[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 07:45 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:15 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Hobbyist atheists"? I call intellectual arrogance...

You would know... Angel

[Image: 829405d1378322797-29er-cf-hts-part-1-dis...eaf8_z.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-01-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  I wouldn't know since you haven't defined it. You seemingly intended it as an insult.

I've defined it above. I can see how it can come across as an insult, but I think it's much more fair than "amateur." I also don't think it's insulting to acknowledge a difference between my preparation in the study of religion and constituent and tangential fields, and that of the majority of the people here. I'm a hobbyist when it comes to things like physics and math, and I'm happy to be called such, but the story is different with things like linguistics, history, and the sociology, psychology, and history of religion.

(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I require evidence when someone is attempting to convince me to believe something.

And when the only thing of which they could be construed as trying to convince you is that they believe something for a reason that seems legitimate to them?

(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  As I said above, you are welcome to believe anything you want, but without evidence beliefs are not facts.

And as I said, I am not trying to assert any of my beliefs as fact.

(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I never said such a thing.

So what would you say to all the people here repeatedly challenging someone who is just happy to keep going on believing privately?

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:22 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:14 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Could you define what hobbyist atheists means?

I would call someone who bases the substance of their discussions and arguments with theists, whether in person or online, on non-vocational research into science and religion (primarily mediated through others and their websites) a hobbyist atheist. Someone with a career, or at least formal education, in a relevant field of study would not be a hobbyist, in my opinion. I also use that characterization for hobbyist students of religion, which are even more ubiquitous, and tend to do more to undermine the goals of the field vis-à-vis the public square.
Hmmm, atheism is not a vocation , people are not atheists in order to debate religious matters with theists.
I find that characterization to be ridiculous.
Formal education into religion doesn't make one's claims in this matter any more true or false.
It seems that you think that the formal education and the amount of books you've read on the subject make your claims more plausible.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Slowminded's post
06-01-2014, 07:56 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  [Image: 829405d1378322797-29er-cf-hts-part-1-dis...eaf8_z.jpg]

It's also my experience, man. Having a fat ol' IQ I've been accused of intellectual arrogance and all I can do is try to keep a lid on it. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 06:59 AM)maklelan Wrote:  So you don't think there are hobbyist atheists here?

I wouldn't know since you haven't defined it. You seemingly intended it as an insult.

Offense is taken, not given. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Hmmm, atheism is not a vocation ,

Generally, no, but there are certainly professional atheists. My point was that the fields of study to which people appeal in the expression---and particularly the arguing---of their convictions, can be actual vocations.

(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  people are not atheists in order to debate religious matters with theists.

(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  I find that characterization to be ridiculous.

And I find the characterization of organized religion as dangerous and harmful to be ridiculous. That's not to say it never is such, just as you can hardly deny that there are not any atheists here who base their claims on rather uninformed, fallacious, and amateurish principles.

(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Formal education into religion doesn't make one's claims in this matter any more true or false.

It better equips them to digest as well as to present the data and the arguments.

(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  It seems that you think that the formal education and the amount of books you've read on the subject make your claims more plausible.

Which claims? I've not really made any faith claims, as far as I can remember, but my claims about what the facts and research do and do not show about religious belief and practice certainly are more plausible than those of people here without any real education or experience with the research, but just a strong conviction, an internet connection, and a reading of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 08:00 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  I wouldn't know since you haven't defined it. You seemingly intended it as an insult.

Offense is taken, not given. Tongue

True - I wasn't offended.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 08:22 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  True - I wasn't offended.

Wait, I can do better. Sleepy

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 08:22 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
I think I might be a hobbyist atheist.

I mean, I only disbelieve 'evidence' for god(s) in my spare time.

When I don't have spare time, I'm a theist.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
06-01-2014, 08:27 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 08:22 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 08:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  True - I wasn't offended.

Wait, I can do better. Sleepy

Well, it would help to know wtf we're arguing. That's an issue with these split threads. 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: