|
The Trouble With Atheism (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Redd |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
What about someone who believes "There might be a god"? |
this was covered, y u no read? |
|
|
| Redd |
| we need some jay-poop in here just to make the circle complete. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
this was covered, y u no read? |
No it wasn't. That stated that someone has to either believe or not believe. It leaves out the possibility of someone not having a belief either way.
Nobody can know, so it's simply an issue of whether they hold the belief that there is a god, or the belief that there is no god. It is possible to not have either one of those beliefs. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
good grief. fine, use the words however you like. we don't need no definitions.
nice subtle pull of the "virgin-card" |
Thanks! ;)
I'm not taking sides and only saying that you can't really enforce an excruciatingly pedantic meaning when the commonly accepted usage of a word doesn't adhere to its academic definition. If I raise dubstep and Skrillex in a conversation, even though dubstep is (or perhaps was) used to describe a wider array of music, chances are people understand I'm talking about wobble/brostep. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
at least people should know what the words they are using mean. or do you think that's unnecessary labeling as well? it might not be the most eloquently written text, but the message should be clear. |
I don't think it's clear at all. Since it's mostly incoherent i'll have to dissect it:
| quote: |
Agnosticism is not a belief option
|
So? that's the entire point of it.
| quote: |
Agnosticism without context means you lack all knowledge.
|
I don't use it without context.
| quote: |
Not knowing something is stupid
|
Then everyone is stupid.
That was rather easy actually. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
And also the end of every single political ideoligy. because you're dismissing the fact that people may think their way of life would be beneficial to society as a whole. |
Politics by definition is about publicly imposed systems of thought, whereas the whole motivation behind the "religion is simply private" move is the idea that religious belief need not be publicly imposed, and therefore need not be open for public discussion and criticism. There is no contradiction in treating religion as essentially private -- if that is what you want to do -- and yet continuing to debate politics. But as I already said, when people bring in the idea of "private evidence" they also forfeit any license to try and convince others that they are correct, since if their evidence or motivation for belief is truly "private," then it is not available for anyone else to examine. |
|
|
| -FSP- |
What about someone who's Atheist because all my bohemian peeps influenced me to be an Atheist? I am an Atheist because teen angst music made me one. I wanted to be a rebel when I was a lad, now I listen to music that no one else listens to and dress like no one else does because I am different unlike all you Xtian sheep. How come there is no mark there? This is a great epistemic kill for the theist imo.
There's no graphs for people like me. :( |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by -FSP-
What about someone who's Atheist because all my bohemian peeps influenced me to be an Atheist? I am an Atheist because teen angst music made me one. I wanted to be a rebel when I was a lad, now I listen to music that no one else listens to and dress like no one else does because I am different unlike all you Xtian sheep. How come there is no mark there? This is a great epistemic kill for the theist imo. |
By age 40 you will be a suburban dude filing into church with your wife and kids, like all of your hip friends. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Politics by definition is about publicly imposed systems of thought, whereas the whole motivation behind the "religion is simply private" move is the idea that religious belief need not be publicly imposed, and therefore need not be open for public discussion and criticism. There is no contradiction in treating religion as essentially private -- if that is what you want to do -- and yet continuing to debate politics. But as I already said, when people bring in the idea of "private evidence" they also forfeit any license to try and convince others that they are correct, since if their evidence or motivation for belief is truly "private," then it is not available for anyone else to examine. |
It's not "private evidence" because no one else can examine it, it's private because no one else will agree with it. It's not evidence in the empirical sense, that's why it only applies to oneself. People work from intuition first. They believe what they want to believe and if you think that means you aren't allowed to try - and we're only talking about trying here, because again you seem to imply that only objective truths can be spread - to convince others of their beliefs then you're essentially putting a ban on all forms of politics as well. Something i personally don't agree with, but you're the one who's claiming this idea is in popular standing among atheists.
Also, i never said any of the established religions are private. I was talking about theism, the simple belief in a supernatural deity. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
It's not "private evidence" because no one else can examine it, it's private because no one else will agree with it. It's not evidence in the empirical sense, that's why it only applies to oneself. |
The idea of evidence that "only applies to oneself" sounds like nonsense to me. What is the point of calling something "evidence" if you are unwilling to check it (or claim that it cannot be checked) against some sort of data that originates from outside your own skull?
| quote: | | ...but you're the one who's claiming this idea is in popular standing among atheists. |
No, not at all. The "religious beliefs are private and not debatable" deal is typically the stance of religious people who prefer that their ideas not be criticized.
| quote: | | Also, i never said any of the established religions are private. I was talking about theism, the simple belief in a supernatural deity. |
"Theism" occurs on its own so rarely that I think it is pointless to discuss it in isolation from broader belief systems. How many people believe in just "God" and in nothing else supernatural? And where do you think they got their ideas about "God" from? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| from jesus, obviously. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| So he beamed it directly into their heads from his antennas in Heaven. I knew it! |
|
|
|
|
