Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 9 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion?


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10

Syclone538
05-13-2012, 20:21
So, you took me up on my offer to make up my response for me. That's interesting.

I am uncommitted and uncaring. If you want to believe the FSM is a deity and presented himself in a parody, that honestly is just fine with me.

But to criticize one for not caring enough to have an opinion to your hypothetical situation doesn't change anything I have said in this thread about atheism.

If you would just tell me what you think the odds are that FSM exists, I wouldn't have to guess.

...
Beginning with a forgone conclusion when examining evidence is a scientific breach of ethics.
...

That reminds me of Presuppositional apologetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics).

...
Why is that so hard to accept, than another person could reasonably come to that conclusion?

Because I don't think anyone can reasonably come to the conclusion that atheism is a religion.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 05:02
If you would just tell me what you think the odds are that FSM exists, I wouldn't have to guess.



That reminds me of Presuppositional apologetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics).



Because I don't think anyone can reasonably come to the conclusion that atheism is a religion.

Well, I am very sure that the FSM exists, as a parody.

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005, protesting the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.

Now, if you are asking if there is an actual deity called the flying spaghetti monster, I don't know. If someone wanted to be a pastafarian, and worship the FSM, that's cool with me.


I think the point you are missing, and why I'm not getting locked down is that I really don't lose sleep wondering if there are deities or not. It's not a burning question that I gotta have answered or I'll go crazy. Reality is what it is. Some people have chosen systems of belief based on their faith that they are correct in their assumptions. They look at the same evidence, and come to different conclusions.

Theism and Atheism are just two sides of the exact same coin to an agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 05:06
I came up with you dodging the question asked.

That was a perfectly good answer.


Here, let me try....

"Have you stopped beating your dog yet?" Only a yes or no answer is acceptable. Anything else will be dodging the question and will be used as grounds to dismiss every argument you have ever made.

[/sarcasm].

You asked:


Without any reference to knowledge or possibility, do you believe any deity exists?

A full answer to your question cannot just be a yes or a no.

The shortest answer I can come up with at the moment is "I don't know". But that's not as accurate as the honest answer you got earlier.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 05:17
Yup. You are correct. No proof. On either side. Fortunately I can disregard an assertion that has no proof on the basis that it is unproven and therefore unlikely. Kinda like the chances that you would admit that your premise has been shot down, repeatedly.



I do not consider it a religion, and I know its ok.

And really, it aint all that difficult to grasp your premise. Believe it or not, everyone arguing with you understands exactly what your trying to prove. Everyone here is smarter than a 5th grader, who could also understand your argument.

What I'm saying (and you keep ignoring) is that by using your definition, everything you know, think you know, believe or think you believe becomes a "religion". And that same 5th grader could tell you that even though its technically true, it's a useless definition.

I'm gonna try one more time. The bolded is completely wrong. Read carefully Doc because your just not getting this even though its been repeated endlessly:

Atheism IS NOT, repeat, IS NOT a basic belief on how the "current reality came to be". Please try and get this as it is important. Atheism itself posits no explanation about the origin of life, the universe and everything. Your insistence that it does is mistaken, erroneous, wrong.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion of deities, due to lack of evidence.

If you want a competing theory to creation, you need to look at SCIENCE. SCIENCE is not ATHEISM, and ATHEISM is not SCIENCE. Two completely different animals.

And science is also...not a religion.





It like a black hole Doc......it just keeps sucking me in.:supergrin:

I see the different sides. A theist could reject your assertion that his god doesn't exist, or that no gods have existed, because the evidence isn't there to prove that assertion. The repeated hiding behind the assertion and claiming it is a passive belief is interesting, but I guess I don't see it that way. That is where we will have to agree to disagree.

People choose how they want to view things, that's all. Some are comforted by the belief that this was all made, and that there is a plan. Some are comforted by the belief that this all happened without a divine hand involved.

Lone Wolf8634
05-14-2012, 13:05
I see the different sides. A theist could reject your assertion that his god doesn't exist, or that no gods have existed, because the evidence isn't there to prove that assertion. The repeated hiding behind the assertion and claiming it is a passive belief is interesting, but I guess I don't see it that way. That is where we will have to agree to disagree.

People choose how they want to view things, that's all. Some are comforted by the belief that this was all made, and that there is a plan. Some are comforted by the belief that this all happened without a divine hand involved.

A theist could reject anything he wants. But he cant reject my assertion that no God or Gods exist because (again!) I haven't made that assertion. So you see, no one is hiding behind an assertion, except those that make the claim. And BTW, Its up to them to provide evidence for that claim, it's not me that needs to disprove it, lack of evidence does that quite handily, thank you.

And its not a passive belief, I actively reject unsupported assertions all the the time. As does everyone else.

ksg0245
05-14-2012, 17:33
That was a perfectly good answer.

It was a perfectly good answer to a question that wasn't asked. It didn't answer the question asked at all.

Here, let me try....

"Have you stopped beating your dog yet?" Only a yes or no answer is acceptable. Anything else will be dodging the question and will be used as grounds to dismiss every argument you have ever made.

[/sarcasm].

Oops. Unlike your example, "do you believe x?" isn't an ambiguously loaded question.

You asked:

Without any reference to knowledge or possibility, do you believe any deity exists?

A full answer to your question cannot just be a yes or a no.

It can be for someone not trying to dodge.

The shortest answer I can come up with at the moment is "I don't know".

How is it possible you don't know what you believe? Would it be better to ask someone else what you believe?

The question isn't about knowledge or possibility. I didn't ask if you know whether any deity exists, or whether you think such knowledge is possible. Repeatedly answering the question "Do you believe" with "I don't know" is dodging the question.

Maybe your inability to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism is related to your inability to know your own beliefs, but I suspect otherwise.

But that's not as accurate as the honest answer you got earlier.

Except that you haven't answered the question asked. At all. Ever.

An atheist could accurately answer the question; they don't believe. A theist would answer that they do. An honest agnostic could either say "Yes, I believe deities exist, but don't know for certain," or "No, I don't believe deities exist, but don't know for certain." In the first instance, that person would be an agnostic theist; in the second, an agnostic atheist. Most people omit the "agnostic" tag because it doesn't really add information; nobody knows either way.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 19:24
It was a perfectly good answer to a question that wasn't asked. It didn't answer the question asked at all.



Oops. Unlike your example, "do you believe x?" isn't an ambiguously loaded question.



It can be for someone not trying to dodge.



How is it possible you don't know what you believe? Would it be better to ask someone else what you believe?

The question isn't about knowledge or possibility. I didn't ask if you know whether any deity exists, or whether you think such knowledge is possible. Repeatedly answering the question "Do you believe" with "I don't know" is dodging the question.

Maybe your inability to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism is related to your inability to know your own beliefs, but I suspect otherwise.



Except that you haven't answered the question asked. At all. Ever.

An atheist could accurately answer the question; they don't believe. A theist would answer that they do. An honest agnostic could either say "Yes, I believe deities exist, but don't know for certain," or "No, I don't believe deities exist, but don't know for certain." In the first instance, that person would be an agnostic theist; in the second, an agnostic atheist. Most people omit the "agnostic" tag because it doesn't really add information; nobody knows either way.

The loaded portion of your question wasn't ambiguous at all. It was quite plain.


Without any reference to knowledge or possibility, do you believe any deity exists?

If you weren't trying to look for the answer you wanted me to give, why not simply ask if I believe any deity exists?

The honest answer is that I believe it is possible that a deity existed or exists. I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed. I don't know the answer, and I do not believe it is necessary to know the answer. If I change my mind, I'll let you know.

Now, back to your dog, yes or no please. If you dodge, all of your previous arguments are null and void. :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh. At least it's obvious that you are joking.

Yes, I believe deities exist, but don't know for certain = Theistic Agnostic
No, I don't believe deities exist, but don't know for certain = Atheistic Agnostic.

There is space between those two choices.

Theist--Theistic Agnostic--Agnostic--Atheistic Agnostic--Atheist.

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 19:32
A theist could reject anything he wants. But he cant reject my assertion that no God or Gods exist because (again!) I haven't made that assertion. So you see, no one is hiding behind an assertion, except those that make the claim. And BTW, Its up to them to provide evidence for that claim, it's not me that needs to disprove it, lack of evidence does that quite handily, thank you.

And its not a passive belief, I actively reject unsupported assertions all the the time. As does everyone else.

He could reject your assertion that his god does not exist.
Haven't you ever told someone their god doesn't exist?

Lone Wolf8634
05-14-2012, 19:57
He could reject your assertion that his god does not exist.
Haven't you ever told someone their god doesn't exist?

Not since I figured out that its impossible to defend the statement "No God or Gods exist".

Cavalry Doc
05-14-2012, 20:17
Not since I figured out that its impossible to defend the statement "No God or Gods exist".

That's a very reasonable approach.

Syclone538
05-14-2012, 21:31
...
It can be for someone not trying to dodge.
...

I do have sympathy for him not being able to answer the question, as there was a good 6-8 years that I couldn't either. Somewhere around 12-14 years old until about 20. I think it was just pascals wager that had me.

ksg0245
05-14-2012, 22:42
If you weren't trying to look for the answer you wanted me to give, why not simply ask if I believe any deity exists?

You WERE asked, directly, by more than one person, if you believe any deity exists; you haven't answered that question, instead dodging every time with your "I believe it's possible." So I was, more than once extremely explicit and clear, to avoid repeats of your answering a question not asked. You opted to again answer a question not asked.

I now put the odds at 1:1 you dodging every time you're asked if you believe any deity exists.

There are certain conclusions can be drawn from that.

The honest answer is that I believe it is possible that a deity existed or exists.

You aren't stupid; you know that isn't answer to the question asked. Because it might wreck your "atheism is a religion" argument, though, you're forced to dodge. Religiously, one might say.

I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

Was the question "what do you believe is possible?"

I don't know the answer, and I do not believe it is necessary to know the answer.

How is it possible you don't know what you believe?

If I change my mind, I'll let you know.

I suspect not.

Theist--Theistic Agnostic--Agnostic--Atheistic Agnostic--Atheist.

The x-y axis has been displayed in a nice graphic for you more than once; "agnostic" isn't in the center.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 04:54
You WERE asked, directly, by more than one person, if you believe any deity exists; you haven't answered that question, instead dodging every time with your "I believe it's possible." So I was, more than once extremely explicit and clear, to avoid repeats of your answering a question not asked. You opted to again answer a question not asked.

I now put the odds at 1:1 you dodging every time you're asked if you believe any deity exists.

There are certain conclusions can be drawn from that.



You aren't stupid; you know that isn't answer to the question asked. Because it might wreck your "atheism is a religion" argument, though, you're forced to dodge. Religiously, one might say.



Was the question "what do you believe is possible?"



How is it possible you don't know what you believe?



I suspect not.



The x-y axis has been displayed in a nice graphic for you more than once; "agnostic" isn't in the center.

The x/y axis may be how you see things. But because someone drew up a pretty picture, does note mean that is the ONLY way to think about things.

You are irrationally demanding a yes or no answer to a question that I can not honestly answer with either of your only two acceptible responses.



Now, back to your dog, you haven't answered either. Will you dodge the question forever? Whether you have a dog or not is irrelevant, just answer the darn question, HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR DOG? YES OR NO! Should I make personal remarks about your integrity, the marital status of your parents at the time of your birth, and your intelligence in a vain attempt to get you to say what I want. Should I threaten to disregard all that you have said until you give me the digital answer I demand so I can further a dishonest and irrational attempt to malign you?


There is no digital switch on your question. On/Off, Black/White, aren't the only options.

Is there a god? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know.
Do I personally believe that a deity exists? I know that I believe it is possible. But I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed. I believe I am not committed one way or the other. That's not a dodge, it's something you personally find hard to accept.

So another question, why is it so hard to accept that people can have a neutral opinion on the subject? Do you really think it isn't possible?

void *
05-15-2012, 07:56
So another question, why is it so hard to accept that people can have a neutral opinion on the subject? Do you really think it isn't possible?


Because logically, if you really don't know either way, and you really have no opinion as to whether or not such a deity exists, you don't believe in that deity. People who believe can say "Yes" to the question. Everybody else is in the 'don't believe' bucket. This simple fact is, as far as I can tell, the entire reason you keep avoiding the question - you don't want to admit the actual answer. So instead you say you think it's possible, you think it's possible it's not, etc, when that was not the question you were asked.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 09:35
Because logically, if you really don't know either way, and you really have no opinion as to whether or not such a deity exists, you don't believe in that deity. People who believe can say "Yes" to the question. Everybody else is in the 'don't believe' bucket. This simple fact is, as far as I can tell, the entire reason you keep avoiding the question - you don't want to admit the actual answer. So instead you say you think it's possible, you think it's possible it's not, etc, when that was not the question you were asked.

But it is possibly a deity exists or existed, and I give equal weight to the possibility that no deity has ever existed. To me, the logical position is to wait to see if anything becomes evident in the future to sway me one way or the other. I'm not actively searching for that evidence either. I've got many more things to occupy my time. Believe it or not, that's where I land on the issue. If an honest answer is desired, that's it. If when I die, it all fades away into nothing, I probably won't be aware of it or care. If I am aware after death, I'll have a lot of questions, but will likely have problems accessing this account to let you know if I get any answers to them. I'm comfortable with that, even if others are not.

void *
05-15-2012, 09:38
But it is possibly a deity exists or existed, and I give equal weight to the possibility that no deity has ever existed. To me, the logical position is to wait to see if anything becomes evident in the future to sway me one way or the other.

Which is fine, but that does not change the fact that if you cannot truthfully answer "Yes" to the question "Do you believe", you are in a state where you do not believe.

series1811
05-15-2012, 09:50
A theist could reject anything he wants. But he cant reject my assertion that no God or Gods exist because (again!) I haven't made that assertion. So you see, no one is hiding behind an assertion, except those that make the claim. And BTW, Its up to them to provide evidence for that claim, it's not me that needs to disprove it, lack of evidence does that quite handily, thank you.

And its not a passive belief, I actively reject unsupported assertions all the the time. As does everyone else.

Yeah, but how often, do you post onto bulletin boards, over and over and over again, about how little those issues bother you? :whistling:

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 09:58
Which is fine, but that does not change the fact that if you cannot truthfully answer "Yes" to the question "Do you believe", you are in a state where you do not believe.

I also do not believe that deity does not exist. I simply don't know if it/him/her exist/existed or not.

A yes or no answer would be equally as dishonest.

It seems very simple to me.

void *
05-15-2012, 10:05
I also do not believe that deity does not exist.

Which does not mean you do believe the deity does exist, and falls squarely under "you do not believe a deity exists".

A yes or no answer is not dishonest. An agnostic as you define it can honestly answer "no" to the question "do you believe".

Pretending that a yes or no answer is dishonest, though, could certainly be viewed as dishonest.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 10:39
Which does not mean you do believe the deity does exist, and falls squarely under "you do not believe a deity exists".

A yes or no answer is not dishonest. An agnostic as you define it can honestly answer "no" to the question "do you believe".

Pretending that a yes or no answer is dishonest, though, could certainly be viewed as dishonest.

I think you are choosing to believe that I don't believe what I say I believe. We'll both have to get over that. There is middle ground there, whether you agree or not.

It is an interesting word trap though, but it's obviously an attempt for me to answer a question in a way I consider dishonest. Not all questions can be answered in a digital manner.

void *
05-15-2012, 11:04
I think you are choosing to believe that I don't believe what I say I believe.

No, I'm noting that you're stating that a "no" answer to the question "Do you believe there is one or more gods" is somehow dishonest, for a person who can truthfully state "I don't know" to the question "is there one or more gods".

Since it is obviously true that a person can give those answers to those two questions truthfully, I am noting that it is dishonest to state that a "no" answer to the first question would be dishonest.

*Why* you would be dishonest in that regard was not stated at all.

Given that, I think you are choosing to avoid the point by accusing me of something that is not true.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 11:56
No, I'm noting that you're stating that a "no" answer to the question "Do you believe there is one or more gods" is somehow dishonest, for a person who can truthfully state "I don't know" to the question "is there one or more gods".

Since it is obviously true that a person can give those answers to those two questions truthfully, I am noting that it is dishonest to state that a "no" answer to the first question would be dishonest.

*Why* you would be dishonest in that regard was not stated at all.

Given that, I think you are choosing to avoid the point by accusing me of something that is not true.

If I have wrongly assumed that, I appologize. I am also guilty of reading between the lines when I should not have.

Anyway, I'm pretty comfortable where I stand on what I believe or do not believe, even if it's confusing.

Lone Wolf8634
05-15-2012, 13:04
Yeah, but how often, do you post onto bulletin boards, over and over and over again, about how little those issues bother you? :whistling:

Depends on the issue. In the case of this thread, since I think Doc is misrepresenting what Atheism is, quite a bit. And I wouldn't say it bothers me as much as I strongly disagree with it.

And I don't post here because your religion bothers me. Believe it or not, when I post in RI its because the subject matter strongly interests me and I enjoy the debate.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 19:53
Depends on the issue. In the case of this thread, since I think Doc is misrepresenting what Atheism is, quite a bit. And I wouldn't say it bothers me as much as I strongly disagree with it.

And I don't post here because your religion bothers me. Believe it or not, when I post in RI its because the subject matter strongly interests me and I enjoy the debate.

Hmm? Same for me. And how many times have I been called a troll in this thread?


I lost count.

Lone Wolf8634
05-15-2012, 19:57
Hmm? Same for me. And how many times have I been called a troll in this thread?


I lost count.

Not by me.

Cavalry Doc
05-15-2012, 20:05
Not by me.

Fair enough. It's not a weakness to recognize the reasonable differences in opinion in others, even if we disagree.

ksg0245
05-15-2012, 20:48
The x/y axis may be how you see things. But because someone drew up a pretty picture, does note mean that is the ONLY way to think about things.

You are irrationally demanding a yes or no answer to a question that I can not honestly answer with either of your only two acceptible responses.

You could honestly answer it. You chose not to.


Now, back to your dog, you haven't answered either. Will you dodge the question forever? Whether you have a dog or not is irrelevant, just answer the darn question, HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR DOG? YES OR NO! Should I make personal remarks about your integrity, the marital status of your parents at the time of your birth, and your intelligence in a vain attempt to get you to say what I want. Should I threaten to disregard all that you have said until you give me the digital answer I demand so I can further a dishonest and irrational attempt to malign you?


There is no digital switch on your question. On/Off, Black/White, aren't the only options.

Some questions are binary. "Do you believe x?" is a binary question.

Is there a god?

The question wasn't "is there a god?"

Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know.
Do I personally believe that a deity exists?

That is the question. Note the phrasing. Notice how "I don't know" and "Do I personally believe that a deity exists?" address two different, but related, subjects.

I know that I believe it is possible. But I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

The question was neither "what do you believe is possible?" nor "what do you know?"

I believe I am not committed one way or the other.

The question wasn't "Are you committed to believing x?"

That's not a dodge, it's something you personally find hard to accept.

No, it's a dodge.

So another question, why is it so hard to accept that people can have a neutral opinion on the subject?

It isn't. That isn't the issue.

Do you really think it isn't possible?

Yes, I think it's possible. It's possible YOU have a neutral opinion regarding the existence of deities. But that wasn't the question asked.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 04:21
You could honestly answer it. You chose not to.



Some questions are binary. "Do you believe x?" is a binary question.



The question wasn't "is there a god?"



That is the question. Note the phrasing. Notice how "I don't know" and "Do I personally believe that a deity exists?" address two different, but related, subjects.



The question was neither "what do you believe is possible?" nor "what do you know?"



The question wasn't "Are you committed to believing x?"



No, it's a dodge.



It isn't. That isn't the issue.



Yes, I think it's possible. It's possible YOU have a neutral opinion regarding the existence of deities. But that wasn't the question asked.


Well, I'm not going to lie to you to satisfy your demand for a yea or no answer to a question that I don't feel would accurately answered in that way. When I think about whether or not a deity exists, it's equally possible that one does or did, as it is that none have ever existed. A yes answer would imply that I believed there was a deity but wasn't sure, a no answer would imply that I believed there were no deities, but wasn't sure. Neither of those is really true for me. It's like asking me if I believe that someone that I have never seen, don't recognize their name, never met or conversed with is an honest person. Well, since I don't know them at all, I could not tell you whether they are honest or not. If pressed for a yes or no answer on whether I believed they were honest, I'd decline. When you don't have knowledge of the truth of a matter, some form an opinion or belief anyway, and it is understandable they would think everyone has a belief on the subject. It is a choice to believe, I choose to believe I don't know the answer of whether there is or is not a god.

If it's not A it must be B.
If its not B it must be A.
But, what it the answer is really orange?


How's the dog?

void *
05-16-2012, 08:21
Well, I'm not going to lie to you to satisfy your demand for a yea or no answer to a question that I don't feel would accurately answered in that way.

As has been noted, you would not need to lie at all.

In a logical sense, since you claim that you do not know one way or another whether or not one or more gods exists, and you claim not to lean one way or another on the question of whether or not one or more gods exists, you *ought* to be able to simply and easily admit a logically consistent "no" to the question "do you believe one or more gods exist". If you are consistent with your other statements, that would be the truth.

So why would you hold that answering the question would be dishonest, which it is obviously not? I'm sure you'll avoid answering that, too.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 09:52
As has been noted, you would not need to lie at all.

In a logical sense, since you claim that you do not know one way or another whether or not one or more gods exists, and you claim not to lean one way or another on the question of whether or not one or more gods exists, you *ought* to be able to simply and easily admit a logically consistent "no" to the question "do you believe one or more gods exist". If you are consistent with your other statements, that would be the truth.

So why would you hold that answering the question would be dishonest, which it is obviously not? I'm sure you'll avoid answering that, too.

It's possible deities or a deity has existed, it's possible that none have ever existed. That's what I believe. Simple.

If I believed no deity had ever existed, I could answer no. If I believe a deity had existed, I could answer yes. I'm just not convinced one way or the other.

void *
05-16-2012, 10:00
It's possible deities or a deity has existed, it's possible that none have ever existed. That's what I believe. Simple.

And that logically implies that you cannot answer "Yes" to the question "Do you believe that a deities or a deity has or does exist".

Since only the people who can answer that question "Yes" are in the set of believers, you are, by your own statement, *not* in the set of believers. Therefore, your statement means you are in the set of nonbelievers, as there are only two sets here - those who believe, and can say "Yes", and everyone else, who by definition do not believe. Simple. Yet still, you refuse to give a simple answer to a simple question.

Syclone538
05-16-2012, 10:23
...
a no answer would imply that I believed there were no deities, but wasn't sure.
...

If you lack belief, and that seems to be the case as far as I can tell, then the answer is no, you do not believe.

I also lack belief, but put the odds of existence of any god much lower then you do.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 10:28
And that logically implies that you cannot answer "Yes" to the question "Do you believe that a deities or a deity has or does exist".

Since only the people who can answer that question "Yes" are in the set of believers, you are, by your own statement, *not* in the set of believers. Therefore, your statement means you are in the set of nonbelievers, as there are only two sets here - those who believe, and can say "Yes", and everyone else, who by definition do not believe. Simple. Yet still, you refuse to give a simple answer to a simple question.

And not having an absolute opinion is not possible?

I ate a donut this morning. Do you believe it had jelly in it?

I cannot tell you if it did or didn't, or even if I really ate a donut, but that's no reason for you not to believe one way or the other. So what do you believe? Did the donut have jelly in it or not?

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 10:37
If you lack belief, and that seems to be the case as far as I can tell, then the answer is no, you do not believe.

I also lack belief, but put the odds of existence of any god much lower then you do.

A more accurate description is that I lack a strongly held opinion on the specific question. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I still have the same clothes on today either way. Whether or not there was or is a deity or deities, doesn't factor into my decision making process.


I lack belief and disbelief in the existance or nonexistence of deities. Why pick sides when the evidence is admittedly inconclusive. This is the faith I have been talking about. Atheists seem to be choosing a system of belief based on faith. And considering the strong attachment to the arbitrarily acceptable answers, ardor seems to fit too.

Syclone538
05-16-2012, 11:08
A more accurate description is that I lack a strongly held opinion on the specific question. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I still have the same clothes on today either way. Whether or not there was or is a deity or deities, doesn't factor into my decision making process.
...

Accurate sure, but I wouldn't say more accurate.

...
I lack belief and disbelief in the existance or nonexistence of deities. Why pick sides when the evidence is admittedly inconclusive.
...

Lack of belief is disbelief. You can not lack belief and lack disbelief. Lack of belief / disbelief do not require belief in absence.

...
This is the faith I have been talking about. Atheists seem to be choosing a system of belief based on faith. And considering the strong attachment to the arbitrarily acceptable answers, ardor seems to fit too.

Faith in what? What system of belief?

As far as I can tell, you are atheist and agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 11:27
Accurate sure, but I wouldn't say more accurate.



Lack of belief is disbelief. You can not lack belief and lack disbelief. Lack of belief / disbelief do not require belief in absence.



Faith in what? What system of belief?

As far as I can tell, you are atheist and agnostic.


Disbelief is an action, not an absence of belief.


Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Seems to me that I am a middle of the road agnostic.

void *
05-16-2012, 11:28
And not having an absolute opinion is not possible?

I ate a donut this morning. Do you believe it had jelly in it?

I cannot tell you if it did or didn't, or even if I really ate a donut, but that's no reason for you not to believe one way or the other. So what do you believe? Did the donut have jelly in it or not?

Since I can't answer the question "Do you believe the donut had jelly in it" with "Yes", I will lack belief the donut had jelly in it until such time as you provide evidence for jelly.

Note that this does not imply that I believe the donut did *not* have jelly in it.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 13:39
Since I can't answer the question "Do you believe the donut had jelly in it" with "Yes", I will lack belief the donut had jelly in it until such time as you provide evidence for jelly.

Note that this does not imply that I believe the donut did *not* have jelly in it.

So, and I am asking, your answer to the question: "do you believe the donut I ate this morning had jelly in it?". Is no??

void *
05-16-2012, 13:43
So, and I am asking, your answer to the question: "do you believe the donut I ate this morning had jelly in it?". Is no??

You've provided no evidence that there was a donut. Why should I believe there was jelly? Even if you show that there was a donut, you've given no evidence of jelly. So, of course I don't currently believe there was jelly.

(I think that if you actually had a donut, it is reasonable for it to have had jelly, or not. But that position does not mean I can answer the statement "Do you believe the donut had jelly?" with "Yes". So, of course, the answer is "No". That answer would instantly change if you provided any evidence for a donut with jelly, which is precisely why the position of not believing in your donut jelly is not religious)

This, of course, is only because you are positing some sort of magic donut, where you can't tell me whether or not it had jelly. If you were to say "Hey, I ate a jelly donut this morning", I'd be perfectly willing to conditionally accept that statement as true, and if you were to say "Hey, I ate a donut with no jelly", I'd be perfectly willing to accept that statement as true. Mostly because it's well established that donuts, with or without jelly, are easy to obtain, and I can go verify the existence of donuts with jelly and without simply by going to a donut shop.

Gunhaver
05-16-2012, 14:50
You've provided no evidence that there was a donut. Why should I believe there was jelly? Even if you show that there was a donut, you've given no evidence of jelly. So, of course I don't currently believe there was jelly.



"I bought a donut and the dude gave me a receipt for the donut. It's a donut. I give you the dollar, you give me the donut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be required to prove that I bought a donut. I don't know, maybe like some skeptical friend or something? "'Hey man, don't even act like I didn't buy that donut. I have the documentation right here. Actually it must be at home in the file. Under D, for donut. "'.

Mitch Headburg

void *
05-16-2012, 14:54
Man, I wish he were still around telling jokes.

void *
05-16-2012, 16:19
And not having an absolute opinion is not possible?

In my view, having an absolute opinion is not possible for most posits when those posits relate to reality. So of course I am not saying that not having an absolute opinion is not possible - almost none of my opinions are absolute, they're all basically my judgement of the probability that a particular posit is true (excluding mathematical and logical facts that don't have to match reality to be "true", and noting that it's not an assignment of a specific probability number for every single posit).

Not that people don't have opinions that they would represent as absolute, but that those opinions have some level of uncertainty in a factual sense, whether that uncertainty is being acknowledged or not. I.E. if you tell me you are 100% sure that what you perceive is reality, that doesn't prove you won't wake up in a reality-simulation-pod and have to change your mind (or, I suppose, delude yourself into thinking that the simulation was real and the reality you woke up in is not).

Now consider that most of my opinions are not actually held with absolute certainty, and consider whether or not you can say the same about people with deeply held religious beliefs. If you can grok that, you will understand why people think you're being ridiculous when you claim atheism is a religion.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 16:39
You've provided no evidence that there was a donut. Why should I believe there was jelly? Even if you show that there was a donut, you've given no evidence of jelly. So, of course I don't currently believe there was jelly.

(I think that if you actually had a donut, it is reasonable for it to have had jelly, or not. But that position does not mean I can answer the statement "Do you believe the donut had jelly?" with "Yes". So, of course, the answer is "No". That answer would instantly change if you provided any evidence for a donut with jelly, which is precisely why the position of not believing in your donut jelly is not religious)

This, of course, is only because you are positing some sort of magic donut, where you can't tell me whether or not it had jelly. If you were to say "Hey, I ate a jelly donut this morning", I'd be perfectly willing to conditionally accept that statement as true, and if you were to say "Hey, I ate a donut with no jelly", I'd be perfectly willing to accept that statement as true. Mostly because it's well established that donuts, with or without jelly, are easy to obtain, and I can go verify the existence of donuts with jelly and without simply by going to a donut shop.


Whether a donut had jelly or not is a rather trivial matter, and most people would not form a system of beliefs off of believing whether it had jelly or not. I am curious how you came to believe the donut didn't have jelly. It seems to me that an answer closer to: "I don't have enough information to believe one way or the other" would have been much more logical.

But everyone has their own way of choosing their beliefs.

By the way, not that it matters, there was a donut, and it was a filled donut, but the reality of whether it was jelly or not should remain a secret. There was no way to know that with the initial information, and yet you somehow felt compelled to establish a belief based on an inconclusive amount of information, and with no proof either way.

Interesting. Not a slam at all, but would that qualify for "opinionated"? I think it's perfectly ok to accept that there are things I don't know, and just not make a judgement call and form a belief that it is one way or the other. Of course, some things are one way or the other. But if you don't know, you just don't know. If you can find out, do the research. If you don't have the equipment to find out, move on to the next task in your life.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 16:41
"I bought a donut and the dude gave me a receipt for the donut. It's a donut. I give you the dollar, you give me the donut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be required to prove that I bought a donut. I don't know, maybe like some skeptical friend or something? "'Hey man, don't even act like I didn't buy that donut. I have the documentation right here. Actually it must be at home in the file. Under D, for donut. "'.

Mitch Headburg

I'm a fan too. Funny guy.

void *
05-16-2012, 17:12
I am curious how you came to believe the donut didn't have jelly.

It's simple: You read my words and then pretend they mean something other than what I said.

In other words, I never said 'I believe the donut has no jelly'. I said 'I do not believe the donut has jelly'. There's a difference. I can say 'I don't believe the donut has jelly' and 'I don't believe the donut has no jelly' at the same time. You haven't given me reason enough to believe either statement. (Or, if you want to really get down to it, you've not given me enough information for a probability assessment for either statement).

You can say "I don't believe there is a god" and "I don't believe there is no god" at the same time, too, and if you're truly of the position that because you can't prove it, you can't believe either, you ought to be able to easily admit that you don't believe either statement.

In this case, I also don't believe you actually had a donut, and I do believe you didn't have a donut, because the fact that you've claimed you cannot tell me whether or not it has jelly goes against my practical experience. In other words, I don't believe you ate a donut for which you could not tell whether or not it had jelly in it. (Edit: To be strictly technical, I judge the probability as being very low that you consumed a donut for which you could not determine with an appropriate confidence level whether or not there was jelly. Whether you actually consumed a donut, I can't put a probability on.). Please provide a receipt. ;)

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 19:08
It's simple: You read my words and then pretend they mean something other than what I said.

In other words, I never said 'I believe the donut has no jelly'. I said 'I do not believe the donut has jelly'. There's a difference. I can say 'I don't believe the donut has jelly' and 'I don't believe the donut has no jelly' at the same time. You haven't given me reason enough to believe either statement. (Or, if you want to really get down to it, you've not given me enough information for a probability assessment for either statement).

You can say "I don't believe there is a god" and "I don't believe there is no god" at the same time, too, and if you're truly of the position that because you can't prove it, you can't believe either, you ought to be able to easily admit that you don't believe either statement.

In this case, I also don't believe you actually had a donut, and I do believe you didn't have a donut, because the fact that you've claimed you cannot tell me whether or not it has jelly goes against my practical experience. In other words, I don't believe you ate a donut for which you could not tell whether or not it had jelly in it. (Edit: To be strictly technical, I judge the probability as being very low that you consumed a donut for which you could not determine with an appropriate confidence level whether or not there was jelly. Whether you actually consumed a donut, I can't put a probability on.). Please provide a receipt. ;)

Still, you believe or don't believe in things you cannot prove, and I can tell you that some of them are incorrect. One of the Docs brought in donuts. I had one. It was a filled donut.

But either way, you've made up your mind to believe or not believe what you wish to believe or not believe, as opposed to reserving judgement until you had enough information to be even mostly sure.

Either way, reality is what it is. And while I see your surgical parsing of words makes sense to you, I still feel my answer is much more accurate and clearly stated the way I have stated it.

void *
05-16-2012, 20:00
Still, you believe or don't believe in things you cannot prove

Here's the thing, CD: Everyone Does. Even you, which you've admitted, if you remember. (If not, I'll remind you that you've effectively stated you believe you are perceiving reality, which means you do not believe that your perception is being simulated). That does not mean everyone believes the things they cannot prove with such "ardor and faith" that they are religious beliefs.

and I can tell you that some of them are incorrect. One of the Docs brought in donuts. I had one. It was a filled donut.

Oh, so you *could* tell me whether it had jelly, then, right? Because I was making my statement in the context of you having a donut for which you could not tell me whether or not it was jelly. Guess what? If you had a donut, and knew whether or not it was filled with jelly, then what I stated is in fact correct. Unless the words "I don't believe you ate a donut for which you could not tell whether or not it had jelly in it" means something different to you than the plain English reading I intended.

But yes, I would expect that there are things I believe at this very moment that are incorrect. I think that is true of everyone. I have no problem with that as long as I'm willing to change my mind once I see evidence - which is something that religions do not advocate. Religions advocate faith, not conditional acceptance or rejection, subject to futher information.

To sum up my thoughts: It is technically possible for an atheist to believe in the nonexistence of gods to the point where that person's views could be called religious. In my practical experience, I can't name a single atheist I know that actually does so, and calling "atheism" a religion in the same sense that "Catholicism" or "Christianity" or "Scientology" or "Hinduism" are religions is completely unjustified.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 20:19
Here's the thing, CD: Everyone Does. Even you, which you've admitted, if you remember. (If not, I'll remind you that you've effectively stated you believe you are perceiving reality, which means you do not believe that your perception is being simulated). That does not mean everyone believes the things they cannot prove with such "ardor and faith" that they are religious beliefs.



Oh, so you *could* tell me whether it had jelly, then, right? Because I was making my statement in the context of you having a donut for which you could not tell me whether or not it was jelly. Guess what? If you had a donut, and knew whether or not it was filled with jelly, then what I stated is in fact correct. Unless the words "I don't believe you ate a donut for which you could not tell whether or not it had jelly in it" means something different to you than the plain English reading I intended.

But yes, I would expect that there are things I believe at this very moment that are incorrect. I think that is true of everyone. I have no problem with that as long as I'm willing to change my mind once I see evidence - which is something that religions do not advocate. Religions advocate faith, not conditional acceptance or rejection, subject to futher information.

Guess there are several ways to split a hair.

http://anansquidy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dry-Hair-and-Split-Ends.gif

I also believe I am not perfect, not always consistent, and 100% comfortable with being a middle of the road agnostic. I'm also 100% comfortable with my answer to the question asked. It's the most accurate and honest answer I can give.

I'm also still comfortable classifying Atheism as a religion.

It was a nice diversion though.

void *
05-16-2012, 20:29
Eh, since you're back to the obvious trolls in response to me, I'll go back to pointing out that your posts are obviously trolls. (Hint: I wasn't splitting hairs. I was clear: "only because you are positing some sort of magic donut, where you can't tell me whether or not it had jelly", and "because the fact that you've claimed you cannot tell me whether or not it has jelly goes against my practical experience", "for which you could not tell whether or not it had jelly in it", etc. Posting up a picture of split hairs is the diversion. It kind of amuses me, because every time you do something like that, you offer up more evidence that you're just trolling)

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 20:43
Eh, since you're back to the obvious trolls in response to me, I'll go back to pointing out that your posts are obviously trolls. (Hint: I wasn't splitting hairs. I was clear: "only because you are positing some sort of magic donut, where you can't tell me whether or not it had jelly", and "because the fact that you've claimed you cannot tell me whether or not it has jelly goes against my practical experience", "for which you could not tell whether or not it had jelly in it", etc. Posting up a picture of split hairs is the diversion. It kind of amuses me, because every time you do something like that, you offer up more evidence that you're just trolling)

So are you. You are adamant that I should answer a question with a yes or no that I honestly feel is better explained in another way. I disagree with your assertion that a no answer would be more accurate. It would be what you might want me to say, but it would not be true and complete.

I can't tell you whether the donut had jelly, because it would spoil the surprise. And it's just an example about how people choose to believe, or not believe in stuff that they don't have enough evidence to truly know one way or the other is true or not.

If you want to believe it's possible that my senses are lying to me, and we are in the Matrix, That's OK with me. I'm fairly convinced I am what I am. I have a preponderance of evidence that I consider sufficient to hold that belief.

Whether or not there is or was a god? That's a pretty big question, with a pretty long timeline. It's different.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the sudden ardors of youth>
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

void *
05-16-2012, 20:53
So are you. You are adamant that I should answer a question with a yes or no that I honestly feel is better explained in another way.

I've stated that the question can be answered yes or no, without having to actively believe the opposite posit. ("I believe x" implies "I don't believe not x", but "I don't believe x" does not imply "I believe not x"). There's no logical reason for you to *not* answer it.

People have been pointing out that you're not actually answering the question. You can honestly feel that it's better explained another way all you want, but from here it looks a whole lot like you'd rather just avoid answering it.

I can't tell you whether the donut had jelly, because it would spoil the surprise.

That's not can't - that's "don't want to". Which is more evidence of trolling.

If you want to believe it's possible that my senses are lying to me, and we are in the Matrix, That's OK with me.

Well, not the matrix per se - but it *is* possible. That doesn't mean we should treat it as though it had any sort of high probability of actually being true, and I'll note that since you're wording it the way you are, you're deliberately choosing to ignore that I've said words to that effect before - which means, in effect, that the above quoted sentence is more trolling.

I'm fairly convinced I am what I am. I have a preponderance of evidence that I consider sufficient to hold that belief.

Yes, that gets back to the model of assigning probabilities.

Whether or not there is or was a god? That's a pretty big question, with a pretty long timeline. It's different.

It's not sufficiently different from any other posit to matter. I see a guy flying around in the sky with a hammer and shooting lightning at people? I'd change my assessment that it is highly unlikely that Thor exists. The same with any other claims of any other particular gods. Until such evidence arises, though, I'm content with the assessment that it's highly unlikely that deities exist, because I should expect the world and the universe to look a whole lot different if they actually did. (Edit: except, perhaps, for the Deist type "made it all, left it alone" type of deity.)

athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

So we're back, full circle, to where you're going to obstinately claim there's only one definition that applies, despite the fact that a very large portion of this thread was devoted to showing you other, perfectly accepted definitions, eh?

juggy4711
05-16-2012, 21:10
Disbelief is an action, not an absence of belief.


Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue...

And belief is not an action? Belief or disbelief they are both choices and if a choice isn't an act what is?

Religions require by definition a system of both faith and worship. I know you prefer the one that says faith and ardor but it is nothing but new speak.

I have complete trust and confidence that quantum mechanics accurately allows predictions at the sub atomic level and I am enthusiastic and passionate about it. Does that make QM a religion?

Lets take at face value that it requires faith to believe there is/are no God/Gods. What is the system? Where is the worship?

...Faith in what? What system of belief?...

That's a bingo.

Doc; out of the 1000's of religions name those that require no worship of something. Name those that are free from systematic belief structures.

Now name what one must systematically believe to be an atheist. Name what exactly it is atheists must worship.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 21:10
I've stated that the question can be answered yes or no, without having to actively believe the opposite posit. ("I believe x" implies "I don't believe not x", but "I don't believe x" does not imply "I believe not x"). There's no logical reason for you to *not* answer it.

People have been pointing out that you're not actually answering the question. You can honestly feel that it's better explained another way all you want, but from here it looks a whole lot like you'd rather just avoid answering it.



That's not can't - that's "don't want to". Which is more evidence of trolling.



Well, not the matrix per se - but it *is* possible. That doesn't mean we should treat it as though it had any sort of high probability of actually being true, and I'll note that since you're wording it the way you are, you're deliberately choosing to ignore that I've said words to that effect before - which means, in effect, that the above quoted sentence is more trolling.



Yes, that gets back to the model of assigning probabilities.



It's not sufficiently different from any other posit to matter. I see a guy flying around in the sky with a hammer and shooting lightning at people? I'd change my assessment that it is highly unlikely that Thor exists. The same with any other claims of any other particular gods. Until such evidence arises, though, I'm content with the assessment that it's highly unlikely that deities exist, because I should expect the world and the universe to look a whole lot different if they actually did.



So we're back, full circle, to where you're going to obstinately claim there's only one definition that applies, despite the fact that a very large portion of this thread was devoted to showing you other, perfectly accepted definitions, eh?

Oh no, there are several definitions of atheism and religion, but atheism is a religion, as defined. It does not fit all the definitions of course. But only one is needed.

Maybe I can be more clear, if I don't want to spoil the surprise, I can't tell you if the donut had jelly. But you are right, that is why I won't. As it would pretty much ruin the analogy.

I'm sure you choose to claim that it appears that I am avoiding the question, but I have answered it as honestly as I can. SEVERAL TIMES. You just want me to answer it in a way that I do not feel is forthright and honest. What I am avoiding is answering the way you want me too, for which I have explained the reason several times.


I understand why you have your position on belief or disbelief in deities, but I see it as a choice. I choose to not choose whether or not to believe in deities. I have no real evidence one way or the other. That seems most logical to me.

void *
05-16-2012, 21:18
Oh no, there are several definitions of atheism and religion, but atheism is a religion, as defined.

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Because there are several definitions of atheism, including a few used in philosophy, and some of them indicate nothing more than lack of belief in the idea that there are deities, rather than active belief in the idea that there are not deities. These definitions were posted in this thread long ago. I can't do anything about you choosing to ignore them, even when people indicate to you the specific definitions they are talking about *when they use the term*.

I mean, when someone directly tells you "I am using this accepted definition over here, and under that definition, there is no faith required", and you turn around and say "Your argument is with Merriam-Webster", do you really wonder why people view you as trolling? Especially when it had been pointed out that m-w itself *included specific definitions that did not meet the criteria you were demanding everyone had to use*?

Maybe I can be more clear, if I don't want to spoil the surprise, I can't tell you if the donut had jelly. But you are right, that is why I won't. As it would pretty much ruin the analogy.

Then you shouldn't call me "incorrect" when I clearly stated that I was speaking about a jelly donut for which you *really* could not tell me, right?

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 21:24
And belief is not an action? Belief or disbelief they are both choices and if a choice isn't an act what is?

Religions require by definition a system of both faith and worship. I know you prefer the one that says faith and ardor but it is nothing but new speak.

I have faith that quantum mechanics accurately allows predictions at the sub atomic level and I am enthusiastic and passionate about it. Does that make QM a religion?

Lets take at face value that it requires faith to believe there is/are no God/Gods. What is the system? Where is the worship?



That's a bingo.

Doc; out of the 1000's of religions name those that require no worship of something. Name those that are free from systematic belief structures.

Now name what one must systematically believe to be an atheist. Name what exactly it is atheists must worship.

Once you believe that there has never been a deity, is that the end of it? Do you believe you will be held accountable for your actions in an afterlife? Do you Believe that life was created? Do you believe in Prayer? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in a soul? One belief leads to another. Doesn't it? It's like a system.

Hmm.

sys·tem
noun \ˈsis-təm\
Definition of SYSTEM
1
: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: as a (1) : a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitational system> (2) : an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium <a thermodynamic system> b (1) : a group of body organs that together perform one or more vital functions <the digestive system> (2) : the body considered as a functional unit c : a group of related natural objects or forces <a river system> d : a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone system> <a heating system> <a highway system> <a computer system> e : a major division of rocks usually larger than a series and including all formed during a period or era f : a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice <the capitalist system>
2
: an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole <the Newtonian system of mechanics>
3
a : an organized or established procedure <the touch system of typing> b : a manner of classifying, symbolizing, or schematizing <a taxonomic system> <the decimal system>
4
: harmonious arrangement or pattern : order <bring system out of confusion — Ellen Glasgow>
5
: an organized society or social situation regarded as stultifying or oppressive : establishment 2 —usually used with the


I'll have to think about it, but at first glance, those in bold seem to fit.


Some atheists have meetings, organizations, web sites, agendas, rallies, and even meet near Houston for fellowship. Most religions are more structured, but I see no requirement that a structure be present.

void *
05-16-2012, 21:28
Some atheists have meetings, organizations, web sites, agendas, rallies, and even meet near Houston for fellowship. Most religions are more structured, but I see no requirement that a structure be present.

Yeah, and my wife goes to meetings about, reads websites about, and there are organizations for, knitting. Heck, she even meets with other knitters near Austin, "for fellowship" (and this is actually true, for certain definitions of fellowship).

Is it your contention that knitting is a religion?
Is it your contention that, say, somebody's HOA is a religion?

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 21:28
Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Because there are several definitions of atheism, including a few used in philosophy, and some of them indicate nothing more than lack of belief in the idea that there are deities, rather than active belief in the idea that there are not deities. These definitions were posted in this thread long ago. I can't do anything about you choosing to ignore them, even when people indicate to you the specific definitions they are talking about *when they use the term*.

I mean, when someone directly tells you "I am using this accepted definition over here, and under that definition, there is no faith required", and you turn around and say "Your argument is with Merriam-Webster", do you really wonder why people view you as trolling? Especially when it had been pointed out that m-w itself *included specific definitions that did not meet the criteria you were demanding everyone had to use*?



Then you shouldn't call me "incorrect" when I clearly stated that I was speaking about a jelly donut for which you *really* could not tell me, right?

I think people choose to call it trolling because it can be an uncomfortable thought. Especially for the more devout among the atheists, that believe it is their duty to proselytize and convert other people to their religion.

As an agnostic, that is odd. But the inability to see that there is no more intellectual integrity in the atheist than in the theist is fascinating. Both make a choice, and go with it. Some are downright rude about disagreeing with their chosen belief system too.

juggy4711
05-16-2012, 21:37
Oh no, there are several definitions of atheism and religion, but atheism is a religion, as defined. It does not fit all the definitions of course. But only one is needed...

Yeah only one. The one you that makes you feel superior and victorious. And there it is. It's a religion by the definition you choose to attribute to it. Not by the etymological roots but by the one you think wins you the argument. New Speak.

In the beginning I thought you might actually have a genuine philosophical difference on the matter but I started to suspect this motive. I asked the question but you would not answer as to why you chose this ridiculous line of reasoning. What did you have to gain from insisting that atheism was a religion? That statement makes it all clear.

Syclone538
05-16-2012, 21:45
...
I am curious how you came to believe the donut didn't have jelly.
...
There was no way to know that with the initial information, and yet you somehow felt compelled to establish a belief based on an inconclusive amount of information, and with no proof either way.
...

http://www.fans247.com/images/smilies/suicide7rs.gif

void *
05-16-2012, 21:55
I think people choose to call it trolling because it can be an uncomfortable thought.

I think people choose to call it trolling because your behavior appears to match known trolling behavior. That's certainly why *I'm* choosing to call it trolling. Perhaps, if you honestly think you're not trolling, you should reread the thread with that in mind, and maybe it will click.

But who am I kidding? The probability that you're not trolling, given an 83+ page thread, that you necro'd yourself after it had been dead for many months, and in which you have made arguments that weaken the definition of religion so much that there is no belief (or lack thereof) whatsoever that can be considered nonreligious if your argument is accepted? I think that probability is very, very low.

juggy4711
05-16-2012, 21:57
Once you believe that there has never been a deity, is that the end of it? Do you believe you will be held accountable for your actions in an afterlife? Do you Believe that life was created? Do you believe in Prayer? Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in a soul? One belief leads to another. Doesn't it? It's like a system.

Hmm. I'll have to think about it, but at first glance, those in bold seem to fit.


Some atheists have meetings, organizations, web sites, agendas, rallies, and even meet near Houston for fellowship. Most religions are more structured, but I see no requirement that a structure be present.

Well I believe in something I choose to call God. I do not believe I will be held accountable for my actions in an afterlife. I do believe life was created but was done so through what most atheists would call natural phenomenon. I do not believe in prayer, I believe in hope with a lot of work on my part to help my hopes come true. I do not believe in deity caused miracles though I do believe that sometimes outcomes with low probabilities occur. I do not believe in a soul. When the body shuts down for good I believe it is all over.

Yeah well put my system together and figure out how that connects in a religious sense.

...As an agnostic, that is odd. But the inability to see that there is no more intellectual integrity in the atheist than in the theist is fascinating. Both make a choice, and go with it. Some are downright rude about disagreeing with their chosen belief system too.

And that isn't rude? Once again with the high and mighty. I don't "know" either but what do you believe?.

Lone Wolf8634
05-17-2012, 02:16
I've decided my new religion is hunting. Denomination? Archery.

Hell, I already pursue it with passion and arder, I go to practice 3 times a week and attend numerous functions where people come from around the country to participate (we call them "Shoots"). I spend at least two weeks in active pursuit of my "Holy Grail", in this case, a perfect 7x7 bull elk. At least two other weeks involve chasing mule deer not to mention all time spent planning and scouting............

At least I don't have to tithe to anyone except the sporting goods store, and the Wy. Game & Fish Dep.

I got an idea for my first commandment...

Thou Shall Make a Clean Shot



















:rofl::tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 04:32
Well I believe in something I choose to call God. I do not believe I will be held accountable for my actions in an afterlife. I do believe life was created but was done so through what most atheists would call natural phenomenon. I do not believe in prayer, I believe in hope with a lot of work on my part to help my hopes come true. I do not believe in deity caused miracles though I do believe that sometimes outcomes with low probabilities occur. I do not believe in a soul. When the body shuts down for good I believe it is all over.

Yeah well put my system together and figure out how that connects in a religious sense.



And that isn't rude? Once again with the high and mighty. I don't "know" either but what do you believe?.

It's what you believe, and you probably do better because of your beliefs.

I wasn't intending to be insulting. Maybe intellectual integrity wasn't clear. First, I support anyone's religious belief. It's their business, and I believe the constitution was supposed to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Also, it was supposed to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. People can believe what they want.

But between atheists and theists, neither gets to claim better supporting evidence. Each chooses to believe what they believe. Neither is intellectually superior to the other to me. To me, they are different sides of the exact same coin.

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 04:40
I've decided my new religion is hunting. Denomination? Archery.

Hell, I already pursue it with passion and arder, I go to practice 3 times a week and attend numerous functions where people come from around the country to participate (we call them "Shoots"). I spend at least two weeks in active pursuit of my "Holy Grail", in this case, a perfect 7x7 bull elk. At least two other weeks involve chasing mule deer not to mention all time spent planning and scouting............

At least I don't have to tithe to anyone except the sporting goods store, and the Wy. Game & Fish Dep.

I got an idea for my first commandment...

Thou Shall Make a Clean Shot



















:rofl::tongueout:


That's cool if you want to think of it that way.

Personally, I love to hunt too. I prefer firearms, but have bought a crossbow to extend my deer season a bit. Archer season starts in August I think.

The difference for me is that it is not a fundamental belief, a foundation for how many important other beliefs are formed. Hunting can become overly consuming, and it is an important hobby to many, myself included, but I personally don't consider hobbies, sports, and other less profound things religions.

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 04:43
http://www.fans247.com/images/smilies/suicide7rs.gif

What if no one ever mentioned the possibility of a deity to you. You were just told what is, is, and has been for as long as has been known, live in the day, don't worry about the past.

Maybe you'd have no opinion on the subject. But once the possibility of a deity and creation are discussed, people tend to choose sides.

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 04:50
Yeah only one. The one you that makes you feel superior and victorious. And there it is. It's a religion by the definition you choose to attribute to it. Not by the etymological roots but by the one you think wins you the argument. New Speak.

In the beginning I thought you might actually have a genuine philosophical difference on the matter but I started to suspect this motive. I asked the question but you would not answer as to why you chose this ridiculous line of reasoning. What did you have to gain from insisting that atheism was a religion? That statement makes it all clear.

Oh, I'm just an average joe. I've had a bit of good luck, that's all. I've never been comfortable being called "sir". I've never forgotten what it's like to have to do without things, and I've never forgotten what it feels like to be a Private.

Same goes with this observation. It's been a while, but IIRC, the reason I started this thread was that an atheist started being rude to theists in the political forums. And it struck me, where does this guy get off?? He's got a belief system he can't prove either.

The irritation subsided quickly, and this became an interesting conversation without any harsh feelings on my part.

It's an observation. I'll admit to being stubborn, but I'm no better than anyone else. As far as creation and deities go, I believe what I have chosen to believe. It fits for me, and I'm comfortable with it.

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 04:54
Yeah, and my wife goes to meetings about, reads websites about, and there are organizations for, knitting. Heck, she even meets with other knitters near Austin, "for fellowship" (and this is actually true, for certain definitions of fellowship).

Is it your contention that knitting is a religion?
Is it your contention that, say, somebody's HOA is a religion?

It's my contention that a holy scroll, special candles, rituals etc, are not required for a belief to be religious. It was a response to your contention.

GreenDrake
05-17-2012, 05:10
Friends and I often joke about our "religion". We are avid fly fishermen and we talk of getting the "congregation" together to hit the river and partake in the Sunday worship. We call ourselves the Riverside Baptists. No reason why. We get our solitude standing thigh deep in cutthroat trout water casting dry flies to rising cutties. Our holy wine is whiskey, a slash is required before the first cast of the outing. I love my church and all its members.

void *
05-17-2012, 09:14
It's my contention that a holy scroll, special candles, rituals etc, are not required for a belief to be religious. It was a response to your contention.

Do you admit that none of the things you posted, such as meetings, having organization, web sites, agendas, rallies, etc, are sole indicators of religion, and are in fact not indicators of religion taken all together, since they apply to knitters, home owners associations, etc? (as well as noting that people can be religious *entirely without* organization, web sites, agendas, rallies, etc).

Also, nobody said you needed candles or rituals. You are again (in trollish fashion) writing as though the thread took a direction it did not take. Perhaps you should reread juggy's post. His point is that other than the single fact that atheists do not believe there are deities, nothing else is required, and rather than note that point, you posted a definition of systematic and a sentence that supposedly somehow implicates atheism as a religion but actually applies to pretty much anything, including my wife's knitting.

Syclone538
05-17-2012, 10:46
Still, you believe or don't believe in things you cannot prove,
...

Most people do not believe things they've seen no evidence for and obviously can't prove. You seem to think that is jumping to conclusions, while I think it is reserving judgment.

I was thinking we were making progress, especially when in GTPI you admitted to seeing someone elses point. But I guess I was wrong.


...
First, I support anyone's religious belief.
...

What about nonreligious lack of belief? You don't seem to think that exists.


...
It's their business, and I believe the constitution was supposed to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
...

But by your definition, everything is a religion, so it is impossible to be free from religion anyway.


...
But between atheists and theists, neither gets to claim better supporting evidence.
...

There can never be any evidence to disprove deities. If we tried, a theist could just say "that's how my deity decided to do it."

The burden of evidence is on those making a claim, not on those rejecting the claim.


...
Each chooses to believe what they believe.
...

I can't begin to describe how wrong this is to me. I believe or not believe based on what seems most likely to be true. I do not choose what I believe. I don't understand why or how anyone would.


...
Neither is intellectually superior to the other to me. To me, they are different sides of the exact same coin.

I would not call giving equal odds to the existence of anything that anyone makes up intellectually superior.

steveksux
05-17-2012, 19:57
I think people choose to call it trolling because your behavior appears to match known trolling behavior. That's certainly why *I'm* choosing to call it trolling. Perhaps, if you honestly think you're not trolling, you should reread the thread with that in mind, and maybe it will click.

But who am I kidding? The probability that you're not trolling, given an 83+ page thread, that you necro'd yourself after it had been dead for many months, and in which you have made arguments that weaken the definition of religion so much that there is no belief (or lack thereof) whatsoever that can be considered nonreligious if your argument is accepted? I think that probability is very, very low.
Just wanted to point out that I believe I was first one to figure out he was trolling.. I'm claiming credit.. :supergrin: I'm sure there's a M-W definition of trolling that can be suitably misrepresented for CD to claim he isn't.

Anyone that can quote a definition that lists atheism as the opposite of religion and claim that doesn't mean it can't also be a religion is a special kind of troll.

With that logic, the moon has an atmosphere, composed of a vacuum.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-17-2012, 20:13
Most people do not believe things they've seen no evidence for and obviously can't prove. You seem to think that is jumping to conclusions, while I think it is reserving judgment.

I was thinking we were making progress, especially when in GTPI you admitted to seeing someone elses point. But I guess I was wrong.




What about nonreligious lack of belief? You don't seem to think that exists.




But by your definition, everything is a religion, so it is impossible to be free from religion anyway.




There can never be any evidence to disprove deities. If we tried, a theist could just say "that's how my deity decided to do it."

The burden of evidence is on those making a claim, not on those rejecting the claim.




I can't begin to describe how wrong this is to me. I believe or not believe based on what seems most likely to be true. I do not choose what I believe. I don't understand why or how anyone would.




I would not call giving equal odds to the existence of anything that anyone makes up intellectually superior.

Just an observation. The non religious lack of belief does not lead one to believe there have never been deities.

juggy4711
05-17-2012, 20:53
It's what you believe, and you probably do better because of your beliefs.

I wasn't intending to be insulting. Maybe intellectual integrity wasn't clear. First, I support anyone's religious belief. It's their business, and I believe the constitution was supposed to guarantee freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Also, it was supposed to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion. People can believe what they want.

But between atheists and theists, neither gets to claim better supporting evidence. Each chooses to believe what they believe. Neither is intellectually superior to the other to me. To me, they are different sides of the exact same coin.

Oh, I'm just an average joe. I've had a bit of good luck, that's all. I've never been comfortable being called "sir". I've never forgotten what it's like to have to do without things, and I've never forgotten what it feels like to be a Private.

Same goes with this observation. It's been a while, but IIRC, the reason I started this thread was that an atheist started being rude to theists in the political forums. And it struck me, where does this guy get off?? He's got a belief system he can't prove either.

The irritation subsided quickly, and this became an interesting conversation without any harsh feelings on my part.

It's an observation. I'll admit to being stubborn, but I'm no better than anyone else. As far as creation and deities go, I believe what I have chosen to believe. It fits for me, and I'm comfortable with it.

Very diplomatic of you Doc and much more along the lines of what I would expect from you considering other threads/arguments/discussions or whatever the heck it is we are all actually doing here.

I apologize for the confrontational nature of my posts. I also believe in religious freedom but I can not tolerate religious claims to trump science. Only at the point where the issue is whether or not there is/are God/Gods am I willing to concede science and religion might as well be in a crap shoot.

The only thing I would continue to take issue with is your definition of religion. I would have less of a problem with the simile that atheism is believed in like a religion. But atheism is not a religion unless one ignores the traditional, etymological origin of the word religion and accepts definitions that came about much later, where the "like or as" was for some reason dropped.

Language is dangerously misused so, especially by those that do not share some of our same ideologies regarding liberty. Hence my reference to New Speak.

One last point. Atheism is not a belief system, it is a singular belief. Theism is not a belief system, it is a singular belief. Deism is not a belief system it is a singular belief. Agnosticism is a lack of belief either way.

Atheists do not believe in God

Theists believe there is a personal intervening God

Desists believe there is a non-personal, non-intervening God

Agnostics don't believe it's possible to believe correctly.

The only two that have religions associated with them are Theism and Deism. Theism and Deism unto themselves are not religions. Religions are all the extra stuff Theists and Deists justify by their belief. If an Agnostic or an Atheists insists on a belief structure beyond that, in order to qualify as such I would disagree with them with the same passion.

void *
05-18-2012, 00:17
Same goes with this observation. It's been a while, but IIRC, the reason I started this thread was that an atheist started being rude to theists in the political forums. And it struck me, where does this guy get off?? He's got a belief system he can't prove either.

You started this thread because you claimed atheism was a religion and I disagreed with you, and we got into a long back & forth about it. I do not remember whether or not there was some other atheist being rude. If you'd be so kind as to plainly state whether or not you are accusing me of being that rude atheist, I would appreciate clarification on that point, as the original thread is no longer accessible. From the first posts of this thread it is clear that it is a continuation of the discussion that you and I were having, people might reason that you are referring to me, and I flatly dispute that I was being 'rude'. If anyone was, you were among them, as it's pretty clear from the only post you quoted in that thread that you were making ad-homs accusing me of being a drug user.

(See post 8 in this thread, where CD quotes a post of mine from that thread, where I stated "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?")

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 09:18
You started this thread because you claimed atheism was a religion and I disagreed with you, and we got into a long back & forth about it. I do not remember whether or not there was some other atheist being rude. If you'd be so kind as to plainly state whether or not you are accusing me of being that rude atheist, I would appreciate clarification on that point, as the original thread is no longer accessible. From the first posts of this thread it is clear that it is a continuation of the discussion that you and I were having, people might reason that you are referring to me, and I flatly dispute that I was being 'rude'. If anyone was, you were among them, as it's pretty clear from the only post you quoted in that thread that you were making ad-homs accusing me of being a drug user.

(See post 8 in this thread, where CD quotes a post of mine from that thread, where I stated "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?")


Haven't looked at that, but after all this discussion, my opinion about many people have changed, the majority of that change was an improvement. There were a couple that I lost respect for, but you are not one of those.

I appologize for any previous bad behavior.

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 09:24
If you want to see my answer to your post, lets move this to the GT Religious Issues Forum.

See ya there. http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322


The whole "pixies" metaphor minimizes the gravity of the question at hand, and is likely something you've used before to mock the question.

Does God exist or not? You said in the other thread that you "believe" there is no god, but you have no proof.

Like it or not, that is faith.


Above is post number 8. Where is the drug reference?

void *
05-18-2012, 09:29
Above is post number 8. Where is the drug reference?


I am not referring to what you wrote in post 8. I am referring to your quote of my post from the other thread in post 8. My statement indicates that I asked you a question, and instead of answering, you made some sort of veiled reference accusing me of being a drug user.

In other words, in the other thread, you stated something that would lead me to respond with the statement "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?"

I can only infer that the "something" was a veiled accusation of drug use. That is well within your range of behavior given your postings in this thread. Since you apologize for it now, that's fine and I accept, I just want it to be clear that whichever person you decided to start responding to because they were rude, in that other, no longer available thread, it was not me.

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 09:44
I honestly cannot remember who it was. But I don't think they participated in this thread.

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 09:46
I am not referring to what you wrote in post 8. I am referring to your quote of my post from the other thread in post 8. My statement indicates that I asked you a question, and instead of answering, you made some sort of veiled reference accusing me of being a drug user.

In other words, in the other thread, you stated something that would lead me to respond with the statement "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?"

I can only infer that the "something" was a veiled accusation of drug use. That is well within your range of behavior given your postings in this thread. Since you apologize for it now, that's fine and I accept, I just want it to be clear that whichever person you decided to start responding to because they were rude, in that other, no longer available thread, it was not me.

I really don't remeber who it was now, but I think that poster didn't participate in this thread.


ETA: the "something" was the "pixie metaphor", not a drug reference at all. I'm not sure how one could use a substance to mock the question, but a metaphor could be used that way, much in the line as FSM, unicorns, pixies and other beings have been used.

void *
05-18-2012, 10:36
ETA: the "something" was the "pixie metaphor", not a drug reference at all. I'm not sure how one could use a substance to mock the question, but a metaphor could be used that way, much in the line as FSM, unicorns, pixies and other beings have been used.

Point being that you posted something that I took as a veiled accusation of drug use. *That* something was not the pixie metaphor, although the thread is gone so we can't go see exactly what it was. It could certainly have been (and likely was) part of a response to a post containing the pixie metaphor.

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 11:21
Point being that you posted something that I took as a veiled accusation of drug use. *That* something was not the pixie metaphor, although the thread is gone so we can't go see exactly what it was. It could certainly have been (and likely was) part of a response to a post containing the pixie metaphor.

Not to belabor the issue, but the something in that sentence is very clearly the metaphor, and not a veiled accusation of drug use. It makes no sense at all otherwise.

void *
05-18-2012, 11:22
Which sentence are you referring to?

Do you really believe that I would have posted a statement like "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?" in response to something that could not be taken as veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?


(Edited to add: In other words, you appear to be misunderstanding what I was referring to when I wrote "something".

We have:
Your post I was responding to (which is missing, as that thread is inaccessible)
My response to your post (which you quoted in post number 8).

*my response* contains the statement "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?". That statement was in response to something written in the missing post. That "something" cannot be the pixie metaphor, because I certainly did not write the pixie metaphor up in such a way as to indict myself for using drugs. That "something" might, for instance, be some sort of statement where you imply that because I made the pixie metaphor, you think I'm a drug user, but it *cannot* be the pixie metaphor itself. I'll also note that I wrote the sentence you quoted, if that's "the sentence" you're referring to, I know what I meant, and you'd be telling me that I didn't mean what I meant.)

Edited again to add: Hey, look, google /cached/ the original thread, and the statement I was responding to was in fact a statement made by you implying I was a drug user. Exact words:

You stated:
And I can dismiss your pixies, and it doesn't change anything other than my suspicions about your next random drug screen.

To which I responded:
So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YGZlckVQfTkJ:https://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D16269455+%22So+rather+than+actually+answering+the+questions,+so+you+can+gain+in sight+in+to+my+actual+perspective+-+I+get+back+veiled+statements+implying+you+think+I%27m+a+drug+user%3F%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us - I had to scroll up a little to find the relevant posts.

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 16:28
Which sentence are you referring to?

Do you really believe that I would have posted a statement like "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?" in response to something that could not be taken as veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?


(Edited to add: In other words, you appear to be misunderstanding what I was referring to when I wrote "something".

We have:
Your post I was responding to (which is missing, as that thread is inaccessible)
My response to your post (which you quoted in post number 8).

*my response* contains the statement "So rather than actually answering the questions, so you can gain insight in to my actual perspective - I get back veiled statements implying you think I'm a drug user?". That statement was in response to something written in the missing post. That "something" cannot be the pixie metaphor, because I certainly did not write the pixie metaphor up in such a way as to indict myself for using drugs. That "something" might, for instance, be some sort of statement where you imply that because I made the pixie metaphor, you think I'm a drug user, but it *cannot* be the pixie metaphor itself. I'll also note that I wrote the sentence you quoted, if that's "the sentence" you're referring to, I know what I meant, and you'd be telling me that I didn't mean what I meant.)

Edited again to add: Hey, look, google /cached/ the original thread, and the statement I was responding to was in fact a statement made by you implying I was a drug user. Exact words:

You stated:


To which I responded:


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YGZlckVQfTkJ:https://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php%3Fp%3D16269455+%22So+rather+than+actually+answering+the+questions,+so+you+can+gain+in sight+in+to+my+actual+perspective+-+I+get+back+veiled+statements+implying+you+think+I%27m+a+drug+user%3F%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us - I had to scroll up a little to find the relevant posts.

OK, now that is a drug reference. I see what you are pointing at. Consider it a joke in poor taste. And I apologize for that. I'm trying to be nicer in my old age.

void *
05-18-2012, 16:35
No worries. I wouldn't have worried about taking it beyond accepting your initial apology, except you appeared to not be quite clear on what exactly I was referring to when I wrote "something".

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 16:55
No worries. I wouldn't have worried about taking it beyond accepting your initial apology, except you appeared to not be quite clear on what exactly I was referring to when I wrote "something".

I didn't understand what you were talking about initially. I have no problem taking responsibility for what I do, but sometimes need to be reminded.

No hard feelings I hope. My apology is sincere.

Paul7
05-20-2012, 08:58
"I believe Islam is the worst religion with the possible exception of Communism."

English, on another thread.

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2012, 10:44
"I believe Islam is the worst religion with the possible exception of Communism."

English, on another thread.

Islam is quite tyrannical for many people. Not all, but enough to keep an eye on them. I think there have been worse ones, those that believed in human sacrifice i.e. Mayans were pretty bad too.


I think religion is a fine thing, if it leads one to treat his fellow man well, and not so much if it leads them to hurt one another. Many religions have had their bad times, Christianity is not without it's periods of bad behavior.

Ted: Bill, I think they want us to say something.
Bill: What should I say?
Ted: [shrugs] Make something up.
Bill: Be excellent to each other.
[room murmurs appreciatively]
Ted: Party on, dudes!

happyguy
06-23-2012, 19:18
Never really thought about this thread but it makes me wonder why so many people who claim they don't believe in God hang around a religious forum and enjoy each others fellowship.

Kind of sounds like a church to me.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

RC-RAMIE
06-24-2012, 00:15
Because certain religious people constantly misrepresent, distort and flat out lie about Atheist that somebody has to call them on their BS.


....

happyguy
06-24-2012, 17:31
Because certain religious people constantly misrepresent, distort and flat out lie about Atheist that somebody has to call them on their BS.


....

Amen

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Bren
06-24-2012, 19:23
I've been having a discussion with a fellow about his religion. He is an atheist, or at least he claims to be.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16262611&posted=1#post16262611

He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

So, when it is pointed out that he has "Faith" that he is right, and that his view of the universe is right. As devout as any other religious fellow that I've run across.


Just to make sure I am being clear about my own beliefs, I am unsure, I'm an agnostic. I see evidence in nature and in man that both makes me believe that there may be a God, and there may not be one, or at least it may be difficult to know which one is the right one.

Apparently it fits your description if you twist a lack of belief into a belief.

Your friend "acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief" which seems to indicate that he is actually an atheist - one who sees no evidence on which to base a belief that any gods or supernatural religious being sexist (not just your god, but all of them) and therefore does not have such a belief.

You make the positive claim that a god exists - if that claim was valid, you could simply show your friend the evidence on which you base it and you win the debate. There's the problem that forces you to play with words so you can make yourself feel better about having nothing to back up your beliefs.

That's why the rest of us find christians frustrating and irritating. If they choose to have "faith" that the sky is green, no amount of evidence will cause them to admit otherwise.,..they'll just accuse you of having "faith" in what you see. The irony of insulting atheists by claiming atheists have "faith" and atheism is a "religion" seems to be lost on you.

Woofie
06-24-2012, 20:14
This thread is like a zombie with a kevlar helmet.

Harper
06-24-2012, 20:27
This seems like a really simple thing.

"I don't believe in God" is a lack of belief and entails no faith.

"I believe there is no God" is a positive assertion and entails evidence or faith.

However having faith in something does not make it a religion. Anyways, having 'faith' that no God exist does not match any definition of religion I've read.

You could attempt to make a case that many atheists reason as though they were part of a religion but you can clearly see atheism itself is not a religion once you know what the definitions of the words in title are.

Gunhaver
06-25-2012, 01:11
This thread is like a zombie with a kevlar helmet.

Ooooh, time for a new sig line. :rofl:

chickenwing
06-25-2012, 05:26
This thread is like a zombie with a kevlar helmet.

:rofl:


http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/2029-kill-it-with-fire.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 16:37
Because certain religious people constantly misrepresent, distort and flat out lie about Atheist that somebody has to call them on their BS.


....

It was an agnostic that brought up the obvious concept. By definition, and in Spirit, it fits, at least for those that are atheists by definition, and not mislabeled atheistic agnostics.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 16:40
This seems like a really simple thing.

"I don't believe in God" is a lack of belief and entails no faith.

"I believe there is no God" is a positive assertion and entails evidence or faith.

However having faith in something does not make it a religion. Anyways, having 'faith' that no God exist does not match any definition of religion I've read.

You could attempt to make a case that many atheists reason as though they were part of a religion but you can clearly see atheism itself is not a religion once you know what the definitions of the words in title are.

Here, I can help you out with that. Merriam-Websters definitions.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the sudden ardors of youth>
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It all fits. It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. The english language is full of interesting quirks.

The ones that are devout about it, tend to proselytize at least as aggressively as any Jehovah's Witness I've ever met that their faith that there is, and never has been a deity is the one true faith.

It's all rather simple. The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 16:41
Ooooh, time for a new sig line. :rofl:

Thanks for letting me know that there were questions over here for me to answer. I had forgotten about this thread until you reminded me of it today.

:wavey:

RC-RAMIE
07-02-2012, 17:06
It was an agnostic that brought up the obvious concept. By definition, and in Spirit, it fits, at least for those that are atheists by definition, and not mislabeled atheistic agnostics.

:wavey:

The question was a religion forum not this thread. No atheist here agree with your definition.


....

ksg0245
07-02-2012, 17:19
Here, I can help you out with that. Merriam-Websters definitions.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the sudden ardors of youth>
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It all fits. It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. The english language is full of interesting quirks.

The ones that are devout about it, tend to proselytize at least as aggressively as any Jehovah's Witness I've ever met that their faith that there is, and never has been a deity is the one true faith.

It's all rather simple. The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?

It's simple: because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum by the people you're presuming to define with your equivocating and goal-posting moving, you're wrong. Why would anyone accept a definition of themselves they know is wrong?

How is it you keep omitting the parts of the definition of the term atheist that actual atheists have repeatedly told you are the ones that actually apply?

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 17:46
The question was a religion forum not this thread. No atheist here agree with your definition.


....

Actually, a few have. Go back and check, they are in there somewhere. Only some have not. More than likely, the ones that agree with me aren't driven to post here. For them, it's not so hard to admit, so the thread, in the context of the title isn't too interesting.


It's not MY definition, it's Merriam-Webster's definition. Lot's of places of higher learning use Merriam-Webster.

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 17:47
It's simple: because, as has been pointed out ad nauseum by the people you're presuming to define with your equivocating and goal-posting moving, you're wrong. Why would anyone accept a definition of themselves they know is wrong?

How is it you keep omitting the parts of the definition of the term atheist that actual atheists have repeatedly told you are the ones that actually apply?

The definitions are correct. Perhaps the labels you are choosing for yourself are incorrect?


I included the entire definitions. Including the sections that obviously don't apply. But all it takes for correct usage, is for one of the definitions to be correct. That's how American English works.

I was done with this thread, Gunhaver sent me a secret message to come back, said you guys missed me.

Gunhaver
07-02-2012, 18:24
Gunhaver sent me a secret message to come back

Nothing to see here people. Move along. :wavey:

Might I suggest, http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1430372

ksg0245
07-02-2012, 19:41
The definitions are correct.

Sure. One is how theists such as yourself need to define atheists, and the other is how atheists actual define themselves.

Perhaps the labels you are choosing for yourself are incorrect?

Nope; your error has been demonstrated, with citations.

I included the entire definitions. Including the sections that obviously don't apply.

Yes, this time you included the parts you wish didn't apply. Bravo, but oops.

But all it takes for correct usage, is for one of the definitions to be correct.

Sure, if all you're doing is equivocating.

That's how American English works.

Oops, no. You don't get to misdefine others based on your religious need.

I was done with this thread, Gunhaver sent me a secret message to come back, said you guys missed me.

Liar.

IhRedrider
07-02-2012, 19:52
Shame on you Doc, for using reference material to back up your position, that's just uncalled for. You're just suppose to keep yelling the same thing over and over regardless if it is logical or reasonable. Now go back and try it again.

steveksux
07-02-2012, 20:08
Here, I can help you out with that. Merriam-Websters definitions.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the sudden ardors of youth>
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Conveniently left out are the examples in the same definition linked.
Examples of RELIGION

Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religionClearly, some of these "religions" are not like the others, and refer to a completely different connotation of the word.

It's all rather simple.Of course it is. Religion consisting of ardor and faith minus the supernatural leads to hockey, politics, football, and of course atheism. The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?That's what we'd all like to know.

Ask not for whom the troll trolls, he trolls for thee.

Randy

Gunhaver
07-02-2012, 20:22
:rofl:

steveksux
07-02-2012, 20:36
I have an assignment for Cavalry Doc. Switch to this forum rather than PI.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/bartsimpson.gif

Randy

Gunhaver
07-02-2012, 20:56
So Doc, do you think they're calling you a troll because you disagree with them or because you're intentionally trolling?

Harper
07-02-2012, 21:13
Here, I can help you out with that. Merriam-Websters definitions.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the sudden ardors of youth>
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It all fits. It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. The english language is full of interesting quirks.

The ones that are devout about it, tend to proselytize at least as aggressively as any Jehovah's Witness I've ever met that their faith that there is, and never has been a deity is the one true faith.

It's all rather simple. The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?

Actually atheism is a ballet pose.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Belief: something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

Opinion: a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Attitude: a pose in which the dancer stands on one leg, the other bent behind.


Also many don't know that a screwdriver is a violin.
Screwdriver:a hand tool for turning a screw

Tool:any instrument of manual operation

Violin: the treble instrument of the family of modern bowed instruments, held nearly horizontal by the player's arm with the lower part supported against the collarbone or shoulder.

All definitions from dictionary.com


Or instead of word gymnastics you could just accept the antonym listed directly under the definition of religion.


P.S. Glad I could help you.

P.P.S. I mean that condescendingly.

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 21:21
1. Sure. One is how theists such as yourself need to define atheists, and the other is how atheists actual define themselves.



2. Nope; your error has been demonstrated, with citations.



3. Yes, this time you included the parts you wish didn't apply. Bravo, but oops.



4. Sure, if all you're doing is equivocating.



5. Oops, no. You don't get to misdefine others based on your religious need.



6. Liar.



A little tense this evening are we?

1. Quite plainly, I am a middle of the road agnostic. But respect both theists and atheists, so take no offense at being called either.

2. Well, errors have been alleged, but not proven. I have proven the definitions fit.

3. You are in error. I've used the same text file with the definitions for quite a while, and on NUMEROUS occasions included links to the definitions, and almost always showed that they were Merriam-Webster. Perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be? Sorry 'bout that. Get well soon.

4. I'm not sure if you understand how definitions work. There may be quite a few definitions, usually given numbers. Even when it is spelled the same, it can mean different things. Which is why "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically correct sentence. Neat huh?

5. Oh, I am just making observations.

6. Go check the thread he linked to. He brought it up before I ever came back here and noticed it was still active. I'd almost completely forgotten it existed until he reminded me.

Nothing to see here people. Move along. :wavey:

Might I suggest, http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1430372



Nice chatting with you again, I missed you too.

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 21:26
So Doc, do you think they're calling you a troll because you disagree with them or because you're intentionally trolling?

In this case, the answer is behind door number one. The choices you are giving are doors number 2 and 3.



.






.







.



.







.








.









.









.











.









http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/lookatthetitle.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 21:32
Actually atheism is a ballet pose.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Belief: something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

Opinion: a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Attitude: a pose in which the dancer stands on one leg, the other bent behind.


Also many don't know that a screwdriver is a violin.
Screwdriver:a hand tool for turning a screw

Tool:any instrument of manual operation

Violin: the treble instrument of the family of modern bowed instruments, held nearly horizontal by the player's arm with the lower part supported against the collarbone or shoulder.

All definitions from dictionary.com


Or instead of word gymnastics you could just accept the antonym listed directly under the definition of religion.


P.S. Glad I could help you.

P.P.S. I mean that condescendingly.

Well, you can lead a horse to water... (you being the horse in that cliche)

I'm OK if people have a different opinion. But in American English, the statement: "Atheism is a religion". Is true. By definition, and in spirit, as long as the atheist in question believes that no deity or deities have ever existed. There is no proof of that, none whatsoever, and it is a matter of faith.

I can live with that quite easily, as easily as I can live with you having a different opinion. And I say that with all due respect.

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 21:42
Shame on you Doc, for using reference material to back up your position, that's just uncalled for. You're just suppose to keep yelling the same thing over and over regardless if it is logical or reasonable. Now go back and try it again.

I've been telling people for quite some time now, their problem is not with me, it's with their language. It's not like I created English.

Honestly, It's understandable, most equate the elimination of the supernatural as a possibility to be a very logical position. But if a deity did create the universe, that would be the nature of things, and therefore not supernatural. None of us was here at the moment of creation, so don't really know whether or not a deity was here, and some people have some pretty strong feelings about the subject. Many atheists are (what they consider) VERY anti-religion. It is uncomfortable to point out that those that believe that no deity has ever existed, have also made an assumption about how things began, and that is a matter of faith for them.

It's good to think about what you think you believe, and to question it once in a while, maybe even examine it from a different perspective. It's a healthy logic exercise.

Thanks for the kind words.

:wavey:

Harper
07-02-2012, 21:53
I'm OK if people have a different opinion. But in American English, the statement: "Atheism is a religion". Is true. By definition, and in spirit, as long as the atheist in question believes that no deity or deities have ever existed. There is no proof of that, none whatsoever, and it is a matter of faith.



Well the people who write Merriam-Webster disagree with your opinion.

Walt_NC
07-02-2012, 21:55
Actually atheism is a ballet pose.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

Belief: something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

Opinion: a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

Attitude: a pose in which the dancer stands on one leg, the other bent behind.


Also many don't know that a screwdriver is a violin.
Screwdriver:a hand tool for turning a screw

Tool:any instrument of manual operation

Violin: the treble instrument of the family of modern bowed instruments, held nearly horizontal by the player's arm with the lower part supported against the collarbone or shoulder.

All definitions from dictionary.com


Or instead of word gymnastics you could just accept the antonym listed directly under the definition of religion.


P.S. Glad I could help you.

P.P.S. I mean that condescendingly.

Awesome. Bonus points for not using the "stamp collecting" analogy.

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 22:12
Well the people who write Merriam-Webster disagree with your opinion.

Show me that the definitions don't work. I've shown you where they do. Your little trip didn't disprove that atheism is a religion.

Pay special attention.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It is that. and It's that simple.


I've had this conversation several times. It usually ends in people leaving after hurling a lot of insults. But I'm willing to help you anyway.

RC-RAMIE
07-02-2012, 22:20
Show me that the definitions don't work. I've shown you where they do. Your little trip didn't disprove that atheism is a religion.

Pay special attention.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It is that. and It's that simple.


I've had this conversation several times. It usually ends in people leaving after hurling a lot of insults. But I'm willing to help you anyway.

Which fits atheism in your view because I can't find one and I'm a atheist. Bang your head on a wall for a hour and see if you don't hurl some cuss words and insults around.


....

Harper
07-02-2012, 22:59
Show me that the definitions don't work. I've shown you where they do. Your little trip didn't disprove that atheism is a religion.


Yep but it shows how misappropriating definitions enough times dilutes the original meaning.

Pay special attention.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Atheism by definition does not entail a set of 'beliefs held to with ardor' which is necessary since ardor and faith are joined by a conjunctive logical operator("and") and are integral to the definition.

So definition 4 doesn't fit. Let's pretend it did though. This is a very broad definition of the word religion and doesn't match up to how Christianity fits the definition of religion. Christianity fits most definitions of Religion not just one less common broad definition.

Harper
07-02-2012, 23:01
Also let's say atheism did fit definition 4. What's your point?

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 04:37
Also let's say atheism did fit definition 4. What's your point?

Not much other than to ask why that is so hard to admit.

All this time, I've gotten plenty of denials, insults, questions about the marital status of my parents at the time of my birth, but not one explanaition.

From my perspective, I see two groups of people fighting over a small but profound fact of existance, and neither has a shred of proof that they are correct, both have faith, one side claims moral superiority, the other claims intellectual superiority. It's all rather silly.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 04:44
Yep but it shows how misappropriating definitions enough times dilutes the original meaning.



Atheism by definition does not entail a set of 'beliefs held to with ardor' which is necessary since ardor and faith are joined by a conjunctive logical operator("and") and are integral to the definition.

So definition 4 doesn't fit. Let's pretend it did though. This is a very broad definition of the word religion and doesn't match up to how Christianity fits the definition of religion. Christianity fits most definitions of Religion not just one less common broad definition.

Have you told an atheist that he must believe in possibility of creation because of [enter issue unexplained by theory of evolution].

Creation is not considered by devout atheists as a possibility, and you will see an illustration of ardor. Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Bren
07-03-2012, 04:56
Have you told an atheist that he must believe in possibility of creation because of [enter issue unexplained by theory of evolution].

Creation is not considered by devout atheists as a possibility, and you will see an illustration of ardor. Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Creation is not considered a possibility because there is absolutely no evidence that it is real. The list of things that are not real is infinite and the default position is that those things do not exist unless there is positive evidence for them. "We don't know, so a god/gods did it" contains no evidentiary premise.

Therefore, god, creation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Dragon in my garage are all equally likely, since they are all supported by no evidence, beyond somebody saying "this is true."

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, so any rational person, including atheists, will believe in creation when there is evidence for it that supports such a belief.

ksg0245
07-03-2012, 05:35
A little tense this evening are we?

Nope. Why would you think that?

1. Quite plainly, I am a middle of the road agnostic.

Quite plainly, you also misuse the term "agnostic," which is amusing because you repeatedly claimed to be attempting to use language precisely.

But respect both theists and atheists, so take no offense at being called either.

That explains the condescension towards atheists, and the need to tell them what they REALLY believe.

2. Well, errors have been alleged, but not proven.

No, they've been proved. To quote you, "Perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be? Sorry 'bout that. Get well soon."

"I'm not sure if you understand how definitions work. There may be quite a few definitions, usually given numbers. Even when it is spelled the same, it can mean different things."

I have proven the definitions fit.

Well, at least you've proven you can equivocate endlessly.

3. You are in error.

Sometimes, but not in this instance.

I've used the same text file with the definitions for quite a while, and on NUMEROUS occasions included links to the definitions, and almost always showed that they were Merriam-Webster.

And yet,

"athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity"

Of course, in your world, opposites are equivalent, so disbelief is belief.

"dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue "

Which, in your "opposites are equivalent" world, means rejecting something as untrue must be equivalent to accepting something as true.

"doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief"

Atheism isn't a "system of belief" or "branch of knowledge" despite your need it to be.

Perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be? Sorry 'bout that. Get well soon.

That's the respect you claim to have? Bravo.

4. I'm not sure if you understand how definitions work. There may be quite a few definitions, usually given numbers. Even when it is spelled the same, it can mean different things. Which is why "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a grammatically correct sentence. Neat huh?

Again, opposites aren't equivalent; condescension isn't respect. That's what you're going for, though.

5. Oh, I am just making observations.

No, you're trolling. I love trolls. They're so trollish.

6. Go check the thread he linked to. He brought it up before I ever came back here and noticed it was still active. I'd almost completely forgotten it existed until he reminded me.

Apparently you did forget it; there is no mention there in that link that I can see of this thread, or a "secret message" to come back to it.

Or, more likely, you're lying.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying
2lying adj
: marked by or containing falsehoods : false <a lying account of the accident>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Synonym Discussion of LIE

lie, prevaricate, equivocate, palter, fib mean to tell an untruth. lie is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. prevaricate softens the bluntness of lie by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. equivocate implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>

Looks like the definition fits.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 06:12
Creation is not considered a possibility because there is absolutely no evidence that it is real. The list of things that are not real is infinite and the default position is that those things do not exist unless there is positive evidence for them. "We don't know, so a god/gods did it" contains no evidentiary premise.

Therefore, god, creation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Dragon in my garage are all equally likely, since they are all supported by no evidence, beyond somebody saying "this is true."

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, so any rational person, including atheists, will believe in creation when there is evidence for it that supports such a belief.

I happen to know plenty of very rational people that choose to believe in a deity. It's a choice. I choose to not make a decision on that point. The order and complexity of life at leave open the possibility that there is an inteligent design, which would make it possible that there was a designer. There are many structures in the anatomy of numerous animals where an intermediate structure would not operate, nor would that intermediate nonoperating structure lead to greater chances if survival. There are holes in the theory that are yet unexplained. I've not seen a shred of evidence that proves no deity has ever existed either. I respect the fact that people have chosen to believe one way or the other, with each side having faith that they must be correct in their assumption/belief on the matter.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 06:19
Nope. Why would you think that?



Quite plainly, you also misuse the term "agnostic," which is amusing because you repeatedly claimed to be attempting to use language precisely.



That explains the condescension towards atheists, and the need to tell them what they REALLY believe.



No, they've been proved. To quote you, "Perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be? Sorry 'bout that. Get well soon."

"I'm not sure if you understand how definitions work. There may be quite a few definitions, usually given numbers. Even when it is spelled the same, it can mean different things."



Well, at least you've proven you can equivocate endlessly.



Sometimes, but not in this instance.



And yet,

"athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity"

Of course, in your world, opposites are equivalent, so disbelief is belief.

"dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue "

Which, in your "opposites are equivalent" world, means rejecting something as untrue must be equivalent to accepting something as true.

"doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief"

Atheism isn't a "system of belief" or "branch of knowledge" despite your need it to be.



That's the respect you claim to have? Bravo.



Again, opposites aren't equivalent; condescension isn't respect. That's what you're going for, though.



No, you're trolling. I love trolls. They're so trollish.



Apparently you did forget it; there is no mention there in that link that I can see of this thread, or a "secret message" to come back to it.

Or, more likely, you're lying.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lying
2lying adj
: marked by or containing falsehoods : false <a lying account of the accident>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Synonym Discussion of LIE

lie, prevaricate, equivocate, palter, fib mean to tell an untruth. lie is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. prevaricate softens the bluntness of lie by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. equivocate implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>

Looks like the definition fits.

Hey, you know what, I made a mistake. Here is gunhaver's quote that reminded me to check back in.


Do Marxists vote republican about 75% of the time and talk people into buying guns? You guys sure have fun with your labels. So you're cool with me popping up in any old thread and saying, "Hey Doc, remember that time you went on for 89 pages about how atheism was a religion because Websters dictionary said so and you couldn't wrap your head around the concept that it isn't and everyone was just wishing the thread would die but you wouldn't let it? Ha! What were you thinking? Good times man."

Of course I never would because that would be kinda D-baggish of me.

But I should have known better. I've been here long enough to know the drill. Express a difference of political opinion and get descended upon by a pack of hyenas. I wonder how many more members GT would have if that weren't the case. Wonder how much more money Eric would make.


Perhaps you've heard a saying along the lines of that you have to give respect in order to receive it, then again, perhaps not. If no one posts in the thread, I won't bump it for bumpings sake.
No one that I am aware of has been forced to post here, it's purely voluntary barring some individual compulsion. Trolls tend to try to squash or interfere in debate on Internet forums, sort of like you are doing. If you feel uncomfortable discussing this issue, you have my permission to ignore the thread. No hard feelings.

:wavey:

Harper
07-03-2012, 07:03
Creation is not considered by devout atheists as a possibility, and you will see an illustration of ardor. Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism must be defined as being held with ardor, the definition must entail it for it to coincide with the #4 definition.

Even still, you continually commit a very basic fallacy in deductive reasoning. This is why you can't start linking words in definitions to equate other words.

This is what you're doing and it's wrong:

All Religion has faith(or any characteristic).
Atheism has faith.
Therefore atheism is religion.

More examples of fallacious arguments due to faulty deductive reasoning:

All birds have beaks.
That creature has a beak.
Therefore that creature is a bird.

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore Ray Charles is God.


Lion: any of several large wildcats

Tiger: a large Asian carnivorous mammal (Panthera tigris) of the cat family having a usually tawny coat transversely striped with black

Therefore a tiger is a lion.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 12:34
Atheism must be defined as being held with ardor, the definition must entail it for it to coincide with the #4 definition.

Even still, you continually commit a very basic fallacy in deductive reasoning. This is why you can't start linking words in definitions to equate other words.

This is what you're doing and it's wrong:

All Religion has faith(or any characteristic).
Atheism has faith.
Therefore atheism is religion.

More examples of fallacious arguments due to faulty deductive reasoning:

All birds have beaks.
That creature has a beak.
Therefore that creature is a bird.

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore Ray Charles is God.


Lion: any of several large wildcats

Tiger: a large Asian carnivorous mammal (Panthera tigris) of the cat family having a usually tawny coat transversely striped with black

Therefore a tiger is a lion.


Words can be used to clarify or deceive.

Atheists that truly believe there has been no deity or deities, have a system of belief held to with ardor and faith.

It is a perfect fit literally and in the spirit of the meaning of the words. I see no intellectual superiority from either theists or atheists since there is no evidence, and only assumptions that each side is claiming is the only possible right choice.

It's only my well thought out opinion. Some disagree, and that's ok if they do.

RC-RAMIE
07-03-2012, 14:28
Words can be used to clarify or deceive.

Atheists that truly believe there has been no deity or deities, have a system of belief held to with ardor and faith.

It is a perfect fit literally and in the spirit of the meaning of the words. I see no intellectual superiority from either theists or atheists since there is no evidence, and only assumptions that each side is claiming is the only possible right choice.

It's only my well thought out opinion. Some disagree, and that's ok if they do.

There is nothing held to with ardor and faith how many times does that have to pointed out.

Gunhaver
07-03-2012, 14:37
There is nothing held to with ardor and faith how many times does that have to pointed out.

I'm perfectly willing to believe in god when some evidence is presented. I think it would be an awesome scientific discovery. Those boys at CERN might come up with something soon...

Or they might give up and just decide to try tossing a bible into that big machine of theirs... see what happens.

Lone Wolf8634
07-03-2012, 16:37
Words can be used to clarify or deceive.

Well, we agree on that at least.

Atheists that truly believe there has been no deity or deities, have a system of belief held to with ardor and faith.

I gotta ask, is there a point at which this becomes an unreasonable definition?

When do you stop considering it a litmus test of religion?

I hate broccoli, I believe, with ardor and faith that it is a foul, disgusting non-food and should be stricken from the menus of all good people.

Is that a religion?

I dont believe in Humpty Dumpty, I'm positive that he's the product of someones imagination and that an egg could never talk, let alone lose it's balance and fall off a wall. And I'm thoroughly convinced that all the kings horses, and all the kings men didnt try to put him back together again.

Should I start the paperwork for my tax exempt status?

It is a perfect fit literally and in the spirit of the meaning of the words. I see no intellectual superiority from either theists or atheists since there is no evidence, and only assumptions that each side is claiming is the only possible right choice.

Actually, this is correct, there is no evidence. Hence the disbelief of Atheists.



It's only my well thought out opinion. Some disagree, and that's ok if they do.

Last time I checked, you dont get to decide if your arguments are well thought out, thats for others to confirm.

According to what I've read here, the general consensus among the Atheists is : Not so much.

Lone Wolf8634
07-03-2012, 16:48
Hmmm, since we're playing with definitions why dont we try antonyms?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/religion

So how can something be the antithesis of something else, yet still be the same?:dunno:

I won't accuse you of trolling, but I do think you take a certain delight in yanking some chains.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 17:47
Hmmm, since we're playing with definitions why dont we try antonyms?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/religion

So how can something be the antithesis of something else, yet still be the same?:dunno:

I won't accuse you of trolling, but I do think you take a certain delight in yanking some chains.

The discussion is enlightening. To answer your question, it is possible for a word to have opposite meanings, they are called autoantonyms. The English language is quirky.

steveksux
07-03-2012, 19:47
Why is it so hard for Cavalry Doc to admit he's a habitual liar? He lies consistently, repeatedly....








Unless he claims he sleeps standing up. Of course, in that case he'd also be a liar.

What was that about if any of the definitions fit... where did I hear that?

Randy

steveksux
07-03-2012, 20:55
Here's the deal. Let me break it down for everyone.

Definition1,2
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Example: There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

No conflict, nobody has any qualms about admitting that Buddhism is a religion as a result.

Definition4:

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Examples:
Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religion.
Food is religion in this house.

Nobody has much of an issue saying atheism is a religion like hockey is a religion, or like politics is a religion to him.

That's not what CD is saying. He's saying atheism is a religion like Christianity.

The problem is he's crossing the definitions as if they're interchangeable, and when the examples are used to display how patently stupid that argument is, he argues you can't equate the examples. Suddenly football isn't "That" kind of religion like Christianity. He's repeatedly denied that atheism is a religion like football or hockey.

That's the misrepresentation. If the definitions are interchangeable, the examples are too. The examples prove the definitions are not interchangeable, they refer to distinctly different connotations of the word "religion", and therefore using defintion 4 to equate things defined by definition 1 is a clear, and remarkably clumsy lie.

the real question is "Why is it so hard for Cavalry Doc to admit that Atheism is a religion like hockey to Canadians?"

There's only 2 answers. He's not smart enough to understand the simple definition in Merriam-Websters. Or he's been trolling his ass off for months in this thread.

He's clearly not stupid. Well, perhaps if he genuinely believed he's fooling anyone, but that's obviously not the case.

Anyone have any other alternative answers? I'm all ears. Make your case.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 20:59
There is nothing held to with ardor and faith how many times does that have to pointed out.

For the ones that simply lack belief, you are probably correct, they do not have ardor. I tend to think of them as really mislabeled atheistic agnostics. But I only believe that because in American English, an atheist is one who believes that there is no deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist). This many pages in, I think both ardor and faith is evident in many that are claiming it is not there.

Just an observation.

Harper
07-03-2012, 21:03
Atheists that truly believe there has been no deity or deities, have a system of belief held to with ardor and faith.



No, truly believing something doesn't entail that it is held with ardor. I truly believe the indefinite integral of cos(x) is sin(x)+c but in no way is that belief filled ardor by any definition of the word.

Also as I noted before, your argument commits a fallacy of deductive reasoning even if your conclusion was true. It simply does not follow that all beliefs held with ardor and faith are religions as Lone Wolf8634 pointed out.

This is the last thing I'll say. Even if we accepted that atheism is a 'religion' in the sense of "a belief held to with ardor and faith" this still doesn't mean that it is a religion in the sense of the other definitions of religion like Christianity is. It's like arguing that couponing is a science because one of the definitions is...
"Science : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>"
Ok, that's cute but it has nothing to do with science in the same sense as chemistry is a science.
So if one were to concede your silly notion all you have done is played an annoying meaningless word game.

Harper
07-03-2012, 21:09
There's only 2 answers. He's not smart enough to understand the simple definition in Merriam-Websters. Or he's been trolling his ass off for months in this thread.

He's clearly not stupid. Well, perhaps if he genuinely believed he's fooling anyone, but that's obviously not the case.

Anyone have any other alternative answers? I'm all ears. Make your case.



I think he realized he's wrong and is just stubborn. Now he's doing his best to contort his way out.


Good illustrations of the argument, btw.

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 21:15
No, truly believing something doesn't entail that it is held with ardor. I truly believe the indefinite integral of cos(x) is sin(x)+c but in no way is that belief filled ardor by any definition of the word.

Also as I noted before, your argument commits a fallacy of deductive reasoning even if your conclusion was true. It simply does not follow that all beliefs held with ardor and faith are religions as Lone Wolf8634 pointed out.

This is the last thing I'll say. Even if we accepted that atheism is a 'religion' in the sense of "a belief held to with ardor and faith" this still doesn't mean that it is a religion in the sense of the other definitions of religion like Christianity is. It's like arguing that couponing is a science because one of the definitions is...
"Science : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>"
Ok, that's cute but it has nothing to do with science in the same sense as chemistry is a science.
So if one were to concede your silly notion all you have done is played an annoying meaningless word game.

The thing that tips it for me, is that it is a rather fundamental belief. One that a lot of other beliefs are based on. It is completely unknown whether or not there was a deity present at the beginning of creation, or whether there is an intelligent design. Or not. There is no proof one way or the other. Both positions are really no more than guesses. Point that out, and you sure get treated like a blasphemer from the atheists.

It's not just in the definition, it is in the spirit of the meaning, and the courts have decided it is one too. There are atheist churches. Atheists are working to become Army Chaplains.

It's not just me that thinks this, I'm just the guy that posted it here.

But maybe you can answer what everyone else has been unable to answer. The original question. Well, not THE original question, but MY original question.

Lets assume that due to a wild quirk of the language, that you also clearly saw that atheism, being a fundamental belief that has no proof, that you believe in defending, may also quite correctly be referred to as a religion......

Why on earth is that such a problem?

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 21:22
I think he realized he's wrong and is just stubborn. Now he's doing his best to contort his way out.


Good illustrations of the argument, btw.

You'd be wrong about that. :wavey:


In case you're wondering why I have not responded to steve, he went off the D-Bag cliff a while back and landed in the ignore list. He's been just about all personal attacks all the time trying to get the thread closed. No manners in that one. Thought the poor fellow was going to have a CVA, so I just leave him alone out of deep concern for his mental and physical well being.

Harper
07-03-2012, 21:24
Why on earth is that such a problem?

Well then, logically, it wouldn't be a problem.

Woofie
07-03-2012, 23:38
http://youtu.be/g239tjUjV5Q

Cavalry Doc
07-04-2012, 07:28
Well then, logically, it wouldn't be a problem.

Interesting that so many "atheists" aren't using logic when asked that question, isn't it? Some guy on the internet has a different opinion, one that is supported by the actual definitions of the words used in the English language, and people lose their manners. There s definitely something about Atheism being referred to as a religion that is difficult for the atheist. With all honesty, that is the way I view Atheism. It is simply another baseless claim that people love to argue about, many times with an overly obvious need to be right all the time, especially when discussing religion with people of different faiths than their own. From a comfortable agnostics point of view, theism and atheism are just two sides of the exact same coin.

I think some of it is the realization there is no proof of their own position. It's a choice to believe there is no deity, just as it is a choice to believe there was one, just as it is a choice to admit either of the previous two choices is possibly correct. Regardless of who is correct in the theism v. atheism battle, we'll all know soon enough, or not, so why worry about it today?

steveksux
07-04-2012, 08:33
You'd be wrong about that. :wavey:


In case you're wondering why I have not responded to steve, he went off the D-Bag cliff a while back and landed in the ignore list. He's been just about all personal attacks all the time trying to get the thread closed. No manners in that one. Thought the poor fellow was going to have a CVA, so I just leave him alone out of deep concern for his mental and physical well being.
Sounds like a Concern Troll.

Now we have a more specific diagnosis.

Truth is he got tired of being told the truth and having the flaws in his argument exposed and having to backpedal and come up with ever more fanciful obfuscations to defend the indefensible. I understand. Its got to be no fun losing arguments and knowing it.

Funny with all the so called personal attacks, never had any points assessed, never had any warnings issued as a result.

The guy calling me a D-bag and making snide remarks about my mental health is whining about me making personal attacks... Isn't that special. :rofl: Gee. Sounds like passive aggressive behavior. Not that there's anything wrong with that... :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
07-04-2012, 08:41
The thing that tips it for me, is that it is a rather fundamental belief. So when the actual definitions fail you, you can make always stuff up. Even when repeatedly pointed out that disbelief in deities is no more a fundamental belief than disbelieving in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, still he persists in the fantasy.

Stick a fork in him already. He's BEEN done.

Randy

Gunhaver
07-04-2012, 09:09
In case you're wondering why I have not responded to steve, he went off the D-Bag cliff a while back and landed in the ignore list.

Could you point out in which of the now 2145 posts that happened? I'd like to see it, you know, for solidarity's sake since I'm about to loose it myself over this thread.
:uglylol:

steveksux
07-04-2012, 09:18
Lets assume that due to a wild quirk of the language, that you also clearly saw that atheism, being a fundamental belief that has no proof, that you believe in defending, may also quite correctly be referred to as a religion......

Why on earth is that such a problem?You mean the exact same wild quirk of the language that makes football a religion by the definition you use for atheism?

Why is THAT so hard for YOU to admit?

There's your answer. It so clearly exposes the problems of your premise.
The whole "not making any sense" thing laid bare. It strips the disingenuous arguments of their thin veneer of credibility.

Ah well. Play stupid word games. Win stupid prizes.

Randy

steveksux
07-04-2012, 10:03
Could you point out in which of the now 2145 posts that happened? I'd like to see it, you know, for solidarity's sake since I'm about to loose it myself over this thread.
:uglylol:Hint: When your arguments make him feel foolish, he thinks its a personal attack.

Randy

Gunhaver
07-04-2012, 10:55
Hint: When your arguments make him feel foolish, he thinks its a personal attack.

Randy

Well now that doesn't narrow it down for me at all does it?

steveksux
07-04-2012, 11:12
Well now that doesn't narrow it down for me at all does it?:rofl: Sadly, no, it doesn't.

Randy

ksg0245
07-04-2012, 13:00
Hey, you know what, I made a mistake. Here is gunhaver's quote that reminded me to check back in.

Where in that post is his secret message to you that your trolling was missed? Or is mere mention of the thread enough to get you going?

Perhaps you've heard a saying along the lines of that you have to give respect in order to receive it, then again, perhaps not.

I have heard it. You're getting the respect you've earned.


No one that I am aware of has been forced to post here, it's purely voluntary barring some individual compulsion.

And?

Trolls tend to try to squash or interfere in debate on Internet forums, sort of like you are doing.

Oops, no. Pointing out that you're wrong when you claim athiesm is a religion based on your equivocation of definitions isn't "try[ing] to squash or interfere in debate on Internet forums."

Unless you're now going to try to redefine pointing out error as squashing or interfering with debate.

If you feel uncomfortable discussing this issue, you have my permission to ignore the thread. No hard feelings.

:wavey:

Thanks ever so. And you have my permission to continue to troll. No hard feelings. Like I say, I love trolls.

ksg0245
07-04-2012, 13:10
Interesting that so many "atheists" aren't using logic when asked that question, isn't it? Some guy on the internet has a different opinion, one that is supported by the actual definitions of the words used in the English language, and people lose their manners.

Which doesn't actually apply in this instance. The problem isn't with atheists, it's with the people needing to define atheists to fit a certain prejudice.

There s definitely something about Atheism being referred to as a religion that is difficult for the atheist.

Yes, atheists object to being forced into inappropriate, incorrect categories. The nerve.

With all honesty, that is the way I view Atheism. It is simply another baseless claim that people love to argue about, many times with an overly obvious need to be right all the time, especially when discussing religion with people of different faiths than their own.

Atheists aren't making a claim; they're rejecting an unsupported assertion. As you've been told every time you assert atheists are making a claim.

From a comfortable agnostics point of view, theism and atheism are just two sides of the exact same coin.

From an incorrect point of view, perhaps.

I think some of it is the realization there is no proof of their own position.

How many atheists have you seen claiming to have proof of the nonexistence of deities?

Where is your proof for the nonexistence of leprechauns?

It's a choice to believe there is no deity, just as it is a choice to believe there was one, just as it is a choice to admit either of the previous two choices is possibly correct.

Do you chose to believe in gravity?

Regardless of who is correct in the theism v. atheism battle, we'll all know soon enough, or not, so why worry about it today?

Because some theists want their beliefs taught as fact. I believe that's also been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Cavalry Doc
07-04-2012, 15:30
Which doesn't actually apply in this instance. The problem isn't with atheists, it's with the people needing to define atheists to fit a certain prejudice.



Yes, atheists object to being forced into inappropriate, incorrect categories. The nerve.



Atheists aren't making a claim; they're rejecting an unsupported assertion. As you've been told every time you assert atheists are making a claim.



From an incorrect point of view, perhaps.



How many atheists have you seen claiming to have proof of the nonexistence of deities?

Where is your proof for the nonexistence of leprechauns?



Do you chose to believe in gravity?



Because some theists want their beliefs taught as fact. I believe that's also been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Seems to me, theists have been asking to get equal time in the classroom with the atheists. I think they should let an agnostic make the rules. All science should be presented as what we can see. When asked how did it all start, say that science doesn't know, some people think it was made, some think it just happened. Talk it over with your parents.

Yes,I believe in gravity. I believe in you too.

Cavalry Doc
07-04-2012, 15:33
Could you point out in which of the now 2145 posts that happened? I'd like to see it, you know, for solidarity's sake since I'm about to loose it myself over this thread.
:uglylol:

I could, but that would take a lot more time than I am willing to spend on it.

Gunhaver
07-04-2012, 15:41
Seems to me, theists have been asking to get equal time in the classroom with the atheists. I think they should let an agnostic make the rules. All science should be presented as what we can see. When asked how did it all start, say that science doesn't know, some people think it was made, some think it just happened. Talk it over with your parents.

Yes,I believe in gravity. I believe in you too.

Ok, since you're an agnostic, here's a question for you.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19162790#post19162790

Think about it carefully. What is there to teach beyond, "Some people think god did it".

Lone Wolf8634
07-04-2012, 18:21
The discussion is enlightening. To answer your question, it is possible for a word to have opposite meanings, they are called autoantonyms. The English language is quirky.

Doesn't apply in this case. Nice try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

No comment on the other post?


I quoted Randy's post here, not to annoy you, but he makes some good points that you should address. I've found "ignoring" people tends to squash debate.

Here's the deal. Let me break it down for everyone.

Definition1,2
1a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Example: There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

No conflict, nobody has any qualms about admitting that Buddhism is a religion as a result.

Definition4:

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Examples:
Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religion.
Food is religion in this house.

Nobody has much of an issue saying atheism is a religion like hockey is a religion, or like politics is a religion to him.

That's not what CD is saying. He's saying atheism is a religion like Christianity.

The problem is he's crossing the definitions as if they're interchangeable, and when the examples are used to display how patently stupid that argument is, he argues you can't equate the examples. Suddenly football isn't "That" kind of religion like Christianity. He's repeatedly denied that atheism is a religion like football or hockey.

That's the misrepresentation. If the definitions are interchangeable, the examples are too. The examples prove the definitions are not interchangeable, they refer to distinctly different connotations of the word "religion", and therefore using defintion 4 to equate things defined by definition 1 is a clear, and remarkably clumsy lie.

the real question is "Why is it so hard for Cavalry Doc to admit that Atheism is a religion like hockey to Canadians?"



Randy

Selectively edited to avoid hurt feelers.

High-Gear
07-04-2012, 19:26
Seems to me, theists have been asking to get equal time in the classroom with the atheists. I think they should let an agnostic make the rules. All science should be presented as what we can see. When asked how did it all start, say that science doesn't know, some people think it was made, some think it just happened. Talk it over with your parents.

Yes,I believe in gravity. I believe in you too.

Science does say, "we dont know." every time they say, "the best current evidence points to....". That is a very humble position if you ask me. However asking ones parents is a recepie for disaster!

How many parents are scientists? Would you ask your welder father how to perform surgery? I hope not! Americans are woefully under educated as a whole, and more specifically in the sciences. You however are ready to tell kids to forget the most current information, and ask their parents (who may have not beenin a classroom in 20 years) to explain complex scientific discoveries. Thanks for making sure we as a nation are relegated to a position slightly ahead of Pakistan in student achievement.

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 05:51
Science does say, "we dont [sic]know." every time they say, "the best current evidence points to....". That is a very humble position if you ask me. However asking ones parents is a recepie [sic]for disaster!

How many parents are scientists? Would you ask your welder father how to perform surgery? I hope not! Americans are woefully under educated as a whole, and more specifically in the sciences. You however are ready to tell kids to forget the most current information, and ask their parents (who may have not beenin[sic] a classroom in 20 years) to explain complex scientific discoveries. Thanks for making sure we as a nation are relegated to a position slightly ahead of Pakistan in student achievement.

See, you are pushing toward a side. The truth of the matter, science has no data whatsoever on whether a deity or deities exist, or existed, or not. Pretending that it does, or has almost explained the answer to that question is a false premise.

Some things you need to learn outside of school.

The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know. When I was a small child, I was sure there was a god. By the time I graduated high school, I was sure there was not. By the time I began to understand the complexity of life, and the true odds of it all just sort of happening, I am now completely comfortable being unsure.

http://web.expasy.org/cgi-bin/pathways/show_thumbnails.pl?2

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I see atheists on one side, and theists on the other, both think they are right, and both have made a leap of faith to arrive at their positions. Faith, if taught in school, needs to be acknowledged as such, and children need to know that their atheist teachers are guessing too.

Yes, that is a discussion for the child with their parents, and others they respect. The school cannot teach you everything. If you learned everything you needed to know in high school, 18 year old kids would graduate wise, not just informed.

On a matter of faith, children asking parents, friends, and others they respect will not lead to disaster. That is an unsupported claim, unless you think it disastrous that children might choose to believe differently than you, and that is discomforting for some reason that is unknown to me.

Why do you think it would be a disaster?

RC-RAMIE
07-05-2012, 06:53
Atheism does not equal science. Just because I reject a creations story of a god does not mean I have to replace with a different creation story I freely admit I have no idea how it all started how is that adore and faith?

Almost two years of this.
....

Lone Wolf8634
07-05-2012, 09:43
See, you are pushing toward a side. The truth of the matter, science has no data whatsoever on whether a deity or deities exist, or existed, or not. Pretending that it does, or has almost explained the answer to that question is a false premise.

Niiiiiice strawman,Doc.

The truth of the matter is, science isn't guessing on anything. Or pretending anything.

Science isn't even asking the question. Since there is no evidence to support a claim that a deity exists, science isn't trying to prove, or disprove it. In fact, science itself has no opinion, theory or even a hypothesis.

And again, science and Atheism are not synonymous, or connected in any way. One doesn't need to accept science as an answer to "God" in order to reject the assertion of "God", nor does science exclude anyone who does believe in a "God".

Some things you need to learn outside of school.

The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know. When I was a small child, I was sure there was a god. By the time I graduated high school, I was sure there was not. By the time I began to understand the complexity of life, and the true odds of it all just sort of happening, I am now completely comfortable being unsure.

Perhaps you don't really understand " the true odds of it all just sort of happening"? Netflix has a documentary with Stephen Hawking called "Into The Universe" that I watched last night, it gives a pretty good representation of the size, scope and age of the universe, as we understand it. 13.7 billion years and unimaginable numbers of stars in countless numbers of galaxies may just skew the odds. Just a bit, maybe?


Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I see atheists on one side, and theists on the other, both think they are right, and both have made a leap of faith to arrive at their positions. Faith, if taught in school, needs to be acknowledged as such, and children need to know that their atheist teachers are guessing too.

Guessing? really?

On one side, science says "here's what we think happens, based on all available evidence. And if new evidence arises we'll adjust the theory."

On the other side theists say "It absolutely happened this way. Were sure because this book says so. And if evidence arises to contradict this book we'll do our best to discount it, and failing that, ignore it."

:sarcasm on: Yeah, I could see where guessing is the right word there:sarcasm off::rofl:

I actually have no argument with the rest of this:

Yes, that is a discussion for the child with their parents, and others they respect. The school cannot teach you everything. If you learned everything you needed to know in high school, 18 year old kids would graduate wise, not just informed.

On a matter of faith, children asking parents, friends, and others they respect will not lead to disaster. That is an unsupported claim, unless you think it disastrous that children might choose to believe differently than you, and that is discomforting for some reason that is unknown to me.

Why do you think it would be a disaster?

Syclone538
07-05-2012, 09:55
[sic]
...

[sic]
...

[sic]




http://us11.memecdn.com/Grammar-Nazi_o_91658.jpg

Cavalry Doc
07-05-2012, 11:21
http://us11.memecdn.com/Grammar-Nazi_o_91658.jpg

He was speaking on the issue of education.

You can go back and check, I very rarely correct typos.

ksg0245
07-05-2012, 17:47
Seems to me, theists have been asking to get equal time in the classroom with the atheists.

It isn't quite as simple as that; a particular group of theists want their religious beliefs taught as science without any objective, verifiable evidence a deity was involved. Why should that group get equal time with no evidence, but not others with an equal amount of evidence? Or should ALL religious beliefs be taught as science?

When evidence supporting creationism is discovered, it can be taught as science.

I think they should let an agnostic make the rules.

Agnostics DO make the rules.

All science should be presented as what we can see. When asked how did it all start, say that science doesn't know, some people think it was made, some think it just happened. Talk it over with your parents.

I think what they say know works better: "science doesn't know everything, but it has figured out how a lot of stuff works; here's the evidence we have, what experts in the field think it seems to indicate, and maybe a brief overview of why they think that."

Presenting the evidence for the involvement of a deity won't take long.

Yes,I believe in gravity. I believe in you too.

I didn't ask if you believe in gravity; I asked if you CHOSE to believe in gravity. Why is it you so frequently answer a question that wasn't asked?

Bren
07-06-2012, 13:28
I didn't ask if you believe in gravity; I asked if you CHOSE to believe in gravity. Why is it you so frequently answer a question that wasn't asked?

It's called a "straw man argument" - it's used to avoid answering a question, while trying to appear to answer it. It isn't one of the better debate techniques.:upeyes:

Lone Wolf8634
07-06-2012, 14:19
I didn't ask if you believe in gravity; I asked if you CHOSE to believe in gravity. Why is it you so frequently answer a question that wasn't asked?

It's called a "straw man argument" - it's used to avoid answering a question, while trying to appear to answer it. It isn't one of the better debate techniques.:upeyes:

And it's been used here pretty often, unfortunately when you point it out, you're usually ignored and told what a well thought out argument the other side has.:dunno:

Geko45
07-06-2012, 14:53
I'd just like to point out that it is absolutely insane that this thread has gone on for 87 pages.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 16:42
It isn't quite as simple as that; a particular group of theists want their religious beliefs taught as science without any objective, verifiable evidence a deity was involved. Why should that group get equal time with no evidence, but not others with an equal amount of evidence? Or should ALL religious beliefs be taught as science?

When evidence supporting creationism is discovered, it can be taught as science.



Agnostics DO make the rules.



I think what they say know works better: "science doesn't know everything, but it has figured out how a lot of stuff works; here's the evidence we have, what experts in the field think it seems to indicate, and maybe a brief overview of why they think that."

Presenting the evidence for the involvement of a deity won't take long.



I didn't ask if you believe in gravity; I asked if you CHOSE to believe in gravity. Why is it you so frequently answer a question that wasn't asked?

Theists want equal time. I would advocate an absence of anymore time other than to state some people think all this was made or designed, some people think it just happened. But that is a discussion that is inappropriate for school. Talk it over with your parents or others that you respect outside of the classroom. This is what we can see, and none of what we know proves or disproves whether or not a deity has or has not existed.

I can sense Gravity. I cannot sense whether or not there is or was ever a deity. If I chose to not believe in gravity, I would not float away. It would still be there. Same goes for whether or not a deity has ever existed. It is what it is, regardless of what we choose to believe. In things where we have no personal evidence, choosing to believe with conviction one way or the other is a choice. Be comfortable with your choice.

Cavalry Doc
07-06-2012, 16:44
It's called a "straw man argument" - it's used to avoid answering a question, while trying to appear to answer it. It isn't one of the better debate techniques.:upeyes:

Bren, you're wrong on that. He tends to go on long roundabouts trying to get to a point, I was simply attempting to get him there a bit sooner. He later clarified what he wanted to know, and I answered him.

RC-RAMIE
07-06-2012, 17:26
Theists want equal time. I would advocate an absence of anymore time other than to state some people think all this was made or designed, some people think it just happened. But that is a discussion that is inappropriate for school. Talk it over with your parents or others that you respect outside of the classroom. This is what we can see, and none of what we know proves or disproves whether or not a deity has or has not existed.

I can sense Gravity. I cannot sense whether or not there is or was ever a deity. If I chose to not believe in gravity, I would not float away. It would still be there. Same goes for whether or not a deity has ever existed. It is what it is, regardless of what we choose to believe. In things where we have no personal evidence, choosing to believe with conviction one way or the other is a choice. Be comfortable with your choice.

What does any of that have to do with school. Science does not try to answer if a god did it or not. Science has evidence behind it and is what is taught in science class not atheism they are separate things.


....

ksg0245
07-06-2012, 18:02
Bren, you're wrong on that. He tends to go on long roundabouts trying to get to a point, I was simply attempting to get him there a bit sooner. He later clarified what he wanted to know, and I answered him.

I asked if you chose to believe in gravity; as per your standard tactic you didn't answer that question, so I repeated it.

You still haven't answered.

The theory "Doc won't answer certain questions that make him uncomfortable" is supported with evidence.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 06:59
What does any of that have to do with school. Science does not try to answer if a god did it or not. Science has evidence behind it and is what is taught in science class not atheism they are separate things.


....

The problem isn't science, it's humans. Some of them being teachers, that pretend science supports their religion, an that their religious beliefs can be the only correct answer, because they claim science says so. That's inappropriate whether the teacher is a theist or atheist.

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 07:06
I asked if you chose to believe in gravity; as per your standard tactic you didn't answer that question, so I repeated it.

You still haven't answered.

The theory "Doc won't answer certain questions that make him uncomfortable" is supported with evidence.

You have an inability. Work on that. I clearly stated that I can sense gravity, and if I, for some strange reason chose not to believe in gravity, it would still be what it is.

If you need an absolute statement to find the answer to this burning question you have, yes, I do believe in gravity.

If you need answers in sentences of less that 10 words that don't use words too big for you, let me know up front, and I'll see what I can do for ya.

void *
07-11-2012, 07:45
You have an inability

...

If you need an absolute statement to find the answer to this burning question you have, yes, I do believe in gravity.

Are "Do you believe in gravity" and "Do you choose to believe in gravity" the exact same question?

They're not, but as far as I can tell, you're unable to tell the difference - and you do that a lot. I think there's a bit of irony in the fact that you will tell other people they have "inability" while completely ignoring your own inability to discern differences such as the difference between "believing" and "choosing to believe" when it happens to be convenient for the post you want to make.

You can repeat "yes, I do believe in gravity" any number of times you like, it still doesn't answer the question "Do you choose to believe in gravity?".

Cavalry Doc
07-11-2012, 11:11
...



Are "Do you believe in gravity" and "Do you choose to believe in gravity" the exact same question?

They're not, but as far as I can tell, you're unable to tell the difference - and you do that a lot. I think there's a bit of irony in the fact that you will tell other people they have "inability" while completely ignoring your own inability to discern differences such as the difference between "believing" and "choosing to believe" when it happens to be convenient for the post you want to make.

You can repeat "yes, I do believe in gravity" any number of times you like, it still doesn't answer the question "Do you choose to believe in gravity?".


Well, since it is possible that one could choose not to believe in gravity, or grapes for that matter, then I would hazard to say that everyone chooses to believe in gravity, if they do anyway. It may be the only reasonable choice, and we may consider it very unreasonable to not believe in gravity. But those are things we can see the effects of, measure, and sense.

A deity and gravity? I'm not seeing the connection that is trying to be made here. Perhaps we could skip to the end?

I choose to believe in gravity, and so do you.

High-Gear
07-11-2012, 13:05
Retracted.

void *
07-11-2012, 13:28
Well, since it is possible that one could choose not to believe in gravity, or grapes for that matter, then I would hazard to say that everyone chooses to believe in gravity, if they do anyway.

See? Now you've actually answered the question asked.

ksg0245
07-11-2012, 18:03
See? Now you've actually answered the question asked.

I disagree; it appears to me what he's said is that, if it's theoretically possible to choose not to believe in gravity, then it's also theoretically possible to choose to believe in gravity, so apparently everybody chooses to believe in it. I don't choose to believe in gravity any more than I choose to believe I exist; I know it and I exist based on easily detected evidence.

And I'm pretty sure he actually does see the connection.

ksg0245
07-11-2012, 18:12
You have an inability. Work on that. I clearly stated that I can sense gravity, and if I, for some strange reason chose not to believe in gravity, it would still be what it is.

If you need an absolute statement to find the answer to this burning question you have, yes, I do believe in gravity.

Look at that, you failed to answer the question asked one more time. I didn't ask if you believe in gravity. But thanks for again answering the question you preferred to answer.

If you need answers in sentences of less that 10 words that don't use words too big for you, let me know up front, and I'll see what I can do for ya.

As always, it's amusing how you're so condescendingly insulting while being unable or unwilling to answer simple questions worded clearly.

As I think I've said before, you've earned the respect you get.

void *
07-11-2012, 20:37
I don't choose to believe in gravity any more than I choose to believe I exist; I know it and I exist based on easily detected evidence.

Well, I'd say it's a choice to the extent that you choose how much weight to give your perception (which would ordinarily be quite a bit - but you know you exist independent of whether or not your senses are actually accurate). I kind of doubt most people think about it to that depth, and I suspect a lot of people don't even know that they could (and sometimes possibly *should* - thinking of A Beautiful Mind here, where Nash asked a student if a particular person he'd never met actually existed - although bootstrapping that could be a pita ... how do you know the student you're asking actually exists and is actually there at the moment?) question that perception.

But even then, the issue of, would any rational person make the choice to *not* believe that there is some kind of force that acts to accelerate masses towards each other, given what they are perceiving, and if not, is that actually a choice? Verifying that "choice" should be simple - do they act as though they believe it after they say they've chosen not to? Or do they walk off a cliff expecting to not fall?

As far as whether or not he answered, he stated everyone chooses - even if incorrect, unless he's nuts he should be putting himself in that set of "everyone".

Cavalry Doc
07-12-2012, 06:23
I disagree; it appears to me what he's said is that, if it's theoretically possible to choose not to believe in gravity, then it's also theoretically possible to choose to believe in gravity, so apparently everybody chooses to believe in it. I don't choose to believe in gravity any more than I choose to believe I exist; I know it and I exist based on easily detected evidence.

And I'm pretty sure he actually does see the connection.

No, wrong again. It is possible to choose not to believe in gravity. That would be unreasonable if you lived on earth, but for someone that spent their life in the weightlessness of space, maybe understandable. Sort of like the king of Siam not believing in snow. Many beliefs are based on senses and experience. Consider some people have different experiences, and it will help you appreciate why the rest of the world may think differently than you, and I don't mean just the conclusions. Some cultures have different thought processes.

void *
07-17-2012, 09:51
No, wrong again. It is possible to choose not to believe in gravity. That would be unreasonable if you lived on earth, but for someone that spent their life in the weightlessness of space, maybe understandable. Sort of like the king of Siam not believing in snow.

Who do we know of has spent their entire life in the weightlessness of space?

That person might have to evaluate available evidence lacking direct experience, and might make a choice. The rest of us (which is, as far as we know, *everyone*) has direct experience with the effect of gravity, to the point where somone *not* believing in that effect would cause others to question that person's sanity.

As I posted earlier - if you think it's a choice, we can test it. You choose to not believe, and then we can observe whether or not your actions are consistent with that choice.

Cavalry Doc
07-18-2012, 18:31
Who do we know of has spent their entire life in the weightlessness of space?

That person might have to evaluate available evidence lacking direct experience, and might make a choice. The rest of us (which is, as far as we know, *everyone*) has direct experience with the effect of gravity, to the point where somone *not* believing in that effect would cause others to question that person's sanity.

As I posted earlier - if you think it's a choice, we can test it. You choose to not believe, and then we can observe whether or not your actions are consistent with that choice.


Do you always use your acquaintances as the only possible examples?

And you are off on your interpretation of my belief. I believe that I do not know whether or not a deity or deities have ever existed.

How would you like to go about proving that?

Geko45
07-22-2012, 16:10
And you are off on your interpretation of my belief.

Really? This? Coming from you!?!?

:upeyes:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 05:47
I noticed you are clipping my posts smaller and smaller.

Trying to make arguments out of statements taken out of context is illustrative of several things.

Geko45
07-23-2012, 06:38
I noticed you are clipping my posts smaller and smaller.

That's because you aren't offering anything new anymore. I think you just can't stand to not have the final word in this thread.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 06:53
That's because you aren't offering anything new anymore. I think you just can't stand to not have the final word in this thread.

Not exactly a reasonable dodge. Noted. Is it possible that you find it easier to be critical by cherry picking?

You're the one that bumped it. Why is that?

void *
07-23-2012, 07:42
Do you always use your acquaintances as the only possible examples?

I didn't use an acquaintance as the only possible example. The fact that you are a possible example does not make you the *only* possible example - and to be honest, you've got a ways to go before you even rate as an acquaintance. You're some dude on the internet, don't get a big head.

And you are off on your interpretation of my belief. I believe that I do not know whether or not a deity or deities have ever existed.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not it's a choice to believe in gravity, remember? Do you always pretend that someone is talking about something they're not? Do you always tell people they're off in what you believe when they're making statements based on exactly what you wrote (i.e., that believing in gravity is a choice?).

How would you like to go about proving that?

I stated how to test what I wanted to test quite straightforwardly. If believing in gravity, in the face of living with the effect of gravity, is a choice that a rational person can make - then rational people can choose to not believe, and we can observe whether or not their actions are actually consistent with that choice. Since you're the one claiming it is a choice, you ought to be willing to be the test subject, no?

Geko45
07-23-2012, 08:24
You're the one that bumped it. Why is that?

So you wouldn't get the last word.

:tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 09:15
And why would that be a problem for you? :therapy:

Geko45
07-23-2012, 11:30
And why would that be a problem for you? :therapy:

Not a problem for me at all. In fact, I get quite a chuckle knowing that I can so easily manipulate you.

:supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 11:36
Not a problem for me at all. In fact, I get quite a chuckle knowing that I can so easily manipulate you.

:supergrin:

That's a rather odd thing to think?

I think you are manipulating yourself, and projecting a certain compulsion you have onto me.

For some reason, you seem to be trying to make things personal. Do you do this often with people that might disagree with you?

Maybe these guys can help you?
http://www.succeedsocially.com/intellectual

Geko45
07-23-2012, 11:37
That's a rather odd thing to think?

And yet you feel compelled to respond. Even when my post contains nothing of substance to respond to.

:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 12:01
Actually, it's just a little bit of helping others learn a bit more about you.

So, let me see if I get this straight. You view this as some sort of game, where you evidently are making all the rules and defining reality. If I don't respond, you win because you have assumed that I have a compulsion to have the last word. If I do respond, you win because you are manipulating me.

Is that about right? It's almost as if you have imagined a game that you cannot lose. Humorous.

