Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause? [Archive] - Page 3

Dogdoctor

18th September 2007, 04:46 PM

Religious people have made it clear that it doesn't matter if I think they are offensive in achieving their "goals". I feel the same. I don't make special exceptions because of faith... and the faithful go out of their way to find things wrong with non-belief... they've been indoctrinated to accept the faith over the facts-- and to find non-believers the enemy. No matter what an atheist does or says, the faithful have been inculcated to see it as something to defend against and vilify. I don't think that works for anyone.

I want the same right not to worry about offending other people with my opinions that theists and apologists just seem to take for granted--at least when it comes to me and those I admire. I don't feel like apologists are on my side, because they sound dishonest to me-- and exceedingly unaware of the bias and self righteously unwilling to examine it. The attitude is "poor me"-- they are blustery and appeal to emotion and semantics... not logic, facts, or my feelings. They want respect that they do not give in return. And they are offended just by knowing you find their beliefs delusional. But don't all believers also find other believers delusional? Don't tell me the Christians don't roll their eyes and Scientology, now... How much do you go out of your way not to offend an atheist or astrologers or a Muslim? How much do you defer to notions like racism that you might find repugnant or damaging?

I want the same not to worry about whether I'm offensive as you and others take for granted.

How would you know what all religious people think about this?(what you said was a generalization and not true) You can express your opinion without trying to be offensive (unless you are simply an offensive person). That is what most people do. I don't make special exceptions because of faith either. I may be considerate to others regardless of their faith. I don't have to go out of my way to do it because I really care about them.

JoeEllison

18th September 2007, 04:53 PM

There were atheists who seemed to be supporting that position. If you weren't one of them you don't need to say anything.

Well, that's incredibly disingenuous of you. How about if I say "religious people are complete morons... well, hey, if you're religious but not a moron I wasn't really talking about you." How would you feel about that?

Maybe... that I was being rude AND dishonest?

JoeEllison

18th September 2007, 04:56 PM

mijopaalmc

18th September 2007, 05:12 PM

I'd shrug it off. If I were easily offended, I wouldn't bother posting on a message board.

This point is that the comment that I quoted exemplifies an entire philosophy; it wasn't merely a misunderstanding as both Complexity and articulett have repeatedly accused those who disagree of what I quoted or something very similar.

articulett

18th September 2007, 05:18 PM

How would you know what all religious people think about this?(what you said was a generalization and not true) You can express your opinion without trying to be offensive (unless you are simply an offensive person). That is what most people do. I don't make special exceptions because of faith either. I may be considerate to others regardless of their faith. I don't have to go out of my way to do it because I really care about them.

Did I say "ALL" religious people? Didn't you just clarify that you didn't mean ALL atheists. Don't you see your double standard? I'm talking about the same hypothetically offended religious people whose feelings I should consider in your poorly worded example, remember? You assume that atheists are "trying" to be offensive and that religionists aren't or are excuses because they are unaware that they are being presumptive or offensive. But you miss the fact that most anything an atheist says or does is magnified a thousand times in the "offensive" department... and everything a person does in the name of Jesus is magically good and worth respecting and shouldn't cause anyone a minutes worth of discomfort.

And yes... you do make special exceptions because of faith... you do it almost every thread... you make the atheist into the bad guy or the offensive party no matter how mild the offense and you just don't see the Christian as ever doing anything wrong or rude or presumptive. It's always the atheist--hypothetical or otherwise that you want to admonish or change or teach or "preach at". You truly think that if something doesn't bug you, it shouldn't bug an atheist-- but if something could bug a Christian-- why then you out there ready to fight for the hypothetical Christians "feelings" for their "faith" no matter how inane.

I think I'm pretty damn considerate to others too regardless of their faith. I think I'm a lot more considerate than you to those who don't share the majority faith-- and especially to those fine folks who can't find a reason to believe at all. I give my special consideration to the eloquent; the honest; and the truth tellers--oh and the funniest-- not the pedants and judges and holier-than-thou. I just think the former make the world a better place and the latter imagine they do. I would say that both on and off this forum, I am as considerate or more considerate to others than they are to me. But I can't spend my time worrying extra about hurt feelings of hypothetical strangers-- which you should understand since you haven't spent an iota of time caring about the feelings or opinions of atheists on this forum. Why are our real opinions so much less important than the hypothetical Christians (and it's always Christians the apologists here are rushing in to defend... ) I have plenty of believer friends-- they just aren't waiting for me to say something "aggressive"... but I don't hang around judgmental people and I tend not to pass judgment on people unless they've proffered their "opinion" first.

BTW, offensive is an opinion. Do you care that some people here find you purposefully offensive? Why not? You can't "hear" yourself, but you just sound so... insincere and biased and snide and disrespectful of the opinions of those who sound much smarter than you to me. Maybe you're just an offensive person--what's your goal that this offensiveness doesn't seem to matter? Perhaps the offensiveness you see in atheists is projection? That's what it looks like from where I sit.

I know the apologists don't believe it-- but I think that if you polled the majority on this forum as to who they find the most offensive-- the "supposed aggressive atheists" on this forum or the apologists-- you guys would win by a long shot. For the record--... I don't assume most theists are thin skinned or easily offended; I think they are like me... and I actually end up being surprised when some seem to have presumed that they are superior than me based on their faith... moreso, when they expect me to somehow agree. But most are fine with me, and I with them. I will put my logic, social skills, reasoning, humor, facts, and morality on the table next to an apologists any day. I think people who think like me are better people-- but who doesn't think that?

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 05:20 PM

This point is that the comment that I quoted exemplifies an entire philosophy

What philosophy is that?

Dunstan

18th September 2007, 05:21 PM

This point is that the comment that I quoted exemplifies an entire philosophy; it wasn't merely a misunderstanding as both Complexity and articulett have repeatedly accused those who disagree of what I quoted or something very similar.

It doesn't change my answer, which wasn't predicated on it being a misunderstanding. You asked me:

So how would you respond to someone who calls you an "outrageous apologist for the closest thing to evil"?

I suppose expecting that the answer would be "I'd get upset and run away and never speak about atheism again"? But I told you: I really don't care. It would probably change my opinion of the individual calling me that, but it wouldn't change my view of an entire issue. I think that anybody who changes his opinion so easily didn't have a strong conviction to begin with. What would you think of someone who said, "I'm opposed to the Iraq War, but that Cindy Sheehan ticks me off, so I'm not going to speak out against the war anymore?"

mijopaalmc

18th September 2007, 05:33 PM

I suppose expecting that the answer would be "I'd get upset and run away and never speak about atheism again"? But I told you: I really don't care. It would probably change my opinion of the individual calling me that, but it wouldn't change my view of an entire issue. I think that anybody who changes his opinion so easily didn't have a strong conviction to begin with. What would you think of someone who said, "I'm opposed to the Iraq War, but that Cindy Sheehan ticks me off, so I'm not going to speak out against the war anymore?"

You know, it is really hard not to suspect you of deliberately misconstruing my point. No, the response that I wanted wasn't "I'd get upset and run away and never speak about atheism again" (you seem not to have noticed that such a comment hasn't dissuaded the Beth and other from posting in this thread); I was hoping that you would apply a little critical thinking and perhaps see that such hyperbole is what is earning people the title "agressive atheist".

articulett

18th September 2007, 05:36 PM

It doesn't change my answer, which wasn't predicated on it being a misunderstanding. You asked me:

I suppose expecting that the answer would be "I'd get upset and run away and never speak about atheism again"? But I told you: I really don't care. It would probably change my opinion of the individual calling me that, but it wouldn't change my view of an entire issue. I think that anybody who changes his opinion so easily didn't have a strong conviction to begin with. What would you think of someone who said, "I'm opposed to the Iraq War, but that Cindy Sheehan ticks me off, so I'm not going to speak out against the war anymore?"

I think the accusation might bug me if I was afraid there was a hint of truth in it. I might want to examine the evidence. But if it was an unintelligent blowhard making the assessment, it would make me gleeful--like when mijo says nasty things about me. I think mijo is angry at others to avoid assessing whether the comment has any truth. He does that a lot from what I see.

Apology

18th September 2007, 05:39 PM

I doubt events happened the way you tell it. However, it is true that you either believe in a god or you don't. You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but if you don't believe a god exists you are atheist. If you do believe a god exists, you are theist/deist. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge of a god, not belief in one. You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but when you do so you have not answered the question "do you believe in a god?" which is a yes or no question.

Perhaps that's why you feel they were angry or why they became angry, because you seem to have no idea what agnostic means.

I have the right to believe that the existence of God is a big fat maybe. I can live my life as if God doesn't exist, seeing as the preponderance of the evidence leans towards God's nonexistance, and still believe that God is possible. I can be against Christianity and every known religion and still believe in the possibility of God. I can go right ahead and say "I just don't know whether I believe in God or not." It's not a black and white issue for everyone. The fact that I tend to lean towards unbelief and conduct my life that way does not automatically make me an atheist. A lukewarm belief in the possibility of a God doesn't automatically make me a deist or a theist either. I don't see why I should have to express my belief or unbelief in God in yes or no terms. Why should I be forced to choose a side? Who made this rule anyway?

As to why they were angry with me, I think it's because I converted to agnosticism from atheism rather than from Christianity, so they felt the cause was "betrayed" by me or something. If I try to guess at what they were thinking I'd just be building a strawman so it's pointless to guess at why they were so angry. Asking people to try and make a respectful argument in itself seems to make some people angry.

By the way, thanks for doubting my veracity in the opening of your post. I'd like to know why you think I would be dishonest about something like this.

Dunstan

18th September 2007, 05:40 PM

You know, it is really hard not to suspect you of deliberately misconstruing my point. No, the response that I wanted wasn't "I'd get upset and run away and never speak about atheism again" (you seem not to have noticed that such a comment hasn't dissuaded the Beth and other from posting in this thread); I was hoping that you would apply a little critical thinking and perhaps see that such hyperbole is what is earning people the title "agressive atheist".

There was nothing in the context of your question that suggested that. Whatever an "aggressive atheist" is (it's a rather vague term), I have no doubt that there are some people who fit that title. So what?

It's not a matter of me lacking "critical thinking." I simply didn't see -- and still don't -- how your comment was addressing this issue.

To review:

Me:
If you're not prepared to defend even the moderate atheists you like against "intolerant militant religious folks" just because you don't like what some other atheists say, then I don't think your support would be worth very much anyway.

You:
So how would you respond to someone who calls you an "outrageous apologist for the closest thing to evil"?

It seriously sounds like neither Complexity nor the people with who he/she aligns him/herself are interested in moderating their views or toning down their attack on people with whom they disagree.

That reads to me like you were justifying US's suggestion that the actions of some atheists would cause him to no longer be "in the corner of" even moderate atheists.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 05:49 PM

I have the right to believe that the existence of God is a big fat maybe.

Which god? Thor? Zeus? Do you believe Vishnu exists? A person either believes a god exists or they do not. It's like asking "are you human" you either are or are not, if your answer is "maybe" then you are simply evading the question. You seem to be comfortable with evasion and simply do not want to answer the question.

I can live my life as if God doesn't exist, seeing as the preponderance of the evidence leans towards God's nonexistance, and still believe that God is possible.

Yes, it's possible, but do you actually believe it exist or not? I don't believe I will ever win a lottery, but I know it's absolutely possible.

I can be against Christianity and every known religion and still believe in the possibility of God.

Yes, you can. Which god though?

I can go right ahead and say "I just don't know whether I believe in God or not."

You can say it, but you'd be telling a lie.

It's not a black and white issue for everyone.

Yes, it is. It's a yes or no question. Do you believe in a god, yes or no?

The fact that I tend to lean towards unbelief and conduct my life that way does not automatically make me an atheist.

You probably are atheist but just don't want to admit it.

A lukewarm belief in the possibility of a God doesn't automatically make me a deist or a theist either.

True, but what's your point?

I don't see why I should have to express my belief or unbelief in God in yes or no terms.

Because it's a yes or no answer.

Why should I be forced to choose a side? Who made this rule anyway?

It's the fault of logic. When asked a yes or no question, the answer must be either yes or no.

As to why they were angry with me, I think it's because I converted to agnosticism from atheism rather than from Christianity, so they felt the cause was "betrayed" by me or something.

Maybe, but I'm leaning towards your inability to understand that agnostic doesn't mean "maybe" and it doesn't even address the question of belief. Agnotic describes a person who thinks that the existence of "god" cannot be known, proven or disproven.

By the way, thanks for doubting my veracity in the opening of your post. I'd like to know why you think I would be dishonest about something like this.

Because the story sounded fishy, and the smell only gets worse the more you tell it.

Piggy

18th September 2007, 05:51 PM

The aggressive atheistic stance is clearly preferred by some atheists here. It also definitely repels people like me. I’ll join up with the tolerant moderate religious believers before I will the aggressive militant atheists.

Beth, I have to ask whether my expressed position -- i.e., that the claim "God exists" is a demonstrably false statement -- fits your definition of an "aggressive militant" position rather than a "tolerant moderate" one.

In asking this, I do want to be mindful of Darat's admonition to focus on the argument rather than the persons involved. So I'm not asking you whether you think that I, personally, am an aggressive militant atheist.

The reason I ask is that I think it may go to the heart of a rift which is essential to differences in understanding of the core issue expressed in the OP.

Then again, it might not.

I hope you don't mind answering. Thanks.

articulett

18th September 2007, 05:54 PM

Why would they worry about toning us down and not themselves or the aggressive theists that posts here? My main goal is just to dismantle this notion that faith and belief are good just because... or anything associated with Jesus can't be questioned or mocked and everything associated with a non-believer is open to judgment and admonishments to "tone things down". I'm an "aggressive atheist"? Well, count me in! Especially if Dawkins is also one. But how aggressive am I? Oh... I know what they mean... I'm smart and funny-- and so people understand me and listen to me... which might not bode well for faith or the holier-than-thou apologists trying to grab special kudos for their muddled point of view. (Or maybe that's just me being narcissistic and comparing myself to Dawkins and Kathy Griffin--my fellow "aggressive atheists".)

And Piggy-- if anyone thinks YOU are an aggressive militant atheist, I will have to call them insane. It's me, Kathy Griffin, Dawkins, Harris, six7's, Complexity, thaiboxerken, joeellision, and a few others. You need to earn the crown. I'm not sure what an "aggressive militant atheist is"-- but I know for sure you can't be one. Work at it, like the rest of us, buddy! ;)

Just to rile up the holier than thou once again (it's good for them to thicken their skin, afterall)-- God is a delusion; suck it Jesus. Faith=Gullibility. If you're offended, welcome to my world.

Piggy

18th September 2007, 06:02 PM

It seriously sounds like neither Complexity nor the people with who he/she aligns him/herself are interested in moderating their views or toning down their attack on people with whom they disagree.

I think it's essential here to understand the reasons why Complexity and others -- myself included -- are not interested in "moderating" or "toning down" our statements on the question of the existence of God.

It has nothing to do with the identity of anyone who agrees or disagrees with us. For us, it's not a matter of politics, but of fact.

We have no interest in "toning down" our statements because the evidence supports our position, and to "moderate" our position would be to lie about it.

To ask us to "moderate" our statements regarding the fact of the non-existence of God, to somehow accommodate theists by pretending that they might be right, would be like the Catholic Church asking Galileo to "moderate" or "tone down" his statements regarding heliocentrism, or creationists asking science teachers to "moderate" their position on evolution.

There is no reason for us to "moderate" our position to appease an unfounded, irrational, "faith based" (i.e., baseless) belief system which is opposed by every shred of evidence, and which is based on an entirely debunked world view.

If you want to engage us, then please, engage the evidence itself. Do not simply chastise us for being intolerant and insinuate the we are somehow being militant by merely asserting what the evidence leads us to conclude.

Piggy

18th September 2007, 06:12 PM

And Piggy-- if anyone thinks YOU are an aggressive militant atheist, I will have to call them insane. It's me, Kathy Griffin, Dawkins, Harris, six7's, Complexity, thaiboxerken, joeellision, and a few others. You need to earn the crown. I'm not sure what an "aggressive militant atheist is"-- but I know for sure you can't be one. Work at it, like the rest of us, buddy! ;)

I know you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it's not a crown I'm interested in. Nevertheless, it's one I've been painted with many times.

And re the OP, I would put Dawkins and Harris in different categories.

I find Harris's style/methods explicitly confrontational and aggressive, Dawkins's not so. (And mind you, I'm not making any value judgments here regarding the use of either sort of tactic.) That's why I have to raise an eyebrow at theists who lump Dawkins (and myself) into the same category as Harris merely because we will not grant them the privilege of being possibly correct.

They are not possibly correct.

And although anyone is free to argue against my conclusions on the issue, I don't think anyone can credibly claim that I haven't given it due consideration.

No, what I object to is the juvenile position held by many supposedly moderate theists that merely to assert -- actually assert -- a truly contrary position to theirs is inherently agressive, militant, unacceptable.

Would anyone who considers him/herself rational dare to take such a position regarding any other debate? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.

Meadmaker

18th September 2007, 06:30 PM

Beth, I have to ask whether my expressed position -- i.e., that the claim "God exists" is a demonstrably false statement -- fits your definition of an "aggressive militant" position rather than a "tolerant moderate" one.

I'm not Beth, and I would like to hear her answer, but for me, that would not be enough to qualify someone as a militant atheist.

To me, a militant atheist would be someone who believes that "God exists" is a demonstrably false statement, and who goes out of his way to try and get other people to believe it as well, whether or not they are really interested in it. Or who, when encountering someone who doesn't believe it, feels compelled to point out the fallacy in their position.

Or, the worst of all, when encountering a public display of faith, feels compelled to call their lawyer to stop it, even if it doesn't harm anyone else.

That last one is a can of worms, because exactly when a public display of faith becomes a government endorsement of faith is a difficult question to answer. I am against goverenment endorsements of faith, but I will give an example of a place where I have seen what I would consider aggressive, militant, action in that area.

Christmas carols at school concerts. I like Christmas carols. They're folk music. I look at my CD collection, and I see things like The Clancy Brothers, "Irish Drinking Songs", "Great Christmas Songs", "A Smoky Mountain Christmas", "Treasured Mountain Hymns", Marty Robbins. Anyone who wants to ban folk music because their ears hurt if they hear it, is on my unapproved list. Get a life. Lighten up. Silent Night won't hurt you. If you demand the right to sing "Circles" *, I'll be right there on your side, but if you think "The Holly and the Ivy" is a violation of the constitution, I think you ought to take a drink and relax.

===================
*A pagan tune, The chorus goes like this:

Around and around and around spins the Good Earth.
All things must change as the seasons go by.
We are the children of the Lord and the Lady.
Whose mysteries we know, but may never know why.

articulett

18th September 2007, 06:32 PM

I agree with all of it piggy. And I have to say, if what you say is something they want to tone down or find "aggressive"-- then I don't think any of us non-believers will pass their muster.

Except... I don't find Sam Harris' position on atheism aggressive. I do find his position on torture aggressive, however. But that isn't the topic. I'm trying to find quotes by supposed militant atheists--especially ones on this forum, since the accusations fly-- and the only one provided that I see is Complexity's-- and I don't think it's worse than comments made by those complaining about the "aggressive atheists" that are driving them away by not "toning things down".

bokonon

18th September 2007, 06:32 PM

I haven't seen any actual aggression or militancy on the nonbelieving side of the camp that is harmful or needs to be toned down.
Uhm, have you ever visited the Raving Atheists forum?

Not safe for work.
Not safe for kids.
Not safe for anyone, really.

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11990

It seems that a lot of the disagreement on this thread is about where we all (individually) draw the line. Some of us consider others more emotional than necessary, and therefore ineffective; others have a problem with those who are "holier than thou," and therefore ineffective. I'm just wondering if you think the points in the thread I linked to would be communicated more effectively if the language used to express them was toned down.

If not, do you consider "You'll burn in hell" language to be just as offensive, or can you point to language from the theist side that you would consider to be as offensive?

Piggy

18th September 2007, 06:38 PM

That last one is a can of worms, because exactly when a public display of faith becomes a government endorsement of faith is a difficult question to answer. I am against goverenment endorsements of faith, but I will give an example of a place where I have seen what I would consider aggressive, militant, action in that area.

Christmas carols at school concerts. I like Christmas carols. They're folk music. I look at my CD collection, and I see things like The Clancy Brothers, "Irish Drinking Songs", "Great Christmas Songs", "A Smoky Mountain Christmas", "Treasured Mountain Hymns", Marty Robbins. Anyone who wants to ban folk music because their ears hurt if they hear it, is on my unapproved list. Get a life. Lighten up. Silent Night won't hurt you. If you demand the right to sing "Circles" *, I'll be right there on your side, but if you think "The Holly and the Ivy" is a violation of the constitution, I think you ought to take a drink and relax.

Thanks for the reply, Meadmaker. I agree with you on much of what you say.

I have to disagree with you on this issue, though, specifically.

In my experience, it's very rarely a cloudy issue.

If you're singing hymns to Jesus at Christmas, and saying prayers to God over the PA, in a public school, it's government endorsement of religion.

You wouldn't believe what my Jewish friends in Cobb County (home of the infamous evolution stickers) have to put up with. The idea that, somehow, Christian songs and prayers are simply part of the "culture" and not, rather, preferential treatment of religion... well, it doesn't hold water.

Dunstan

18th September 2007, 06:38 PM

Uhm, have you ever visited the Raving Atheists forum?

I lurk there occasionally. I think it's fine as a place for ticked-off atheists to blow off steam. As a place for serious debate, no, and I wouldn't advise any theists to go there looking for one.

By the same token, I really don't care if some theists want to say nasty things about atheists on some religious forum, and you won't find me digging through those forums to find some quotes to prove how awful theists are (even if I believed that). Sometimes people just need to vent.

Dogdoctor

18th September 2007, 06:42 PM

Well, that's incredibly disingenuous of you. How about if I say "religious people are complete morons... well, hey, if you're religious but not a moron I wasn't really talking about you." How would you feel about that?

Maybe... that I was being rude AND dishonest?

I went and looked at my post and can see how if you are angry at me allready you might interpet things wrong. This post is a personal attack. You know for a skeptics board there sure is a lot of logical fallicies gettiing posted

articulett

18th September 2007, 06:45 PM

Uhm, have you ever visited the Raving Atheists forum?

Not safe for work.
Not safe for kids.
Not safe for anyone, really.

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11990

It seems that a lot of the disagreement on this thread is about where we all (individually) draw the line. Some of us consider others more emotional than necessary, and therefore ineffective; others have a problem with those who are "holier than thou," and therefore ineffective. I'm just wondering if you think the points in the thread I linked to would be communicated more effectively if the language used to express them was toned down.

If not, do you consider "You'll burn in hell" language to be just as offensive, or can you point to language from the theist side that you would consider to be as offensive?

Well sure--especially on their own forums... that is a forum particularly for "raving atheists"-- we all have a right to choose whom we associate with. I see much worse than that on political sites. Check out Fundies say the darndest things or any hate mail at Dawkins site or normalbobsmith.com--

And it's weirdly sick... because they are blind to their evils because they imagine religion makes them "more moral"-- I think Ann Coulter's comment in her book about her and her co-religionists giggling at the thought of Dawkins burning in hell is really egregious-- because they believe in it.... and they want him to go there for having the audacity to not believe... and to speak the facts about evolution. I think that is very, very twisted. I think strong like minded believers of all types get together and say some pretty twisted things about non-believers. Do you ever read pharyngula? Check out Richarddawns.net hatemail under the good, the bad and the ugly (Ann Coulter's is in the ugly.) The talk at the raving atheist is offensive-- but nothing quite like Christian hate mail at sites that joke about jesus. Jesus of the Week has some good hate mail. And so does Christ on the Crapper. And II've seen some very ugly talk from the religious right about "godless liberals"-- and these people have power.

Lets see-- Fred Phelps... doesn't he just take the cake? I honestly can't think of a more offensive view spouter that expects to be taken seriously by those who don't share his view. He wants respect from people he does not respect. Theists tend to be offensive to an atheists face in addition to demonizing them in sermons and propping up the notion that they are better because they have faith-- I don't think a forum for "raving atheists" is comparable at all.

Why did you choose an example post from 2006?

Slimething

18th September 2007, 06:48 PM

So as long as the religious people think it is important then it's ok?

No, it's justifiable in their minds but not OK. (When you say OK, I take it that you mean "correct", am I right?) If I offend anyone, due to religion or anything else, it may be intentional or not, it may or may not be OK. Whether or not it's OK depends on whether or not a serious wrong has been done and to whom. Both sides may be offensive but only one side is OK/correct. The side that would be more correct would be the side who's rights were trampled more. At that point, though, any learning opportunity may well have been lost.

Avoiding stand-offs is the better part of wisdom. Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_Razor) has to play a part before anyone decides to ratchet up a looming confrontation. If, for example, I had met Paula Poundstone's nun I would have cornered her after her speech and explained to her how insulting her remarks were. The meeting could go two ways from there. Either she acknowledge/apologized or she continued to denigrate me, then I probably would get a little offensive, increasing with time. Or maybe I would just shake my head and walk away. (The latter being the better course and I've had lots of practice doing it.)

What's your point? This is all common sense.

Dogdoctor

18th September 2007, 06:48 PM

Funny, but you are being offensive, and in a thread like this one could assume that you are doing it on purpose.

I am not trying to be offensive. If a logical and impartial person was to look at these posts who do you suppose they would think was intentionally offensive?

Meadmaker

18th September 2007, 06:53 PM

If you're singing hymns to Jesus at Christmas, and saying prayers to God over the PA, in a public school, it's government endorsement of religion.

You wouldn't believe what my Jewish friends in Cobb County (home of the infamous evolution stickers) have to put up with. The idea that, somehow, Christian songs and prayers are simply part of the "culture" and not, rather, preferential treatment of religion... well, it doesn't hold water.

It's only preferential if you sing exclusively Christian songs. If they want to sing Jewish songs at the appropriate time of year, I'm all for it. It's folk music.

(Exception: No one over the age of five should sing "Dredl, Dredl, Dredl". Ever.)

And prayers over the PA would be found unconstitutional in any court in the land, a position with which I agree wholeheartedly.

articulett

18th September 2007, 06:53 PM

I went and looked at my post and can see how if you are angry at me allready you might interpet things wrong. This post is a personal attack. You know for a skeptics board there sure is a lot of logical fallicies gettiing posted

And I guess you think you aren't committing any of them?

bokonon

18th September 2007, 06:55 PM

Which god? Thor? Zeus? Do you believe Vishnu exists? A person either believes a god exists or they do not. ...It's a yes or no question. Do you believe in a god, yes or no? ... When asked a yes or no question, the answer must be either yes or no.

Do you believe there is life on a planet circling another star in our galaxy? Which star? Alpha centauri? Betelgeuse?

If you answer "Yes" to the first question, and I enumerate every star in the galaxy, "Do you believe there is life on a planet circling Alpha Centauri?" "Do you believe there is life on a planet circling Betelgeuse?" is your answer to every yes or no question going to be yes or no?

Dogdoctor

18th September 2007, 06:58 PM

No, it's justifiable in their minds but not OK. (When you say OK, I take it that you mean "correct", am I right?) If I offend anyone, due to religion or anything else, it may be intentional or not, it may or may not be OK. Whether or not it's OK depends on whether or not a serious wrong has been done and to whom. Both sides may be offensive but only one side is OK/correct. The side that would be more correct would be the side who's rights were trampled more. At that point, though, any learning opportunity may well have been lost.

Avoiding stand-offs is the better part of wisdom. Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_Razor) has to play a part before anyone decides to ratchet up a looming confrontation. If, for example, I had met Paula Poundstone's nun I would have cornered her after her speech and explained to her how insulting her remarks were. The meeting could go two ways from there. Either she acknowledge/apologized or she continued to denigrate me, then I probably would get a little offensive, increasing with time. Or maybe I would just shake my head and walk away. (The latter being the better course and I've had lots of practice doing it.)

What's your point? This is all common sense.
The point being that lots of posters were complaining about being offended by people praising Jesus when those people weren't even trying to be offensive. Yet a person intentionally tries to be offensive and they are cheered even though they just did it as part of a comedy routine and not any proatheist statement. I guess if they feel strong enough about it the religious folk should say "Thank you Jesus and atheists suck it" for the next award they recieve.

Dogdoctor

18th September 2007, 06:59 PM

And I guess you think you aren't committing any of them?

Unfortunately I commit them too but I try really hard not to and I am getting better at it over time.

Apology

18th September 2007, 07:02 PM

Which god? Thor? Zeus? Do you believe Vishnu exists? A person either believes a god exists or they do not. It's like asking "are you human" you either are or are not, if your answer is "maybe" then you are simply evading the question. You seem to be comfortable with evasion and simply do not want to answer the question.

I do not postulate that God exists, only that God might. I don't have to believe in Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, or any other pre-existing God in order to believe that there might still be a God. I don't fully believe that God exists, and I don't fully believe that God doesn't exist. That's entirely different from believing in any of the religions you mentioned. We have to use a word to describe the concept of a being greater than ourselves in order to discuss it, so we use the word God.

Yes, it's possible, but do you actually believe it exist or not? I don't believe I will ever win a lottery, but I know it's absolutely possible.

I don't know.

Yes, you can. Which god though?

It doesn't much matter "which God" since I've already said that I don't ascribe to any of the dogmas espoused by currently existing religions. I don't care to postulate about God's qualities since I don't believe in God's existence strongly enough to attempt to convince others that God exists. I only believe that God might exist. You're free to believe God doesn't exist if you choose. Why would I try to convince you of God's existence? I'm not terribly sure of God's existence myself.

You can say it, but you'd be telling a lie.

Calling me a liar repeatedly only convinces me that you're aggressive and rude.

Yes, it is. It's a yes or no question. Do you believe in a god, yes or no?

I know that you're firmly convinced that this is a black or white issue but I can only tell you that it's not. I strongly believe that there might be some sort of greater being than ourselves although no one has ever shown me any convincing evidence in favor of its existence. I also strongly believe that there's a possibility that there is no such thing and acknowledge the great preponderance of the evidence that there is no such thing, which is why I don't go around trying to prove God exists or joining religions.

You probably are atheist but just don't want to admit it.

No, I'm really not. I can't understand why people insist on categorizing me into a group that I don't identify with and obviously don't want to be associated with.

True, but what's your point?

That it's not a black or white issue.

Because it's a yes or no answer.

"I don't know" is also an answer. You said something about it being a fault of logic that I accidentally deleted, but just because you pose a yes or no question does not mean that I can answer it or that my inability to answer it is automatically a lie. I don't know if I believe that there really is a God or not. You seem to think I'm being evasive or disingenuous when I say this. A position of uncertainty doesn't equate evasiveness or deceit.

Maybe, but I'm leaning towards your inability to understand that agnostic doesn't mean "maybe" and it doesn't even address the question of belief. Agnotic describes a person who thinks that the existence of "god" cannot be known, proven or disproven.

I think and believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. That's why I'm not trying to prove God's existence to you. That's why I call myself agnostic. It's the closest word to describe the position that I'm in---not believing strongly in existence, and not disbelieving strongly either. The word Agnosticism describes some of the reasoning behind my uncertainty.

Because the story sounded fishy, and the smell only gets worse the more you tell it.

Having a rude demeanor does nothing to convince me that atheism is right and agnosticism is wrong. It only distances me further from atheists as a group.

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:03 PM

I am not trying to be offensive. If a logical and impartial person was to look at these posts who do you suppose they would think was intentionally offensive?

You might be surprised. And if a group of logical and impartial people (are there any such thing as actual impartial people) looked at this forum who would come across as less cogent? And, sure, a lot of ignorant people aren't intentionally offensive (who needs to think when you got faith telling you how special and moral you are)-- that doesn't mean we shouldn't help mitigate their ignorance so they are less so.

You are offensive to me, but you can't see it at all... and you don't care at all. You want people to hear you whom you are not hearing. Nobody seems to be shoring up your assertions or even summing them up well as far as I can tell. You aren't really saying much of anything. You are speaking about these atheists that need to tone it down, but you give no examples and you have a sort of vapid preachy tone and judgmental smarminess that you may wish to use to clarify your position and tone down your own biased offensiveness. And your double standard is glaring from here.

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:06 PM

Unfortunately I commit them too but I try really hard not to and I am getting better at it over time.

And the same is true for those you accuse you know.

Slimething

18th September 2007, 07:08 PM

To me, a militant atheist would be someone who believes that "God exists" is a demonstrably false statement, and who goes out of his way to try and get other people to believe it as well, whether or not they are really interested in it. Or who, when encountering someone who doesn't believe it, feels compelled to point out the fallacy in their position.

There are much better labels for people like that. Calling them militant atheists would be a kindness. I don't doubt that there are atheists/theists/gamers/etc who are like that but I haven't had the pleasure. I think what you're describing is more a personality dysfunction than a defect of credo.

Or, the worst of all, when encountering a public display of faith, feels compelled to call their lawyer to stop it, even if it doesn't harm anyone else.

I'm not sure about this one. I would reserve judgement on a case by case basis. I certainly don't know how the complainer's psyche is affected by said display or to what degree. Some are more senstive than others and it's difficult to predict what triggers anyone has. The Constituion is plain in its meaning and, although no one likes a party pooper, I think that a general move to the center is of general benefit for society.

Christmas carols at school concerts. I like Christmas carols. They're folk music. I look at my CD collection, and I see things like The Clancy Brothers, "Irish Drinking Songs", "Great Christmas Songs", "A Smoky Mountain Christmas", "Treasured Mountain Hymns", Marty Robbins. Anyone who wants to ban folk music because their ears hurt if they hear it, is on my unapproved list. Get a life. Lighten up. Silent Night won't hurt you. If you demand the right to sing "Circles" *, I'll be right there on your side, but if you think "The Holly and the Ivy" is a violation of the constitution, I think you ought to take a drink and relax.

Like I said, different strokes... The context is important here. If everyone is singing, no problems. If a family of a different faith feels uncomfortable for any reason (this music can ostracize, intimidate, etc.) and it's a government venue, you've got a case on your hands.

(Exception: No one over the age of five should sing "Dredl, Dredl, Dredl". Ever.)

But I love Cartman's rendition. :cartman:

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 07:11 PM

Do you believe there is life on a planet circling another star in our galaxy?

No. And your analogy is horribly inaccurate. When that particular agnostic poster said he thinks god might exist, he's talking of a particular one I'm sure. I highly doubt that he is claiming that he thinks it's possible that every god could exist.

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:12 PM

The point being that lots of posters were complaining about being offended by people praising Jesus when those people weren't even trying to be offensive. Yet a person intentionally tries to be offensive and they are cheered even though they just did it as part of a comedy routine and not any proatheist statement. I guess if they feel strong enough about it the religious folk should say "Thank you Jesus and atheists suck it" for the next award they recieve.

Why do you assume she was trying to purposefully be offensive and not just purposefully be funny-- and ironic? Why do you assume mal-intent on the atheists while giving Christians a free pass out of ignorance on not thinking that it might be weird to praise Jesus for an award when other pray-ers didn't win?--or other more important prayers weren't answered. It's very egotistical and weird... even if no one bothered to mention it and they weren't thinking. And I don't think Kathy Griffin's goal was to offend. Anything anyone says that doesn't show the proper defense to Christianity is up for this nutty bouhaha and accusations of purposeful offense. And sometimes you just can't care about offending people who have no interest in whether they are offending you. The hypothetical offended people probably don't care how offensive Kathy might find their response or atheist bigotry or Jesus thanking or holier-than-thou prattling. So why are the atheists supposed to care about hypothetically offended people who don't even think atheists have the right to be offended about anything they might say or do?

Apology

18th September 2007, 07:15 PM

No. And your analogy is horribly inaccurate. When that particular agnostic poster said he thinks god might exist, he's talking of a particular one I'm sure. I highly doubt that he is claiming that he thinks it's possible that every god could exist.

You are wrong. I started as an atheist and became agnostic. These are my own personal beliefs, not influenced by any organized religion.

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:18 PM

No. And your analogy is horribly inaccurate. When that particular agnostic poster said he thinks god might exist, he's talking of a particular one I'm sure. I highly doubt that he is claiming that he thinks it's possible that every god could exist.

But drop it... it's going to be one of those semantic things

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 07:20 PM

I do not postulate that God exists, only that God might. ....

Which one?!

We have to use a word to describe the concept of a being greater than ourselves in order to discuss it, so we use the word God.

Is your definition of god simply "a being greater than human?" Even if that is so, do you believe such a being exists, yes or no?

I don't know.

You do know, you just won't say.

It doesn't much matter "which God" since I've already said that I don't ascribe to any of the dogmas espoused by currently existing religions.

Yes it does matter which god, because if you say that "god" might exist, you have to be talking about a specific god. Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense that makes as much sense as "gouohsjsojs might exist."

Calling me a liar repeatedly only convinces me that you're aggressive and rude.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that you are telling lies.

I know that you're firmly convinced that this is a black or white issue but I can only tell you that it's not.

It's a digital forumula. Either a person believes or they don't believe. This is true for any belief.

No, I'm really not. I can't understand why people insist on categorizing me into a group that I don't identify with and obviously don't want to be associated with.

Because categories are what humans use to communicate. It's part of language.

"I don't know" is also an answer.

Not to a yes or no question about a personal belief.

The word Agnosticism describes some of the reasoning behind my uncertainty.

You most certainly do or do not believe that a god or gods exist.

Having a rude demeanor does nothing to convince me that atheism is right and agnosticism is wrong. It only distances me further from atheists as a group.

Agnosticism is neither right or wrong. A person can be atheist and agnostic or theist and agnostic. Agnostic does nothing to answer the question "do you believe a god or gods exist?"

bokonon

18th September 2007, 07:22 PM

I lurk there occasionally. I think it's fine as a place for ticked-off atheists to blow off steam. As a place for serious debate, no, and I wouldn't advise any theists to go there looking for one.

By the same token, I really don't care if some theists want to say nasty things about atheists on some religious forum, and you won't find me digging through those forums to find some quotes to prove how awful theists are (even if I believed that). Sometimes people just need to vent.
Fair enough.

I think Ann Coulter's comment in her book about her and her co-religionists giggling at the thought of Dawkins burning in hell is really egregious-- because they believe in it.... and they want him to go there for having the audacity to not believe... and to speak the facts about evolution. I think that is very, very twisted.
Okay.

There isn't a lot of laughter in the Quran, but apparently part of the entertainment in paradise is laughing at the tormented souls writhing in hell. I forget which Surah it is...

Do you ever read pharyngula? Check out Richarddawns.net hatemail under the good, the bad and the ugly (Ann Coulter's is in the ugly.) The talk at the raving atheist is offensive-- but nothing quite like Christian hate mail at sites that joke about jesus.
I have read pharyngula, but I guess I haven't gotten into the hate mail so much. I'll check it out.

Jesus of the Week has some good hate mail. And so does Christ on the Crapper.
I haven't seen the site, but they're obviously asking for it.

Why did you choose an example post from 2006?The thread started in 2006, but the latest post in the thread was today. I chose it because it's representative of something I think is clearly more heat than light. You both seem to agree with that assessment, and I agree with you that there's a place for such talk. I guess I just wanted to make the point that the "angry atheist" isn't just a fiction invented by theists. I personally haven't found anything on this forum that I felt crossed the line, and I certainly wouldn't put Dawkins et al in that category either.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 07:22 PM

You are wrong. I started as an atheist and became agnostic. These are my own personal beliefs, not influenced by any organized religion.

You are either atheist or theist.

Slimething

18th September 2007, 07:23 PM

The point being that lots of posters were complaining about being offended by people praising Jesus when those people weren't even trying to be offensive.

You missed my point. I wrote that a person was internally justified in being offensive only if the cause was worthwhile. I further wrote that they would only be correct if their rights were being denied them. In the case of people thanking jesus for stupid crap, there has already been plenty of public criticism of them for their thoughtless behavior, mostly from other theists. (Let's face it, who's got the best privilege for offenes here? Athieists? No. It would be any theist who placed or showed because they instantly became less favored by jesus than the winner.) So, in my mind, either these people have no sensitivity towards anyone else or they just don't care whom they offend. But, offensive they are.

I see Griffin's remarks as funny, maybe you don't, but I admit to being a boor. Maybe theists don't like that stuff coming from someone of little faith but, in my view, it was a wake-up call for more, not less, civility.

Yet a person intentionally tries to be offensive and they are cheered even though they just did it as part of a comedy routine and not any proatheist statement.

Yup. Do you really mind that? Isn't it time someone, anyone, made a statement to those careless few who praise themselves above others? Humility is supposed to be a theist virtue but I find it varies inversely with the level of professed faith.

I guess if they feel strong enough about it the religious folk should say "Thank you Jesus and atheists suck it" for the next award they recieve.

What would be the motivation for that? You yourself made the point that Griffin's remarks would have been beyond the pale if no one else had mentioned jesus but here you are saying that theists may be justified doing just that.

And, frankly, I always consider the source. If theists want to play "holier than thou" on TV, they deserve all they get. My mom is an evangelical. She still tries to get me to convert and it's all I can do to hold my tongue. After all these years, nothing will change (and why should it? She's harming no one.) But, when it all started, she would gaze at the ceiling and thank jesus any time anything went right. So, I would thank jesus every time something went wrong. She didn't like it but it got my point across.

Religion is an opinon. Maybe a more cherished opinion than most but it should follow the same rule as all opinions. Unless explicitly requested, keep it to yourself.

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:32 PM

bokonon

18th September 2007, 07:35 PM

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that you are telling lies.

Oh, the irony.

It's a digital forumula. Either a person believes or they don't believe. This is true for any belief.
Do you believe the coin I'm concealing under my shoe is heads up?

Do you believe the coin I'm concealing under my shoe is tails up?

Do you believe the coin I'm concealing under my shoe is both tails up and heads up?

Do you believe the coin I'm concealing under my shoe is neither heads up nor tails up?

Please answer (truthfully) yes or no for each question. Thanks.

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:40 PM

Fair enough.

Okay.

There isn't a lot of laughter in the Quran, but apparently part of the entertainment in paradise is laughing at the tormented souls writhing in hell. I forget which Surah it is...

I have read pharyngula, but I guess I haven't gotten into the hate mail so much. I'll check it out.

I haven't seen the site, but they're obviously asking for it.

The thread started in 2006, but the latest post in the thread was today. I chose it because it's representative of something I think is clearly more heat than light. You both seem to agree with that assessment, and I agree with you that there's a place for such talk. I guess I just wanted to make the point that the "angry atheist" isn't just a fiction invented by theists. I personally haven't found anything on this forum that I felt crossed the line, and I certainly wouldn't put Dawkins et al in that category either.

Pharyngula posts all kinds of links to anti-atheist fear mongering videos-- and anti evolution videos... mostly to laugh-- but there is this fear mongering about how atheists are taking America to hell in a handbasket or making us open to Muslim extremists or destroying the family, and making our kids "act like monkeys" (though secular societies show greater societal health). And yes-- Muslim hell is pretty awful, but many Christians seem a little too comfortable with the idea of non-believers suffering forever. There is no human I could imagine wanting such a thing for. FOREVER? for a finite crime. And if you really believed this was a possibility, how could you stand it? How could you imagine enjoying a paradise knowing of such suffering. How could you have a kid if you knew that was a possibility?

Yes... the raving atheists were offensive--but not aggressive-- blowing off steam amongst their own, I imagine. But... the taliban? Fred Phelps? I think the faith zealots are a lot scarier frankly. And if you give faith a free ride in one case... what gives you the right to scrutinize it in another. The price we pay for having moderate faith respected-- is we don't get to decide what is and isn't moderate. If the faithful don't want their religions questioned--they must give up the right to demand anything from any other religion... I think all opinions are open for scrutiny-- and words are not the same as actually hurting people--especially when you aren't addressing a captive audience.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 07:43 PM

Do you believe the coin I'm concealing under my shoe is heads up?

I don't think you have a coin under your shoe. Your questions are irrelevant and have no bearing to the discussion and your attempt at anaolgies seems to be getting poorer and poorer.

bokonon

18th September 2007, 07:46 PM

articulett

18th September 2007, 07:47 PM

I don't think you have a coin under your shoe. Your questions are irrelevant and have no bearing to the discussion and your attempt at anaolgies seems to be getting poorer and poorer.

You are an a-coinist.

Now stop... because you know that these kinds of conversations never go anywhere. People can define themselves and their notions of god however they want--these are not measurable testable things... just labels people give themselves for whatever reasons. Belief is fluid anyhow. You are just going to get him/her mad-- and not find out what he/she believes if anything...probably because he/she doesn't know or care or senses something but doesn't want it probed.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 08:11 PM

probably because he/she doesn't know or care or senses something but doesn't want it probed.

More like he is afraid to admit what his belief or lack of belief is.

Apology

18th September 2007, 08:13 PM

Which one?!

Just for argument's sake, let's say that I believe in the type of deism ascribed to Einstein except not quite as strongly as Einstein did. You can call it "Einstein's God" if you like. I'd like to add that if I believed it as strongly as Einstein apparently did, I would call myself a deist.

Is your definition of god simply "a being greater than human?" Even if that is so, do you believe such a being exists, yes or no?

Actually Webster's definition of atheism says that atheists deny a supreme being or creator. Naturally that being (if it were supreme) would be greater than ourselves, so I was paraphrasing. I've seen atheism defined as the belief that there is no being greater than man before as well. If you, as an atheist, do not agree with that definition, then take it up with Webster. As to whether or not such a being exists, it might.

You do know, you just won't say.
This is getting us nowhere. It does not convince me that I'm either an atheist or a theist/deist.

Yes it does matter which god, because if you say that "god" might exist, you have to be talking about a specific god. Otherwise you are just spouting nonsense that makes as much sense as "gouohsjsojs might exist."

Pretend it's Einstein's God if it makes it easier for you to discuss the issue. I don't know why you think that a belief that God might exist means that I also believe I know a single thing about God's nature or what God, if it exists, would be like. We're back to the basic concept that God is unknowable. Anything that anyone claims to know about God is speculation and false. That's why I can say that I don't believe in any of the Gods you've already mentioned and yet still believe that there's a possibility that God exists. Call it the Unknown God if you must coin a name. Stick with Supreme Being if it makes you happy. I believe that it might exist, but being as it's unknowable and unprovable, I might as well stay home and do nothing about it. I also believe there's a strong possibility that it does not exist, but not strongly enough to rule it out entirely.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that you are telling lies.

That's why I keep reminding you that having a rude and demeaning attitude only hurts your position and alienates people from atheism, thus contributing to the overall impression that people seem to have that atheists are too aggressive.

It's a digital forumula. Either a person believes or they don't believe. This is true for any belief.

You seem to have difficulty digesting the concept that some people are undecided or are uncertain about their beliefs.

Because categories are what humans use to communicate. It's part of language.

Fair enough. Consider this though: In past talks with other atheists, I was told that my conviction in the possibility that god exists was too firm for me to consider myself an atheist. Now I am told that my beliefs themselves do not exist, that I am just lying, and I'm an atheist after all. Who should I believe, the atheists from twenty years ago or the atheists now? Somehow the categories have changed over time, although my beliefs have not.

Not to a yes or no question about a personal belief.
We've been over this. I neither believe nor disbelieve strongly in either possibility. If I did I would categorize myself in that group.

You most certainly do or do not believe that a god or gods exist.
I've said that I believe in neither thing strongly enough to identify with theists, deists, or atheists, so I cannot categorize myself in any of those groups.

Agnosticism is neither right or wrong. A person can be atheist and agnostic or theist and agnostic. Agnostic does nothing to answer the question "do you believe a god or gods exist?"

This is probably why I don't take a strong stance on whether or not God exists and why I identify so strongly with agnosticism. Since either is possible and both are unknowable there's no point in having strong beliefs either way.

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you that agnosticism is right. I'm not even trying to say that it's better. All I'm trying to say is that aggressive atheists do exist, and if you really want to change the problems that religion causes in the world you will have to convince religious people in order to do that. You have no chance of doing that if you begin by insulting them or demeaning them.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 08:13 PM

I do have a coin under my shoe, and your inability to appreciate the analogy does nothing to diminish its value.

Feel free to explain how your analogy is accurate and how the state of a coin is analogous to the existence of a thing.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 08:29 PM

Just for argument's sake, let's say that I believe in the type of deism ascribed to Einstein except not quite as strongly as Einstein did.

In other words you are atheist. Thanks.

This is getting us nowhere. It does not convince me that I'm either an atheist or a theist/deist.

You either believe or you don't. That's how you can find out if you are atheist or not.

Pretend it's Einstein's God

A metaphorical construct?

I don't know why you think that a belief that God might exist means that I also believe I know a single thing about God's nature or what God, if it exists, would be like.

If you don't know what you are talking about, how can you possibly believe it exists?

We're back to the basic concept that God is unknowable.

But not undefinable.

Anything that anyone claims to know about God is speculation and false.

But what your god is can certainly be defined.

That's why I can say that I don't believe in any of the Gods you've already mentioned and yet still believe that there's a possibility that God exists. Call it the Unknown God if you must coin a name. Stick with Supreme Being if it makes you happy. I believe that it might exist, but being as it's unknowable and unprovable, I might as well stay home and do nothing about it. I also believe there's a strong possibility that it does not exist, but not strongly enough to rule it out entirely.

But the possibilities don't matter. Do you or don't you believe that god exists?

That's why I keep reminding you that having a rude and demeaning attitude only hurts your position and alienates people from atheism, thus contributing to the overall impression that people seem to have that atheists are too aggressive.

The rude person here is you, since you refuse a yes/no question with a yes or a no.

You seem to have difficulty digesting the concept that some people are undecided or are uncertain about their beliefs.

People believe or they don't believe, being open to change doesn't preclude that fact.

Fair enough. Consider this though: In past talks with other atheists, I was told that my conviction in the possibility that god exists was too firm for me to consider myself an atheist.

They were wrong. It's possible that Zeus exists, but I don't believe he does.

Now I am told that my beliefs themselves do not exist, that I am just lying, and I'm an atheist after all. Who should I believe, the atheists from twenty years ago or the atheists now? Somehow the categories have changed over time, although my beliefs have not.

If you believe a god exists, you are not atheist. If you don't believe a god exists, you are atheist. Logically, there are no other options.

We've been over this. I neither believe nor disbelieve strongly in either possibility. If I did I would categorize myself in that group.

It doesn't have to be strongly either way. But you are either atheist or not.

I've said that I believe in neither thing strongly enough to identify with theists, deists, or atheists, so I cannot categorize myself in any of those groups.

That's like saying you can't categorize yourself as existing or not existing. It's one or the other.

Look, I'm not even trying to convince you that agnosticism is right.

I'm not telling you it's wrong. You are agnostic, fine. Now do you believe in a god or not. Hence, you can be atheist and agnostic or theist and agnostic. You are one or the other.

Piggy

18th September 2007, 09:03 PM

Holy ****! This thread's spun out of control, even for me.

I reckon I said all I had to say anyway. And I'll have to catch up on that PM tomorrow -- today didn't allow.

Best of luck, y'all. Adios. (Pardon the irony.)

Apology

18th September 2007, 09:16 PM

Apology,
If there were a god, what do you imagine the nature of this god would be? How do you see yourself as different than an atheist? And what were you before you were an atheist? What made you self identify as an atheist? And what made you change what you call yourself. Thaiboxerken really isn't being obnoxious... it's just that people have a different perception of what agnosticism means-- there's the actual definition... and there's what everybody thinks it means (halfway between theist and atheist-- unsure-- on the fence-- still deciding). It's a word that actually means that whether god exists or not can't be known. Atheist is just someone who lacks a belief in a god. If there is no god you have in mind that is out there, then technically you'd be an "atheist", but the word is loaded with such baggage and bigotry that many don't use it. It sounds like you have a notion of a deist type god of some sort or that you believe in something that you would define as "god ish".

I was raised atheist. I came to believe that there was a possibility that there might be a God. The strength of my belief in that possibility called my atheism into question. I self-identified with the word agnosticism because it most closely parallels what I do believe.

If there is a God, we can stretch our imaginations to try and assign it qualities, but it's a useless exercise if God is truly unknowable. For instance, I could theorize that it didn't have emotional qualities such as love or anger, and that's why bad things happen to good people, etc., but such theorizing doesn't take us anywhere close to proving God's existence or non-existence, so it's essentially a waste of time. I certainly don't believe in the Christian God or any of the Gods featured in other faiths, so I imagine that God's existence would disprove a lot of the claims made by religions about God.

However, I can't prove that my imagined God is any more right or existent than anyone else's God, and since I don't believe in it terribly strongly I don't feel the need to convince anyone else of God's existence. I don't believe in God's existence strongly enough to call myself a Deist. I brought up Einstein as an example because I believe if there is a God it would bear some of the characteristics that Einstein expressed, but I don't believe it nearly as strongly as he did. I also don't disbelieve in God strongly enough to call myself an atheist any more. "Hints of Deist but not convinced" would probably be a fair assessment. If I were more of a Deist and less of an Atheist I would feel more compelled to speculate on the nature of God. If I were less a Deist and more an Atheist I would not have felt compelled to re-examine my beliefs on the non-existence of God.

Again, I'm not trying to convert atheists to agnosticism. You asked politely, so I answered the question. I'm just trying to convince people to approach others civilly, regardless of their beliefs, if they truly intend to right the wrongs caused by religion. I want to call attention to the fact that most believers haven't put the time and thought that I have into the nature of what they believe. You can easily "stump" them, or bring them to a question that they can't answer. When that happens, you have won the argument, but you haven't convinced them that you're right.

I see atheists winning arguments all the time, because their arguments are so flawlessly crafted, but instead of seeing a lot more atheists, I just see more people who are convinced that atheists are jerks. Why aren't more people convinced? Why are they angry instead? I'm not talking about religious fanatics here, I'm talking about your average bad Christian who only goes to church on high holidays and pays lip service to Christianity. Why are people like that, who previously didn't feel the need to state an opinion on atheism (or even go to church very often), now inclined to call atheists jerks? I'm pretty sure it's the delivery of the message.

When I looked into it myself, I encountered some very unpleasant atheists. Even as a non-Christian whatever-you-wanna-call-me, I felt that mocking believers was a bad approach that reflected poorly on unbelief as a position of reason and rationality. We should never fall so low as our opponents if we truly believe they're wrong. When I say "we", I mean "we" as "non-believers of the Christian God." Christians also tell me that I'm an atheist so I thought it bore mentioning.

JoeEllison

18th September 2007, 09:21 PM

Why would someone who claims no beliefs in anything specific, refer to a totally unknown and unknowable being as "God"? Why not "a god" or "a god or gods"?

Apology

18th September 2007, 09:28 PM

...probably because he/she doesn't know

I think I already said that I don't know several times actually.

Also, I don't get mad, I just get bored with the endless argument and walk away still unconvinced. Anger is such a turn off. It's really quite useless and it doesn't help anyone prove their point. The entire religious debate could do with a lot less anger from all sides.

That other guy should look up Einstein's relationship with Spinoza. Einstein didn't want the Theists claiming him but he wasn't exactly an atheist either.

Edit: Why would someone who claims no beliefs in anything specific, refer to a totally unknown and unknowable being as "God"? Why not "a god" or "a god or gods"?

Should I coin another word? Call it the supreme being if you want. I'm not starting a religion or joining any previously existing religions. If there's a word you're more comfortable with then please use it.

JoeEllison

18th September 2007, 09:35 PM

Should I coin another word? Call it the supreme being if you want. I'm not starting a religion or joining any previously existing religions. If there's a word you're more comfortable with then please use it.
I find it interesting to note which phrase makes YOU more comfortable.

Apology

18th September 2007, 09:43 PM

I find it interesting to note which phrase makes YOU more comfortable.

The conversation becomes convoluted and dumb once you start coining alternative words for the concept of God. "God" is a lot shorter than "the supreme being" or any other euphemism. Not capitalizing God gets you points off for spelling if you use the word, so it's a habit. I reiterate, I was raised atheist. I did not go through a born-again Christian phase or participate in any other organized religion. I also still call the postal worker "the mailman" sometimes.

JoeEllison

18th September 2007, 09:46 PM

The conversation becomes convoluted and dumb once you start coining alternative words for the concept of God. "God" is a lot shorter than "the supreme being" or any other euphemism. Not capitalizing God gets you points off for spelling if you use the word, so it's a habit. I reiterate, I was raised atheist. I did not go through a born-again Christian phase or participate in any other organized religion. I also still call the postal worker "the mailman" sometimes.

"Points off"? Hmmmm...

The conversation becomes "convoluted and dumb" when you are specific, and leave nothing to assumption? Most people assume the Christian deity is being referred to when the name "God". Why is it dumb to make sure people know you aren't referring to that specific mythological character?

articulett

18th September 2007, 09:48 PM

But "what" made you change your mind? And I do see more and more people changing their mind to becoming atheists through thought and dialogue. In fact, most atheists were once believers... even afraid to question or bite from the tree of knowledge lest they risk salvation and suffer eternally. But that isn't the point. I think many atheists are just saying, "I don't want to worry about who I offend--I want the same right to speak my opinion as theists take for themselves-- the same right to judge the notion that "faith is good" as those who forward the notion that bigotry is bad." I don't accept the notion that the faithful are better in any way. I think they are deluded. I think they just "feel" more moral.

People talk about unpleasant atheists... but when they actually quote such... I don't find them more offensive or disrespectful than others. I don't care what people believe-- I just don't think faith deserves any special privileges. Are the faithful nicer? More compassionate? Less judgmental? More reasonable?-- not that I see; the evidence just isn't there. I think that all claims without evidence--especially those expressed as though they were facts or as though they deserved special deference-- have a right to be criticized, examined, asked for proof. Why should anyone need to be manipulated or promised goodies or threatened into believing something?

I really don't care who does or doesn't believe what. I want to know what evidence they have for their case. Is there any evidence that deference towards faith makes the notion that "faith is good" disappear? Doesn't such a notion promote uncritical examination of anything attached to "god"? Doesn't it allow those who claim such beliefs to assert an unquestioned "moral superiority" and then get uptight when others try to examine it or mock it or refuse to recognize it? I don't care if people are offended by aggressive atheists any more than people care about what offends me. I care about the truth that is the same for everybody. I care about the standard. If some people don't need to watch what they say because they haven't considered others might be offended or because they think they have a morally superior position-- why isn't the rule the same for atheists? It's not about winning or losing for me... it's about all opinions being equal and not just some being labeled "aggressive" because they are associated with a non-theist and some labeled "no big deal" because they are associated with faith.

You had a subjective experience that made you feel like there could be some god of some sort-- you are not clear on your reasons but you don't want people probing that or mocking that or judging that. You want it respected, in fact. And yet, you've cast judgment on a group of atheists without evidence for the rest of us to examine. And given us nothing worth respecting in regards to what you believe or why. We can't tell if your decision came from anything rational or if your assessment of the situation came from a cultural meme that says "atheists are aggressive". You seem to have a dislike of "atheism" not warranted by the facts and a newfound fondness for some sort of belief also not warranted by the facts... at least not facts that we can examine. And so it just sounds like the standard faith based nothingness to a non-believer.

Atheists are labeled aggressive no matter what they say or do... people look to see them as such... there is a paradigm that "faith is good" that people are encouraged to protect even as they deny they are doing so. And believers are presumed to be more moderate and dispassionate and "open minded", but there is no evidence that this is so. I think Einstein was labeling that which he didn't understand "god" to avoid being accused of being an atheist and all that goes along with it. Agnostics imagine themselves to be kinder, gentler atheists, I think. But to me they seem to be buying into the idea that "just because there are two options, both are equally likely to be true." Clearly this isn't true with most of the gods people define. And we know for certain people make up "mystical" explanations when they don't understand things and then confirm those biases... that they've been making up invisible immeasurable entities for eons... though there is no evidence for any of them.

How much longer must we show deference to the notion that rain dances might really please rain gods or that faith is good for something or that offending the faithful is bad? Where is the evidence that letting false paradigms and bigotry pass is good for progress of any kind. I don't care who or what people believe. I just want the right to express myself as freely as believers do and to care as little about what those who believe differently think as they care about what I think. I want to laugh at who I want and mock who I want or express myself passionately about what I want without the holier-than-thou telling me to tone it down. I, personally, think the "aggressive atheist" promoters need to put up the evidence or shut up. Because they are supporting a bigotry that seems more applicable to them.

Aren't you suggesting that others be more like you.... instead of advocating for others to express themselves as freely as you express yourself. Aren't you advocating that without presenting evidence as to why we should be so? You don't like people mischaracterizing your beliefs or judging your proclamations on the topic... and yet you've done that regarding atheists, haven't you? Why are what the hypothetical atheists said about your "agnosticism" worse than what you've said about them? And where is the evidence so we can examine these aggressive atheists for ourselves. I don't see theists as my opponents. I see those who try to silence me as my opponents... those who spread bigotry about atheists as my opponents... those with a double standard as my opponents... I think those who subscribe to the "faith is good" meme need to show evidence of what it's good for before I'll defer to that nuttiness. If people want me to respect their opinions, I expect them to show equal respect for mine--especially when the evidence for their claims is so lacking.

articulett

18th September 2007, 09:50 PM

I find it interesting to note which phrase makes YOU more comfortable.

Who do they think is angry? Why are the ones who seem kind of angry to me always the ones claiming others (particularly atheists) are angry? Where is the example of this anger? Is mocking anger? Aren't believers angry because mocking threatens their notions that their faith is true or makes them better in some way?

articulett

18th September 2007, 09:55 PM

The conversation becomes convoluted and dumb once you start coining alternative words for the concept of God. "God" is a lot shorter than "the supreme being" or any other euphemism. Not capitalizing God gets you points off for spelling if you use the word, so it's a habit. I reiterate, I was raised atheist. I did not go through a born-again Christian phase or participate in any other organized religion. I also still call the postal worker "the mailman" sometimes.

Certainly, but you can understand why it looks like you are trying to use the word "god" to imply there is something "good" or off limits for inquiry about your beliefs--something special and worth deferring to. Just it appears that you avoid the term atheist because of the negativity associated with it. Faiths seem to promote this thinking. But in reality there doesn't seem to be more good or truth or love or morality associated with "gods" of any kind just as "aggressive atheist" or "militant atheist" seems more of a stereotype to make faith look like something good without having to offer evidence of what exactly it's good for.

John Smith

18th September 2007, 09:58 PM

[QUOTE=Ichneumonwasp;2967909]Do you think that taking an aggressive stance for atheism turns off other folks so thoroughly that it creates a polarized world? QUOTE]

Yes an aggressive argument can polarize people. Unfortunately it is difficult to hold back when you have the evidence, because it feels like religion is intellectually abusing it's followers with it's 6 day creationism. So what do you do? I guess you avoid personal attack and focus on the central issues.

I liked what the second poster said "The Cause?" this is such a good point because the scientist shouldn't have a "cause" but should follow the evidence. The question is, can atheist actually believe in nothing, do they turn there science into their religion? At least it is an evidence based religion if so!

six7s

18th September 2007, 10:03 PM

The conversation becomes convoluted and dumb once you start coining alternative words for the concept of God

I ain't arguing... three chars is pretty short for a the name of a variable, esp one that is easily parsed

However, it is a reserved word... and as every good coder knows, they need to be used with caution

How about:

var supremeWoo.judaism = God;
var supremeWoo.islam = Allah;
var supremeWoo.christianity = 3God;
var supremeWoo.generic = gOD;

gOD

Not a reserved word

plural: gODs

Just as short as God and Gods

Just as easy to parse (the human eye parser being quiteGoodAtDecipheringCaseDistinctions)

Complexity

18th September 2007, 10:13 PM

I've been away from this thread for a few days.

I've been off dealing with becomingagodo, clerihew80, and a few others, as well as my own issues.

My position towards the presumption that religion is privileged and different from any other supersition is simple:

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more.

Being offensive to the religious is not only appropriate, but necessary. Something has to be used to crack through the smarmy, smug defenses that they have wrapped around themselves.

Why do battle rather then let them rot?

I'm content to leave many of them be - they have done harm only to themselves and, I'm afraid, their children.

But the others, they insist on using the government and community to impose their delusions and prejudices on the rest of us, commanding silence and the appearance of respect, if not capitulation.

These others have acted with aggression and deserve an aggressive response.

We have, for too long, allowed them to define the terms used to define this battle.

I've had enough.

articulett

18th September 2007, 10:17 PM

Me too, complexity. I had assumed they respected me to the same extent that I respected them. I have come to see that they see themselves as superior... and I think it's scary when people think that faith and belief are "good" just because. I think these are dangerous memes and no notion is free from scrutiny. The truth does not need to be protecting from probing, judgment, aggressiveness, mocking or doubt. It stays the truth no matter who or what believes it. The earth was a sphere even before humans existed to perceive it as flat... and no gods thought to mention otherwise. And no matter how much people claimed to believe it was flat-- it never was... and no one was more moral for insisting that god would have mentioned if it were otherwise or pretending it wasn't so, so as not to offend.

Nobody should have to worry about whether they are "offending" flat earthers. The same goes for all beliefs as far as I'm concerned.

Apology

18th September 2007, 10:27 PM

"Points off"? Hmmmm...

The conversation becomes "convoluted and dumb" when you are specific, and leave nothing to assumption? Most people assume the Christian deity is being referred to when the name "God". Why is it dumb to make sure people know you aren't referring to that specific mythological character?

Please suggest a euphemism that is short and doesn't sound convoluted. I prefer to not coin new names for the concept of God. Calling the concept "God" has always been acceptable in philosophy and world religion discussions. When discussing the tenets of a particular religion, "God" would become "the Christian God" or "The Old Testament God" or "Krishna", etc. I don't think it would be easy to discuss the concept of a supreme being without ever using the word God at all. You certainly can't debate a Christian without saying the word "God". I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable with my use of it.

I've discussed religion with believers at length, and while I doubt I've converted any to unbelief or even weakened their faith much, I'm positive that I've convinced a few of them to give up on their more objectionable beliefs. For instance, I'm pretty sure I've convinced a few to stop opposing gay marriage, since I think that's a great wrong perpetrated by religion. I've managed to convince a few other really radical Christians to stop shunning specific people, and even know I knew their heart wasn't really into the whole shunning thing, I still take partial credit for saying the right words at the right time. I know that I've convinced many believers that non-Christians aren't all jerks that deserve to go to hell.

My message isn't one about whether or not God exists anyway, since I'm pretty unsure myself. My goal is to get believers to behave in ways that I believe would benefit us all, therefore I spend more time speaking to believers than to atheists. Why preach to the choir? You already don't believe in any of the religions, and I don't believe strongly enough that any sort of god, God, gods, supreme being, or creator exists to try and convince you otherwise. Your unbelief does not offend me or harm me in any way, and I would not gain anything if you abandoned your position. I think that some people are delivering the bad news that Christianity is bunk in a fairly insensitive way, and that makes my attempts to win these smaller battles more difficult. This is my complaint with aggression and atheism.

bokonon

18th September 2007, 10:41 PM

Feel free to explain how your analogy is accurate and how the state of a coin is analogous to the existence of a thing.
The coin under my shoe is either face up or it isn't.
God either exists or he doesn't.

An agnostic doesn't have enough information to say whether or not God exists.
You don't have enough information to say whether or not the coin under my shoe is face up.

When I demand a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not you believe the coin under my shoe is face up, "I don't know" is an acceptable response and an honest response.

When you demand a yes or no answer from an agnostic about whether or not they believe God exists, "I don't know" is an acceptable response and an honest response.

Articulett's definition of agnostic is someone who says that whether god exists or not can't be known.

Is it possible to be atheist and agnostic? Yes, "I don't believe God exists, but whether he exists or not can't be known."

Is it possible to be theist and agnostic? Yes, "I believe [God is the Big Bang, God is accurately described in the Bible/Torah/Quran/Vedas, whatever], but whether he exists or not can't be known."

Is it possible to be agnostic without being theist or atheist? Yes, "Whether God exists or not can't be known, and I don't know."

Whether a face-up coin exists under my shoe can't be known (until I lift my shoe), and you don't know (until I lift my shoe). When I ask what you believe, "I don't know" is an honest answer.

You either believe or you don't. That's how you can find out if you are atheist or not.
It's really not that simple. A devout Christian doesn't believe Zeus exists, but he's still a theist. Someone who doesn't believe in every god on your checklist could still be a theist. A pantheist is still a theist.

An agnostic may believe the universe exists, without knowing if the universe as a whole possesses, or ever possessed, consciousness. He doesn't know whether it's reasonable to say "The universe is God." Maybe the universe is God, and maybe it's just dumb matter. He doesn't know, so he can't say whether "God" exists.

You may believe the coin under my shoe exists, without knowing if it possesses the quality of being "face up". You don't know whether it's reasonable to say "The coin is face up." Maybe the coin is face up, and maybe it's face down. Since you don't know, you can't say with any real confidence whether the "face-up" coin or the "face-down" exists under my shoe. It must be one or the other, but that doesn't mean you have to believe one or the other.

You lack a belief in a face-up coin. You lack a belief in a face-down coin. At the same time, you recognize that the coin must be either face-up or face-down. When I ask if you believe the coin is face up, you can honestly answer "No" or you can honestly answer "I don't know." When I ask if you believe the coin is face down, you can honestly answer "No" or you can honestly answer "I don't know."

If you honestly answer "No" to both the face-up and the face-down question, the question "Do you believe the coin is neither face up nor face down?" is problematic. That problem can be avoided by the other honest answer to the first two questions, "I don't know."

If you don't know what you are talking about, how can you possibly believe it exists?
And how can you possibly be sure it doesn't?

I'm holding a number of marbles in my left hand. I'm also holding a number of marbles in my right hand. Do you believe the number of marbles in my left hand is the same as the number of marbles in my right hand?

There are any number of situations in which, lacking enough knowledge to form an opinion based on hard evidence, "I don't know" is an honest answer to a yes-or-no question.

Maybe I know for a fact that the golden calf exists, but I don't know whether the golden calf is really god. I believe the answer will be available after I die, but I don't need the answer today. Maybe the golden calf is god, and maybe it isn't. I don't know. You ask whether I believe it is, and the most honest answer I can give you is "I don't know."

But the possibilities don't matter. Do you or don't you believe that god exists?
Do you or don't you believe that the number of marbles in my left hand matches the number of marbles in my right hand? Why?

Do you or don't you believe that there are at least 2 marbles in my left hand?

Do you or don't you believe that there are less than 4 marbles in my right hand?

Yes, you can arbitrarily adopt a belief without evidence, just to satisfy some internet interlocutor, but you can also tell him you don't know.

The rude person here is you, since you refuse a yes/no question with a yes or a no.
I think you're the rude one, for insisting someone should graciously accept one of two labels you're aching to apply.

Do you believe the French translation of The God Delusion is more accurate than the Spanish translation?

Do you believe the Spanish translation of The God Delusion is more accurate than the French translation?

Do you believe the Spanish translation of The God Delusion is exactly as accurate as the French translation?

Are cars better than moon landings?

Do you have evidence for these beliefs?

Is it rational to believe things for which you have no evidence?

Is it rude of you to refuse to answer these "yes or no" questions with either a yes or a no?

If you believe a god exists, you are not atheist. If you don't believe a god exists, you are atheist. Logically, there are no other options.
It is a fact that there is a coin under my shoe.
If you believe the coin under my shoe is face up, you are a face-upist.
If you believe the coin under my shoe is face down, you are a face-downist.

Logically, there are no other options.

Are you a face-upist, or a face-downist? Why?

It doesn't have to be strongly either way. But you are either atheist or not.
Is my cat atheist, or not?

Is an anencephalic atheist, or not?

Is my coffee cup atheist, or not?

Is Moses atheist, or not?

You are one or the other.
Unless you're not.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 10:41 PM

Why are people like that, who previously didn't feel the need to state an opinion on atheism (or even go to church very often), now inclined to call atheists jerks? I'm pretty sure it's the delivery of the message.

No, it's simply the message itself. The moderate christians that want to booze it up, beat up on their wives, never go to church and do whatever still want to believe they are going to heaven. It's the whole "get out of hell free" message of christianity that lets them keep on living life immorally while being deluded that some sort of heaven awaits them at the end, and it's all because the bible says that belief is all that matters, not action.

quixotecoyote

18th September 2007, 10:49 PM

The coin under my shoe is either face up or it isn't.
God either exists or he doesn't.

An agnostic doesn't have enough information to say whether or not God exists.
You don't have enough information to say whether or not the coin under my shoe is face up.

Here is why your analogy fails. Your shoe question is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief.

Do I know if the coin is heads up? No.
Do I know if the coin is heads down? No.
Do I have enough information to possibly know? No.

Therefore by any reasonable definition, I would be an agnostic as per the coin right?

Right. Sounds good, doesn't it? Unfortunately your questions show nothing about atheism. Here are the questions you need to ask about that.

Do I believe the coin is heads up? No.
Do I believe the coin is heads down? No.
Do I have any belief in the positioning of the coin? No.

It's still a poor analogy because in a legitimate one you would have stuck to asking whether or not the coin existed rather than characteristics about it. As you noted later, it doesn't matter what the characteristics of the god are.

eta:
To clarify: Your analogy doesn't fit asking 'Does god exist?" Your analogy fits, "How many arms does god have?"

Apology

18th September 2007, 11:00 PM

Certainly, but you can understand why it looks like you are trying to use the word "god" to imply there is something "good" or off limits for inquiry about your beliefs--something special and worth deferring to. Just it appears that you avoid the term atheist because of the negativity associated with it. Faiths seem to promote this thinking. But in reality there doesn't seem to be more good or truth or love or morality associated with "gods" of any kind just as "aggressive atheist" or "militant atheist" seems more of a stereotype to make faith look like something good without having to offer evidence of what exactly it's good for.

I understand your position on the connotations of the word. I usually discuss these things with Christians while trying to talk them out of practices that I find offensive. The word was used extensively in philosophy and world religion, without its additional connotations. I don't disagree with you: I don't think there's any intrinsic truth, love, morality, or goodness in the concept of God. One of the things I try to convince Christians of is that they don't have the lock on morality or any of those things. I also tell believers of other faiths the same thing about morality.

When I heard the term "aggressive atheists" being bandied about by the Christian community, I wondered what they were getting on about, and when I checked it out myself, I did find that some atheists were being aggressive and sometimes rude. As much as I hate to admit it, the Christians had a point this time. Rather than admitting to them that they'd been treated rudely I decided to try to talk to atheists about maybe being a little less heavy-handed about spreading unbelief to the faithful. Obviously this is an unpopular point of view.

thaiboxerken

18th September 2007, 11:01 PM

The coin under my shoe is either face up or it isn't.
God either exists or he doesn't.

Good, now are you claiming that the possibility of a god existing is 50/50 like the possibility that a coin is heads or tails? The analogy fails as you are trying to compare the state of a thing to the existence of another thing.

An agnostic doesn't have enough information to say whether or not God exists.

But they do have enough information to either believe it exists or not. Most people with no information about the existence of a thing do not believe that thing exists, they lack the belief that it exists. This would include people that have never heard of the concept.

You don't have enough information to say whether or not the coin under my shoe is face up.

Hardly even a close comparison. I know coins exist. I know that they can be face up or face down, if they are normal coins. There isn't any evidence that any gods exist. Hell, Apology can't even seem to define what his god is.

When I demand a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not you believe the coin under my shoe is face up, "I don't know" is an acceptable response and an honest response.

Not if you showed me the coin and then placed it in your shoe. Then I have to make a decision.

When you demand a yes or no answer from an agnostic about whether or not they believe God exists, "I don't know" is an acceptable response and an honest response.

No, it's not. A person either believes a god exists or they do not.

Articulett's definition of agnostic is someone who says that whether god exists or not can't be known.

That's not just articulett's defintion, it's the wording that the person used who invented the word. It's a position about knowledge, not belief.

Is it possible to be agnostic without being theist or atheist? Yes, "Whether God exists or not can't be known, and I don't know."

Wrong. You are agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. To say "God exists can not be known and I don't know" is a redundant statement and doesn't address belief at all.

Whether a face-up coin exists under my shoe can't be known (until I lift my shoe), and you don't know (until I lift my shoe). When I ask what you believe, "I don't know" is an honest answer.

I don't know is an honest answer. But what do I believe?

Is my cat atheist, or not?

Atheist. Cat's have no concept of a god, thus they can not believe in one.

Is an anencephalic atheist, or not?

Same as the cat.

Is my coffee cup atheist, or not?

Same as the cat.

Is Moses atheist, or not?

The character was definitely written to be a theist.

six7s

18th September 2007, 11:08 PM

Is it possible to be atheist and agnostic? Yes, "I don't believe God exists, but whether he exists or not can't be known."

Is it possible to be atheist and agnostic? Yes, "I have no invisible means of support and see no reason whatsoever to suggest the presence or absence of such"

Belief is not an issue

Nor is concern over the possible existence or otherwise of a concept that, going by the evidence, is detrimental

bokonon

19th September 2007, 05:05 AM

Here is why your analogy fails. Your shoe question is about knowledge. Atheism is about belief.

Do I know if the coin is heads up? No.
Do I know if the coin is heads down? No.
Do I have enough information to possibly know? No.

Therefore by any reasonable definition, I would be an agnostic as per the coin right?
Right.

Unfortunately your questions show nothing about atheism. Here are the questions you need to ask about that.

Do I believe the coin is heads up? No.
Do I believe the coin is heads down? No.
Do I have any belief in the positioning of the coin? No.

It's still a poor analogy because in a legitimate one you would have stuck to asking whether or not the coin existed rather than characteristics about it. As you noted later, it doesn't matter what the characteristics of the god are.
But one's definition of God, the set of characteristics one is willing to assign to God, determines whether and how strongly one believes.

I, like Einstein and Sagan, have a feeling of awe and wonder when I regard the universe and consider my place in it. Many would call this a "spiritual" feeling. Does that mean I believe in God? It might, if I defined God as "The universe as a whole."

I might believe in God if I defined God as "the first cause," the Big Bang.

It's possible to define God as "an attractive force which pervades the universe," as gravity.

It's possible to define God as light itself.

It's possible to define God as "a repulsive force which pervades the universe," as dark energy. Maybe "dark energy" god is locked in a mythic struggle with "gravity" god. Some days I think so, some days it sounds stupid, today, I just don't know.

Maybe this morning, I'm so God-damned glad to be alive, I'm inclined to define god as the life force itself, as something which was miraculously passed to me in a way I'll never fully understand, from two people into one. At some point "I" will cease to live, while the individual cells in my body will soldier on for a few moments more. I'll never understand the difference between living bokonon and dead bokonon, but the thought fills me with wonder, and I decide to call whatever animates the living bokonon "the god within me."

To clarify: Your analogy doesn't fit asking 'Does god exist?" Your analogy fits, "How many arms does god have?"You see, I may have these vague feelings of spirituality, and use the cultural icon I've inherited, this word "God," to help me understand, or simply to serve as a placeholder in my dialogues with myself.

I don't believe it's possible to "know" the nature of God, so I don't "know" if any of these things, something else entirely, or nothing at all, can properly be called "God."

I'm agnostic, and I don't know if I believe in God.

Now, whether any of what I've written above is "my" belief or no one's, I believe it's possible for someone to answer honestly that they're agnostic and don't know whether they believe in God. I don't have a problem with that, and I think it's rude to try to badger someone into taking a stand of "belief" in something they're unable to define.

articulett

19th September 2007, 06:30 AM

I think that thaiboxerken's point is that an atheist considers those who have no gods they believe in to also be atheists... even if such people avoid using the label themselves, because of additional connotations or implications they've absorbed through the culture that go with it. All labels regarding invisible immeasurable things are just ways humans have of categorizing what it going in another humans mind. We label ourselves and others in order to communicate such things. I, personally, don't care what people call themselves... I am interested in the notion that atheism connotes a lot of negativity when it really just means a lack of belief in a god. I suspect this has to do with religious and dogmatic bigotry ascribing characteristics to atheists that are stereotypical, but not based on actual facts.

I think that when people use the term "agressive atheist", they are seeing aggression that isn't there and emphasizing it in a true "notice the hits" confirmation bias type affirmation. I don't think those who label themselves atheists are more aggressive or bullying in their opinion proffering than those who don't. I don't think they are less mocking. I do suspect that their I.Q.s on average are considerably higher than those who promote the stereotype of the "aggressive atheist". I think the "aggressive atheist" is a meme designed to scare people and to see malintent that isn't there so that they cling to faith-- or at least the notion that faith and belief are worthy of some sort of respect or freedom from mockery--and also so they can see themselves as morally superior to those who don't "believe" as they do.

I don't really care about what people believe any more than they care about what I believe (or don't). I care about whether there is any supporting evidence for this stereotype or any actual reason I or others should tone something down... and I care about this notion that "atheists are bad" and "faith is good". It's simplistic and and not supported by any evidence except anecdote and confirmation bias as far as I can tell.

I don't know of atheists trying to get others not to believe-- I just want the right to not worry about offending people because I have the audacity to find the whole thing ridiculous and primitive. If people are offended, I suggest that it's because they fear my opinion might be true. I think all notions are open to examination and probing for evidence.

Beth

19th September 2007, 06:59 AM

And you'd be right. I would miss you if you left even though I don't agree with you all that often. Thank you. I appreciate that comment. Sometimes I feel distinctly unwelcome here.
Beth, I have to ask whether my expressed position -- i.e., that the claim "God exists" is a demonstrably false statement -- fits your definition of an "aggressive militant" position rather than a "tolerant moderate" one. I don't find your position that "God exists" is a demonstrably false statement to be an aggressive militant position. It's simply a strongly stated belief. I feel it is the equivalent of "Allah is the one true god" and various other statements of religious belief.

I think it's essential here to understand the reasons why Complexity and others -- myself included -- are not interested in "moderating" or "toning down" our statements on the question of the existence of God.

It has nothing to do with the identity of anyone who agrees or disagrees with us. For us, it's not a matter of politics, but of fact.

We have no interest in "toning down" our statements because the evidence supports our position, and to "moderate" our position would be to lie about it.

I don't think that anyone should have to lie about their religious beliefs, whatever they may be. That's not what I'm talking about when I complain about aggressive militant atheism.

The "aggressive militant atheism" I'm talking about are things like the idea that the mere act of bringing up a child to share in the parents religious beliefs is classed as child abuse. That's a position that concerns me because it is as inherently intolerant of other's beliefs as is the religious person who thinks that bringing up a child without any religious beliefs is child abuse. I will speak out against such intolerance when I can, and I will speak out against both of those positions with equal fervor.

I must admit, I am trying to persuade those who hold that position to reconsider it, and that those who are considering it will reject it. I think that aspect of asking people to moderate their position is a legimate aspect of the debate here.

To ask us to "moderate" our statements regarding the fact of the non-existence of God, to somehow accommodate theists by pretending that they might be right, would be like the Catholic Church asking Galileo to "moderate" or "tone down" his statements regarding heliocentrism, or creationists asking science teachers to "moderate" their position on evolution. I don't think your analogy applies because I don't think that you have sufficient evidence to give your conclusion, however solidly grounded in the available evidence, to justify your certainty. But we discussed that previously.

The analogy I would make is that asking atheists to consider that they might be wrong is akin to asking religious believers not to assume that they believe is the absolute Truth. Suggesting that atheists not assume believers are idiots, call them morons, brainwashed, or deluded is like asking those religious believers not to assume that atheists and others who believe differently are immoral, and that they are being spectactularly unpleasant and unchristian when they ridicule them for their beliefs or take pleasure in the thought of them burning in hell for eternity.

There is no reason for us to "moderate" our position to appease an unfounded, irrational, "faith based" (i.e., baseless) belief system which is opposed by every shred of evidence, and which is based on an entirely debunked world view. You're right (except for the 'opposed by every shred of evidence' part - I disagree with that statement but we discussed that before), that is no reason to moderate your position. But there are plenty of reasons to be considerate of others in how you state such an opinion. You don't have to modify that position, but some posters here seem to complete among themselve to see who can phrase such an opinion in the most offensive manner.

If you want to engage us, then please, engage the evidence itself. Do not simply chastise us for being intolerant and insinuate the we are somehow being militant by merely asserting what the evidence leads us to conclude.

No, what I object to is the juvenile position held by many supposedly moderate theists that merely to assert -- actually assert -- a truly contrary position to theirs is inherently agressive, militant, unacceptable.

Would anyone who considers him/herself rational dare to take such a position regarding any other debate? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. This is a misconstuing of the debate or at least of my position. I'm not saying that anyone needs to be silent or kowtow to others' religious beliefs. It is quite possible to make strong statements regarding your beliefs without being offensive about it. Piggy, your posts provide a good example of how it can be done.

My issue is about conducting a civil conversation with others and in order to do that, one needs to display consideration for the feelings of those with differing beliefs. Despite your strongly stated position, I don't class you as an anti-theists, which a better description of what I object to than aggressive militant atheism, because your words don't come across to me as being deliberately cruel to others because they believe differently than you do.

I have, through reading posts on this forum and conversations in RL, come to understand that the aggressive approach has it's merits and it's place. I don't have to like that approach to acknowledge that fact. And I do like living in a world where people have the freedom to state opinions that are offensive to others, even the ones I find offensive. I despise Fred Phelps and what he does with a passion, but I'm glad to live in a society where even he is allowed to speak his mind.

Further, I have come to realize that many atheists do feel oppressed by our society and enjoy to have a place where they can blow off some steam. I just don't want to read the bitter verbage and angry outbursts and I don't have to. I can put them on ignore, they can put me on ignore, we can both have enjoyable conversations here whilst ignoring each other. The internet is a wonderful space!

bignickel

19th September 2007, 07:27 AM

An agnostic doesn't have enough information to say whether or not God exists.
You don't have enough information to say whether or not the coin under my shoe is face up.

I was posting to point out that the above statement about agnostics is slightly off (An agnostic considers no information can say whether or not God exists), but reading the rest of the paragraph, it's looks like you've got a pretty decent handle on it.

However, I'm not sure you've got a handle what an atheist is: someone who is not a theist. And that's it.

A theist is someone who believes in god/s. If a person doesn't believe, then they are, by default, an atheist. And that's all the word means; someone who isn't in a particular group.

bokonon

19th September 2007, 07:30 AM

I think that thaiboxerken's point is that an atheist considers those who have no gods they believe in to also be atheists... even if such people avoid using the label themselves, because of additional connotations or implications they've absorbed through the culture that go with it.
I understand thaiboxerken's viewpoint the same way you do, but I don't agree with it. Lots of people consider Tiger Woods to be black, though he called himself "caublinasian" at one point. I'm inclined to let people define themselves, within reason. Apology's description of his beliefs seemed reasonable to me.

I, personally, don't care what people call themselves.
Neither do I, within reason. I might challenge a demagogue posing as a philanthropist, for instance, but I thought Apology's position was reasonable.

I think that when people use the term "agressive atheist", they are seeing aggression that isn't there and emphasizing it in a true "notice the hits" confirmation bias type affirmation. I don't think those who label themselves atheists are more aggressive or bullying in their opinion proffering than those who don't. I don't think they are less mocking. I do suspect that their I.Q.s on average are considerably higher than those who promote the stereotype of the "aggressive atheist". I think the "aggressive atheist" is a meme designed to scare people and to see malintent that isn't there so that they cling to faith-- or at least the notion that faith and belief are worthy of some sort of respect or freedom from mockery--and also so they can see themselves as morally superior to those who don't "believe" as they do.
How dare you try to steer this thread back on topic!

I don't know of atheists trying to get others not to believe-- I just want the right to not worry about offending people because I have the audacity to find the whole thing ridiculous and primitive.
I'm an atheist who's trying to get others not to believe.

If people are offended, I suggest that it's because they fear my opinion might be true. I think all notions are open to examination and probing for evidence.
I think it's possible to go "too far," and as I said earlier, we all draw our own lines there. Personally, I haven't seen anything on JREF that I consider too extreme; this seems like a rational soapbox, even when the talk gets a little heated.

bokonon

19th September 2007, 07:42 AM

I'm not sure you've got a handle what an atheist is: someone who is not a theist. And that's it.

A theist is someone who believes in god/s. If a person doesn't believe, then they are, by default, an atheist. And that's all the word means; someone who isn't in a particular group.
I accept your definition of "atheist," but I still think that when it comes to belief, things aren't always black and white, even when you have two mutually exclusive categories.

I can understand thaiboxerken's frustration. I myself chaff at "Schrodinger's Cat," and insist on saying that the cat MUST be either alive or dead whether we open the box or not. I'm not comfortable with some blurry quasi-state, but I still believe it's possible for a person to kinda sorta believe, and kinda sorta not, and wrap the whole thing in a box of "I really don't know." I accept Apology's description of his beliefs, whether anyone else does or not.

pgwenthold

19th September 2007, 08:05 AM

Yes, it is. It's a yes or no question. Do you believe in a god, yes or no?

I always prefer the approach, "Make a list that contains all the gods you believe in."

If that list ends up empty, then I would call you an atheist.

Slimething

19th September 2007, 08:54 AM

I accept your definition of "atheist," but I still think that when it comes to belief, things aren't always black and white, even when you have two mutually exclusive categories.

People get too hung up on labels. A personal belief system is just that, personal. Many times you'll catch people in transition. Hell, someone who actually thinks about their personal beliefs will always be in transition. Work through your psyche and don't bother too much with labels. The labels are merely verbal placeholders that have been devised to allow easier communication of certain concepts so that you don't have to keep redefining them all the time.

Anecdote: I have a friend who fell in love with the neocon movement. He's religious and felt that he was somehow beholden to follow this philosophy. (As you can tell, he's not all that intelligent but he is a truly nice person so I really like him. He even invited me to go to a Promise Keeper's rally with him, poor soul.) Getting back to the story, sometimes I would ask his opinion on some political situation or other and it was amusing to see him get noncommital until he had the chance to check what the official conservative stance was!

I can understand thaiboxerken's frustration. I myself chaff at "Schrodinger's Cat," and insist on saying that the cat MUST be either alive or dead whether we open the box or not. I'm not comfortable with some blurry quasi-state, but I still believe it's possible for a person to kinda sorta believe, and kinda sorta not, and wrap the whole thing in a box of "I really don't know." I accept Apology's description of his beliefs, whether anyone else does or not.

It is what it is. I believe that others are trying to get clarity on what you believe and maybe are annoyed at imprecise use of philosophical terms. Don't sweat it. Use those terms as defined in common usage but keep in mind that your situation may be somewhere in the middle.

And don't sweat Schroedinger's Cat. The question was first posed in 1935. That cat's dead by now, one way or the other. :D

Meadmaker

19th September 2007, 09:04 AM

I can understand thaiboxerken's frustration. I myself chaff at "Schrodinger's Cat," and insist on saying that the cat MUST be either alive or dead whether we open the box or not.

So did Schroedinger.

LBN

19th September 2007, 02:03 PM

I just wanted to interject one more opinion into this thread before it got too voluminous for me to follow.

Out of all the theists that I know I tend to treat monotheists and polytheists differently. Monotheism is internally illogical. You have a god who is omni-everything, the sum total of all that exists. Your god is the embodiment of good and evil in the same being. Wait, what?

Polytheism allows for the duality of nature. You can have gods for all occasions. As a metaphor for the natural world it is much more logical (at least for a pre-scientific society). This is why polytheistic deities more often than not have human characteristics. They are not infallible.

Anyway, it's all creation mythology. I'm sure our descendants will be looking back at us two thousand years from now, laughing and mocking our beliefs today. :D

articulett

19th September 2007, 04:03 PM

All the more reason to promote ancestor worship :D

Even Christians can't figure out who is and isn't a Christian or what the term means... I feel that the term atheism comes with a lot of judgmental baggage... and it's a pretty simple/logical position-- if I can't know god or divine secrets-- that pretty much says no one can. If some religions are certainly made up--that suggests that they all are.

I guess I'm offended by people indicating that I should approach the world more like them--that they should be my role model for some nebulous reason or some unverifiable goal. But I choose my own role models--and they tend not to be people trying to manipulate or "lead" me. If people I respect suggest that maybe I was harsh-- then I try to reign myself in a little better-- but otherwise, those who spread the "evil atheist" meme are not my friends, and I do not respect their advice and don't trust them to have my best interests at heart. They don't see their own glaring biases and they are really unclear on their goals and they seem to think that we should be eager for and respect their "advice" when we might feel they are vapid or offensive or muddled or clueless or biased. They want atheists to examine their own behavior, and yet it doesn't even occur to them that the advice they give to us, might be better applied to themselves. They are so critical of people I like-- they want to silence them... but I'd prefer they push the mute button on themselves. I don't see them as the leaders or diplomats they seem to imagine themselves to be. I see them as promoting a stereotype and even being dishonest. I care about the feelings of people I respect and people who respect me first and foremost. But more than that, I care about the truth. I don't want to be any part of propping up the "faith is good/atheists are mean" meme. Both are untrue and not supported by the facts though if you say it enough, people seem to find facts most anywhere to make it true in their head.

This is a skeptics forum, after all... why would someone choose a leadership role for themselves without indication that anyone was seeking their advice on the topic. Aren't the apologists saying, "you guys should be nicer like me"? What if I don't find them nice or cogent or anyone I'd choose as a role model? It's presumptuous and rude I think. I don't even understand their goal or why they are so blind to their biases. I think they are rather judgmental. Are they hearing us at all? And are they saying anything really? And why do they get so peeved at being called "apologists" when everyone but them seems to think they are. It's not a more loaded word than "atheist" after all.

Piggy

19th September 2007, 04:47 PM

Beth, thanks for post 580.

We've butted heads on the differences in our positions, of course, but I can't find fault with you there. Seems like, in a lot of ways, we take much the same stance -- we just come to different conclusions when we examine the evidence.

And, y'know, given the fact that people are bound to do that... well, that's about the best outcome we can have, I reckon.

I appreciate your taking the time to post.

Piggy

19th September 2007, 04:54 PM

A Little League team in a town in my state won the Little League World Series this year.

My local public TV station has a "prep sports" program that comes on after the News Hour one day a week, so I happened to catch their coverage of our governor -- who used to play ball for that team as a boy -- congratulating the players.

Turns out, according to our governor and their coach, these kids won the title because of their "love of God and country" and the "morals" of their region of our state.

Huh?

Now, this really grinds my gears, and I think it shows just how extreme the religious climate has become, at least in my part of the nation.

Can't we just be honest? Must we drag religion into everything?

I mean, really now, are we to conclude that the losing teams are somehow deficient in morality, reverence, and patriotism?

More importantly, are we to ignore the real reasons for success -- skill, dedication, and hard work?

Seems to me, this kind of knee-jerk religiosity and jingoism are both offensive and extreme.

My 2 cents. If you want to talk about an overreaching and ridiculous attitude toward religion, well, there you go.

Slimething

19th September 2007, 06:16 PM

Piggy,

First of all, that's great for those kids! I hope they got a parade!

As for the governor, he's a wanker. Nothing like kicking someone when they're down, huh? I wonder who taught him that?

Gurdur

19th September 2007, 07:21 PM

I've been away from this thread for a few days.
I've been off dealing with becomingagodo, clerihew80, and a few others, as well as my own issues. My position towards the presumption that religion is privileged and different from any other supersition is simple:
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more.
Being offensive to the religious is not only appropriate, but necessary. Something has to be used to crack through the smarmy, smug defenses that they have wrapped around themselves.......I've had enough.

Whooopidooo. And exactly what are you going to do? Flame on a middling-size bulletin board? Forgive me if I am not impressed by your drama-queening. Seriously, just what is such posturing meant to acheive? Or is the posturing more important to you than results?

Apology

19th September 2007, 07:50 PM

I'd like to address the issue of labeling for a moment. Some people take the position that agnosticism cannot be a belief on its own. There's a lot of philosophical argument on both sides regarding whether or not it can be considered a belief. The man who coined the word, Thomas H. Huxley, used it without appendage although he encouraged people to call themselves agnostic atheists, agnostic humanists, agnostic theists, and so on, if they liked. He related most closely to the Freethinker movement but felt that it didn't quite suit his beliefs. He did not call himself an Agnostic Freethinker, but an Agnostic. I looked at the pre-existing possible appendages and didn't quite agree with any of them so I did not choose one. There's a very simple wiki article located here:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

Please see "Other Epistemological Issues" at the bottom of the page.

I'd also like to add, that if I am forced to choose an appendage to agnosticism, I could argue that atheists should be forced to further define themselves by choosing either the appendage "Gnostic" or "Agnostic". I'm not going to do that, though, because that would lead to further pedantic arguments that would be unnecessarily convoluted and fruitless.

I encourage anyone who is interested in the subject of agnosticism to read the works of Thomas H. Huxley.

thaiboxerken

19th September 2007, 10:55 PM

quixotecoyote

19th September 2007, 11:00 PM

You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but it doesn't answer the question "do you believe in a god or gods?"

It's that simple. You have to answer yes or no to the question, otherwise you are simply evading the question. "I don't know" is an evasion to the question.

Not really. In that context, "I don't know" is a no. Unless you've been hit over the head recently, you know what you believe. If the question is 'Do you believe in God' and you say 'I don't know if he exists', then you obviously don't believe in it.

LBN

19th September 2007, 11:39 PM

All the more reason to promote ancestor worship :D

Not necessarily a bad idea as long as we pick the correct ancestors. Of course all humans are flawed but the toughest for one to accept this in is our primary relationships (i.e. parents). Those primary relationships are the prototypes for our relationship with gOD. If they are broken then so will the path to salvation and eternal joy. :biggrin:

Perhaps this puts one ahead on a path to enlightenment. When those primary relationships aren't there, there are no role models for us to emulate. Instead we choose historical figures, literary figures, philosophical figures. Or, if you're retarded, you can pick a dad off TV. Hopefully you might have some interesting figures in your lineage.

You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but it doesn't answer the question "do you believe in a god or gods?"

It's that simple. You have to answer yes or no to the question, otherwise you are simply evading the question. "I don't know" is an evasion to the question.

It seems to me that "I don't know" is the proper answer a skeptic should give. "I have no knowledge of this nor no proof of it." That doesn't necessarily allow for the non-existence of it. To claim the non-existence of something is built on a logical fallacy. This is a situation where the skeptic credo of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof should ring loud and clear. It's part of the reason why "aggressive atheism" is a big box of FAIL right from the start. Aggressive skepticism is a better position. Teach people to be better rational thinkers.

Slimething

19th September 2007, 11:58 PM

It seems to me that "I don't know" is the proper answer a skeptic should give. "I have no knowledge of this nor no proof of it." That doesn't necessarily allow for the non-existence of it. To claim the non-existence of something is built on a logical fallacy.

A sweeping generalization which is not true. There are outrageous claims that can be proven untrue. There are also outrageous claims that can be deduced untrue from logic, math and science. For example, Vonnegut's Ice-9 (a tongue-in-cheek invention of a form of ice so stable that water would freeze on contact with a crystal of it) can not only be doubted but also dimissed. So it is for specific gods. There are many theories of god and some of them can be dismissed because they are self-contradictory or illogical. So, when confronted with an absolute crackpot god, skeptics don't have to give those the time of day.

It's part of the reason why "aggressive atheism" is a big box of FAIL right from the start. Aggressive skepticism is a better position. Teach people to be better rational thinkers.

Please define "aggressive atheism" and "aggressive skepticism". Right now, the definition of the former is of great interest to the posters on this thread and the latter is completely undefined at this moment. Theists are the most aggressive atheists with relation to gods other than their own.

Complexity

20th September 2007, 12:01 AM

Whooopidooo. And exactly what are you going to do? Flame on a middling-size bulletin board? Forgive me if I am not impressed by your drama-queening. Seriously, just what is such posturing meant to acheive? Or is the posturing more important to you than results?

Cool. My own fan club.

I haven't decided what I'm going to do about it yet.

At least one important relationship in my life has been put on ice due to the religion / gay thing. I hope some others can be salvaged over the years.

Efforts to include me in religiously-oriented occasions or events will be politely but firmly declined, including family christmas gatherings, weddings, funerals, christenings, confirmations. I will not join hands for grace, or say grace, and probably will not remain at the table during grace.

Questions asked of my by children or teens will be answered honestly without regard for parental preferences.

In my interactions with people and in writings, I will address the problem of religion and other delusions as effectively as I can.

I will not engage in debate with the religious, the superstitious, or other woo; nor do I wish to engage in argumentative discussions with them.

I will continue to support groups that work from separation of church from state, for freedom from religion.

I will seek out and support secular organizations and societies and do what I can to help them in their work.

I will speak out rather than stay silent.

I will offend in an honest cause and to the extent that I think will be effective.

Any suggestions?

Slimething

20th September 2007, 12:08 AM

Any suggestions?

Consider Gurdur and Beth to be the Universe's attempt at comic relief. ;)

Darat

20th September 2007, 12:10 AM

You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but it doesn't answer the question "do you believe in a god or gods?"

It's that simple. You have to answer yes or no to the question, otherwise you are simply evading the question. "I don't know" is an evasion to the question.

Not quite IF you use agnostic as I always hold it should mean which is as a philosophical position that such a question is in principle unanswerable by us humans. Only if agnostic is used as a description for "fence sitting" i.e. "I don't know" is it an "evasion".

six7s

20th September 2007, 12:54 AM

You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but it doesn't answer the question "do you believe in a god or gods?"

It's that simple. You have to answer yes or no to the question, otherwise you are simply evading the question. "I don't know" is an evasion to the question.
Not quite IF you use agnostic as I always hold it should mean which is as a philosophical position that such a question is in principle unanswerable by us humans.
Indeed. Clear, concise and - with a big IF and other emphasising - a passive assertion

Only if agnostic is used as a description for "fence sitting" i.e. "I don't know" is it an "evasion".
An evasion and, in the context of the question, a passive-aggressive apology for an answer

Darat

20th September 2007, 01:28 AM

Hang on a mo - does that mean not only are atheists aggressive they are also passive-aggressive? :)

six7s

20th September 2007, 02:52 AM

Hang on a mo - does that mean not only are atheists aggressive they are also passive-aggressive? :)

Hell Yeah! Damn Straight! Et Cetera!

What else do you call refusing to demonstrate a double-reverse-backflip-negative?

If they were flexible, it'd be a cinch!

;)

six7s

20th September 2007, 03:25 AM

Aggressive skepticism is a better position

In contrast with that assumed by missionaries (and their underlings)?

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 05:40 AM

Not really. In that context, "I don't know" is a no. Unless you've been hit over the head recently, you know what you believe. If the question is 'Do you believe in God' and you say 'I don't know if he exists', then you obviously don't believe in it.

This is why I always suggest making a list of the gods you believe in. If the list is empty, then I consider you an atheist.

If you don't know if you believe in some god, then it certainly won't show up on your list.

articulett

20th September 2007, 05:51 AM

Hang on a mo - does that mean not only are atheists aggressive they are also passive-aggressive? :)

Only the ones that call themselves agnostic... the ones that call themselves just atheists are just "aggressive".

Apology

20th September 2007, 07:56 AM

Where in the atheist rulebook does it say that I must pick a group and go with it? Absence of a name for God and rejection of traditional gods does not equal unbelief. Why should I be forced to choose a group when I'm uncomfortable with them all? Additionally, why should I be forced to create a new group that better represents my own beliefs? I have a right to remain undecided, especially when you consider that if God is unknowable and unprovable, it's a moot point anyway. If I chose a designation, I'd be claiming knowlege that I don't have. Not only do I not know whether I believe or not, I refuse to waste any more time considering it since the answer does not make God more knowable, provable, real, or unreal.

By categorizing me against my will into groups that I've already considered and rejected, you're just irritating someone that was, in the past, sympathetic to your beliefs. I fail to see how this helps the cause of atheism. You are losing sympathizers rather than gaining anything.

There are an estimated 991,0000 declared agnostics. You can either convince them to stand on the side of unbelief to refute religiosity, or you can annoy them to the point that they no longer want to support you. That equals nearly 100,000 fewer voices saying "Christianity is wrong." It's really up to you, but as a minority group one would think that atheism could use all the supporters it can get even if those supporters don't agree with you on all theological points.

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 08:02 AM

Where in the atheist rulebook does it say that I must pick a group and go with it? Absence of a name for God and rejection of traditional gods does not equal unbelief.

Oh, so you actually believe in a god or gods?

I should note, when you make that list of the god or gods you believe in as I have recommended, you don't have to have some specific name in mind. You can just list the characteristics that you believe it has.

bokonon

20th September 2007, 08:21 AM

A hypothetical agnostic someone (not Apology) believes there may be a god or gods. MAY BE, rather than IS. MAY BE, rather than IS NOT.

As an agnostic, that someone doesn't believe it's possible to know what characteristics such a god or gods might have.

He believes in the list of gods which may or may not exist, and whose characteristics (including names, including existence) cannot be defined. Does that make him a theist?

All these dogmatic attempts to define away complexity won't make it go away. There is a grey area, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Complexity

20th September 2007, 08:25 AM

All these dogmatic attempts to define away complexity won't make it go away.

Hell, no! I won't go!

Apology

20th September 2007, 08:58 AM

Oh, so you actually believe in a god or gods?

I should note, when you make that list of the god or gods you believe in as I have recommended, you don't have to have some specific name in mind. You can just list the characteristics that you believe it has.

If you wish to discuss the characteristics of a God that may or may not exist, please refer to Spinoza and Einstein's constructs. I came to the conclusion that listing characteristics, while somewhat entertaining, did not prove or disprove God's existence or add to any additional knowledge about God's nature, and constituted a waste of time. If you really want something to work on, consider the concept that if God exists, it surely does not take an active part in our lives, or "care" whether we are sinners or saints. If God did take an active, caring role in our lives, I don't see how we could have missed finding any evidence for it.

You can work with it if you like but it's a waste of time; even if you refute it, it only proves that I'm wrong about my speculations about God, rather than proving that God doesn't exist. Since I already have, as an intrinsic part of my beliefs, the concept that I know nothing about God and could be wrong about all of it, my beliefs aren't built on my speculations about God or supported by those speculations. Ergo, tearing down my constructs does nothing to convince me that the general premise is wrong; it merely convinces me that the constructs are wrong, which I admit is highly possible openly from the beginning. This tactic works on theists only, since their constructs are the very foundation of their beliefs. When it comes to agnosticism, however, it adds nothing to the debate but more argument, so to speak. The foundation of an agnostic's belief is that God is unknowable and unprovable, so any and all constructs are most likely wrong in some way. Some agnostics argue that creating constructs is antithetical to agnosticism in the first place.

Here's an example: Once a friend and I were having a discussion about potential qualities of God. I proposed that God should be able to defy gravity. He pointed out that if one were able to defy gravity, one would not float in the air at will, but rather hover above the earth's surface as the earth continued to rotate, smacking into stationary objects and parked cars willy-nilly. I agreed that God should be able to fly rather than defy gravity, since it made more sense. A third person objected and said that if God could do anything, God most certainly could defy gravity if God so chose. We all agreed that if God could indeed do anything, then God would be able to defy gravity, although God most likely would choose flying rather than smacking into fixed objects on the earth's surface. The first friend pointed out that we have no evidence or reason to believe that God is a logical being, so it might prefer smacking through cars and crushing trees even though flying would be easier. None of this provided any additional information as to whether or not God exists, challenged anyone's belief in God, or added to any knowledge of God. If anyone learned anything, then they learned more about gravity. It was a fruitlessly pedantic argument that did nothing but keep us entertained for a short time and did not contribute to anyone's knowledge one iota.

bokonon

20th September 2007, 09:21 AM

Hell, no! I won't go!
I hope you weren't insulted by the genderless pronoun.

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 10:22 AM

If you wish to discuss the characteristics of a God that may or may not exist, please refer to Spinoza and Einstein's constructs.

So do believe in Spinoza's god?

Apology

20th September 2007, 10:27 AM

So do believe in Spinoza's god?

I have no evidence to either prove or refute Spinoza's construct. I neither believe nor disbelieve it.

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 11:00 AM

Apology

20th September 2007, 04:30 PM

I never asked you what you DISBELIEVED. I asked you whether you believe in Spinoza's god. Your answer, "I neither believe ..." is all the farther I need to hear. Your answer is, NO, you do not believe in Spinoza's god.

So what have you gained that I haven't said before? I've already said that I don't believe in a bunch of pre-existing Gods. Not believing in Spinoza's version doesn't add any new information to the argument.

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 06:10 PM

So what have you gained that I haven't said before? I've already said that I don't believe in a bunch of pre-existing Gods. Not believing in Spinoza's version doesn't add any new information to the argument.

So why did you bring it up?

I asked you to list any god or gods you believed in. You started rambling something about Spinoza's god. I asked if you believed in it. You admitted you didn't.

In the end, since it appears that your list of gods you believe in is empty, then I would consider you an atheist. "Without a belief in god or gods"

thaiboxerken

20th September 2007, 06:12 PM

Oh, so you actually believe in a god or gods?

I'm pretty sure, at this point, that he does. People that don't believe in a god or gods do not refer to God so often. He obviously has a specific god in mind, one of his own design, that he believes exists but chooses to acknowledge can't be known to exist.

Apology

20th September 2007, 06:32 PM

I'm pretty sure, at this point, that he does. People that don't believe in a god or gods do not refer to God so often. He obviously has a specific god in mind, one of his own design, that he believes exists but chooses to acknowledge can't be known to exist.

I've stated quite a few times that I don't know if I believe in God or not. I brought up Spinoza because it's a pretty good construct and pgwenthold was pushing for a construct. I have no reason to believe that any construct I created would be any better than Spinoza's. Even the best construct is bound to be flawed because it's based upon presumptions about God that no one can know. Not knowing falls short of both belief and disbelief.

thaiboxerken

20th September 2007, 06:48 PM

I've stated quite a few times that I don't know if I believe in God or not.

See what I mean? A specific god seems to be the only one considered in Apology's arguments, even though he refuses to define what that god is and what traits it may or may not have.

UnrepentantSinner

20th September 2007, 06:48 PM

All these dogmatic attempts to define away complexity won't make it go away.
Hell, no! I won't go!

:D

bokonon

20th September 2007, 07:10 PM

See what I mean? A specific god seems to be the only one considered in Apology's arguments, even though he refuses to define what that god is and what traits it may or may not have.
So to you, he's a theist. To pgwenthold, he's an atheist. The proper label is obviously very important to the two of you, but I can't for the life of me see why. Do you two have a side bet going or something?

thaiboxerken

20th September 2007, 07:19 PM

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 07:24 PM

Nah, I suspect he's theist based on his vehement defense of his own god, which he calls "God." If he says he doesn't believe a god exists, he's atheist if he truly doesn't believe a god exists, as pg says. However, I think he's not being quite honest.

Honest or not is a good question. However, he has said he does not believe in Spinoza's god.

Actually, most of my exercise was just to illustrate to him that, despite all his ramblings, it still comes down to admitting that he doesn't believe in Spinoza's god. I asked, do you believe in Spinoza's god? He answered, I neither believe nor disbelieve. Which, of course, was not the question.

In light of the question, his response was no, he does not believe in Spinoza's god.

Apology

20th September 2007, 07:25 PM

See what I mean? A specific god seems to be the only one considered in Apology's arguments, even though he refuses to define what that god is and what traits it may or may not have.

Any definition I attempted to give God would automatically be wrong if God is unknowable. At the end I still would not know whether or not to believe in my own construct. Any construct that I did create, no matter how facile, would still fall short of proof of God and would not be based on actual knowledge of God. The best it could hope to do is establish more ground for the concept that God might exist, which Spinoza already does. Ergo, attempting to define God is useless since in the end I still will never know if my definition is correct or not or whether God exists or not. The only belief that I have is that if God exists its qualities are unknowable. Of course I can't prove this presumption either way. It's the closest thing to a definition I can give you.

I'm sorry, I just don't know of a way to discuss the concept of God without mentioning the word God that isn't unnecessarily convoluted. I've already explained that in philosophy and world religion the concept of God is just called God. I'm not in the business of coining new words because you're uncomfortable with the word "God". I assure you it didn't offend me to refer to the concept as "God" when I was an atheist.

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 07:28 PM

I've stated quite a few times that I don't know if I believe in God or not. I brought up Spinoza because it's a pretty good construct and pgwenthold was pushing for a construct.

No I wasn't. I only asked for you to create a list of all the god's you believe in. You said something about not having a name for it, and I said it didn't matter. You could write down the properties of the god or gods you believe in, regardless of whether it has been mentioned somewhere else.

You brought up Spinoza's god, and so I asked if you believed in it. You said you didn't ("I neither believe nor disbelieve"; if you don't believe, then you don't believe, so the answer to "Do you believe" is no), which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place?

I have no reason to believe that any construct I created would be any better than Spinoza's. Even the best construct is bound to be flawed because it's based upon presumptions about God that no one can know. Not knowing falls short of both belief and disbelief.

No one asked you about what you knew. You were asked about what you believe.

So, back to the list of all the gods you believe in. How many have you listed?

six7s

20th September 2007, 07:30 PM

All these dogmatic attempts to define away complexity won't make it go away. There is a grey area, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

The proper label is obviously very important to the two of you, but I can't for the life of me see why

Well... there was some confusion regarding a defintion of 'the cause'

One True Scottish Atheists
and
Aggressive Atheists
Agnostic Atheists
Militant Atheists
Passive Atheists
Skeptical Atheists
and now, as if we need any more complexity¹
Apologist Atheists
By my calculation:
$$ labels = 1 + 2^6 = 1 + 64 = 65 $$

With 65 labels to choose from, I'm not surprised :p

________________________
¹no, not big C Complexity ;)

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 07:31 PM

Any definition I attempted to give God would automatically be wrong if God is unknowable.

If you can't define "god" then how can you believe in it? Obviously, you can't.

Hence, _you do not hold a belief in god_.

Piggy

20th September 2007, 07:33 PM

Apology

20th September 2007, 07:34 PM

Honest or not is a good question. However, he has said he does not believe in Spinoza's god.

Actually, most of my exercise was just to illustrate to him that, despite all his ramblings, it still comes down to admitting that he doesn't believe in Spinoza's god. I asked, do you believe in Spinoza's god? He answered, I neither believe nor disbelieve. Which, of course, was not the question.

In light of the question, his response was no, he does not believe in Spinoza's god.

When asked directly, I stated, "I neither believe nor disbelieve". You refused to accept that answer and decided that it meant that I didn't believe in Spinoza's God. I pointed out that even if I don't believe in Spinoza's God, it adds nothing to the argument, because I have already said that I don't believe in many gods. I never said that I didn't believe in Spinoza's God, I said I neither believed nor disbelieved. Even if Spinoza is eliminated, it only shows that I don't believe Spinoza.

pgwenthold

20th September 2007, 07:39 PM

When asked directly, I stated, "I neither believe nor disbelieve". You refused to accept that answer

Not true. I accepted that answer completely. You do not believe.

I never asked you whether you disbelieve, so that is a red herring on your part. Extra information, not relevent to the question at hand.

It's like asking, "Do you have a red dress?" and you answering, "I have neither a red dress nor a blue dress." Heck, you could say "I have no dress at all," and it would still be the case that you do not have a red dress.

Unfortunately, you thought you were dodging the question, but you weren't. You answered it truthfully. You do not hold a belief in Spinoza's god.

Piggy

20th September 2007, 07:45 PM

pgwenthold, I have to disagree with you here.

If you ask me whether I believe that my brother is still at work right now, I have to say "I don't know."

That doesn't mean that I don't believe that he's at work. I neither believe nor disbelieve that he's at work.

He might be. He often works late. Then again, he might not be.

Sometimes "I don't know" means "I don't know".

You're trying to shoehorn an agnostic into an atheist mold.

Apology

20th September 2007, 07:49 PM

Ok, so I can't resist a train wreck....

I'd like to suggest the following definitions (confident, of course, that they'll be ignored):

Theist: God exists.

Weak agnostic: I don't know whether God exists or not.

Strong agnostic: It's impossible for humans to know whether God does or does not exist.

Weak atheist: I have no belief in God.

Strong atheist: God does not exist.

There aren't enough categories. We'd have to create new categories for all the people who answered the question Do you believe in God? in the ways listed below too:

- I don't personally know.
- I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.
- I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.
- I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.
- I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future.
- Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.
- Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.

Some of them are already covered by your list, but not all. Then there would be a whole bunch of new terms for people to argue over and take offense to and nothing would be accomplished. We'd be embroiled in the proper way to capitalize and use pronouns for the new titles before you knew it.

All in all, they're decent definitions. Good work. I would identify myself as strong agnostic.

Meadmaker

20th September 2007, 07:50 PM

Not only do I not know whether I believe or not, I refuse to waste any more time considering it since the answer does not make God more knowable, provable, real, or unreal.

By categorizing me against my will into groups that I've already considered and rejected, you're just irritating someone that was, in the past, sympathetic to your beliefs. I fail to see how this helps the cause of atheism. You are losing sympathizers rather than gaining anything.

This is an incredibly important observation to understand. This is the way in which the aggressiveness really can hurt the cause. This subdialog is largely about the correct labelling of US and THEM. By demaning that Apology choose one or the other, you are losing support.

There are a lot of people who, ideologically, would be expected to be on one side or the other, but are so turned off by the hostility they perceive that they join what would appear to be the other side. This could be liberal Christians who side against the fundamentalists, or it could be agnostics or lukewarm atheists who are told that their second rate non-belief just isn't good enough for the team.

The good side of that is the middle tends to be a bit of a balancer. There are a large number of people who really just wish everyone trying to push their religious views onto them, whether atheistic or theistic, would just shut up and go away. What results is that the middle ground, the complacent, lukewarm, masses, will tend to push back against whoever has the upper hand at the moment.

Piggy

20th September 2007, 07:56 PM

- I don't personally know.
- I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.
- I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.
- I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.
- I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future.
- Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.
- Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.
Actually, I think all these are covered.
- Weak agnostic (I don't know)
- Weak agnostic (I don't know, but will behave as if not)
- Weak agnostic (I don't know, but will behave as if yes)
- Strong agnostic (We can't know right now)
- Strong agnostic (We can't ever know)
- Theist (God exists, but we don't know qualities)
- Theist (God exists, but we can never know qualities)

All the flavors you mention still fall in the categories I describe, which are irrespective of behavior or temporal limits.

Of course, if you want to tag the flavors, well ok.

six7s

20th September 2007, 08:17 PM

pgwenthold, I have to disagree with you here.

If you ask me whether I believe that my brother is still at work right now, I have to say "I don't know."

In the context of discussions like this, I'd phrase an answer with the aim of dispensing with the ambiguity:

"In this context, belief suggests (in)security-based hope, which is not an issue. I simply do not know if my brother is at work, nor do I have reason to be concerned/worried about him"

bokonon

20th September 2007, 08:18 PM

I think it's also important for thai and pgwe to tell us whether they're "plus half spin" or "minus half spin" atheists. I won't be able to sleep, not knowing.

Apology

20th September 2007, 08:34 PM

Actually, I think all these are covered.
- Weak agnostic (I don't know)
- Weak agnostic (I don't know, but will behave as if not)
- Weak agnostic (I don't know, but will behave as if yes)
- Strong agnostic (We can't know right now)
- Strong agnostic (We can't ever know)
- Theist (God exists, but we don't know qualities)
- Theist (God exists, but we can never know qualities)

All the flavors you mention still fall in the categories I describe, which are irrespective of behavior or temporal limits.

Of course, if you want to tag the flavors, well ok.

Nope, tagging people is not my deal. If they want to choose another category they can, but I'm not going to tell them they have to and they're in charge of making it up. . I came across a table that showed Agnostic Theists as well as strong and weak theists. Actually the theist part of the table had so many divisions it was thoroughly confusing. In my opinion your categories fit pretty well and are fairly simply.

Apology

20th September 2007, 08:46 PM

Not true. I accepted that answer completely. You do not believe.

I never asked you whether you disbelieve, so that is a red herring on your part. Extra information, not relevent to the question at hand.

It's like asking, "Do you have a red dress?" and you answering, "I have neither a red dress nor a blue dress." Heck, you could say "I have no dress at all," and it would still be the case that you do not have a red dress.

Unfortunately, you thought you were dodging the question, but you weren't. You answered it truthfully. You do not hold a belief in Spinoza's god.

If the statement "I neither believe nor disbelieve" is somehow intrinsically different than the statement "I don't know," then I'll change my answer to "I don't know."

Your analogy should be adjusted. Imagine it's a purple dress. You ask me if I'm wearing a red dress or a blue dress. I say "It's neither a red dress or a blue dress." You say, "No, you must only express yourself in terms of blue or red. Is it a red dress or a blue dress?" I say, "It's purple." You say, "It's either red or blue, it can't be both." The argument goes nowhere.

thaiboxerken

20th September 2007, 10:45 PM

RandFan

20th September 2007, 10:58 PM

If the statement "I neither believe nor disbelieve" is somehow intrinsically different than the statement "I don't know," then I'll change my answer to "I don't know."

Your analogy should be adjusted. Imagine it's a purple dress. You ask me if I'm wearing a red dress or a blue dress. I say "It's neither a red dress or a blue dress." You say, "No, you must only express yourself in terms of blue or red. Is it a red dress or a blue dress?" I say, "It's purple." You say, "It's either red or blue, it can't be both." The argument goes nowhere. I don't have a dog in this fight. However, the question is valid. "Do you have a red dress" is disjunctive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunctive_normal_form). It's sufficient to cover everything that is a red dress and everything that is not a red dress.

It's either a red dress or it is not. No false dichotomy.

I spent pages making your argument so I can say this humbly.

But, knock yourself out.

Apology

21st September 2007, 12:54 AM

"I neither believe...." = I do not believe. Thus you are atheist, if you are being honest. However, you have defined your god as unknowable, and (to me) you seem to defend that definition of "God" thus I think you actually do believe this unknowable god to exist.

FYI.. Defining "God" as unknowable is a giant appeal to ignorance.

I've maintained from the beginning that God is unknowable and unprovable. Agnosticism is an automatic admission of ignorance if you define it that way. I was aware of the inherent admission of ignorance in the position before we began the discussion. Other agnostics might beg to differ but you'll just have to talk to them about their own personal definitions if they do.

I don't have a problem admitting that I could be wrong about things. I obviously don't have a problem saying so when I just don't know. I don't know why it would be shameful to admit ignorance of something that I'm not sure that I believe in.

quixotecoyote

21st September 2007, 01:00 AM

I've maintained from the beginning that God is unknowable and unprovable. Agnosticism is an automatic admission of ignorance if you define it that way. I was aware of the inherent admission of ignorance in the position before we began the discussion. Other agnostics might beg to differ but you'll just have to talk to them about their own personal definitions if they do.

I don't have a problem admitting that I could be wrong about things. I obviously don't have a problem saying so when I just don't know. I don't know why it would be shameful to admit ignorance of something that I'm not sure that I believe in.

Just as the the statement "I don't know" is a 'no' to "Do you believe in a god," "God is" is a 'yes' to the same question.

If you can define the god you believe in (even if you define him as undefinable) then you are a theist. If you claim to know nothing about him other than his existence, you could certainly be an agnostic theist, but atheism/theism is an exhaustive dichotomy for sentient beings who have been made aware of the question.

Complexity

21st September 2007, 01:11 AM

I hope you weren't insulted by the genderless pronoun.

Of course, not!

By the way, I absolutely love your avatar. I grabbed that picture when I first saw it in the news recently. Wonderful.

bigbossmatt

21st September 2007, 03:17 AM

Ichneumonwasp

21st September 2007, 03:42 AM

This is a silly discussion.

Agnosticism refers to our state of knowledge. Aside from folks who claim to have personal knowledge of God most are agnostic. Many are believers, many not. The believers say that they believe based on faith.

The reality is that God either exists or does not exist. Though it may be that many gods exist. We can't know.

Belief does not necessarily fit into that nice dichotomy -- yes/no.

For instance, if I define God as the ground of Being, I can say that I believe that God exists. But I have no idea what that really means. What the hell is the ground of all Being? Do I really believe in God? How could you tell? Everyone believes in existence. Does everyone believe in God, then?

To take a position on the yes/no dichotomy I must first define what that word "God" means.

I say no to Zeus, where Zeus is defined as the head of the Greek Pantheon, anthropomorphized guy with a beard, thunderbolts and an eye for the ladies.

I'm not sure I can say "no" to every possibility. Unless those possibilities are defined, how can I form a firm belief one way or the other? If God is undefined in one possibility, then I cannot decide "yes" or "no". I would be stuck with "I don't know" as the only logical choice.

ETA
The reason that theists find strong atheists arrogant is because they simply do not think it is possible for them to have arrived at every possible definition of God so as to decide one way or the other "yes" or "no". Listen to what they say closely. It always seems to be some variation of the above.

Georg

21st September 2007, 03:54 AM

Does this help? I mean, its a change of perspective in answering the question of how to label people. It is also argument-neutral.

How could this be improved? Assuming this is a helpful way of going about.

Your mistake is mixing knowledge and belief and therefore to assume that there is a straight line from strong atheist to agnostic to strong theist, and that the labels are mutually exclusive. In my opinion, they aren´t.
Do I believe in god(s)? No, because there is no evidence for god(s) that I´m aware of. That lack of belief makes me an atheist.
Do I know if god(s) exist? No, I do not. That makes me an agnostic. So my label would be “agnostic atheist”.
Even if I´d follow your reasoning, there´s a mistake. The line “does god exist” > “I can never answer this question” > “strong atheist” is wrong and should be ended with “strong agnostic”.
But since I am not interested in labelling, I don´t really care.

ETA: Thanks Ichneumonwasp for making the first part of my post redundant:).
Ahhhh, I´m too slow. bigbossmatt has already corrected his mistake.

bigbossmatt

21st September 2007, 04:06 AM

Georg, since you noticed that I corrected my mistake, what points of yours do you still want to make?

I'm sorry for being confusing initially, but the error in the picture has been corrected, as you know.

bokonon

21st September 2007, 05:10 AM

So, have we said everything there is to say on the question "Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause?"

If so, I guess I can put this thread on "ignore." I have my own opinion on the question, "Must Everyone Be Either an Atheist Or a Theist?" but less interest in discussing it.

If not, how do I go about requesting that that question be split into its own topic?

Ichneumonwasp

21st September 2007, 05:16 AM

So, have we said everything there is to say on the question "Does an Aggressive Atheistic Stance Hurt the Cause?"

Good god I hope so.

If so, I guess I can put this thread on "ignore." I have my own opinion on the question, "Must Everyone Be Either an Atheist Or a Theist?" but less interest in discussing it.

If not, how do I go about requesting that that question be split into its own topic?

Just start a new thread with that question as the header. Asking such a question is how I got stuck creating this monstrosity.

Georg

21st September 2007, 05:18 AM

Georg, since you noticed that I corrected my mistake, what points of yours do you still want to make?

Just the one I already made. The point that you don´t have to be an atheist or an agnostic, you can be both. Same goes for theist and agnostic.
Couldn´t say it better than Ichneumonwasp:

Agnosticism refers to our state of knowledge. Aside from folks who claim to have personal knowledge of God most are agnostic. Many are believers, many not.

I guess most people would be agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. I do not know a lot of people who claim to know if god(s) exist or not.
But that does not mean it´s a 50% thing, at least not for me. Since there is no compelling evidence for the existance of god(s), I don´t have more reason to assume that there are any than I have to believe in fairies, hobbits or whatever.

articulett

21st September 2007, 05:56 AM

Of course, not!

By the way, I absolutely love your avatar. I grabbed that picture when I first saw it in the news recently. Wonderful.

Then you will love this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVEeaWPmOp4&mode=related&search=

and probably this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB0WTuGaQWs

and maybe this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk4ZqskRBPw

I love that avatar too.

Regarding atheists--I think the term "aggressive atheist" is a stereotype... and that passion is not aggression.

I also think that beliefs and being offended deserve as much respect as "opinions" and "feelings"-- and I think it's fair to care about other peoples' beliefs, notions, feelings, and opinions (or not) to the same extent that they care about mine. If people are offended by my words, I think they ought to ask themselves why... and if others might be offended by what they say. I don't think belief or faith of any sort deserves any special respect.

And I think that it's quite clear from these video clips that traits like love and teasing and play have little to do with belief or respect for belief-- I think Kathy Griffins concern about those she offended should be on par with the monkey teasing the tigers in the final clip. I find both hysterical for similar reasons and equally harmless.

pgwenthold

21st September 2007, 06:16 AM

pgwenthold, I have to disagree with you here.

If you ask me whether I believe that my brother is still at work right now, I have to say "I don't know."

This would not answer the question. I never asked if you _know_ your brother is at work, so "I don't know" is not an answer to "Do you believe...?"

For example, I don't KNOW if my wife is at work right now. I haven't called her clinic this morning to see if she was there. She wasn't there the last time I saw her. But I do believe she's there, because that is where she usually is at this time, and there is a high probability she is there, so I believe she is.

Do you believe your brother is at work? I'm not asking whether you KNOW it. That's the difference between agnosticism and atheism.

Apology

21st September 2007, 11:20 AM

I did mess up the analogy with the dresses and I admit making a mistake. However at this point I'm just tired of all the talk of dresses and religious labels and give up, still unconvinced and undecided about atheism and theism, and still convinced that aggression hurts the cause of unbelief.

Ichneumonwasp, I'm sorry about your thread. I came in to say that I did feel that aggression hurts the cause of atheism and accidentally derailed your thread into a messy, pedantic theological argument that solved nothing. I apologize to you.

ImaginalDisc

21st September 2007, 11:22 AM

Ichneumonwasp, I'm sorry about your thread. I came in to say that I did feel that aggression hurts the cause of atheism and accidentally derailed your thread into a messy, pedantic theological argument that solved nothing. I apologize to you.

Has any atheist in this thread been agressive?

Ichneumonwasp

21st September 2007, 11:44 AM

pgwenthold

21st September 2007, 11:50 AM

Has any atheist in this thread been agressive?

Apparently we have been "emotive"

JoeEllison

21st September 2007, 11:55 AM

Has any atheist in this thread been agressive?

I was wearing pretty aggressive cologne for at least a few of my posts...

pgwenthold

21st September 2007, 11:58 AM

I was wearing pretty aggressive cologne for at least a few of my posts...

It's your birthday, of course you were.

I wondered what smelled...

JoeEllison

21st September 2007, 12:02 PM

It's your birthday, of course you were.

I wondered what smelled...
That's Polo Black baby!

Apology

21st September 2007, 12:03 PM

Has any atheist in this thread been agressive?

I thought that people calling me a liar were aggressive, and it was uncalled-for. Most people would tell that person to get stuffed at that point and just walk away. It pretty much proves my point about aggression in atheism; making people walk away in disgust doesn't promote atheism.

Complexity

21st September 2007, 12:07 PM

articulett - I loved those clips.

The third one had me laughing so loudly and abruptly that my cats freaked out.

Thanks!

RandFan

21st September 2007, 01:20 PM

I thought that people calling me a liar were aggressive, and it was uncalled-for. Most people would tell that person to get stuffed at that point and just walk away. It pretty much proves my point about aggression in atheism; making people walk away in disgust doesn't promote atheism.Liar.

:o

articulett

21st September 2007, 03:46 PM

I was wearing pretty aggressive cologne for at least a few of my posts...

I notice a bunch of balloons under your avatar--

Happy Birthday
(I say with sincere aggression)

:D

articulett

21st September 2007, 03:49 PM

articulett - I loved those clips.

The third one had me laughing so loudly and abruptly that my cats freaked out.

Thanks!

I have it on good authority that each of those clips involved atheist primates...
And the third clip did involve the monkey telling the tigers to "suck it"-- and I think he wanted Jesus to suck it too.

Now don't tell Apology... for surely they will be seen as aggressive-- (and here I just thought they were cute...)

Ichneumonwasp

21st September 2007, 04:04 PM

I have it on good authority that each of those clips involved atheist primates...
And the third clip did involve the monkey telling the tigers to "suck it"-- and I think he wanted Jesus to suck it too.

Now don't tell Apology... for surely they will be seen as aggressive-- (and here I just thought they were cute...)

My mama used to say aggressive is as aggessive does........

You know, life is like a box..

OK, enough emoting. Those clips were great, especially the tigers. How do you find all these clips?

Piggy

21st September 2007, 04:11 PM

This would not answer the question. I never asked if you _know_ your brother is at work, so "I don't know" is not an answer to "Do you believe...?"

For example, I don't KNOW if my wife is at work right now. I haven't called her clinic this morning to see if she was there. She wasn't there the last time I saw her. But I do believe she's there, because that is where she usually is at this time, and there is a high probability she is there, so I believe she is.

Do you believe your brother is at work? I'm not asking whether you KNOW it. That's the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Eh. Doesn't change my answer.

I neither believe he's there, nor believe that he's not. Can't say.

Seems to me, to stop at the first part and say I must therefore be an a-my-brother-is-at-work-ist because I don't hold a positive belief about it, while ignoring the pertinent fact that I also hold no positive believe about the necessary counter-claim... dicey stuff.

But hey, that's just my take on it. Carry on.

articulett

21st September 2007, 04:28 PM

My mama used to say aggressive is as aggessive does........

You know, life is like a box..

OK, enough emoting. Those clips were great, especially the tigers. How do you find all these clips?

I'm a teacher ever lastingly looking for interesting clips to inspire kids to like science. There are some great clips of drunk animals--particular drunk monkeys that never cease to thrill. There's a smoking chimp too--addicted to nicotine from zoo patrons throwing him lit cigarettes. It helps in discussing why and how things evolve-- plus, I think it's hard not to see the similarities between humans and other primates in clips like that.

Isn't Kathy Griffin being a little like the Monkey in that 3rd clip in her taunting-- and don't we take similar delight even though some other entities are a bit peeved at being teased? The monkey needs to worry for it's own health-- but otherwise, is he "being aggressive"-- or just being himself/herself without worrying about who is offended... thus providing amusement for itself (and others). I liken some accusations of "aggressive atheists" to that kind of teasing.

But I also found the monkey protecting his kitten from the big evil Chicken endearing and the way the monkey's tamed the "aggressive" puppy very human like-- and similar to the popular avatar. I think it's interesting that we are not the only primates to exhibit biophilia (love of other life forms).

RandFan

21st September 2007, 04:28 PM

articulett

21st September 2007, 04:56 PM

I liked the videos. I really did. The second one creeped me out a bit. Just a bit folks. I thought the monkey just a little possessive but hey, it's just a monkey. It's likely the problem is all in my head. It's Friday which means rum. That'll make the voices go away.

Come on... that was a giant chicken! You wouldn't want a giant chicken around your pet kitten.

Speaking of rum...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYuIYNaKynI

Yikes... and here's a short clip of a primate being even more aggressive and taunting than Kathy Griffin-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogIJSNVjJP8&NR=1

Damn atheists.

RandFan

21st September 2007, 05:23 PM

You wouldn't want a giant chicken around your pet kitten. :D

A rooster even, oh the fun we could have with that one.

Ichneumonwasp

21st September 2007, 05:25 PM

Isn't Kathy Griffin being a little like the Monkey in that 3rd clip in her taunting-- and don't we take similar delight even though some other entities are a bit peeved at being teased? The monkey needs to worry for it's own health-- but otherwise, is he "being aggressive"-- or just being himself/herself without worrying about who is offended... thus providing amusement for itself (and others). I liken some accusations of "aggressive atheists" to that kind of teasing.

Yep. If we all lightened up a bit the world would be a better place. TCM doesn't play the Marx Brothers enough.

Slimething

21st September 2007, 05:36 PM

Then you will love this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVEeaWPmOp4&mode=related&search=

and probably this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB0WTuGaQWs

and maybe this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk4ZqskRBPw

That last one is the one I want to be evolved from! :)

Thanks for sharing those!

articulett

21st September 2007, 08:59 PM

That last one is the one I want to be evolved from! :)

Thanks for sharing those!

I can guarantee you share a common ancestor with him/her.

On the other hand, I'll point out that since then, they've been evolving as much as we have...probably more since they reproduce at earlier ages and thus there have been more generations.

(I'm just being a slight pedant since we didn't "evolve from monkeys"... rather today's monkeys and humans share a common primate ancestor that no longer exists... but would have been "monkey-esque".)

articulett

21st September 2007, 09:04 PM

:D

A rooster even, oh the fun we could have with that one.

Oh my... I'm disappointed I didn't come up with the innuendo first. (I pride myself in my lack of maturity...along with my aggressive atheism, of course.)

six7s

22nd September 2007, 03:17 AM

I say no to Zeus, where Zeus is defined as the head of the Greek Pantheon, anthropomorphized guy with a beard, thunderbolts and an eye for the ladies.

When you know why you say no to Zeus, try applying the same logic to all the other gods on the list, even the mysterious 'God as the ground of Being'

I must first define what that word "God" means.

If the list isn't empty, then concern yourself with defining what a god might be

Ichneumonwasp

22nd September 2007, 05:34 AM

When you know why you say no to Zeus, try applying the same logic to all the other gods on the list, even the mysterious 'God as the ground of Being'

What in the world makes you think I haven't?

If the list isn't empty, then concern yourself with defining what a god might be

How could I speak of a list if I hadn't defined what a god might be?

But there is a bigger concern that Apology was addressing and which was glossed over -- it may simply be presumptous for us to think that we can create an exhaustive list that includes all definitions. We simply may not be able to conceive some things and so cannot discuss them. Folks who consider that possibility generally do not call themselves atheist because they consider that there are options outside our ken.

That does not "save" God or create a space for Yahweh. And this is only one option that pushes me away from the label atheist. I am certainly an atheist for all the gods that most people speak of from the Greek to Israelite to European to Persian pantheons. But that does not necessarily translate into complete and utter atheism.

pgwenthold

22nd September 2007, 09:02 AM

Eh. Doesn't change my answer.

I neither believe he's there,

So then, you don't believe he's there.

Got it.

I never asked you if you disbelieve, or believe he is not there, so I omitted that part of your response.

You fell into the same trap as Apology did. Answering a question that was not asked. "Do you believe your brother is at work?" Your answer was no.

articulett

22nd September 2007, 09:11 AM

It's a technicality... but an atheist will call those without a belief in god, an atheist because that is all the term means. You don't need to actively disbelieve to lack a belief in some entit "in charge" or whatever the word "god" means to you. Rationalist, freethinker, secular humanist, even agnostic--all tend to be terms denoting a lack of belief in any specific god. But like all labels regarding belief... they are terms people give themselves and others that are about immeasurable or murky qualities or feelings or opinions--

I posted this on another thread, but I thought it was on topic... the last part of Bill Maher's speech on religion and "rationalists"... he says that 20 percent of those under 30 are non believers... I think that is a good sign. And I think his "disrespect" does good. Is he an aggressive atheist? I don't even think he self identifies as an "atheist". But I think a lot of people avoid the term, because words like "aggression" etc. are associated with it.

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0709/bm092107newrules.mov
Originally posted here on September 22, 2007 http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/

The stuff about religion is in the second half of this short clip.

Ichneumonwasp

22nd September 2007, 10:32 AM

It's a technicality... but an atheist will call those without a belief in god, an atheist because that is all the term means. You don't need to actively disbelieve to lack a belief in some entit "in charge" or whatever the word "god" means to you.

That's all fine, but if approached from the yes god/no god game, someone with no belief in god is one who simply opts out. If given the dichotomous choice, which is a choice that arises within a particular paradigm, one may opt out and be called a weenie or decide yes god or no god.

Approached from the other direction, yes, you may simply have no belief in god(s).

pgwenthold

22nd September 2007, 01:09 PM

That's all fine, but if approached from the yes god/no god game, someone with no belief in god is one who simply opts out.

But how is that different from what anyone has been saying? It doesn't matter if they have opted out, or stayed in, they still lack the belief in god.

Although I should note, I don't know what you mean by the "yes god/no god game." Notice that we have always been addressing the question of _beliefs_. More specifically, the presence or absence of the _affirmative_ belief. As I have repeatedly said, the question of whether you believe god doesn't exist is a separate issue, and one that I have never put on the table.

six7s

22nd September 2007, 01:16 PM

What in the world makes you think I haven't?
My inferences of your posts

I also infer (from 'What in the world makes you think') that my words have antagonised you

If so, I sincerely apologise

To me, you seem both eloquent and eminently capable of complex thinking so I see no reason to doubt that you have expressed yourself well

In light of this, I am (still) confused by the ideas that your Zeus-denying logic can't be applied in a simple yet comprehensive manner

How could I speak of a list if I hadn't defined what a god might be?
Am I right to assume that, in the context of this thread, you can 'speak of a list' comprised of leprechauns, fairies, pixies, homoeopathy, elves, weapons of mass destruction, goblins and elves?

I imagine that a god list would be just as easy to verbalise

Ichneumonwasp

22nd September 2007, 02:07 PM

But how is that different from what anyone has been saying? It doesn't matter if they have opted out, or stayed in, they still lack the belief in god.

Although I should note, I don't know what you mean by the "yes god/no god game." Notice that we have always been addressing the question of _beliefs_. More specifically, the presence or absence of the _affirmative_ belief. As I have repeatedly said, the question of whether you believe god doesn't exist is a separate issue, and one that I have never put on the table.

It isn't different in that one post because I was specifically replying to Articulett.

But the other issues deal more with what I think Apology was on about.

The yes/no god game is one of the issues brought up earlier -- if you play that game you either have to throw yourself in to belief or disbelief in god (a yes/no dichotomy). Squirreling out of that game seems, well, squirrelly. That is why some folks opt out of that game altogether. I seem to recall some issue about agnosticism being a cop-out since god either exists or not. I may have hallucinated it, though. And I really don't want to go back and relive this thread.

I did not single you out for what you said at all, only that some of these issues came up in the discussion earlier.

Ichneumonwasp

22nd September 2007, 02:27 PM

My inferences of your posts

I also infer (from 'What in the world makes you think') that my words have antagonised you

If so, I sincerely apologise

No need to apologize. That I left out some of the thinking is simply because I'm a bit sick of this topic. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound testy.

In light of this, I am (still) confused by the ideas that your Zeus-denying logic can't be applied in a simple yet comprehensive manner

Am I right to assume that, in the context of this thread, you can 'speak of a list' comprised of leprechauns, fairies, pixies, homoeopathy, elves, weapons of mass destruction, goblins and elves?

I imagine that a god list would be just as easy to verbalise

Issue one: Zeus is a particular god with particular characteristics and he interacts with the world. In fact, Zeus is a part of the creation, not the creator. We can make many claims about Zeus and his interaction with the world; the evidence about Zeus' interactions with the world strongly indicates that Zeus does not exist because I can find no reliable evidence of his presence in this world.

The same is not true for all possible definitions of God. For instance, god as the ground of all existence has no further implication than god is the ground of all existence. There are no further entailments. This is not a personal god and doesn't fit what theists want. But it satisfies the definition of god if that is what I mean by god. We clearly exist. Existence, if I play a particular language game, requires a ground. If I define god as that ground, then God must exist. So no atheism. This is a completely inconsequential god, but them's the breaks.

Issue two: there are more gods under heaven and earth than in most lists. Just look at what Jetlag has been doing. He has defined a god that is completely inconsequential, but it is certainly possible for someone to believe in that sort of god. It is also thinkable that there is a god that we cannot really make sense of or completely comprehend. So I think there is a sense in which any such list could be incomplete. If we cannot complete the list, then I don't think it is possible for us to use that idea of a list that we can simply check off to determine the death of all gods.

None of this is supposed to leave room for Yahweh, again, so it doesn't help any Christians or Jews trying to save their god from the trash heap of history.

As for a god on a list that I would consider, since I think to put such a god on a list I should have a good idea what this god is supposed to be, well the idea of god as the ground of being works quite well. It's an inconsequential god, but still fits into a situation where if I call that god, then I wouldn't call myself an atheist.

Is this all a language game? You betcha.

articulett

22nd September 2007, 02:37 PM

I found this youtube video on how to convert an atheist... I thought it was pretty good... I was wondering if Apology thinks it is aggressive or if it took less to "convert" him/her to his/her present agnosticism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI&mode=related&search=

I don't understand the difference between what he was before and what he is now. But that's why I don't get into beliefs. I guess I don't care a lot about beliefs or opinions... they seem mercurial. I was actually kind of interested in what exactly an "aggressive atheist" is... and so far it sounds like the biggest "aggressors" are atheists who call those who don't claim a belief in any definable god an atheist as well even though many people don't associate themselves with that term. And Kathy Griffin, Richard Dawkins, some of the more vocal people on this thread and some people talking to each other on an evangelical atheist thread. So is that it? Is that who people are worried about and trying to calm down? Are these the best the "offended people" can come up with. All in all, you have to admit, it's not a very "militant" scary group. I mean it's not like the examples where atheists have been shunned for their disbelief... or worse. It's a little laughter and mockery, right? We're talking more about hurt feelings, right? Someone feeling bullied into having a label they don't want (apologist,atheist, "on the fence", etc.). But is that worse than the way the word "atheist" is associated with "evil" and so many bad things while Christianity gets a pass no matter how inane?

I think the aggressive ones are the apologists and the "offended Christians" by any objective measure. They are the ones asking people to change to defer to their feelings and opinions aren't they? Sure, atheists can be nicer and more complying and less offensive... but are they really so bad? And what benefit will accrue from this extra effort at being congenial. Why would a person who doesn't identify as an atheist or an apologist be bothered by being called one? Why would a Christian be mad that some other group of Christians didn't think they were real Christians. It's all so weird to me. I guess "secular" is a better term... but the religious people are aiming to make that into a dirty word too. Didn't Falwell blame 9-11 on those "secularists" (and feminists and abortionists)? Maybe labels are just a way of identifying "in group" and "out group" so you know who is "on your side". But when it comes to reality and the truth, there is only one side. Everyone has opinions and feelings, but the facts as to what is true is the same for everyone no matter what labels we give ourselves and each other, right?

I identify as an atheist online, but I usually am cowed into silence in my every day life-- I worry about the consequences associated with that word, and I avoid conversations on the topic for the most part because people have emotional reactions not subject to reason. I just want to help erase this meme that "faith is good". It might be good on a personal level... like opera, but I haven't heard a valid argument as to what it is good for. I'm not for "killing faith"-- but I don't want to be propping up the notion that it's something worthy of respect. I think it's dangerous... I want no part of the "big lie".

Ichneumonwasp

22nd September 2007, 03:04 PM

six7s

22nd September 2007, 03:15 PM

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound testy.

Likewise, no need to apologise :)

I can find no reliable evidence of his (Zeus') presence in this world.

The same is not true for all possible definitions of God <snip/>
Existence, if I play a particular language game, requires a ground. If I define god as that ground, then God must exist. So no atheism. This is a completely inconsequential god, but them's the breaks.
For me, such 'inconsequential gods' are irrelevant to the discussion simply because they and their philosophical/dogmatic/etc influences are, by being insignificant, immune to criticism from those adopting an 'Aggressive Atheistic Stance'

Is this all a language game? You betcha.

Indeed. Are we shooting crap with loaded dice? ;)

I don't fancy the odds when they're weighted in favour of the establishment, especially when the stakes are so high

JoeEllison

22nd September 2007, 03:23 PM

I identify as an atheist online, but I usually am cowed into silence in my every day life.
We should go be aggressive atheists one night... I'm not sure how you do that, but I can do research, and my wife can be on standby to bail us out of jail. :D

Ichneumonwasp

22nd September 2007, 03:27 PM

For me, such 'inconsequential gods' are irrelevant to the discussion simply because they and their philosophical/dogmatic/etc influences are, by being insignificant, immune to criticism from those adopting an 'Aggressive Atheistic Stance'

Yeah, I know a lot of people feel the same way. I got the impression that Apology was trying to remind others that complete descriptions are not possible, though, because of these options. I also get the impression that when theists start accusing atheists of being arrogant they refer to just these sorts of possibilities. I don't see any problem with admitting them as possibilities. There is nothing wrong with admitting our own short-comings.

I don't even know what "aggressive atheist" means. I'm sure there are some somewhere because some people are aggressive and some people are atheist so there's going to be some overlap. Sam Harris might sometimes be on the edge, but I don't think I would even label him an "aggressive atheist". I just don't agree with everything he writes. I agree with most of it, though.

Maybe Madeline Murray O'Hare. If we want to argue from the effects of the campaign, someone sure thought she was too aggressive. Aggressive theist with a gun seems to be a much more common phenom.

Indeed. Are we shooting crap with loaded dice? ;)

I don't fancy the odds when they're weighted in favour of the establishment, especially when the stakes are so high

Stick it to the man!:D

thaiboxerken

22nd September 2007, 04:06 PM

If "God" is undefinable, doesn't that make the word "God" a nonsense word? Undefined words mean nothing, don't they?

JoeEllison

22nd September 2007, 04:07 PM

If "God" is undefinable, doesn't that make the word "God" a nonsense word? Undefined words mean nothing, don't they?

Yep.

articulett

22nd September 2007, 04:25 PM

Hmmm......as to what faith might be good for, I'm not sure that bare faith is good for anything.

But, there is a sense in which what we call "faith" is good in one sense. It does provide a common narrative for groups of people and it helps social cohesion. It does this, however, at the risk of people identifying what is really just a narrative that helps hold together certain social constructs as 'reality' and act on it. I think that many Christians fear losing the social cohesion that their religion provides if you throw out the reality claims. I think that is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to discuss this with people. They feel like their backs are against the wall.

As to labelling, I don't care what people want to label me -- atheist, non-atheist, whatever. It really doesn't matter to me. I think there is a problem, though, when people feel painted into a corner when they needn't be. I'm not really sure why that whole discussion took place.

It wasn't directed toward you... I was just saying I don't think I care what labels people use... I understand why people don't want to use atheists, and I also understand why atheists label all non-believers "atheists"... (maybe it's the sense of community--power in numbers thing). I don't think atheists, in general, are more aggressive in their non-belief than believers are in their belief. I would like the freedom to be a little bolder. I admire both Kathy Griffin and Richard Dawkins-- as well as Bill Maher, and I'm glad someone speaks up for those of us who find religion off-putting in many ways and the notion of faith something we'd rather not be part of.

I liked the guy's video on what it would take to get him to believe. I think most atheists are open to evidence... it's just that most "gods" are outside of testing, and so it's easy to see them as a "delusion" or comfort notion or something I don't relate to or recognize or respect. I was just curious if there were "aggressive atheists" or if was more of a stereotype. I was also curious as to what made Apology change his label. I don't want to purposefully offend people, but I want the freedom to laugh at human folly--especially at the stuff that at one time caused me much unnecessary angst.

articulett

22nd September 2007, 04:35 PM

Yep.

But it's a loaded nonsense word... and to admit not believing in any opens you up for some pretty harsh judgment. Look, I have my scarlet A shirt... and I've even worn it in public, but I do worry about people who want to harm me, because I don't believe in their god. Even people I know well seem to take on a new attitude toward me when I tell them I'm a non-believer. Actually, what I usually say is something to the affect of that I don't understand how there can be such things as souls since a damaged brain changes a person so drastically that I can't imagine a person being a person without one (a brain). Plus, it just seems to make more sense that there was a time before I existed... and so, too, there will be a time afterward. But there's this weird notion that if you say it, you might make it so... or something. I don't know. But let's be real, wanting something to be true, doesn't make it true... and my believing or not believing in something doesn't change reality one bit. And the whole thing just feels juvenile to me-- and I'm embarrassed that people think it should somehow earn them "points". I think I've always felt slightly embarrassed by religion. Even my own. I knew on some level that it wasn't that different than the ones I heard my family making fun of I laugh at all religions for the same reason religious people laugh at the wackier religions, I guess.

JoeEllison

22nd September 2007, 04:39 PM

But it's a loaded nonsense word... and to admit not believing in any opens you up for some pretty harsh judgment. Look, I have my scarlet A shirt... and I've even worn it in public, but I do worry about people who want to harm me, because I don't believe in their god. Even people I know well seem to take on a new attitude toward me when I tell them I'm a non-believer. Actually, what I usually say is something to the effect of that I don't understand how there can be such things as souls since a damaged brain changes a person so drastically, that I can't imagine a person being a person without one. Plus, it just seems to make more sense that there was a time before I existed... and so, too, there will be a time afterward. But there's this weird notion that if you say it, you might make it so... or something. I don't know. But let's be real, wanting something to be true, doesn't make it true... and my believing or not believing in something doesn't change reality one bit. And the whole thing just feels juvenile to me-- and I'm embarrassed that people think it should somehow earn them "points". I think I've always felt slightly embarrassed by religion. Even my own. I knew on some level that it wasn't that different than the ones I heard my family making fun of.
The entire "God concept" is nonsense, but it is strongly defended bit of nonsense. And interestingly, the fact that they can't defend their viewpoint on any level makes them consider US aggressive. I think that the inherent weakness of their viewpoint is what makes them hate us so much.

articulett

22nd September 2007, 04:50 PM

Bokononen mentioned youtube poster, coffee ghost. I think he really does a nice job. I am glad there are smart young people communicating with each other. I get so aggravated by the misinformation and lies spread by people who think they know stuff... but who are amazingly ignorant. If I was atheist... it would be towards those inane creationists--especially those young earth ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA8EAPThmkE

I'm not sure you can change a mind that thinks faith is necessary for salvation or a sign of being "chosen" etc. But we do live in a time when we can know some really amazing stuff, and faith hijacks this knowledge for fake knowledge. That's why I think the whole "faith is good" meme needs to be dismantled (or as Dennett calls it, "belief in belief".) Even if we don't mock people, I think it is important to ask them why faith is good and what truths can come from faith and why Jesus wants people to thank him and if this isn't rude to people who prayed and didn't have their prayers answered --oh, and how can consciousness live outside a brain? Why does science discover so much, so fast once they are on the right path and yet there's nothing in the way of souls or gods that is amassing any data--it all needs to be explained away-- why wouldn't a scientists want to know more and hone and refine the understanding? And why is it rude to ask these questions? Wouldn't a scientist be as concerned about "eternity" as anyone else? We are all better off with a thinking populace. And if they want to shame us or not engage in dialogue, then they'll just have to thicken their skin, because I plan to up the mocking.

thaiboxerken

22nd September 2007, 05:55 PM

JoeEllison

22nd September 2007, 06:19 PM

Piggy

23rd September 2007, 06:50 AM

But, there is a sense in which what we call "faith" is good in one sense. It does provide a common narrative for groups of people and it helps social cohesion.

So do war, bigotry, and jingoism.

Then again, so do shared work, altruism, and (factual) history.

This is a social task that can be achieved in a number of ways. To say that it can achieved thru religion is not actually a positive point for religion itself, any more than it would be a positive point for genocide, which can also promote this goal.

Ichneumonwasp

23rd September 2007, 08:04 AM

If "God" is undefinable, doesn't that make the word "God" a nonsense word? Undefined words mean nothing, don't they?

Yes, the people who want to argue that God is undefinable should not really speak of him, as Wittgenstein said -- "whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should remain silent" , or something to that effect.

Ichneumonwasp

23rd September 2007, 08:14 AM

So do war, bigotry, and jingoism.

Then again, so do shared work, altruism, and (factual) history.

This is a social task that can be achieved in a number of ways. To say that it can achieved thru religion is not actually a positive point for religion itself, any more than it would be a positive point for genocide, which can also promote this goal.

Nope, and I 'm not arguing that it is -- secular humanism can and has acheived the same positive goals. I was not arguing properly for religion in an absolute sense but rather trying to remind that the religious have provided positive impact on the world. It's not all bad.

The problem, of course, is that they have also created an incredibly negative environment. We're all aware of the atrocities.

Within all religious traditions there seem to be two strains that are interwoven. There is the prophetic (let's improve the world and stick it to the man) strain and the priestly (how dare you say "suck it Jesus"; it's time for a pogrom) strain. If it were possible to remove the priestly tradition and leave the prophetic we could work much better with the religious and we would simply have two different ways of looking at the world -- one from an intentionalist paradigm and one from an non-intentionalist worldview. I think secular humanists could probably work well with the "prophetic" religionists. It's the priestly types we can't stand. Funny thing is, if you take the Jesus stories seriously, he couldn't stand those jerks either. He was part of the prophetic tradition.

Ichneumonwasp

23rd September 2007, 08:17 AM

Well, the problem is that "god" for most people isn't undefined. God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of the universe, which is nonsense, but still defined nonsense and actually something to converse about. When someone says "god" is undefined, then they are literally talking about nothing.

I think you need to be careful in making that claim. It might or might not be true. Your earlier statement that the word "God" is nonsense if not definable I agree with. The problem, though, is that we cannot make the leap to God is nothing from that statement, as the logical positivists tried to do.

I do fully agree with you about the slipperiness of the definitions. People equivocate all the time over words. They equivocate about God almost ceaselessly.

Ichneumonwasp

23rd September 2007, 08:26 AM

The entire "God concept" is nonsense, but it is strongly defended bit of nonsense. And interestingly, the fact that they can't defend their viewpoint on any level makes them consider US aggressive. I think that the inherent weakness of their viewpoint is what makes them hate us so much.

I think that is absolutely true for some people but probably not for all. Guilt, shame, and the desire to avoid embarrassment are much stronger motivations than almost anything else I have seen. I think some people are shocked that anyone could take a different approach to the world -- they are simply shocked by other worldviews. So they need to hear that other people don't believe. There is no other way for those people to grow. I've seen some of them react very strongly to evolutionary theory and atheism and then change their tune over a relatively short period of time when they see how it all works. Change is possible for the ignorant but less likely for those who act out of embarrassment.

articulett

23rd September 2007, 08:46 AM

I think the only ones I have problems with are the ones who spread the "atheists are evil" meme and "my religion=righteousness"... oh, and the ones who either purposefully or inadvertently support the "faith is good" meme. If someone promotes these notions around me or prevents my speaking out in opposition of this kind of propaganda (or mocking them at my leisure), they may wish to prepare to be offended-- or at least to have their sacred cows prodded a bit-- even skewered. Whatever the cause might be, I'm not going to be propping up this kind of divisiveness with my silence. These are notions that lead to great ignorance, judgment, suffering, and death. I won't pretend to respect them. I'll try to be civil and just use questions or an arched eyebrow-- but some people need a little more verbal judo-- (and I'm all too glad to oblige... not because it changes them... but because it makes me happy-- and this is a skeptics forum, after all.)

Look, a poll on the topic: http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2007/09/new-humanist-poll-are-dawkins-and.html

LBN

23rd September 2007, 11:15 AM

Have we made a distinctin between monotheism and polytheism in this thread. I see the word God being use a lot but what about the gods?

articulett

23rd September 2007, 12:06 PM

Have we made a distinctin between monotheism and polytheism in this thread. I see the word God being use a lot but what about the gods?

Well, some gods are everywhere and everything... and some gods are "love" or "isness"--other gods are triune (it's some mystery thing you aren't supposed to understand)-- and many are nebulous or undefinable forces or entities (singular or omnipresent or plural) that you pray to to try to get favors in your speck of the universe. Sometimes god is "that which I don't understand" or "nature". God seems to be a catch all phrase for ("woo you cannot question because it makes me righteous and good and gives me hope and makes me feel special.") How dare you try to pin god(s) down. Who are you to be so arrogant to think you can define god(s), you mere mortal? God is so damn undefinable that people shouldn't know if they might believe in one kind or another or not.

Aren't you an aggressive atheist for bring up the question?

thaiboxerken

23rd September 2007, 12:23 PM

articulett

23rd September 2007, 02:06 PM

When people say "God" they usually don't consider any other gods that other people might believe in. In fact, I think they usually just assume that you believe in the same god as them or that you know which god they are talking of because to them, none of the other gods matter at all. Of course, that's not aggressive at all....

It IS presumptuous... and that's the thing about theism... it just seem increasingly so-- and refusal to defer is seen as "arrogance" or "aggression" or "strident, shrill, and militant... or "offensive". I'd like them to give up a little of that presumptuousness so that those who don't share their beliefs might share in a little of it.

LBN

23rd September 2007, 08:49 PM

It does seem awfully presumptuous when referring to God as many have in this read to merely be referring to the God of Abraham. What about other gods like Zeus or Odin? I think we should argue about their [non-]existence as well.

Dogdoctor

24th September 2007, 10:29 AM

If being aggressive involves using illogical arguments such as personal attacks or strawman arguments then it merely shows you lack skepticism about your own beleifs.

Dunstan

24th September 2007, 11:01 AM

If being aggressive involves using illogical arguments such as personal attacks or strawman arguments then it merely shows you lack skepticism about your own beleifs.

That seems like an illogical argument to me. If I get frustrated with someone who's insisting that 2+2=5 and say "stop being an idiot," maybe that means I'm a bad person or have a quick temper, but it doesn't mean that I have failed to critically examine my belief that 2+2=4.

Dogdoctor

24th September 2007, 11:18 AM

That seems like an illogical argument to me. If I get frustrated with someone who's insisting that 2+2=5 and say "stop being an idiot," maybe that means I'm a bad person or have a quick temper, but it doesn't mean that I have failed to critically examine my belief that 2+2=4.

So in that case you have chose to use the same type of arguments that someone lacking any logical basis for their position choses to use. And in that instance you display a lack of social graces also. This is not the poster child for atheism from my perspective. This only shows that atheists can be illogical and uncaring and self centered.

eta in other words you choose to abandon logic when it suits you.

JoeEllison

24th September 2007, 11:22 AM

If being aggressive involves using illogical arguments such as personal attacks or strawman arguments then it merely shows you lack skepticism about your own beleifs.

That doesn't make any sense.

JoeEllison

24th September 2007, 11:24 AM

So in that case you have chose to use the same type of arguments that someone lacking any logical basis for their position choses to use. And in that instance you display a lack of social graces also. This is not the poster child for atheism from my perspective. This only shows that atheists can be illogical and uncaring and self centered.

eta in other words you choose to abandon logic when it suits you.

Wait, hold on... are you saying that people who call names are doing so because they know they have no leg to stand on?

Dogdoctor

24th September 2007, 11:35 AM

Wait, hold on... are you saying that people who call names are doing so because they know they have no leg to stand on?

I am saying that people who choose to call names choose to abandon logic and civility.

Dunstan

24th September 2007, 12:43 PM

So in that case you have chose to use the same type of arguments that someone lacking any logical basis for their position choses to use.

So what? I will also be breathing air -- just like people who lack a logical basis do! My point wasn't that this is a good tactic; simply that your conclusion that it proves a lack of skepticism towards one's own belief does not follow. In fact, it's a textbook logical fallacy:

All members of group X exhibit characteristic Y.
Individual Z exhibits characteristic Y.
Therefore, Z is an X.

And in that instance you display a lack of social graces also. This is not the poster child for atheism from my perspective.

I wasn't claiming otherwise; in fact I acknowledged that in my post. I was simply pointing out your logical fallacy.

This only shows that atheists can be illogical and uncaring and self centered.

Yes, they can. I wasn't saying they should.

eta in other words you choose to abandon logic when it suits you.

It was a hypothetical. And yes, sometimes people show themselves to be unreachable by logic, and being human I occasionally indulge in a little invective towards someone I think has earned it.

Dogdoctor

24th September 2007, 02:13 PM

Just like a woo you choose to abandon logic when it suits you. You may not be able to reach some people with logic but you can demonstrate your lack of logic to those who do appreciate it.

Dunstan

24th September 2007, 02:23 PM

Just like a woo you choose to abandon logic when it suits you. You may not be able to reach some people with logic but you can demonstrate your lack of logic to those who do appreciate it.

Just like a woo you choose to breathe air when it suits you.

By the way, isn't the term "woo" an example of the name-calling you so deplore?

LBN

24th September 2007, 03:05 PM

When an argument is down to arguing about how to argue then it's pretty much over. :duck:

Dogdoctor

24th September 2007, 03:19 PM

Just like a woo you choose to breathe air when it suits you.

By the way, isn't the term "woo" an example of the name-calling you so deplore?

The use of illogical arguments such as name calling seems to me to be to be an admitance that you ran out of logical points to make and don't feel comfortable letting your logic stand for itself. I run into this tactic with people who don't have a solid logical base for their arguments. I am not sure about the use of the word woo. I never thought of it as a derogatory word, it's short for lacking well founded logic(eta: and claiming to have a logical basis) Have I ever name called? Yeah guilty as charged. Will I again.....not if I can help it (but it's possible)

JoeEllison

24th September 2007, 03:30 PM

So in that case you have chose to use the same type of arguments that someone lacking any logical basis for their position choses to use. And in that instance you display a lack of social graces also. This is not the poster child for atheism from my perspective. This only shows that atheists can be illogical and uncaring and self centered.

eta in other words you choose to abandon logic when it suits you.

I am saying that people who choose to call names choose to abandon logic and civility.

It is all becoming clear to me...

Dogdoctor

24th September 2007, 04:14 PM

It is all becoming clear to me...
That you ran out of logical arguments?

JoeEllison

24th September 2007, 04:42 PM

That you ran out of logical arguments?

Did you actually read your own posts? You hung yourself by your own standard. :D When you called people "illogical and uncaring and self centered", by your own words you chose to "abandon logic and civility"

All I had to do was point out your own logical inconsistency. Here's the fun part: by your own standard, if you do anything besides refute my claim based on logic, you are falling into the same category you are accusing others of being in.

It seems, at least from where I'm sitting, you've woven a rather neat cage for yourself. Have fun pulling yourself out of it using nothing but logic.

thaiboxerken

24th September 2007, 04:48 PM

Dogdoctor has reduced his arguments to a style vs argument fallacy. Nice. Dog, no matter how crude or rude a person conveys his message, if the message is logical it will still remain logical. 2+2 = 4, no matter how it's said. If I say "2 + 2 = 4, you smacktard" it is still mathematically/logically correct.

As far as uncivil, that's just a matter of opinion. However, no matter how hard you try, you still not going to convince me to hold hands with all believers and sing Kumbaya with them.

mijopaalmc

24th September 2007, 05:18 PM

As far as uncivil, that's just a matter of opinion. However, no matter how hard you try, you still not going to convince me to hold hands with all believers and sing Kumbaya with them.

You know this is a strange false dichotomy. There are definitely more ways to communicate than hurling insults at one another or whispering sweet nothings in each other's ears. No-one is suggesting that it has to be a love fest in which no-one says much of anything for fear of offending someone of differing beliefs when you discourse with believers, but it certainly doesn't have to be a an inflammatory mud slinging match where everyone goes home more confirmed in their beliefs because all the other side did was pepper them with insults.

thaiboxerken

24th September 2007, 05:22 PM

While you haven't said you think it should be a love-fest, it certainly seems that is exactly what you are arguing for. Anytime religious belief is questioned or criticized you seem to be there to complain about those aggressive and uncivil atheists.

Could some atheists be more nice? Maybe. But why? The message is still the same, superstition is outdated and needs to go away.

mijopaalmc

24th September 2007, 05:35 PM

Have you ever heard the expression "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

I think it possible to be thought provoking without be emotionally provocative, which is what hurling insults at people is.

thaiboxerken

24th September 2007, 05:48 PM

Have you ever heard that you kill more flies with a flyswatter than with polite talk?

six7s

24th September 2007, 05:55 PM

Flies are attracted to crap

Get rid of the crap

mijopaalmc

24th September 2007, 05:56 PM

Have you ever heard that you kill more flies with a flyswatter than with polite talk?

OK, I think we running dangerously close to stretching an aphorism too far, but I think that it needs to be said that you have to get people to stay or pay attention long enough to get your point across. If you are working actively to offend them, they are not going to stay long enough to hear the substantive part of your arguments. I realize that simply stating one's disbelief in the existence of the supernatural can be offensive to some people but I would say that a simple statement of disbelief in the existence of the supernatural and the accompanying presentation of evidence is far less offensive many more without the implication that disagreement is stupid or insane.

thaiboxerken

24th September 2007, 06:09 PM

That's a hard thing to do, considering that the actual point is what offends them.

CapelDodger

24th September 2007, 06:23 PM

Have you ever heard the expression "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?

I have, but have never craved flies. So I eat the honey.

CapelDodger

24th September 2007, 06:38 PM

Flies are attracted to crap

Get rid of the crap

And be spider-friendly so they'll trap most of the flies that just blunder in. Spiders really want flies. And don't want honey. They're our natural allies.

six7s

24th September 2007, 07:29 PM

An individual illogically arguing the validity of thoughts can't negate the fundamentals of atheism

An individual logically arguing the validity of beliefs can only undermine the fundamentals of faith

jjramsey

24th September 2007, 07:43 PM

Greta Christina had an interesting blog post, "The Galileo Fallacy, and the Gadfly Corollary" (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-galileo-fal.html) that I think applies to some aggressive atheists:

Whenever someone says, "I'm really getting under people's skin -- I must be doing something right," or, "If people are this pissed off at what I say, then I must be doing my job" -- that's the Gadfly Corollary in action....

I mean, of course people get angry at good ideas that challenge their assumptions or call into doubt their most dearly-held beliefs. But people also get angry at bad ideas that are poorly thought-out, ideas based on bigotry and ignorance, and/or ideas that have potentially harmful consequences. The fact that you've made people mad at you doesn't automatically make you a misunderstood genius. Sometimes it just makes you [rule 10].

If you come across as saying "Theists are stupid and/or crazy," then you are going to get people justifiably angry. If you come out with blatant strawmen, then you are also going to get people justifiably angry. You can all too easily feel the smug satisfaction of telling it like it is without having actually done so.

pgwenthold

25th September 2007, 06:11 AM

jjramsey

25th September 2007, 07:33 AM

For some reason, I have a hard time taking too serious a religious person objecting to an argument because it is based on "bigotry and ignorance." The day they turn that on their own I might be concerned about it.

So are you saying that it is okay to use an argument based on bigotry and ignorance if it is aimed at those you perceive as bigoted and ignorant?

pgwenthold

25th September 2007, 08:44 AM

Nope. I'm saying that a christian claiming that an atheist argument is "bigoted and ignorant" is faint criticism.

mijopaalmc

25th September 2007, 08:55 AM

Nope. I'm saying that a christian claiming that an atheist argument is "bigoted and ignorant" is faint criticism.

Uh...no it isn't. Just because someone is a bigot doesn't mean they can't recognize when someone is being bigoted against them. More importantly, someone's bigotry doesn't automatically mean that arguments against their beliefs are unbigoted. In other words you can't just take a theist's argument against atheism and substitute "atheism" for "theism" and hope to always come out with a unbigoted argument.

Irony

25th September 2007, 09:03 AM

Uh...no it isn't. Just because someone is a bigot doesn't mean they can't recognize when someone is being bigoted against them. More importantly, someone's bigotry doesn't automatically mean that arguments against their beliefs are unbigoted. In other words you can't just take a theist's argument against atheism and substitute "atheism" for "theism" and hope to always come out with a unbigoted argument.

When someone is a bigot, being "bigoted against them" generally means failing to give them special privileges which they feel they deserve. As he said, it's faint criticism.

mijopaalmc

25th September 2007, 09:18 AM

When someone is a bigot, being "bigoted against them" generally means failing to give them special privileges which they feel they deserve. As he said, it's faint criticism.

And as I said, I think that your are hiding behind the exact argument you just proffered in order to ignore your own bigotry. While I agree that religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has much to answer for as far violent history goes, the newest strain of atheism seems to be based on gross generalization of the actions of fundamentalism/extremism to all religious belief. I realize that there is a valid objection to assuming that the supernatural exists but such an objection does not seem to leas logically to claiming that, for example, religion is child abuse or religion is the explicit cause of most current conflicts. This really appears to be just another example of scapegoating.

Dogdoctor

25th September 2007, 10:50 AM

Did you actually read your own posts? You hung yourself by your own standard. :D When you called people "illogical and uncaring and self centered", by your own words you chose to "abandon logic and civility"

All I had to do was point out your own logical inconsistency. Here's the fun part: by your own standard, if you do anything besides refute my claim based on logic, you are falling into the same category you are accusing others of being in.

It seems, at least from where I'm sitting, you've woven a rather neat cage for yourself. Have fun pulling yourself out of it using nothing but logic.

Let's go over the logical points ignoring the personal attacks and other illogical arguments.
If you use an error in logic to support your point you are either illogical or you value something more than logic.
These errors in logic don't promote critical thinking. They are most often used when a poster has used up any logical argument and doesn't feel they have made a strong enough point with logic so they attempt to make it without logic.
Name calling could just be a knee jerk response to something, again not logical but emotional. Not intended to win a point but to inflict an emotional response in the other poster. This obviously doesn't lead to logical discussion.
Basically to use name calling or other personal attacks you care more about yourself than you do about logic or the other poster. You would be seen as being illogical, uncaring and self centered.

As far as your criticism of me using the words illogical and uncaring and self centered. Those were not a personal attack. We were discussing a hypothetical situation and I was stating how I thought the person would be viewed.

Irony

25th September 2007, 11:45 AM

And as I said, I think that your are hiding behind the exact argument you just proffered in order to ignore your own bigotry. While I agree that religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, has much to answer for as far violent history goes, the newest strain of atheism seems to be based on gross generalization of the actions of fundamentalism/extremism to all religious belief. I realize that there is a valid objection to assuming that the supernatural exists but such an objection does not seem to leas logically to claiming that, for example, religion is child abuse or religion is the explicit cause of most current conflicts. This really appears to be just another example of scapegoating.

Do not assign stances to me that I have never taken.

It is not scapegoating to refuse to give irrational religious beliefs respect that you would never give irrational non-religious beliefs. It is however fundamentally dishonest to call complaints about the behavior of extremists "gross generalizations" when the complaints are not about some hypothetical unacceptable conduct, but about actions those people have actually taken and beliefs that they actually hold. If someone takes it personally when I point out the faulty logic of some violence prone religious extremist then that says far more about them then it does about me.