LOL classifications of atheists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 10:59 AM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
I think from now on, I'm going to refer to all theist, as "non-atheist".

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
16-11-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
(16-11-2013 08:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 07:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well, there are those who're gnostic non-fairy-tale believers, who claim to *know* that the ugly duckling is 'just a story'. Those guys are all assholes really, they can't *know* for sure. They're just as illogical and stupid as the gnostic fairy-tale believers.

Thanks, buddy. Good looking out. Dodgy

Tongue

Is parody... Muffs made the point a while back in another thread, and the OPs point as well, I think, is that all this careful differentiation into gnostic and agnostic atheism and igtheists and apatheists and all that crap is kinda... pointless.

The only reason the terms exist is 'cos of the unbelievable number of ways in which they of the cognitive dissonance brigade can find to misunderstand the words "I don't believe in God"... and the absurd importance that they attach to the admission that "Yes, I can't prove it for sure, 100%, just like I can't prove it wasn't Santa Claus".

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
16-11-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
(16-11-2013 09:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Null hypothesis is the default. God is a claim. (Properly: God is a thousand and one contradictory claims). God is a logically incoherent and utterly unsubstantiated claim at that.

There is no burden of proof on withholding belief in the claims of others. God is implicitly and necessarily defined, and therefore constitutes a claim being made.

Null and alternative hypotheses are tools of statistics to evaluate the relationship between two measurable phenomena(you should know this as a scientist). The claims

A)God exists
B)God does not exist

Are not statistical claims nor are they measurable phenomena(how do you measure the supernatural?). If they are not measureable phenomena you cannot claim one is the default position or the null hypothesis as you are doing. You are completely misusing the concept of null and alternative hypotheses.

Burden of proof falls on the person making a claim. If I claim God exists, the burden of proof falls to me to show that God does indeed exist. If I claim God does not exist, the burden of proof falls to me to show that God does not exist. If I say I have no belief in God or gods, I have no burden of proof because I am not making a claim.

Atheists fall into two categories, those that make claims they cannot substantiate and those which make no claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
I don't think the different ways of describing atheists are pointless, as long as they are accurate. They provide a useful way to categorize yourself and put it into a label that others can understand. It also helps you understand others.

I'm glad the labels exist because it helps me communicate my stance to other atheists and understand how they and I differ on the subject.

Gnostic atheist.
Agnostic atheist with a positive belief.
Agnostic atheist with a lack of belief.
etc..

To many individuals it is important to be able to define where they stand. What is wrong with that? Plus I have already seen a bunch of people in here insult my personal stance (gnostic atheism) so that immediately points out the need for a different label, as those people obviously don't want to be in the same "camp" as me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
16-11-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
(16-11-2013 01:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Null and alternative hypotheses are tools of statistics to evaluate the relationship between two measurable phenomena(you should know this as a scientist).

Thumbsup

(16-11-2013 01:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The claims

A)God exists
B)God does not exist

Are not statistical claims nor are they measurable phenomena(how do you measure the supernatural?). If they are not measureable phenomena you cannot claim one is the default position or the null hypothesis as you are doing. You are completely misusing the concept of null and alternative hypotheses.

Nah. I assure you, I am not.

But you're being plenty facetious. So there's that.

(I allow for the possibility that you don't realize this line is full of crap, but I gotta figure you're probably smart enough to know when you're spouting nonsense)

(16-11-2013 01:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Burden of proof falls on the person making a claim. If I claim God exists, the burden of proof falls to me to show that God does indeed exist. If I claim God does not exist, the burden of proof falls to me to show that God does not exist. If I say I have no belief in God or gods, I have no burden of proof because I am not making a claim.

BZZZT. Critical logic fail. But it's nice that you're trying (?).

The problem with your, uh, 'logic', is that B is not a claim. One of these things is not like the other. B is a denial of A. It is only meaningful in terms of A. There are not two claims being made. There is only one claim being made, and subsequently accepted or rejected.

Claiming God does not exist is only meaningful insofar as God is already defined. And the atheists are not the ones defining God.

A sane interpreter construes "God does not exist" to mean, "I do not accept any of the myriad claims as to the existence of a myriad of God(s)".

An interpreter who is desperately looking for something to feel superior to might well take the statement to mean "I do not believe an undefined term exists, regardless of any and all possible definitions, whether they have been argued for or even conceived of by anyone ever". That's not coherent.

One cannot repudiate the validity of claims which have not been made. That's about a million miles short of coherent. "Something does not exist" necessarily requires that "something" be defined.

(16-11-2013 01:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Atheists fall into two categories, those that make claims they cannot substantiate and those which make no claims.

Oh, it's an adorable trick, all right. Crapulent bull honkey, but I guess it fools people who don't want to think very hard about it.

Actually, I think my favourite thing about it is how even after building up such a demented misrepresentation, it still can do no better than "well, you can't prove it either".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
16-11-2013, 08:25 PM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
(16-11-2013 12:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  When asked about religious beliefs, I'm often tempted to categorise myself as "unfaithful".

Can there be degrees of unfaithfulness?

Drinking Beverage

Dunno if I'd say that of myself, simply because the word "unfaithful" has strong connotations re: adultery.

...but I do like 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
16-11-2013, 08:45 PM
RE: LOL classifications of atheists
(16-11-2013 01:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  those that make claims they cannot substantiate

The expert speaks. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: