8
   

Calling all atheists

 
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2012 03:38 pm
@maxdancona,
i don't much care if they exist to kill small animals

i was just answering frank

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2012 08:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5205641)
You seem to imply that knowledge that no gods exist is a belief, which, in a sense, it is. But the implication seems to be that you think it goes, by extension, that I would have to have a belief system similar to religious belief. Which is where I draw the line. When an illusion pops, there exists a vacancy, not an alternate illusion.


If you are a "believer"...you are a "believer."

Doesn't really matter if you "believe there is a GOD"...or if you "believe" there are no gods.

Some atheists do not do believing on the question...but you do.

So...you "believe"...and while it may be uncomfortable to be lumped in with the theists who "believe" there is a GOD...that is how things are.

Merry Christmas once again, Edgar. I love ya, Man. Truly.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2012 08:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
funny thing is, there are all kinds of things unseen i'd likely believe in, but the gods of the major active religions ain't some of them

Loki, gnomes and fairies i could totally be cool with
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2012 08:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You speak with the logic of a deist. Or lack thereof. You cannot allow a person to leave such a structure and so wheedle and angle to find a way to pin it on even the unwilling. I cannot decide if it is because you are at heart a deist or if you have that fear I wrote about earlier. It is obvious you will never let go and so we will have to disengage. There is no place else to go with this.

Merry Christmas, Frank. I bear you no personal animosity. If I ever came to your city, I would try to meet you, just to say Hello.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2012 10:57 pm
@edgarblythe,
Frank only has a simple-minded argument, and one which he thinks is founded on solid logic. The problem is that for him to press his argument, he has to put himself in the position of knowing. For example, he assumes that he knows what we can and cannot know. Look at his signature line. It is terribly important to Frank to assert his position because it is, at its foundation, an assertion of his moral and intellectual superiority. He desperately needs to play these word games, or it all falls apart on him.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Mon 24 Dec, 2012 11:01 pm
@Setanta,
For some reason he wants to cubbyhole everybody and it either comes down to the superiority desire or fear. Can't figure out which.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 12:32 am
@edgarblythe,
Edgar, here is the problem. There are two different definitions of "atheist" at work here.

1) Someone who doesn't believe in God.

2) A group of people who actively oppose the public practice of religion and promote a specific set of political and social policies they see as a counter to religion in society.

If you can honestly say that #1 is the only definition of atheist, then I agree that atheism is not a religion and I would be happy to fall into this category. Of course, if you honestly say that the only criteria is not believing in god, then the atheists who support a strong role of religion in society (since many people assert a positive role for religion even without believing in god) make perfect sense.

That would be fine.

The issue in this thread is that wilso is making attacks on religion and calling that "atheism". Extreme quotes like this

Wilso wrote:
religion is the most malignant influence on the face of the earth. Any assertion that it also does some good is like praising a rapist who always uses a condom.


are clearly not the opinion of many people who don't believe in god, and they clearly are based on prejudice rather than reason.

All I saying is let's be honest here. Is definition #1 for atheism correct, or is it definition #2?

The Atheist International Alliance, which is attacking religion and pushing a narrow political and social agenda clearly think it is #2.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 06:06 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Re: edgarblythe (Post 5206132)
Frank only has a simple-minded argument, and one which he thinks is founded on solid logic. The problem is that for him to press his argument, he has to put himself in the position of knowing. For example, he assumes that he knows what we can and cannot know. Look at his signature line. It is terribly important to Frank to assert his position because it is, at its foundation, an assertion of his moral and intellectual superiority. He desperately needs to play these word games, or it all falls apart on him.


Stick to history, Setanta. You are terrible at psychology.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 06:07 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Re: Setanta (Post 5206196)
For some reason he wants to cubbyhole everybody and it either comes down to the superiority desire or fear. Can't figure out which.


And you disagree specifically with what that I have said?

Pick out the sentence or comment with which you disagree...and let's discuss it rather than this other nonsense.

Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 06:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
No psychology, Frank, just a straight forward description of your lame attempts at logic over time. Do you know psychology Frank, or are you just whistling past the graveyard, as usual? I note that you didn't address the criticism, but just made a snide, slighting remark. That's good evidence of the weakness of your position.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 07:01 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5206358)
No psychology, Frank, just a straight forward description of your lame attempts at logic over time. Do you know psychology Frank, or are you just whistling past the graveyard, as usual? I note that you didn't address the criticism, but just made a snide, slighting remark. That's good evidence of the weakness of your position.


Thank you, Set. Listening to you make comments about other people making snide remarks is one of the highlights of posting on A2K.

Oh, my stomach hurts from the laughter.

You are a gem!
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 08:43 am
@maxdancona,
Most atheists who strike out at religion are doing so out of self defense. The militant atheists are in a small number and I have no control over any other person's actions. The problem is painting everybody with the one brush.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 08:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Your trap is cunning, but not cunning enough, frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 09:15 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Your trap is cunning, but not cunning enough, frank.


I think that translates into: I can't.

Why not start with my signature line...the one you seem to have trouble with. What specifically do you see wrong with what it says?
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 09:16 am
@edgarblythe,
And wasn't it Ms. Moneypenny who asserted that James Bond was a cunning linguist?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 09:52 am
@Frank Apisa,
Why not try to know something for a change?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 09:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
I have never seen a James Bond movie.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 10:06 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Why not try to know something for a change?


I know lots of things. Were you under the impression I did not?

I just don't try to pretend I know the stuff I do not know...or even to give the impression that I am pretending to do so. With the stuff I do not know...I simply acknowledge that I do not know it.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 10:36 am
@Frank Apisa,
Hehehehe.........(sorry Set).

Frank, did you know that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy alone devotes dozens of pages to the topic "epistemology" (theory of knowledge)? Here's the contents list to give you a flavor.
Quote:
1. What is Knowledge?
1.1 Knowledge as Justified True Belief
1.2 The Gettier Problem
2. What is Justification?
2.1 Deontological and Non-Deontological justification
2.2 Evidence vs. Reliability
2.3 Internal vs. External
2.4 Why Internalism?
2.5 Why Externalism?
3. The Structure of Knowledge and Justification
3.1 Foundationalism
3.2 Coherentism
3.3 Why Foundationalism?
3.4 Why Coherentism?
4. Sources of Knowledge and Justification
4.1 Perception
4.2 Introspection
4.3 Memory
4.5 Reason
4.6 Testimony
5. The Limits of Knowledge and Justification
5.1 The Case for Skepticism
5.2 Skepticism and Closure
5.3 Relevant Alternatives and Denying Closure
5.4 The Moorean Response
5.5 The Contextualist Response
5.6 The Ambiguity Response
5.7 Knowing One Isn't a BIV
6. Additional Issues
6.1 Virtue Epistemology
6.2 Naturalistic Epistemology
6.3 Religious Epistemology
6.4 Moral Epistemology
6.5 Social Epistemology
6.6 Feminist Epistemology

edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2012 10:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Your rules for knowing and not knowing apply to yourself and your own particular dilemma. An atheist does not need all that made up bullshit clouding the issue.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/25/2024 at 11:56:16