Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
TL; DR

Writing screeds is a sure sign of crankiness - I suggest you get yourself checked Wink In fact I'll do it for you Smile You are diagnosed as a crank Smile

It's not just for our benefit that I keep banging on about this. If you can't present your ideas concisely then IMO they're just idle musings. Being concise forces you to think clearly about what you write.

Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
26-07-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 04:07 PM)morondog Wrote:  If you can't present your ideas concisely then IMO they're just idle musings. Being concise forces you to think clearly about what you write.

I just want to note that, sometimes, to be clear and properly convey your point, you have to expand on it. This is not one of those cases, though.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 04:09 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(26-07-2014 04:07 PM)morondog Wrote:  If you can't present your ideas concisely then IMO they're just idle musings. Being concise forces you to think clearly about what you write.

I just want to note that, sometimes, to be clear and properly convey your point, you have to expand on it. This is not one of those cases, though.

Indeed. But first you make the point, then you expand. You don't write a fucken textbook every time someone says hello Dodgy <- not directed at you, whoever reads this.

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
26-07-2014, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 05:27 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Quote:
That is simply incoherent. Since we know the universe is older than our awareness, your idea is a non-starter.

What are you talking about? What do you mean we know?

Based on what?

Your birthday? The history of mankind?

You can't just make statements like that without qualifying what you mean.

We know this as well as we know any fact about the physical universe - evidence.

Please give me examples of evidence for the Universe being older than awareness.

You are obviously talking about this history of humans. What you are saying is that humans are millions of years old at most where as the Universe is billions of years old right?

Obviously I never claimed or would claim that human beings are older than the Universe.

What I have claimed is that Awareness is as old as the Universe. I wasn't specifically talking about human awareness.

And yeah yeah I know that I have not given you evidence that the Universe is "aware".

Sometimes I think certain Atheist use the word "evidence" in the same way that Christians use "faith".

I not implying they are they are the same word or that Atheist uses the word evidence to indicate some kind of faith.

I am not an idiot contrary to what some people on here may think about me.

What I am saying is some Atheist rely on evidence as the only way to understand or validate any consistent view of Reality.

To a Christian faith is not only always the starting point of any deep conversation but has to be the ending point as well. If faith doesn't cover it then it isn't relevant.

To the Atheist evidence is the same thing for them. All conversations must not only begin with evidence but have to have this as the ending point as well. If evidence doesn't cover every point you make or back up every tiny point you make then nothing you say in relation to Reality can be relevant.

This is absurd.

Of course we need evidence to create a hypothesis and therefore to develop any theory we have.

But Philosophy starts with speculation just as a hypothesis does. This speculation does involve knowledge and is based on evidence we have so far. But Philosophy exist so we can try and look past what we know and see what we can know. That is every hypothesis has gestation stage based on speculation. Until the hypothesis is falsified there can not be any new evidence or any new theories built on new hypothesis(s).

So in conclusion I agree that evidence is necessary to advance knowledge in both Philosophy and Science but I do not agree that you should just keep yelling evidence! evidence ! at any one you disagree with like some obnoxious person yelling fire! fire! in a theater just to see how people react.

When you push a Christian to answer questions they do not have an answer for they yell faith ! faith !

When you push a materialist to speculate on questions that science is still working on they yell evidence ! evidence !

This completely ignores that a lot of advances in science have been the result of intuition before most of the evidence had ever been found. It also conveniently ignores the fact that even the best Physicist like Pauli and Einstein can be wrong and in the race to define what the Metaphysical Implications for QM were that some Philosophers have been right about QM before the sciences reached any consensus.

And this process of reasoning and creativity that takes both evidence and intuitive speculation into account is still going on.

Quote:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a 1962 book about the history of science by Thomas S. Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in—and beyond—those scholarly communities. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.[1]

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 05:26 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
How many times do you have to be told : the plural of atheist is atheists ?
Your complete inability to use language correctly makes everything you write, suspect.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 06:33 PM (This post was last modified: 26-07-2014 06:37 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 05:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How many times do you have to be told : the plural of atheist is atheists ?
Your complete inability to use language correctly makes everything you write, suspect.

Apparently forever. It is a simple typo. Get over it. I am glad that people on here point out typos like that and I have been working on it.


Atheist and Atheists sound way to similar in my head. The s at the end of atheists is almost silent. I have the same problem with theists If I pronounce it in my head to avoid forgetting to add this s then it sounds to me like theistsss.. susss ssss or something like that.

In my head it sounds like A Thee Es or Atheistsss es es or something in between. Its just a weird word to pluralize like if we called sheep ...sheeps

There are a lot of words like sheep where the plural is the same as the singular.

Quote:Is there a term for nouns that have identical singular and plural forms? For example,

sheep
fish
glasses
aircraft/spacecraft

According to Wikipedia, some of these are called defective nouns:

Some nouns have no singular form. Such a noun is called a plurale tantum.
For example, glasses, pants, and scissors are all defective nouns because they have no singular form. As these are plurale tantum, the opposite is singularia tantum--nouns with no plural form.

However, examples like sheep and fish are simply irregular plurals.
http://english.stackexchange.com/questio...ural-forms

You know what I mean and it is just a typo. Anyway I will try to do better. Cut me some slack will you?

Spelling isn't a science anyway so we should consider ignoring simple typos when the word is obvious.

Using the rules of the English language we could technically spell fish as
G H O TI

Quote:Ghoti is a constructed word used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. It is a respelling of the word fish: i.e., it is supposed to be pronounced /ˈfɪʃ/. It comprises these phonemes:
gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tʌf/;
o, pronounced /ɪ/ as in women /ˈwɪmɪn/; and
ti, pronounced /ʃ/ as in nation /ˈneɪʃən/.
Ghoti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 06:52 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Anyway I think this thread has go on long enough to be honest.

I want to thank everyone on here for continuing to help me reach clarity and expand my ideas and learn about what other Atheists think about Metaphysics and the nature of Reality.

I think I now have a clear idea of what to put in my letter to Atheists in my book.

I am not leaving The Thinking Atheist...hmm why not The Thinking Atheists?

Isn't there more than one Atheist on here? Are you just trying to attract one more?

Just saying...

I am having way too much fun on here to just add one thread and leave. I am a thinking atheist. So I am sure I will think of other threads to add.

In the mean time I will look at some of the other threads on here to see if I can contribute something.

If you are still interested in discussing the ideas brought up in this thread please PM me and I will start a similar thread on my website.

In fact I think I will anyway. As of now my forum only has 3 people and they are all Christians.

It is true that they are Progressive Christians but still without any Atheists over there it can get quite stifling.

If anyone is interested like I said feel free to PM me.

Now I am at heart an Atheist have been one for over 30 years ...so I am going to go check out what other threads are on this board.

Ps I linked The Thinking Atheist(s) on my website so more people will find this site.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(26-07-2014 06:33 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  Apparently forever. It is a simple typo.

That you make over and over and over ?
I think not.
There's something fishy about you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:That you make over and over and over ?
I think not.
There's something fishy about you.


Yes please tell me your conspiracy theory on why I sometimes refer to Atheists as Atheist

It is probably the same conspiracy on why this forum is called The Thinking Atheist instead of The Thinking Atheists!

Give me a break

By the way did you mean to say fishy or ghotiy?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2014, 07:59 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
This thread just makes me go
[Image: 83571-Blink-182-WTF-gif-Imgur-First-VbnD.gif]

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: