church of atheism

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Icon wrote:

If you are in no dilemma then why debate? If you have no further questions to answer for yourself, then why make conversation. I am a study of humanity edgar. If a man feels he has nothing to prove then a man attempts to prove nothing.

Your circumlocution and dodging techniques reveal much more than your statements themselves. You have yet to reply to a single one of my comments though I have replied directly to all of yours. If you have no dilemma then why do you discuss?

I discuss for the same reason you discuss. Because the topic interests me. Plus, I rarely see my point of view stressed on these threads, in language that suits me.

Dyslexia answered the air question, but it really had nothing to do with proving that a nothing exists as something.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

Yes, it was to you. Tell me what was a bunnywithapancake about it. I responded that I was enjoying myself, and told a little about me. Did you not wish to know that? My arguing/discussing on religion threads happens, but is relatively rare.
Ebrown (waves) can spark me to respond on occasion. Then watch the circles in the pond.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Still waiting for Mr. Brown to provide a meaningful response to this.

Setanta wrote:

Why don't you give us a laundry list of the beliefs in universal truths you find that atheists commonly hold.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Hi Osso,
I just re-read it. Bunnypancake detracted! Thank you, I think I got lost in the thread a little. I hope you can join in with some of our threads though? The truth is - Nobody knows anything for certain in philosophy or religion, that's why it's so much fun.
Have a great day, osso.
Mark...

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Yes Huxley, I think you you understand what I am saying. But it is more then moral values.

Take for example "meaning". There are very different views that we have on the meaning of being human. This includes questions about what makes life valuable and what it means to live a good life. Different cultures and different religions attack these important questions in different ways. Science has absolutely nothing to say about these questions. They must be addressed by "faith". All human beings have a narrative that describes meaning to their experiences; although these narratives are very different from individual to individual and from culture to culture.

I think, perhaps, this is where we disagree most then. And actually, I think it stems from the way we view "objective/subjective". That, however, is likely best addressed in another thread than a thread comparing religions to atheism and vice versa.

I will say that I don't think all things subjective (or not-science, or narrative-like) are well described by "faith", and that things commonly thought of as objective have a subjective quality to them. Meaning could be considered objectively depending upon how we mean objective (For example: Objects are objective. People in my senses are objects. One trait of a person is meaning. Therefore, this trait of meaning is objective)

Quote:

There is tendency of each system of beliefs to be confident that their narrative is superior to all other belief systems (in that they alone represent a truth).

I agree, and think it's something to be wary of. (I have pretty hard-pluralist leanings, if such a thing isn't contradictory)

Would you describe the position you are advocating currently as a belief?

Quote:

However, all human beings are in the same place when it to finding meaning-- from any objective viewpoint, there is no reason to say that any belief system is superior to another. That is my beef with Atheism-- it seems to me that many atheists believe that theistic religions are inferior.

Here's the link to the discussion I started on objective/subjective. I think perhaps we'll make more headway in stepping back a meta-level.

link

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Sure, I thought I did answer this.

The point is that having a set of beliefs that we accept as truth, even though they can't be proven, is part of being human. It is a necessary part of living in a culture. Most of us don't question the basic mythology that we live by.

Americans believe that human beings have intrinsic rights. I would say this is part of being American, most of us accept this without questioning. We have a shared sense of morality-- which most people see as some sort of Universal truth (people don't accept that other cultures with different views of morality are equally valid).

The point I am making is that finding meaning, having a cultural identity, having basic shared values... these are all phenomena that are part of culture. In many cultures these are facets of religion, and they share many traits with "religion" in that they define who we are, they can't be proven and we act as if these values are universal.

The point being, whether you believe in a deity or not is rather a minor point. You are still human, you are still part of a culture that influences how you think and act... and you still don't live nearly as rationally as you think you do.

What I am challenging is the idea that atheists are superior to people with theistic religious beliefs.

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Mark, I'm a famous bunnypancake rabbit when tired or having some wine, worse when both together, when I shouldn't post, in either case; I'm working at that. Plus, I am naturally rather non-lineal at the best of times.

1 Reply

@Huxley,

Thank you for your rational response Huxley.

I am using the word "objective" in the sense provably true outside of any specific cultural context. This is opposed to subjective; my point being that this type of beliefs are largely determined by the cultural context and world-view of the people involved. I realize that these terms need better definition.

Quote:

Would you describe the position you are advocating currently as a belief?

Of course.

1 Reply

This just reminded me of this film which may have already been mentioned.

(I totally stole this from Reconstructo)

Would there, could there be an atheist 'Jesus' or are not each members of an atheist church an atheist 'Jesus'?

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Hi osso,
I like your dog gravatar, I'll show you a photo of mine if I ever find out how to get them here.

Is there a Bfn in the house!!!!!!!!!?
May all the best of things pave your way.
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Me, I put the photo from my scanning onto my desktop. (That's Pacco, by the way, italian for package, short for gift package)
I click on photobucket, and have photobucket pick it up and give it a .jpg url, and then put that on the desk top, regular size being ok - there are several sites like this, including one many prefer, Imageshack
Seek out gravatar, giving your a2k email address.
Follow gravatar instructions by uploading the photobucket or other jpg site desktop photo
Crop or not. I found that tricky, took me a few efforts to get it, but you will, and then select.
In time it will show up as your avatar here.

If you do not want it to go to other sites as an avatar, it is handy if your a2k email is different from other places you might sign up. This can be an issue for some.

If your avatar is one from another source than your own camera, just put it on the desktop, and go from there.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Hi again osso,
I can do the gravatar thing, but I don't want to change mine. I'm more interested in uploading photos to my profile, I can share them from there.
I've done the flicker thing - uploaded a few shots to there - but I can't get them to arrive here. I,ve registered my ID Number in the profile box, but only get "page cannot be displayed" this end. And even that has stuck on my homepage now.
Thank you for your tips though, that's a kind gesture indeed.
Best wishes to you osso.
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

Oh, sorry, I do notice you have an avatar up, duh.
I haven't done that with my photos (I have thousands, good grief) but you're right, BFN knows how to do that.
I think it is also listed in one of the a2k BLOG posts that Robert posted there when he added that. Link accessed at bottom of the page.
http://blog.able2know.org/
Scroll back, that one is March is the most recent (he's been busy).

Cut to the chase, here's the link for the thread on it -

http://able2know.org/topic/127097-1

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

You have failed to demonstrate that everyone has beliefs which are predicated upon "universal truths."

Your last line is a straw man. You assert that atheists consider themselves to be superior to those with theistic beliefs. There is no reason for anyone to argue this who has not made that point. For my part, i would simply remind you that being an atheist is a matter of not believing something, so it can hardly be described has considering one's belief set to be superior, since it is not a belief set.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Hi osso,
Thanks again, but I clearly don't understand how to move photos from flicker to here. I'll go back to flicker and take another look.
I'll be back soon osso, see you then.
Mark...

1 Reply

@mark noble,

I suspect you go from flickr to desktop and then.... but I don't know.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

This thread is going too fast for me to keep up, so I will jump part of it and reply to some posts I want to reply to =)

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
He thinks he does not believe in any deity, but if human life is sacred, there must be a divine being that says so.

This is me. I don't believe in any deity. I believe that human life is sacred.

Are you suggesting that I am not the person who gets to determine what my own beliefs are?

No. You didnt choose your personality, did you? =)

If you believe human life is sacred, then you hold a religious belief of that humans must not be sacrified under any circunstances.

Unless you mean "sacred" as in "very very important".

Thomas wrote:

Until such evidence comes in though, we'll apply Occam's razor and eliminate the god hypothesis. It's not about god, it's about skepticism. We'd eliminate any hypothesis about entities that don't explain anything, but are themselves in great need of explanation. But there's no dogma in that. It's a presumption. And as I outlined, the presumption could easily-enough be rebutted with good-enough evidence. But no such good-enough evidence has come in.

I think that saying that the existence of god is irrelevant is a simpler solution that saying he does not exist.

mark noble wrote:

Hi Nightripper,
The green snake States "Nobody" not a body (person) that means - Not one single person believes in evolution. I do!

But you say "That's right". Then you are wrong. We are the sum of all our influences/experiences, not some freudian hangover.

I'm sure you are jesting though, because you know better, I believe.

Have a great day Nightripper - And I'm glad you are here.
Mark...

He was clearly being sarcastic. You need to learn to identify sarcasm better =)

mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
Are all non-humans (as observed by humans) atheists?
Who's the green worm that thinks "nobody believes in evolution"?
Thank you, be fantastic.
Mark...

Again. more clear sarcasm =)

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Thank you for your rational response Huxley.

No worries, I'm having a fun time. Sorry for not getting back 'til now. I missed your response.

Quote:

I am using the word "objective" in the sense provably true outside of any specific cultural context. This is opposed to subjective; my point being that this type of beliefs are largely determined by the cultural context and world-view of the people involved. I realize that these terms need better definition.

As an aside, my first thought: Maybe Kuhn is effecting my thoughts more than I first realized.

I think that the scientific community is a culture, and that therefore science is not provably true outside of that specific cultural context. In fact, this is a strength of science -- it spreads cognitive power across a group of specialists who adopt a certain value-set in conjunction with a particular epistemology that allows for culture-wide trust in communication in conjunction with ever-refined model making. This doesn't preclude scientific realism, in my opinion, but the scientific community is a culture, and in order for science to prove something scientific to someone else, they will have to adopt at least the epistemic characteristics to understand the scientific argument (if not the scientific result).

Quote:

Quote:

Would you describe the position you are advocating currently as a belief?

Of course.

What makes the belief that "All subjective beliefs can not be superior" better than the belief "A subjective belief can be superior"? (at least, I have read you thus far as advocating the first position)

EDIT: I am building to why I don't think objective/subjective is a good criteria for demarcation (as a scientific realist, myself), and why it's not terribly useful in differentiating between faith/beliefs/knowledge/etc.

Your criteria of objective/subjective, to me, just seems difficult to get around -- we're given language by culture, we're given concepts by culture, we're... very much effected by culture. And what's more, culture is an ambiguous concept, thereby shifting the difficulty in understanding objective/subjective to demarcating culture. Culture is also pervasive -- would learning some words in Spanish count as being "part of another culture", or would you still be considered "home-culture"? What about spending 2 years in Mexico? What that you have learned in that culture is from your culture effected by their culture, what is from their culture alone, and what is something that you have changed from their culture to your culture?

It's a sticky issue, I think. And, what's more, I don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit to solve. YMMV, of course, but I'm leaning towards looking at the objective/subjective as adjectives that can be useful in some contexts, and can trip our thinking up more than its worth in others.

0 Replies

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

If you are in no dilemma then why debate? If you have no further questions to answer for yourself, then why make conversation. I am a study of humanity edgar. If a man feels he has nothing to prove then a man attempts to prove nothing.

Your circumlocution and dodging techniques reveal much more than your statements themselves. You have yet to reply to a single one of my comments though I have replied directly to all of yours. If you have no dilemma then why do you discuss?

What you call circumlocution and dodging is me standing firm against straw man propositions. Give me a substantial statement to argue if you are serious.

0 Replies

@G-Thomson,

i would have to qeustion your firs t four words. and think hard.

0 Replies

church of atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know