Originally Posted by therandomone
And no, just no. First off, nothing you say is very subtle and neither are the points you are trying to make.
|
Apparently this is subjective then.
|
And secondly I never said things contradicted themselves I said you did along with others here, don't try and distance yourself from that with use of the word "things".
|
Sigh.
|
Now for the pink unicorn comment,either you're an idiot or ignorant because no one here thinks it means pink unicorn.
|
Oh really? Then why do you keep claiming atheist means lack of believe in pink unicorns? Amongst other things, of course.
|
CMO just had to strike again though with defining skepticism. Thank you once again for telling me something I already know.
|
Great, so you admit it's not the same as atheism, finally.
|
The rest of the text I love, well, the very end section I should say. Here's why:
First you tell me my "definition" of Atheism is wrong (which is funny, because I never really did define it, don't believe me? Keep reading, youll see)
|
You RE-defined it on several occassions and we're having this argument because you demand we expand atheism to your all-inclusive version.
Want me to get the quotes?
|
Second you you give me the "nothing more" saying it can't be anything but that.
And the kicker? You personally took time to bold "since conceptions of atheists vary". Goddamn man (or woman?), do you even read the stuff before you post it? You only went on to prove my point its incredibly difficult for you (and others) to post something where you don't manage to contradict yourself.
|
I love how you suddenly forget you're the one who kept talking about the "REAL" atheist and now suddenly admit there's no complete concensus on it.
Which btw applies not to an all-inclusive skepticist nay-saying as you claim, but on something else: how aware and how choicy a person is in the disbelief in gods. And I quote:
|
^ a b Harvey, Van A.. "Agnosticism and Atheism", in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
|
Then there's the weak vs strong atheists, practical atheists, the atheists
within various religions including hinduism.
Not all of those make the claims you attribute to the general, collective term of atheist. Especially not children, who might be agnostics depending on definition.
YOUR definition of "real" atheism however, is absolutely incorrect as it is too narrowed down to a specific group of
skeptic atheists. "Real" atheists are ANY atheist. You have since redefined the word "real" for good reason, however, you still fail to see that the scope of such a thing as a "consistent atheist" is limited to the domain of gods. Not to the whether or not existence of pink unicorns. THAT is the domain of the more general term skepticism. You would be correct if you stated a consistent skeptic would be an consistent atheist. A consistent atheist however, does not have to be a consistent skeptic!
You need to realise the difference between sets and subsets not always enveloping the same domain.
But in short, there are simply more types of atheists than consistent atheists and they're all real atheists! THAT is what we're saying and you pigheadedly refuse to admit.
|
Now youre probably thinking, what do you mean you didnt define atheism you lying sack of shit? Well man with a potty-mouth,
|
May I remind you I haven't once called you by any names, I've qualified your opinion as ignorant and pointed out your inconsistencies (which you refuse to admit up till now and at which time you pretend you have been saying this all along). However, unlike you, I've not called you insane, idiot, or whatever and I've kept quite calm, which is a quality you've not demonstrated to do as of yet.
|
when I was speaking of naturalism and physicalism and the premises for atheism you failed to realize the obvious (ironic?). What I was essentially saying was that the arguments and ideas that sustain Atheism tend naturally to rule out other beliefs in the supernatural/ transcendental.
|
Yet here we are with the existence of Hindu atheists who believe in reincarnation.
End of discussion?
|
Well, thats unfortunate...I thought it was going to be a decent argument, I mean you had text bolded and everything. Better luck next time.
|
Indeed, you thoroughly trashed yourself here without making a point in favour. And once again proved you don't quite understand that a "tendency to" is not the equivalent of "guaranteed to".
Capiche?
Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy
It's amazing the vitriolic lengths randomone is going to here to make what is, in effect, a totally vapid non-statement. The method of reasoning that leads to atheism can be applied to other evidence-free claims? Oh boy, someone get Ripley's on the phone!
|
The problem though is that he thinks the only way one could be an atheist is by applying that same skeptic thought pattern to everything else, which is simply bullox.
First of all, you can be an atheist without being a skeptic: you may simply never been told about the concept of gods and never have thought about the existence of a god, therefore not considered it and therefore not made judgment, but still
don't believe in any such thing. These people some call babies. Doesn't mean that at some point in life they might become theists due to upbringing. Yet they are still "real" atheists, because the only quality you need to possess to be dubbed atheist is
lacking belief in gods.
Plus, how many conscious atheists (especially sci-fi fans) are out there that believe in the existence of aliens?
Then how many in the existence of aliens visiting earth?
Aren't they "real" atheists? Yes they are, no gods involved. Are they consistent skeptics? Hell no.
Linear Mode
