Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
    #17785437 - 02/11/13 07:41 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

GilbertC06 said:
No, because it takes a stance on something you can't possibly know. Therefore Athiests are in a sense another set of "believers". They just believe the opposite.




I'm just gonna guess you haven't read any of the thread.  Well I'll refer you to it.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785461 - 02/11/13 07:45 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Well to be honest, I am looking for opposition.  Thanks for clearing that up - that the spirituality forum is where people go who aren't looking for opposition.  I had a hunch.  i guess I'll be spending more time in this forum from now on. 

As to why atheism is the only rational position:  The burden of proof is on the person who claims there to be a god.  If there is no evidence for god, then the only rational position to take is that of atheism (atheism not being mutually exclusive from agnosticism).




I'm guessing you are referring to this post? Specifically the little note in parenthesis?

It's pretty much null and void. There's a reason why they are two different words. Either make a thread with the title "Agnosticisim is the only rational position" and we'll have a whole different discussion there. Or my post still stands as is.


Edited by GilbertC06 (02/11/13 07:46 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785502 - 02/11/13 07:52 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:

clam_dude said:
If I don't believe in a god, that's not the same as saying I believe there is no god.  For me to believe in something, I need evidence.  I have not seen any evidence for "god," and therefore I don't believe in it.  I don't positively believe that god does not exist either.

If I don't specifically believe in god, then I'm an atheist.  I'm an agnostic as well.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?




This is silly.  Do you have any evidence of the number 3?  Not the existence of, say, three basketballs or three m&m's, but of the actual platonic number.  Do you then not believe in the number 3?  Are you an athree-ist?  Or are you actually not in the business of contemplating the existence of 3 at all?  You're an atheist if you actively believe God doesn't exist.  You're an agnostic if you actively believe it's not possible to come up with a coherent position on the matter.  You cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.





This is a category error.  Three basketballs are physical objects, the quantity of three is a concept.  To speak of existance  we must be careful not to conflate the physical with the concept.  Obviously we all believe the concept of god exists, its in teh dictionary and in many writings.  What we are talking about is the phsyical existance of god.  It is error to conflate the two.

Similarly with the quantity three, yes, I do have evidence that exists.  Its a concept that refers to the integer number between two and four in order of magnitude.  Having just described it, it exists ipso facto.  To the extent this answer is unsatsifying you are likely commiting a cateogry error and expecting physical evidence of a concept which is to confuse what is being discussed in teh first place.




No one disagrees that the concept of God exists.  God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though (as well as possibly a being, a supernatural entity, a force, etc.) - in the same way that 3 itself is a concept.

To define the number 3 is enough to describe the qualities of the number 3.  If one defines the concept of God, one can make inferences based on that definition as to some other qualities that "God" has.  The concept God is different from the concept 3 in that it is at least theoretically possibly (ignoring for a moment if you disbelieve in God or not) to locate the being of God and say, "Yes, this being right here - this is the one that corresponds with my concept of God. They are the same thing."  This is not possible with the number 3, because the number 3 has no physical incarnation, even in some theoretical sense.

But this is not a salient difference for the point I'm trying to make - I'm not making a category error.  The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief.  Hence the claim was that a lack of evidence constituted atheism, regardless of whether or not there was a positive belief or not.  However:
  • A.  God is a concept, and the number 3 is a concept.  Clam_dude did not have evidence for the number 3**, yet he believed in it.  Thus we can plainly see that evidence is not necessary for belief.

  • B.  Likewise, we can see that lack of evidence cannot constitute disbelief, since it is possible to have a lack of evidence and yet believe in a concept.

There are no athreeists, despite the fact that half the globe is mathematically illiterate and doesn't know of evidence of the existence of 3.  It would take positive disbelief to become an athreeist.  It is the same for being an atheist - it is not the default position for people who have never thought about God.  Similarly, agnosticism i not simply the default position for people who haven't made up their mind yet - a child who is being taught for the first time that God exists isn't an agnostic for as long as it takes for his preacher to get to his conclusion, and yes, that is what you would be claiming if agnosticism doesn't require positive disbelief in a satisfactory level of evidence for belief or disbelief in God.

**And I would like to argue that simply defining a number is not actually evidence of its existence - I can define Lamarkianism, but this is not evidence of its existence.  HOWEVER, whether or not you disagree with me on what constitutes evidence is beside the point - while you, john, may have thought about the definition of the concept 3 before, most atheists have not, including clam_dude (at least not until now I'm guessing), and so my analogy would still hold - he believes in the number 3 even without having evidence of it.

Quote:

clam_dude said:
And actually, what I said is not entirely true - an apple is not a concept - the concept of an apple is a concept.  In the same way, the concept of god is a concept, but god is not a concept.




I think God is the exception to this general rule that things are not their concepts - God is both being and concept, at least as he/she/it is commonly defined.  "God is Love" is a common saying, is it not? 

Also, this is one of the most important passages in the new testament, and therefore fundamental to many people's definition of God:

Quote:

The Gospel of John said:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

...9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of Godβ€” 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.




Sounds like God is being defined as both a concept (the Word), an incorporeal being (that did things like make the world) and a coporeal being (Jesus).

Quote:

Again, your republican/democrat argument is a category error.  Political parties are manmade constructs from which we choose (or don't if we're not into politics). When someone chooses a party, it's an active choice.  If someone doesn't vote and is not into politics at all, it's safe to call them apolitical.  The word apolitical, like atheist, is defining a lack of belief (or interest).  It is therefore the default position.  The person who doesn't know what the word "politics" means is apolitical.
I could also call myself an a-toothfairiest, or a-bigfootest, the list could go on and would include anything I don't believe in or haven't even conceived of.




We choose to become atheists, agnostics, or deists - and it requires an active choice.  Being apolitical does not correspond to atheism.  Babies are apolitical, but they are not atheists - there is no word that corresponds to atheism with regards to the existence of God since people so often just end up following whatever religion their parents were or what is most dominant in their culture.  "A-deists", or whatever you want to call them, are practically non-existent in adulthood.  I don't think I've ever met one.

As a small aside, I might be willing to budge to some degree on whether agnosticism requires active beliefs about the evidence for/against God, since there are so many varieties of people claiming to be agnostics.  But I think you have to had at least thought about the concept once or twice and not just let it wash over you.

Quote:

johnm214
Dawkins has long ago stated he does not believe in god's absence but rather lacks a belief in god.  He is one of the more sloppy speakers on this subject, however, so there are instances of him being misleading on this point more so than Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Dan Barker, et cet.

All of these preceding authors identify themselves as atheists and all of them are also agnostic (at least a weak agnostic).




I definitely agree with you that Dawkins is sloppy about this - he's a gigantic dick and throws flip remarks implying his critics were attacking straw men when they were not. When he says he's an agnostic, he's simply playing games and I'm under no compulsion to respect that self-designation.  The man is a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, and he knows it.

I don't know about all of the others, but I know that for instance Hitchens branded himself as an atheist more as a label so that people understood where he was coming from more than anything else.  If he was going to be specific about it, he was an antitheist agnostic, and that is probably what most of those others (I'm guessing) would say if you pushed them to be specific.  That does not make them both atheists and agnostics - it's like if I married a woman with a young child who came to see me as her father: I would brand myself as her father, and I would share many characteristics of fathers, but if you wanted me to be precise about it I couldn't in all honesty say I was her father.  I would simply be a man involved in the child's life.  It wouldn't ever be correct to say I was both her father and "simply a man involved in the child's life".

The strict definition of atheism requires active disbelief, the common conception of atheism requires active disbelief, and it is only the messy realities of identity politics that create the illusion of wiggle room.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (02/11/13 07:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,777
Last seen: 2 months, 7 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #17785504 - 02/11/13 07:52 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

whew


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlphaFalfa
imagine


Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 3,857
Loc: 3 Seconds Ago. Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: teknix]
    #17785545 - 02/11/13 08:00 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

AlphaFalfa said:
Quote:

teknix said:
You couldn't unless you were able to define god.

Look; the less data you have the less certain the conclusion becomes.





How do you know HOW MUCH data THERE IS, in the first place???




Exactly, until everything is unified or correlates, we can't make any absolute conclusions about anything absolute.

That's why the "Big Bang" is a theory, it seems most likely, not certain.




No buddy, you don't understand.

Scientists don't mean LITERALLY that there is a chance that big bang theory is correct.

They mean that the evidence points to it being correct.

When a scientists says that there is a chance that something is correct, its another way of saying that there is 'evidence' for it.

That given what we know to be true, we hold that big bang theory is an accurate description of the universe.

We don't know for sure because there are obscurities which we cannot measure with our instruments right now.

:lol:

Now that this is out of the way, please, answer me;

WHAT DATA DO WE NEED TO KNOW BEFORE WE CAN BE CERTAIN THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST?


--------------------
if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
    #17785547 - 02/11/13 08:00 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

GilbertC06 said:
Quote:

clam_dude said:
Well to be honest, I am looking for opposition.  Thanks for clearing that up - that the spirituality forum is where people go who aren't looking for opposition.  I had a hunch.  i guess I'll be spending more time in this forum from now on. 

As to why atheism is the only rational position:  The burden of proof is on the person who claims there to be a god.  If there is no evidence for god, then the only rational position to take is that of atheism (atheism not being mutually exclusive from agnosticism).




I'm guessing you are referring to this post? Specifically the little note in parenthesis?

It's pretty much null and void. There's a reason why they are two different words. Either make a thread with the title "Agnosticisim is the only rational position" and we'll have a whole different discussion there. Or my post still stands as is.




I said the two words are not mutually exclusive. I didn't say they are the same.  Agnostic implies, or could be perceived to imply, that there is an equal chance of existence and non-existence.  Atheism is just a little more specific. It's a subset of agnosticism.  Just switch the word "god" with "tooth fairy" or "big foot" and it should al make sense.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: AlphaFalfa]
    #17785576 - 02/11/13 08:04 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

AlphaFalfa said:
Quote:

teknix said:
Quote:

AlphaFalfa said:
Quote:

teknix said:
You couldn't unless you were able to define god.

Look; the less data you have the less certain the conclusion becomes.





How do you know HOW MUCH data THERE IS, in the first place???




Exactly, until everything is unified or correlates, we can't make any absolute conclusions about anything absolute.

That's why the "Big Bang" is a theory, it seems most likely, not certain.




No buddy, you don't understand.

Scientists don't mean LITERALLY that there is a chance that big bang theory is correct.

They mean that the evidence points to it being correct.

When a scientists says that there is a chance that something is correct, its another way of saying that there is 'evidence' for it.





There is evidence pointing at it from independent experiments, you can't test the actual Big Bang, how absurd.

Quote:


WHAT DATA DO WE NEED TO KNOW BEFORE WE CAN BE CERTAIN THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST?




A unifying theory of everything.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr Person
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785600 - 02/11/13 08:07 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:

But of course, what matters is what so-called atheists themselves define themselves as.  I'm telling you that of the most prominent atheists today, very few if any, claim "god" is impossible.  Dawkins, Dennett, Myers, Hitchens, and Harris are all agnostic about god's existence (although harris doesn't like the word "atheist," but for purely political reasons).

The same is true for all of the atheists I've encountered.




And I'm telling you that they shouldn't call themselves atheists if they don't actively believe that there is no god.  It's a backpedaling cop out designed to maintain some semblance of credibility and to the reduce cognitive dissonance over having the same sort of beliefs that they condemn in others.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Let me put it this way.  If you only passively lack belief, why is the descriptor agnostic not enough for you?  Why do you need to tack on "atheist"?  Why do you feel compelled to make a thread like this and defend a concept that (according to your description) agnosticism describes well enough on it's own?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude] * 1
    #17785619 - 02/11/13 08:09 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

Mr Person said:
I'm not confused.  "Athiests" who are really agnostic shouldn't cling to inaccurate labels.  True agnostics do not form opinions about the existance of dieties either way. Anything else is just semantic hand wringing by athiests who want to have their cake and eat it too without any of the cognitive dissonance of believing unprovable faith based opinions.




If I don't believe in a god, that's not the same as saying I believe there is no god.  For me to believe in something, I need evidence.  I have not seen any evidence for "god," and therefore I don't believe in it.  I don't positively believe that god does not exist either. 

If I don't specifically believe in god, then I'm an atheist.  I'm an agnostic as well.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?





I comprende :thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #17785689 - 02/11/13 08:21 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:

No one disagrees that the concept of God exists.  God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though (as well as possibly a being, a supernatural entity, a force, etc.) - in the same way that 3 itself is a concept.

To define the number 3 is enough to describe the qualities of the number 3.  If one defines the concept of God, one can make inferences based on that definition as to some other qualities that "God" has.  The concept God is different from the concept 3 in that it is at least theoretically possibly (ignoring for a moment if you disbelieve in God or not) to locate the being of God and say, "Yes, this being right here - this is the one that corresponds with my concept of God. They are the same thing."  This is not possible with the number 3, because the number 3 has no physical incarnation, even in some theoretical sense.

But this is not a salient difference for the point I'm trying to make - I'm not making a category error.  The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief.  Hence the claim was that a lack of evidence constituted atheism, regardless of whether or not there was a positive belief or not.  However:
  • A.  God is a concept, and the number 3 is a concept.  Clam_dude did not have evidence for the number 3**, yet he believed in it.  Thus we can plainly see that evidence is not necessary for belief.

  • B.  Likewise, we can see that lack of evidence cannot constitute disbelief, since it is possible to have a lack of evidence and yet believe in a concept.

There are no athreeists, despite the fact that half the globe is mathematically illiterate and doesn't know of evidence of the existence of 3.  It would take positive disbelief to become an athreeist.  It is the same for being an atheist - it is not the default position for people who have never thought about God.  Similarly, agnosticism i not simply the default position for people who haven't made up their mind yet - a child who is being taught for the first time that God exists isn't an agnostic for as long as it takes for his preacher to get to his conclusion, and yes, that is what you would be claiming if agnosticism doesn't require positive disbelief in a satisfactory level of evidence for belief or disbelief in God.

**And I would like to argue that simply defining a number is not actually evidence of its existence - I can define Lamarkianism, but this is not evidence of its existence.  HOWEVER, whether or not you disagree with me on what constitutes evidence is beside the point - while you, john, may have thought about the definition of the concept 3 before, most atheists have not, including clam_dude (at least not until now I'm guessing), and so my analogy would still hold - he believes in the number 3 even without having evidence of it.





It's like you didn't read anything I wrote.  In your second sentence you say "God her/him/itself, if she/he/it exists, is a concept though." Did you understand what I said about the concept of the apple? An apple is not a concept. Neither is a fish or a dog.  And neither is god.  A concept of an apple is a concept.  A concept of god is a concept.  But god is not a concept.  The sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.

You're confusing things with the concepts of them. Of course we don't disagree that there's a concept of god.  This has absolutely nothing to do with weather there is a god. 

You say "The claim was made that evidence was necessary for belief in a God and that, therefore, lack of evidence constituted disbelief."

i never stated that lack of evidence constituted disbelief.

Also, it's pretty convenient to just state that "god" is an exception to the fact that concepts of things are not the things themselves.  You state "God is both being and concept, at least as he/she/it is commonly defined.  "God is Love" is a common saying, is it not?"

Again, that's not grammatically correct to state that "god is a concept." If someone says "god is love," well I too believe in love, so I guess I believe in god. I just don't think that's an appropriate use for the word "god." But just for the sake of argument, if "god is love," then god is just a concept and not a being - because love is just a concept.  You keep conflating things with concepts.


Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
We choose to become atheists, agnostics, or deists - and it requires an active choice.  Being apolitical does not correspond to atheism.  Babies are apolitical, but they are not atheists - there is no word that corresponds to atheism with regards to the existence of God since people so often just end up following whatever religion their parents were or what is most dominant in their culture.  "A-deists", or whatever you want to call them, are practically non-existent in adulthood.  I don't think I've ever met one.






Again I completely disagree.  We don't necessarily choose to become atheists.  A baby is an atheist until it is indoctrinated by it's parents.  Just because the baby is not aware of what an atheist is, does not mean that it can't be an atheist.  A baby also does not know that it is a baby, or that it's american, or whatever.  If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Edited by clam_dude (02/11/13 08:26 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785717 - 02/11/13 08:26 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
  A baby is an atheist until it is indoctrinated by it's parents.  Just because the baby is not aware of what an atheist is, does not mean that it can't be an atheist.  A baby also does not know that it is a baby, or that it's american, or whatever.  If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist.





A baby isn't an athiest, it hasn't decided anything. A baby is in ignorance, the same as agnosticism. Agnosticism is more admittedly so unassuming.

Horrible analogy.

:wave:


Edited by teknix (02/11/13 08:32 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785761 - 02/11/13 08:34 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Again I completely disagree.  We don't necessarily choose to become atheists.  A baby is an atheist until it is indoctrinated by it's parents.  Just because the baby is not aware of what an atheist is, does not mean that it can't be an atheist.  A baby also does not know that it is a baby, or that it's american, or whatever.  If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist.





How could you even make that claim though "If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist." How do you know a baby doesn't believe in some sort of deity? If you wanna go this far in the rabbit hole then that's gonna be questioned too. For all you know a baby thinks that his parents are deities. Maybe they think toys are deities.


Edited by GilbertC06 (02/11/13 08:38 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineWScott
Β΄ Ι‘ ο½€β–½ ᑲᓇᑕ
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 14 days
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
    #17785792 - 02/11/13 08:40 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

I didn't read any of the thread but adhering to rationality in a reality like this one is completely irrational. :sun:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: Mr Person]
    #17785793 - 02/11/13 08:40 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Mr Person said:
And I'm telling you that they shouldn't call themselves atheists if they don't actively believe that there is no god.  It's a backpedaling cop out designed to maintain some semblance of credibility and to the reduce cognitive dissonance over having the same sort of beliefs that they condemn in others.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Let me put it this way.  If you only passively lack belief, why is the descriptor agnostic not enough for you?  Why do you need to tack on "atheist"?  Why do you feel compelled to make a thread like this and defend a concept that (according to your description) agnosticism describes well enough on it's own?




Of course, as you and I agreed on before, words mean whatever people think they mean.  So my response to this might make more or less sense, depending on where you live and who you talk to.

It seems to me that the word "agnostic" lends too much credence those who claim there is a god.  I might as well call myself an agnostic regarding the tooth fairy.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785803 - 02/11/13 08:42 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Atheism is closer related to a right, or what you claim of yourself for yourself, or a label you choose to take on.

Babys don't have a voice to make a claim.

So does a baby have rights? How?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: clam_dude]
    #17785806 - 02/11/13 08:43 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

clam_dude said:
Quote:

Mr Person said:
And I'm telling you that they shouldn't call themselves atheists if they don't actively believe that there is no god.  It's a backpedaling cop out designed to maintain some semblance of credibility and to the reduce cognitive dissonance over having the same sort of beliefs that they condemn in others.  Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Let me put it this way.  If you only passively lack belief, why is the descriptor agnostic not enough for you?  Why do you need to tack on "atheist"?  Why do you feel compelled to make a thread like this and defend a concept that (according to your description) agnosticism describes well enough on it's own?




Of course, as you and I agreed on before, words mean whatever people think they mean.  So my response to this might make more or less sense, depending on where you live and who you talk to.

It seems to me that the word "agnostic" lends too much credence those who claim there is a god.  I might as well call myself an agnostic regarding the tooth fairy.




I think you should have just titled this thread "I don't have a fucking clue what's going on" is the only rational position. You would have had a lot more agreement.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGilbertC06
Omnipotent to a fault.


Registered: 01/29/13
Posts: 597
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: teknix]
    #17785816 - 02/11/13 08:43 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Atheism is closer related to a right, or what you claim of yourself for yourself, or a label you choose to take on.

Babys don't have a voice to make a claim.

So does a baby have rights? How?




Technically they just don't have a oral/written language. But they can make claims with universal actions, such as grabbing a toy for themselves.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
    #17785822 - 02/11/13 08:44 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

They don't have rights, but their parents/gaurdians do.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr Person
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: teknix]
    #17785838 - 02/11/13 08:46 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:

A baby isn't an athiest, it hasn't decided anything. A baby is in ignorance, the same as agnosticism. Agnosticism is more admittedly so unassuming.

Horrible analogy.

:wave:




Oh but don't you see?  In clam_dude world all agnostics are atheists by default.  According to him it's fine for atheists to define themselves subjectively by their own interpretation of the word atheism but agnostics who reject the atheist label are wrong about the suddenly objective (:rolleyes:) definition.  clam_dude, are you even capable of appreciating the logical contortions you are attempting to pull in this thread by claiming to have no opinion about the existence of god while at the same time trying to argue against the existence of god?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineclam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: Atheism is the only rational position [Re: GilbertC06]
    #17785846 - 02/11/13 08:48 PM (10 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

GilbertC06 said:
How could you even make that claim though "If it doesn't believe in god, it's an atheist." How do you know a baby doesn't believe in some sort of deity? If you wanna go this far in the rabbit hole then that's gonna be questioned too. For all you know a baby thinks that his parents are deities. Maybe they think toys are deities.




How could I make that statement? Because that's the definition of being an atheist - not believing in god.  So if the baby has not even formed the concept of god in their mind, they are an atheist.  It's the default position.  Now, this is getting into an area I don't know that much about. But I'm willing to bet that a baby, which has no concept of oranges let's say. has a concept of god.


--------------------
"I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Recent Oversaturation Of Christian God Shit Here...
( 1 2 3 all )
fireworks_godS 4,701 57 11/27/05 01:15 PM
by Gomp
* Drugs and Christianity shroomsbury 761 5 02/03/03 09:34 AM
by Demon
* why christianity is bullshit
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
KingOftheThing 24,570 161 04/24/11 05:50 PM
by Holy Bud
* I want you guys to understand Christian Judgment
( 1 2 3 4 all )
World Spirit 4,363 65 05/05/03 09:33 PM
by CosmicJoke
* Christian Rationalism. An answer ? MAIA 1,339 2 08/04/02 05:08 AM
by MAIA
* Atheist Website responds to Christian Letter
( 1 2 all )
Swami 4,129 20 06/22/03 03:55 PM
by Sclorch
* Christianity, Colonialism, Capitalism and Islam. atomikfunksoldier 2,017 14 07/14/03 07:44 AM
by gnrm23
* Atheism.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
evilchipmunk 8,013 90 07/26/04 09:58 AM
by Hanky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
84,888 topic views. 0 members, 9 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.