The average theist eats, sleeps and shits the same way we do. So what if they say a prayer before that meal or when they sleep? They're just as capable as any atheist.

*EDIT*
It seems necessary for me to add the following for clarity:

I'm talking about the attitude that atheists typically convey online.

I'm talking about the AVERAGE THEIST and not the fundie types Christian or otherwise.

Since I'm taking about the average theist, please don't post about them trying to change laws and shit. I doubt the average theist even cares bout that shit.

Finally, I'm questioning whether the attitude online is justified by anything observable.
The point of atheism is getting rid of one turd of a great heap of bullshit. It is application of philosophy (logic, rationality, science) on one small area of our lives. If you become an atheist by disbelieving in God because it doesn't make sense, maybe you can also look around and see what other things don't make sense and try not to believe in them too.

From time to time I see atheists trying to do that. There was this Atheism Plus initiative, blindly grasping at straws and getting taken over by feminists. But lots of people here have questions, or aren't satisfied. Getting rid of religion doesn't solve all our problems and science is always so... impersonal. What about the rest of our life? Our atheist sex lives are supposedly better, but what about life in general?

Only philosophy is about life in general, how life should be lived, virtue, happiness, knowing yourself, stuff like that. I'm afraid self-knowledge is an elite, extremely difficult discipline.
If you think struggling with faith and losing belief is difficult, try losing belief many other faiths that everyone has. Try losing belief in television, in government, in nationalism, sport teams, culture in general... That's overdoing it, do you feel that too? Try questioning and evaluating goodness of people who raised you.

I have found all these losses of belief to be on par with stories of leaving religions or even cults in favor of reason and evidence. Yet I think they cut much deeper than religion, because at least they're not gone for 2000 years like god, it's everyday stuff. If you try to think critically about the fundamentals of society and family, you will get as afraid as Christians get of God smiting them or sending them to Hell. Like Christians, you will doubt if you are the crazy one, questioning everything will feel like madness. Becoming philosophical would make you as alien among atheists as atheists are alien among Christians.

Becoming philosophical is a very difficult path. But my life was difficult anyway, so I chose the interesting difficult, I chose the difficult that actually does something or that seems to piss off other people more. I've never had many friends anyway Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
30-05-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 03:30 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 01:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  No. You mean path in your statement, it is grammatically incorrect otherwise; so 'tack'.

Tact is a noun. My grammer is usually very bad, but this time I am pretty sure I got it right. I think you are referring to this definition for tack:

dictionary Wrote:a course of action or conduct, especially one differing from some preceding or other course.

Which is not what I meant. I meant 'tact'.

You said "That is the tact nearly all atheists I have met take. "
The sentence is ungrammatical and semanticly incoherent.
If you meant that those atheists use tact in discussion, then you should say that.

Your sentence says "nearly all atheists I have met take that tact." Make sense? No.

One uses tact, one takes a tack.

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-05-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 03:30 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Tact is a noun. My grammer is usually very bad, but this time I am pretty sure I got it right. I think you are referring to this definition for tack:


Which is not what I meant. I meant 'tact'.

You said "That is the tact nearly all atheists I have met take. "
The sentence is ungrammatical and semanticly incoherent.
If you meant that those atheists use tact in discussion, then you should say that.

Your sentence says "nearly all atheists I have met take that tact." Make sense? No.

One uses tact, one takes a tack.

Well now you are mincing the finer points of semantics, not grammer. Grammatically you can 'take' any noun you like. Maybe tack would be more clear in that case. Meh, I think we all know what I meant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: Anyone ever stop to think...
(30-05-2014 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 03:30 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Tact is a noun. My grammer is usually very bad, but this time I am pretty sure I got it right. I think you are referring to this definition for tack:


Which is not what I meant. I meant 'tact'.

You said "That is the tact nearly all atheists I have met take. "
The sentence is ungrammatical and semanticly incoherent.
If you meant that those atheists use tact in discussion, then you should say that.

Your sentence says "nearly all atheists I have met take that tact." Make sense? No.

One uses tact, one takes a tack.

Actually, on further reflection I am not satisfied with that.

It is worth noting that the offending term here is not "tact" as you have pointed out, it is the verb usage of "take". You are asserting that the verb "take" is ill applied and obfuscates the meaning of the sentence. I would agree that the term "take" in this context is ambiguous, but still very parsable. Take can be a synonym for the verb "choose", as in "take a pick". You can use the term "take" to apply not only to physical things but abstract concepts, like "take justice". In that way "take", meaning to choose an abstract thing "tact", from a choice of one or more "tacts", is an appropriate use of the term.

I would agree that I had I formed the sentence this way

"Nearly all atheists I have met choose that tact ".

then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Tact is preciously the term I meant, and it better reflects my intended meaning than "tack".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: