Poll: If you are an atheist, how do you define atheist?
1) Gods do not exist.
2) No gods exist.
3) Do not accept the claims that gods exist.
4) Do not accept the claims that gods exist due to lack of evidence.
[Show Results]
 
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 08:51 AM)Nurse Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 08:00 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You know you're in trouble when Nurse gets riled! Thumbsup

[Image: MV5BMjE4MTQ3ODc4MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjYz...SY720_.jpg]

Sad I can't see the picture.

It's just the nurse from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest speaking into a microphone

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
29-08-2015, 08:56 AM
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 08:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 08:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your God is more fairy than fact. Why do you think anyone on an atheist forum gives a flying fuck about what you believe with respect to your imaginary friend? Fuck off with your preaching bullshit. Drinking Beverage

Dude, did you just forget to eat your breakfast this morning or something?

No, I just don't like dishonest fucks. You're on an atheist site peddling your religious bullshit. Why the fuck do you expect anyone to care about or respect the stupid shit you write?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 08:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 08:51 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Sad I can't see the picture.

It's just the nurse from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest speaking into a microphone

I imgur all that shit. Wink

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 08:52 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 08:51 AM)Nurse Wrote:  Sad I can't see the picture.

It's just the nurse from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest speaking into a microphone

[Image: BWIB4gk.jpg]

Look how pretty she is - not scary at all, perfectly harmless Angel

"If there's a single thing that life teaches us, it's that wishing doesn't make it so." - Lev Grossman
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Nurse's post
29-08-2015, 09:22 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m not absolutely certain the universe is a fluke. I don’t know the universe is not a fluke. I believe it isn’t. I’m not absolutely certain my parents are my biological parents, I don’t know they are. I believe they are. And we could say I believe strongly in both of these cases.

Well, first off, whether or not they're your parents is a testable thing, so it doesn't really compare, but I get your point about things we believe without investigating because "why not?".

But if you'll look at what I wrote, that's what I'm saying: I'm not absolutely certain the universe is a fluke. I don't know it's a fluke. I extrapolate from the fact that things within the universe are all caused naturally, and see no reason to "layer-on" an extra idea, that once we move outside of the universe, suddenly things stop working the same way. I cannot rule out that they do, since I have no information and no immediate way of acquiring that information. Ergo, I cannot discount such a possibility. I'm honest enough to admit to that possibility, but I don't waste any time worrying about it unless pressed by theists on the subject.

We both admit that the Deist version of God is something that can't really be known, so we're both agnostics. The difference is you shrug and say "sure why not?" while I shrug and say "yeah but why?"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-08-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 09:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But if you'll look at what I wrote, that's what I'm saying: I'm not absolutely certain the universe is a fluke. I don't know it's a fluke.

I’m totally with you on not being “absolutely certain”, the “know” part. As I already expressed I’m not absolutely certain my parents are my biological parents, nor do I know they are. Just like I’m not absolutely certain, nor do I know that God exists. Yet I believe God exists, and believe that my parents are my biological parents. In fact I believe very strongly in this.

You can believe, without being “absolutely certain”, or “knowing”. You can believe it’s all a fluke. But you seem hesitant to even say that much. Where as I’m not hesitant to say that I believe there are no invisible flying dragons in my closet.

What I read this as, is not dishonestly on your part, but as a lack of confidence. While you can see the notion of it all being a fluke as a viable possibility, you don’t find the case for it currently compelling enough to believe it’s true. You’re just sort of half in and half out of it.

Where as you might not find the case for deism all that compelling, it doesn’t seem that you find the case for it being a fluke all that compelling either. Maybe a bit more so than deism, but not by much.

Quote:We both admit that the Deist version of God is something that can't really be known, so we're both agnostics. The difference is you shrug and say "sure why not?"

Just because I don’t know if my parents are my biological parents or not, doesn’t mean you can interpret when I say I believe they are, as “sure why not?”

But is that how you see the “fluke” view, as “sure why not?. That you’re not confident about it, but like Matt would guess in that direction than not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 10:41 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 09:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But if you'll look at what I wrote, that's what I'm saying: I'm not absolutely certain the universe is a fluke. I don't know it's a fluke.

I’m totally with you on not being “absolutely certain”, the “know” part. As I already expressed I’m not absolutely certain my parents are my biological parents, nor do I know they are. Just like I’m not absolutely certain, nor do I know that God exists. Yet I believe God exists, and believe that my parents are my biological parents. In fact I believe very strongly in this.

You can believe, without being “absolutely certain”, or “knowing”. You can believe it’s all a fluke. But you seem hesitant to even say that much. Where as I’m not hesitant to say that I believe there are no invisible flying dragons in my closet.

I'm sorry, was I unclear? There are no invisible dragons in my closet. There are no gods, even ones outside my universe.

Just because I admit to a possibility that something might exist beyond my ability to detect it doesn't mean I think for a moment it's a real thing.

(29-08-2015 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I read this as, is not dishonestly on your part, but as a lack of confidence. While you can see the notion of it all being a fluke as a viable possibility, you don’t find the case for it currently compelling enough to believe it’s true. You’re just sort of half in and half out of it.

In psychology, this is known as Projection. I find the notion of it all being a fluke (and by fluke I mean "it operates by the universal laws of physics and nothing else") to be the only viable explanation. I think any other explanation borders on the insane. I am not half-in/half-out, because to me half-out is fucking insane. Try a little harder not to confuse "I admit to the possibility that we are are all inside the Matrix" with "I think we might be inside the Matrix".

(29-08-2015 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Where as you might not find the case for deism all that compelling, it doesn’t seem that you find the case for it being a fluke all that compelling either. Maybe a bit more so than deism, but not by much.

See above. And I find the case for it being a fluke to be the only compelling argument. Indeed, it's more compelling than the standard I would require for formation of my viewpoint that the world operates by ordered laws, even though some of those laws are things like Quantum Mechanics, dark energy/matter, etc. When asked by a believer in the invisible dragons, I shrug and say I cannot rule it out because they are unfalsifiable, as in, "cannot be falsified". If something cannot be falsified, then I would be dishonest to declare it falsified. That doesn't mean I think it's real.

(29-08-2015 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:We both admit that the Deist version of God is something that can't really be known, so we're both agnostics. The difference is you shrug and say "sure why not?"

Just because I don’t know if my parents are my biological parents or not, doesn’t mean you can interpret when I say I believe they are, as “sure why not?”

But is that how you see the “fluke” view, as “sure why not?. That you’re not confident about it, but like Matt would guess in that direction than not?

Well, as I originally pointed out, you can test to see if they're your parents, but you choose not to, so it's a different situation. You can falsify the statement, "These two people are my biological parents" by conducting genetic tests. I, however, cannot test to see if there was a Prime Mover outside of space-time. It's unfalsifiable.

There are a nearly-infinite number of concepts which are unfalsifiable. We reject all of them. You reject the invisible dragons just as I do, and for the same reasons. Yet you propose this other thing, just as unfalsifiable as the dragon because we cannot investigate outside of space-time, and try to suggest that I'm "unsure" about it?

Really?

(Edited to change "infinite number" to "nearly-infinite", for purpose of precision of language and intent.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-08-2015, 11:14 AM
What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 10:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 09:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But if you'll look at what I wrote, that's what I'm saying: I'm not absolutely certain the universe is a fluke. I don't know it's a fluke.

I’m totally with you on not being “absolutely certain”, the “know” part. As I already expressed I’m not absolutely certain my parents are my biological parents, nor do I know they are. Just like I’m not absolutely certain, nor do I know that God exists. Yet I believe God exists, and believe that my parents are my biological parents. In fact I believe very strongly in this.

You can believe, without being “absolutely certain”, or “knowing”. You can believe it’s all a fluke. But you seem hesitant to even say that much. Where as I’m not hesitant to say that I believe there are no invisible flying dragons in my closet.

What I read this as, is not dishonestly on your part, but as a lack of confidence. While you can see the notion of it all being a fluke as a viable possibility, you don’t find the case for it currently compelling enough to believe it’s true. You’re just sort of half in and half out of it.

