Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(27-07-2014 02:18 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 12:44 AM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  Now can we just let this thread die?

Time of death 2:41 am July 27th 2014

Please call it

Claims not to be jumping to another thread, but rather creating a new one on a different subject, implying that he will still be posting in the first thread.
Asks for the first thread to be allowed to die in the very next post.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the problem with this.


Just to be clear my thread on Nihilism is a new one. It has nothing to do with this thread. That is my definition of a new thread.

What is your definition of a new thread?

Creating a new thread is not "jumping" .

I am not even sure what you mean by "jumping" ?

If you mean by jumping that I am trying to abandon ship because I lost a debate so I just quit and started something else then I get what you are saying but I do not agree.

I did start the same thread as is here on my website so people can keep this going if they choose.

If this is what you call jumping than that contradicts what you just said jumping was.

1. Jumping means ending a thread when people are not done with it for what ever reason
2. Jumping means moving a thread off the website it started on without asking

It has to be one or the other . You can't have both definitions because they contradict each other.

One definition is based on ending a thread and the other definition is based on moving a thread.

Moving and Ending somethings are the opposite of each other. You can't have both definitions.

The combination of hypocrisy and closed mindedness along with substituting manipulation for reasoning can bring out hostility in me. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Geesh indeed. We are here because we like *this* place. One of the things I personally like is the lack of moderation. Why would I go join your forum where if you 'suspect' me of being a troll I can be kicked without any fuss? You want members? Give them what *they* want - not what you want.


Hmm you got a point there...

What would you want... No moderation?

Hmm are you saying that Thinking Atheist has no moderation and that means that this website would not ban a real troll?

If somebody came onto Thinking Atheist and started posting only off topic and started mocking personally everyone that responded to them while at the same time posting one sentence answers agreeing with some people...

Would Thinking Atheist not ban them???

The combination of hypocrisy and closed mindedness along with substituting manipulation for reasoning can bring out hostility in me. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 01:18 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(27-07-2014 01:10 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  Hmm are you saying that Thinking Atheist has no moderation and that means that this website would not ban a real troll?

If somebody came onto Thinking Atheist and started posting only off topic and started mocking personally everyone that responded to them while at the same time posting one sentence answers agreeing with some people...

Would Thinking Atheist not ban them???
To answer your question, trolls are not banned unless they break the 4 or 5 rules that the thinking atheist forum actually has (somebody else can link that if they want). We have entertained trolls in the past, usually they offer some spice to the recipe. At least that's my understanding and what I've seen. I am just a lowly peon though watching from the sidelines.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
27-07-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(27-07-2014 01:10 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  
Quote:Geesh indeed. We are here because we like *this* place. One of the things I personally like is the lack of moderation. Why would I go join your forum where if you 'suspect' me of being a troll I can be kicked without any fuss? You want members? Give them what *they* want - not what you want.


Hmm you got a point there...

What would you want... No moderation?

Hmm are you saying that Thinking Atheist has no moderation and that means that this website would not ban a real troll?

If somebody came onto Thinking Atheist and started posting only off topic and started mocking personally everyone that responded to them while at the same time posting one sentence answers agreeing with some people...

Would Thinking Atheist not ban them???

You gotta separate the forum, which is us, and the Thinking Atheist person, who is Seth. The forum is pretty much separate from Seth and he only gives the forum team (who do the modding, so I lied, there is some moderation) the very lightest of guidance - otherwise this is our show, by the members, for the members.

Owing to several trolls of the more vicious variety and many long and unhappy arguments a fairly effective (though not perfect) strategy for dealing with them is in place, and indeed in the last resort the forum team has the right to ban any member without explanation. This hasn't ever been used as far as I know.

You can read the forum rules in the intro section - pretty much every troll who comes here can't help themselves, and eventually contravenes one of the "auto-ban" rules, thus finding themselves on the highway to not posting here.

Moderation is limited. Mostly, mods will split threads where it's felt that there's a need - someone's been posting a lot of off topic stuff or whatever. But insulting members, belittling them - all that is tolerated and even encouraged Wink The point is that if you're posting here you are not to expect to be defended by the mod team, you gotta put on your big boy/girl/indeterminate gender panties and either smack some sense into the offender yourself, or not get offended - it's some twit on the internet after all, it means nothing.

What does not result in a ban, to the frustration of many, is exactly the situation you describe - where someone just goes full retard and does their best to stir up strife. Many of those guys do eventually attract a ban anyway, 'cos they also tend to do the usual troll stuff.

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
27-07-2014, 01:47 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2014 01:57 PM by thespiritualanarchist.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Reload for Final Version


Quote:You haven't given any coherent definition of 'awareness' nor provided a credible suggestion for its existence apart from minds.

Evidence is the basis for scientific and rational inquiry, not the basis for atheism. And 'atheist' and 'atheism' do not require capitalization; typically only theists do that.


Ok let me see here. I need a point of reference. Ok the dictionary defintion obviously doesn't cut it.

Awareness
the state or condition of being aware; having knowledge; consciousness

Let me see if I can get closer with good old Wikipedia


Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns.

Ok we are getting closer but events and objects do not seem to be necessary

Objects I must assume refer to material things . Is lightning an "object"?

I don't think so.

But you can see lightning so I guess it is an event.

Let me see ...

Event
4. Physics A phenomenon or occurrence located at a single point in space-time, regarded as the fundamental observational entity in relativity theory.

Alright the definition seems better all ready

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns.

The problem is your awareness of an event depends on the event being located at a point in space time.

I will submit that this is definitely how most of us perceive Reality. That is we are the observer and an event "out there" occurs and we are completely separate from this event.

So if I say I am aware of lightning striking I am saying that the lightning is something different than what I am.

There is an Event:Lightning

Then there is the observer of this Event :Me

We are getting close. And it is certainly true that it appears this way.
I can no more deny that it happens this way then I can deny what happens when I see a rainbow.

But there is more to this. If the rainbow is what In see then it must be this way...

The Event of Colors in the form of an arc existing with definable point in space time is observed to appear in a definite place in space time.

I observe the rainbow appearing to exist as colors in the form of an arc

But we are already running into problems. It is clear already that we are dealing more with appearance than reality itself.

First of all there is no actual rainbow as an object exiting in a space time point. Second of all the rainbow does not seem to be able to be defined as an event like a lightning strike can.

If lightning strikes a tree then you will see a series of events. First you will see lightning flash in the sky. Then you will see lightning flash in the sky and move to a particular point in space and time right where a certain tree is. In both cases the lightning is an event in a point in space and time but it is much easier to see this with the tree being hit.

The rainbow seems a bit harder. It is much more like an illusion. When you move towards it the rainbow appears to move away. I can not call a rainbow an event because it seems the rainbow is based solely on appearances.

There are many ways I could illustrate this. But the bottom line is this.

If the rainbow is not an event and does not exist at a particular point in space time then how can it be said to exist at all?

The rainbow exist because you observe it and other people can observe the same rainbow.

So there is an event called a rainbow that exist at a particular point in space time?

According to science the answer is no.
Quote:FACT: Two people never see the same rainbow.

The light bouncing off certain raindrops for your rainbow is bouncing off other raindrops from a completely different angle for someone else, according to LiveScience. And so it's creating a different image -- basically, no two people can stand in the same exact spot at the same time to view the same rainbow.

What is going on here?

I think we are going to have to go to the subatomic level to define awareness

Quote:Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns.

It is quite obvious that we first need to define events and objects before we can define awareness... and sensory patterns only exist in relation to objects and events.

But objects are made of matter and matter is made of atoms and atoms are made of sub particles. So since we already have had problems defining events and Einstein has changed how we view both space and time I have no choice but go to the Quantum Level here. Since we are doing this for events we might as well do this for matter as well.


Quote:In particle physics, an event refers to the results just after a fundamental interaction took place between subatomic particles, occurring in a very short time span, at a well-localized region of space. Because of the quantum uncertainty principle, an event in particle physics does not have quite the same meaning as it does in the theory of relativity, in which an "event" is an point in spacetime which can be known exactly, i.e. a spacetime coordinate.
Event (particle physics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you want me to continue?


