3 best reasons for atheism?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

^if you repeat that 3 times in front of a mirror does he disappear?

Huntergonzo

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

^if you repeat that 3 times in front of a mirror does he disappear?

Worse again, he might appear and call your áss out for doubtin' him!

human 19

1. If you were born in Afghanistan to muslim parents in a muslim society, you would be a muslim, because evolution has moulded us to take the word of our caregivers as being true, in orderfor us not to die horribly by doing stupid s***. Do you not think its time to start thinking for yourself?

2. Why do you think your prayers about passing an exam have equal merit to those of some poor torture victim in Zimbabwe,who lives in a country run by a despot who is happily living into his nineties. Do you not think there is a bit of a lack of divine justice there, assuming such a thing existed?

3. have a look at this page.

Creation myths

What makes you think that the ancient myth you havent bothered to question is correct, and all the others are wrong?

Hotblack Desiato

Stealthfins wrote: »

1: Gives people with resentments with the church something to moan about.

You don't need to be atheist to have resentments against the RCC (not 'the' church, it's 'a' church btw) - you just need to be Irish and think about what they've done to this country. What's surprising is how many people stick with it to at least some extent, despite the well-founded resentments.

2: Gives idiots a chance to let people know how intelligent they are.

Indeed. But perhaps not in the way you think

3: It's a waste of time arguing about something that doesn't exist.

Yet here you are.

MrYlad

I believe in God. But, from the debates I have watched/read, the best three points for an Athiest to put forward to believers/religious people, in my opinion, are:
Generic Creator God:
1. The lack of physical evidence
2. The existence of evil
3. Just because something cannot be explained by science does not mean it is caused by God
Christian God:
1. The development and origins of all life forms can be traced back to their beginnings; a God to create species is not necessary
2. Christianity has failed to develop over time, and hasn't clarified things more over time. Science has
3. Many of the passages of the Bible are very questionable

Hotblack Desiato

Interesting. So how would you counter the arguments you've mentioned?

robindch

MrYlad wrote: »

2. Christianity has failed to develop over time [...]

On the contrary, christianity has developed enormously - from its parent religion (judaism) etc, to the thousands or tens-of-thousands of child religions it's given rise to - including islam.

The one thing that religion won't do is stand still, since that's the kiss of death to this memetic lifeform.

Bristolscale7

This quote is relevant to this thread:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

The Bishop Basher

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

This quote is relevant to this thread:

That quote loses validity right here..

“I contend we are both atheists.."

That's just a straight up no frills judgement. The very same kind of judgement that drives many of us nuts about religion...

I'd hazard a guess that if someone contended you were really a theist, you might feel more then a little judged..

Bristolscale7

When it comes to assessing hypocrisy I'm comfortable judging theists. In any case, the purpose of the quote (since it evidently requires an explanation) is to point out the arbitrary nature of the religious person's belief in one god rather than a different one. If the quote has a flaw in its logic it's that the believer will say, "But I dismiss those other gods because my god is the one true god and the others are satan's avatar." And that is not why an atheists dismisses the believer's god. Rather it is the lack of any empirical evidence for god, combined with the obvious contradictions that arise if the believer's god actually does exist.

The Bishop Basher

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

When it comes to assessing hypocrisy I'm comfortable judging theists.

Ok well we differ on that. I'm not comfortable judging anyone. Probably because i'm equally uncomfortable with being judged. But each to their own...

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

In any case, the purpose of the quote (since it evidently requires an explanation) is to point out the arbitrary nature of the religious person's belief in one god rather than a different one. If the quote has a flaw in its logic it's that the believer will say, "But I dismiss those other gods because my god is the one true god and the others are satan's avatar." And that is not why an atheists dismisses the believer's god. Rather it is the lack of any empirical evidence for god, combined with the obvious contradictions that arise if the believer's god actually does exist.

I got all of that on reading it myself but thanks for the clarification. Obviously, while i get your point you clearly missed mine. But seeing as your comfortable judging others, my point would be moot from your perspective anyway. That's ok. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Bristolscale7

Look, religious people judge me all the time. My children judge me all the time--so does my mother-in-law. So what? Not all judgments are equal. My six-year old, for example, makes vocal judgments about the fairness of the world but he clearly doesn't know WTF he is talking about in most of these cases (e.g., in fact it is fair that he plays on the Wii U for 20 minutes and then his brother plays for 20 minutes). Similarly the judgement of believers carries no weight. It would if it were a contest of the will to power or something cool like that (I'm reading Moby Dick at the moment so I'm channeling that ultimate badass Ahab when he says: "All visible objects, man,
are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event--in the living act, the undoubted deed--there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask!").

The Bishop Basher

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Look, religious people judge me all the time. My children judge me all the time--so does my mother-in-law. So what? Not all judgments are equal.

People judge others all the time. I do it myself, but when i know i'm doing it i immediately feel uncomfortable about it. It's part of the human condition but I don't believe that make it ok. As i said, we differ on this and that's fine. I'm not looking to change your mind but i'll call a judgement when I see one.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

My six-year old, for example, makes vocal judgments about the fairness of the world but he clearly doesn't know WTF he is talking about in most of these cases (e.g., in fact it is fair that he plays on the Wii U for 20 minutes and then his brother plays for 20 minutes).

We can judge things all we like. Judging other people is a different animal all together.

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Similarly the judgement of believers carries no weight.

Agreed. That's my point.

Honestly, i'm more then ok with agreeing to disagree here. We're not going to find a compromise on when it's ok or not ok to judge other people so no point in us trying to hammer it out.

MrYlad

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, christianity has developed enormously - from its parent religion (judaism) etc, to the thousands or tens-of-thousands of child religions it's given rise to - including islam.

The one thing that religion won't do is stand still, since that's the kiss of death to this memetic lifeform.

I meant development in terms of clarifying our understanding of this world

One eyed Jack

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

When it comes to assessing hypocrisy I'm comfortable judging theists. In any case, the purpose of the quote (since it evidently requires an explanation) is to point out the arbitrary nature of the religious person's belief in one god rather than a different one. If the quote has a flaw in its logic...

The speaker has a flaw in their understanding of atheism if they contend that both are atheist, when one of them clearly isn't.

it's that the believer will say, "But I dismiss those other gods because my god is the one true god and the others are satan's avatar."

That's a big presumption on your part?

And that is not why an atheists dismisses the believer's god.

I'm not sure what way to read this, perhaps you could clarify. Should it be -


'why an atheist dismisses' or 'why atheists dismiss'? Because neither way you're speaking for yourself, unless you're speaking about yourself in the third person?

I guess I've just been fortunate that I've never met that type of person offline.

Rather it is the lack of any empirical evidence for god, combined with the obvious contradictions that arise if the believer's god actually does exist.

Have you considered the possibility that they haven't considered any of the above, and that they simply don't care? They don't believe and they give it no thought whatsoever, and they're quite happy as they are.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The speaker has a flaw in their understanding of atheism if they contend that both are atheist, when one of them clearly isn't.

Either that or you have failed to parse what the speaker means in what they said. Which is what has happened here in your failure to read the first sentence in the context of what followed it, as you do all too often.

I can help clarify however. What the speaker means is not just that they are both atheist, but they are both atheist _with respect to_ those other gods. The difference being that the speaker simply goes one god further.

That is the meaning. As for the POINT of saying it.... the speaker is highlighting something many of us (I certainly have) have experienced.... and not just on the subject of religion..... where humans have a comical, though tragic, tendency to reject the propositions of others for the VERY SAME reasons we reject theirs. But they fail to turn those reasons and reasonings towards introspection.

I see this often on 1 or 2 hour long debates between Muslims and Christians which I recommend you watch some of. Each of them will put forward the "evidence" for their claims like the Resurrection on one side, and the dictation of a written text to an otherwise illiterate on the other side and so on and so on.

And then, seemingly oblivious to what they are doing, they both rip apart each others arguments at great length using the _exact same_ rebuttals. Not once, it appears at least, noticing that every rebuttal they offer applies 100% identically to everything they themselves offered.

In a moment of youthful brashness I once described watching inter-faith debate as being like watching a fist fight between two people with no arms. Yet despite the throw away moment of saying that.... the impression it gives seems more and more true as I age.

But the same is true in other spheres. Get two people debating between homeopathy and reiki and both sides will parrot all the same types of testimonial. While both will rubbish those testimonials from the other and complain the other has no papers or studies or trials to back up any of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a big presumption on your part?

In many cases not remotely a presumption at all. Some large groups of believers even have it written into the very texts of their faith (First commandment anyone?) or into the words of the mantras they recite to themselves periodically (Nicene Creed anyone?). The idea there is one true god and all others ones are false is very much core to many faiths.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that they haven't considered any of the above, and that they simply don't care? They don't believe and they give it no thought whatsoever, and they're quite happy as they are.

I consider that possibility myself all the time. And indeed it would not be an issue at all were religion not such a big part of our society or the problems in today's world.

Many believers speak of "Private Faith" and if faith really way private there likely would not even BE an atheist forum on boards.ie or anywhere else.

But alas the only reason I am even working on things related to Atheism and Secularism as much as I do is that the things I really DO want to invest myself in.... science, education, medicine, sexuality, reproductive health, politics to name but a few..... are areas of discourse where the faithful come in waving their faith claims around all too often like a club with which to sweep away all before them.

Or, like the OP, some people simply will not leave them alone on the matter of faith. It seems many believers in the world can not be happy with their belief... until others believe it too.

So perhaps they do not care. That is fine with me. But they too should be fine with the fact I do not care that they do not care. Because as long as they walk into our halls of power, education and science waving their religion about I will treat them in many of the same ways as I would if they walked in with their dick in their hands. I will question them, explain the errors of their ways at length, and why the move they want to make in those games is not a valid one to make.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Either that or you have failed to parse what the speaker means in what they said. Which is what has happened here in your failure to read the first sentence in the context of what followed it, as you do all too often.

I can help clarify however. What the speaker means is not just that they are both atheist, but they are both atheist _with respect to_ those other gods. The difference being that the speaker simply goes one god further.

So they're a theist atheist, or are they an atheist theist? Or is there a spectrum now of atheism or theism, and we're all on that spectrum somewhere, and it doesn't matter how we identify, someone else will be along shortly to tell us what we are?

Rhetorical question. It's as daft to assume someone should be an atheist as it is to assume someone should be a theist.

In many cases not remotely a presumption at all.

On that poster's part, it was. Unless they possess precognitive abilities, I have no idea how they are so certain what anyone would say. It's certainly not what I would say (Victor Meldrew response above is more likely).

I consider that possibility myself all the time.

You don't appear to have considered the possibility that I was talking about people who identify as atheist, as you seem to have gone on to talk about people who are religious for some reason. I was referring to people who identify as atheist who simply have no interest in empirical evidence or any of the rest of it. They just don't believe, and they have no interest in discussing their absence or lack of belief,not just in one deity, but in any deity.


Getting a 404 on that link btw, not sure what's happening there.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So they're a theist atheist, or are they an atheist theist?

Nothing I wrote suggested either. So you tell me. You are contriving to obsess over the word "atheist" in the quote at the expense of understanding what the quote actually means and says. And in fact you would be FAR from the first theist to come to this forum and miss the point, or the topic, in favor of obsessing over the word "atheist".

As I said what the quote means and says is to highlight the fact that an atheist and, say, a christian share disbelief in all the OTHER gods, for all the SAME reasons. And many, most, maybe even all of those reasons turn out often to be equally applicable to the god the theist in question subscribes to.

But rather than say that in as many words as I did, the term "atheist" is convenient enough to keep the sound bite down in size. Which appears to work for most people with the capability of reading a sentence in the context of what follows, but I guess not so well for the people who contrive to be over literal for agenda driven effect.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

On that poster's part, it was

Who, the sentence you quoted, should have made it clear I was not talking about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

you seem to have gone on to talk about people who are religious for some reason.

A reason that could not be clearer. But I am happy to explain it anyway given clear things escaping you. THEY might not care, and that is fine, so long as it is fine that I do not care that they do not care.

Because religion IS an issue in our world for the reasons I then explained, and we are going to stand up to it for those reasons. So their not caring is not relevant. This is a thread about reasons for atheism and their not actually caring is irrelevant to what atheism is, and what many, many, atheists want. And why.

So perhaps as you say "they have no interest in discussing their absence or lack of belief,not just in one deity, but in any deity." and that is fine, but they will also have to be fine with the fact that, regardless of their interest levels it is a discussion we are going to have in many many realms of public discourse.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Getting a 404 on that link btw, not sure what's happening there.

Nor am I as it works for me. It was merely a link to Micheal Nugents speech on you tube related to comparing atheism to not collecting stamps and asking why atheists care at all about a god they do not even believe exists.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing I wrote suggested either. So you tell me. You are contriving to obsess over the word "atheist" in the quote at the expense of understanding what the quote actually means and says. And in fact you would be FAR from the first theist to come to this forum and miss the point, or the topic, in favor of obsessing over the word "atheist".

I'm not contriving over anything. It's the author of that quote seems to be contriving the generally understood meaning of atheism to fit their own ends and it just doesn't work. I understand the intent behind the quote, but the author is simply incorrect if he is referring to a theist as an atheist. That's not me contriving, that's the author contriving.

Who, the sentence you quoted, should have made it clear I was not talking about.

It was already quite clear from my post who I was talking about. I didn't gain any benefit from the additional information you included in your reply.

A reason that could not be clearer. But I am happy to explain it anyway given clear things escaping you. THEY might not care, and that is fine, so long as it is fine that I do not care that they do not care.

The rest of that isn't related to the people I'm talking about at all. The above description nails it. The point being -

A person doesn't, nor shouldn't need a reason for atheism, let alone three.

antiskeptic

the_pen_turner wrote: »

if you had to have 3 points only
what clear points would you make

1. There is no empirical evidence leading you to conclude God exists. The various arguments put up for an intelligent designer (fine tuning, etc) have naturalistic arguments to counter them

2. There are so many religions, with conflicting models of God as to suppose that culture is what drives the notion of God's existence.

3. Science has explained very much. It is reasonable to conclude that science will eventually explain the things that are very often posited to belong to the realm of God (the gaps will be filled).

4. Religion frequently smells bad. If something smells bad, our experience is generally is bad. Someone (Looksee I think) made the point that if God does exist then Religion is probably his worst enemy.


There are more, but those are reasonably good ones.

Bristolscale7

Hey Jack, since you sharing, why don't you tell us why you have faith in the Christian god rather than a different deity? The idea of working your way up the reincarnation ladder turn you off Hinduism? Or did you benefit from a revelation or what?

Joe prim

Akrasia wrote: »

1. It's 2016
2. I'm a grown up
3. I don't believe in magic.

Ah go on, go on!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ifTS5NEsI

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not contriving over anything. It's the author of that quote seems to be contriving the generally understood meaning of atheism to fit their own ends and it just doesn't work.

Nope, it is still just your failure to read the sentences in the context of each other and an overly pedantic application of the word atheist. Everyone else, aside from you, appears to realize that what the author of the quote is saying is that an atheist and a theist share a disbelief in all the other gods except one. I am sure linguistic pedantry is fun, I do it myself sometimes, but not to the point that it leaves me just looking silly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was already quite clear from my post who I was talking about. I didn't gain any benefit from the additional information you included in your reply.

Perhaps you would do well to remember not everything is about you. This is a public forum and, I do not know about you, but when I reply to someone directly I am not replying to JUST them, but to anyone else who might be reading along.

I was pointing out that such a comment is not assumption or presumption at all in quite a lot of cases. Deal with it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A person doesn't, nor shouldn't need a reason for atheism, let alone three.

In an ideal world yes you are right. Alas this is not an ideal world, it is a world where the vast majority are infected with the religious memetic virus in one form or another. I, of course, do not have direct figures on this but I would be genuinely suprised if the number of people who reached atheism by reasoning themselves out of theism does not FAR outweigh people like myself who were never even remotely theist at any point in their lives.

Bristolscale7

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope, it is still just your failure to read the sentences in the context of each other and an overly pedantic application of the word atheist.

This. It never ceases to amaze me that the Christian posters here are as thick as pig **** when it comes to understanding irony, nuance, or context in ordinary language. But when it comes to interpreting the bible they turn into Jesuits ("Ah let me explain away what you see as a contradiction in that text").

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope, it is still just your failure to read the sentences in the context of each other and an overly pedantic application of the word atheist. Everyone else, aside from you, appears to realize that what the author of the quote is saying is that an atheist and a theist share a disbelief in all the other gods except one. I am sure linguistic pedantry is fun, I do it myself sometimes, but not to the point that it leaves me just looking silly.

That's a matter of opinion. Regardless, I understand the sentiment the author was attempting to convey. That doesn't mean it sounds any less daft in my opinion.

Perhaps you would do well to remember not everything is about you. This is a public forum and, I do not know about you, but when I reply to someone directly I am not replying to JUST them, but to anyone else who might be reading along.

There's an inherent irony in that declaration, in my opinion.

I was pointing out that such a comment is not assumption or presumption at all in quite a lot of cases. Deal with it.

I have already. It appears you need to labour the point, but I'm over it already.

In an ideal world yes you are right. Alas this is not an ideal world, it is a world where the vast majority are infected with the religious memetic virus in one form or another. I, of course, do not have direct figures on this but I would be genuinely suprised if the number of people who reached atheism by reasoning themselves out of theism does not FAR outweigh people like myself who were never even remotely theist at any point in their lives.

Thank you.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion. Regardless, I understand the sentiment the author was attempting to convey. That doesn't mean it sounds any less daft in my opinion.

And yet the only basis for calling it daft that you have offered is to be overly and pointlessly pedantic about the use of the word "atheist" in the context of the quote.

However everyone else seems to get what he means by the use of it in that context.... it is much easier and simpler to read than a 10 sentence splurge on what he means.... and the use of "atheist" appears to get (most) people thinking and stimulating thought appears to be the goal in the first place.

So all in all aside from your meaningless pedantry, the quote appears to be just fine.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's an inherent irony in that declaration, in my opinion.

Empty and meaningless line here with no apparent content or basis.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have already. It appears you need to labour the point, but I'm over it already.

Yet the laboring came solely from you and still does given you were the only one who moaned about it in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thank you.

No problem. Any time you need more help distinguishing a fantasy ideal world from the reality we actually live in, I will be happy to help.

The Bishop Basher

Personal insults aside, I think everyone understands the meaning of the quote... It's not exactly complicated..

But the purpose of it being posted and the point being made of it remain elusive..

Seems to me like it's just a pointless exercise in semantics aimed to get a rise from theists but actually proves nothing either way.

The quote contends that everyone is actually atheist. So starts with a judgement about all theists. Then it makes the assumption that a theist has only one God and therefore lacks belief in all others. Probably true for most people of a religious faith but a generalization nonetheless. From there the extrapolation is made that all theists are atheists. Ok so factually correct with a broad use of the term atheist but it remains utterly pointless and smacks of someone trying to be clever but failing miserably.

So yes, a theist can be atheist in relation to other Gods but so what ? They're still theist with regard to the only god that matters to them.

If it makes an atheist feel better to judge a theist and call them atheist then fine, knock yourselves out. But please be aware that your judgements are meaningless to those you judge and reflect far more on you then the person you're judging.

As an aside, what's with the constant accusations against theists on here of being sub par intelligence ? It contributes zero to a constructive argument and same as above, says far more about the ability to debate of the poster making such claims then it does about the posters being accused of being "thick".

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet the only basis for calling it daft that you have offered is to be overly and pointlessly pedantic about the use of the word "atheist" in the context of the quote.

However everyone else seems to get what he means by the use of it in that context.... it is much easier and simpler to read than a 10 sentence splurge on what he means.... and the use of "atheist" appears to get (most) people thinking and stimulating thought appears to be the goal in the first place.

Like the gift that just keeps on giving.

You appear to be struggling with the concept of a difference of opinion. If I need something explained to me, I will ask for it to be explained to me (we've been over this already). The implication that I should think a certain way because everyone else thinks that way is just too much, even for me, at this hour of the morning. I'm off for some coffee.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to be struggling with the concept of a difference of opinion.

Well if you want to call it daft that is up to you, it does not mean I am in any way obliged NOT to explain why it is not daft at all, but in fact quite useful and quite understandable. The only one failing to understand "difference of opinion" therefore is you. Because when you give yours everything is ok, when I give mine there is a problem. It appears "Difference of opinion" to you means "Let me express my opinion without anyone having to hear yours".

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

But the purpose of it being posted and the point being made of it remain elusive..

Is it? I thought the user who quoted it explained the reason for it quite well. It appears the purpose of it is that the OP is being asked for reasons to be an atheist.

The purpose and meaning of the quote is to show the theist(s) in question that the OP is atheist towards all gods for many (if not even all) the same reasons that that theist is atheist relative to all the other gods they themselves do not believe in.

So the purpose of the quote is to show the theists the OP is talking about the value of a little introspection in answering their own grilling of the OPs atheism.

Swanner wrote: »

The quote contends that everyone is actually atheist.

No. It does not. Funny that you started the post claiming everyone understands the quote and then you go on to demonstrate you actually do not.

As I explained to OEJ, the quote is not contending all theists are atheists. Context is important here. The quote is contending that the atheist, and the theist he is directing the quote at, are both "atheist" !_in relation to_! all the other gods they both do not believe in.

Swanner wrote: »

Then it makes the assumption that a theist has only one God and therefore lacks belief in all others.

Oh I am sure there are exceptions indeed, but I fear you have studied at the OEJ school of pointless and contrived pedantry here too. Context is everything and the author of the quote is writing in a by far predominantly monotheistic society and is attempting to write a concise thought provoking quote.

As such he is not likely to achieve those ends by including every tiny caveat or variation possible. A general quote, for a general situation, using general words is more than sufficient. It is nothing but linguistic pedantry to obsess over it too deeply.

If you are going to milk every quote of that length and intent for "generalization" then you will be at it for a long time and will likely achieve nothing except to build up a reputation for pointless and ineffectually pedantry.

Again the only purpose of the quote appears to be to get theists.... specifically theists who want to know why atheists are atheist.... to explore the own basis for their rejection of others gods.... and realize that much (sometimes even ALL) of the reasons they have for it are identical to that of the atheist they were asking.

And that is a good thing. Because one of the most effective steps in getting someone else to accept your position, is to assist them in seeing it from your perspective.

Swanner wrote: »

If it makes an atheist feel better to judge a theist and call them atheist then fine, knock yourselves out.

Yet as I keep pointing out that is not the intention of the quote. Pretending theists are really atheists is not the motivation there at all.

Would that the same could be said for some theists though. Try reading those articles such as "I do not believe in atheists" and the like where they try to prove, usually through linguistic acrobatics, that all atheists believe in god really.

Swanner wrote: »

As an aside, what's with the constant accusations against theists on here of being sub par intelligence ? It contributes zero to a constructive argument and same as above, says far more about the ability to debate of the poster making such claims then it does about the posters being accused of being "thick".

Not sure myself. You would have to directly ask one of the people who said such a thing. I never did so I can not speak for them.

There _have_ been a number of studies showing an inverse correlation between education and intelligence.... and religiosity. But I think many atheists move too quickly to read too much into that.

Much like being a health freak and gym bunny does not really lessen the infection rate to the common cold, I think that while education and intelligence can certainly be helpful in inoculating against infection by religious meme viruses.... it is not the whole story. In fact in some ways being more intelligent can leave you MORE prone to infection.

Newton being a great example of that. Possibly the greatest mind out species ever produced. Yet when he reached the limits of his intellect and his ability to explain the universe.... he threw up his hands and cited god as the explanation. He also subscribed to a host of other massively unsubstantiated nonsense in his life too.

So while we can not ignore the interesting correlations, I am always more wary of reading too much into them too than some posters around here.

looksee

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

This quote is relevant to this thread:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

It is obvious what he means, and it is a good point. However he is incorrect in trying to describe theists as atheist. An atheist has no belief in god - any god - Roberts seems to be suggesting (I think) that when a theist gets sense he will be an atheist; that does not make him an atheist now. Or that in not believing in a number of gods, he is atheist in respect of those gods, but you cannot be a selective atheist, you either do believe or you do not.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...the OEJ school of pointless and contrived pedantry...

It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to point out that the school is a secular school, open to all people of all faiths and no faith, inclusive and respectful of diversity.

One thing we encourage in our school is to treat others as you would like to be treated, otherwise it's the epitome of hypocritical thinking (as opposed to critical thinking), to express sentiments like this -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...the likes of One Eyed Jack...

And then say something like this -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is a common tactic I guess on forums when someone quotes something a person said.... for people to "rebut" it with "Oh that guy.... well look how wrong he was about what he did/said over HERE......"

Then they then proceed to tear apart something else from that quoted source.... or tear apart the person themselves who was quoted.... which has little, if anything at all, to do with the original quote, or the point the quote was made in reference to.

I remember I quoted one beautiful line from someone once and rather than reply to my point the other forum user said "Oh THAT guy is a liberal and the problem with liberals is......" and in the blink of an eye I found the entire thread was not even REMOTELY about what the original topic was. :eek:

It is not something I do.

The implication of the earlier quotation in question is that the author believes they have one less reason to express bigotry. Kinda missing the beam in their own eye.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would be remiss of me


.....

Kinda missing the beam in their own eye.

No idea what your point is here or how it replies to the post you are replying to. It appears to have replied to nothing I actually said, nor made any actual point in relation to anything I actually said.

If you are trying to suggest that in quote 1 and 2 I engaged in the kind of behavior I decry in point 3, then you have failed. I have done no such thing. Try again. If your point is something else however, you will need to work on it a little harder.

looksee wrote: »

However he is incorrect in trying to describe theists as atheist.

And once again I _really_ do not think that is what he is doing or attempting to do. At all. On first reading, sure, I get that. But when you consider the point he is trying to make, in the context he is trying to make it, I simply can not parse it that way any more at all.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No idea what your point is here or how it replies to the post you are replying to. It appears to have replied to nothing I actually said, nor made any actual point in relation to anything I actually said.

If you are trying to suggest that in quote 1 and 2 I engaged in the kind of behavior I decry in point 3, then you have failed. I have done no such thing. Try again. If your point is something else however, you will need to work on it a little harder.

I think people reading along will understand the point being made.

It's not a very good reason to claim to be an atheist, as though the author of the quote somehow associates their atheism with being incapable of bigotry.

I'm still struggling to think of the three best reasons for atheism that would benefit the OP, because as far as I'm concerned, I see no reason whatsoever for them to justify their atheism to anyone. I would simply remind those people that it would serve their interests better if they didn't proselytize.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think people reading along will understand the point being made.

Well to be honest I am tending to skip all the debate between you and Noz.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think people reading along will understand the point being made.

Well if you will not explain the point you have tried, and failed, to make to me then I can not help you any further with it. You certainly do not appear to be replying to anything I said in any way relevant to it. Let me know if you want to get around to making the point any better.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a very good reason to claim to be an atheist, as though the author of the quote somehow associates their atheism with being incapable of bigotry.

Are you replying to the right person here? I really do not know where "bigotry" came into either A) your reply to me or the discussion of the Stephen F Roberts quote. You appear to have shot off on some tangent or parallel monologue and I _genuinely_ Have no idea how you got there from here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm still struggling to think of the three best reasons for atheism that would benefit the OP

I agree with you that he should not have to answer for his atheism and the people giving him jip over it are at fault.

But I assume these people are people important in his life. And they might, while being "in your face" preaching at him, be genuinely worried for him, want to understand him or where he is coming from, and so forth.

So if he is struggling with this then I hope he does find his "three reasons" that he can give them.

As I keep saying, and theists like the ones on this forum keep demonstrating, there is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer AT ALL to suggest our universe was created or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agency. Let alone one that turns cracker bread magic, or gives birth to itself through underage virgins.

That is certainly one answer he can give.

The other answer to give is that many people who are atheist or lack belief in a god are aware of, and have normalized for, the powerful drivers in our biological and mental make up that leave us prone to god belief. Things like "The intentional stance" and "Pattern Seeking behavior" and "Hyper active agency detection" and so forth.

And the third answer to give is one you even alluded to yourself I think (might have been someone else, not relevant enough to check). Which is that the questions we have in this universe, or about this universe, are steadily (if slowly) being answered by science and there is strong basis to suspect they will continue to be. And if rational, scientific, explanations keep coming there will be no room left for a god. And in fact if there is a god it seems to have contrived pretty hard to create a universe that looks exactly like a universe that has no god. I can not remember the people involved, but I remember a theist-atheist exchange where the former said "What would a universe without a god even look like" and was instantly replied to with "ehhh... this one".

So:

1) No basis at all to think there is a god
2) Every reason in the world to think we are prone to inventing gods
3) We live in a universe where seemingly there is nothing for a god to do or have done.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The purpose and meaning of the quote is to show the theist(s) in question that the OP is atheist towards all gods for many (if not even all) the same reasons that that theist is atheist relative to all the other gods they themselves do not believe in.

As i understand it, atheists don't believe in God because there's no scientific evidence to suggest the existence of one.

A theist however doesn't require scientific evidence in order to adopt a position of belief. They do so for their own reasons, known only to them unless they chose to share it with you. Scientific evidence clearly doesn't factor into it.

Yet according to you and the author of this quote, theists don't believe in any other Gods because there's no scientific evidence to support the existence of them. ie for the same reasons Atheists don't believe.

Now i'm not suggesting that people of faith have any kind of monopoly on reason, far from it, but the idea that theists reject other Gods for the same reasons as atheists reject all gods is clearly nonsense.

If they adopted that position they would be atheist. They're not. So i would suggest that both you and our friend Stephen could benefit from some time back at the drawing board to rethink this one..

Don't get me wrong, I get the point he's trying to make. I just think it's an utterly pointless attempt at being clever with words but that's about it. And even at that it's flawed. It doesn't support any argument being made on this thread and it's far from a ground breaking reason for adopting an atheist position.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh I am sure there are exceptions indeed, but I fear you have studied at the OEJ school of pointless and contrived pedantry here too. Context is everything and the author of the quote is writing in a by far predominantly monotheistic society and is attempting to write a concise thought provoking quote.

As such he is not likely to achieve those ends by including every tiny caveat or variation possible. A general quote, for a general situation, using general words is more than sufficient. It is nothing but linguistic pedantry to obsess over it too deeply.

If you are going to milk every quote of that length and intent for "generalization" then you will be at it for a long time and will likely achieve nothing except to build up a reputation for pointless and ineffectually pedantry.

I'm not doing it with every quote, i'm doing it with this quote...

This is afterall, a discussion forum. Someone posted a quote in support of their argument and stated that it was relevant to the topic. I disagreed on both counts and with this being a discussion forum I decided to challenge it. That's how discussion forums work. So while i understand that you wish to discredit my opinion, accusing me of pedantry for challenging a post on a discussion forum is not exactly an effective argument...

By all means challenge the points i've made, just don't bother challenging my right to make them as that will be ignored.

You accuse me of linguistic pedantry. I'm accusing the author of the quote of linguistic gymnastics. We disagree and that's ok.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Would that the same could be said for some theists though. Try reading those articles such as "I do not believe in atheists" and the like where they try to prove, usually through linguistic acrobatics, that all atheists believe in god really.

So just like the author of the quote then

As far as i'm concerned, a theist claiming that there's no such thing as an atheist would be an equally absurd position... And yes, I would challenge it, as would you...

Is that more pedantry or just how people operate in discussion forums ?

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

Scientific evidence clearly doesn't factor into it.

You will have to take it up with one of them so because I never use the word "scientific" when I ask for evidence for god. The sentence I always use is "Can you offer any argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends any credibility to your claim there is a god?". Nothing in that sentence limits the discourse to science.

Alas no theist has ever, least of all the ones posting on this thread, provided a coherent answer to that question.

Swanner wrote: »

Yet according to you and the author of this quote, theists don't believe in any other Gods because there's no scientific evidence to support the existence of them.

How could it be "according to me" given I said nothing about "scientific" evidence to you at all? I have more than enough words coming out of my mouth without you adding your own.

All I said was that the purpose of the quote was for the atheist to point out to the theist that they BOTH reject all those other gods for very likely many of the same reasons as each other. For example both the atheist and the theist clearly do not put much stock in the "personal revelation" of people from those religions.

That is all I said so i would suggest that you could benefit from some time back at the drawing board to rethink this one before you reply to me again and things I never said.

Swanner wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I get the point he's trying to make. I just think it's an utterly pointless attempt at being clever with words but that's about it.

I do not see it as being pointless at all. It captures the attention which is always good. It gets you (well some people) thinking about what he actually means by what he says (the rest of the people merely read it 100% literally and without any context and then suggest he is saying things he is not, as this thread demonstrates).

Two good things. But then it also does another good thing. It attempts to establish some solid mutual ground between the two parties which is very important in discourse, and in convincing others of your point of view.

Take, since I mentioned it above, Personal Revelation again. Personal Revelation is something I have been offered frequently by theists in answer to my challenge above. And many of them are offended (or feign offence for effect) at my not taking it at face value.

So it is genuinely useful to point out how they do not take the "personal revelation" of others at face value when THEY evaluate the religious claims of theists from other religions.

And THAT is the core purpose of the quote. To show that it is not just a case of atheism and theism at direct 1:1 loggerheads with each other. But there is in fact much common ground to explore their in their rejection of other religions and gods.... much of which could be turned towards introspection in the theist being spoken to directly.

Swanner wrote: »

I'm not doing it with every quote, i'm doing it with this quote...

I am sorry the meaning of this turn of phrase is not one you are aware of, and that you have, like the quote we are discussing, merely run with a pedantic literal reading of it. Seems I am becoming something of an English Language Tutor on this thread of late. To put your mind at ease however the turn of phrase does not literally mean you do it with every quote, it just means it is a generally bad approach.

But suffice to say if you are insisting on pedantic and overly literal reading of everything, then you are the last person to be lecturing anyone on "this is how discussing forums work" and the last person from which I require such advice.

Swanner wrote: »

By all means challenge the points i've made, just don't bother challenging my right to make them as that will be ignored.

Given I never did any such thing, anywhere, ever, I can not imagine why you write this other than to serve up some posturing and space filler.

Swanner wrote: »

So just like the author of the quote then

Not at all no, and I am perfectly happy to go on explaining why as you have seen.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You will have to take it up with one of them so because I never use the word "scientific" when I ask for evidence for god.

Grand so. Just delete the word scientific.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How could it be "according to me" given I said nothing about "scientific" evidence to you at all? I have more than enough words coming out of my mouth without you adding your own.

As above... The word scientific has no relevance to my point. Delete at will..

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All I said was that the purpose of the quote was for the atheist to point out to the theist that they BOTH reject all those other gods for very likely many of the same reasons as each other. For example both the atheist and the theist clearly do not put much stock in the "personal revelation" of people from those religions.

Indeed you did but you also said a little bit more...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the only purpose of the quote appears to be to get theists.... specifically theists who want to know why atheists are atheist.... to explore the own basis for their rejection of others gods.... and realize that much (sometimes even ALL) of the reasons they have for it are identical to that of the atheist they were asking.

I've explained why that can't be true. Your response is to take issue with one irrelevant word. Now that we've cleared up that little side show maybe you can respond to the actual point..

What are these identical reasons ? Please elaborate.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And THAT is the core purpose of the quote. To show that it is not just a case of atheism and theism at direct 1:1 loggerheads with each other. But there is in fact much common ground to explore their in their rejection of other religions and gods.... much of which could be turned towards introspection in the theist being spoken to directly.

Common ground ? Really ? Can you give some examples ?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But suffice to say if you are insisting on pedantic and overly literal reading of everything, then you are the last person to be lecturing anyone on "this is how discussing forums work" and the last person from which I require such advice.

I'm challenging the validity of a quote. That's what happens on discussion forums. I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm stating a fact. If that makes me pedantic then call me pedantic.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

Grand so. Just delete the word scientific. As above... The word scientific has no relevance to my point. Delete at will.. Indeed you did but you also said a little bit more... I've explained why that can't be true.

Nice of you to move more towards replying to what I actually said. But you have not explained what you think you have explained because there are numerous reasons why theists and atheist reject the gods of others.

I gave one example. Personal Revelation. Atheists do not accept it in any theist as evidence for a god. But theists themselves also do not accept it from theists of different religions either. So there is one of many examples.

Holy Texts are another of the many examples. Someone waving the Bible around saying it is evidence or even proof of god will not be taken seriously by atheists because it is generally a circular argument. Similarly however theists waving their holy book of choice around in the air will not lend similar credence to someone else waving their book around. Ask a muslim sometime why the Bible is not evidence that Jesus was the son of god and rose against after three days being entirely dead.

The list goes on, but the examples above are enough to support the point both I and the original quote make.... that the reasons atheists and theists reject the gods of some other religion, are quite often identical.

Swanner wrote: »

Now that we've cleared up that little side show maybe you can respond to the actual point..

Exactly my point. Now that we have cleared up your little side show of putting words in my mouth I never said, we can deal with my actual point(s).

Swanner wrote: »

I'm challenging the validity of a quote. That's what happens on discussion forums. I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm stating a fact. If that makes me pedantic then call me pedantic.

Again you are not in any position to lecture anyone on what happens on discussion forums. The label of pedantry is not being labelled against the challenging of the quote. Challenging quotes is a good thing. It is the CONTENT of that challenge that is based purely on linguistic pedantry.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I gave one example. Personal Revelation. Atheists do not accept it in any theist as evidence for a god. But theists themselves also do not accept it from theists of different religions either. So there is one of many examples.

What are you basing this on ? I would agree that atheists don't accept personal revelation as evidence for god however i disagree that theists can't or won't accept the personal revelations of those of other faiths. Of course some won't but equally many will. A personal revelation is just that, personal. No one else can experience it for you. So a Christian for example is more than capable of accepting that a muslim has had a personal revelation without contradicting their own faith.

In fact many people of religious faith would contend that everyone is worshiping the same God, they're all just arriving there from different directions. That alone blows the quote out of the water.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Holy Texts are another of the many examples. Someone waving the Bible around saying it is evidence or even proof of god will not be taken seriously by atheists because it is generally a circular argument. Similarly however theists waving their holy book of choice around in the air will not lend similar credence to someone else waving their book around. Ask a muslim sometime why the Bible is not evidence that Jesus was the son of god and rose against after three days being entirely dead.

Again see above... It's not quite as simple as you like to suggest it is. Again a Christian for example is capable of respecting the fact that for a Muslim, the quoran is the word of their god. They don't have to agree with it or adopt if for themselves but they can respect and accept the position. An atheist can't.

The quote is flawed because it makes very general assumptions about those of faith. Assumptions don't work at the best of times, let alone when we're dealing with a topic as diverse and complex as human faith. I do get the point he's trying to make and it's a valid argument but that doesn't make it perfect.

That aside, I had a bit of a search on the author and it's clear that he was just some dude on a forum like this who happened to come up with a slightly clever quote one day. But he's also come out with gems like this...

"When I (as an atheist) am good. when I don't steal when I can, when I don't lie even when it would benefit me, when I return a lost wallet, when I help others etc... I do it for no other reason than to be good, my actions are selflessly good.

When a theist does good, he usually does it to please his god or avoid his god's hell, the theist is selfishly good."

There's just so much wrong with this statement that it's difficult to know where to start but if this is the level of discourse he proudly publishes online, i'll talk his ramblings with a very large pinch of salt.

Now, i've dealt with your points maybe you can deal with the ones i've raised that you conveniently ignored in your last response..

How do you reconcile your position that atheists and theists reject god / other gods for identical reasons when the primary reason for an atheists position is lack of evidence. In other words, you're claiming that a theist rejects all other gods because there's a lack of evidence for those gods. That just doesn't make sense so please clarify how you come to that conclusion.

And you also stated...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And THAT is the core purpose of the quote. To show that it is not just a case of atheism and theism at direct 1:1 loggerheads with each other. But there is in fact much common ground to explore their in their rejection of other religions and gods....

Can you give some examples of this common ground..

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

What are you basing this on ? I would agree that atheists don't accept personal revelation as evidence for god however i disagree that theists can't or won't accept the personal revelations of those of other faiths.

I am not saying "cant or wont" ever. I am not a black and white, 1 or 0, person. I am talking about common trends and what happens often.

I am saying that VERY OFTEN atheists and theists share their reasons for rejecting other faiths and faith claims. And VERY OFTEN theists will not accept the personal revelation of others. Ask the majority of Christians you know how many of them accept the personal revelations shown to Mohammad as he wrote the Koran and was told not only was it a personal revelation from god, but the final one. Ask all the Muslims you meet how many of them accept the personal revelations of Joseph Smith. The list goes on. At some length.

Yet proponents OF those religions will declare relevance and credibility for these personal revelations. Again at some length. So yes, there are many theists who will happily lend credence to the personal revelation within their own religion and supporting their own religion, while rejecting it in others. Which is the kind of "common ground" of which I speak in my posts.

Swanner wrote: »

Again see above... It's not quite as simple as you like to suggest it is.

Perhaps if I was, or ever did, suggest it was "simple" you might have a point. But not for the first time you appear to be choosing to reply to a position I never expressed, nor hold.

Swanner wrote: »

Again a Christian for example is capable of respecting the fact that for a Muslim, the quoran is the word of their god. They don't have to agree with it or adopt if for themselves but they can respect and accept the position. An atheist can't.

You do not speak for atheists or what they can or can not accept. Actually you are entirely wrong. I very much do accept that for THEM it is the word of their god and that is THEIR position. So while you sit there declaring from your pedastal what I can not do, I defy you by sitting here proving you wrong by actually doing it.

What I AM talking about is not accepting what their position is, but adopting or rejecting that position in myself. And what I AM talking about is that the reasons atheists do not adopt that position, is quite often highly similar to the reasons theists do not accept it in other theists too.

Swanner wrote: »

But he's also come out with gems like this...

Ah we discussed this tactic with OEJ not a few days ago. I am discussing the quote and what it means. Anything else the author of the quote might have said and done could not be less relevant to me. But such diversions are a common tactic on forums. When someone quotes X someone else will ignore the quote and the topic and go "Oh that person.... well that person is X and the problem with X is...." and they run off on irrelevant tangents to dodge the original discussion.

The most common example of this in my own experience being if you quote anyone then someone will go "Ah that person is a liberal/conservative and the problem with liberalism/conservatism is...." and suddenly you are not talking about the topic, or the quote, at all anymore.

So yea I will ignore your ad hominem deflection attempt against the author of the quote and stick to talking about the quote itself and it's meaning. Any problem you have with the author or anything else he has done or said.... you can take it up with either him or someone else. Not me.

Swanner wrote: »

Now, i've dealt with your points maybe you can deal with the ones i've raised that you conveniently ignored in your last response..

Except outside the fantasy la la world in your head, I did no such thing, and I ignored nothing at all.

Swanner wrote: »

How do you reconcile your position that atheists and theists reject god / other gods for identical reasons when the primary reason for an atheists position is lack of evidence.

I require no such reconciliation as, for the Nth time, you are asking me to defend a position I neither hold nor have expressed. Anywhere. Ever. What the "primary" reason is has nothing to do with my point. All my point is is to point out that OFTEN there are overlaps in the reasons why an atheist and a theist might reject the claims of another theist or party of theists.

So no reconciliation of that sort is required in my actual position, so perhaps you should take it up with someone who holds the position you imagine.

Swanner wrote: »

Can you give some examples of this common ground..

I gave two already. That you do not LIKE them as answers to this question does not mean I have failed to answer the question, nor does it support your fantasy world claim that I ignored your points or questions.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am saying that VERY OFTEN atheists and theists share their reasons for rejecting other faiths and faith claims. And VERY OFTEN theists will not accept the personal revelation of others.

You've changed your wording quite significantly there... You've even capped the salient words yourself...

You originally made a definitive statement and I quote....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

an atheist and, say, a christian share disbelief in all the OTHER gods, for all the SAME reasons.

So it started out as a sure thing but you weren't quite so sure in your wording here...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

the OP is atheist towards all gods for many (if not even all) the same reasons

Or here...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

much (sometimes even ALL) of the reasons they have for it are identical

And now were really not so sure at all because it's gone from a definitive statement of fact to being "very likely".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

they BOTH reject all those other gods forvery likely many of the same reasons as each other.

Keep backtracking at this rate and you'll be agreeing with me in no time

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I very much do accept that for THEM it is the word of their god and that is THEIR position.

Do you really ? Without any evidence to support the claim ? So you wouldn't challenge them on the lack of evidence ? Instead you would accept that they have had a personal revelation and have communicated directly with their god ? That's an odd perspective for an atheist and appears a little contradictory but your views are your views and I'm sure you've reconciled them for yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah we discussed this tactic with OEJ not a few days ago. I am discussing the quote and what it means. Anything else the author of the quote might have said and done could not be less relevant to me.

Unless it supports your position... For example, the fact that he's atheist is relevant to you...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But such diversions are a common tactic on forums. When someone quotes X someone else will ignore the quote and the topic and go "Oh that person.... well that person is X and the problem with X is...." and they run off on irrelevant tangents to dodge the original discussion.

But i didn't ignore the quote. In fact quite the contrary i've spent a fair bit of time discussing the original quote directly with you and without any tangents whatsoever...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I require no such reconciliation as, for the Nth time, you are asking me to defend a position I neither hold nor have expressed. Anywhere. Ever. What the "primary" reason is has nothing to do with my point. All my point is is to point out that OFTEN there are overlaps in the reasons why an atheist and a theist might reject the claims of another theist or party of theists.

When you state as fact that atheists and theists disbelieve in gods / other gods for identical reasons, the primary reason given by atheists for rejecting the concept of god becomes extremely relevant.

But that aside, you've capped the salient word yourself again as you continue to soften your position.

So to give the full picture you've gone from...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

an atheist and, say, a christian share disbelief in all the OTHER gods, for all the SAME reasons.

to

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

OFTEN there are overlaps in the reasons why an atheist and a theist might reject the claims of another theist or party of theists.

It's ok to admit you might have been a little hasty in your initial statement. The slow backtracking fools no one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So no reconciliation of that sort is required in my actual position, so perhaps you should take it up with someone who holds the position you imagine.

I was until you changed your position...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I gave two already. That you do not LIKE them as answers to this question does not mean I have failed to answer the question, nor does it support your fantasy world claim that I ignored your points or questions.

I never said I didn't like them. I challenged them. But you said you have "a list that goes on" and I'm asking you to share that list...

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

You've changed your wording quite significantly there... You've even capped the salient words yourself... You originally made a definitive statement and I quote....So it started out as a sure thing but you weren't quite so sure in your wording here... Or here... And now were really not so sure at all because it's gone from a definitive statement of fact to being "very likely".

It is a common practice on forums to take one single sentence out of the whole wealth of every thing someone has written on a thread or topic and pedantically try to explode that sentence out as a display that the persons point is other than they are themselves telling you it is. Because all too often such people, like yourself, are more interested in telling people what their point is rather than listening to those people explain what their point is.

Those who are not prone to quote minding and cherry picking, and read everything I have written in the entire thread, in total, and in context, will see I have SEVERAL times explained my actual position in MANY different ways, and the position is clear.

Once again: The purpose of the quote to my mind is to establish common ground between a theist and the atheist speaking by pointing out overlaps, parallels and similarities between them in their reasons for rejecting belief in other gods, other religions and other claims.

Now you can either respond to that position.......... or continue your linguistically pedantic cherry picking campaign of trying to convince (no one but yourself) that I am making a point other than the one I am actually making.... and that back tracking exists where none actually exists..... and I have no control over that decision.... but make NO mistake about who's credibility is eroded by the latter choice. Clue: It won't be mine.

Swanner wrote: »

Do you really ? Without any evidence to support the claim ? So you wouldn't challenge them on the lack of evidence ? Instead you would accept that they have had a personal revelation and have communicated directly with their god ? That's an odd perspective for an atheist and appears a little contradictory but your views are your views and I'm sure you've reconciled them for yourself.

Except none of those are my perspectives and the list of positions you have invented out of your own fantasy and assigned to me is merely getting longer. Where DO you get this quantity of straw I wonder.

All I said was that I accept that TO THEM this is their reasoning and basis for their belief. Nothing about me saying that suggests I accept that reasoning, would not question that reasoning, or that they actually did have a communication with a god. I ONLY said I would accept THEY think they did and that it is the basis for the position they hold.

Swanner wrote: »

Unless it supports your position... For example, the fact that he's atheist is relevant to you...

So now not only have you invested yourself in telling me what my position is on issues when I am telling you differently, but you can also declare what is relevant to me? Nice.

However as usual when you invent things for me that I did not express myself, you are simply wrong again. When I quote people, or am interested in a quote from people, I do so because of the content and meaning of the quote. Who they are, what else they have done or said, is irrelevant to me. Entirely. I would be saying ALL The same things I am now if the author of the quote turned out to be a devout Muslim or Roman Catholic.

So no, his atheism is not at all relevant to me. Even a little. So keep your fantasies and straw to yourself thanks and pocket this need you have to tell me what I feel or think when I am telling you otherwise.

Swanner wrote: »

But i didn't ignore the quote.

Then I hope you will find yourself ABUNDANTLY pleased to go back and find I never once said you did. How nice for everyone.

Swanner wrote: »

But that aside, you've capped the salient word yourself again as you continue to soften your position. So to give the full picture you've gone from... to It's ok to admit you might have been a little hasty in your initial statement. The slow backtracking fools no one. I was until you changed your position...

I have done no such thing. Anywhere. But it is quite common for a party X to suddenly start understanding the position of party Y, but in a leap of cognitive dissonance where they refuse to believe they ever misunderstood party Y.... they will convince themselves that the position or point being made by party Y must somehow have changed along the way.

But the steady and consistent distortions and straw packing from you fools no one.

Swanner wrote: »

I never said I didn't like them. I challenged them.

Dismissal is not challenge or rebuttal. The examples I give stand untouched and serve perfectly well to illustrate the point I have made.

The Bishop Basher

Swanner wrote: »

Keep backtracking at this rate and you'll be agreeing with me in no time

We're almost there.. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Once again: The purpose of the quote to my mind is to establish common ground between a theist and the atheist speaking by pointing out potential overlaps, parallels and similarities between them in their reasons for rejecting belief in other gods, other religions and other claims.

Add in the word potential and i'd say we have agreement. And my position never changed so take from that what you will

I'll leave you with the last word should you want it..

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

I'll leave you with the last word should you want it..

Well ignoring the majority of my entire post will not leave much in the way of last words to offer you. Though it does give yet one more opportunity for me to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's first rule of internet forum posting" which states that "The probability of a user responding to you goes UP in direct proportion to the numbers of times he has suggested he will not".

Suffice to say that if you want to keep imagining my position has been changing or back tracking then you are welcome to do so, but not at the expense of my credibility. Just your own.

As I keep pointing out, the quote does not actually suggest that theists are atheists really, which was the initial issue that was taken with the quote. Which to all but those who insist on a pedantic, context free, reading of the quote is not what the author is saying. The author IS saying that WITH RESPECT TO the gods they both reject (the theist and the atheist speaking to him) there is often overlap, sometimes quite large, between their reasoning for rejecting the claims of others.

I gave two examples of this. The rejection of the personal revelation, or holy texts, in those other religions as being validation or evidence for the claims of those religions.

And the purpose of the quote therefore is two fold.

1) To establish a common ground between the theist and atheist by saying "Look we are not all that different, we share so much here in how and why we reject those other religions. All I am doing is taking much of those same reasons and applying it to YOUR religion too" and

2) To highlight to the theist that they MAY not be applying those same standards to their own religious beliefs. For example if the realize why holy texts and revelation do not support other religions, then by what methodologies are they evaluating their own religion differently?

So while we might take issue with the exact wording of the quote on grounds of merely attempting to be attention catching by doing some minor trolling with labels to engage the listener..... I think when putting pedantic literal-ism aside we can quickly uncover the meaning and intent behind the quote itself.

J C

Three best reasons for Atheism ... I'll have a go !!

The belief that God or Gods doesn't/don't exist
The belief that everything is explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is spontaneous.

Interestingly, these are the mirror image of the three best reasons for Theism:-
The belief that God or Gods exist
The belief that everything isn't explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is Divine.

J C

endacl wrote: »

1. I respect your right to believe whatever you want.
2. You respect mine, to not believe.
3. I won't impose my belief on you. You don't impose yours on me.

And they all lived happily ever after.

There is an internal contradiction between point 2 (which states that Atheists do not believe) and 3 (which states that Atheists have a belief - that they will not impose on other people).

IMO 3 is correct and 2 is incorrect ... i.e. Atheists have a belief that God/gods don't exist.

looksee

J C wrote: »

Three best reasons for Atheism ... I'll have a go !!

The belief that God or Gods doesn't/don't exist
The belief that everything is explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is spontaneous.

Interestingly, these are the mirror image of the three best reasons for Theism:-
The belief that God or Gods exist
The belief that everything isn't explicable in materialistic terms.
The belief that every ultimate cause is Divine.

J C wrote: »

There is an internal contradiction between point 2 (which states that Atheists do not believe) and 3 (which states that Atheists have a belief - that they will not impose on other people).

IMO 3 is correct and 2 is incorrect ... i.e. Atheists have a belief that God/gods don't exist.

Well there you are, you are entitled to believe anything you want, but just because you believe it does not make it true (does that ring any bells?). And it is certainly not true that because you think atheists 'have a belief that god does not exist' this is actually atheists' position.

Endacl made a slight error of phraseology which contradicted a previous statement, though the intention was clear.

As you know perfectly well, atheists do not 'believe there is no god', they have no belief in any god, which is an entirely different thing and has been argued so many times that you cannot be unaware of it.

Further, and again this is a well rehearsed argument, while atheists would expect that everything can be explained by natural rather than supernatural causes, it doesn't mean that everything has been explained. There are things we admit we do not know, but we do not patch the gaps with supernatural sticky tape.

eviltwin

1. I don't believe in any gods

2. I don't care about faith or the afterlife

3. Religion is a force of oppression. I grew up in a religious home and since turning my back on it all the sense of freedom is fantastic.