Owen phil
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 06:54 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

owenphil and lonus - a perfect couple.


Hi Ed,
hahaha..odd couple for sure.
I get tired of seeing lonus post 'you cannot prove a negative'..such foolish talk should be corrected...don't you think so?
0 Replies
 
Owen phil
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 07:02 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

If you don't believe there is a "god," why do you capitalize the words "god" and "he?" What was the source of all that "baby Jesus" bullshit? If you don't want people to assume that you're a theist, you're doing a piss poor job of convincing anyone otherwise.


Your wild assumptions, that capital letters grant existence and that any talk about theistic beliefs entail that 'I must be a theist' exeplify your very bad reasoning.
I am atheist because I believe gods do not exist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 07:06 am
I made no wild assumptions. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who capitalizes "he" when referring to a putative god, and who capitalizes the word god is a theist--given that that is their custom. Furthermore, you trotted out some horseshit about "baby Jesus," with a parenthetical assertion that this Jesus is "god." What kind of response would you expect to that?

I am an atheist because i am without god. I don't believe that there is any god, but i don't deny the possibility--and i frankly don't care, either.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 07:26 am
@Setanta,
Naah, I do it all the time, force of habit and when using the word "god" as an expression of a specific cultural identity, I always cap it. WHen Im in some broohah with a theist I will cap God(and often Holy Spirit) just to be polite. Id often cap Oden-Boden or Rah, while never believing one jot that they were any more real than the Easter Bunny .

Anyway many times a deity comes out "Gdo" or "oGd" so most people get it.

spendius
 
  0  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 07:35 am
Atheism and agnosticism are defined by Dr Letizia Panizza in Ted Honderich's monumental The Oxford Companion to Philosophy as follows-

Quote:
Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist.

Agnosticism may be strictly personal and confessional--'I have no firm belief about God'-- or it may be the more ambitious claim that no one ought to have a positive belief for or against the divine existence. Perhaps only the ambitious version invites an argument. A promising version might combine something like William Clifford's dictum that no one ought to hold a belief on insufficient evidence with the claim that the existence of God is evidentially indeterminable. Both of these claims, of course, have been strongly contested.


Honorary Research Fellow: Dr Letizia Panizza BA (San Francisco), MA (Berkeley), PhD (London). Dr Panizza specializes in Italian humanism and intellectual history (Petrarch, Lorenzo Valla, Pico della Mirandola, and, outside Italy, Erasmus). She has edited Arcangela Tarabotti’s Che le donne siano della spezie degli uomini (London, 1994), Women in Italian Renaissance Culture and Society (2000), and co-edited A History of Women’s Writing in Italy (CUP, 2000). She has published numerous studies on Italian Humanist thought (especially Stoic and Platonist), on the reconciliation of philosophy and rhetoric, on Lorenzo Valla, Ariosto, and Tasso. Her current research is on women, society, and culture in the Renaissance, aspects of the novella, and 16th and 17th century Italian satirists and libertines.

Ted Honderich (born 30 January 1933) is a Canadian-born British philosopher, Grote Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic, University College London and Visiting Professor, University of Bath.

There is no escape. The only argument concerns the utility of belief or unbelief at the personal level and at the cultural level. The personal level is as insignificant as a lighted match in the sun. The inutility of the Christian God can only be sensibly maintained by those who are disgruntled and in a bad temper with the outcome.

spendius
 
  0  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 08:01 am
@spendius,
Why is it not considered a matter for derision that women knit, crochet, cross-stitch, embroider, arrange flowers, wear make-up and have splits up the side of their skirts? Why can I not do these things without being laughed at?

What scientific explanation is there for such ridiculous beliefs?
0 Replies
 
Owen phil
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 08:03 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Naah, I do it all the time, force of habit and when using the word "god" as an expression of a specific cultural identity, I always cap it. WHen Im in some broohah with a theist I will cap God(and often Holy Spirit) just to be polite. Id often cap Oden-Boden or Rah, while never believing one jot that they were any more real than the Easter Bunny .

Anyway many times a deity comes out "Gdo" or "oGd" so most people get it.


Agreed. To cap or not to cap, is not the question.
Linguistic concerns are not proof or evidence of belief or non-belief.

Often so-called atheists are nothing more than 'theist bashers' without reasoning at all. Witness..this thread.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 08:15 am
@Owen phil,
No, your wrong. This thread was started as a discussion place for the A2K atheists. It went along until several of the "religious" piped in and began the condemnations and stating unequivocally how we were all going to heel and **** like that.

Good manners is not prevailing. I try not to ventre into religious threads anymore cause I realize that my thoughts arent welcome and everyone is trying to have a decent discussion of what floats their boat without any kibizters coming in with the sole purpose of destruction. THIS THERAD was started by and for atheists, why it has gotten this way is not the fault of us. The religious need to look in a mirror and ask what the hell they are trying to represent.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 08:22 am
@Owen phil,
Quote:
Often so-called atheists are nothing more than 'theist bashers' without reasoning at all.


Ah, I disagree with 'often'. Theist bashers often have very good reasons. And I'll think you'll find on this thread that the atheists have shown much reasoning, certainly more than theists, such is the nature of faith. Do you think it's easy to become an atheist in a non-secular society? They don't offer classes, or anti-sunday school, it's a personal journey you have to do all by yourself.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 08:34 am
@hingehead,
well spake I must add.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 08:50 am
Quote:
14 Interesting Facts about North Korea

1. You can’t turn off the government radio installed in your home, only reduce the volume. (Or talk louder).

2. Idolatry in North Korea is such that it is second-nature for ordinary citizens to “rescue” portraits of Kim Il Sung before all else in the case of a house fire (there are even special bunkers for statues in case of war). (First-nature eradicated--for now anyway.)

3. Many people don’t even know that man has walked on the moon. (That must be really awful Gladys!!)

4. There is no Internet, cell-phones have been banned. (The bright spot.)

5. A main cause for all problems are Americans. Mothers teach their children to sing songs about bad Americans, there are many postage stamps showing the death of “U.S imperialists” (Internet sites teach us to think of bad N. Koreans--it works on me.)

6. A six-day work week, and another day of enforced “volunteer” work, ensures that the average citizen has virtually no free time. (**** that your reverence.)

7. The very first thing you do when you visit North Korea’s capital Pyongyang is visit and give a flower to a big statue of “Dear Leader”. ( The second thing you do is squeeze the douche bag full of piss hidden in your overcoat so that the statue is sprayed surreptitously. Be sure of that.)

8. About 0.85% of the population are held in prison or detention camps. (It's not enough.)

9. Most traffic control is performed by female traffic directors (reportedly handpicked by Kim Jong-Il for their beauty) (that makes sense with their being no traffic) , as the lights are switched off to save electricity. (there could be a more sinister reason.)

10. Dogs are banned in Pyongyang to keep it clean. (I'll go for that too.)

11. Avarage wage in 2005 was 6$ (source: www.gluckman.com/NKFEER.html) (That's a decent screw for a N. Korean.)

12. Visitors of North Korea are given special guides and can’t go anywhere without them. (Surely that can't be true? There won't be any toilet jokes if it is.)

13. North Koreans are used to often disappearing electricity and have many candles prepared. (I've met ladies like that.)

14. North Korea has the fourth-largest military in the world, at an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel. (They are good at synchronised marching holding heavy guns in deliberately arranged difficult postures whilst not grimacing.)
Some call it “the Darkest Spot in the World” (I wouldn't go that far.)


That's an atheist regime. Prison for being caught with a Bible. "Re-training" facilities. And not much different from Soviet Russia and Maoist China both of which are having second thoughts. But seemingly better at it.

Won't evolution decide whether it is a valid model for the future? That Supreme exemplar of disinterest.

That's what we have against preaching atheists. Nothing else is of the slightest interest except to males who like tupping each other all through the mating season without arriving at any conclusion. Revolutions don't always occur suddenly and in ways historians like to flatter themselves they think they understand. While they are preening their intellectual fancies the slow revolutions are happening right before their very eyes.

Show us how logical scientific positivism can prevent itself from ending up like N. Korea. They even hired Chinese actors to play the part of N. Korean football supporters at the World Cup. Like the US Movie industry hired European genes to play the All American Hero parts and the sexy siren in all Her many guises. All through the most advanced aspects of your socialisation and general all-round noggin orientations.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 09:47 am
@farmerman,
You're a special case, though . . . we all know that you don't "do" keyboards . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 09:49 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
. . . or anti-sunday school . . .


Where can i sign up?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 09:50 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
EDIT: I'm an atheist becaue i don't believe, not because i have a belief i want to proselytize. Campaigns like this are odious to me, and i suspect, tend to confirm the faulty perception many people have of atheists as just a different type of believer, willing to shove their "beliefs" down other people's throats.

Even if I tentatively accept, for the sake of discussion, that you don't have a belief and don't want to proselytize it, I disagree with your conclusion: This faulty perception about atheists predates the so-called New Atheists, their notoriety, and the campaigns they inspired. In particular, FOX's propaganda about the alleged "war on Christmas" had been around for years when vocal atheists started speaking up about Newton Day. I don't see how vocal atheists could make this any worse. They may as well get themselves pilloried for campaigns they actually do wage. Hung for a lamb, hung for a sheep.

Now, about this business of believing and proselytizing. Call it a strongly-held opinion, call it a belief, call it what you want. But I submit to you that you hold a strong, affirmative conviction that consists of two points:
  • Evidence and logic are good reasons to believe something.

  • Nothing else is a good reason to believe anything. In particular, authority, tradition, revelation, and intuition are bad reasons to believe anything in the absence of evidence and logic.
Moreover, in addition to holding this conviction, you proselytize for it by routinely naming and shaming correspondents who, in your judgment, use shaky logic and dubious factoids. (I have been among those correspondents often enough to know.) Again, there are many other words we could use instead of "proselytize", but it does work just as well here.

Granted, your disbelief in god isn't the starting point of your belief, just its inevitable consequence. And perhaps I just misunderstand you as suggesting there's no affirmative belief involved on your part. But if that's indeed what you're saying, I think you're fooling yourself.
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 09:54 am
@Thomas,
There is a dinstinction here which you are missing, other than that this is a special venue, completely different than that which the humanists employ. That distinction is that i don't care if anyone disbelieves along with me, and am not attempting to achieve that end.

And no, i'm not saying that i have "an affirmative disbelief." It is conceivable, although a very remotely possibility, that someone could offer a definition of god which i would be comfortable accepting. But essentially, it is always just a case of my response being "i don't believe that." I am neither offering a counter belief, nor am i calling for anyone to join in my lack of belief.
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:03 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
But essentially, it is always just a case of my response being "i don't believe that." I am neither offering a counter belief, nor am i calling for anyone to join in my lack of belief.

From reading numerous variants of this response, though, I'm getting a sense that it's more than just "I don't believe that". It's more like, "I don't believe that, because the evidence for god is exactly as good the evidence for fairies and unicorns, and we all agree that evidence is too weak to justify believing in fairies and unicorns." You may not care if people around you disbelieve in god with you (or in unicorns, or in fairies) . But you do care that they back up their claims with evidence and logic, as do you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:08 am
@hingehead,
Well said; it's a lonely road, because even family members try to persuade you to "change."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:11 am
@Thomas,
Whenever someone insists that i believe as they do, if i have sufficient charity in my heart at that time to do more than just tell them to **** off, yes, i wish to know what logic they offer for their claims. Otherwise, though, i just don't care.

I will revert to something i pointed out in the preceding post, though. This venue is something very different than public venues such as the campaigns envisioned by self-described humanists. I only ever discuss this online, i ignore these things in real life. I don't buy any advertising space on the sides of buses, and i'm not interested in sponsoring, or joining in any campaigns which attempt to reach those who are not seeking to discuss the topic with me.
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:15 am
@Setanta,
Fair enough.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 15 Nov, 2010 10:16 am
Oh sure . . . be reasonable . . . what a killjoy . . .
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 134
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:55:21