No. Either reasonable people need me to be reasonable to accept my belief, which in turn means I have to be reasonable - or they're not reasonable; in that number, you.Ironically, you're committing the fallacy — S
No. Either reasonable people need me to be reasonable to accept my belief, which in turn means I have to be reasonable - or they're not reasonable; in that number, you. — Shamshir
If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic." — Frank Apisa
If you genuinely didn't care about such descriptors, then you wouldn't get so worked up about being called an atheist rather than an agnostic... — S
...and you wouldn't rant about it on here as you are wont to do. — S
But you are not like me at all in this respect. You care a great deal about something I consider to be too insignificant to get worked up about.
For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that. — Frank Apisa
I do not rant. — Frank Apisa
I often repeat things... — Frank Apisa
as you do...and as many others do. — Frank Apisa
Anything else I can help you with? — Frank Apisa
S
10k
For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that. — Frank Apisa
It's the exact opposite of an aid. It's a problematic assumption, a hindrance. — S
I do not rant. — Frank Apisa
I don't think anyone else sees it that way. You come across as ranting. — S
I often repeat things... — Frank Apisa
That's a massive understatement. — S
as you do...and as many others do. — Frank Apisa
To no where near the extent that you do. You and creativesoul are by far the worst on the forum for this, and Devans99 is in the same boat, for sure. — S
Anything else I can help you with? — Frank Apisa
Milk, two sugars. Thanks.
Wait, hold on a second here. Ive been following this thread and what you are saying makes zero sense at all, you’ve made some kind of nightmare turn in your logic that I am compelled to point out here...what kind of madman puts sugar in his milk?!
Get help. — DingoJones
whollyrolling
382
↪Frank Apisa
Well I guess I have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Straight out of the gate, you call bullshit, and then you back pedal.
Atheism is a descriptor--yes, it describes an absence of belief in gods, full stop. That its definition and context arise from "to not believe in gods" is as accurate a description of it as can be accomplished. I'm not making a suggestion, all I have to do is read words in a book called "the dictionary"--words which leave no room for interpretation or expansion.
The only motive I can see to avoid using such a descriptor is if someone lives among others who fasten extrapolations and embellishments to the meanings of words in order to focus large groups of people under a singular narrow lens. I would say descriptors are relatively important. For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation.
It's probably best to avoid moving semantic goal posts in order to make an irrational statement based on how something affects someone emotionally in a context of rational discourse. There are times I think to myself about a definition, "this could use a few adjustments", but then I realize I'm reading an excerpt from the Oxford dictionary, and the definition has been changed by someone who has emotional and political reasons for altering the meaning of something that was perfectly fine for the previous seventy years before they formed an opinion about it.
What's nonsense is that atheism has a rather elaborate philosophy and accompanying personality profile attached to it by non-atheists who then presume to tell an theist what they believe and do not believe.
My belief system doesn't entail someone else projecting their belief system onto me. — whollyrolling
For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation. — whollyrolling
whollyrolling
388
↪Frank Apisa
I'm not blind, and I'm not guessing. Guessing is when you say "hey, there's a thing that no one can see let's try to imagine what it might look like, I think it probably acts like this, etc". You're the one preaching belligerently and with prejudice against what you seem to perceive as "my kind".
You are presently doing everything you're accusing "modern atheists" of doing, literally all of your accusations can be attributed to you and your argument.
And hold on...you don't think belief has anything to do with a thread that is centred on a divide between those who "believe in gods" and those who "don't believe in gods"? Really?
I mean...really? — whollyrolling
whollyrolling
390
↪Frank Apisa
It's actually a rationalized dismissal of the alleged relevance to my existence of sunlight being blown out of proportion 15,000 years ago.
Why are you compelled to throw your belief system and accompanying semantics around as though it's impossible to imagine that someone could excuse themselves from the ancient sun worship dinner table and go out for an I don't believe anything you're saying to me leisurely Sunday drive?
Your opinion doesn't determine my stance on cosmic anomalies. — whollyrolling
Alvin Plantinga believes that he "knows" (in the strict sense) God exists, despite the fact that he can't provide irrefutable evidence of God's existence.I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. — Maureen
Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa
Pattern-chaser
1k
Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa
Well yes, it is, in practice. We use guesswork to get past the fact that the things we know are so few. The "feelings" you mention are guesswork, and we have no alternative but to guess, or to proceed with no answer at all. — Pattern-chaser
I will give what I think is compelling evidence for a divine consciousness.
(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.
(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God". — Noah Te Stroete
I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa
creativesoul
4.8k
I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa
Do you believe that? — creativesoul
S
10k
↪Frank Apisa
You don't do discussion, so you have some nerve to lecture others in this regard or to invite them to discuss matters, giving them false hope. Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record. — S
Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record. — S
creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa
So, you know that but you do not believe that? — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.