Where as you might not find the case for deism all that compelling, it doesn’t seem that you find the case for it being a fluke all that compelling either. Maybe a bit more so than deism, but not by much.

Quote:We both admit that the Deist version of God is something that can't really be known, so we're both agnostics. The difference is you shrug and say "sure why not?"

Just because I don’t know if my parents are my biological parents or not, doesn’t mean you can interpret when I say I believe they are, as “sure why not?”

But is that how you see the “fluke” view, as “sure why not?. That you’re not confident about it, but like Matt would guess in that direction than not?

You've still got no goddamned idea what it means to say "fluke" in regards to the universe. Facepalm

Your preacher should be indicted for abuse

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
Glue sniffers here at Non-Thinkin Atheist or Theist, appear to encourage unholy fuck practices, due to their inferiority complex.

The glue sniffers are like the 50's sci-fi movie where the towns people shoot the aliens first and never attempt rational, logical common sense communication with the aliens/extraterrestrials.

A hole-in-one-fuck is what glue sniffer apparrently like to do to them selves based on many of the post Ive come across here. Other of their posts alluding to non-consensual fuck practice's.

Sad lack of moral and intellectual integrity are words they do not understand, just any words they do not want to hear they attempt their witch doctor magic cursing onto the person they want to fuck.

{W}holey fuck can be either a local special-case wholeness fuck or a cosmic totality fuck.

The male matursbation, hole-less fuck, tho very common is one graphic the glue sniffers have yet to produce. Give them time. Nothing is sacred to them, least of all rational, logical intellect and moral integrity. imho

Heart q3 Drinking Beverage

(29-08-2015 06:41 AM)qqq Wrote:  
(29-08-2015 06:33 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Holy fuck, I think I actually understood that and it isn't totally irrational.
I think you may mean hole-in-one fuck.
Holy fuck may be related to only those that are consentual.
{W}holy fuck is a totality differrent scenario, all-together
A hole-less fuck is male masturbation tho a hole is enesscapably a part of the scenario, alltho only as an after-word, or after-verse, or after-thought. imho
Drinking Beverage q3 Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: What do you mean by "Atheist"?
(29-08-2015 11:18 AM)qqq Wrote:  Glue sniffers here at Non-Thinkin Atheist or Theist, appear to encourage unholy fuck practices, due to their inferiority complex.

The glue sniffers are like the 50's sci-fi movie where the towns people shoot the aliens first and never attempt rational, logical common sense communication with the aliens/extraterrestrials.

A hole-in-one-fuck is what glue sniffer apparrently like to do to them selves based on many of the post Ive come across here. Other of their posts alluding to non-consensual fuck practice's.

Sad lack of moral and intellectual integrity are words they do not understand, just any words they do not want to hear they attempt their witch doctor magic cursing onto the person they want to fuck.

{W}holey fuck can be either a local special-case wholeness fuck or a cosmic totality fuck.

The male matursbation, hole-less fuck, tho very common is one graphic the glue sniffers have yet to produce. Give them time. Nothing is sacred to them, least of all rational, logical intellect and moral integrity. imho

Heart q3 Drinking Beverage

(29-08-2015 06:41 AM)qqq Wrote:  I think you may mean hole-in-one fuck.
Holy fuck may be related to only those that are consentual.
{W}holy fuck is a totality differrent scenario, all-together
A hole-less fuck is male masturbation tho a hole is enesscapably a part of the scenario, alltho only as an after-word, or after-verse, or after-thought. imho
Drinking Beverage q3 Heart


The audience is not really to blame because they did not like the performance.

Perhaps you need more rehearsal time?

Speaking personally, I find it difficult to get past all of your spelling typos. Not because I am a grammar nazi, but because they add to what already appears to be confusion.

Perhaps you should not rush your answers. Rather, word them more carefully, read them through before hitting post, and people may find it easier to understand.

As a reader I have found it difficult to understand because your ideas appear rushed. As if you expect the reader to already know what you are talking about.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: