I dislike both atheism and theism because of their relationship to one another. Are any atheists not former theists? — NOS4A2

Yes. I was never a theist. I had basically zero idea about religious ideas until I was in my mid teens, and then when I learned something about religious beliefs I thought that people must have been playing a practical joke on me.

racial constructionism, which was and continues to be a sociological reality that affects people in ways both material and ideological. — Maw

What exactly is the definition of racial constructionism, how are we confirming that there is such a thing, and how are we confirming its effect on people?

The point though, is that there is a number of problems with your approach. The first problem is that if it requires that we see a person making the thing, or that particular type of thing, in order to say that the thing is artificial, then when we find something which has already been made, and we haven't seen a person making that type of thing, we have no way to make any judgement as to whether or not it's artificial. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure we do. We're not blank slates in every situation. We know that the sort of thing in question is made by people, because we're aware of that type of thing, its history, etc. That doesn't imply that it's impossible for us to be wrong, but that doesn't matter. When we get info that we're wrong, then we make the adjustment that we need to make.

In fact, my color-blindness is now a “micro-aggression”, because by refusing to consider race as a valid categorization I “deny the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history” and “deny the individual as a racial/cultural being”, which I suppose causes her pain. — NOS4A2

I overtly refuse to consider race a "valid" categorization, and I overtly deny "racial/ethnic experience" as something that should be significant or focused on. I'm happy to do that. If we all did that we could move on and worry about things that are important to worry about.

I don't know why people want to focus on race so much now, but it's been a big mistake in my opinion.

So, I was under the impression that pride (for males at least) manifests in rather peculiar ways. Ahem...

Anyway, I don't think you're really being sincere; but, I digress. — Wallows

Yes, I was being sincere. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the first part.

:up:

Order doesn't imply a designer. What tells us that a watch has a designer isn't order. It's the fact that we know that watches are designed. We know their history. We know how they're made.

So, what kind of utterances or behavior do you surmise as being worthy of a person who experiences pride? — Wallows

For example, take a cheer that New Jersey Devils fans shout during games--"Rangers suck, Islanders blow, Flyers swallow"--that's a Devils pride chant.

And how does that related to "pride" as a human construct? — Wallows

What I said is that I think it makes sense to describe some utterances and behavior as exhibiting pride or being prideful. So in that sense, I think it makes sense to say that pride can be objective--that is, insofar as it's referring to particular sorts of utterances or behavior.

Utterances we make--so sounds we make, for example, and behavior we exhibit--so motions we make with our bodies, for example, aren't mental phenomena. (They're correlated to mental phenomena, obviously, but they're not literally mental phenomena.)

I think it makes sense to describe statements or behavior as exhibiting pride or being prideful (I agree with the distinction suggested for those two earlier in the thread). I would say that statements (in terms of utterances we can observe others say) and behavior (again, in terms of observables) are objective.

As if the concept didn't apply to you... — Wallows

I'm just saying it's not a term I normally use. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do I feel pride about anything? I don't think so. I like stuff I interact with, that I'm a fan of, etc., and sure, I like myself, too, but I like most things really, and most people.

For example, I like my country a lot, but I like every country, every place I've spent time in. I wish I had endless time and endless resources so I could live everywhere for awhile.

Even with sports--and I'm a big sports fan, I'm a fan of a bunch of different teams, and there aren't any teams I hate. I have a "rooting hierarchy" basically. I wouldn't say I really have "pride" in my teams, in my country, etc., because to me that suggests placing it on a pedestal above other stuff, and I like almost everything. I like variety.

So, another kind of pride is "Gay Pride" — Bitter Crank

Ah, that too. Although usually I only use the term there to refer to the parade.

Not a term I use outside of (a) talking about lions, (b) talking about sports camaraderie, (c) talking about the U2 song.

In fact, an atheist will eventually, and grudgingly, still try to secretly run programs (=draw moral conclusions), but without using an operating system, but then his system-less bullshit will simply fail to take off. He will never admit that, however, because he has already declared that running programs (=drawing moral questions) is bad; all of that, without actually having a system to determine what is good or bad. — alcontali

Again, atheism isn't a claim about anything. It's certainly not something that forwards normatives about anything. It's just a term for a lack of one specific belief.

I am completely convinced that god could exist. — god must be atheist

That's not at all my disposition, though. To me, it strikes me as a completely absurd, "random," insane-sounding notion.

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. — Some Theist

"Inherent meaning" is not the same thing as meaning in the semantic sense, is it? When I assign meaning to a term or to something like a visual artwork by making mental associations, there's nothing inherent about that, is there? Maybe we could say that the ability to think about things meaningfully is inherent in us, ceteris paribus (there can easily be exceptions due to medical conditions, for example), but isn't that different than "Inherent meaning"?

This old atheism of mine is merely a consequence of (my) philosophizing. — 180 Proof

My atheism is a consequence of (a) not being at all indoctrinated with religion as a kid, and then (b) as a mid-teen, hearing some religious views finally and saying, "Wait--you can't be serious!" :lol:

My faith is based on many things. But the seven concepts I mentioned in the OP provides more persuasive evidence that all events must have a cause... — 3017amen

It certainly wasn't clear that you believed those things suggested that all events must have a cause. That seems like a completely arbitrary idea in relation to them.

I thought Atheism was an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers no? — 3017amen

No. This is such a basic and simple thing to understand. Atheism isn't anything like an ideology, a body of theory, a school of thought. It's only a term for one simple thing: the absence of a belief in gods.

Are you admitting then that there's mystery in the world? — 3017amen

It was already corrected for you many times, by many different people, that atheism has nothing to do with beliefs about whether there is any "mystery in the world."

He is one of those who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reasoning is necessarily failing to understand what he has written and is thus displaying poor reading skills, or for some obscure reason, emotional problems and/or Asperger's. "Go figure", indeed! — Janus

Not at all. But that you think this underscores how poor your reading comprehension is. You're very similar to Isaac in that. It's rare that you don't post a response with reading comprehension gaffes.

TS denies subconsciousness.

He basically said when you're daydreaming while driving a car and crashing then killing yourself, that you do it consciously LoL — 3017amen

I'm skeptical about unconscious mental content. That doesn't imply that I believe that everything is mental and thus conscious mental content. Accidents do not stem from mental content.

The way that we know a watch is designed isn't via making interpretive analogies with anything. The way that we know that a watch is designed is because we're familiar with watchmakers, we know that humans invented watches, that watches are an artifact that we produced.

It just gets funnier! — Janus

True that.

Atheist and it's of no consequence for my philosophical views.

Normally, I almost never think about religious issues. I don't take them seriously. I don't think they're worth consideration. Unfortunately, message boards like this are a refuge for folks who consider themselves religious apologists and who somehow think that cheeky, smarmy proselytizing is likely to have a positive effect.

The irony! :rofl: — Janus

That you're commenting on it? Yes. You're one of the folks with serious, almost continual reading comprehension problems.

By the way, if your theism makes it so that you can't understand the notion of not having a particular belief, then it doesn't seem very useful.

your atheism is supposed to know about consciousness, belief systems, so on and so forth right? — 3017amen

That doesn't have anything to do with atheism.

Hey great question! No I don't know. Can you tell me why I don't? — 3017amen

Can I tell you why you don't understand it? No. It seems weird to me that you'd have difficulty with it, because it seems so simple to understand not having a particular belief.

No I don't think so, — 3017amen

You don't understand that you don't have that belief?

Okay please don't get mad but I don't understand.

What is a lack of belief in something? — 3017amen

For example, you lack a belief that Frank Zappa at a Whopper from Burger King on March 5, 1982.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes, good points.

Ok, I will answer again but this is your last chance for an actual discussion. From me at least.

God does not exist, true or false?
The answer is I do not know. No, that doesnt mean atheism is untenable because atheism isnt the position that god doesnt exist. Atheism is the position of not believing a god does exist.
Now your turn to answer a question, I think thats fair.
Do you understand the distinction between a position that god doesnt exist and the position of not believing a god exists? — DingoJones

But is the following statement true or false:

1. God does not exist.



:grin:

So you already asked in this post earlier in the thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/340427

I already started my answer in this post earlier in the thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/340432

Then you responded with this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/340437

I responded to that post with this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/340439

And then you dropped out of that subthread without commenting on the above post.

Im not trying to intimidate you, nor was any if that a personal attack. Im trying to help you, because if you keep on doing what your doing people will just start ignoring you. Id rather that people had interesting interactions instead of talking past or ignoring each other.
The reason you seem like you are trolling is because you are ignoring direct points and questions. You responded to that by just doing the exact same thing. Ignoring and restating your question. People are not confused why they are frustrated, you are confused as to why its frustrating.

And I already answered your question, remember? — DingoJones

It sucks that it's almost impossible to actually have a conversation with someone with a different point of view here (and on boards like this in general). Everyone either has act like they have various mental problems. It almost seems like folks believe that's the way to approach "debates" on the Internet--as if it's a requirement to act like you have some mental problem rather than having a straightforward, good-faith conversation. It just becomes a long string of people acting like they don't or can't understand anything the other person says, a la Aspie reading comprehension issues, absurd "playing dumb" approaches, repetitive OCDish behavior (as 3017 seems to be sinking into), and a variety of other trollish crap in the same vein.

Is the following statement true or false: — 3017amen

Doublespeak? Look at the 2nd page of this thread. It's not as if you didn't see it. You responded to it already.

Some sort of short-term memory weirdness? It was only two days ago.

Didn't you read the second page of this thread? You even responded to me about it.

I was thinking of the possibility of design or the semblance of it arising spontaneously out of randomness. — TheMadFool

When we have free will discussions, folks have a problem with saying that the sciences posit anything random. Why in this context would we assume that science is positing randomness and "things arising spontaneously out of it" after all? Do the sciences suppose that the world works randomly? And if not, are we claiming that the sciences are positing a god?

Yes, your version of a sense of humor makes Aspies of us all. — Coben

You're going with "I was joking"?