Lets Get A Definition.....Defined! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Lets Get A Definition.....Defined!


Lone Wolf8634
05-21-2012, 06:52
Or: You're Making Me Crazy!!!:crazy:

Atheist: A person who has an ABSENCE of BELIEF that a deity or deities exist.

Please pay attention to that. Yes I mean you, way in the back of the class shaking your head. You know who you are.:wavey:

Yousguys back there insist on giving a definition of Atheism that'll allow you to assign us a belief system akin to your own. That just wont do.

Atheism, in its simplest terms, is the rejection of an unsupported assertion.(Sound familiar? It should.) Atheism is not, no matter how many word games you wanna play, a religion in and of itself. It has no explanation for the universe (that's science), it makes no attempt to explain where life comes from or how it got here (science again) and makes no effort to explain why its all here(That's philosophy, which IMHO, is not science:supergrin:). Atheism has no moral code that all Atheists subscribe to (That's, IMO, genetic, environmental and personal choice) nor does it provide a punishment when one does not adhere to the morals it does not impose.

" In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a"non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." - Sam Harris.

muscogee
05-21-2012, 07:22
Good point. I think most people are aphilatelist but no one uses that as a pejorative.

Lone Wolf8634
05-21-2012, 07:37
Good point. I think most people are aphilatelist but no one uses that as a pejorative.


I had to look that up!!:rofl::rofl:

Woofie
05-21-2012, 09:05
" In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a"non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." - Sam Harris.

Which is partially why I do not consider myself an atheist.

muscogee
05-21-2012, 14:36
Which is partially why I do not consider myself an atheist.

I'm a recovering Christian.

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 15:44
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

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



Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb



Pretty simple really.

Woofie
05-21-2012, 16:18
I'm a recovering Christian.

I have never been a Christian.

void *
05-21-2012, 17:01
" In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a"non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs." - Sam Harris.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it is a fairly fast way to get the idea across that you don't believe in deities, in a society where the majority does. (Most people aren't philatelist or numismatists or astrologers or alchemists, so the assumption is you're not unless you say you are, but within a majority theist society, people will assume you are unless you say you're not, so I can see how having a word for it came about).

Lone Wolf8634
05-21-2012, 17:06
Sorry Doc, but your assertion was soundly rejected by pretty much everyone who identifies as an Atheist here.

You'll just have to deal with how the Atheists choose to define themselves here.

Geko45
05-21-2012, 19:58
I have never been a Christian.

Count yourself lucky, it only took me 38 years to shed myself of that archaic mythos.

As for the recurrence of a topic that should have been left for dead (much like jesus), atheist most directly means "not theist". Nothing more. People need to consider the meaning of the "a" prefix in other contexts. For instance, "apathetic" doesn't mean you care just as much, but in the inverse. It means the absence of caring. Apolitical doesn't mean you are opposed to politics, it means you have no political incliniations at all. In much the same way, atheism means you are not theistic in any manner. Yes, some atheists do oppose theism actively (I'll admit to that myself), but that is not inherent in the definition of the term.

Woofie
05-21-2012, 20:08
Count yourself lucky, it only took me 38 years to shed myself of that archaic mythos.

As for the recurrence of a topic that should have been left for dead (much like jesus), atheist most directly means "not theist". Nothing more.

But to many people it implies "anti-theist" and I find hard to blame them for thinking that sometimes when I read news stories about atheists taking their lack of belief and elevating it to some kind of pseudo religious experience.

Woofie
05-21-2012, 20:11
Count yourself lucky, it only took me 38 years to shed myself of that archaic mythos.

As for the recurrence of a topic that should have been left for dead (much like jesus), atheist most directly means "not theist". Nothing more. People need to consider the meaning of the "a" prefix in other contexts. For instance "apathetic" doesn't mean you care just as much, but in the inverse. It means the absence of caring. Apolitical doesn't mean you are opposed to politics, it means you have no political incliniations at all. In much the same way, atheism means you are not theistic in any manner. Yes, some atheists do oppose theism actively (I'll admit to that myself), but that is not inherent in the definition of the term.

Guess since you edited I can reply to the same post again.

I like to use "moral" as an example. We all have an idea of what a moral person is, whether we agree on specifics is immaterial. An immoral person acts in such a way that is not moral. Then you have an amoral person who acts without any moral compass whatsoever.

Cavalry Doc
05-21-2012, 20:28
Sorry Doc, but your assertion was soundly rejected by pretty much everyone who identifies as an Atheist here.

You'll just have to deal with how the Atheists choose to define themselves here.

The atheists have their misconceptions, just like the misconceptions of the theists you all are so fond of pointing out.

It is what it is. No hard feelings from me. But atheism, the belief that there is no deity, is a belief, not a passive lack of belief, at least in my own well supported opinion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I think a lack of belief leads one toward agnosticism. A BELIEF that there is no deity leads one to atheism. No evidence leads one to not conclude. Belief leads one to conclude.

OK, this is a bit simplistic, but I think it is accurate:

Some dude says there is a god. Respectfully, I see no evidence of that, so I don't know if your god exists. That's agnosticism.

Some dude says there is a god. I see no evidence of that, so therefore conclude there is no god, so there is no way your god exists, and you are an idiot for thinking there is a god, and for many people on this forum, that is atheism.


If you have conclusive proof one way or the other, whether a deity or deity's have ever existed, I'd love to see it. Present it here for critical review.

The fact is, we don't know for sure. Some choose to believe. Some choose to believe deity's have not existed. It's perfectly fine to make that choice. You have every right to believe the way you want to believe. I support you believing in that.

But you don't get to claim that you are right without this simple agnostic person in Texas pointing out that you have too made a choice in what to believe in, without proof. It is a matter of faith. You are holding to it with ardor.

The definition fits. Sorry to be the one to point it out. We probably agree on more than we disagree.

I like my G23 with crimson trace laser grips in a Minotaur MTAC Holster. It's awesomely comfortable. I like Mossberg's in 12 ga with lights attached, extended magazine filled with centurion rounds, and slugs in a sleeve on the stock. I like scary black AR rifles in .308. I hunt. I've killed when I wanted to and when I didn't. I have an affinity for old guns. 150 year old stage coach double barrel guns. 100 year old lever actions. Ruger 10-22's in any flavor. The .17 HMR cartridge. The .308, .270, and .30-06, .380, 9mm, .40, and .45. I have a good time going to the range and shooting with my buddies, their kids and mine. I really like reloading hyper-accurate rifle rounds. I like working up different loads for each rifle and pistol I own. I think outside the box. I'd love to come up with a 12 ga flechette and buckshot round that had awesome range, penetration, and close in ballistic supremacy.

I'm just this guy. I just see things differently than you. That's all. No hard feelings.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Geko45
05-21-2012, 20:38
But atheism, the belief that there is no deity, is a belief, not a passive lack of belief, at least in my own well supported opinion.

Not really well supported at all. By your logic:

An apathist still cares very deeply.
An apoliticist still participates in politics.
An agnostic still feels they have knowledge.
An amoralist still has a code of conduct that they live by.

In no other instance would prefixing a word with "a" (i.e. "not) have the meaning that you are proposing. But hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

GAFinch
05-21-2012, 21:25
An agnostic has a personal lack of faith. An atheist has a dogmatic lack of faith that usually compels him to evangelize to others about it.

Geko45
05-21-2012, 21:32
I would point out that this entire topic on the part of theists is nothing more than an elaborate strawman with the intent of marginalizing atheism by attempting to portray it as just another faction or sect.

steveksux
05-21-2012, 22:52
Too bad there isn't one more atrollist posting here...

Randy

steveksux
05-21-2012, 23:10
Good point. I think most people are aphilatelist but no one uses that as a pejorative.

I had to look that up!!:rofl::rofl:

I didn't think there was any such thing as an aphilatelist. Blasphemy, I thought!!!

Turns out a philatelist isn't quite what i thought it was.
Randy

Lone Wolf8634
05-22-2012, 00:08
The atheists have their misconceptions, just like the misconceptions of the theists you all are so fond of pointing out..................



http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Nope, no hard feelings Doc, and I thank you from the bottom of my evil little black Atheist heart for your attempts to define my position for me.:supergrin:

But.

This thread was simply trying to state that we don't believe what you say we believe, even though you believe that we believe what you think we believe even when we say we don't believe it.

If I gotta believe something, I believe I'm gonna quit trying to make you believe that I believe what I say I believe and not what you say I believe.:phew:


Sorry all. This wasn't an attempt to get the zombie thread from hell reincarnated, although I should of known better.

Lone Wolf8634
05-22-2012, 00:10
I didn't think there was any such thing as an aphilatelist. Blasphemy, I thought!!!

Turns out a philatelist isn't quite what i thought it was.
Randy


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ok, Something good came from this, I chuckled.:supergrin:

void *
05-22-2012, 00:25
If I gotta believe something, I believe I'm gonna quit trying to make you believe that I believe what I say I believe and not what you say I believe.


Believe that. :supergrin:

Syclone538
05-22-2012, 02:29
...
But atheism, the belief that there is no deity,
...

False. You already know this, but until you admit it, nothing else you post in GTRI is even worth reading.

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2012, 06:34
False. You already know this, but until you admit it, nothing else you post in GTRI is even worth reading.




I didn't make up the definitions. Not my fault. If you believe something different, that's ok with me. But it doesn't make either of us bad people. If it will make you feel better, put me on your ignore list, or just simply ignore my posts. But I think that's a bad way to be, to simply dismiss anything a person says because you disagree on a trivial matter.

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2012, 06:37
Nope, no hard feelings Doc, and I thank you from the bottom of my evil little black Atheist heart for your attempts to define my position for me.:supergrin:

But.

This thread was simply trying to state that we don't believe what you say we believe, even though you believe that we believe what you think we believe even when we say we don't believe it.

If I gotta believe something, I believe I'm gonna quit trying to make you believe that I believe what I say I believe and not what you say I believe.:phew:


Sorry all. This wasn't an attempt to get the zombie thread from hell reincarnated, although I should of known better.

No problem. I wish you well. All in all, it's not that big of a deal.

ksg0245
05-22-2012, 17:30
I didn't make up the definitions.

No, you just ignore the ones you don't like.

Not my fault.

Your disingenuousness is.

If you believe something different, that's ok with me. But it doesn't make either of us bad people. If it will make you feel better, put me on your ignore list, or just simply ignore my posts. But I think that's a bad way to be, to simply dismiss anything a person says because you disagree on a trivial matter.

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 19:44
Not really well supported at all. By your logic:

An apathist still cares very deeply.
An apoliticist still participates in politics.
An agnostic still feels they have knowledge.
An amoralist still has a code of conduct that they live by.

In no other instance would prefixing a word with "a" (i.e. "not) have the meaning that you are proposing. But hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

And ignored. Words mean things. Problem with the English language is its modularity/plurality/versatility. Folks get to pick and choose what means what. We were warned of New Speak.

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 19:48
I would point out that this entire topic on the part of theists is nothing more than an elaborate strawman with the intent of marginalizing atheism by attempting to portray it as just another faction or sect.

That is my position as well. Its an attempt at "see you position is just as stupid as you think mine is". I fail however to see how that benefits their arguments.

I think I might be the only believer on the forum that in no way shape or form thinks atheism is appropriately defined as a religion.

muscogee
05-22-2012, 20:04
And ignored. Words mean things. Problem with the English language is its modularity/plurality/versatility. Folks get to pick and choose what means what. We were warned of New Speak.

That's a problem with all natural informal languages. They're imprecise. I don't know where you work, but I'm sure you have a precise formal language you use there that does not allow ambiguity in your language. When you say something in a formal language it only means one well defined thing.

juggy4711
05-22-2012, 20:25
That's a problem with all natural informal languages. They're imprecise. I don't know where you work, but I'm sure you have a precise formal language you use there that does not allow ambiguity in your language. When you say something in a formal language it only means one well defined thing.

Great point. I work in a dangerous industrial setting and previously worked in the medical field. In both instances unambiguous communication was/is vital. In my current job miscommunication could cost someone to loose a limb or worse.

Someone almost lost a finger or three today from just such a thing. And in this case it wasn't even verbal, it was hand signals.

steveksux
05-22-2012, 20:30
Great point. I work in a dangerous industrial setting and previously worked in the medical field. In both instances unambiguous communication was/is vital. In my current job miscommunication could cost someone to loose a limb or worse.

Someone almost lost a finger or three today from just such a thing. And in this case it wasn't even verbal, it was hand signals.You should really switch from hand signals to an interpretive dance when working around a wood chipper....

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-23-2012, 04:31
No, you just ignore the ones you don't like.



Your disingenuousness is.

I don't ignore them, I think Merriam-Webster got it right. If you like another definition, you can use it. I have no way of stopping you. I'm very genuine on this subject.


Do you always get angry and accusatory when people disagree with you?

Geko45
05-23-2012, 07:49
I don't ignore them, I think Merriam-Webster got it right.

They did, but where you failed was the leap to categorizing it as just another religion. The definitions you cited do not support that.

Cavalry Doc
05-23-2012, 09:01
They did, but where you failed was the leap to categorizing it as just another religion. The definitions you cited do not support that.

It's not a fail, that's just the way I see it. Others see it differently. Think how boring this site would be if everyone agreed on everything.

ksg0245
05-23-2012, 18:17
I don't ignore them, I think Merriam-Webster got it right.

Well, it got the theist perception of atheists right, but that isn't the same thing. Most atheists don't "believe there is no deity;" they reject the unsupported assertion of deities, which is why it's wrong. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times. What's more, the M-W definition of "atheist" conflicts with it's definition of "atheism," which is "a disbelief in the existence of deity."

I reject the unsupported assertion of the existence of deities. I don't believe they exist. I hold the concept not worthy of belief.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve
Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

If you like another definition, you can use it. I have no way of stopping you. I'm very genuine on this subject.

This incredible thread suggests otherwise.

Do you always get angry and accusatory when people disagree with you?

Nope. But I do object to people being disingenuous.

Cavalry Doc
05-24-2012, 04:43
Well, it got the theist perception of atheists right, but that isn't the same thing. Most atheists don't "believe there is no deity;" they reject the unsupported assertion of deities, which is why it's wrong. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times. What's more, the M-W definition of "atheist" conflicts with it's definition of "atheism," which is "a disbelief in the existence of deity."

I reject the unsupported assertion of the existence of deities. I don't believe they exist. I hold the concept not worthy of belief.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve
Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief



This incredible thread suggests otherwise.



Nope. But I do object to people being disingenuous.

If the subject matter injures you psychologically in some way, it's ok to not open the thread. Is it a control issue? You can't change everyone's mind. My mind is pretty firmly made up. So is yours. Why is that even a problem for you?

Woofie
05-24-2012, 14:42
Dear God,

Please let this end. Amen

Geko45
05-24-2012, 17:41
Dear God,

Please let this end. Amen

:wow: :rofl:

Cavalry Doc
05-24-2012, 18:27
Dear God,

Please let this end. Amen

Funny.

What's wrong with discussing different ways of looking at things?

It's good to at least consider different points of view. How well would science work if dissenting opinions were squashed and discarded without debate, oh wait, MMGW is a good example.

Guss
05-24-2012, 19:54
An agnostic has a personal lack of faith. An atheist has a dogmatic lack of faith that usually compels him to evangelize to others about it.
No - You just don't hear from the quiet atheists.

juggy4711
05-24-2012, 20:03
You should really switch from hand signals to an interpretive dance when working around a wood chipper....

Randy

:rofl: Co-worker and I did that when I worked at a BBQ restaurant. Most dangerous thing there was the deep fryer. :supergrin:

Gunhaver
05-24-2012, 20:38
It's not a fail, that's just the way I see it. Others see it differently. Think how boring this site would be if everyone agreed on everything.

Doc is fine with being wrong. I'm fine with Doc being wrong. Can we just all agree to let him be wrong and lay this to rest?

Sarge1400
05-24-2012, 20:46
An agnostic has a personal lack of faith. An atheist has a dogmatic lack of faith that usually compels him to evangelize to others about it.

That is COMPLETELY incorrect.
The root word of 'agnostic' is 'gnosis', which is Greek for KNOWLEDGE. Hence, 'gnostic' means 'having (or with) knowledge, and conversely, agnostic means 'without knowledge'.

'Theism' is the BELIEF or FAITH in deities. Conversely, atheism is the LACK of belief or faith in deities.

As has been shown countless times in this, and other, threads, gnosis and theism exist on two different scales which can, and do, intersect. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and dishonest.

Syclone538
05-24-2012, 21:02
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2012, 06:43
That is COMPLETELY incorrect.
The root word of 'agnostic' is 'gnosis', which is Greek for KNOWLEDGE. Hence, 'gnostic' means 'having (or with) knowledge, and conversely, agnostic means 'without knowledge'.

'Theism' is the BELIEF or FAITH in deities. Conversely, atheism is the LACK of belief or faith in deities.

As has been shown countless times in this, and other, threads, gnosis and theism exist on two different scales which can, and do, intersect. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and dishonest.

The x/y graphical representation is A way to represent ones perspective. That doesn't mean it's the only way to look at it.

Atheism-atheistic agnostic--agnostic--theistic agnostic-theist.

From a middle of the road agnostic, that makes perfect sense. The question is whether or not a deity or deities have ever existed. If you truly believe that there is a deity, most would agree you are a theist. If you think there is a deity, but aren't really sure, that seems to be a theistic agnostic. And so on.

Maybe it's a matter of focussing on your own position, but to me, the adjective and noun are incorrect in the X/Y graph. Gnostic atheist doesn't make sense. Gnostic means you have knowledge. How does one have knowledge that there has never been a deity? Conversely, how does one have knowledge that there is a deity. If you really do know the answer to that question, what proof did you discover?

The linear analog graph between the two extremes makes perfect sense to me.


I guess you can use any labels you want, but it seems to me that all the posters that profess a simple lack of belief are more accurately described as atheistic agnostics. Not atheists. But that doesn't mean they should change what they call themselves, it's the Internet, you can call yourself anything.

Lone Wolf8634
05-25-2012, 07:23
Doc is fine with being wrong. I'm fine with Doc being wrong. Can we just all agree to let him be wrong and lay this to rest?

I second that!!

Syclone538
05-25-2012, 09:22
I know I'm wasting my time, but anyway...

The x/y graphical representation is A way to represent ones perspective. That doesn't mean it's the only way to look at it.

Atheism-atheistic agnostic--agnostic--theistic agnostic-theist.

From a middle of the road agnostic, that makes perfect sense. The question is whether or not a deity or deities have ever existed.
...

No, the two questions are, Do you believe any deities have existed? Do you know if any deities have existed.

...
If you truly believe that there is a deity, most would agree you are a theist.
...

I agree with that as far as it goes. It says nothing to gnostic/agnostic.

...
If you think there is a deity, but aren't really sure, that seems to be a theistic agnostic. And so on.
...

Theist and agnostic, agnostic and theist, whatever.

...
Maybe it's a matter of focussing on your own position, but to me, the adjective and noun are incorrect in the X/Y graph.
...

Theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, there are no adjectives there, only nouns.

...
Gnostic atheist doesn't make sense. Gnostic means you have knowledge. How does one have knowledge that there has never been a deity?
...

I agree. Gnostic atheists are extremely rare.

...
Conversely, how does one have knowledge that there is a deity. If you really do know the answer to that question, what proof did you discover?
...

If I start hearing the voice of a god, or if a god starts visiting me in person, I'll either question my own sanity or become a gnostic theist.

...
The linear analog graph between the two extremes makes perfect sense to me.
...

Gnostic/agnostic answer if you know.
Theist/atheist answer if you believe.

They can't go on the same line because they answer different questions.

...
I guess you can use any labels you want, but it seems to me that all the posters that profess a simple lack of belief are more accurately described as atheistic agnostics. Not atheists. But that doesn't mean they should change what they call themselves, it's the Internet, you can call yourself anything.

Not atheistic agnostics, but atheist and agnostic.

Sarge1400
05-25-2012, 10:11
The x/y graphical representation is A way to represent ones perspective. That doesn't mean it's the only way to look at it.

Atheism-atheistic agnostic--agnostic--theistic agnostic-theist.



Wrong. Gnosis is knowledge, theism is belief. It's not a matter of opinion or point of view, it is fact.

Woofie
05-25-2012, 12:37
Funny.

What's wrong with discussing different ways of looking at things?

It's good to at least consider different points of view. How well would science work if dissenting opinions were squashed and discarded without debate, oh wait, MMGW is a good example.

Nothing wrong with it. I'm just praying.

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2012, 14:24
Doc is fine with being wrong. I'm fine with Doc being wrong. Can we just all agree to let him be wrong and lay this to rest?

I think I'm right, but I am ok if people think I'm wrong. Universal approval of every position I hold by all humanity is not only unnecessary for my personal sense of well being, which is ok because it's virtually impossible to achieve absolute consensus.

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2012, 14:31
Wrong. Gnosis is knowledge, theism is belief. It's not a matter of opinion or point of view, it is fact.

How do you know for a fact no deity has ever existed? Am I understanding that correctly?


I don't know, I think is it possible to know, but I don't.
Some claime to know, or truly believe.

To me, atheistic agnostic is a lot more descriptive term than agnostic atheist.

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2012, 14:39
I know I'm wasting my time, but anyway...



No, the two questions are, Do you believe any deities have existed? Do you know if any deities have existed.



I agree with that as far as it goes. It says nothing to gnostic/agnostic.



Theist and agnostic, agnostic and theist, whatever.



Theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic, there are no adjectives there, only nouns.



I agree. Gnostic atheists are extremely rare.



If I start hearing the voice of a god, or if a god starts visiting me in person, I'll either question my own sanity or become a gnostic theist.



Gnostic/agnostic answer if you know.
Theist/atheist answer if you believe.

They can't go on the same line because they answer different questions.



Not atheistic agnostics, but atheist and agnostic.

Still, I see this as two valid ways to look at the issue.

If one knows there is/was no deity, to me, that implies that is correct, that there is/was no deity. Again, how would they know.

Again, just to me, it's more of a belief. I'm not sure how many people believe it's pretty much equally possible that either the theists or atheists are right, and are comfortable admitting they don't know.


Either there was/is a deity, or no deity has existed. The other points on the linear model just graphically demonstrate how strongly one believes one way or the other.

I see it as incorrect to consider them two different questions. If you are gnostic, you can't separate that from the question.

Syclone538
05-25-2012, 14:53
Still, I see this as two valid ways to look at the issue.

If one knows there is/was no deity, to me, that implies that is correct, that there is/was no deity. Again, how would they know.
...

Being atheist and agnostic, I don't believe it is possible to know.

The way I see it, someone who thinks they know is gnostic, even if they are wrong and don't actually know, because I don't believe anyone knows, so the word gnostic would have no meaning at all otherwise.

Gnostic atheists are extremely rare.

...
Again, just to me, it's more of a belief. I'm not sure how many people believe it's pretty much equally possible that either the theists or atheists are right, and are comfortable admitting they don't know.

I'm comfortable admitting I don't know, but don't give the existence of gods anywhere near a 50% chance. More like less then 1%.

There was a time, between me being theist and atheist that I probably would have given it 50%.

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2012, 16:28
Being atheist and agnostic, I don't believe it is possible to know.

The way I see it, someone who thinks they know is gnostic, even if they are wrong and don't actually know, because I don't believe anyone knows, so the word gnostic would have no meaning at all otherwise.

Gnostic atheists are extremely rare.



I'm comfortable admitting I don't know, but don't give the existence of gods anywhere near a 50% chance. More like less then 1%.

There was a time, between me being theist and atheist that I probably would have given it 50%.

It might be possible to know. If there is a deity and an afterlife, you might know but not be able to let us know.

Seems as if you have decided what to believe, without proof. Do you believe that is accurate.

Sarge1400
05-25-2012, 16:41
How do you know for a fact no deity has ever existed? Am I understanding that correctly?

:faint:
NO, YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY. Where did I ever say that I know for a fact no deity has ever existed?

ALL I'm saying is that gnosis and theism are two completely different things.
Gnosis/gnostic/agnostic apply to knowledge. That's it. That's all. They do not apply to belief. At all. Not even a little bit.

Theism/atheism apply to belief in deities. That's it. That's all. They do not apply to knowledge. At all. Not even a little bit.

I honestly don't know how I, or anyone else, can possibly be any clearer than this. That fact that you display an uncanny inability to grasp this is baffling to me.

I don't know, I think is it possible to know, but I don't.
Some claime to know, or truly believe.

To me, atheistic agnostic is a lot more descriptive term than agnostic atheist.

I'm sure it is, to you.

Syclone538
05-25-2012, 23:10
It might be possible to know. If there is a deity and an afterlife, you might know but not be able to let us know.
...

Yeah if there is a god, it might be possible to know, that's completely up to the god in question. I doubt there is a god, and if there is not a god, I doubt that anyone could ever know it.

You asked, how would they know, and my answer is that they don't, they only think they do.

...
Seems as if you have decided what to believe, without proof. Do you believe that is accurate.

What is it that you think I have decided to believe?

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 05:41
:faint:
NO, YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY. Where did I ever say that I know for a fact no deity has ever existed?

ALL I'm saying is that gnosis and theism are two completely different things.
Gnosis/gnostic/agnostic apply to knowledge. That's it. That's all. They do not apply to belief. At all. Not even a little bit.

Theism/atheism apply to belief in deities. That's it. That's all. They do not apply to knowledge. At all. Not even a little bit.

I honestly don't know how I, or anyone else, can possibly be any clearer than this. That fact that you display an uncanny inability to grasp this is baffling to me.



I'm sure it is, to you.


Theism and atheism are simply polar opposites on a range of belief on the question about whether a deity has existed.

On the grid, is it possible to be neither a theist or an atheist?
I just think the linear description is more descriptive. Both are just a crude attempt to explain a point of view. I like mine, you like yours, no need to go ALL CAPS.

Sarge1400
05-26-2012, 08:40
Theism and atheism are simply polar opposites on a range of belief on the question about whether a deity has existed.

Exactly. But 'agnostic' lies NOWHERE in that range. Gnostic and agnostic are also polar opposites, but since gnosis=knowledge and theism=belief (in deities), they CANNOT exist in the same range.

On the grid, is it possible to be neither a theist or an atheist?

No. You either believe, or you don't believe. How can you not know whether or not you believe? Notice we're not speaking to knowledge here. Even if you somehow can't decide whether you believe or not, then you DON"T BELIEVE. Atheism simply means no belief in deities. It doesn't mean you believe they don't exist, it only means you don't believe that they do; important distinction there.

I just think the linear description is more descriptive. Both are just a crude attempt to explain a point of view. I like mine, you like yours, no need to go ALL CAPS.

WRONG. Your linear description isn't even possible, since knowledge and belief are two different things. Your linear scale equates to: black - dark grey - plaid - light grey - white.

Sorry you don't care for all caps, just adding emphasis, trying to get you to understand.

ksg0245
05-26-2012, 10:32
If the subject matter injures you psychologically in some way, it's ok to not open the thread. Is it a control issue? You can't change everyone's mind. My mind is pretty firmly made up. So is yours. Why is that even a problem for you?

You're again trying to tell me my beliefs. I don't object to you being disingenuous because it injures me; I object because it's dishonest, and not objecting implies it's okay to be disingenuous.

muscogee
05-26-2012, 11:00
Once again Cavalry Doc hijacks a thread to force everyone to follow his circular reasoning that he claims proves atheism is a region. Folks, use the unsubscribe function. This is a waste of time. I'm out of here one more time.

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 15:01
You're again trying to tell me my beliefs. I don't object to you being disingenuous because it injures me; I object because it's dishonest, and not objecting implies it's okay to be disingenuous.



Pot-kettle-black

I ask questions, you make conclusions. I'm being honest and you're being mildly rude. Why?

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 18:41
Once again Cavalry Doc hijacks a thread to force everyone to follow his circular reasoning that he claims proves atheism is a region. Folks, use the unsubscribe function. This is a waste of time. I'm out of here one more time.

Once again musky misses the mark. Maybe you don't know how to define hijack??

Read the OP. It's about the definitions.
That is what we are talking about. Do you want a link to the netiquette definition of hijack, or can you find it yourself.

Gunhaver
05-26-2012, 19:02
Once again musky misses the mark. Maybe you don't know how to define hijack??

Read the OP. It's about the definitions.
That is what we are talking about. Do you want a link to the netiquette definition of hijack, or can you find it yourself.

If you really need to be in the same camp as atheists then come on over. All that's required for membership is for you to get those silly god thoughts out of your head and apply the same critical thinking to the existence of the universe as you do in most other aspects of your life.

But I suspect you don't want to be atheist just as many of us don't want to be theist. We have very different thought processes on the matter, diametrically opposed thought processes even. You'll believe what you want because it makes you feel good and we're more interested in evidence so we don't go chasing rainbows. Why this burning desire to place us in the same camp? The two concepts couldn't be further apart.

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2012, 19:30
Exactly. But 'agnostic' lies NOWHERE in that range. Gnostic and agnostic are also polar opposites, but since gnosis=knowledge and theism=belief (in deities), they CANNOT exist in the same range.



No. You either believe, or you don't believe. How can you not know whether or not you believe? Notice we're not speaking to knowledge here. Even if you somehow can't decide whether you believe or not, then you DON"T BELIEVE. Atheism simply means no belief in deities. It doesn't mean you believe they don't exist, it only means you don't believe that they do; important distinction there.



WRONG. Your linear description isn't even possible, since knowledge and belief are two different things. Your linear scale equates to: black - dark grey - plaid - light grey - white.

Sorry you don't care for all caps, just adding emphasis, trying to get you to understand.

I understand, and disagree.

Let's try this on a question that you aren't so emotionally attached to.

A box. There might be something in the box, there might be nothing in the box.

Some may choose to believe something is in the box, some may choose to believe nothing is in the box, some just admit they don't know and don't committ one way or the other.

Between the is and isn't is a third choice. It's one way or the other, but when asked if something is in the box, the logical answers are yes, no & maybe. It's a gradient.

Believe there is--think there is but not sure-- uncommitted --think there isn't but not sure -- believe there isn't.

Asking if one believes there is something in the box, a lack of belief that anything is in the box doesn't really describe where they land on the issue.

Sarge1400
05-26-2012, 20:59
I understand, and disagree.

Then you don't understand.

Let's try this on a question that you aren't so emotionally attached to.

I'm not emotionally attached. Words mean things,whether you like it or not, and I'm trying to get you to understand that. I'm quite obviously wasting my time, and this will be my last post in this thread.

A box. There might be something in the box, there might be nothing in the box.

Ok so far.

Some may choose to believe something is in the box, some may choose to believe nothing is in the box, some just admit they don't know and don't committ one way or the other.

Well, that didn't take long. Once again, you're mixing knowledge and belief.

Between the is and isn't is a third choice. It's one way or the other, but when asked if something is in the box, the logical answers are yes, no & maybe. It's a gradient.

Is the question whether ones KNOWS something is in the box, or does one BELIEVE something is in the box? Two different questions.

Believe there is--think there is but not sure-- uncommitted --think there isn't but not sure -- believe there isn't.

Asking if one believes there is something in the box, a lack of belief that anything is in the box doesn't really describe where they land on the issue.

A lack of belief that anything is in the box = a-anything-in-the-box-ism. It doesn't have to succinctly describe exactly where they land on the issue, all it indicates is that there is a lack of belief that there is anything in the box. It is "I don't believe there is anything in the box". It is NOT "I believe there is nothing in the box". See the difference?

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. :wavey:

Gunhaver
05-26-2012, 21:13
A lack of belief that anything is in the box = a-anything-in-the-box-ism.

:rofl:

SE7EN Scene Whats in the box - YouTube

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 00:50
I understand, and disagree.

Let's try this on a question that you aren't so emotionally attached to.

A box. There might be something in the box, there might be nothing in the box.

Some may choose to believe something is in the box, some may choose to believe nothing is in the box, some just admit they don't know and don't committ one way or the other.

Between the is and isn't is a third choice. It's one way or the other, but when asked if something is in the box, the logical answers are yes, no & maybe. It's a gradient.

Believe there is--think there is but not sure-- uncommitted --think there isn't but not sure -- believe there isn't.

Asking if one believes there is something in the box, a lack of belief that anything is in the box doesn't really describe where they land on the issue.

My new hobby; Collecting inaccurate analogies.

Let's make it fit the actual situation your comparing it to. You assume that two people just walk into a room and see a box and they each immediately form equally valid but opposed opinions about whether or not it has contents. If that were the case then your assumption that their opinions were simply both opinions would be correct but that's not the case at all.

A more accurate scenario;
The box may not be touched, opened or influenced in any way. You may only observe the box. You can form your opinion about the boxes contents at any time and change your opinion in light of new information.

You decide that there is something in the box. You have a very specific idea of what that is because of stories you've heard your whole life about the contents of a box and your favorite old book that was written way back when all boxes were made of wood about the contents of a box plus the fact that you really would prefer that there be that specific object in the box.

I come along and decide to do some experiments. I shoot a laser thermometer at the box to see if anything might be generating heat. I listen carefully with a sensitive microphone for any sounds like meows or purrs. I set up an x-ray machine and develop the film. I check the records of other box examinations and find that every box like this one ever found was empty unless it was first discovered by someone that was absolutely positive that what was in the box was what they predicted and no one that wasn't in agreement was ever present at the opening.

Each time I perform an experiment you claim that the object puts off no heat, makes no sound, and is transparent to x-rays. There are also thousands of people outside that have formed their own opinion of the box contents, some of them only disagreeing with you slightly (because they read the same old book) and many more that grew up with different books about other things in boxes and they have completely different opinions.

And now you're saying that our opinions are basically exactly the same thing because they're both called opinions? Both equally valid with yours being more equally valid no doubt but really?

We both came to a completely different conclusion by completely different means. Your means I trust for nothing and my means you trust for everything EXCEPT the subject of the contents of that box. And now we're going to go argue in the internet for 90 pages and on into a new thread about how you think that our conclusions are basically the same thing because they're both called conclusions and both pertain to that box? Knock yourself out.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 07:51
If you really need to be in the same camp as atheists then come on over. All that's required for membership is for you to get those silly god thoughts out of your head and apply the same critical thinking to the existence of the universe as you do in most other aspects of your life.

But I suspect you don't want to be atheist just as many of us don't want to be theist. We have very different thought processes on the matter, diametrically opposed thought processes even. You'll believe what you want because it makes you feel good and we're more interested in evidence so we don't go chasing rainbows. Why this burning desire to place us in the same camp? The two concepts couldn't be further apart.

Just going to point out the proselytizing and religious characteristic of thinking only your belief system is right, without proof, which is faith.

To me, critical thinking requires one to consider possibilities, and not make absolute decisions on an issue with little or no tangible evidence. I don't have OCD issues applied to having to know everything. It's impossible to know everything. That's why we have division of labor, it allows a person to focus on one thing that needs doing, instead of all things that need doing. Some people are driven to have to know, and be right about it to boot. Some are further driven to make sure everyone else knows they are wrong. Ardor.

What I want doesn't really play into it too much. It would be cool if there was a god, depending on which one it was. It would also be cool to find out there has never been a god, as that would just about make us the winners of a cosmically significant game of chance.

You believe what you want because it makes you feel better. To me, there is a question that remains unanswered. I'm comfortable with that, but I'm not sure how that would make me feel better or worse.

The question is: "Is or was there a deity?". You believe that science has found a way to explain the current reality without the influence of a deity, so you have concluded that you will not believe in a deity, and neither should anyone else. Really:dunno:, you cannot see the choice you've made there. It is ok for you to make that choice, it's your absolute right, and it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to actually take it away. But why make a choice that leads toward intolerance of others that believe differently, especially on an issue without any evidence?

A lack of personal knowledge does not stop scientific belief. Other people conduct experiments, make conclusions, and tell others, children read about it in school books written by people with clearly evident agenda's, and it is taught as fact that electrons exist. I've never seen one. Have you? I believe in electrons by the way, it makes sense, and there aren't a lot of good arguments that I've seen saying they don't exist. Point is, much of what you "know" and "believe" was told to you by others. Sometimes, they get it wrong.... http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders


There are different types of atheists.

If the impression I got from your post is accurate.......

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/atheism1-1.jpg

Not the picture of course, but the concept the picture is trying to relay fits.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 07:58
My new hobby; Collecting inaccurate analogies.

Let's make it fit the actual situation your comparing it to. You assume that two people just walk into a room and see a box and they each immediately form equally valid but opposed opinions about whether or not it has contents. If that were the case then your assumption that their opinions were simply both opinions would be correct but that's not the case at all.

A more accurate scenario;
The box may not be touched, opened or influenced in any way. You may only observe the box. You can form your opinion about the boxes contents at any time and change your opinion in light of new information.

You decide that there is something in the box. You have a very specific idea of what that is because of stories you've heard your whole life about the contents of a box and your favorite old book that was written way back when all boxes were made of wood about the contents of a box plus the fact that you really would prefer that there be that specific object in the box.

I come along and decide to do some experiments. I shoot a laser thermometer at the box to see if anything might be generating heat. I listen carefully with a sensitive microphone for any sounds like meows or purrs. I set up an x-ray machine and develop the film. I check the records of other box examinations and find that every box like this one ever found was empty unless it was first discovered by someone that was absolutely positive that what was in the box was what they predicted and no one that wasn't in agreement was ever present at the opening.

Each time I perform an experiment you claim that the object puts off no heat, makes no sound, and is transparent to x-rays. There are also thousands of people outside that have formed their own opinion of the box contents, some of them only disagreeing with you slightly (because they read the same old book) and many more that grew up with different books about other things in boxes and they have completely different opinions.

And now you're saying that our opinions are basically exactly the same thing because they're both called opinions? Both equally valid with yours being more equally valid no doubt but really?

We both came to a completely different conclusion by completely different means. Your means I trust for nothing and my means you trust for everything EXCEPT the subject of the contents of that box. And now we're going to go argue in the internet for 90 pages and on into a new thread about how you think that our conclusions are basically the same thing because they're both called conclusions and both pertain to that box? Knock yourself out.

That's where the analogy fails. There is no scientific data that the "box is empty". Science explains what we can see, but it does not explain whether it was made that way, or just happened that way. Granted, scientists work very hard to see how things work, but when you use that data to conclude that it just happened on it's own, it is a choice to believe in a fundamental and profound position not supported by the data.

By altering the analogy to pretend that you have a way of determining if there is anything in the box, it slants your way. It's also slanted in the way you gave the "nothing in the box" guy all kinds of cool toys.

Very illustrative though.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 08:09
Then you don't understand.



I'm not emotionally attached. Words mean things,whether you like it or not, and I'm trying to get you to understand that. I'm quite obviously wasting my time, and this will be my last post in this thread.



Ok so far.



Well, that didn't take long. Once again, you're mixing knowledge and belief.



Is the question whether ones KNOWS something is in the box, or does one BELIEVE something is in the box? Two different questions.



A lack of belief that anything is in the box = a-anything-in-the-box-ism. It doesn't have to succinctly describe exactly where they land on the issue, all it indicates is that there is a lack of belief that there is anything in the box. It is "I don't believe there is anything in the box". It is NOT "I believe there is nothing in the box". See the difference?

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. :wavey:

OK, but if you lack belief that there is anything in the box, and it is only a lack of belief that there is anything in the box, how many posts would you make on the internet trying to convince people that there is nothing in the box, and make fun of people that did believe something was in the box?

I see your point, do you see mine? :wavey:

I believe some people that consider themselves atheists only have a lack of belief, but they aren't likely to be prolific posters in GTRI. I've started looking into other threads, and it's very obvious that many have an active belief as opposed to a passive lack of belief.

That's the really cool thing about people, they are complex and different.

Lone Wolf8634
05-27-2012, 09:13
I've created a monster.

Die Thread DIE!!!

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 09:22
I've created a monster.

Die Thread DIE!!!


Sorry. It is interesting why certain subjects are unpleasant to discuss, and if they are, why discuss them at all.

For me, once I'm at peace with the concept that others have different opinions than I have, it's not a problem.

Two different people can have well thought out and supported arguments for why they believe the way they do, and still completely disagree. Neither has to be a bad person.

ksg0245
05-27-2012, 10:12
Pot-kettle-black

I haven't told you what you believe, I've merely pointed out you've dodged stating what you believe every time you've been asked.

I ask questions, you make conclusions.

Chasing your red herrings isn't as amusing as it once was. Sorry.

I'm being honest and you're being mildly rude. Why?

Pointing out that you're being disingenuous isn't rude.

Cavalry Doc
05-27-2012, 10:53
I haven't told you what you believe, I've merely pointed out you've dodged stating what you believe every time you've been asked.



Chasing your red herrings isn't as amusing as it once was. Sorry.



Pointing out that you're being disingenuous isn't rude.

You asked what I believed, but because you are such a fair and open minded individual, you said I could not use the concept of possibilities in my answer.

You framed up a yes or no question that I felt better answered with more than a yes or no, and I answered it.

You just didn't like the answer, because it wasn't what you wanted, so you claim that I'm not genuine in what I have stated.

Oh well, he who gets over it first wins. No big deal to me. Have a nice weekend.

Lone Wolf8634
05-27-2012, 11:42
Sorry. It is interesting why certain subjects are unpleasant to discuss, and if they are, why discuss them at all.

For me, once I'm at peace with the concept that others have different opinions than I have, it's not a problem.

Two different people can have well thought out and supported arguments for why they believe the way they do, and still completely disagree. Neither has to be a bad person.


Although I see now that I inadvertently started this mess again, I did not start this thread to continue beating a horse that is not only dead, but mangled beyond all recognition.

I was simply frustrated with the tactics of some folks in other threads who continually build strawmen arguments by telling Atheists what we "believe" and what Atheism "is".

At the risk of being "rude", I wasn't looking to continue with the "Atheism is/isn't a religion" nonsense.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 17:47
That's where the analogy fails. There is no scientific data that the "box is empty". Science explains what we can see, but it does not explain whether it was made that way, or just happened that way. Granted, scientists work very hard to see how things work, but when you use that data to conclude that it just happened on it's own, it is a choice to believe in a fundamental and profound position not supported by the data.

By altering the analogy to pretend that you have a way of determining if there is anything in the box, it slants your way. It's also slanted in the way you gave the "nothing in the box" guy all kinds of cool toys.

Very illustrative though.
Science explains what we have the current technology to detect and analyze. Anything you can imagine that is completely undetectable isn't within the realm of science and also isn't worth consideration since even the most elusive subatomic particles seem to leave detectable traces.

You are correct. There is no scientific evidence that the box is empty. None of those methods are 100% conclusive but what happens over the course of the experimentation is that we find that every method we have at our disposal to detect anything in the box shows a negative. I'm also not looking to prove the box is empty but understand what this analogy is for and the fact that I might as well have a team of millions working on the box content problem for hundreds of years and not find a thing. I'm looking for evidence that there is something in the box. Every type of evidence looked for is not there. You can claim the box contents to be impervious to any detection method I would think up but you have to see how that would make your position weaker.

I didn't "give the nothing in the box guy all kinds of cool toys". I was the nothing in the box guy but not until I brought my own toys and did the experiments. You were free to do the same if you could think of any toys that could prove that there was something in the box and you didn't even need to do so as I would have happily come over to your side and shared my findings with you if they supported your opinion.

See, the thing I forgot to mention is that in this analogy scenario the issue of what may or may not be in that box is of great concern to most people and finding anything in that box would bring in book deals and TV interviews and make us both very rich and famous. I have EVERY motivation to find something in there. I just didn't. I assumed since the "something in the box guy" based his opinion on an old book that he had read all his life he already had his opinion formed and had no need for those toys. He also seemed to be very dismissive of my finding when they showed a negative but upon a few false positives he was very excited and continued to spread the news of those false positives even after they were proven false.

This is kind of fun so I'm going to roll with it. See, when I took the initial temperature reading with the laser thermometer I got repeated slight elevated temp readings off the surface of the box. That indicated that something inside may be generating heat. To further support the data I theorized what else might be causing this reading and shut off the halogen lighting directly above the box. After a few hours the next temp reading shows no elevated temperature. I take repeated readings noting the lighting levels and air conditioning status and show with a very colorful bar graph how the temperature of the box changes only in relation to environmental factors that are accounted for thus showing that no heat in generated from inside the box.

Now what you do is run out with my first temp measurements and tell anyone that will listen and even after you are told repeatedly that those findings have been proven wrong you continue to spread the false data (and are linked to a thread about intellectual dishonesty on a gun board) because it supports your opinion.

One person is looking for what is actually going on and another is seeking to prove only what they believe. These are not the same thing.

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 18:09
OK, but if you lack belief that there is anything in the box, and it is only a lack of belief that there is anything in the box, how many posts would you make on the internet trying to convince people that there is nothing in the box, and make fun of people that did believe something was in the box?

I see your point, do you see mine?

For me personally, that would depend entirely on how much those people that believe in the something in the box think that something has a directive for how I should conduct myself and how adamant they are about enforcing that directive. If they merely believe and leave it at that then there's no problem. When they begin to spread lies about valid science that they perceive to be a threat to their belief or force others to live as the unsupported box contents dictates through legislation or force of their numbers then we have a problem and I'm going to point out the absurdity of the very core of that belief as a means to combat those actions.

Do you see my point? :wavey:

Gunhaver
05-27-2012, 19:48
Just going to point out the proselytizing and religious characteristic of thinking only your belief system is right, without proof, which is faith.

I don't believe a single thing without proof. The issue you have is whether what I consider proof is actually proof even though you call it good enough for every thing else in your life. Maybe not absolutely 100% infallible, "nothing could ever possibly come along to discredit this" kind of proof you seem to require on this matter and no other but the same scientific standards that have granted us the ability to have this conversation are good enough for me. Perhaps you could show me ancient texts that give instructions on how to have conversations from opposite sides of the planet to prove that they are on equal footing with science.

To me, critical thinking requires one to consider possibilities, and not make absolute decisions on an issue with little or no tangible evidence.
Critical thinking only requires consideration of possibilities that can be supported by evidence, not any old idea that may pop into someone's head and especially not ideas that seem specifically designed to be immune all critical thought.
I don't have OCD issues applied to having to know everything. It's impossible to know everything. That's why we have division of labor, it allows a person to focus on one thing that needs doing, instead of all things that need doing. Some people are driven to have to know, and be right about it to boot. Some are further driven to make sure everyone else knows they are wrong. Ardor.

I don't need to know everything. If I did I would have gone into mathematics because those guys understand things on a level that you or I or the Dali Lama could only dream of. I just want to know that the things I do believe are very well supported instead of just being someone's 2000 year old pipe dream. What's wrong with that?

What I want doesn't really play into it too much. It would be cool if there was a god, depending on which one it was. It would also be cool to find out there has never been a god, as that would just about make us the winners of a cosmically significant game of chance.

What I want does play into it very much. I want to know the real deal. I want to know what's going on out there in the universe and here on our planet. I'll trust the guys that can actually land a probe on Mars and drive it around or find genetic links between species on this planet. They have some interesting stuff going on. Then you have the other camp dancing around with snakes and killing infidels and sucking blood out of baby wieners and claiming how they should be taken just as seriously. The best part is that the crazier their behavior the less understanding of science they will have and the louder they'll claim it's wrong. Even the normal theists that don't do any crazy s--t like that still have their beliefs rooted in the same ancient beliefs as the crazies. No thanks. If you think all the important questions were asked and answered long ago then you're mistaken.

You believe what you want because it makes you feel better. To me, there is a question that remains unanswered. I'm comfortable with that, but I'm not sure how that would make me feel better or worse.

And now you're making some big assumption on how I came to the conclusions that I did. This wasn't some easy transition. I was raised evangelical Christian for 15 or so years before I got smart and brave enough to think critically. Most of my family wouldn't talk to me because they chose a belief system that emphasized delusion over family. I was told not to read these books on evolution or those books on astrophysics because they were deceptions from the devil but in reality they were very well tested truths that threatened these fearful narcissistic that were comfortable in the belief that they had it all figured out with one simple answer. "God did it". For every complex question there's a simple answer and it's wrong.

The question is: "Is or was there a deity?". You believe that science has found a way to explain the current reality without the influence of a deity, so you have concluded that you will not believe in a deity, and neither should anyone else.

You're really on a roll with the misrepresentations of my beliefs. Science is as unconcerned with deity as it is unconcerned with fairies and wizards. No scientists wake up in the morning and ask themselves how they're going to disprove god today. There's simply no way to disprove or prove that which enjoys the luxury of existing outside the scope of science. The thing that impresses me so much about science is it's ability to find things like images from the farthest edge of the universe or indisputable links between various species. Their apathy towards the idea of deity is exactly what allows that and I wouldn't have it any other way. Really, the smallest insect on earth is of greater concern to science than your god so don't flatter yourself.

Really:dunno:, you cannot see the choice you've made there. It is ok for you to make that choice, it's your absolute right, and it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to actually take it away. But why make a choice that leads toward intolerance of others that believe differently, especially on an issue without any evidence?

Any intolerance I may display is only towards the intolerance of others because they have an 'unquestionable' idea of how I and others have to live. I really don't know how many times that's going to have to be explained to you. And if you think my belief in evolution, big bang theory and any other well supported scientific theory is "without any evidence" then you might want to go read some of those verboten books yourself.

A lack of personal knowledge does not stop scientific belief. Other people conduct experiments, make conclusions, and tell others, children read about it in school books written by people with clearly evident agenda's, and it is taught as fact that electrons exist. I've never seen one. Have you? I believe in electrons by the way, it makes sense, and there aren't a lot of good arguments that I've seen saying they don't exist. Point is, much of what you "know" and "believe" was told to you by others. Sometimes, they get it wrong.... http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

Yes, sometimes they get it wrong. And then they promptly come along and correct the course of action or others come along and do it for them and discredit them if they don't want to concede which almost never happens because every scientist knows the importance of independent verification of their claims. The only clearly evident agenda in science is finding out the truth and if they get it wrong then what's wrong with correcting. It's almost like you're saying that man isn't perfect so you can't really trust anything he says.

There are different types of atheists.

If the impression I got from your post is accurate.......

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/atheism1-1.jpg

Not the picture of course, but the concept the picture is trying to relay fits.

That's a cool shirt. Is there one that says, "I'm a theist, I don't see your point"?

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 12:04
Science explains what we have the current technology to detect and analyze. Anything you can imagine that is completely undetectable isn't within the realm of science and also isn't worth consideration since even the most elusive subatomic particles seem to leave detectable traces.

You are correct. There is no scientific evidence that the box is empty. None of those methods are 100% conclusive but what happens over the course of the experimentation is that we find that every method we have at our disposal to detect anything in the box shows a negative. I'm also not looking to prove the box is empty but understand what this analogy is for and the fact that I might as well have a team of millions working on the box content problem for hundreds of years and not find a thing. I'm looking for evidence that there is something in the box. Every type of evidence looked for is not there. You can claim the box contents to be impervious to any detection method I would think up but you have to see how that would make your position weaker.

I didn't "give the nothing in the box guy all kinds of cool toys". I was the nothing in the box guy but not until I brought my own toys and did the experiments. You were free to do the same if you could think of any toys that could prove that there was something in the box and you didn't even need to do so as I would have happily come over to your side and shared my findings with you if they supported your opinion.

See, the thing I forgot to mention is that in this analogy scenario the issue of what may or may not be in that box is of great concern to most people and finding anything in that box would bring in book deals and TV interviews and make us both very rich and famous. I have EVERY motivation to find something in there. I just didn't. I assumed since the "something in the box guy" based his opinion on an old book that he had read all his life he already had his opinion formed and had no need for those toys. He also seemed to be very dismissive of my finding when they showed a negative but upon a few false positives he was very excited and continued to spread the news of those false positives even after they were proven false.

This is kind of fun so I'm going to roll with it. See, when I took the initial temperature reading with the laser thermometer I got repeated slight elevated temp readings off the surface of the box. That indicated that something inside may be generating heat. To further support the data I theorized what else might be causing this reading and shut off the halogen lighting directly above the box. After a few hours the next temp reading shows no elevated temperature. I take repeated readings noting the lighting levels and air conditioning status and show with a very colorful bar graph how the temperature of the box changes only in relation to environmental factors that are accounted for thus showing that no heat in generated from inside the box.

Now what you do is run out with my first temp measurements and tell anyone that will listen and even after you are told repeatedly that those findings have been proven wrong you continue to spread the false data (and are linked to a thread about intellectual dishonesty on a gun board) because it supports your opinion.

One person is looking for what is actually going on and another is seeking to prove only what they believe. These are not the same thing.


You do have an active imagination.
But all science has to offer has only described the outside of the box itself. You've imagined that science has glimpsed into it. All of what is, is. How it got here, design or chance, there is no good evidence one way or the other. To reach either conclusion requires a leap of faith.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 12:12
That's a cool shirt. Is there one that says, "I'm a theist, I don't see your point"?

I did find this one.

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/27799296/militant-agnostic_tshirt

http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/263790448/militant_agnostic_dark_tshirt.jpg?color=Black&height=460&width=460&padToSquare=true

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 12:20
For me personally, that would depend entirely on how much those people that believe in the something in the box think that something has a directive for how I should conduct myself and how adamant they are about enforcing that directive. If they merely believe and leave it at that then there's no problem. When they begin to spread lies about valid science that they perceive to be a threat to their belief or force others to live as the unsupported box contents dictates through legislation or force of their numbers then we have a problem and I'm going to point out the absurdity of the very core of that belief as a means to combat those actions.

Do you see my point? :wavey:

So that's the source of the opposition. Most morality issues surround behaviors that often lead to poor outcomes. If someone wants to give you advice, you don't have to take it. I. The case of things like blue laws and other things like that, I can see changing the laws. But to conclude that the box is empty now seems like a decision driven by irritation.

void *
05-28-2012, 13:20
Cavalry Doc,

Take your box. One guy says "There's a guy in this box that talks to me through telepathy". The other guy says "I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim". Do you claim the second guy is being unreasonable?

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 13:55
Cavalry Doc,

Take your box. One guy says "There's a guy in this box that talks to me through telepathy". The other guy says "I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim". Do you claim the second guy is being unreasonable?

Even if the guy is wrong about receiving telepathic communications from what is in the box, it doesn't mean that something is not in the box. There is no evidence either way, so why not just reserve judgement. More of a "open the box, let me look inside, and then I'll pass judgement" approach.

I simply will wait to see. If irrefutable evidence is found, then it will be easy to decide. Until then, I have no opinion, and have no problems if others do make a leap of faith to decide on their own that there is or is not something in the box. Why should I care? Both are being reasonable and unreasonable in their assumptions. They have reasons, but some of those conclusions are unsupported, and a matter of faith.

void *
05-28-2012, 14:11
So I read your response, and I read it again, and I don't see a single word that's actually responsive to the question "The other guy says 'I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim'. Do you claim the second guy is being unreasonable?". You write some stuff as though the guy is making some kind of claim, or has some assumptions, and then say that is unreasonable - but "I don't see reason to believe your claim until you support it" doesn't actually imply a claim about what's in the box, or any assumptions.

So how about it? Do you think saying 'I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim' is unreasonable?

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 14:24
You do have an active imagination.
But all science has to offer has only described the outside of the box itself. You've imagined that science has glimpsed into it. All of what is, is. How it got here, design or chance, there is no good evidence one way or the other. To reach either conclusion requires a leap of faith.

Science consistently finds the universe happily working away without a deity everywhere it looks and it's come up with some pretty unique and amazing ways to look. Your box analogy was a very simple analogy for the universe so I kept the list of experimentation short for, believe it or not, brevity's sake.

No, we haven't probed the deepest reaches in all manners possible and it doesn't matter because the goalpost movers would simply claim the box contents completely undetectable as they frequently do for god. It isn't really a matter of a claim being valid if it can't be falsified. It's a matter of a claim that's specifically designed to be unfalsifiable not being taken seriously. How many absurd unlikely situations would you fault me for not considering? Because I'll bet I can come up with a few more paragraphs of some complete wackaloon off the wall nonsense that you would completely dismiss and no sane person would fault you for that.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 14:28
So I read your response, and I read it again, and I don't see a single word that's actually responsive to the question "The other guy says 'I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim'. Do you claim the second guy is being unreasonable?". You write some stuff as though the guy is making some kind of claim, or has some assumptions, and then say that is unreasonable - but "I don't see reason to believe your claim until you support it" doesn't actually imply a claim about what's in the box, or any assumptions.

So how about it? Do you think saying 'I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim' is unreasonable?

OK, so one guy makes some wild claims about whether something is in the box or not. Who cares. It's a box. It doesn't matter if he believes something is in the box.

I don't see any reason to refute the guy or bark about what he has chosen. But some seem compelled to refute his claim. More likely than not, they have decided nothing is in the box. Otherwise, why would it matter, unless they feel a compelling to always be right about everything, even on subjects for which there is no data.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 14:31
Science consistently finds the universe happily working away without a deity everywhere it looks and it's come up with some pretty unique and amazing ways to look. Your box analogy was a very simple analogy for the universe so I kept the list of experimentation short for, believe it or not, brevity's sake.

No, we haven't probed the deepest reaches in all manners possible and it doesn't matter because the goalpost movers would simply claim the box contents completely undetectable as they frequently do for god. It isn't really a matter of a claim being valid if it can't be falsified. It's a matter of a claim that's specifically designed to be unfalsifiable not being taken seriously. How many absurd unlikely situations would you fault me for not considering? Because I'll bet I can come up with a few more paragraphs of some complete wackaloon off the wall nonsense that you would completely dismiss and no sane person would fault you for that.

How are you sure that no deity is involved in science? If a deity set up this reality, all that we are observing could have been planned. Or maybe just some of it is. Or maybe none of it is being planned, and the deity just lit the fuse on the big bang, and is simply watching what is happening, if he/she/it still exists.

Just my own humble opinion, but the guys that don't have an opinion on whether something is in the box or not, don't really get emotionally compelled to refute a claim one way or the other. Just like test taking. If I don't know an answer, I move on to the next question, and if I have some free time later, I might make a guess. But I wouldn't feel compelled to argue that someone that thought they knew the answer was wrong.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 14:47
So I read your response, and I read it again, and I don't see a single word that's actually responsive to the question "The other guy says 'I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim'. Do you claim the second guy is being unreasonable?". You write some stuff as though the guy is making some kind of claim, or has some assumptions, and then say that is unreasonable - but "I don't see reason to believe your claim until you support it" doesn't actually imply a claim about what's in the box, or any assumptions.

So how about it? Do you think saying 'I don't see any reason to believe that until you've sufficiently supported your claim' is unreasonable?

If you don't see any reason to believe one way or the other, why should you feel compelled to refute the claims of people that believe one way or the other. Neutrality on the issue should lead to apathy, not a dogmatic response.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 14:58
So that's the source of the opposition. Most morality issues surround behaviors that often lead to poor outcomes. If someone wants to give you advice, you don't have to take it. I. The case of things like blue laws and other things like that, I can see changing the laws. But to conclude that the box is empty now seems like a decision driven by irritation.

Don't play down the imposition of theism like it all amounts to a few lost liquor sales on a Sunday. You're showing an immense bias that says anything but agnostic to me.

I don't want my actions dictated to me and others by an imaginary prude in the sky. First, prove to me the source of the mandates that you impose and then we'll talk. Until then keep it to yourself. From my perspective I'm a collection of chemical and electrical reactions that wants to enjoy the ride while it lasts and as long as I'm not derailing or slowing anyone else's ride then I'd like to be left to my own devises, thank you very much.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 15:35
Don't play down the imposition of theism like it all amounts to a few lost liquor sales on a Sunday. You're showing an immense bias that says anything but agnostic to me.

I don't want my actions dictated to me and others by an imaginary prude in the sky. First, prove to me the source of the mandates that you impose and then we'll talk. Until then keep it to yourself. From my perspective I'm a collection of chemical and electrical reactions that wants to enjoy the ride while it lasts and as long as I'm not derailing or slowing anyone else's ride then I'd like to be left to my own devises, thank you very much.


An acceptance that either side of the question of whether a deity existed or not may be correct shows a bias?????

Just a question, but wouldn't the guys that have decided one way or the other be more biased than the guy that has intentionally not decided?



The personal liberties issues I get, but the ultimate question of whether we were made or just happened is a separate issue.

You have free will, at least if the calvanists are wrong, so do what you want to. Just make sure you really want to do what you choose to do.

void *
05-28-2012, 15:39
If you don't see any reason to believe one way or the other, why should you feel compelled to refute the claims of people that believe one way or the other.

We're not talking about refuting claims. We're talking about whether or not it's reasonable for someone to respond to the claim "There is a telepathic deity inside the box" with "I see no reason to believe your claim unless you support it with evidence". That is not a refutation of the claim. Nobody in that scenario is saying 'your claim is false' - and by focusing on refutation, which is not even in the scenario, you are again not answering the question.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 15:42
How are you sure that no deity is involved in science? If a deity set up this reality, all that we are observing could have been planned. Or maybe just some of it is. Or maybe none of it is being planned, and the deity just lit the fuse on the big bang, and is simply watching what is happening, if he/she/it still exists.

Just my own humble opinion, but the guys that don't have an opinion on whether something is in the box or not, don't really get emotionally compelled to refute a claim one way or the other. Just like test taking. If I don't know an answer, I move on to the next question, and if I have some free time later, I might make a guess. But I wouldn't feel compelled to argue that someone that thought they knew the answer was wrong.



I'm going to call poor analogies my latest pet peeve. If I'm taking a test and don't know the answer to a question, say, "Who was the 21st vice president of the United States" and some twerp that's obsessed with Donald Duck always walking around in his Donald Duck shirt trying to rope people into conversations about how awesome Donald Duck is comes along and says, "I know! It's Donald Duck!" I'm damn sure he's not right and I'm going to argue with him just for being stupid.

And that's just one person wrong about one thing. My compulsion to argue with wrong people is directly proportionate to how much effect their wrongness has on my life and the lives of others.

People are wrong about global warming on both sides of the spectrum. There are those that say we have no effect on the earth's climate at all and those that would have you believe that we're all doomed if we don't make some drastic changes by next Tuesday. Why argue with them? Because either way their ignorance has a negative impact on our lives.

Geko45
05-28-2012, 15:43
An acceptance that either side of the question of whether a deity existed or not may be correct shows a bias?????

No, but pretending like you don't understand that the conclusion arrived at by most theistic religions is that everyone (theist or not) should follow their particular set of ideas as to what the imaginary deity wants of us does show bias. Admit it, you fully understood what Gunhaver was saying, but you chose to reinterpret it as something else and then feign ignorance. You've had a good run here sending people around in circles, but some of us see what you are doing.

Here is the best analogy I can think of for attempting to reason with you.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/jello.jpg

void *
05-28-2012, 15:46
Cavalry Doc - question for you. Would you agree with the statement that it is possible for people to think up any number of theoretically unprovable, yet logically possible, creator deities?

Geko: I don't think the picture is a valid analogy because it is evidence that someone succeeded.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 15:54
We're not talking about refuting claims. We're talking about whether or not it's reasonable for someone to respond to the claim "There is a telepathic deity inside the box" with "I see no reason to believe your claim unless you support it with evidence". That is not a refutation of the claim. Nobody in that scenario is saying 'your claim is false' - and by focusing on refutation, which is not even in the scenario, you are again not answering the question.

An apathetic response to "There is a telepathic deity inside the box" doesn't lead to a dogmatic response that there is no telepathic deity inside the box. It leads one to not care.

A dogmatic response that there cannot possibly be a telepathic deity inside the box seems to indicate that one had decided that their claim is false.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 15:54
An acceptance that either side of the question of whether a deity existed or not may be correct shows a bias?????

No, a playing down of the impact of religion on the lives of people that don't subscribe to said religion as just some blue laws that I should try to get changed is showing a bias. I prefer to attack the insanity at it's source than dedicate my life to running around cleaning up it's messes.

Just a question, but wouldn't the guys that have decided one way or the other be more biased than the guy that has intentionally not decided?

Of course. The guy that's positive that there's something in that box without any evidence is biased.



The personal liberties issues I get, but the ultimate question of whether we were made or just happened is a separate issue.

If only we could live in a society where the two could be kept separate. This is not the case.

You have free will, at least if the calvanists are wrong, so do what you want to. Just make sure you really want to do what you choose to do.

That's why I'm an atheist. I'm rather fond of my free will.


.........

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 15:59
No, but pretending like you don't understand that the conclusion arrived at by most theistic religions is that everyone (theist or not) should follow their particular set of ideas as to what the imaginary deity wants of us does show bias. Admit it, you fully understood what Gunhaver was saying, but you chose to reinterpret it as something else and then feign ignorance. You've had a good run here sending people around in circles, but some of us see what you are doing.

Here is the best analogy I can think of for attempting to reason with you.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/jello.jpg

I see the pressure to comply with the decision on the question from both sides. I don't really agree with either side, and support a live and let live position.

I have made people think. I'm cool with that. I may have shown some that believed they have no religious dogma, realize that they do.

Nailing jello to a fence is a reasonable response from one that has written the answer in stone. I just don't have the answer, so choose not to accept either possibility as an absolute certainty.

void *
05-28-2012, 16:01
An apathetic response to "There is a telepathic deity inside the box" doesn't lead to a dogmatic response that there is no telepathic deity inside the box. It leads one to not care.

A dogmatic response that there cannot possibly be a telepathic deity inside the box seems to indicate that one had decided that their claim is false.

You are again assuming there's a dogmatic response that there cannot possibly be a telepathic deity in the box.

There isn't. There are an infinite number of things that could potentially be in the box, therefore the odds that this one man's particular claim that it is a telepathic deity that talks to him is approximately one in infinity. If the second guy assesses that probability, and says "In the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e., in the absence of the other man supporting his claim), his claim is in all likelihood not true", the second guy's statement is not dogmatic. It is, in fact, conditional - it is open for the first guy to provide actual evidence of his claim (in other words, it is open for the first guy to provide evidence that would raise the probability assessment of the second guy).

When the first guy claims "You can see by the structure of the box that there is a telepathic deity talking to me inside the box", and the second guy looks, and there is no such structure, the second guy has every right to still assess the probability of the first guy's claim as being infinitely low, in the absence of actual support, and there is no faith or dogmatic belief required whatsoever.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:04
No, a playing down of the impact of religion on the lives of people that don't subscribe to said religion as just some blue laws that I should try to get changed is showing a bias. I prefer to attack the insanity at it's source than dedicate my life to running around cleaning up it's messes.


Of course. The guy that's positive that there's something in that box without any evidence is biased.

If only we could live in a society where the two could be kept separate. This is not the case.


That's why I'm an atheist. I'm rather fond of my free will..........

Free will is a concept that is admired by the theists and atheists, most of them at least.

You cannot ignore the fact that some believe that a deity exists, and some believe that no deity has existed. It is what it is is again. It's easy to accept if you really consider it.

The laws that require one to comply with a religious dogma are not supported by me. Not my fault or my problem.

The guy that is positive that the guy claiming there is something in the box is wrong is guessing, because he has no evidence either.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:07
You are again assuming there's a dogmatic response that there cannot possibly be a telepathic deity in the box.

There isn't. There are an infinite number of things that could potentially be in the box, therefore the odds that this one man's particular claim that it is a telepathic deity that talks to him is approximately one in infinity. If the second guy assesses that probability, and says "In the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e., in the absence of the other man supporting his claim), his claim is in all likelihood not true", the second guy's statement is not dogmatic. It is, in fact, conditional - it is open for the first guy to provide actual evidence of his claim (in other words, it is open for the first guy to provide evidence that would raise the probability assessment of the second guy).

