|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28602829 - 12/30/23 12:41 AM (29 days, 13 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Because, just like with antimatter and matter, despite appearing to be polar opposites in contrast they are actually just inverse versions of the same thing.
In this manner, to me, anti-theists are a type of theist.
Atheism is, from my perspective, a type of religion, it even has congregations, people considered leaders or role models and a developed culture. It is functionally indistinguishable from a type of cult, but in the sense that all religious communities are cults. This is from anthropological, historical and behavioral perspectives.
I think this is true of some aetheists but not all.
for example it took me till the age of 30 or 35 till I realized that people might actually believe in a god that would torture people for eternity. I simply couldn't understand how anyone could possibly really believe that, as it was incomprehensible to me.
Further, when I was 5 I had an experience where I realized thought and observation are always limited, and so found I couldn't believe in anything. For example, am I really a guy nammed bob dreaming that he's this Freedom dude? I don't know.
All my life people have said that my inability to believe is a belief, yet it is not the same phenomena. Belief is holding onto an idea. Non belief is just open. There are different levels and scales of belief.
The wiki page for aethism breaks down 3 levels starting with absence of belief:
Quote:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
and a cool ven diagram from reddit:
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Freedom]
#28602831 - 12/30/23 12:42 AM (29 days, 13 hours ago) |
|
|
I think I'm sort in the infant category, gods seem to be beyond me
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28602842 - 12/30/23 01:03 AM (29 days, 12 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
sudly said: So because a neutron is like a proton, but they're not the same, anti-theists are a type of theist?
I don't think you understand what I was expressing. It is about polar inverses being equivalents.
Atheism is a claim without evidence about a claim without evidence. It suffers from the same flaw it identifies.
atheism doesn't require any claim
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28602858 - 12/30/23 01:38 AM (29 days, 12 hours ago) |
|
|
what would you call the position that claims neither belief in or against god?
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Freedom] 1
#28602866 - 12/30/23 01:45 AM (29 days, 12 hours ago) |
|
|
here's a quote from the Aetheist subreddit, which has 2.8 million members. Its an example of how the word is used there. I don't say this to argue about the definition of the wordas I don't see words as having strict definitions, just that this being in the FAQ of such a large group shows that it is used this way:
Quote:
Anyone who does not hold a belief in one or more gods is an atheist. Someone who holds an active belief in the nonexistence of particular gods is specifically known as a "strong" or "explicit" atheist, as opposed to "weak" or "implicit" atheists who make no claims either way.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: DisoRDeR]
#28603300 - 12/30/23 12:52 PM (29 days, 57 minutes ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DisoRDeR said: I might call it curiosity, or just chillin', depending on the thinker's recent interest in all that.
Named things can be pointed at. How does one point in all directions at once?
i like curiosity
all directions at once? the limitless limit. all pointing is an attempt, who knows where it lands?
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Freedom]
#28603315 - 12/30/23 01:06 PM (29 days, 44 minutes ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
I tend to use older word definitions in a rather precise manner. I also ignore what people on reddit think about in regard to pretty much everything. No offense is intended to reddit or those who care about what reddit users think. In general I don't base any of my opinions, that I am aware of, on the consensus of others.
Edited to add: I also have no issue with people on reddit having a different opinion than I about this. There is nothing wrong with their beliefs, nor with mine, they are just different perspectives.
Language is co-created and co-evolves. The definitions of words are so fluid we might not notice. For example:
You may use a word a certain way, however the way other people use the word is not an opinion, it can be observed. If we look to the post you were responding to, the way the word is being used is spelled out pretty clearly (IMO):
Quote:
I find god "not guilty" of existing. That is, there is not enough evidence to verify the claim that "god" exists. I am not addressing the claim that "god doesn't exist".I am addressing those who claim that god does exist. The burden of proof is on them to show god's existence.
...
It seems that the word "atheist" is generally misunderstood. Over the course of this thread, I have heard that "atheists claim to know that there is no god" countless times. There might be a very small minority of self proclaimed atheists that claim this. But believe me, the most prominent atheists in the world are agnostic as well (if only as a technicality). It is those who have not taken the time to understand the atheist position who see it as dogmatic.
Edited by Freedom (12/30/23 01:07 PM)
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28603341 - 12/30/23 01:30 PM (29 days, 20 minutes ago) |
|
|
so how do you determine the True definition of a word when the dictionary has multiple meanings for most words?
For example this study using the oxford learners dictionary found 64% of words have multiple definitions, and 95% of the 3000 most frequently used words had multiple definitions.
I've encountered what i think of as language absolutests and I wonder if it has to do with different ways of thinking
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1207245#:~:text=The%20results%20indicated%20that%2064,in%20the%20mid%2Dfrequency%20vocabulary.
Edited by Freedom (12/30/23 01:30 PM)
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Freedom]
#28603345 - 12/30/23 01:32 PM (29 days, 17 minutes ago) |
|
|
also did you watch the video? I think it demonstrates fluidity of definition very well.
edit: oh yeah you're right
here's a better one, its funny too
Edited by Freedom (12/30/23 01:35 PM)
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28603378 - 12/30/23 02:16 PM (28 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
aQuote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
Freedom said: so how do you determine the True definition of a word when the dictionary has multiple meanings for most words?
That's my point. I don't determine what words mean. I literally use dictionary definitions and etymology, pun intended.
Why do you not redefine the number 3 as meaning a different number? How do you determine what 3 is?
Math is also language, after all. The same things apply.
Coherence relies upon agreed upon standards and the dictionary definitions are, by definition, definitive for me, not the consensus at Reddit. That sus, feel? My son had a few friends who are rappers over last night hanging out with him and I'm no stranger to slang. However I generally avoid using slang or connotative definitions in online conversations. It is all about context.
This is my approach and opinion, there is nothing wrong with having a different position.
redefinition is just part of how language works, 3 already has multiple definitions. For example at 3 i think i will be out of my house doing something else.
Merriam Webster acknowledges the use of atheist in the OP.
Quote:
1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods 2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS,
I'm not sure what you disagree with me about then if you you see that words have multiple meanings and (I assume you see this) the meaning depends on context.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28603754 - 12/30/23 07:34 PM (28 days, 18 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said: I explained the definition of atheist I use and how it is based on the definitions of the word parts and that it is historically accurate. As mentioned I use etymology as part of my understanding of the meaning of words.
I also did this in relation to the word agnostic.
Redefining words over time is one of the reasons people today tend to translate archaic texts very poorly. I spend a lot of time reading old material. My method is practical for the need I have in regards to language. Your approach to language simple would not work for me.
It is just fine for people on Reddit, I am sure, but for other pursuits it can end up being problematic.
I think it might relate to a different way of thinking. I notice I encounter and see encounterts between other people where one person has very strict definitions of words and the other is using the words in a looser way that depends more on context
I think this may reflect different thinking processses.
I don't have trouble having multiple meanings and new meanings for words. For example i could call you, me and rgv 'the three' and as long as it was in the right context, wouldn't have much trouble knowing what that means.
In personality theory having strict definitions of words could be the cognitive function Introverted Thinking, and being facile with many definitions could be the cognitive function Extroverted Intuition
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28603808 - 12/30/23 08:13 PM (28 days, 17 hours ago) |
|
|
I asked chatGTP about it, it came up with this (I think the myers brigs tests don't work, but the descriptions of the cognitive functions point to different ways of cognizing and i've found it really useful in understanding others to study those functions):
Quote:
Introverted Thinking (Ti):
Ti is associated with internal logical analysis and the development of precise, systematic frameworks. Individuals with dominant Ti tend to focus on creating internal structures of understanding and categorization. Ti users often prefer clear definitions and precise language to convey ideas. They may have a tendency to use rigid definitions and a more precise language to communicate their thoughts.
Extroverted Intuition (Ne):
Ne is associated with the exploration of possibilities and connections between ideas. Individuals with dominant Ne are often interested in brainstorming, generating new ideas, and exploring alternative perspectives. Ne users may be more inclined towards loose definitions, as they are more interested in exploring the potential connections and interpretations of concepts. They might use language that is more open-ended and adaptable to various interpretations.
I think because I naturally see things from many perspectives, I also see words from many angles
I would guess (just a fun guess I don't believe this) that you would fit the INTP personality type. https://www.personalityhacker.com/intp-personality-type/
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion] 1
#28603884 - 12/30/23 09:16 PM (28 days, 16 hours ago) |
|
|
I think those tests are very poor, they ask about values a lot and preferences which can be affected by a lot of things outside the cognitive functions.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28603971 - 12/30/23 10:29 PM (28 days, 15 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Personally, I've found my results have changed over the years as my views, attitudes, approaches and experiences have. I don't think the Myers Briggs accounts for fluidity in development, but as a general gist it's interesting.
its normal for people to develop their cognitive functions over time
Quote:
Nillion said: Freedom and sudly, I agree with those comments.
Sometimes I see Myers-Briggs as psychology's version of astrology.
Only now we get 16 signs instead of 12 and the results are based on subjective self reporting instead of being based on the coincidental alignments of planets


Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#28604396 - 12/31/23 09:48 AM (28 days, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Quote:
Freedom said: what's wrong with self reporting?
I'm not sure that it is wrong so much as limiting. People are biased when it comes to self evaluation. It makes self reported evaluations notoriously unreliable.
In psychological assessments this is made up for by using hundreds or even thousands of questions as well as one on one interviews. When it comes to internet personality tests the results are far less reliable.
yeah, i think those tests are garbage, and wouldn't use them, that's not what I was attempting to point to
I think self reporting, depending on how we are using that word is part of the human condition. For example I may want to be a heavy weight boxer, but my self report is that I don't have the physicality or the mentality to succeed.
On the other hand I think I'd make a pretty good programmer.
In the same ways I can look at the cognitive functions.
However, for me the real gold wasn't as much looking at the functions to explore myself, but to see and find value in others.
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I like precision in meaning if I need to puzzle through something effectively (like associative memory), but also I consider brainstorming an enjoyable form of play in which the deformation and sound play of words implying alternate meanings is part of the terrain, and I even enjoy the crossover of domains in this type of play (then I get back to strict meanings while puzzling through what just happened).
Given a question or problem my brain creates an answer intuitively, and then I have to check it with logic to see if its accurate. I didn't take this too seriously until I was solving college physics problems this way and had to study what was going on.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sudly] 1
#28604420 - 12/31/23 10:03 AM (28 days, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
I seem to be getting more vanillia as I age. well, maybe more strawberry
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: The Blind Ass]
#28606793 - 01/02/24 08:41 AM (26 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Blind Ass said:
Imho&e, naturally, via nature, and with some learning to some degree granting some depth of knowledge in some fields of scientific study, including mathematics, and, in conjunction with a keenly discerning mind, at some point; all of which, seemingly naturally discovers (however) energy itself has no first beginning or final end; thus, how experiencing penetrative insight via an inherently nondual primal awareness shining for true, thanks to and upon the the fleeting activity of momentarily distinguishable yet form(s) plus our specific configuration wrt genetically pools assembling what Structure:Function we know as of the human being; lending credence to energy itself as the stinkingly sweet culprit or mysterious thanksgiving day stuffing which seemingly comprises or is by which matter itself can be comprisable or compounded at all.
Following with said energy as is without necessarily requiring any originator for itself's "origination", might well be like an unconditional condition of reality, just, rather than a creature having evolved to the point of obtaining some form required for the knowledge, skills, and means or ability to create a cosmos (meaning, it would be doing so from another or from within this very one itself, somehow - which is absurd - unless completely anthropomorphized and de-ego'd).
Instead, how come we don't just razor all that b.s. away and see as simply as possible how easily it could be "always already" - ie - eternity. Seems perfectly natural to me. What about you all?
That's one notion I tend to mind much about
Primordial in some meaning, imho, denoting and or conotting the fact of phenomenon vs no phenomenon whatsoever at all. Our being for the moment like a flickering speck of bubbly dream emerging via the happenstancialities of causliaty leading to it. Luckily enough; awareness of the time being, in the here & now, itself - is of exactly what?
At the very least, a momentary glimpse of some of the totality of energy's potential, whilst actualized for a smidge in just the right juncture of spacetime for a bubble with sentiently-being-potenlizability to form; wherein which we reside within or by which we reside, and, as which we reside of an eternity - of what? Idk - but, that it is of the flux of interactivity of primordial energy itself that conscious awareness of suchness is possible at all is made possible by.
In that way, energy might be considered somewhat 'godly'. I think we can do better than that, let alone deification of which rests upon the incomplete understanding of a creature such as ourselves. 
I like the word energy in some ways. Energy flows and I imagine as continuous, not split apart into seperate things. The flaw is that it we might think we know what it is.
As child I thought god represented something beyond our imagination, the ultimate mystery . Both space and time can point to how this is beyond at least my conception. With space, is it infite, or does it end? With time, is it infinite or did it begin? All four answers point to something beyond my comprehension, to a miracle. Anthropizing that never made sense.
Except for particular times. I remember many of them were when I was overwhelmed with despair and would fall to the ground in humility with the recognition that the universe was bigger than me, that my life was in 'its' hands, and overwhelmed with a longing I would personify the universe to ask it for help just in that moment.
Now days I sometimes find myself overwhelmed with gratitude just to be able to live, and I notice I want to thank the universe, so imagine a being to thank.
There's another miracle. To see, hear, taste, touch, smell and imagine. If we personify that process, we make ourselves a little god, the creator of our world.
Yet I don't know, has anyone found a thing that creates? A source? Source or sourceless, it seems impossible, or beyond my comprehension
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#28606894 - 01/02/24 10:38 AM (26 days, 3 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: I usually go mental when trying to imagine something that space fits in, or how space even exists, but the old yin yang loop saves my imagination, until I ask "why?"
When I reach the conceptual edge of space, or space without bound, I also reach the edge or end of thought
it can't comprehend and stops in what i like to call, 'the big whoa'. Its hard to believe I know what's going on after that
I think "Whoa" may be the deepest insight into reality
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: The Blind Ass]
#28608029 - 01/03/24 06:27 AM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Blind Ass said: K, but does ur god Woah?
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,851
Last seen: 43 seconds
|
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Nillion]
#28617412 - 01/11/24 09:22 AM (17 days, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nillion said:
Atheists often seem to be just another type of closed minded and close hearted zealot or religious fanatic.
The loud mouths aren't necessarily a representative sample.
|
|