I find that rather illustrative, don't you? Perhaps those operating outside of your imagination can see it better?

void *
07-23-2012, 12:06
So, let me see if I get this straight. You view this as some sort of game, where you evidently are making all the rules and defining reality.

As far as I can tell, CD, you've just accurately described your approach to this forum, at the very least in the "you evidently are making all the rules and defining reality" portion. There's a bit of irony there, no?

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 12:22
As far as I can tell, CD, you've just accurately described your approach to this forum, at the very least in the "you evidently are making all the rules and defining reality" portion. There's a bit of irony there, no?

Well, not so much. I have a different perspective than some others. That's all. I freely admit that. I see the assumption that there has never been a deity as an assumption. I think a lot of self described atheists as a little more accurately described as atheistic agnostics. So, we disagree on a couple of simple things, that's all. Over all, I consider most here as decent people. And while I'm not 100% perfect at it, I do strive to remain civil. Some see my perspective in the same light as some religions see blasphemy. It's been interesting to discuss these issues.

I don't know about you, but my participation in RI has been thought provoking for me. So, I'll probably hang around as long as it continues to be so.

void *
07-23-2012, 12:37
* You've told people they have to use definitions you choose, in the face of them providing the definitions they are actually using and the sources of those definitions
* You've argued as though people have said things they have not actually said
* You refuse to answer simple questions
etc.

That sounds a whole lot to me like you "making all the rules and defining reality". Which is why I find irony in your post to Gecko.

Geko45
07-23-2012, 12:46
That sounds a whole lot to me like you "making all the rules and defining reality". Which is why I find irony in your post to Gecko.

Quite seriously, I think his game is as simple as getting the last word in. He doesn't let anything go unless his is the last post on the topic.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 12:53
* You've told people they have to use definitions you choose, in the face of them providing the definitions they are actually using and the sources of those definitions
* You've argued as though people have said things they have not actually said
* You refuse to answer simple questions
etc.

That sounds a whole lot to me like you "making all the rules and defining reality". Which is why I find irony in your post to Gecko.

I believe I have pointed this out before, but let me riterate it just to be sure. You can use whatever definitions you choose, and I'm just going to personally stick to the Merriam-Webster definitions.

It's not like I can force you to accept my perpective, but I have offered to agree to disagree multiple times.

We are defining words and concepts, not reality. Reality is what it is.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 12:56
Quite seriously, I think his game is as simple as getting the last word in. He doesn't let anything go unless his is the last post on the topic.

If so, that would be easy to prove. All you'd have to do is show that I had the last post in every thread I've posted in.

Go ahead and check, we'll wait for you to come back with your proof.

:popcorn:

Of course if you can't find proof, that's gonna look an awful like you being incorrect, or you projecting.

RC-RAMIE
07-23-2012, 14:01
I believe I have pointed this out before, but let me riterate it just to be sure. You can use whatever definitions you choose, and I'm just going to personally stick to the Merriam-Webster definitions.

It's not like I can force you to accept my perpective, but I have offered to agree to disagree multiple times.

We are defining words and concepts, not reality. Reality is what it is.

This one? Because I see no mention of religion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1343073268

So where do you get Atheist is a religion from Merriam-Webster because it is not in the definition of Atheist.

This one where you stretch #4 to apply it to Atheist even though we tell you over and over that it is not true

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 14:04
I didn't use an acquaintance as the only possible example. The fact that you are a possible example does not make you the *only* possible example - and to be honest, you've got a ways to go before you even rate as an acquaintance. You're some dude on the internet, don't get a big head.

I'm not even sure where you are coming from with that. How does pointing out that some hypothetical person may have possibly chosen to not believe in gravity if that person had never personally experienced it, turn in your mind, into me claiming to be overly important in your life? If you misread that, let me know. The ad hom is noted too. Also completely not necessary.


We're not talking about that. We're talking about whether or not it's a choice to believe in gravity, remember? Do you always pretend that someone is talking about something they're not? Do you always tell people they're off in what you believe when they're making statements based on exactly what you wrote (i.e., that believing in gravity is a choice?).


I thought we already covered my belief in gravity.


I stated how to test what I wanted to test quite straightforwardly. If believing in gravity, in the face of living with the effect of gravity, is a choice that a rational person can make - then rational people can choose to not believe, and we can observe whether or not their actions are actually consistent with that choice. Since you're the one claiming it is a choice, you ought to be willing to be the test subject, no?

Well, I'm pretty sure I could not convince myself gravity is not real, so that would be rather difficult.

I think I also pointed out that it is probably the only rational choice to believe in gravity for those of us living on the planet.

Are you sure you are reading my posts? I'm not sure where you are coming up with this stuff. It's not consistent with your previous posting pattern, what's up?

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 14:33
This one? Because I see no mention of religion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1343073268

So where do you get Atheist is a religion from Merriam-Webster because it is not in the definition of Atheist.

This one where you stretch #4 to apply it to Atheist even though we tell you over and over that it is not true

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Well, That's been covered, a lot. But let's go ahead and step through it again. How does one come to believe that there is no deity? There is no proof. It's a matter of faith to choose to believe that. It is a foundation of many other beliefs. It becomes a system if belief that leads them to make decisions on other beliefs and life choices based on the initial assumption. I think it is pretty clear that many hold to this belief strongly, as in with ardor.

Makes sense to me. Not to some others. That' ok, we can agree to disagree.

void *
07-23-2012, 14:44
I'm not even sure where you are coming from with that.

Who is the 'acquaintance' you were referring to, if not the only real person I referenced in the post you quoted other than myself?

Or did I misunderstand you, and you are claiming that because I noted that the person in your example is a person that we have zero evidence exists (unless you can provide evidence of this person who has grown up completely free from the effect of gravity, whether you know them or not), I'm somehow demanding that you have to know this person for it to be a valid example?

If that's the case, I'll clarify: I never said you have to know someone to use them as an example. I'm saying that while your hypothetical person who grew up completely free from the effects of gravity might have a choice when evaluating the evidence of gravity, that hypothetical person is purely hypothetical, and irrelevant to whether or not *you* actually made a choice.

The ad hom is noted too. Also completely not necessary.

You're choosing to treat it as an ad-hom. It's not intended as one, it's a mere statement of fact: I don't know you. We've never sat and had a beer and chatted. You're some dude on the internet to me. That's not necessarily automatically good or bad. You might likewise consider me 'some dude on the internet' as well, and I wouldn't take offense. I was merely commenting on the fact that *you* don't decide who I consider acquaintance, friend, etc - I do. I was also pointing out that I never claimed anyone was the *only* possible example, despite your attempt to pretend I did so.

Well, I'm pretty sure I could not convince myself gravity is not real, so that would be rather difficult.

So now you're contradicting your statement that it's a choice, as well as your assertion that everyone else made a choice, are you not?

I think I also pointed out that it is probably the only rational choice to believe in gravity for those of us living on the planet.

If one 'choice' is against all evidence and not a rational choice, how is it actually a choice? If you can't decide to change your mind, and then act consistently with that change (such as, say, walking off a bridge truly believing you will not fall), how is that a choice?

"Well, it's a choice, but you're insane if you decide to not believe in gravity" is not a choice.

Are you sure you are reading my posts? I'm not sure where you are coming up with this stuff.

Are you sure you're reading mine? Furthermore, are you bothering to remember what you wrote? Are you now claiming that you did *not* say that whether or not to believe in gravity is a choice?

RC-RAMIE
07-23-2012, 15:01
Well, That's been covered, a lot. But let's go ahead and step through it again. How does one come to believe that there is no deity? There is no proof. It's a matter of faith to choose to believe that. It is a foundation of many other beliefs. It becomes a system if belief that leads them to make decisions on other beliefs and life choices based on the initial assumption. I think it is pretty clear that many hold to this belief strongly, as in with ardor.

Makes sense to me. Not to some others. That' ok, we can agree to disagree.

Every Atheist on this board numerous times has told you we would change our beliefs when evidence is presented. That is not holding to anything with ardor or faith like you claim so where is this definition you claim exist in Merriam-Webster?

void *
07-23-2012, 15:04
It's not like I can force you to accept my perpective, but I have offered to agree to disagree multiple times.

Then why do you make statements like:

I choose to believe in gravity, and so do you.

You're basically telling other people what they do. Hence "making all the rules and defining reality". And as far as the definitions go, a good portion of this thread is you telling people that they mean what they say by *your* definition, rather than by the definitions they (I among them) provided. If I say 'Hey, when I use this word I mean this', and you turn around and say effectively 'I don't care, you really mean this', why should you expect other people to treat that as anything other than you telling them what they think? That's not them refusing to acknowledge you have a different perspective - that's you apparently refusing to acknowledge any perspective other than your own. How much of this thread is people telling you 'I never claimed to know' - multiple times - and you turning around and telling them 'you claim to know'? Again, not other people refusing to acknowledge you have a different perspective, but you apparently refusing to acknowledge any perspective other than your own.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 15:31
Void, maybe we should consider another possibility. First, let's not mistake rational choices with a free choice. One with an explaination of what we sense with one that there is no evidence for.

Let's say 500 years ago, people thought the air held them down. Without an ability to create a vacuum large enough to watch objects falling in, and if they had been told by everyone else that air held you on the ground, would they be unreasonable if they chose to believe an unseen force between objects that had mass attracted each other?

Would they have a choice?

You and I both know that in a vacuum, a feather falls at the same rate as a stone, or at least we believe that we do.

And I would never suggest you place yourself in a pure vacuum to see if you fell at the same rate as a feather.

Belief does not change reality. We do choose to believe. If I was able to convince myself that air held us down, would that not be a choice?

Geko45
07-23-2012, 15:42
One with an explaination of what we sense with one that there is no evidence for.

You keep repeating this, but it's simply not true. There is tremendous amount of evidence that there is no god. No, it's not conclusive, but nothing ever really is. Not even gravity can be proven to exist conclusively, but you would be foolish to ignore the predicted results of our best theory of gravity.

And, for the eleventy billionth time, saying that I have good reason to expect outcome X when I perform action Y because all previous observations support that conclusion is far different than saying I have faith that outcome Y will happen if I adhere to principle X even though no one, anywhere has ever observed that happening before.

One is based on reason, the other is based on faith.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 16:16
You keep repeating this, but it's simply not true. There is tremendous amount of evidence that there is no god. No, it's not conclusive, but nothing ever really is. Not even gravity can be proven to exist conclusively, but you would be foolish to ignore the predicted results of our best theory of gravity.

And, for the eleventy billionth time, saying that I have good reason to expect outcome X when I perform action Y because all previous observations support that conclusion is far different than saying I have faith that outcome Y will happen if I adhere to principle X even though no one, anywhere has ever observed that happening before.

One is based on reason, the other is based on faith.

Consider for just a moment, that people get stuff wrong all the time. What if there were a god, but every religion on the face of the planet got it completely wrong as to the nature of that god. You may be able to prove that the earth is not on the back of a turtle, but can you show evidence of an unknown deity never existing?

void *
07-23-2012, 16:18
Belief does not change reality.

I agree, and I never said it did.

We do choose to believe.

That depends entirely on the force of the evidence in favor of a proposition - which is the point I'm getting at. You can 'choose' to not believe that you're going to fall off a cliff if you walk off it all you want - but if you can't actually bring yourself to take the walk off the cliff on the basis of that decision - in other words, if you can't actually act consistently with the "choice" - how can you say you really *chose* to believe you wouldn't fall?

If I was able to convince myself that air held us down, would that not be a choice?

Yes it would. That's not the point. The point is this: Right now, choose to decide that air holds you down. Did you? If you *aren't* able, is that a choice, whether or not it would be a choice if you *were* able?

This is, again, like your hypothetical 'always lived in free-fall' person. Technically correct but utterly irrelevant. The question is not 'could you choose if things were different', the question is 'do you choose'.

void *
07-23-2012, 16:34
CYou may be able to prove that the earth is not on the back of a turtle, but can you show evidence of an unknown deity never existing?

For the n-th time, no. Nobody is claiming that they can. "I have no reason to believe in an unknown deity existing until such time that there is evidence *for* such an unknown deity" is all that is needed.

void *
07-23-2012, 16:35
Quite seriously, I think his game is as simple as getting the last word in. He doesn't let anything go unless his is the last post on the topic.

I don't disagree. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 16:48
I agree, and I never said it did.



That depends entirely on the force of the evidence in favor of a proposition - which is the point I'm getting at. You can 'choose' to not believe that you're going to fall off a cliff if you walk off it all you want - but if you can't actually bring yourself to take the walk off the cliff on the basis of that decision - in other words, if you can't actually act consistently with the "choice" - how can you say you really *chose* to believe you wouldn't fall?


Yes it would. That's not the point. The point is this: Right now, choose to decide that air holds you down. Did you? If you *aren't* able, is that a choice, whether or not it would be a choice if you *were* able?

This is, again, like your hypothetical 'always lived in free-fall' person. Technically correct but utterly irrelevant.

Whether a person chooses not to make a specific choice, does not make it not a choice.


There are plenty of people that believe things that are simply not so. Usually, we call them Democrats.

But if we can go back to the beginning. Lets assume that someone chose to believe that no deity has ever existed. Would that be a choice.

Yes, it would.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 16:51
I don't disagree. :wavey:

Do you want to take up the challenge of finding proof of that?

He completely abandoned the point once asked to show proof. But he probably saw the posts where he ended them with 5 periods, and realized that probably applied to himself more than me once he looked at it.

Funny how you dudes try to find a way to stifle debate. If I respond, it means there is something wrong with me, and if I don't something is wrong with me. Luckily, I don't respond to peer pressure. :tongueout:

Lone Wolf8634
07-23-2012, 17:04
Consider for just a moment, that people get stuff wrong all the time. What if there were a god, but every religion on the face of the planet got it completely wrong as to the nature of that god. You may be able to prove that the earth is not on the back of a turtle, but can you show evidence of an unknown deity never existing?

What if pigs had wings. :upeyes:

Sure, people get stuff wrong all the time. No big news flash there.

But what you are saying is foolish. No, we can't prove that a deity never existed. But in the thousands of years of human existence there has never been one shred of evidence that one does.

Over the centuries every natural phenomena that was attributed to a god has either been explained (with science, by the way ) or is being studied as we speak. Every time someone reaches the end of their ability to understand the universe, they proclaim the rest to be "Divine and unknowable". The someone else comes along and figures it out, and "Gods" domain becomes a little bit smaller.

Your insistence that accepting the possibility of a deity is to be given the same weight as a lack of one, is at best, ridiculous. Not one Atheist on this board has said that there is definitively no deities, since the possibility is there, no matter how remote it is not zero. However, the possibility of a deity is in the same realm as Zues, the FSM, turtles holding the world up, any number of deities from long dead religions and...... Wait for it.....

Pink Pegacorns pooping skittles on a rainbow.

Your assertion that deities must be given more credence than that rainbow stomping, skittle scattering, horned horse with wings because the subject is more "profound" or "Meaningful" is rubbish. Profound and meaningful is entirely subjective and isn't relevant. Perhaps it is to you, but that makes no difference at all when your speaking to an Atheist. We view both as "possible, because we can't disprove it conclusively, but incredibly unlikely, because in the entire history of mankind, no evidence has ever surfaced to even give a hint of their existence."

It seems to me, that maybe your coming close to making the decision for yourself, that you might need deities to exist. Perhaps you are becoming (or always were), a believer.

void *
07-23-2012, 17:57
Do you want to take up the challenge of finding proof of that?

I'm not claiming I can prove it, although your behavior is consistent with the claim.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 17:57
What if pigs had wings. :upeyes:

Sure, people get stuff wrong all the time. No big news flash there.

But what you are saying is foolish. No, we can't prove that a deity never existed. But in the thousands of years of human existence there has never been one shred of evidence that one does.

Geko45 resurrected this thread and then said there was plenty of evidence to say no deities have ever existed, he'll be along shortly with all of it. Should fit in a thimble, along with his manners.


Over the centuries every natural phenomena that was attributed to a god has either been explained (with science, by the way ) or is being studied as we speak. Every time someone reaches the end of their ability to understand the universe, they proclaim the rest to be "Divine and unknowable". The someone else comes along and figures it out, and "Gods" domain becomes a little bit smaller.

Your insistence that accepting the possibility of a deity is to be given the same weight as a lack of one, is at best, ridiculous. Not one Atheist on this board has said that there is definitively no deities, since the possibility is there, no matter how remote it is not zero. However, the possibility of a deity is in the same realm as Zues, the FSM, turtles holding the world up, any number of deities from long dead religions and...... Wait for it.....

Pink Pegacorns pooping skittles on a rainbow.

Your assertion that deities must be given more credence than that rainbow stomping, skittle scattering, horned horse with wings because the subject is more "profound" or "Meaningful" is rubbish. Profound and meaningful is entirely subjective and isn't relevant. Perhaps it is to you, but that makes no difference at all when your speaking to an Atheist. We view both as "possible, because we can't disprove it conclusively, but incredibly unlikely, because in the entire history of mankind, no evidence has ever surfaced to even give a hint of their existence."

It seems to me, that maybe your coming close to making the decision for yourself, that you might need deities to exist. Perhaps you are becoming (or always were), a believer.

I do not need a deity to exist, but in case you haven't noticed, the only ones giving me grief about being an agnostic are the atheists. So, sorta like in politics, where an Obamamaniac would describe Mittens as a right wing extremist, when most of us can tell Mittens is a left of center liberal. Here, arguing toward agnosticism, for the devout atheist, just looks like theism.

But I'm open minded enough to consider it at least possible. I have no idea what nature she/he/it/them would be in, and it's not necessary. There is a definite order to the universe, and in life on this planet, a complexity that is amazing. So, it could have just happened over billyuns and billyuns of years, or it could have been designed. I'm still perfectly OK with not knowing. I feel no need to stake a claim on either side of that argument, and am comfortable in my position in the middle. I personally believe it is the most reasonable position, but everyone has their own idea about what is best, and I can respect that.


By the way, I've never said YOU have to believe in the possibility of a deity. You have my personal blessing to believe anything you want to believe, as long as it doesn't motivate you to hurt others. And especially if it motivates you to be nice to people.

I am comfortable with what I believe, and while I want people to be skeptical, and to question things, I want them to be happy and comfortable in their beliefs too. If you want to believe in unicorns that poop skittle rainbows, and that makes you happy, and a better person to your neighbor, that's UBER-cool with me. :wavey:

void *
07-23-2012, 18:00
Whether a person chooses not to make a specific choice, does not make it not a choice.

I never claimed that not choosing a particular choice makes it not a choice.

I claimed that if believing in gravity is a choice, we could test that, in that you (or anyone else, for that matter, but since you're making the claim, why not you?) could decide to choose not to believe in it, and we could observe whether or not your behavior was consistent with that choice. If your behavior was in fact consistent, we could conclude that you did in fact actually choose to not believe in gravity - if not, then not.

'did choose' vs. 'can choose'.
There's a *huge* difference there.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 18:05
I'm not claiming I can prove it, although your behavior is consistent with the claim.

So prove the consistency. I do participate in a discussion forum, and you and geko are formulating a position where I am somehow deficient if I respond, and would take the opposite opinion and claim that I am somehow deficient if I did not respond.

It is patently false that I have to have the last word. Geko has even responded to threads with 5 periods to get the last word. In my time here, which has lasted several years, it should be very easy to prove if you are correct.

Or you are simply falling into the ill mannered rut geko is in because he embarrassed himself horribly in another thread.

There is no need to be a D-Bag about it. If you can't stick to the argument, move on to another thread. No big, I won't punk you after you leave. I will point out a lack of etiquette every time though.

Hmmm. There is a nugget there, that might be worthy of a thread of it's own. What motivates an online atheist to behave like a gentleman?

I'll have to think about that for a while.

void *
07-23-2012, 18:09
So prove the consistency.

Reviving a thread that had been dead for months comes to mind.

How about, you do something inconsistent, and then we can conclude that the premise cannot be true because your actions are inconsistent with the premise? For instance, if you had *not* responded to Gecko's claim, but did respond to other more relevant posts. Or perhaps you could not respond to *this* post, but respond to other subthreads.

(this is not to say that merely participating in a discussion board is evidence of this. Everyone does that. Read this thread again, pretending you're not you, and see what you think when you come out the other side. Although, strictly speaking, perhaps I shouldn't say that I think your behavior is consistent - perhaps I should say instead that given how you post, and your past posts in this thread, I don't see a reason to reject the possibility that what Geko is claiming is true - not necessarily that this is your sole motivation, but wanting to get the last word is something that I think a fair amount of people do at times.)

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 18:19
Reviving a thread that had been dead for months comes to mind.

Can a thread every really die? IIRC, I was reminded about it by gunhaver about 3 weeks ago posting in GTPI, and checked in on it, noticed that I had not responded to specific questions asked of me, and then did so.

The latest bump was purely geko, who was evidently missing me while I was working on the ranch this weekend. Poor guy.


How about, you do something inconsistent, and then we can conclude that the premise cannot be true because your actions are inconsistent with the premise?

That's a little twisted, don't you think?

The position is logical and valid. Atheists make a choice about what to believe, and believe it just as the theists. On faith.

It is a logical perspective, even if you cannot admit it.

void *
07-23-2012, 18:22
Can a thread every really die?

Sure. There are plenty of threads that are dead, and have been deleted and only exist in search caches. The thread that led you to start this thread, for instance.

void *
07-23-2012, 18:29
There is no need to be a D-Bag about it.

Not intending to be a d-bag. Again, I think you're reading more into what I'm saying that what I'm actually saying.

Put it like this: How many people who frequent internet forums, do you think, have gotten involved in a thread and felt like they *had* to respond?

I would wager a fair amount, or we wouldn't have cartoons like this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I look at this thread again and there's been times where you appear to be trollish and times where you appear to be sincere and times where you appear to be responding *just because someone responded*. I figure it happens to most people - I figure it happens to *me* (although I don't really ever troll, at least not intentionally) - it's not like it's a mortal sin.

I mean, would you really claim you're immune to basically just being a human?

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 18:29
Sure. There are plenty of threads that are dead, and have been deleted and only exist in search caches. The thread that led you to start this thread, for instance.

Were they ever alive?

void *
07-23-2012, 18:31
Were they ever alive?

Did you post in the thread I referenced, or not? Do I need to go get it from the cache for proof again? ;)

Smacktard
07-23-2012, 18:35
What if pigs had wings. :upeyes:

It seems to me, that maybe your coming close to making the decision for yourself, that you might need deities to exist. Perhaps you are becoming (or always were), a believer.


I've tried to tell Doc that he was a believer, but he won't believe me!

(Seek the truth in The Book Of Smacktard, our only hope.)


...

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 18:39
Not intending to be a d-bag. Again, I think you're reading more into what I'm saying that what I'm actually saying.

Put it like this: How many people who frequent internet forums, do you think, have gotten involved in a thread and felt like they *had* to respond?

I would wager a fair amount, or we wouldn't have cartoons like this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I look at this thread again and there's been times where you appear to be trollish and times where you appear to be sincere and times where you appear to be responding *just because someone responded*. I figure it happens to most people - I figure it happens to *me* (although I don't really ever troll, at least not intentionally) - it's not like it's a mortal sin.

I mean, would you really claim you're immune to basically just being a human?

Is there such a thing as a mortal sin in the United States? Other than messing with another man's kids? That one, will get you put in the ground without any charges filed around here, but most others are bureaucratic. Otherwise there would only be some orange hair sticking out of a hole somewhere in Colorado right now.

The only thing that I will claim to be very resistant too about the human condition, is the need of many, if not most people, to feel that they know how all that we can see came to be. It's OK to be unsure about what we have no evidence to support.


You are so sure you are right about one detail about reality that cannot be proven with current evidence.

:dunno: It is what it is. Even if we don't know how it started. And it's OK not to know.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 18:41
I've to tell Doc that he was a believer, but he won't believe me!

(Seek the truth in The Book Of Smacktard, our only hope.)


...

And have those goats been rescued from your basement yet?

[/sarcasm]

No need to BS. You are used to drive by's, but you used to talk a bit.

Anyway, I do hope you are doing well. We used to have some interesting discussions in GTPI. Take care.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 18:44
Did you post in the thread I referenced, or not? Do I need to go get it from the cache for proof again? ;)

Wait, answer the question first, were any of the threads here ever alive?

Geko45
07-23-2012, 19:08
Wait, answer the question first, were any of the threads here ever alive?

This one certainly seems to have taken on a life of its own.

void *
07-23-2012, 19:08
The only thing that I will claim to be very resistant too about the human condition, is the need of many, if not most people, to feel that they know how all that we can see came to be. It's OK to be unsure about what we have no evidence to support.


You are so sure you are right about one detail about reality that cannot be proven with current evidence.

Go reread my relevant post in this thread. Particularly the bits about how I view things not as 'this is absolutely true' or 'this is absolutely false', but rather, as a probability assessment that never reaches 'certainty' and is always subject to change based on new data (in either direction, and always with the caveat that the current assessment could in fact be wrong).

Please reread them until you realize that your statement quoted is not actually true, and furthermore, until you realize that increasing the number of times you make the quoted claim will not change the fact that what you are claiming (that I am 'so sure' or that I claim to know, etc) is not actually my position. It can't be proven that it is *not* true, and thus there will always be some level of uncertainty. It's on the people who claim it is to give reason that it should actually be believed.

And of course it's ok to not know. That doesn't mean that anyone has to believe unsupported assertions.

void *
07-23-2012, 19:20
Wait, answer the question first, were any of the threads here ever alive?

In a literal sense, of course not. In the figurative sense, of course, or they would have never been posted. Why would you even ask?

Geko45
07-23-2012, 19:24
Consider for just a moment, that people get stuff wrong all the time. What if there were a god, but every religion on the face of the planet got it completely wrong as to the nature of that god. You may be able to prove that the earth is not on the back of a turtle, but can you show evidence of an unknown deity never existing?

I can make a strong inductive argument that one has never existed that is supported by facts and real world observations (which I have done here several times in the past and which, to date, no one has ever been able to identify a specific flaw in), but let's set that aside for a moment.

Yes, people get stuff wrong all the time, but is it rational to reject the logical inductive conclusion of everything that can be observed in favor of an alternate and contradictory belief that requires us to dismiss practically everything that has been learned to date as mistaken and flawed? Surely not.

There are many things I can't disprove with absolute certainty that I also would be foolish to give any serious credence to. Just about any scenario your mind can come up with has at least some small probability of being correct, but, as has been stated here ad nauseum, that does not mean they are all equally valid.

But, you won't respond to this point just as you never respond to any point. You will move on to another aspect of your flawed argument that has also been refuted multiple time (just not as recently) until you come back around to this one again (several pages from now) while pretending you haven't already been answered dozens of times.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 19:29
In a literal sense, of course not. In the figurative sense, of course, or they would have never been posted. Why would you even ask?


It may come up later. That's all.

Geko45
07-23-2012, 19:35
He completely abandoned the point once asked to show proof. But he probably saw the posts where he ended them with 5 periods, and realized that probably applied to himself more than me once he looked at it.

LOL! No, I just went home! This may come as a shock to you, but I have a life outside this forum.

As for "proof", I didn't claim "proof". I claimed evidence. More specifically, inductive evidence. I know for a fact that you've already read my inductive case against god, so your claim that I have abandoned the point, once again, lacks integrity. But before I even begin to broach the topic again in this thread, you must demonstrate to me that you understand the difference between deductive and inductive logic. A point you have dodged every time I have raised it with you. I'm not going to present an inductive argument just to have you sit back and poke holes in it because it is not deductive.

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 19:41
Void, maybe we should consider another possibility. First, let's not mistake rational choices with a free choice. One with an explaination of what we sense with one that there is no evidence for.

Let's say 500 years ago, people thought the air held them down. Without an ability to create a vacuum large enough to watch objects falling in, and if they had been told by everyone else that air held you on the ground, would they be unreasonable if they chose to believe an unseen force between objects that had mass attracted each other?

Would they have a choice?

You and I both know that in a vacuum, a feather falls at the same rate as a stone, or at least we believe that we do.

And I would never suggest you place yourself in a pure vacuum to see if you fell at the same rate as a feather.

Belief does not change reality. We do choose to believe. If I was able to convince myself that air held us down, would that not be a choice?



You keep repeating this, but it's simply not true. There is tremendous amount of evidence that there is no god. No, it's not conclusive, but nothing ever really is. Not even gravity can be proven to exist conclusively, but you would be foolish to ignore the predicted results of our best theory of gravity.

And, for the eleventy billionth time, saying that I have good reason to expect outcome X when I perform action Y because all previous observations support that conclusion is far different than saying I have faith that outcome Y will happen if I adhere to principle X even though no one, anywhere has ever observed that happening before.

One is based on reason, the other is based on faith.



Consider for just a moment, that people get stuff wrong all the time. What if there were a god, but every religion on the face of the planet got it completely wrong as to the nature of that god. You may be able to prove that the earth is not on the back of a turtle, but can you show evidence of an unknown deity never existing?


I can make a strong inductive argument that one has never existed that is supported by facts and real world observations (which I have done here several times in the past and which, to date, no one has ever been able to identify a specific flaw in), but let's set that aside for a moment.

Yes, people get stuff wrong all the time, but is it rational to reject the logical inductive conclusion of everything that can be observed in favor of an alternate and contradictory belief that requires us to dismiss practically everything that has been learned to date as mistaken and flawed? Surely not.

There are many things I can't disprove with absolute certainty that I also would be foolish to give any serious credence to. Just about any scenario your mind can come up with has at least some small probability of being correct, but, as has been stated here ad nauseum, that does not mean they are all equally valid.

Oh, I believe you've been induced, no argument there.


But, you won't respond to this point just as you never respond to any point. You will move on to another aspect of your flawed argument that has also been refuted multiple time (just not as recently) until you come back around to this one again (several pages from now) while pretending you hav................................


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/chickenstuff.jpg

If you've given proof, or even a strong inductive argument without any identified flaw before, just link to it.

I'll point out the flaw for you. :popcorn:

Cavalry Doc
07-23-2012, 19:53
LOL! No, I just went home! This may come as a shock to you, but I have a life outside this forum.

As for "proof", I didn't claim "proof". I claimed evidence. More specifically, inductive evidence. I know for a fact that you've already read my inductive case against god, so your claim that I have abandoned the point, once again, lacks integrity. But before I even begin to broach the topic again in this thread, you must demonstrate to me that you understand the difference between deductive and inductive logic. A point you have dodged every time I have raised it with you. I'm not going to present an inductive argument just to have you sit back and poke holes in it because it is not deductive.

Oh, I understand inductive logic, it leaves open the possibility that your conclusion is wrong, regardless of how many points you get right along the way.
http://gandalwaven.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fallacy2.gif

Don't forget, we are talking about ANY deity, not just a single specific deity of your choosing.



The link will do just fine. No need to post it again, since you said you already have.



ETA: BTW, you posted twice after I posed that challenge. You were here, not just traveling. Maybe when you get done unraveling the mysteries of life and the current condition of the universe, you can support your claims that I have a compulsion to get the last word in, as opposed to continuing the discussion.

:rofl:

Geko45
07-23-2012, 22:11
Oh, I understand inductive logic, it leaves open the possibility that your conclusion is wrong, regardless of how many points you get right along the way.

While technically correct, your choice in characterization reveals that you have only a superficial understanding at best. For instance, you are probably unaware that nearly everything you would consider to be absolute fact (whatever the topic) is actually not conclusive and is actually derived solely from inductive logic (> 99%).

You should really read Humes' work in this area as once you realize that practically everything is inductive you begin to appreciate the importance of weighing the relative merits of competing propositions. Without this constant inductive differential reasoning engine running in the back recesses of our conscious minds, it would be quite impossible to even function on a daily basis.

Go ahead, throw out a fact, any fact, that you think you know deductively and I'll show you how you actually only "know" it through inductive logic.

(but tomorrow, I'm going to bed now)

Geko45
07-23-2012, 22:17
The link will do just fine. No need to post it again, since you said you already have.
Tomorrow. Not gonna search for it from the tablet.

you can support your claims that I have a compulsion to get the last word in, as opposed to continuing the discussion.

100 pages of support isn't enough? Seriously, you haven't said anything new in days (maybe even weeks) and you're still here trotting around the same tired pony.

:animlol:

Cavalry Doc
07-24-2012, 04:19
While technically correct, your choice in characterization reveals that you have only a superficial understanding at best. For instance, you are probably unaware that nearly everything you would consider to be absolute fact (whatever the topic) is actually not conclusive and is actually derived solely from inductive logic (> 99%).

Cartoons are meant to be humorous. Is there no humor in you?


You should really read Humes' work in this area as once you realize that practically everything is inductive you begin to appreciate the importance of weighing the relative merits of competing propositions. Without this constant inductive differential reasoning engine running in the back recesses of our conscious minds, it would be quite impossible to even function on a daily basis.

Go ahead, throw out a fact, any fact, that you think you know deductively and I'll show you how you actually only "know" it through inductive logic.

(but tomorrow, I'm going to bed now)

All I need is the link to the inductive argument you have previously posted, with all the congratulatory comments that followed about how it was so brilliant.

Cavalry Doc
07-24-2012, 04:21
Tomorrow. Not gonna search for it from the tablet.



100 pages of support isn't enough? Seriously, you haven't said anything new in days (maybe even weeks) and you're still here trotting around the same tired pony.

:animlol:

Uh oh. Is this an example of your logic skills??!! You've spoken of your Inductive Reasoning skills with such adulation that I expected more. I am sorely unimpressed.

You made a very specific derogatory claim that should be easy to prove. I even told you how you could prove it. Now that you are dodging, the only question is were you mistaken or just lying. Imperfect or Dishonest?

Geko45
07-24-2012, 07:09
ETA: BTW, you posted twice after I posed that challenge. You were here, not just traveling.

I hadn't paged back far enough to see what you had typed while I was traveling. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

:dunno:

Cartoons are meant to be humorous. Is there no humor in you?

I wasn't actually referring to your cartoon.

Now that you are dodging, the only question is were you mistaken or just lying. Imperfect or Dishonest?

Dodging? Really? I don't think anyone would agree with you on that point (whether they agree with my position or not). It'll be quite easy to demonstrate my point. All I have to do is wait for this thread to fall off the top page and make a single irrelevant bump post and sit back and watch your OCD takeover as you can't stand the thought of not getting the last word in on your own thread.

Don't forget, we are talking about ANY deity, not just a single specific deity of your choosing.

Ah, so you do remember my argument (as demonstrated by your weak attempt to limit my response). I have no need to try and disprove finite "deities" as they would not be a deity at all. An advanced alien race of some sort would not be gods (even if they did design us) they would just be really good engineers. They would be no more a god to us than we would be to some genetically engineered microbe we created.

I have no need to disprove finite "gods". I only take issue with ones described as being infinte in one or more attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc) These can be clearly shown as to not be theoritically feasible.

All I need is the link to the inductive argument you have previously posted, with all the congratulatory comments that followed about how it was so brilliant.

Like all bold thinkers, I am underappreciated in my time. :supergrin:

But here are links to a number of posts that pull together the complete argument.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18857044&postcount=214

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18857416&postcount=220

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18857680&postcount=232

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18857952&postcount=233

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18858152&postcount=236

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18858528&postcount=239

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18858753&postcount=241

Cavalry Doc
07-24-2012, 07:30
Truly a legend in your own mind...

I glanced at three of the links, it's unconvincing, except that you have no personal evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent deity that is personally concerned with us as individuals. What if one or more of those traits did not apply?

A lack of personal evidence, considering our remote and minuscule presence in the universe falls a little short of proof for me.

So, I guess we still have a difference of opinion.

Did you find all those threads that I let fall by the wayside yet, that disproves your previous and continued projected charges? I won't ask for an apology, that's usually a waste of time with a narcissist.

:wavey:

Lone Wolf8634
07-24-2012, 07:30
Geko45 resurrected this thread and then said there was plenty of evidence to say no deities have ever existed, he'll be along shortly with all of it. Should fit in a thimble, along with his manners.

Gecko45 said he had an inductive argument based on evidence, there is a difference. While no amount of circumstantial evidence could prove conclusively the non-existence of a deity, the complete lack of any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise does make a strong (inductive) case against it.

Which is exactly why we've been so vocal (in writing) about your assertion that the position of a deity being real is equally as valid as the position of them being a myth. Because it is not. The myth has virtually no evidence besides a book, thousands of years old, that may or may not have actual historic facts in it, but they're side by side with obvious fabrications and inconsistencies. The entire religion depends on indoctrination at a young age or it will cease to exist in a few generations. The few that come to it after they pass the age of easy manipulation are negligible, and even they have been influenced by the rhetoric at some point.



I do not need a deity to exist, but in case you haven't noticed, the only ones giving me grief about being an agnostic are the atheists. So, sorta like in politics, where an Obamamaniac would describe Mittens as a right wing extremist, when most of us can tell Mittens is a left of center liberal. Here, arguing toward agnosticism, for the devout atheist, just looks like theism.

No one has given you grief about being an Agnostic. You've been severely chastised about using the same arguments that Theists use, i.e. "Atheism is a religion", "Atheists belief in science is "faith"", "Religion is far to profound and important to be considered the same as Fairy Tales and imaginary creatures".

You've also been been held to the fire over your insistence of telling us what it is that Atheists "believe" so that your arguments might carry water for a few moments , at least.

Also, you may have, once or twice, been accused of being a troll. And to be perfectly honest, I've entertained that thought more than a few times myself.

And the reason that only the Atheists have gotten after you is simple. We're the only ones you've insulted. I've not seen you start a thread entitled "Why Is It So Hard To Admit Your Religion May Be a Myth?"

You started a discussion that would be sure to get some passionate responses, don't be surprised you succeeded, and don't play the victim now.

But I'm open minded enough to consider it at least possible. I have no idea what nature she/he/it/them would be in, and it's not necessary. There is a definite order to the universe, and in life on this planet, a complexity that is amazing. So, it could have just happened over billyuns and billyuns of years, or it could have been designed. I'm still perfectly OK with not knowing. I feel no need to stake a claim on either side of that argument, and am comfortable in my position in the middle. I personally believe it is the most reasonable position, but everyone has their own idea about what is best, and I can respect that.

As has been endlessly repeated, the Atheists here, are also open minded about it. We've said it in every way we know how: We cannot conclusively disprove the existence of a deity by any means that we currently posses, therefore, as infinitely small as the chance may be, there is a possibility of it. We just seem to assign it a much smaller probability than you.

And we are comfortable with that, at least in my case, I'm comfortable enough that I can dismiss it in the same manner as I dismiss my Pink Pegacorn.

And for feeling no need to stake your claim to one side or the other, you certainly seem to have chosen a side. Unless your next project is to get all the Christians to tell you you're going to hell.


By the way, I've never said YOU have to believe in the possibility of a deity. You have my personal blessing to believe anything you want to believe, as long as it doesn't motivate you to hurt others. And especially if it motivates you to be nice to people.

I am comfortable with what I believe, and while I want people to be skeptical, and to question things, I want them to be happy and comfortable in their beliefs too. If you want to believe in unicorns that poop skittle rainbows, and that makes you happy, and a better person to your neighbor, that's UBER-cool with me. :wavey:

I'm so happy I have your blessing to believe what I wish, I feel so much better now. /sarcasm off/

Now if I could just convince you that I believe what I say I believe.

Lone Wolf8634
07-24-2012, 07:40
Truly a legend in your own mind...

I glanced at three of the links, it's unconvincing, except that you have no personal evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent deity that is personally concerned with us as individuals. What if one or more of those traits did not apply?

A lack of personal evidence, considering our remote and minuscule presence in the universe falls a little short of proof for me.

So, I guess we still have a difference of opinion.

Did you find all those threads that I let fall by the wayside yet, that disproves your previous and continued projected charges? I won't ask for an apology, that's usually a waste of time with a narcissist.

:wavey:

Personal evidence is, by it's very nature, inconclusive and irrelevant. So even if he had "personal evidence", it would easily be dismissed. Just as the Theists arguments are dismissed when they speak of their personal relationship with their chosen deity.

Geko45
07-24-2012, 07:40
What if one or more of those traits did not apply?

These traits are not possible given our understanding of physical laws, so as long as this being had none of them then my argument would not apply. But such a being would also not be a god in any real sense. If a being doesn't possess any of the "omni"s then they are just as finite as you and I and therefore not worthy of any sort of worship.

Did you find all those threads that I let fall by the wayside yet, that disproves your previous and continued projected charges?

Yeah, but this baby is yours. That makes it different to you.

I won't ask for an apology, that's usually a waste of time with a narcissist.

:wavey:

Physician, heal thyself.

:wavey:

Woofie
07-24-2012, 11:56
Wow..

Cavalry Doc
07-24-2012, 14:22
These traits are not possible given our understanding of physical laws, so as long as this being had none of them then my argument would not apply. But such a being would also not be a god in any real sense. If a being doesn't possess any of the "omni"s then they are just as finite as you and I and therefore not worthy of any sort of worship.


You keep adding criteria as we go along. I never suggested they should be worshipped. But what if all that is was designed? By a being that ceased to exist, or by one that is not still in this area of the universe. I'm not seeing how your posts disprove the existance of such a being.

Seems that you alter the problem to fit your solution, instead of the other way around.

Geko45
07-24-2012, 15:11
But what if all that is was designed? By a being that ceased to exist, or by one that is not still in this area of the universe. I'm not seeing how your posts disprove the existance of such a being.

You are going to have to clearly define what you mean by this "being" and "all that is" before I can address your question more precisely. I know that's asking a lot since you've gone to great lengths to avoid being specific about what exactly it is you are arguing in favor of.

I'm not sure if you are now talking about an infinte being that created the universe out of nothing or a super advanced (but finite) engineer that manipulated the existing universe to suit their will? Which is it? I'm not gonna argue against a moving target. Define the attributes this proposed being would possess and what exact actions they performed and I'll tell you what my position on it is.

Cavalry Doc
07-24-2012, 16:23
You are going to have to clearly define what you mean by this "being" and "all that is" before I can address your question more precisely. I know that's asking a lot since you've gone to great lengths to avoid being specific about what exactly it is you are arguing in favor of.

I'm not sure if you are now talking about an infinte being that created the universe out of nothing or a super advanced (but finite) engineer that manipulated the existing universe to suit their will? Which is it? I'm not gonna argue against a moving target. Define the attributes this proposed being would possess and what exact actions they performed and I'll tell you what my position on it is.

OK, it looks like both of us need to clarify some things.

1. You've essentially said that there is not absolute tangible irrefutable and demonstrable proof that a deity did not create the universe.

2. You've stated that you've used your superior intellect and mastery of inductive thinking to prove to yourself and others that no deity has existed.

3. And now you are saying that you have only considered a deity that contains certain absolute traits?

Are there any of the three points above that you agree with?


If so, please tell me exactly what you are presenting proof of again.

Geko45
07-24-2012, 16:40
OK, it looks like both of us need to clarify some things.

1. You've essentially said that there is not absolute tangible irrefutable and demonstrable proof that a deity did not create the universe.

2. You've stated that you've used your superior intellect and mastery of inductive thinking to prove to yourself and others that no deity has existed.

3. And now you are saying that you have only considered a deity that contains certain absolute traits?

Are there any of the three points above that you agree with?


If so, please tell me exactly what you are presenting proof of again.

I'll take this is as you declining to elaborate on your position. You want me to tell you if something is or is not possible, but you won't tell me exactly what criteria I would be answering on? My previous argument is for the most common definition of "god". If you have another in mind then share it and we will test it and see if it's valid and sound. If you don't want to do that then I'll just assume the debate is over.