A "real" atheist... - Page 3

arthwollipot · 20th July 2009, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Apart from the domestication of plants and animals and the development of abstract representation i.e. language your right not much understanding required for that.

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

kbm99 · 20th July 2009, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Improbable Joe

Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he?

I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.

Ron_Tomkins · 20th July 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone.
It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Name one.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

creationism

Wrong. Do your research

Foster Zygote · 20th July 2009, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

Such as: when we scatter these seeds on the ground, the food we need to eat tends to grow.

Foster Zygote · 20th July 2009, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Your right bad example.

Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.

Wolfman · 20th July 2009, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Surely you can describe it clearly.

Seems to me that's like telling a person with advanced Parkinson's that "surely you can draw a straight line".

Georg · 20th July 2009, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.

I´m not sure what he wants to explain either, but I think he did not talk about a certain belief system, he wrote

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations.

as in "everyone needs some belief system/mythology."
It doesn´t make sense to me either, but that´s at least how I understand him.

Nogbad · 20th July 2009, 08:29 AM

Another form of atheist is like that of the asexual and apolitical.

They are aware that some people are interested in these things but for the life of them they can't see why.

fls · 20th July 2009, 08:34 AM

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

Mar\/in · 20th July 2009, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't like "bright". It implies that everyone else is dim.

I kinda dig "bright," for more or less the same reason. (Slap my hand.) Of course I don't think everyone else is dim, and that's certainly not the explicit intent of the word, but I like the uppity quality. I wouldn't mind ruining "bright" for aggressive theists the way "gay" has been (allegedly) ruined for homophobes.

That being said, I fail to see much energy in the Brights Movement these days, and I think most of its goals -- promoting positive naturalism, creating an online constituency, advocating church-state separation and civil equality -- are being better met by JREF, FFRF, and so on. And the online constituency kind of takes care of itself. What really succeeded about the meme "Bright," thanks in large part to Dawkins and Dennett, was the promotion of the idea that it's time for atheists to get out of the closet. The idea that nonbelievers need to organize and get loud the way the gay community did 40 years ago seems to have really been embraced.

Dancing David · 20th July 2009, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic thiest or a gnostic atheist. The gnosis part refers to certainty and knowledge, not the specific conclusion.

Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist.

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

Dancing David · 20th July 2009, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by kbm99

I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.

I disagree, !Kagen is much nicer and more accepting. There is more of a language barrier. Yrreg can be very clear in his use of english, recently he has taken to a very pompous style. He is channeling his Pachomius character more.

Piscivore · 20th July 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dogdoctor

I don't think pigeonholing people into particular mental frameworks is so important. It's their actions beyond their beliefs or philosophies that is important. Whatever philosophy or belief a person may have they are not like every one else with that particular philosophy or belief. For such broad terms to mean something you need an incredibly large number of descriptors that it becomes impractical. It really doesn't matter except if they say something or do something. Then each of these actions can be evaluated for their own merit.

Heartily agreed. The need for pigeonholes is directly proportionate to the lazyness of the thinker, IMO.

For myself, I'm a Discordian Polypseudotheist.

Mar\/in · 20th July 2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming.

I think that this is probably true (at least for some of use -- I don't want to generalize too much) if we understand mythology in Joseph Campbell's sense of the term, in which case a mythology isn't necessarily false or true, but it refers to the way we organize our values around our beliefs to create an interpretive worldview that we use to make sense of events. My Star Trekkish hope and belief that long-term human progress is possible in terms of science, economics, and culture, could be considered a mythology. It doesn't entail dogmatic faith claims, but it's an image of the future that I hope -- and really want to believe -- can be made true. Because I tend to evaluate the morality and decency of the acts of people and nations according to whether I think they will help to bring about such a future, all the assumptions I might use to make those evaluations -- beliefs about economics, human nature, and so on, many of which I know I can't prove -- may be considered parts of my personal mythology.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize.

This, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. I'm openly conscious of my need and desire to mythologize. I'll grant that activities like seated meditation (or taking a long, quiet walk) can make a person more aware of feelings and judgments he or she tends to suppress when otherwise engaged, but I wouldn't call that an altered state of consciousness. It's really just redirecting one's attention.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions.

We will always need abstract -isms for the same reason we use abstractions in general. We use them because it's impossible and wasteful to talk about exact individual specifics all of the time. No amount of altered consciousness experiences will change this, I suspect. I also suspect that the need to mythologize and the tendency to fall back on abstractions and generalizations are closely related. It's all a side-effect of trying to get by in a complicated universe while being made of meat.

Ivor the Engineer · 20th July 2009, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by fls

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

Good job it's just you and me on the internet.

Quote:

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

I agree. Most people do not.

tsig · 20th July 2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist.

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

Without humans the gods are nothing.

!Kaggen · 20th July 2009, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Still not getting it, sorry.

How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?

Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding. However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true. I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.
Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

paximperium · 20th July 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding.

No. Nursery rhythms are useful in teaching language and rhythm and many were useful memory tools.

Quote:

However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true.

If and when you decide to one day backup any of the multitude of your claims with silly things called "evidence" is when your "Hypothesis" leaves the realm of mindless speculation to actual science.

Quote:

I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.

This is called a False Dichotomy. Altered states could still lead to creativity and still be completely useless to understanding of reason.

Quote:

Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

No.

PS: You really need to look up the dictionary definition of "dilemma", it seems like you don't know what it means at all.

Piscivore · 20th July 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by fls

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

Why not in public?

Quote:

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes.

"Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go.

But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name.

arthwollipot · 20th July 2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

...However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language...

I don't.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

You're putting it badly, but I still understand what you're trying to say. And exactly what is it that makes you think that skeptics undervalue creativity and its role in understanding?

What we say is that creativity and imagination cannot replace reason. Without reason, there is no way to determine that the moon is not made of green cheese, or that the cute kitty is actually a vicious sabretooth that wants to kill and eat me.

Reason allows us to answer fundamental questions about the universe. Creativity and imagination allow us to work out what questions to ask.

Dave Rogers · 21st July 2009, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism.

I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.

Doesn't that make you a Bokononist?

Dave

fls · 21st July 2009, 03:49 AM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Why not in public?

It requires a bit of explanation and most circumstances don't allow the opportunity. And I live in the SE US where most people (I encounter) aren't interested in understanding my perspective, but rather discovering the extent to which I conform on this subject.

But what it really was was a joke about Real Life vs. The Intertoobs.

Quote:

Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes.

It is reasonable to say that about some formulations of "aether", but even relegating those to the dustbin, we certainly haven't yet considered all possible aethers. We don't even know how to ask the question for some, and for others, we haven't yet discovered that they will become necessary.

Quote:

"Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go.

But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name.

It's confusing when you fail to distinguish between a member of the class "aether" with the class "aether". Which did you think I was talking about?

Linda

P.J. Denyer · 21st July 2009, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I reserve the right to change my mind, but seriously doubt that I ever will.

I'd take this slightly further

"I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I acknowledge my responsibility to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, but seriously doubt such evidence will be forthcoming"

And for the record I'd consider myself a strong atheist.

NorfolkAtheist · 21st July 2009, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by fls

It is reasonable to say that about some formulations of "aether", but even relegating those to the dustbin, we certainly haven't yet considered all possible aethers. We don't even know how to ask the question for some, and for others, we haven't yet discovered that they will become necessary.

I'm curious how you can be gnostic regarding an entire class of...stuff...when you admit you "haven't yet considered all possible aethers". Wouldn't it make more sense to be gnostic regarding what you have considered, and just say you don't know about the stuff you don't yet know about?

Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be saying that you are gnostic regarding concepts that haven't yet been conceptualized provided that when they are conceptualized they are placed in a certain class. Is this correct?

fls · 21st July 2009, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by NorfolkAtheist

I'm curious how you can be gnostic regarding an entire class of...stuff...when you admit you "haven't yet considered all possible aethers". Wouldn't it make more sense to be gnostic regarding what you have considered, and just say you don't know about the stuff you don't yet know about?

I don't understand why you think I said otherwise.

What do you think it means when I (or anyone) say that there is no aether?

Quote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be saying that you are gnostic regarding concepts that haven't yet been conceptualized provided that when they are conceptualized they are placed in a certain class. Is this correct?

Why would you think I am saying that? Especially since it looks like you don't think it makes sense to say that.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer · 21st July 2009, 05:48 AM

Doesn't someone claiming to be a 'gnostic atheist' imply he/she believes it is possible to know that there are no gods, not that they personally know there are no gods?

NorfolkAtheist · 21st July 2009, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by fls

I don't understand why you think I said otherwise.

What do you think it means when I (or anyone) say that there is no aether?

Why would you think I am saying that? Especially since it looks like you don't think it makes sense to say that.

Linda

I thought you were saying that because you earlier said you were a gnostic atheist and made a comparison between knowledge of gods and knowledge of aethers. In another post you clarified (or seemed to) that you include yet to be conceived formulations of aether in the larger class of aethers. So it appeared to me that you were gnostic about the class of gods and the class of aethers both of which contain undefined and unconceived formulations.

NorfolkAtheist · 21st July 2009, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Doesn't someone claiming to be a 'gnostic atheist' imply he/she believes it is possible to know that there are no gods, not that they personally know there are no gods?

I suppose that is correct.

I wonder though, does one believe this possibility on faith? Or do they discover it somewhere?

Talking about gods in general always seems problematic to me. Define me a specific god and I'll tell you whether or not I'm gnostic or agnostic regarding him/her/it.

fls · 21st July 2009, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by NorfolkAtheist

I thought you were saying that because you earlier said you were a gnostic atheist and made a comparison between knowledge of gods and knowledge of aethers. In another post you clarified (or seemed to) that you include yet to be conceived formulations of aether in the larger class of aethers. So it appeared to me that you were gnostic about the class of gods and the class of aethers both of which contain undefined and unconceived formulations.

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

NorfolkAtheist · 21st July 2009, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by fls

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

I would usually assume that you were talking about the luminiferous aether. In fact, I initially did assume this. But then you chastised Piscivore for making this assumption and you appeared to clarify that you were actually referring to aethers as a class (including aethers not yet conceived!) and not the luminiferous aether specifically.

Ivor the Engineer · 21st July 2009, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by fls

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

Ah, so you're a redundant atheist.

Trakar · 21st July 2009, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by fls

I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public.

I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether.

Linda

at least 2 major complications

measuring the supernatural

compelling an intelligent supernatural entity to perform on demand

fls · 21st July 2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by NorfolkAtheist

I would usually assume that you were talking about the luminiferous aether. In fact, I initially did assume this.

Okay, then I was on the right track with my example, because that is what I meant.

Quote:

But then you chastised Piscivore for making this assumption and you appeared to clarify that you were actually referring to aethers as a class (including aethers not yet conceived!) and not the luminiferous aether specifically.

I said that I thought it was reasonable to figure out whether or not there are any gods just like we figure out whether or not there is aether not that we figure out whether or not there is aether just like we figure out whether or not there are gods. We don't usually refer to aether as a class which made me wonder why he thought his reference to gods as a class had anything to do with what I said.

Linda

fls · 21st July 2009, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

at least 2 major complications

measuring the supernatural

Not at all. If you are referring to what people usually call supernatural (e.g. miracles or clairvoyance), then you are really talking about events/experiences, which are measurable. And if you are talking about something that is truly supernatural, then it doesn't matter since it doesn't have an effect on events/experiences anyway.

Quote:

compelling an intelligent supernatural entity to perform on demand

We can study two-year-old humans, can't we?

Linda

slingblade · 21st July 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

I'd take this slightly further

"I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional.

I acknowledge my responsibility to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, but seriously doubt such evidence will be forthcoming"

And for the record I'd consider myself a strong atheist.

I think that would do quite well, P.J. Thank you.

And for the record, I do, too.

Darth Rotor · 21st July 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by jimtron

Sometimes I think everyone is agnostic...

I don't know about that, Jim.

Darth Rotor · 21st July 2009, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Such as: when we scatter these seeds on the ground, the food we need to eat tends to grow.

Onan is still over there, waiting for the food to grow.
(Poor guy)

Darth Rotor · 21st July 2009, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by fls

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

Linda

That you, or they, are in love with me since there is no aether.

Huh, aether isn't Scots dialect for other? Sorry.

Herzblut · 21st July 2009, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by fls

I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"?

There's no media for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in vacuum.

wuschel · 22nd July 2009, 04:38 PM

So what exactly is this "god" thing that you are certain/not certain about being/not being able to being certain/uncertain of being able to determine its existence?

Strong Agnostic Ignosticist here, holding for certain that it cannot be known whether there actually indeed may exist a possible definition of "god" that is coherent and meaningful at the same time - and thus willing to take matters further, once such definition has been supplied.

20th July 2009, 07:19 AM	#81
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,956	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Apart from the domestication of plants and animals and the development of abstract representation i.e. language your right not much understanding required for that. Still not getting it, sorry. How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true?
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

20th July 2009, 07:26 AM	#82
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271	Originally Posted by Improbable Joe Never mind, "!Kaggen" is one of those liars who feigns innocence while spreading his hatred of science and reason, isn't he? I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose.
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271

20th July 2009, 07:28 AM	#83
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 31,995	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Darwinism is not just about naming the Theory of Evolution after someone. It has been used in many contexts to justify belief systems (mythologizing) both for and against the theory of evolution. Originally Posted by PixyMisa Name one. Originally Posted by !Kaggen creationism Wrong. Do your research
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

20th July 2009, 07:29 AM	#84
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,384	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Still not getting it, sorry. How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true? Such as: when we scatter these seeds on the ground, the food we need to eat tends to grow.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it. Last edited by Foster Zygote; 20th July 2009 at 08:52 AM.

20th July 2009, 07:32 AM	#85
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,384	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Your right bad example. Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

20th July 2009, 07:41 AM	#86
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,809	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Surely you can describe it clearly. Seems to me that's like telling a person with advanced Parkinson's that "surely you can draw a straight line".
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

20th July 2009, 07:49 AM	#87
Georg Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bavaria, Germany Posts: 1,333	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Of what? I still don't see what any of this has to do with your claims regarding an atheist belief system/mythology. What is that belief system/mythology? Surely you can describe it clearly. I´m not sure what he wants to explain either, but I think he did not talk about a certain belief system, he wrote Originally Posted by !Kaggen now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. as in "everyone needs some belief system/mythology." It doesn´t make sense to me either, but that´s at least how I understand him.
	__________________ I wonder if there's any quadruple amputee dwarfs on death row? quarky I am 38 years old. I think I can handle a horny priest! -Fran- I think it's possible it will turn out that the whole point of human evolution is only as an intermediate step in the creation of robot hookers. -Piscivore-

20th July 2009, 08:29 AM	#88
Nogbad Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,513	Another form of atheist is like that of the asexual and apolitical. They are aware that some people are interested in these things but for the life of them they can't see why.
	__________________ Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum.

20th July 2009, 08:34 AM	#89
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

20th July 2009, 09:35 AM	#90
Mar\/in New Blood $Mar\/in's Avatar$ Join Date: May 2008 Location: Austin, TX, USA Posts: 24	Originally Posted by arthwollipot I don't like "bright". It implies that everyone else is dim. I kinda dig "bright," for more or less the same reason. (Slap my hand.) Of course I don't think everyone else is dim, and that's certainly not the explicit intent of the word, but I like the uppity quality. I wouldn't mind ruining "bright" for aggressive theists the way "gay" has been (allegedly) ruined for homophobes. That being said, I fail to see much energy in the Brights Movement these days, and I think most of its goals -- promoting positive naturalism, creating an online constituency, advocating church-state separation and civil equality -- are being better met by JREF, FFRF, and so on. And the online constituency kind of takes care of itself. What really succeeded about the meme "Bright," thanks in large part to Dawkins and Dennett, was the promotion of the idea that it's time for atheists to get out of the closet. The idea that nonbelievers need to organize and get loud the way the gay community did 40 years ago seems to have really been embraced.
	__________________ Marvin aka mslongjr \| twitter \| facebook This is my lovely wife's tale of her first trip to TAM and how she won the services of George Hrab: "Better than a tote bag, or, How I bought a man in Vegas."
$Mar\/in is offline$

20th July 2009, 09:41 AM	#91
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic thiest or a gnostic atheist. The gnosis part refers to certainty and knowledge, not the specific conclusion. Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist. I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism. I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

20th July 2009, 09:44 AM	#92
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,700	Originally Posted by kbm99 I'd accuse him of being a Gerry sock-puppet but the style isn't the same, just the content. Or lack thereof, I suppose. I disagree, !Kagen is much nicer and more accepting. There is more of a language barrier. Yrreg can be very clear in his use of english, recently he has taken to a very pompous style. He is channeling his Pachomius character more.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

20th July 2009, 09:53 AM	#93
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,454	Originally Posted by Dogdoctor I don't think pigeonholing people into particular mental frameworks is so important. It's their actions beyond their beliefs or philosophies that is important. Whatever philosophy or belief a person may have they are not like every one else with that particular philosophy or belief. For such broad terms to mean something you need an incredibly large number of descriptors that it becomes impractical. It really doesn't matter except if they say something or do something. Then each of these actions can be evaluated for their own merit. Heartily agreed. The need for pigeonholes is directly proportionate to the lazyness of the thinker, IMO. For myself, I'm a Discordian Polypseudotheist.
	__________________ It's always been Wankershim. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

20th July 2009, 09:57 AM	#94
Mar\/in New Blood $Mar\/in's Avatar$ Join Date: May 2008 Location: Austin, TX, USA Posts: 24	the humble meatling's reply Originally Posted by !Kaggen now am almost sure that atheists are hardwired like everyone else to find a belief system/mythology to explain their observations. It is not simply that they "do not need" a belief system of religious experience as the evidence is not forthcoming. I think that this is probably true (at least for some of use -- I don't want to generalize too much) if we understand mythology in Joseph Campbell's sense of the term, in which case a mythology isn't necessarily false or true, but it refers to the way we organize our values around our beliefs to create an interpretive worldview that we use to make sense of events. My Star Trekkish hope and belief that long-term human progress is possible in terms of science, economics, and culture, could be considered a mythology. It doesn't entail dogmatic faith claims, but it's an image of the future that I hope -- and really want to believe -- can be made true. Because I tend to evaluate the morality and decency of the acts of people and nations according to whether I think they will help to bring about such a future, all the assumptions I might use to make those evaluations -- beliefs about economics, human nature, and so on, many of which I know I can't prove -- may be considered parts of my personal mythology. Originally Posted by !Kaggen I suggest that by changing our observation point of view, by for example entering an alternative state of consciousness (other than the analytical waking consciousness common to skepticism) we can resolve this problem by experiencing the subliminal source of this need to mythologize. This, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. I'm openly conscious of my need and desire to mythologize. I'll grant that activities like seated meditation (or taking a long, quiet walk) can make a person more aware of feelings and judgments he or she tends to suppress when otherwise engaged, but I wouldn't call that an altered state of consciousness. It's really just redirecting one's attention. Originally Posted by !Kaggen Then we will not need any abstract -isms. If we then feel inclined to want to adopt an -ism we could just take a break from our skepticism enter an alternate state of consciousness then proceed again with normal life free from the need to relate to abstractions. We will always need abstract -isms for the same reason we use abstractions in general. We use them because it's impossible and wasteful to talk about exact individual specifics all of the time. No amount of altered consciousness experiences will change this, I suspect. I also suspect that the need to mythologize and the tendency to fall back on abstractions and generalizations are closely related. It's all a side-effect of trying to get by in a complicated universe while being made of meat.
	__________________ Marvin aka mslongjr \| twitter \| facebook This is my lovely wife's tale of her first trip to TAM and how she won the services of George Hrab: "Better than a tote bag, or, How I bought a man in Vegas."
$Mar\/in is offline$

20th July 2009, 09:58 AM	#95
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by fls I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. Good job it's just you and me on the internet. Quote: I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether. Linda I agree. Most people do not.
	__________________ My Blog.

20th July 2009, 10:11 AM	#96
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,670	Originally Posted by Dancing David Or a pagan atheist who also labels himself a buddhist nihilist. I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism. I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans. Without humans the gods are nothing.

20th July 2009, 12:25 PM	#97
!Kaggen Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cape Town Posts: 3,437	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Still not getting it, sorry. How can an altered state of consciousness help us (for example) distinguish something that is true from something that is not true? Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding. However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true. I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason. Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything.

20th July 2009, 12:41 PM	#98
paximperium Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2008 Location: Silicon Valley-Stuck between Google and Apple Posts: 10,727	Originally Posted by !Kaggen Your childhood is full of examples of things which would have been useful at that stage, nursery rhymes for example, and would not be now, but they did contribute to your understanding. No. Nursery rhythms are useful in teaching language and rhythm and many were useful memory tools. Quote: However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language and it is bleeding obvious that language is useful in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true then it follows that alternate states of consciousness played a role in understanding and telling whether something is true from not true. If and when you decide to one day backup any of the multitude of your claims with silly things called "evidence" is when your "Hypothesis" leaves the realm of mindless speculation to actual science. Quote: I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason. This is called a False Dichotomy. Altered states could still lead to creativity and still be completely useless to understanding of reason. Quote: Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything. No. PS: You really need to look up the dictionary definition of "dilemma", it seems like you don't know what it means at all.
	__________________ "The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan "They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

20th July 2009, 02:20 PM	#99
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,454	Originally Posted by fls I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. Why not in public? Quote: I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether. Linda Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes. "Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go. But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name.
	__________________ It's always been Wankershim. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

20th July 2009, 07:32 PM	#100
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 42,956	Originally Posted by !Kaggen ...However if you accept the possibility that alternate states of consciousness played a role in the development of language... I don't. Originally Posted by !Kaggen I think what you fail to take into account is that creativity which can arise from entering alternate states of consciousness is as important for human understanding as reason. You couldn't be more wrong. Originally Posted by !Kaggen Perhaps this is the real dilemma for the sceptic, that creativity is for entertainment and not possibly important in understanding and reason is the only possible way to understand anything. You're putting it badly, but I still understand what you're trying to say. And exactly what is it that makes you think that skeptics undervalue creativity and its role in understanding? What we say is that creativity and imagination cannot replace reason. Without reason, there is no way to determine that the moon is not made of green cheese, or that the cute kitty is actually a vicious sabretooth that wants to kill and eat me. Reason allows us to answer fundamental questions about the universe. Creativity and imagination allow us to work out what questions to ask.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

21st July 2009, 01:49 AM	#101
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Dancing David I believe nothing is true but I find comfort in empty paganism. I am fairly convinced that there are no gods or goddesses except for that which live in the imaginations of humans. Doesn't that make you a Bokononist? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

21st July 2009, 03:49 AM	#102
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Piscivore Why not in public? It requires a bit of explanation and most circumstances don't allow the opportunity. And I live in the SE US where most people (I encounter) aren't interested in understanding my perspective, but rather discovering the extent to which I conform on this subject. But what it really was was a joke about Real Life vs. The Intertoobs. Quote: Because there is/were a specific set of attributes that "aether" was meant to have, and when tested for those attributes did not appear or were better explained with other forces or processes. It is reasonable to say that about some formulations of "aether", but even relegating those to the dustbin, we certainly haven't yet considered all possible aethers. We don't even know how to ask the question for some, and for others, we haven't yet discovered that they will become necessary. Quote: "Gods" do not have such fixed attributes as a class. Some gods are said to have certain attributes, and these can be tested, but even regulating all of those to the dustbin we haven't even scratched the surface as far as "gods" go. But all this goes back to several lengthy discussions we've had in the past where I've fruitlessly tried to explain to you the difference between a class and a member of the class that unfortunately has the same name. It's confusing when you fail to distinguish between a member of the class "aether" with the class "aether". Which did you think I was talking about? Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st July 2009, 04:24 AM	#103
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,127	Originally Posted by slingblade I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional. I reserve the right to change my mind, but seriously doubt that I ever will. I'd take this slightly further "I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional. I acknowledge my responsibility to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, but seriously doubt such evidence will be forthcoming" And for the record I'd consider myself a strong atheist.

21st July 2009, 05:23 AM	#104
NorfolkAtheist Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 165	Originally Posted by fls It is reasonable to say that about some formulations of "aether", but even relegating those to the dustbin, we certainly haven't yet considered all possible aethers. We don't even know how to ask the question for some, and for others, we haven't yet discovered that they will become necessary. I'm curious how you can be gnostic regarding an entire class of...stuff...when you admit you "haven't yet considered all possible aethers". Wouldn't it make more sense to be gnostic regarding what you have considered, and just say you don't know about the stuff you don't yet know about? Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be saying that you are gnostic regarding concepts that haven't yet been conceptualized provided that when they are conceptualized they are placed in a certain class. Is this correct?

21st July 2009, 05:36 AM	#105
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by NorfolkAtheist I'm curious how you can be gnostic regarding an entire class of...stuff...when you admit you "haven't yet considered all possible aethers". Wouldn't it make more sense to be gnostic regarding what you have considered, and just say you don't know about the stuff you don't yet know about? I don't understand why you think I said otherwise. What do you think it means when I (or anyone) say that there is no aether? Quote: Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be saying that you are gnostic regarding concepts that haven't yet been conceptualized provided that when they are conceptualized they are placed in a certain class. Is this correct? Why would you think I am saying that? Especially since it looks like you don't think it makes sense to say that. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st July 2009, 05:48 AM	#106
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Doesn't someone claiming to be a 'gnostic atheist' imply he/she believes it is possible to know that there are no gods, not that they personally know there are no gods?
	__________________ My Blog.

21st July 2009, 06:03 AM	#107
NorfolkAtheist Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 165	Originally Posted by fls I don't understand why you think I said otherwise. What do you think it means when I (or anyone) say that there is no aether? Why would you think I am saying that? Especially since it looks like you don't think it makes sense to say that. Linda I thought you were saying that because you earlier said you were a gnostic atheist and made a comparison between knowledge of gods and knowledge of aethers. In another post you clarified (or seemed to) that you include yet to be conceived formulations of aether in the larger class of aethers. So it appeared to me that you were gnostic about the class of gods and the class of aethers both of which contain undefined and unconceived formulations.

21st July 2009, 06:14 AM	#108
NorfolkAtheist Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 165	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer Doesn't someone claiming to be a 'gnostic atheist' imply he/she believes it is possible to know that there are no gods, not that they personally know there are no gods? I suppose that is correct. I wonder though, does one believe this possibility on faith? Or do they discover it somewhere? Talking about gods in general always seems problematic to me. Define me a specific god and I'll tell you whether or not I'm gnostic or agnostic regarding him/her/it.

21st July 2009, 06:15 AM	#109
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by NorfolkAtheist I thought you were saying that because you earlier said you were a gnostic atheist and made a comparison between knowledge of gods and knowledge of aethers. In another post you clarified (or seemed to) that you include yet to be conceived formulations of aether in the larger class of aethers. So it appeared to me that you were gnostic about the class of gods and the class of aethers both of which contain undefined and unconceived formulations. I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"? Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st July 2009, 06:28 AM	#110
NorfolkAtheist Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 165	Originally Posted by fls I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"? Linda I would usually assume that you were talking about the luminiferous aether. In fact, I initially did assume this. But then you chastised Piscivore for making this assumption and you appeared to clarify that you were actually referring to aethers as a class (including aethers not yet conceived!) and not the luminiferous aether specifically.

21st July 2009, 06:45 AM	#111
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by fls I used "aether" because I thought it was fairly obvious what scientists mean when they they say that there isn't an aether. But maybe it isn't obvious. So I have to ask, "what do you think it means when I (or anyone) says that there is no aether"? Linda Ah, so you're a redundant atheist.
	__________________ My Blog.

21st July 2009, 07:21 AM	#112
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,920	Originally Posted by fls I call myself a 'gnostic atheist', but not in public. I don't believe in any gods (as per my sig) and I don't see why we can't figure out whether there are any just like we figure out whether or not there's aether. Linda at least 2 major complications measuring the supernatural compelling an intelligent supernatural entity to perform on demand
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,920

21st July 2009, 09:43 AM	#113
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by NorfolkAtheist I would usually assume that you were talking about the luminiferous aether. In fact, I initially did assume this. Okay, then I was on the right track with my example, because that is what I meant. Quote: But then you chastised Piscivore for making this assumption and you appeared to clarify that you were actually referring to aethers as a class (including aethers not yet conceived!) and not the luminiferous aether specifically. I said that I thought it was reasonable to figure out whether or not there are any gods just like we figure out whether or not there is aether not that we figure out whether or not there is aether just like we figure out whether or not there are gods. We don't usually refer to aether as a class which made me wonder why he thought his reference to gods as a class had anything to do with what I said. Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st July 2009, 09:50 AM	#114
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku at least 2 major complications measuring the supernatural Not at all. If you are referring to what people usually call supernatural (e.g. miracles or clairvoyance), then you are really talking about events/experiences, which are measurable. And if you are talking about something that is truly supernatural, then it doesn't matter since it doesn't have an effect on events/experiences anyway. Quote: compelling an intelligent supernatural entity to perform on demand We can study two-year-old humans, can't we? Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

21st July 2009, 11:02 AM	#115
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer I'd take this slightly further "I think all gods are, and always have been, creations of the human mind, imaginary, fictional. I acknowledge my responsibility to change my mind in the face of compelling evidence, but seriously doubt such evidence will be forthcoming" And for the record I'd consider myself a strong atheist. I think that would do quite well, P.J. Thank you. And for the record, I do, too.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642