When the first guy claims "You can see by the structure of the box that there is a telepathic deity talking to me inside the box", and the second guy looks, and there is no such structure, the second guy has every right to still assess the probability of the first guy's claim as being infinitely low, in the absence of actual support, and there is no faith or dogmatic belief required whatsoever.

For some, there is no concern about someone claiming there is a telepathic deity within the box.

For some, it is a matter of great concern, leading them to truly believe the opposite. That is dogmatic.

There is a right and left here, and a center. The center is agnosticism. The right (side chosen at my discretion) is theism, the left is atheism.

Atheism-Atheistic Agnosticism-Agnosticism-Theistic Agnosticism-Theism.

The center and neutral position is agnosticism.

void *
05-28-2012, 16:11
For some, it is a matter of great concern, leading them to truly believe the opposite. That is dogmatic.

There might be someone somewhere for which it is dogmatic. For me personally, it's a probability assessment - and that is decidedly not dogmatic. Since I do not currently believe, on the basis of a non-dogmatic probability assessment, the allegation that disbelief has to be dogmatic is false.

I'll wait for your response, within which I expect you will find some way to claim that it is in fact dogmatic, despite having been quite plainly told it is not, in a situation in which anyone should easily recognize it is not.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:20
There might be someone somewhere for which it is dogmatic. For me personally, it's a probability assessment - and that is decidedly not dogmatic. Since I do not currently believe, on the basis of a non-dogmatic probability assessment, the allegation that disbelief has to be dogmatic is false.

I'll wait for your response, within which I expect you will find some way to claim that it is in fact dogmatic, despite having been quite plainly told it is not, in a situation in which anyone should easily recognize it is not.

Disbelief is an active position, not passive.

Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

It is readily apparent to me, even if it is not readily apparent to others. But I'm sitting in the middle, watching other choose sides.

Geko45
05-28-2012, 16:23
Nailing jello to a fence is a reasonable response from one that has written the answer in stone. I just don't have the answer, so choose not to accept either possibility as an absolute certainty.

I wasn't addressing the topic at hand with my analogy. I was referring to your tendency to shift, dodge, or reinterpret the statements of others. Which is what you did here as well. It seems that anything is preferable to you than to respond to what was actually said or asked.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:38
I wasn't addressing the topic at hand with my analogy. I was referring to your tendency to shift, dodge, or reinterpret the statements of others. Which is what you did here as well. It seems that anything is preferable to you than to respond to what was actually said or asked.

Yeah, dogmatic believers tend to want to pigeon hole people into one camp or another. It's a digital approach to an analog question.

Was/is there a deity? Yes, no or maybe are all valid responses.

The guys that have decided "yes" or "no", are for some reason, perplexed by the guys that have decided "maybe".

The really funny thing, for the guys that have decided on the issue, without proof, which is a leap of faith, consider those that have withheld judgement due to the lack of convincing evidence one way or the other are seen as "dodging" the question BECAUSE they have reserved judgement due to a lack of evidence one way or the other. And humorously still claim intellectual superiority.

:whistling:

void *
05-28-2012, 16:41
Disbelief is an active position, not passive.

That does not logically require that disbelief be *dogmatic*.

Geko45
05-28-2012, 16:54
Yeah, dogmatic believers tend to want to pigeon hole people into one camp or another. It's a digital approach to an analog question.

Was/is there a deity? Yes, no or maybe are all valid responses.

The guys that have decided "yes" or "no", are for some reason, perplexed by the guys that have decided "maybe".

The really funny thing, for the guys that have decided on the issue, without proof, which is a leap of faith, consider those that have withheld judgement due to the lack of convincing evidence one way or the other are seen as "dodging" the question BECAUSE they have reserved judgement due to a lack of evidence one way or the other. And humorously still claim intellectual superiority.

:whistling:

Yeah, you're pretty good at this. No denying that. Doc, from your other posts (non RI) you seem like a nice enough guy. Under different circumstances I'd probably enjoy drinking a few beers with you, but I can't help but feel that you are just having a bit of sport with this. You've hit a soft spot by charecterizing the beliefs of atheists in a manner they clearly would not characterize themselves and now you are poking that soft spot with a stick as often as possible.

Well, I'm not taking that bait. I'll just sit this out and let it run its course. Which is what I recommend others here do as well.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:54
That does not logically require that disbelief be *dogmatic*.

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity



dog·ma
noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaim



doc·trine
noun \ˈdäk-trən\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : 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

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : 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
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith




Sure?

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 16:58
Yeah, you're pretty good at this. No denying that. Doc, from your other posts (non RI) you seem like a nice enough guy. Under different circumstances I'd probably enjoy drinking a few beers with you, but I can't help but feel that you are just having a bit of sport with this. You've hit a soft spot by charecterizing the beliefs of atheists in a manner they clearly would not characterize themselves and now you are poking that soft spot with a stick as often as possible.

Well, I'm not taking that bait. I'll just sit this out and let it run its course. Which is what I recommend others here do as well.

We'd probably have a good time swapping stories if we got together. I'm not such a bad guy. Well, not as long as you are not a violent jihadist, then they may rightfully claim me as an enemy.

I'm just answering the posts of others. If everyone quits asking questions, I'll quit offering answers. I think it would be rude for me to not answer questions.

Gunhaver
05-28-2012, 17:05
Yeah, dogmatic believers tend to want to pigeon hole people into one camp or another. It's a digital approach to an analog question.

So that would make you a dogmatic believer then. Everyone is telling you repeatedly that this issue is one of gradient probability with simplest explanation being most likely and most complex explanation being least likely and you keep insisting that both are equally valid and trying to assign the agnostic label. Perhaps you're a dogmatic agnostic seeking validation by convincing others that they are the same. I suspect that given the content of many of your other posts that you're a theist masquerading as an agnostic because you do happen to be smart enough to pick up on the fail in the theistic arguments put forth here.



Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY, is claiming that a deity is absolutely impossible. A few are claiming that a specific deity is the only possibility. Seems like you should have more beef with them than us.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2012, 17:33
So that would make you a dogmatic believer then. Everyone is telling you repeatedly that this issue is one of gradient probability with simplest explanation being most likely and most complex explanation being least likely and you keep insisting that both are equally valid and trying to assign the agnostic label. Perhaps you're a dogmatic agnostic seeking validation by convincing others that they are the same. I suspect that given the content of many of your other posts that you're a theist masquerading as an agnostic because you do happen to be smart enough to pick up on the fail in the theistic arguments put forth here.



Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY, is claiming that a deity is absolutely impossible. A few are claiming that a specific deity is the only possibility. Seems like you should have more beef with them than us.

If you feel comfortable with claiming that an approach to a question that can only be answered with conclusive evidence, remains unanswered due to inconclusive evidence is dogmatic, I'm OK with that.


Many are acting as if it is impossible for a deity or deities to have ever existed. If you are not, then you do not fall into my (and merriam-websters) definition of an atheism.

I have an overactive fairness gene. I'm not being assaulted from all sides by theists when I point out that their belief is based on faith, and held to with ardor.

The "atheists", some of which I would label as "atheistic agnostics" which have an apparent doctrine of believing there has never been a deity, have a problem with me pointing that out.


It's an inconvenient truth.

void *
05-28-2012, 18:53
Sure?

For any postulate x, the statement "I currently assess the probability of x being true as y, but data and observation may lead me to change that assessment" is:

* not a principle of law established through past decisions
* not a statement of fundamental government policy
* not a definite authoritative tenet
* not a code of such tenets
* not a military principle or set of strategies
* not a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed
* not a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
* not a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The only sense in which it might be a "doctrine" is "something that is taught", which is certainly *not* the sense it is meant when it is a synonym of dogma. Plus, I don't hold classes on my personal assessment of the probability that a deity exists, so it actually doesn't really fit, either.

The entire point is that there's not a claim of absolute certainty, and the probability assessment can easily change when justified by data or observation. That's not dogma, it's not doctrine, and it's not religion. Thanks for trying, though.

juggy4711
05-28-2012, 19:57
For any postulate x, the statement "I currently assess the probability of x being true as y, but data and observation may lead me to change that assessment" is:

* not a principle of law established through past decisions
* not a statement of fundamental government policy
* not a definite authoritative tenet
* not a code of such tenets
* not a military principle or set of strategies
* not a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed
* not a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
* not a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The only sense in which it might be a "doctrine" is "something that is taught", which is certainly *not* the sense it is meant when it is a synonym of dogma. Plus, I don't hold classes on my personal assessment of the probability that a deity exists, so it actually doesn't really fit, either.

The entire point is that there's not a claim of absolute certainty, and the probability assessment can easily change when justified by data or observation. That's not dogma, it's not doctrine, and it's not religion. Thanks for trying, though.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee149/NinjaJuiceBox/Applause.gif

void *
05-28-2012, 20:53
Not quite sure how to take that. It is also somewhat disturbing yet mesmeric. ;)

juggy4711
05-28-2012, 21:19
Not quite sure how to take that. It is also somewhat disturbing yet mesmeric. ;)

Yeah I thought it worked better than Citizen Cain for that reason. :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 05:22
For any postulate x, the statement "I currently assess the probability of x being true as y, but data and observation may lead me to change that assessment" is:

* not a principle of law established through past decisions
* not a statement of fundamental government policy
* not a definite authoritative tenet
* not a code of such tenets
* not a military principle or set of strategies
* not a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed
* not a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
* not a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The only sense in which it might be a "doctrine" is "something that is taught", which is certainly *not* the sense it is meant when it is a synonym of dogma. Plus, I don't hold classes on my personal assessment of the probability that a deity exists, so it actually doesn't really fit, either.

The entire point is that there's not a claim of absolute certainty, and the probability assessment can easily change when justified by data or observation. That's not dogma, it's not doctrine, and it's not religion. Thanks for trying, though.

The bold parts are where we disagree. It seems so obvious to me. There are gradients in anything, and as I have explained before, when I say atheist or atheism, I mean the actual definitions. Many, in my opinion have labeled themselves as atheists, when I would consider them atheistic Agnostics.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

void *
05-29-2012, 09:24
The bold parts are where we disagree. It seems so obvious to me. There are gradients in anything, and as I have explained before, when I say atheist or atheism, I mean the actual definitions. Many, in my opinion have labeled themselves as atheists, when I would consider them atheistic Agnostics.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You think my personal probability assessment, held without ardor or faith (because it is quite subject to change), is somehow authoritative? Interesting. Perhaps you consider my personal probability assessment accurate and knowledgeable, because it's certainly not proceeding from authority.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 10:09
You think my personal probability assessment, held without ardor or faith (because it is quite subject to change), is somehow authoritative? Interesting. Perhaps you consider my personal probability assessment accurate and knowledgeable, because it's certainly not proceeding from authority.

None of this is written in stone by the hand of [insert name of widely respected person or deity here] and non-negotiable. What we are discussing are just different ways of viewing things. I view things differently than you do. That's all it is. That does not make you a bad or stupid person to me. Just someone that has a different perspective.

void *
05-29-2012, 10:47
It looks quite a lot like you're trying to change the direction of the discussion, rather than just admitting that the statement "I currently assess the probability of gods existing as very low, but data and observation may lead me to change that assessment" does not actually meet any of the criteria you've put forward.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 10:57
It looks quite a lot like you're trying to change the direction of the discussion, rather than just admitting that the statement "I currently assess the probability of gods existing as very low, but data and observation may lead me to change that assessment" does not actually meet any of the criteria you've put forward.


Well, if you believe that there has never been a deity, to me, and the dictionary, that makes you an atheist.

If you aren't completely decided on whether a deity has ever existed, lean pretty far toward atheism, do not believe in any deity without believing that no deity has ever existed,to me, that is an atheistic agnostic.

The only criteria I am using, are the definitions. To me, it all seems to fit, to others? Not so much.


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

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

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

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 *
05-29-2012, 11:19
Well, if you believe that there has never been a deity, to me, and the dictionary, that makes you an atheist.

Sure. Now get back to the point that since my assessment of the probability that gods exist is currently low, but that probability assessment would change given observation and data, my view does not meet your criteria for religious belief.

Reposting definitions you've already posted and have already been addressed doesn't change that.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 11:30
Sure. Now get back to the point that since my assessment of the probability that gods exist is currently low, but that probability assessment would change given observation and data, my view does not meet your criteria for religious belief.

Reposting definitions you've already posted and have already been addressed doesn't change that.

As I have said, if you simply lack belief, and aren't sure, but assess a low probability to the existence of a deity that is still above zero, then the label I would use is atheistic agnostic.

But you get to use your own label.

void *
05-29-2012, 12:33
But you get to use your own label.

I'm an agnostic.
I'm also an atheist.

I view neither in a way that would require them to be considered either faith, or a religion. This is a direct counterexample to your claim. I can state with a fair amount of certainty that you will claim this is not so, but hey, we can let the people reading decide for themselves, right?

Geko45
05-29-2012, 12:38
I'm a Pastafarian.

void *
05-29-2012, 12:44
I'm a Pastafarian.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2012, 12:45
I'm an agnostic.
I'm also an atheist.

I view neither in a way that would require them to be considered either faith, or a religion. This is a direct counterexample to your claim. I can state with a fair amount of certainty that you will claim this is not so, but hey, we can let the people reading decide for themselves, right?

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://i.imgur.com/PF3jx.jpg&sa=X&ei=YBnFT9K_J4Ks2gX1rYjcAg&ved=0CAkQ8wc4NQ&usg=AFQjCNHfX8ntxZ7H6oSJC6B7pXBfsTDNdQ

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://files.sharenator.com/videogames3_Video_Games_From_A_Different_Perspective-s500x372-309811-580.jpg&sa=X&ei=ERnFT-uQAsK82wWuja10&ved=0CAkQ8wc4NQ&usg=AFQjCNGAG5glelyt3Y4c1GCcBxhj0N14Sg


You see things your way, I see them mine.

Geko45
05-29-2012, 15:18
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :supergrin:

http://www.tampopo.fr/styles/img/foodography/pastafarian/pastafarian_poster.jpg

juggy4711
05-29-2012, 19:17
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :supergrin:

Beverage spewed through nose. Well done. :rofl:

Gunhaver
05-30-2012, 08:02
If you feel comfortable with claiming that an approach to a question that can only be answered with conclusive evidence, remains unanswered due to inconclusive evidence is dogmatic, I'm OK with that.


Many are acting as if it is impossible for a deity or deities to have ever existed. If you are not, then you do not fall into my (and merriam-websters) definition of an atheism.

I have an overactive fairness gene. I'm not being assaulted from all sides by theists when I point out that their belief is based on faith, and held to with ardor.

The "atheists", some of which I would label as "atheistic agnostics" which have an apparent doctrine of believing there has never been a deity, have a problem with me pointing that out.


It's an inconvenient truth.

Except the question of deity or no deity can't be answered with conclusive evidence. Nobody on either side can even say what that evidence would be. Many theists refuse to even acknowledge evidence of evolution. Anytime something shows up that says things may not be as their holy book says they refuse to even look at it. Evolution doesn't disprove deity but it sure shows that things didn't go down the way the bible says.

This is not even close to a fair question because you have people that aren't concerned with looking for evidence for something designed to not require evidence. So I call the side that refuses to play the silly game rational and the side that faults the other for not playing against their stacked odds irrational. It's not a question of yes or no with maybe in the middle. It's a question of a spectrum of probability based on evidence with most likely on one end and least likely on the other.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2012, 19:13
Except the question of deity or no deity can't be answered with conclusive evidence. Nobody on either side can even say what that evidence would be. Many theists refuse to even acknowledge evidence of evolution. Anytime something shows up that says things may not be as their holy book says they refuse to even look at it. Evolution doesn't disprove deity but it sure shows that things didn't go down the way the bible says.

This is not even close to a fair question because you have people that aren't concerned with looking for evidence for something designed to not require evidence. So I call the side that refuses to play the silly game rational and the side that faults the other for not playing against their stacked odds irrational. It's not a question of yes or no with maybe in the middle. It's a question of a spectrum of probability based on evidence with most likely on one end and least likely on the other.


Actually, I see that behavior on both sides, theist and atheist. Both have chosen what to believe, instead of simply withholding judgement until evidence becomes available. But it is your constitutional right to choose.

Geko45
05-30-2012, 20:50
Actually, I see that behavior on both sides, theist and atheist. Both have chosen what to believe, instead of simply withholding judgement until evidence becomes available. But it is your constitutional right to choose.

See, that is complete BS. While it is true that neither position can be proven conclusively, that does not mean that both positions are equally valid. One is consistent with all available evidence and the other is not. This claim of yours is just a tired logical fallacy that attempts to draw an equality between the positions based on the lack of conclusive evidence for either in an attempt to assign unwarranted credibility to the weaker position.

It is a fallacy because, once you stop to think about, almost nothing we think we know can be proven conclusively. At least not to the standard that the fallacy would put forth as sufficient. Do you believe gravity is a fact? There is an alternate theory of matter expansion that suggests there is no gravity. It's ridiculous and completely without merit, but you'd be hard pressed to disprove it conclusively.

In fact, the only thing that any of us can truly know conclusively is Descartes' proposition of "I think therefore I am". Everything else depends on the assumption that we are a rational mind and that our senses are not deceiving us. This renders pretty much everything else as not provable in a true deductive fashion. What if my senses are feeding me bad info, what if I'm crazy and can't trust my own judgement? There is no way to know for sure.

But if we assume that we can't trust ourselves then we cease to be able to function in the world. I have to assume that my senses work. I have to assume that my mind is rational. The only support I have for this is empirically based. I'm not dieing of thirst or starvation so I must be on to something. In much the same way, the theory of gravity provides testable results that are consistent with predictions, so we say that theory is probably correct. Likewise, the observable universe functions in a manner that is consistent with the premise that there is no deity, so that position is the more logical one.

I can claim that the Flying Spaghettit Monster touched me with his noodly appendage and made me a Pastafarian. You can't conclusively prove that I am full of BS, but at the same time it would be entirely reasonable for you to claim so. The plea for absolute conclusive proof is just an attempt to ignore the fact that the positions are not equally supported by the circumstantial evidence that is available.

Paul7
05-30-2012, 20:59
See, that is complete BS. While it is true that neither position can be proven conclusively, that does not mean that both positions are equally valid. One is consistent with all available evidence and the other is not.

Only if you discard all contrary testimony. That is circular reasoning.

Geko45
05-30-2012, 21:03
Only if you discard all contrary testimony. That is circular reasoning.

Geez Paul... I can take people disagreeing with me, but at least do so on logical grounds. If you're claiming that I am discarding relevant information then the correct fallacy to accuse me of would be confirmation bias, not circular reasoning.

juggy4711
05-30-2012, 22:29
...The plea for absolute conclusive proof is just an attempt to ignore the fact that the positions are not equally supported by the circumstantial evidence that is available.

God could have designed all available evidence. As for gravity I am withholding judgement. What was that about pasta? I'm starving.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 02:52
God could have designed all available evidence. As for gravity I am withholding judgement. What was that about pasta? I'm starving.

If he designed all the evidence to point to no god then he must want to be left alone. I'm happy to oblige. Seems the sensible M.O. for an all powerful being that has better things to do than soak up constant butt kisses.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2012, 06:56
See, that is complete BS. While it is true that neither position can be proven conclusively, that does not mean that both positions are equally valid. One is consistent with all available evidence and the other is not. This claim of yours is just a tired logical fallacy that attempts to draw an equality between the positions based on the lack of conclusive evidence for either in an attempt to assign unwarranted credibility to the weaker position.

It is a fallacy because, once you stop to think about, almost nothing we think we know can be proven conclusively. At least not to the standard that the fallacy would put forth as sufficient. Do you believe gravity is a fact? There is an alternate theory of matter expansion that suggests there is no gravity. It's ridiculous and completely without merit, but you'd be hard pressed to disprove it conclusively.

In fact, the only thing that any of us can truly know conclusively is Descartes' proposition of "I think therefore I am". Everything else depends on the assumption that we are a rational mind and that our senses are not deceiving us. This renders pretty much everything else as not provable in a true deductive fashion. What if my senses are feeding me bad info, what if I'm crazy and can't trust my own judgement? There is no way to know for sure.

But if we assume that we can't trust ourselves then we cease to be able to function in the world. I have to assume that my senses work. I have to assume that my mind is rational. The only support I have for this is empirically based. I'm not dieing of thirst or starvation so I must be on to something. In much the same way, the theory of gravity provides testable results that are consistent with predictions, so we say that theory is probably correct. Likewise, the observable universe functions in a manner that is consistent with the premise that there is no diety, so that position is the more logical one.

I can claim that the Flying Spaghettit Monster touched me with his noodly appendage and made me a Pastafarian. You can't conclusively prove that I am full of BS, but at the same time it would be entirely reasonable for you to claim so. The plea for absolute conclusive proof is just an attempt to ignore the fact that the positions are not equally supported by the circumstantial evidence that is available.


If you were happy being a pastafarian, why would I feel motivated to separate you from that belief? Why are so many atheists motivated to separate Christians from their beliefs?

To me, they are just competing religions.

Geko45
05-31-2012, 07:04
Why are so many atheists motivated to separate Christians from their beliefs?

You are still pretending to not know the answer to that?

Because Pastafarianism isn't petitioning the government to enforce its dogma as law. Most "real" religions (not all) are attempting to do so. If they practiced in private and stopped trying to impose it on everyone else around them then I wouldn't care at all what they believed.

steveksux
06-03-2012, 15:22
Uh oh. A Trayvon Martin thread seems to be a contrarian troll dinner bell.

The Contrarian Troll.

A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. Pursued by Troll Bashers (see Natural Predators below), the Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of
Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

I think we have an answer as to what drives the Doc in this and the other thread. The dinner bell is tolling.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
06-03-2012, 16:53
You are still pretending to not know the answer to that?

Because Pastafarianism isn't petitioning the government to enforce its dogma as law. Most "real" religions (not all) are attempting to do so. If they practiced in private and stopped trying to impose it on everyone else around them then I wouldn't care at all what they believed.

What do the christians want that you find so revolting?

Geko45
06-03-2012, 18:07
What do the christians want that you find so revolting?

More the inverse. It's what they find revolting that they want to ban others from doing even though it doesn't affect them personally at all. A woman's right to choose, a gay couples right to marry, my right to buy beer on Sunday morning, your right to keep smoking whatever it is you are smoking, etc. They keep interjecting themselves into other people's lives with their misguided ideas of what this imaginary deity wants of us.

juggy4711
06-03-2012, 19:27
More the inverse. It's what they find revolting that they want to ban others from doing even though it doesn't affect them personally at all. A woman's right to choose, a gay couples right to marry, my right to buy beer on Sunday morning, your right to keep smoking whatever it is your are smoking, etc. They keep interjecting themselves into other people's lives with their misguided ideas of what this imaginary deity wants of us.

My thoughts as well. They just can't mind their own business.