Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 151 of 209 (658486)
04-05-2012 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by New Cat's Eye
04-04-2012 3:46 PM


Re: "Positive" Atheism
CS writes:
But I don't, because when I say that I know evolution occured I am not saying that I know that LT didn't.
If I know that X is a dog then I know that X isn't a cat.
If I know that the Earth is millions of years old (albeit tentatively) then I know (albeit tentatively) that it isn't less than a week old.
Do you actually dispute these statements?
Because at the moment you are in the bewilderingly nonsensical position of saying that you know that the Earth is millions of years old whilst maintaining complete ignorance as to whether it is less than a week old.
Which is absurd.
CS writes:
In order for my position to match yours, I'd have to have the evidence for evolution also be evidence against LT. But I don't because you can't have evidence against LT.
What are you talking about? This is about knowledge and the logical consequences of knowledge.
If you claim complete ignorance as to whether or not the Earth is less than a week old you logically cannot simultaneously claim to know that life on Earth evolved over millions of years can you?
Yet here you are doing exactly that.
CS writes:
"I don't know but I doubt it"? That's a move away from the positive atheist position...
I cannot know for certain but I consider the existence of gods very unlikely.
If you want to get technical my position is that it is far more likely that all gods/fairies/Leprechauns/Etc. are products of human psychology than real entities. Relative likelihood, evidenced conclusions more likely to be correct than un-evidenced ones, induction etc. etc.
But frankly the subtleties of relative likelihood are going to be lost on you if you cannot even cope with the idea that knowledge of one thing happening necessarily equates to knowledge that a mutually exclusive alternative hasn't.
How can you deny this? It's simply inarguable.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-04-2012 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2012 10:07 AM Straggler has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 152 of 209 (658494)
04-05-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rahvin
04-05-2012 11:44 AM


Re: hedging
If 90% of the world's population were stamp collectors, there would be a term for non-stamp-collectors, because such a designation would be useful.
This has merit. For example, people do identify themselves as non-smokers and non-drinkers. Perhaps I went overboard on this point.
At the same time, I think it would be difficult to find a common belief amongst non-smokers and non-drinkers outside of their shared aversion of these activities. Atheism tends to run into the same "problem".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Rahvin, posted 04-05-2012 11:44 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Rahvin, posted 04-05-2012 1:04 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 153 of 209 (658497)
04-05-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Taq
04-05-2012 12:47 PM


Re: hedging
At the same time, I think it would be difficult to find a common belief amongst non-smokers and non-drinkers outside of their shared aversion of these activities. Atheism tends to run into the same "problem".
The "problem" is not with the terminology, which remains accurate. "Atheist" describes one's position on the existence of gods, but does not for example describe one's position on national politics or the color blue or whether the Earth is flat.
The problem is that people have the insane tendency to try to describe others (though not usually themselves and rarely people they know well and interact with frequently) with single terms, as if a single word could encapsulate all of what describes a person.
Our knowledge of others, especially those we don't know well, is limited, yet our brains try to describe others just as completely based on that small amount of information as if we knew the person well.
It's like the cognitive fault that causes us to attribute the actions of others to enduring personality traits, while attributing our own actions to circumstances. If you see a coworker storming around looking all angry, you'll instinctually label him an "angry person," even though (unbeknownst to you) some asshole backed into his car and drove off an hour ago; your coworker is angry because his car was damaged, and anyone would be angry about that.
I'm an atheist, and that term accurately describes my position on whether or not gods exist...but I'm a complete person, and my position on whether gods exist or not does not define in totality who I am, just as a person who self-identifies as "Christian" cannot be defined totally by that particular allegiance.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Taq, posted 04-05-2012 12:47 PM Taq has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 154 of 209 (658508)
04-05-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by shadow71
04-04-2012 5:31 PM


Re: hedging
ahadow71 writes:
ringo writes:
It often seems to be a case of starting at a theistic belief and using one's confirmation bias to convince oneself that one got there progressively.
It seems to be that the opposite is also true in regards to an atheist.
Sure, it's possible for somebody who started out as an atheist to have confirmation bias. But I'm talking about somebody like me, who started out in a theistic family in a highly theistic society.
If you and I used a similar method to arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions, doesn't it seem likely that either the method is flawed or that one of us is using it wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by shadow71, posted 04-04-2012 5:31 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 155 of 209 (658521)
04-05-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Taq
04-05-2012 11:15 AM


Re: hedging
Taq writes:
Quite right. You define yourself by your positive beliefs, not by the things you don't believe in. So why are we called atheists?
That seems to be the question the OP is asking. Not trying to be rude but I really don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Taq, posted 04-05-2012 11:15 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 04-05-2012 3:22 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 156 of 209 (658523)
04-05-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by shadow71
04-05-2012 3:16 PM


Re: hedging
That seems to be the question the OP is asking. Not trying to be rude but I really don't care.
On the positive side, hopefully you have a better understanding of what non-believers really think. Part of the reason for finding a new name for atheists is to break away from old stereotypes and preconceptions. I don't know if this is a good reason or not (hence the thread), but it is at least worth discussing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by shadow71, posted 04-05-2012 3:16 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by shadow71, posted 04-08-2012 8:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 157 of 209 (658527)
04-05-2012 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Artemis Entreri
04-05-2012 9:56 AM


A friend of the Bah' faith writes:
Artemis is oversimplifying the concept quite a bit. We believe that all the major world religions come from the same God. As mankind grows and develops and is ready to learn more God sends a new messenger. The spiritual teachings of these messengers are the same. The social teachings are different and apply to the time and place the messenger came. Also until recently in human history communication and the ability to travel was limited. So when a new messenger came only that part of the world would be aware of that messenger. We don’t believe God would leave people in other parts of the world without guidance. So other parts of the world got messengers also.
I wonder if the Bah' faith has any opinions on which of the world's religions have gotten the message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-05-2012 9:56 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-06-2012 8:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 158 of 209 (658555)
04-06-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
04-05-2012 4:36 PM


so no answer i assume?
weird i thought for sure you'd have a snarcky comeback rather than avoiding it altogether

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 04-05-2012 4:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 04-06-2012 10:34 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 159 of 209 (658558)
04-06-2012 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Artemis Entreri
04-06-2012 8:39 AM


Re: so no answer i assume?
Artemis Entreri writes:
weird i thought for sure you'd have a snarcky comeback rather than avoiding it altogether
Not sure what you're talking about. You were commenting about religion as cultural backdrop and concluded with a rhetorical question about the Bah' faith. I was just offering information about Bah' from someone of that faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-06-2012 8:39 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-06-2012 1:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 160 of 209 (658578)
04-06-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Percy
04-06-2012 10:34 AM


Re: so no answer i assume?
it wasn't rhetorical

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Percy, posted 04-06-2012 10:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 04-06-2012 4:16 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 161 of 209 (658579)
04-06-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Artemis Entreri
04-04-2012 3:17 PM


Not bad, but.....
Artemis Entreri writes:
shit disturbers.
We atheists certainly disturb some religious people, but I'd hesitate to use that word to describe them all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-04-2012 3:17 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-09-2012 11:09 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 162 of 209 (658583)
04-06-2012 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Artemis Entreri
04-06-2012 1:29 PM


Re: so no answer i assume?
Artemis Entreri writes:
it wasn't rhetorical
Okay, choose your own term, but absent further clarification your question is rendered moot because as my Bah' friend pointed out, "all the religions as one religion" is "oversimplifying the concept quite a bit."
If you're asking about the Bah' faith as a cultural backdrop, I'm afraid I don't know enough about them to have an opinion. I wasn't trying to answer your question, just provide more accurate information about Bah'.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-06-2012 1:29 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Artemis Entreri, posted 04-09-2012 11:06 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 163 of 209 (658696)
04-08-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Taq
04-05-2012 3:22 PM


Re: hedging
Taq writes:
On the positive side, hopefully you have a better understanding of what non-believers really think. Part of the reason for finding a new name for atheists is to break away from old stereotypes and preconceptions. I don't know if this is a good reason or not (hence the thread), but it is at least worth discussing.
There comes a time when I really don't care what non-believers really think. Why should I worry about a non-believer who recites anti-believer statements such as Sagan that all believers are delusional. Who the hell cares. I will believe what I know in my heart is true. You will call me delusional.
Will it ever end.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 04-05-2012 3:22 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2012 1:06 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 166 by Granny Magda, posted 04-09-2012 3:32 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 04-09-2012 12:27 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 75
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 164 of 209 (658699)
04-09-2012 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taq
03-28-2012 12:46 PM


Here are some psych-talk style approaches to relabeling "atheist"...
Theistically uninhibited
Rationally focused
Evidence dependent
Belief challenged
Sense obsessed
I might like to be called "deity free", except it sounds a little smug (but not nearly as bad as "bright"). From many believers' points of view, the very concept of atheism is smug anyway.
The biggest problem I have with the label "atheist" is that I hate being painted with such a broad brush. If you call yourself "Christian", you can refine yourself a little further by naming your denomination, church, how often you go, etc. You can't say much about your worldview with "atheist". Whether atheist or Christian, you might have a very different worldview than the next guy in your group, with little in common beyond your (non-)belief in god(s).
Renaming atheists seems like a losing game, but maybe the term can be refined by spinning off a sect, so to speak: The "anti-theists". One of the worst things about self-identifying as atheist is that I'm sometimes associated with the militant, God-hating, head-up-the-ass variety - the fundamentalists. I haven't met many, but they can be just as obnoxious as the Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone crowd. I'd like to distance myself from them, in the same way that I'm sure some Christians want to disavow their kookier cults.
It would be nice to make a further linguistic split between gnostic/agnostic atheists (atheist/nontheist?), but I don't see it happening, except by some whim of culture.
Edited by glowby, : typo: missing word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taq, posted 03-28-2012 12:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 165 of 209 (658700)
04-09-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by shadow71
04-08-2012 8:19 PM


Re: hedging
Will it ever end.?
Indeed. This has all happened before and it will happen again.
Yesterday, BBC America's rerun of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica (BSG), what James Edward Olmos and the critics called "the best use of TV because of the stories." That statement ("It has all happened before ...") was a leitmotif carried throughout. At the end, when, 150,000 years in our past, they finally arrive to settle on our Earth (not the Earth of their own legend, which had annihilated itself 2000 years prior in a war between organics and robots, echoed by the Twelve Colonies then-present struggle), they had come to a decision to break the cycle, to make peace with the surviving Cylons and allow each other to go their separate ways. Cut to our present-day New York City and two observers' conversation ("Head-Six" and "Head-Baltar"; if you are unfamiliar with the series, I could not explain it here) comparing what they saw with Caprica and Kobold and wonder whether it will all happen again, as the series ends to the tune of a more familiar cover of "The Cylon Song" playing over videos of our current robotic creations, including ones trying to appear ever more human.
Even if you are not a sci-fi fan, one of the functions of that genre is to explore key human and political and cultural issues removed from their real-life context. We call it "science fiction" because science is usually involved (worked for Isaac Asimov, whose father thought that it would teach him about science), while in German it's usually "Zukunftsromane" ("future novels"), though "Mglichkeitsromane" ("possibility novels") has also been used. Through Star Trek: TOS ("The Original Series", or "The Old Show"), Gene Roddenberry presented morality plays through which a myriad of issues could be explored and examined without being loaded down by all our cultural baggage. Not the least of which (repeatedly) was what it meant to be human. A question further explored by and through BSG's Cylon "skin jobs."
So do humans and Cylons continue to hate and distrust each other for eternity? Or as the anti-human ("annihilate them all!") Number Three expressed it, so long as they allowed any humans to survive, those humans would raise their children to hate Cylons and a few hundred years later humans would return to try to annihilate the Cylons, so the Cylons need to annihilate the humans first. Or, as after the Cylon Civil War, do humans and Cylons learn to trust each other and to work together? OBTW, in BSG, humans were polytheistic whereas Cylons were monotheistic.
Or to quote a signature I encountered years ago:
quote:
Those who fail to learn the lessons of science fiction are doomed to live them.
So then, you ask:
Will it ever end.?
So what are our choices? And how will we choose? Will we learn the lessons of science fiction? Or are we doomed to live them?
We can let the same thing happen over and over and over and over again. This has all happened before and it will happen again. You do not understand what non-believers think and you do not care. Non-believers do not understand what believers think and they do not care. Far worse, both sides imagine how the other side thinks and what they imagine is a direct threat, a clear and present danger, to themselves. So whatever aggression we commit against the other side is justified, because we are fighting for our very survival!
This has all happened before and it will happen again.
And the cycle will continue to repeat until we decide to break it!
The only way to break the cycle is for both sides to understand each other. Something that you have just come out declaring that you will not do! So your choice is to allow the cycle to continue to repeat itself.
Your side has absolutely no idea how non-believers think, nor what they believe. Of course, that does not stop you from making wildly false, idiotic proclamations about what non-believers think and believe and do. Wildly false, idiotic proclamations that prove beyond a doubt to non-believers that you are all a pack of fracking idiots. And non-believers see very clearly how you pack of fracking idiots (duly demonstrated and proven as per immediately above) are zealously trying to seize political power to force your idiocy (again, duly demonstrated and proven as per immediately above) on everybody else.
And, uh, just what is it that you believers imagine to be the threat that non-believers pose to you? That they want people to stop and actually think? Or simply that they do not agree with you? I'm sorry, but until you honestly tell us just exactly what your problem with non-believers is, then we have nothing to work with. Oh yeah! That's right! It's all in your fevered and paranoid imagination! Which, of course, leaves us normals shocked and bewildered at your inexplicable paranoid reaction to our very existence.
The cycle already exists. Believers see non-believers as some kind of thoroughly evil, even Satanic, enemies intent on the absolutely destruction of everything that is Good. Non-believers see believers as a pack of fracking idiots lost irreparably in delusion. This has all happened before and it will happen again.
But if we were to break that cycle! Believers will understand non-believers for what they actually are. And non-believers will understand what believers' fears are. And both sides can eventually come to understand that the other side does not pose the danger that they imagine -- OK, you fracking believers do, in the USA, continue to pose a very real danger to America and The Constitution, and may we loyal Americans be able to keep you away from that power.
Shadow71, Taq expressed the hope of greater understanding between the two sides. You rejected that. I would hope that you reconsider your ill-considered choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by shadow71, posted 04-08-2012 8:19 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by shadow71, posted 04-09-2012 12:44 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024