Dumb Atheist Sayings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2016, 11:54 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 11:22 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 11:12 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I'm editting out the parts that I didn't think related to the discussion for the purposes of clarity and brevity. It has become evident to me that we are talking at complete cross-purposes here.


Please allow me to explain. You've misunderstood my meaning entirely, possibly because I was unclear. The quote above that you have in bold should read, "Anybody [e.g: an infant] who can't understand the basic concepts [regarding belief/disbelief] doesn't count [as an atheist or theist]. Their [infants, goats, ferns and rocks] incapable of forming an opinion."

That quote was not directed at potential opponent. It refers soley to those whose minds are at the nascent formative stages. I am very much not the sort to dismiss opposing views in that way.

I was honestly shocked by the intensity of your response but if this is how you have misinterpretted my statement then I completely understand your fury. I'd have been less charitable. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear.

Peace?
-Paleo

Okay, yes, we are at cross purposes. I apologize, I misunderstood who you were speaking of. Of course, peace. Smile

Peace Hug

Quote:Addition: But you're still wrong. No qualifiers are necessary for the meaning of "no god beliefs". The concept of god does not have to be in play and rejected in order to be an atheist. Anything and everything without god belief is technically atheist.

Even my socks? They do not believe in god but are lamentably holey.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
15-05-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 11:54 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 11:22 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Okay, yes, we are at cross purposes. I apologize, I misunderstood who you were speaking of. Of course, peace. Smile

Peace Hug

Quote:Addition: But you're still wrong. No qualifiers are necessary for the meaning of "no god beliefs". The concept of god does not have to be in play and rejected in order to be an atheist. Anything and everything without god belief is technically atheist.

Even my socks? They do not believe in god but are lamentably holey.

Yep, even your sox. Now don't you love them all the more? Heart

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
15-05-2016, 12:03 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 11:54 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Even my socks? They do not believe in god but are lamentably holey.

Your socks are not a person. A baby is not a fully developed person either, but it is a potential person.

But even so, you are still ignoring the fact that the argument has nothing to do with what you think. I made some points in four posts in this thread and you have yet to address any of them, yet insist with your position.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
15-05-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 10:36 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Without taking a stance on that question at all, I don't need to hold to a belief in absolute morality to point out there's a logical inconsistency with that larger idea.

If you subscribe to subjective morality there can be no contradiction, because there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. A theist who believes God is benevolent, is no more wrong in this view, than you are in liking a different genre of music than I do.

Quote:Computer chips have no free will (not unless they're badly broken) and yet can process information logically. Without me taking a stance on the free will issue either way, how is this a dumb thing to say?

A computer chips run according to the rules and dictates of their programmers. If free-will will doesn't exist, than you can't choose how your brain thinks and process information. How your brain operates and processes information is dictated by causal factors outside of your control.

Quote:"I just believe in one less God than you" is a way to help people deep into the religion to visualize what not believing in the Christian God is like, by comparing it to their own nonbelief in Zeus, Horus, etc. It's still got a lot of potential for expressing that idea. Used more freely, rather than for that specific purpose, it's pretty trite, but in that particular role it's powerful. How is it dumb when used for that specific purpose?

No, religious people tend to meet the claim with a collective wince. As silly, as if I were to tell you that I just believe in one more God than you.

Quote:"Who created God" is a bit dumb in general conversation, but it has a specific role as a counterapologetic to various arguments that boil down to "something had to create everything, and that something was God".

If you respond to questions about first cause, with who created God, it just means you didn't understand the question to begin with, because God by definition, is uncaused.

An analogy would be if you're an atheists who believed in a universe that always existed, and then someone asked you who created this always existing universe? Perhaps here you can see why the question is non-sense, because you hold to the belief in uncaused universe.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 09:17 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(14-05-2016 05:51 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  I don't like when atheists say "I believe in science." It makes it seem like your belief is equal to a spiritual one and instead it's better to say "I trust the validity of the scientific method." or "I trust that the intentions of the scientific community isn't to disprove a God but to simply discover the truth,religion is not interested in the truth." Anything that pits belief vs. belief is bad, it should always be truth vs. belief or facts vs. myths.

I believe in the evidence.

You're right, science isn't something that you should believe in. However there is belief and Belief, much like there is faith and Faith. I love to hate that confationary argument.

I believe in the evidence.
I do not Believe in the evidence.

Any theist who can't tell the difference is the sort that will shortly be equivocating about semantics so don't worry about your wording with them.

This is a great point and the reason why I find myself always having to clarify and state that I accept science because it can be duplicated in peer review studies, it relies on tangible evidence and proof. Even if we can't "observe" something we can assume what probably happened based on current events in nature. Like how the universe is expanding and getting cooler, there was once a time it was dense and hot. It's like walking into a room where you find a dead body, blood everywhere, bloody footprints, etc. We can assume a murder took place, now we gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc.

It's amazing how often I have to use metaphors like this, it should be obvious but I always get the "Well did you see this happen? Were you there?" No, but I didn't have to be, you weren't there when your God supposedly created the universe so you don't know for sure but there is no evidence this ever happened so why believe it? I believe because of empirical evidence and facts, it's just that simple and facts don't change depending on belief, they are what they are regardless.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
15-05-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 12:03 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  I made some points in four posts in this thread and you have yet to address any of them, yet insist with your position.

My apologies. This thread has taken an abrupt detour from the topic that I had itnended to address, gotten very busy and fallen down a hole of misunderstanding. I did not mean to neglect you points.

(15-05-2016 12:03 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 11:54 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Even my socks? They do not believe in god but are lamentably holey.

Your socks are not a person. A baby is not a fully developed person either, but it is a potential person.

The Argument from Potential is not a sound one to make. Babies are potentially short-lived, potentialy long-lived, potentially atheists, potentially the Pope, potentially a war criminals. Potentially a person can be anything so the Argument from Potential is meaningless, as we told the Right to Lifers long ago.

(15-05-2016 10:44 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 10:06 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I'm simply saying that a newborn has no more capacity for belief or disbelief than a goat or a fern or a rock. Consequently you cannot be born an atheist, at least not using the biological definition of birth.

Being an atheist does not mean knowing gods and rejecting them. It means being without a god.

Then how are the left-overs that I plan on eating for supper not atheists?

Quote:You are born an atheist (without a god) as you are born without a religion, without a favorite football team, without political stances etc. You don't need to be able to grasp the concept to be one. A baby cannot grasp the concept of "baby", yet is is a baby.

A baby is a baby just as a rock is a rock. It's a state of existence we've slapped a label onto that has nothing to do with belief or lack thereof.

I'll get to the rest in a moment.

Quote:No. Communism, a free-market economy and religion are human constructs. Atheism is not. Atheism is not a position, it is a state.

I beg to differ. If it were a state then the lettuce that I planted last week should be sprouting little atheists.

Quote:Again, this argument is not about having babies on our side. It is about showing that religion is taught (even if there is a tendency for it in our genes) and believing in a god is not innate (as many theists tend to believe).

Agreed. The argument that religion is not innate, that we are not all born good little Christians, is important. As such it is necessary to ensure that it is a sound argument and I feel that insisting that we are born atheists is incorrect and thus undermines the argument we are both trying to support. I'm going to try and explain my reasoning fully in my next post.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 11:56 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 11:54 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Peace Hug


Even my socks? They do not believe in god but are lamentably holey.

Yep, even your sox. Now don't you love them all the more? Heart

My holesome atheist socks have left me with cold, wet feet. I love them not at all.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
15-05-2016, 01:42 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
Something that annoys the fuck outta me is the way that we're forced to use language in a really precise manner because some twerp is gonna twist it if not.

You can't just say "I believe in science" because some idiot theist is going to create a whole sub religion around a single carelessly worded sentence. If I say "I believe in science" to someone remotely intelligent they do not conclude that I offer sacrifice to "the Science" or that I worship at the altar or whatever the fuck random shite springs to mind, they simply conclude that I as using shorthand wording for "I believe that the scientific method works".

It extends (as proven in this very thread) to the word atheist itself. Frankly I'm perfectly fine with saying "I believe no Gods exist" *or* "I do not have faith in any God" but because theists have taken to this ridiculous position that "atheism is a religion" we spend endless posts explaining for example to Tommy that in fact if he could produce any evidence whatsoever for his allegedly omnipresent deity then we would, in fact, change our minds about the existence of the same.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
15-05-2016, 02:20 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 01:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  My apologies. This thread has taken an abrupt detour from the topic that I had itnended to address, gotten very busy and fallen down a hole of misunderstanding. I did not mean to neglect you points.

No worries. It happens.

(15-05-2016 01:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  The Argument from Potential is not a sound one to make. Babies are potentially short-lived, potentialy long-lived, potentially atheists, potentially the Pope, potentially a war criminals. Potentially a person can be anything so the Argument from Potential is meaningless, as we told the Right to Lifers long ago.

This is not a case of the Argument from Potential. It would be, if we were talking about fetuses and their right to be born. We are talking about babies here and yes, babies are people, not fully developed ones, but still people.

My point was that since a baby is a person, you can actually use the term "atheist" for it because this term only applies to humans, and that is why your examples about rocks and socks didn't make sense.

There's a bunch of other things babies are born without. Άμαθο (unlearned, without knowledge), άκακο (without evil, harmless), ανήμπορο (helpless, without protection). Notice the "α" everywhere? It means without. Why not άθεο (without god) then?

(15-05-2016 01:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Then how are the left-overs that I plan on eating for supper not atheists?

They're not humans.

(15-05-2016 01:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  A baby is a baby just as a rock is a rock. It's a state of existence we've slapped a label onto that has nothing to do with belief or lack thereof.

I'll get to the rest in a moment.

I'll be waiting for the rest because I don't get your point here.

(15-05-2016 01:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I beg to differ. If it were a state then the lettuce that I planted last week should be sprouting little atheists.

Again, the term "atheist" only applies to humans.

(15-05-2016 01:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Agreed. The argument that religion is not innate, that we are not all born good little Christians, is important. As such it is necessary to ensure that it is a sound argument and I feel that insisting that we are born atheists is incorrect and thus undermines the argument we are both trying to support. I'm going to try and explain my reasoning fully in my next post.

There is no one phrase you can use to make an argument when talking to a theist. You have to elaborate in order to make any conversation. I don't think anyone would just say "we're all born atheists" and stop there. Of course they will elaborate and say that religion is taught and that before being taught about religion, you are "without a god", an atheist.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
15-05-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: Dumb Atheist Sayings
(15-05-2016 12:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-05-2016 10:36 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Without taking a stance on that question at all, I don't need to hold to a belief in absolute morality to point out there's a logical inconsistency with that larger idea.

If you subscribe to subjective morality there can be no contradiction, because there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. A theist who believes God is benevolent, is no more wrong in this view, than you are in liking a different genre of music than I do.

If a PARTICULAR DEFINITION OF MORALITY is provided, and the god is depicted as acting in defiance of that particular morality, then it is clearly not being benevolent under that morality. If there is an additional claim that this is the absolute morality, then one or the other claim must be false. TAKE YOUR PICK.

This is the case with mainstream Christianity.

(15-05-2016 12:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Computer chips have no free will (not unless they're badly broken) and yet can process information logically. Without me taking a stance on the free will issue either way, how is this a dumb thing to say?

A computer chips run according to the rules and dictates of their programmers. If free-will will doesn't exist, than you can't choose how your brain thinks and process information. How your brain operates and processes information is dictated by causal factors outside of your control.

That's a pretty conventional definition of free will, so sure, I'll go along with that definition for this discussion. And sure, let me for the sake of argument grant everything you just said about how a brain lacking free will would be restricted in its operation. (Though I'd hold open the possibility of higher-level reasoning -- for example a decision whether one wants to plan a vacation or do homework -- that does dictate future thoughts but is itself dictated by lower-level operations.)

But my point was that this level of restriction or outright absence of free will would NOT be an obstacle to processing information in a logical manner as you claim it is. Again, as evidenced by the chip.

As an aside, if you think free will keeps your brain operating in a manner you choose regardless of outside circumstances beyond your control, try thinking deep, complicated, logical thoughts of your choosing when someone's just given you a concussion and knocked you out cold. Surely you can do that... you have free will, right? Those outside circumstances don't impact (pun intended) your mind's operation at all, right? If they do, then you do not have free will as you have defined it. Otherwise, the absence of free will is NOT what's responsible for outside circumstances having an impact on your thought process, because they can also be so restricted even with the presence of free will.

(15-05-2016 12:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"Who created God" is a bit dumb in general conversation, but it has a specific role as a counterapologetic to various arguments that boil down to "something had to create everything, and that something was God".

If you respond to questions about first cause, with who created God, it just means you didn't understand the question to begin with, because God by definition, is uncaused.

An analogy would be if you're an atheists who believed in a universe that always existed, and then someone asked you who created this always existing universe? Perhaps here you can see why the question is non-sense, because you hold to the belief in uncaused universe.

The problem with this analogy is that a lot of cosmological arguments insist on the premise that everything must have a cause, and it is against these arguments that the question is useful. Either this premise also applies to the proposed god, making the "who created God" question perfectly legit, or it does not, making the premise false and destroying the argument's foundation.

You are correct that an uncaused cause argument is not the correct target of this question. Arguments that include the premise that everything must have a cause, or something similar, are the correct target of this counter-apologetic. I apologize if I phrased that badly the first time around.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: