Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »What do you conclude differently about "there is nothing after this"?...
The difference is that my conclusions focus on the positive factors and yours focus on the negative factors.
Possibly because it doesn't bother me that 'there is nothing after this' and I enjoy the fact that 'there is so much during this.'0 -
The second article in the series is published today.
If there is a natural explanation then there is no reason to invent a god
Feedback welcome.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Feedback welcome.
Good article. Nice and straightforward.
Nothing that could be construed as a generalisation about atheists to get you in trouble here!0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Utter selflessness (a.k.a. unconditional and sacrificial love).
I actually find that to be much more interesting under atheism given that since we only have THIS life... sacrifice is much greater.
Take the Jesus Fairy Tale for example.
He is said to have "given" his life for us. However in the fairy tale he went on to an eternal life. So he did not "give" anything. He traded a fleetingly short life here for another eternal everlasting one of bliss. Hardly a sacrifice is it and a bit of an insult to our intelligence to be asked to treat it as such. The god character for example did not "give" us his only son. At best he "lent" us his only son. For an insignificantly short time.
Now had the fairy tale been that he was sent to earth, offered an eternal life, and he turned it down in order to sacrifice himself for us..... now THAT would be a tale worth writing and a sacrifice worth harping on about. THAT would have been a testament to true selflessness.
So I think when people make sacrifices in this life, in the knowledge that this is the only life they have in which to be making those sacrifices... I would respect their "selflessness" infinitely more than those doing it thinking "meh, sure I have eternity so this is no skin off my nose".
Nugent is on this thread for example sacrificing time he does not really have in order to ask users how he can change his writing style in future to better portray his work in a way that is pleasing to more people. I appreciate that sacrifice of his time and his willingness to really listen to others and change his ways.0 -
Nothing that could be construed as a generalisation about atheists to get you in trouble here!Michael Nugent wrote: »Feedback welcome.If there is a plausible natural explanation, there is no reason to invent a god.0
-
Advertisement
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »Feedback welcome.
You've probably presented it there in the most softly-softly way possible, yet I can still see a few fairly fervent backlashes in days to come.
For someone deeply seated in their belief, I don't think there's any amount of articles that can help them look objectively at what they believe and evaluate it critically.
But for those who are on the fence or questioning (a huge number of "Catholics" in this country IMO), it invites more questions and critical thinking about the nature of whatever they consider to be "god", and provides them with a few more starting points to get more information on the nature of the universe.0 -
You've confirmed for me that there's no way of presenting a godless view of the universe without using language that will in some way upset a believer or at the very least will appear anti-religion.
After that most of the article talks about some of the science behind the big questions and if people are getting insulted by science then they may as well just stick their heads in the sand and be done with it.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »But the idea that constraints add to rather than subtract from lifes enjoyment is inescapable. There'll always be a Howard Huges type to argue differently but he isn't the norm. Or normal.
Who wants to be normal?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Tell Michael Nugent will ya?
I think the 'bad' people find it good that evolution worked things out that way too. It means there's more opportunity for them.
Ah hang on a second, you've clearly never heard of game theory.0 -
What's with the large, god-like image?Michael Nugent wrote: »Feedback welcome.
Good articles.
The lack of commonality among atheists was already dealt with in the first article, dealing with such labels as the agnostic atheist. So I agree with your strategy of highlighting points of agreement by using strong statements like Atheists agree.... or Atheists reject... (where justified)
Its only by presenting some sort of united front, backed up by significant numbers of people, to the general public and the politicians that progress can be made towards loosening the grip on power (schools, laws, oaths, the Constitution etc) traditionally enjoyed by the religious.
I would also keep up the specific references to Prof Mackays IrishTimes articles. Otherwise, somebody reading one of yours for the first time might react thinking; WTF is this atheist preacher on about; who let him in here?0 -
Advertisement
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »The second article in the series is published today.
If there is a natural explanation then there is no reason to invent a god
Feedback welcome.
very good article Michael, but to be really picky:
"RITE & REASON: ATHEISTS REJECT the idea that a supernatural being, and specifically a personal intervening supernatural being, created what we today call the universe".
have you left scope for the Dana fans to accuse atheists of being closet deists?0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »The second article in the series is published today.
If there is a natural explanation then there is no reason to invent a god
Feedback welcome.
Michael, just wanted to say thanks for writing these articles and getting them out there. A lot of us appreciate your efforts.
I'd love to see an article that outlines why humans believe in god/s. A lot of people just accept what their 'brain tells them' and don't recognise or consider the known congnitive biases that exist. You could talk about concepts like supernatural agency detection and the predator/bush scenario which evolved the behaviour. More in this video.0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Arcus it would have helped if you'd taken the time to actually read past
the title before condemning the article:
I know it'll be hard to re-read that passage without instantly assuming
all the fluff you've propped yourself up on but to any unbiased reader
it's as clear as day that the "We" follows on from the "most of us", so
already the self-promotional overarching grandiosity of the "We" claim
you'd love to have existed just isn't there (where did it come from?).
Context is a bitch, but if you really want to string this out then I think
your argument is with the "most of us", despite any 8 year old knowing
what is meant by the sentences being used. In any case the "We"'ness
you're striving for makes no sense if you actually read beyond the title.
Your'e making the self serving presumption that because part of the title was quoted then I must only have read the title. Then you quote a passage, take a part of it out of context and then say "context is a bitch". I'll take your word for the problem as you experience it. The "We" is in the title which you ought to have read.sponsoredwalk wrote: »It would have been great if you'd quoted some sentences to show us the logical link between this delusion & the actual sentences, some quotes to back up the self-promotional qualities of the article would have been nice too.
Do you think that anyone can speak for people based on the fact they don't believe in god's and after that may have nothing of note in common? There may even be many atheist who are anti-atheist! For any statements about atheists to be true they would have to first distinguish which groups of atheist or collective movements or membership of an atheist organisations they referred to. An atheist might just as well be a Pope in the Vatican planning and plotting to crush a movement which was based on professing atheisms as any other sort of atheist. Joseph Stalin didn't like rivals and claiming to be an atheist wouldn't have done you any good.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Is this an "I was atheist before it was cool" steam reliever or can you
actually justify, by means of quotations, that the article is just about
these central bank good charlotte rockers new atheists?
I used the term professed atheist or so called "New Atheists" which is a term being used whether rightly or wrongly. Do you think that an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods or someone who does not believe in gods and says so? Professed atheists by the way include the "I'm an atheist now that it's cool" types...
I'm not an atheist I'm a human being. That's not as simple a statement as you might imagine. I just happen to be of the opinion that there is no reason to believe such things as gods exist. As soon as you immerse your identity (as something other than a human being) in a collective stance you can start to become part of a flock. Then you can start viewing things almost totally from within the flock. If flock leaders are criticised you jump to their defence. In a few short passages of time sure you'd probably have yourself a new religion..sponsoredwalk wrote: »I see that a (voluntary, of course) public mark displayed on those things you despise would have a place in your "ethical" society.
That's silly enough on it's own.We would change our minds if we were given new and credible evidence that we are mistaken.
Do you think this repeat of something Richard Dawkins has often said is true or to what extent is it true or is it substantially wrong?0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Thanks for that feedback. I tried to use qualifiers like ‘some’, ‘many’ and ‘most’ when it seemed appropriate, and to stress that most atheists do not make claims of certainty, and to only leave out qualifying words when I was making what I thought were uncontroversial observations.
However, I do agree that it is a valid issue, and I am always open to improving how I communicate my ideas. Which generalised statements specifically in the article do you suggest that I should qualify in future?
Michael, just to say really enjoyed your second installment. Your point about qualifiers is taken, and on second reading it might be reasonable that you had to generalise to that extent.
Another poster has de-constructed the article already, so don't want to bore with my thoughts on every sentence and paragraph. But i suppose if i had to pick a part i wasn't personally in agreement at all with, it would be the following:
We do not get our morality from books such as the Bible and the Koran, regardless of whether we read these books literally or metaphorically.
As an ex-catholic, i must say i did enjoy reading the bible and i daresay many ex-cons like me would admit to learning much from it morality-wise in childhood. It's a great book; and it's a brave writer that would completely rule out it's moral value to non-believers; not that you have done mind. So it's sort of horses for courses.Michael Nugent wrote: »Also, there are broadly two ways to approach addressing this, and I’d welcome feedback as to which is the best way:
One way is to qualify every noun with a suitable adjective, which would make articles more precise but harder to read, particularly for general readers who have to ‘get’ the basics before they can consider all of the nuances.
Another is to start articles with an early disclaimer (or finish them with a late disclaimer) to the effect that some generalisations are made that have implied exceptions.
Any thoughts on which approach would be most effective?
Very admirable that you have asked moi for advice! Off the bat? The latter.
IMHO, given the diversity of the people you are currently in the spotlight on behalf of; that would go towards helping keep things inclusive. But that's just me. To be honest, i have no idea about AI or what it's aims are.
You've set yourself up though, by dint of your position and some of the phrasing of your first article as a spokesman for athiests to the IT readership so all eyes are on you Michael apparently! No pressure then hehe.
Forgive the use of a silly analagy now, but it's like you've been charged with serving a 4 course meal (athiesm) to a table at a restaurant. (IT readers)
You as the head waiter have just served the soup as a first course.
For one diner the soup may have been too hot for his/her taste (offensive in some way to theists/misrepresentative to some atheists/agnostics)
For another it may have been too cold (not strong enough for some atheists).
But i gather you've done very well so far for most judging by the feedback; the soup tastes just right. So fair play. And at least you didn't do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6aYLOf8CUQ
Best of luck and thanks for the reply.0 -
Arcus Arrow wrote: »Your'e making the self serving presumption that because part of the title was quoted then I must only have read the title. Then you quote a passage, take a part of it out of context and then say "context is a bitch". I'll take your word for the problem as you experience it. The "We" is in the title which you ought to have read.
First off could you explain to me what I was trying to preserve?
Second I would love for you to explain to me how I was presuming
anything, I quoted [in context] the part of the opinion piece that annoyed
you so much to show you how your anger had nothing to do with the
article. Funnily enough I did that to illustrate how you just 'presumed'
so much about the article by virtue of the title not bothering to read past
it (or misreading the article - evidenced by the half sentence quotes you offered out of context as
further justification of your point [hence why I mentioned that in my post btw], but I do try to give
the benefit of the doubt at first, obviously my fault). Surely you'll agree that for
someone to read the title of "the selfish gene" & to go on huge rants
about Dawkins is a bit ridiculous, especially when the contents beyond
the title contradict the point the person is making (or at least illustrate
how flawed such rants are), if so I hope you see the point I'm making
about your arguments.
Third I like how you're using my own words against me, but the thing is
that when I labelled a charge at you I actually bothered to quote the lines
of the article that specifically refute your tangential point, you just choose
to vaguely insinuate that it was, in fact (at the end of the day), me who
was taking things out of context all along as we can all surely see by just
returning to the article... So why don't you go back to the article, actually
quote it & explain to me how the "We" that has annoyed you so much
due to it's flockish overtones was speaking of the general flock despite
the actual context of the article which, clear as day, isn't referring to the
grand "We" you think it is. Honestly I only see two possibilities that would
lead to such a conclusion, not reading past the title or misreading the
whole thing focusing on pieces that aid your preconceptions & ignoring
that which doesn't. Again this is like reading the title of Dawkins Selfish
Gene & assuming Dawkins is perpetrating laring logical fallacies.
Fourth, I did read the "We" in the title, I read the argument you were
making (before I bothered to read the actual article), read the quote
about your personal issues with AI, suspected ulterior motives driving
your essays, read the title, read the article, spotted the disconnect &
here we are.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Do you think that anyone can speak for people based on the fact they don't believe in god's and after that may have nothing of note in common? There may even be many atheist who are anti-atheist! For any statements about atheists to be true they would have to first distinguish which groups of atheist or collective movements or membership of an atheist organisations they referred to. An atheist might just as well be a Pope in the Vatican planning and plotting to crush a movement which was based on professing atheisms as any other sort of atheist. Joseph Stalin didn't like rivals and claiming to be an atheist wouldn't have done you any good.
"In fact, after the usual beginning stuff, the title page, various prefaces
for various editions, both by Newton and his editor, and a long ode to
Newton written by Halley (which I haven't read, but have grave doubts of
being very good), the very first words of the Principia proper are..."
See? I can reply to you too by completely ignoring your point & instead
focusing on something that only has anything to do with the actual
content of the article if you pick the sentence or two that appeals to you
ignoring all the rest. You'll notice I asked you to actually back up your
claims with quotes, kind of a way to see if you could justify yourself if you
get me.Arcus Arrow wrote: »I used the term professed atheist or so called "New Atheists" which is a term being used whether rightly or wrongly. Do you think that an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods or someone who does not believe in gods and says so? Professed atheists by the way include the "I'm an atheist now that it's cool" types...
So in other words, it was an "I was atheist before it was cool" steam
reliever comment, It's always hilarious to me how speaking about such
matters is like a crime (hilariously similar opinions can be found in the
music world, for example). Could you explain to me the egregious sin
people indulge in by talking about their own atheism?
I'll just mention in passing I could literally quote your own "We" argument
here now & argue you're over-generalizing about "I'm an atheist now that
it's cool" types to point out how you're contradicting your own previous
gloriously independent minded stance about the independent mindedness
of atheists, but I see you've managed to split "We" atheists into the in
group, pure breed, atheists & the out group, dehumanized deatheistized
"I'm an atheist now that it's cool" types so in a warped sense they don't
classify as people atheists to you ergo in this line of thought it makes sense.
However stepping out of the shadows of such bias I think you're perfectly
contradicting yourself, we'll have to agree to disagree as I'm doubtful as
to whether this point will register.
Furthermore, lets pretend the out-group are all just "I'm an atheist now
that it's cool" types, what's so bad about them exactly? They're not doing
it right? They haven't declared their undying allegiances to atheism in the
right way? Funny how such a concept stands with regard to the main
point you were making in your essays... :pac:Arcus Arrow wrote: »I'm not an atheist I'm a human being. That's not as simple a statement as you might imagine. I just happen to be of the opinion that there is no reason to believe such things as gods exist. As soon as you immerse your identity (as something other than a human being) in a collective stance you can start to become part of a flock. Then you can start viewing things almost totally from within the flock. If flock leaders are criticised you jump to their defence. In a few short passages of time sure you'd probably have yourself a new religion..
As fantastic as that is, when Plato referred to Socrates definition of man
as a featherless biped he wasn't defining the sum total of the entire
existence of all man. Similarly, when someone says "I'm a teacher" they
aren't actually defining their entire identity. Curiously, the same goes for
those who treacherously say "I'm an atheist". Could you explain to me the
herd mentality of teachers, or does herd mentality only apply in some
situations by virtue of the label people are bandying about? Are doctors
not also people as well as indoctrinated cattle of the cult of Hippocrates?Arcus Arrow wrote: »Do you think this repeat of something Richard Dawkins has often said is true or to what extent is it true or is it substantially wrong?
Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't anyone? Generally people who don't hold
a grudge or do not suspect ulterior motives would expect such a thing of
anybody. As for the comment about what our dear herd leader has said
often enough, this may come as a shock but our enobled one was not,
despite what some elders may lead the flock to believe, the first one to
espouse such wise & enobled wisdom. I do dissent from the ranks & put
my family at great risk by saying this alright but Richard Dawkins words
did not fuel science & the scientific method with pearls of wisdom such as
the ability to change ones mind in the face of evidence, it was the other
way round. Eppur si mouve, eppur si mouve!0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »First off could you explain to me what I was trying to preserve?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Second I would love for you to explain to me how I was presuming
anything,sponsoredwalk wrote: »I quoted [in context] the part of the opinion piece that annoyed
yousponsoredwalk wrote: »so much to show you how your anger had nothing to do with the article.
If it was necessary, convenient or served my purposes and the right conditions were all in place I could literally kill you without being angry or even thinking about you afterwards. I don’t have to worry about gods only other humans. You potentially could do the same but you might need to be angry. Whether you'd need to be angry or not is no more than a condition of your personal mentality. Humans kill humans every day.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Funnily enough I did that to illustrate how you just 'presumed' so much about the article by virtue of the title not bothering to read past it
So first there’s a part of the article that annoyed me then according to you it couldn’t have been that because you presumed (yet again) I didn’t read it.sponsoredwalk wrote: »(or misreading the article - evidenced by the half sentence quotes you offered out of context as further justification of your point [hence why I mentioned that in my post btw], but I do try to give the benefit of the doubt at first, obviously my fault).
Surely you'll agree {presumptuous again} that for someone to read the title of "the selfish gene" & to go on huge rants about Dawkins is a bit ridiculous, especially when the contents beyond the title contradict the point the person is making (or at least illustrate how flawed such rants are), if so I hope you see the point I'm making about your arguments.
All again based on you original self-serving presumptions. The title of the article presumes to speak for people based on what they don’t believe. The title of the book represents it’s content which is what the title is for. There’s a difference. Here comes a question…….
Do you think anyone can write an article about people based only on the fact they don’t collect stamps?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Third I like how you're using my own words against me, but the thing is that when I labelled a charge at you I actually bothered to quote the lines of the article that specifically refute your tangential point, you just choose to vaguely insinuate that it was, in fact (at the end of the day), me who was taking things out of context all along as we can all surely see by just returning to the article... So why don't you go back to the article, actually quote it & explain to me how the "We" that has annoyed you so much due to it's flockish overtones was speaking of the general flock despite the actual context of the article which, clear as day, isn't referring to the grand "We" you think it is. Honestly I only see two possibilities that would lead to such a conclusion, not reading past the title or misreading the whole thing focusing on pieces that aid your preconceptions & ignoring that which doesn't. Again this is like reading the title of Dawkins Selfish Gene & assuming Dawkins is perpetrating laring logical fallacies.
If you’d answered the very simple questions that were put to you it might help.
Once again, how can anyone presume to speak for a mass of people based only on what they don’t believe?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Fourth, I did read the "We" in the title, I read the argument you were making (before I bothered to read the actual article), read the quote about your personal issues with AI, suspected ulterior motives driving your essays, read the title, read the article, spotted the disconnect & here we are.sponsoredwalk wrote: »See? I can reply to you too by completely ignoring your point & instead focusing on something that only has anything to do with the actual content of the article if you pick the sentence or two that appeals to you ignoring all the rest. You'll notice I asked you to actually back up your claims with quotes, kind of a way to see if you could justify yourself if you get me. So in other words, it was an "I was atheist before it was cool" steam reliever comment, It's always hilarious to me how speaking about such matters is like a crime (hilariously similar opinions can be found in the music world, for example). Could you explain to me the egregious sin people indulge in by talking about their own atheism?
No I don’t get you. I even think there might be something wrong with me if I did. I don’t know what it is exactly that’s reduced you to hilarity but with any luck you’re enjoying it. There's no such thing as sin except in the religious mind and you're making up things I didn't actually say yet again. If you've started to see yourself as an atheist "sinner" don't go blaming me. Maybe you need to join an atheist confession and get a few Hail Darwins and a decade of the Dawkins for the sins you feel guilty of.
You shouldn’t need quotes to answer a simple question:
Can anyone claim to speak for people based only on what they don’t believe?0 -
*** We could ignore every single point & question here if you'd just
answer the one particular part of my response with these *** things.***Arcus Arrow wrote: »Where did I say you were trying to preserve anything? Sponsored are you getting this mixed with a thread about jam making?
Apologies, I read "self serving" as "self preserving", jam may have
had something to do with itArcus Arrow wrote: »Did you or did you not presume I hadn’t read the article?
Okay, bad question. I actually did presume you hadn't read the article.
I guess I am just mired in contradictions now, because in my original post
I began with the presumption that you hadn't read past the title only later
to imply that you were quoting half sentences from the article out of
context, one wonders how the two can be resolved, I mean surely it is
me talking out of my ass to say you hadn't read past the title only to then
imply you were quoting half sentences from the very article whose title
I had just said you hadn't read past!
Maybe, just maybe, I meant something a little more subtle when I said
"it would have helped if you'd taken the time to actually read past the
title before condemning the article", I doubt it though...
So I take it you just misread the article then, if so could you perhaps
re-read the passage I quoted in my original post & explain to me how
the title of the article is not linked to the conditional "most of us"
considering it's the only part of the article at all that you could link the
title to, with deference to the few grammatical moments where Nugent
actually goes out of his way not to be so general & breaks people up
into respective categories ("at least in the western world", "most of us", "About 60",
Only about 40").
Note that when a person writes a sentence like the one just written it's
actually a question as well as a follow on from the implications of a "yes"
to that question as opposed to an actual declarative presumption, the
thing about extended sentences such as the above is that it's hard to add
a question mark when the end of the extended sentence doesn't allow for
it.
To be pedantic it's a means to express a point based on the presumption
of an expected answer, the vitally important aspect of such grammar is
that it allows for the possibility of being wrong but it a nice time-saver.
If you re-read the passage where you inserted {presumption} I think
{presumption?} you'll see I'm following the exact same common style of
rhetoric which oddly enough is found in reams of literature.Arcus Arrow wrote: »All again based on you original self-serving presumptions. The title of the article presumes to speak for people based on what they don’t believe. The title of the book represents it’s content which is what the title is for. There’s a difference.
This might be a bit spooky, but you'll notice something amazing if you
re-read my point about the selfish gene title without assuming that the
point I was making follows on from my very serious presumption that
you hadn't read past the title of the article.
It might be even spookier to notice that both examples, you & the selfish
gene example in the link, are based on assuming lots of corollaries based
on what you both thought after you read the title, both ignoring the actual
words of the book/article which, had either of you read (and/or thought
about) notice how many possibilities are allowed for with my language here, I have the rare gift
of envisioning many possibilities & structuring my language accordingly... the actual words
contained within (and from which both titles inextricably follow on from
- as any good title should), your assumptions about what the title implies
couldn't be anything but sheer nonsense.
Here's an analogy, if an article has a title like "Water was found on the
moon!" only for the article to be talking about Europa, surely {presumption?}
you'll agree it would be a bit foolish to be railing the magazine for
implying that the earth's moon had water and not engaging the content
of the article?Arcus Arrow wrote: »Here comes a question…….
Do you think anyone can write an article about people based only on the fact they don’t collect stamps?
Absolutely, what to one person is a piece of wood is to another a
soon-to-be boat & to another is a scene in Wayne's World 2. I even bet
you'd be able to write an article about people based only on the fact that
they don't collect stamps. The books being sold in the nearest petrol
station containing them should {presumption?} convince you of the
non-impossibility of such a task.
To engage the point you're trying to make with this example, I think
you're argument is with human nature in general really. To go back to
my Plato/Aristotle/Diogenese definition of man, such a definition does
not define the sum-total of man, neither does the word atheist. Still,
people throughout history use such language & it really is up to the
reader to decipher the meaning &, hopefully, understand what is meant
without being totally lost due to the unwritten (usually timesaving)
assumptions - especially in an opinion column on the internet...
Notice I did not also include the possibility that the article was printed in
the newspaper, because to waste time mentioning such trivialities is
nothing but time-wasting, similarly if we are to assume the worst about
what was meant about the title, I think you could argue the exact same
thing about time saving &/or speaking to a particular audience (the Irish
Times reader). If you wanted to poke holes I think you'd make a far
better point in highlighting the culturally constrained perspective of the
author & the limited scope of such a perspective in the grand scheme of
things if you really did want to poke holes in the use of such language.
But I digress, considering this has nothing to do with the actual article...Arcus Arrow wrote: »Well I’m glad you found something you like. The “we” I was referring to was part of the article so there is no other “we” bar one you’ve invented.
If you’d answered the very simple questions that were put to you it might help.
***There were a few "we's" in the article, which one precisely were you
responding to? Could you perhaps quote three previous sentences
as well as three sentences following the "we" you're referring to in the
article so that we have a chance at understanding the context, and
furthermore (this is pivotal) could you justify your understanding of
what is meant by "we" (i.e. the grand, overarching, speak for everyone
understanding) with recourse to the previous & following sentences
(where applicable). Personally I think this is an impossible task if you
are reading the article and paying attention. ***Arcus Arrow wrote: »Once again, how can anyone presume to speak for a mass of people based only on what they don’t believe?
I presume you have serious problems with the field of psychology, if you
dare to browse a textbook you'll find, to your great horror {presumption?},
that psychologists can most definitely say something about large masses
of people based on what they don't believe. One quick example, do you
deny that I can say something about a mass of people in the 21st century
based on the fact that so many people don't believe in slavery? Maybe not
though, maybe we can't say anything about people because of what they
don't believe as regards women, as regards children, as regards medicine,
as regards psychological treatment, as regards locks on doors, as regards
stealing land, as regards 1 = 0, as regards... I don't think it takes a great
deal of courage for many many many authors to even presume, let alone
speak, for masses of people when addressing & discussing such topics.
I guess what it requires is knowledge about the topic at hand & the
courage to speak about it, to answer your question as to what it takes
for someone to even presume to speak for people based on what they
don't believe.
(Notice the other possibilities, such as sheer ignorance, false knowledge,
guts, hatred of the idea of someone fearing to speak because they must
satisfy regulation X before daring to speak for people about any topic,
etc... etc... that I left out in my response, again it's an unfortunate
aspect of reality that such must occur).Arcus Arrow wrote: »All my issues are personal. So are yours. With humans everything is personal. The above sounds like the path to your presumptions. It’s a classic path common in the religious type mind. Rather than deal with the very simple questions, though they might be very uncomfortable, you've gone off all defensive possibly because you’re not hearing what you want to hear.
I apologize for my primitive, religious_type-like mind.Arcus Arrow wrote: »No I don’t get you. I even think there might be something wrong with me if I did.
Take the risk, it might cause something to go wrong with you if you try
but be brave, if you figure out what I meant by replying with something
that only tangentially has something to do with the topic of discussion if
you read sentences out of context then I think you'll grasp the main point
I'm making about your response and how it has nothing to do with the
article unless you aren't paying attention to the point being made in the
article and instead are just taking things out of context & responding
based on your own understanding of a sentence in vacuo.Arcus Arrow wrote: »There's no such thing as sin except in the religious mind and you're making up things I didn't actually say yet again. If you've started to see yourself as an atheist "sinner" don't go blaming me. Maybe you need to join an atheist confession and get a few Hail Darwins and a decade of the Dawkins for the sins you feel guilty of.
The atheist shame was drilled into me at atheist boot camp to which I
was sent because I'd spoken about my atheism0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »I even bet you'd be able to write an article about people based only on the fact that they don't collect stamps.
No not me, but if by that you mean it’s possible, as the article is pompously trying to do, then go ahead. Considering the volume of text you’re capable of a few pages shouldn’t take you too long.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Once again, how can anyone presume to speak for a mass of people based only on what they don’t believe?sponsoredwalk wrote: »I presume you have serious problems with the field of psychology, if you dare to browse a textbook you'll find, to your great horror {presumption?}, that psychologists can most definitely say something about large masses of people based on what they don't believe. One quick example, do you deny that I can say something about a mass of people in the 21st century based on the fact that so many people don't believe in slavery? Maybe not though, maybe we can't say anything about people because of what they don't believe as regards women, as regards children, as regards medicine, as regards psychological treatment, as regards locks on doors, as regards stealing land, as regards 1 = 0, as regards... I don't think it takes a great deal of courage for many many many authors to even presume, let alone speak, for masses of people when addressing & discussing such topics. I guess what it requires is knowledge about the topic at hand & the courage to speak about it, to answer your question as to what it takes for someone to even presume to speak for people based on what they don't believe. (Notice the other possibilities, such as sheer ignorance, false knowledge, guts, hatred of the idea of someone fearing to speak because they must satisfy regulation X before daring to speak for people about any topic, etc... etc... that I left out in my response, again it's an unfortunate aspect of reality that such must occur).
The point is this: if the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour etc without qualifying in some why which atheists they are referring to?sponsoredwalk wrote: »I apologize for my primitive, religious_type-like mind.0 -
guys, can ye start PMing each other or something?
meet for coffee and have a right good one..0 -
Arcus Arrow wrote: »No not me, but if by that you mean it’s possible, as the article is pompously trying to do, then go ahead. Considering the volume of text you’re capable of a few pages shouldn’t take you too long.
So in other words you now concede the possibility of something so utterly
despicable as writing an article about people based only on the fact they
don’t collect stamps? I'm glad the length of my responses has finally,
finally, been acknowledged on this site as something other than a
negative. If something such as the volume of text could go some way to
convincing you of the opposite of what seemed so definitive in your earlier
responses then I can do nothing but commend your receptiveness to
opposing opinions, perhaps next you'll try going beyond the volume of
text to embracing the meaning of the words constituting itArcus Arrow wrote: »Psychologists have problems with the field of psychology so I’m not alone by your measure. It’s not like they’re measuring lengths of rope. The best practitioners of psychology are not officially psychologists in my opinion. Since overall here you’re claiming, as far as I can tell, that a book or an article in this case can be written ascribing attributes to people based on what they don’t believe can you give me a few titles just for the hell of it. I’m sure you can by the way. I can give you books which will inform you there are ancient landing zones for spaceships in South America.
"Characteristics of Patients with Schizophrenia Who Do Not Believe They Are Mentally Ill"
(I guess this article isn't ascribing attributes to people based on what they don’t believe though...)
Why People Don't Trust Government
(I guess this book isn't speaking for a mass of people based on what they don't believe though...)
"Comparison of the smoking behaviour and attitudes of smokers who believe they have smoking-related problems with those who do not"
(I guess this article isn't ascribing attributes to people based on what they don’t believe and
contrasting that with the behaviour of people based on what they do believe though...)
I can't find an article that convinces me of the apparent equivalence
between the above articles & your books about ancient landing zones for
spaceships in South America though, so my articles may be null & voidArcus Arrow wrote: »The point is this: if the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour etc without qualifying in some why which atheists they are referring to?
I'm well aware of the point you're trying to make, I think that was clear
in your first response. However I wonder are you ignoring the point I'm
trying to make because you think I don't get what you're trying to say or
is there some other reason you're repeating yourself without engaging
any of the points I'm making? I think the vital question here is how the
point you're making has to do with the point being made by the article.
I think I've summed your activity in this thread up perfectly when I quote
a random passage discussing the Principia, just try, try, to see what point
I was making by doing that & how it maps onto what you've done in here.
Better yet, try to answer the *** part of my last response, if you do this I
really doubt you can miss the point I've been making all along.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Sponsored you could have made that sound even more sarcastic and humorous if you’d thrown in a bit of the Vatican’s official language. Something like it “De omnibus dubitandum”. Maybe not that particular phrase in your case but something along those lines.
Well now I apologise for not having a religious-enough_type-mind that
permits me to strategically interject Vatican catechism passages at whim0 -
Advertisement
-
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »guys, can ye start PMing each other or something?
meet for coffee and have a right good one..
If the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour etc without qualifying in some way which atheists they are referring to?
I wouldn't recommend Sponsored for clues as to a possible answer but make up your own mind.
The question is also relevant to Tim Robbins OP and relevant to the article in question.
It's also has relevance in the wider context.
While it can be argued that it's quite valid to point out how absurd it is to believe in a god thing based on the fairy tales in the bibles it does not follow that anyone can then ascribe collective characteristics to those who don't believe.
That's why the whole article is just a self promoting distortionist trying to present atheists as pudgy pawed teddy bears. It makes atheists sound like people who aren't in full time employment but are quite happy living on social welfare as long as they can huff and puff all day at religion.
An atheist doesn't believe in gods. That's it.0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »So in other words you now concede the possibility of something so utterly
despicable as writing an article about people based only on the fact they
don’t collect stamps?
That's not what that meant. I hope you're deliberately making the mistake because if you're not you're reading it wrong.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I'm glad the length of my responses has finally, finally, been acknowledged on this site as something other than a negative. If something such as the volume of text could go some way to
convincing you of the opposite of what seemed so definitive in your earlier
responses then I can do nothing but commend your receptiveness to
opposing opinions, perhaps next you'll try going beyond the volume of
text to embracing the meaning of the words constituting it
If you've been feeling abused and unappreciated don't let me go upsetting something you're used to.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I can't find an article that convinces me of the apparent equivalence
between the above articles & your books about ancient landing zones for
spaceships in South America though, so my articles may be null & void
The point was you could find books that claimed almost anything. I'd wrongly had the half idea that that would give you a clue as to the pointlessness of dragging up a bunch of book titles and instead you'd concentrate on answering the question.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I'm well aware of the point you're trying to make, I think that was clear
in your first response. However I wonder are you ignoring the point I'm
trying to make because you think I don't get what you're trying to say or
is there some other reason you're repeating yourself without engaging
any of the points I'm making? I think the vital question here is how the
point you're making has to do with the point being made by the article.
I think I've summed your activity in this thread up perfectly when I quote
a random passage discussing the Principia, just try, try, to see what point
I was making by doing that & how it maps onto what you've done in here.
Better yet, try to answer the *** part of my last response, if you do this I
really doubt you can miss the point I've been making all along.
As far as I can see you're not making a point or at least not one that my short blip on earth allows sufficient time to untangle from your voluminous page fillers. What you're doing overall is providing a demonstration.
Are you a member of an atheist organisation or are you not attracted by that sort of thing or limited by location if you are?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Well now I apologise for not having a religious-enough_type-mind that
permits me to strategically interject Vatican catechism passages at whim
Is there a particular reason you're writing in columns instead of the full width available?0 -
Arcus Arrow wrote: »That's not what that meant. I hope you're deliberately making the mistake because if you're not you're reading it wrong.
I'm just going by what you said:Arcus Arrow wrote: »No not me, but if by that you mean it’s possible, as the article is pompously trying to do, then go ahead. Considering the volume of text you’re capable of a few pages shouldn’t take you too long.
Let's narrow it down:Arcus Arrow wrote: »sponsoredwalk wrote:I even bet you'd be able to write an article about people based only on the fact that they don't collect stamps.
No not me, but if by that you mean it’s possible, ..., then go ahead.
To which you then let us know that it wouldn't even take me too long
to do such a task because of the volume of text I'm capable of:Arcus Arrow wrote: »Considering the volume of text you’re capable of a few pages shouldn’t take you too long.
to which, again, I thank you for acknowledging as having done something
useful in a conversation.
Oh, and lets not forget the piece of text I deleted in the above quote with
the ... :Arcus Arrow wrote: »as the article is pompously trying to do,
Now, considering your record of statements about the article that just
scrupulously ignore the quotations to back you up, I understand how you
are capable of fantasies as regards what the article says to a degree, but
claiming the article was pompously trying to argue in any way, shape or
form anything about stamps tells me you're attributing a hell of a lot of
negativity to this particular article, who knows what other untold evils the
article is responsible for :rolleyes:
So unless you want to actually justify your claim that I'm reading it
wrong, I think we can put that comment into the set of all those
comments you make that require contextual explanations via quotations
to justify but strangely are never offered up.Arcus Arrow wrote: »The point was you could find books that claimed almost anything.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."Arcus Arrow wrote: »I'd wrongly had the half idea that that would give you a clue as to the pointlessness of dragging up a bunch of book titles and instead you'd concentrate on answering the question.
You were trying to make an argument about how anyone could presume
to speak for a mass of people based on what they don't believe, I then
responded with an argument giving many easy examples of how everyday
in jobs where peer review is factored in (obvious everyday examples will
be scoffed at), instead of engaging the fact that these are valid examples
you try to vaguely insinuate the credibility of my examples is non-existent
so I've now not only offered examples but links to back myself up. Quite
frankly if you had a case you wouldn't dodge or ignore the fact that your
argument has been refuted & they would explain, in detail, how my
response is dodging the point you were trying to make (with quotes, I
think you seriously need to focus on doing that a bit more, if anything it's
a test to ensure you have a justification for the point you're making)Arcus Arrow wrote: »As far as I can see you're not making a point or at least not one that my short blip on earth allows sufficient time to untangle from your voluminous page fillers. What you're doing overall is providing a demonstration.
So if you're not even going to bother engaging the point I've been
making, and will respond to sections of my post completely ignoring
the questions I'm asking of you - of which, by the way:"Better yet, try to answer the *** part of my last response, if you do this I really doubt you can miss the point I've been making all along."
exactly is the point of responding? You'll notice all I'm asking you to
do is to justify, with quotes & context, the high and mighty refutation
of the article you've offered up earlier in the thread. Considering I've
asked you more than three times to do so I think you're purposely
refusing to do it at this stage, why that would be the case is something
only someone who presumes to speak for all atheists would know...Arcus Arrow wrote: »Are you a member of an atheist organisation or are you not attracted by that sort of thing or limited by location if you are?
Again with the yellow badge rhetoric, what would it matter if I was a
member of the fraternity of the sons of the protocols of the elders of zion,
it has nothing to do with the passage you've quoted.
(Note: that's also one of those sentences containing a question I warned you about earlier, despite
the question mark not being there).Arcus Arrow wrote: »I didn't mention anything about the catechism but never mind that's not something you'd appear to think makes any difference. As far as I'm concerned you have no one to apologise to but if it's something you've grown used to go right ahead.
By analogy this is how ridiculous your response is:
BILL: "I'm going to London tomorrow."
PHIL: "Have a nice time in England Bill."
BILL: "I said I was going to London Bill, jeesh... As far as I'm concerned
_____ you have no one to apologise to but if it's something you've grown
_____ used to go right ahead."
If you don't understand why I used the word catechism at that particular
place, & not some other place, that would go a long way to explaining
what's been going on in this thread.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Is there a particular reason you're writing in columns instead of the full width available?
Yes, I read a piece of historical text that convinced me of the truth of
columns versus rows to which I now subscribe as the one true path,
thanks for asking.0 -
Arcus Arrow wrote: »If the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour etc without qualifying in some way which atheists they are referring to?
I wouldn't recommend Sponsored for clues as to a possible answer but make up your own mind.
The question is also relevant to Tim Robbins OP and relevant to the article in question.
It's also has relevance in the wider context.
While it can be argued that it's quite valid to point out how absurd it is to believe in a god thing based on the fairy tales in the bibles it does not follow that anyone can then ascribe collective characteristics to those who don't believe.
That's why the whole article is just a self promoting distortionist trying to present atheists as pudgy pawed teddy bears. It makes atheists sound like people who aren't in full time employment but are quite happy living on social welfare as long as they can huff and puff all day at religion.
An atheist doesn't believe in gods. That's it.
because I've a very short attention span I stopped reading both of your posts, an element of "whose schlong is bigger" has developed, and its completley hogging the thread which had a lot of potential.
Meet for coffee I say.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »because I've a very short attention span I stopped reading both of your posts, an element of "whose schlong is bigger" has developed, and its completley hogging the thread which had a lot of potential. Meet for coffee I say.
The question, which you included in the quote from me while at the same time apparently not reading it, was this:
If the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour etc without qualifying in some way which atheists they are referring to?
This is the title of the article:We atheists will change our minds if evidence shows we are wrong0 -
Are you a member of an atheist organisation or are you not attracted by that sort of thing or limited by location if you are?
That was just a simple question you were asked as to where you stand on organised atheism and you come up with this:sponsoredwalk wrote: »Again with the yellow badge rhetoric, what would it matter if I was a
member of the fraternity of the sons of the protocols of the elders of zion,
it has nothing to do with the passage you've quoted.
Out of that one simple question you've managed again to draw a ridiculous paralleled with the persecution of the Jews.
You're demonstrating all the allegations of a religious believer by your list of over reactions. You've even managed previously to manufacture compliments for yourself where there were none. Filling up maximum space defending an article while the author is too afraid to defend it himself and while his know followers shy away looks strange to say the least.
Atheism, when it becomes an exception to the same questioning and criticism as religion by those who class themselves within it, will support and breed the same kind of self promoting charlatans and distortion liars that religion does. It will breed supporters who will in their turn will engage in distortions and duplicity to promote their particular brand of atheism and even the odd personality cult with devotees who will defend their leaders fanatically.0 -
Thanks for all of the feedback. It’s helpful and I appreciate it.
I’ll start by clarifying a technical point: these are newspaper articles, and the titles (“We atheists agree...” etc) are written by an editor and not by the writer. For clarity, read the titles in the context of the articles rather than the other way around.
With regard to some of the specific points made:
Tim and others, I agree about the need to qualify nouns referring to groups of people. I generally do this unless I think (sometimes mistakenly) that the assertion is uncontroversial, or that a qualifier is implied by a fair reading of the context.
Cavedave and others, yes, by “impersonal forces” I meant things like gravity and electromagnetism etc. as opposed to supernatural forces.
Knasher, I agree, I should have been more explicit at that point about why the god answer is not a good one.
Seamus, the final two articles will be more directly addressing faith-based claims, as they are responding to assertions made about faith and about Jesus by Professor Mackey in his series of articles about the World Atheist Convention.
Recedite, yes, all of the five articles take as their starting point one or more of the assertions made by Professor Mackey in his series of articles.
Roger, you’re right about that. Instead of “and specifically”, I could have put “and particularly” or “including specifically” at the start of that sentence.
Liam, I agree that would be a useful article. This series has already gone to print, but I will try to do something on it somewhere in the future.
Ed, the next article addresses morality. The reason I say we don’t get our morality from the Bible is not because it contains no morally good messages (it does), but because it contains a mix of morally good messages and morally bad messages. So most of us accept ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ and we reject ‘stone a woman to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night.’ By making that distinction, we are applying our own pre-existing morality to what we are reading, not getting our morality from what we are reading.
Sponsoredwalk, you are right, the first set of ‘we’s in the first article refer back to the ‘most of us’ who do not claim with certainty that gods do not exist. The headline ‘we atheists...’, which was written by an editor, also refers to this. The second set of ‘we’s in the first article (about where we don’t get our morality) could refer either to atheists or to people generally. I usually intend it to mean people generally when I make that particular argument.
Again, thanks for all of the feedback. It’s very helpful.0 -
The third article in the series is published today.
Atheists and religious alike seek to identify foundation of morality
Feedback welcome.0 -
Arcus Arrow wrote: »Atheism, when it becomes an exception to the same questioning and criticism as religion by those who class themselves within it, will support and breed the same kind of self promoting charlatans and distortion liars that religion does. It will breed supporters who will in their turn will engage in distortions and duplicity to promote their particular brand of atheism and even the odd personality cult with devotees who will defend their leaders fanatically.
Ignoring the rest of your fine response due to the fact that it not only has
answered every question I put (many times) to you but also clears up any
other interests I had in pursuing this conversation further I'll just thank
you for not only presuming to speak for, but actually speaking for the
mass of atheists like myself who do not criticize our atheist faith & are
promoting our 'atheist-while-it's-cool' brand of atheism that requires
nought but duplicitous charlatans to maintain itself, I am positive you
haven't generalized but were, in fact, accurate in your portrayal of the
millions of us. Such clairvoyance will be useful for the atheists in your
particular denomination (or brand, if you prefer) of the atheist faith that
simultaneously questions your atheist faith while not speaking about such
faith for fear of the dreaded out-group status, such silence requires
clairvoyance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »The third article in the series is published today.
Atheists and religious alike seek to identify foundation of morality
Feedback welcome.0
Advertisement