I know people complain about wall of text so I don't want to keep adding to the same post.

The combination of hypocrisy and closed mindedness along with substituting manipulation for reasoning can bring out hostility in me. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(27-07-2014 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  You gotta separate the forum, which is us, and the Thinking Atheist person, who is Seth.

Well actually....To quote (paraphrase from memory) Seth:
"I am not the thinking atheist. I am not a great thinker, nor does being atheist mean that you are automatically thinking or that you came to atheism through thinking. The name "the thinking atheist" is because it wasn't until I stopped believing and started thinking, that I finally started to step out of my religion. But I am not 'THE thinking atheist.'"

In other words, The Thinking Atheist is the brand that Seth named based on his transformation from theism to atheism. It isn't a single person. Just a concept.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
27-07-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(27-07-2014 01:48 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 01:30 PM)morondog Wrote:  You gotta separate the forum, which is us, and the Thinking Atheist person, who is Seth.

Well actually....To quote (paraphrase from memory) Seth:
"I am not the thinking atheist. I am not a great thinker, nor does being atheist mean that you are automatically thinking or that you came to atheism through thinking. The name "the thinking atheist" is because it wasn't until I stopped believing and started thinking, that I finally started to step out of my religion. But I am not 'THE thinking atheist.'"

In other words, The Thinking Atheist is the brand that Seth named based on his transformation from theism to atheism. It isn't a single person. Just a concept.

Ah, you see, I've never bothered to find out what Seth thinks on any topic, therefore I am an authority on Seth.

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
27-07-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:Moderation is limited. Mostly, mods will split threads where it's felt that there's a need - someone's been posting a lot of off topic stuff or whatever. But insulting members, belittling them - all that is tolerated and even encouraged Wink The point is that if you're posting here you are not to expect to be defended by the mod team, you gotta put on your big boy/girl/indeterminate gender panties and either smack some sense into the offender yourself, or not get offended - it's some twit on the internet after all, it means nothing.

Hmm I wish there was just an ignore button in both this forum and my forum. Because that way there are no bans for the most part. If someone just annoyed me and didn't want to address anything I actually said I could just click ignore by their name.

Of course there are people who will insult and belittle people.

As I said I can take it.

But as I said sometimes I just want a normal debate.

I have 3 types of places on my Forum

The Philosophy Forum where you have to attempt to stay on topic ...which is Philosophy

The Debate Forum where there are rules of Debate which would give penalties for excessive insulting or have none allowed.

The rules of the debate would have to be agreed to before hand

So if you wanted as much insults flying as possible and the debate isn't as much about the topic as it is about getting each good then that would be your debate

If I want no insults at all or very limited and only if the insult refers directly to the topic then that is how my debate would work

The last type of forum I have is the Buddha Lounge and you can talk about anything you want but you have to respect the thread you join

If you join a spiritual thread you can't demand people talk about sports
If you join a sport thread you can't demand everyone talk about spirituality
If you join a thread where there is no particular topic then you can say anything you want

But you can't go into the lounge and harass people or start a debate

Now I am think I should add a forum specifically as a free for all where people can just post any thread and behave any way they want...

I will call it Chaos Theory

The combination of hypocrisy and closed mindedness along with substituting manipulation for reasoning can bring out hostility in me. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(27-07-2014 02:12 PM)thespiritualanarchist Wrote:  Hmm I wish there was just an ignore button in both this forum and my forum. Because that way there are no bans for the most part. If someone just annoyed me and didn't want to address anything I actually said I could just click ignore by their name.

There is one on this forum somewhere... I prefer to keep the bastards where I can see 'em 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
27-07-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Quote:thespiritualanarchist Wrote:
Hmm I wish there was just an ignore button in both this forum and my forum. Because that way there are no bans for the most part. If someone just annoyed me and didn't want to address anything I actually said I could just click ignore by their name.

There is one on this forum somewhere... I prefer to keep the bastards where I can see 'em Drinking Beverage

Hahaha Now that I think about it I think see your point...Laugh out load

The combination of hypocrisy and closed mindedness along with substituting manipulation for reasoning can bring out hostility in me. Facepalm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: