Principia Discordia

I've been observing atheists recently. Since reading Hedges' book about the shortcomings of those who seek utopia, I've seen Atheism, or more properly, Atheistic Materialism, as a religion in it's own right.

Today, this post (http://trueslant.com/gregfish/2009/08/05/why-atheism-is-serious-business/) reminded me. I don't mind Atheists, really. I don't find the evangelical mindset of Athiestic Materialism very attractive as a religion for /me/, but I don't mind other people practicing it, just as I don't mind Christians doing their rituals. I've read Atheist literature before, and while it often seems banal, boasting, and boring, so do any religions from an outsider perspective. I don't mind these things. As religions go, Atheism is relatively harmless.

What bothers me is that evangelical Atheistic Materialists are religious, yet refuse to admit it. They posit a strong believe (the disbelief of higher powers/deities/etc) without evidence to support or refute such a claim. At the same time they claim this belief is ultimate knowledge, and any person who doesn't follow their path is a fool. I find it my sacred duty to poke fun at their serious religion at every available moment. Non evangelical atheists are pardoned, as are Agnostic Materialists; neither annoy me as neither wish to show me the error of my ways.

When you meet a Evangelical AM who poses to show you the awesomeness of their beliefs, the following are suggested responses.

"I don't mind your religion, I just wish you'd keep it to yourself."

"Atheistic Materialism is an alright religion, I guess, but I prefer [insert religion of choice here]. The liturgy is better."

"Do you ever get tired of patting yourself on the back for how awesome your disbelief is?"

"Here's my phone number. Let me know when you've finished proselytizing."

"The "my lack of god is better than your god" talk is getting reeeealy old. Seriously."

"I didn't come to lunch to get preached at."

ad infinitum

Have ya'all noticed the trend of the title? Thoughts?

well I dunno if I could say I got my own religion, but yeah I love poking fun at the evangelical atheist materialists :)

Yeah, I've noticed that for a while now.
Some of them argue that it's ok because all the christians/muslims/jews etc are doing it, and you gotta fight fire with fire. Bullshit, you fight fire with fire your house is just gonna get burnt down. It doesn't really end up solving anything.

I've never actually come across the term atheistic materialism, mind explaining it? Just in case I'm missing the point.

Also, nice post :)

to clarify, I don't really see my beliefs about Emergence as "religion", but more as one of the reasons why I think the AMs are wrong.

I disagree with you here Kai... although I have said several times some of the people who just admitted or deconverted sound like a religion, mostly on the internet but I totally disagree that is a religion.
It's a position on one specific question, and most of them time the position isn't there is no God(s), but I don't believe in a God. It's a slight difference but it changes the meaning of the statement.
As for voicing their position I also don't have a problem with. I would rather live in a world where people voice their opinions no matter how insulting they are to others then a world that they don't.
Ya, but I still make fun of them....

The statement, "I don't believe there is a God" is just as much a statement of Faith as "I do believe there is a God."

Just as the statement, "I know there is no God" is, as compared to "I know there is a God."

These statements are "functionally meaningless" in that there is no satistfactory way to "prove" them.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 03:15:40 PM
The statement, "I don't believe there is a God" is just as much a statement of Faith as "I do believe there is a God."

I disagree, though I probably should have said "I Lack belief in a God"

Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
Hmmm.  More subtle.  I think you might be able to get away with that one... until someone asks, "why"?

The answer is the same as any other Gods that person actually asking doesn't believe in, it has not be revealed, no evidence, ect. So in many ways it's almost a default position

Sorry, I was editing as you were commenting.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

That's what I wanted to say.

Quote from: Rumwolf on August 06, 2009, 02:53:49 PM
Yeah, I've noticed that for a while now.
Some of them argue that it's ok because all the christians/muslims/jews etc are doing it, and you gotta fight fire with fire. Bullshit, you fight fire with fire your house is just gonna get burnt down. It doesn't really end up solving anything.

I've never actually come across the term atheistic materialism, mind explaining it? Just in case I'm missing the point.

Also, nice post :)

Materialism, as I see it, is a religion based in strong belief in the material world, scientific method, and rational thought. Scientific rationalism is a form of materialism. Atheistic Materialism is a particular form of materialism based in strong atheism that has a tendency to become evangelical. I might even put Religious Naturalism under materialism, but right now I'm not quite sure where it falls.

Its intellishit, I made it up, but it works well to cover the concept I'm talking about.

Quote from: Triple Zero on August 06, 2009, 02:54:14 PM
to clarify, I don't really see my beliefs about Emergence as "religion", but more as one of the reasons why I think the AMs are wrong.

Oh, I definitely don't agree with them. I don't mind their beliefs either. They should pose them as beliefs in a central dogma rather than nonreligion though.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 03:04:44 PM
I disagree with you here Kai... although I have said several times some of the people who just admitted or deconverted sound like a religion, mostly on the internet but I totally disagree that is a religion.
It's a position on one specific question, and most of them time the position isn't there is no God(s), but I don't believe in a God. It's a slight difference but it changes the meaning of the statement.
As for voicing their position I also don't have a problem with. I would rather live in a world where people voice their opinions no matter how insulting they are to others then a world that they don't.
Ya, but I still make fun of them....

It's not just one question really, but even if it was it wouldn't matter. Religious splits have happened many times because of disagreement over one question.

Athiestic Materialism is like a denomination of Baptism. You've got different types, evangelical baptists, free will baptists, etc.  It's just one of the more annoying materialism religions.

I guess the other problem I have is when they take the spotlight as representing all scientists. They certainly don't represent me. Science doesn't require any particular religion or worldview, just having an open and critical mind. I can believe in Emergence or the Christian God or nothing. Science doesn't cover questions about that which can't be measured.

If I wasn't clear, I'm not bashing Atheists. I'm talking about a particular brand of evangelical Atheists. I don't mind people who don't believe in god(s). I used to be one. Most people would still consider me one.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

First glance yes but on reading a second time no.... I think that was the problem with my first statement before I corrected. It's because it's a subtle affirmative statement. In other words staking a claim that there is no God.
One of the main problems is defining the God concept. Everyone has a different concept which requires different explanations and different burden of proof. If someone would show me an idol and tell me it's a God, in terms if that God exists then yes I would have say it does, but of course that doesn't address that God's supernatural powers.
So "lacking a belief in a God, especially in the supernatural sense" is much better statement because it leaves the topic still open for investigation

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 03:22:45 PM
Materialism, as I see it, is a religion based in strong belief in the material world, scientific method, and rational thought. Scientific rationalism is a form of materialism. Atheistic Materialism is a particular form of materialism based in strong atheism that has a tendency to become evangelical. I might even put Religious Naturalism under materialism, but right now I'm not quite sure where it falls.

Its intellishit, I made it up, but it works well to cover the concept I'm talking about.

Heh, nothing wrong with an occasional bit of intellishit.

Ok, i was thinking more along the lines of materialism as a synonym for consumerism. Your definition makes a lot more sense now. I can see how there is a slight contradiction in Atheistic Materialism.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 03:30:32 PM

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 03:19:18 PM
Hmmm.  More subtle. Would you also agree with the statement, "I also lack the belief there is no God."?

First glance yes but on reading a second time no.... I think that was the problem with my first statement before I corrected. It's because it's a subtle affirmative statement. In other words staking a claim that there is no God.
One of the main problems is defining the God concept. Everyone has a different concept which requires different explanations and different burden of proof. If someone would show me an idol and tell me it's a God, in terms if that God exists then yes I would have say it does, but of course that doesn't address that God's supernatural powers.
So "lacking a belief in a God, especially in the supernatural sense" is much better statement because it leaves the topic still open for investigation

Ok, I think we don't have to go down the road of "YHVH exists... as a character in a book called The Old Testament".  I think it's the "supernatural thing" most of the debates roil around.

Agreed?  OK.

I would say that given the current impossibility on either side to either prove or disprove "Supernatural God", then to claim a stake on non-existence can be considered an act of faith (lit. "belief in something for which there is no proof", Webster).

I hate to use an actual evangelical atheist argument.

If you say you believe there are leprechauns without evidence then of course you are theistic about leprechauns, if you lack a belief in leprechauns due to the lack of evidence then you are making a reasonable conclusion that is still open to reinterpretation when new evidence comes forth. But if you say there are no leprechauns and they can not rationally exist then you are back having faith in the lack of evidence. That's what I meant when I said default position... Lack of evidence doesn't mean dismissive of the possibility but the default position is to fall back on disbelief due to lack of evidence, otherwise you would believe a whole bunch of crazy stuff.

You could also probably (though this is a little sketchy) make a reasonable argument the other way as well. That there is a form of belief that is not based on faith if the person is in the position of investigation, kind of like investigating a hypothesis. It reaches faith when the hypothesis is believed despite the unprovability (I think I made up that word) of the hypothesis. My position is why even bother to do that, but everyone investigates differently.

But if there is no valid test for the proof of God's existence, there is no evidence in either direction.

You're just choosing one absence of evidence in favor of the other.

Yes but the claim of God is the claim. Like I said the default position is non belief in the claim till evidence.

It goes the other way like I said. If you said there is no God, then that claim is rejected as well.

But what is disbelief in disbelief?
So the only claim that can be considered is the affirmative claim that there is a God. Just as my leprechaun example. The leprechaun is the claim not the lack of the leprechaun.

But the initial question doesn't make a claim either way.


"Is there a supernatural God?"


The question cannot be answered, because a valid test cannot be devised.  Therefore, to hold a position of either Yes or No indicates a belief without evidence.

No I answered that.. leprechauns are supernatural too, as well as ghosts, mind control, ect.

Even if the test can not be devised the default position is not to believe it is truth. Not hold a position of "no it doesn't exist" but one of lack of belief in the claim of its existence.

You can compile evidence of specific claims of specific Gods and come to reasonable conclusions of their existence, or nonexistence, which of course makes the original claim less likely, though not impossible. But possibility does not mean belief.

Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Im not afraid. I do think the question is meaningless... but that still means the claim is not to be believed until the question becomes meaningful enough to answer... Especially a claim with such implications.

Are we sure that Evangelists aren't sounding more like Atheists?

Their fervent belief in the existence of a God sure seems to be compensation for something.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 04:32:09 PM

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Im not afraid. I do think the question is meaningless... but that still means the claim is not to be believed until the question becomes meaningful enough to answer... Especially a claim with such implications.

Hmmm... I think we're stuck.  I do not see a claim, I see a question.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:33:32 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 04:32:09 PM

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Im not afraid. I do think the question is meaningless... but that still means the claim is not to be believed until the question becomes meaningful enough to answer... Especially a claim with such implications.

Hmmm... I think we're stuck.  I do not see a claim, I see a question.

Here

Q: Is there a supernatural God?

A: Don't know, don't know how to come to a reasonable conclusion. <--- agnostic

Q: Do you believe in a supernatural God?

A: No, cause there is no evidence to support that claim. <---- atheist


So therefore you could still take the question, be agnostic about the question, and still be atheistic about the supernatural claim.
In other words the two ideas can be inclusive and not always exclusive

Hope that clears it up

I suppose in my mind, the second question demands a third question:

Q: Do you believe there is no supernatural God?

A: No, cause there is no evidence to support that claim.


To leave that third question out creates a dualistic system where "currently meaningless" (which I hold is the correct answer) does not apply.

That honestly is really convoluted, Thurnez. You're making atheists sound like agnostics.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:42:13 PM
I suppose in my mind, the second question demands a third question:

Q: Do you believe there is no supernatural God?

A: No, cause there is no evidence to support that claim.


To leave that third question out creates a dualistic system where "currently meaningless" (which I hold is the correct answer) does not apply.

1) I agree
2) I don't think its a dual system, cause as with my leprechaun analogy the third question is meaningless in itself, and I think more stupid position on meaningless questions. What is disbelief in disbelief? So the duality is in the third question and not the answer to the second question

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 04:43:11 PM
That honestly is really convoluted, Thurnez. You're making atheists sound like agnostics.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge (minus Huxley's use of the term) Theism is belief. You could be both.
Most reasonable atheists I know admit they only have a problem with the claim of God not the first question.
In fact most people are atheistic about certain claims and agnostic about others, and sometimes both on the same claim.

For me, to ask if you believe in something implies that the answer you give means the opposite is also true.

So, "I do not believe in a God" implies "I believe there is no God."

Without the third question you cannot take a third option and say, "I do not believe in a God, and I do not believe there is no God."


The third question creates a dual system, but the third answer creates a 3-value system.

The point I was making wasn't about the question of theistic belief, it was about a group of people who act in a religious manner about their assertions which they can't back up with evidence, including very arrogant displays of evangelical proselyzation, yet refusing to recognize how religiously dogmatic they have become.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:52:34 PM
For me, to ask if you believe in something implies that the answer you give means the opposite is also true.

So, "I do not believe in a God" implies "I believe there is no God."

Without the third question you cannot take a third option and say, "I do not believe in a God, and I do not believe there is no God."


The third question creates a dual system, but the third answer creates a 3-value system.

I can see the value in this way of thinking...
but if I say plate tectonics happen because of ogres deep under the ground. Deep enough that they can't be studied. It's more reasonable to take the position that there is no ogres under the ground, maybe more correct to say I don't see any evidence for ogres under the ground, but I don't see any evidence that are no ogres under the ground. It's just more reasonable to take the position there is no evidence of any ogres under the ground, and leave it at that, until more evidence comes forth.

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 04:55:21 PM
The point I was making wasn't about the question of theistic belief, it was about a group of people who act in a religious manner about their assertions which they can't back up with evidence, including very arrogant displays of evangelical proselyzation, yet refusing to recognize how religiously dogmatic they have become.

sorry to drag off topic

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 05:04:12 PM

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 04:55:21 PM
The point I was making wasn't about the question of theistic belief, it was about a group of people who act in a religious manner about their assertions which they can't back up with evidence, including very arrogant displays of evangelical proselyzation, yet refusing to recognize how religiously dogmatic they have become.

sorry to drag off topic

Nahh, go ahead. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was attacking you or atheists in general.

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 05:13:52 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 05:04:12 PM

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 04:55:21 PM
The point I was making wasn't about the question of theistic belief, it was about a group of people who act in a religious manner about their assertions which they can't back up with evidence, including very arrogant displays of evangelical proselyzation, yet refusing to recognize how religiously dogmatic they have become.

sorry to drag off topic

Nahh, go ahead. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was attacking you or atheists in general.

Didn't think you were. Personally I'm a discordist anyways  :wink:
but on the topic of God's I tend to be atheistic about all presented to me, while more on the fence over the larger topic, which of course brings me into disbelief until proof is presented to warrant belief - kind of like my dad. My sister though is much more of a strong atheist then either of us, who does takes the position that there is enough rational explanations to make the existence any God so unlikely it would stupid to believe in one. I don't take that position myself.

So this guy at work says he's agnostic because "to say you don't believe in god is to acknowledge that there is one", right?

My problem with this lies here:
I don't believe in god or a god or many gods or any gods. I'd say I'm pretty atheist. I don't acknowledge religion and I don't care about it, in fact I think it's dumb. Just my opinion. It isn't a topic I even discuss usually. If others didn't believe either then there'd be nothing to discuss, right?
I don't feel that not believing in a god is a belief system itself, or religion or whatever.

As far as Athiestic Materialism I think I understand what you're getting at Kai. I've been given many a website via Stumble that were annoying as shit.
"We're atheist and we don't believe in god. Here's our commandments and such"
Ridiculous.
My opinion is if you don't believe, then just shut up. Right?
So I should shut up then, I guess.

I don't know. This isn't a topic I usually jump in on cause any time people mention religion and look at me for feedback I just *tsk* and make that "git da fuck outta here" hand movement. But I understand the irritation with the prostheletising atheists. So I guess all this shit was just to say "Yeah, I know how ya feel Kai"

Quote from: Squid on August 06, 2009, 05:36:26 PM

As far as Athiestic Materialism I think I understand what you're getting at Kai. I've been given many a website via Stumble that were annoying as shit.
"We're atheist and we don't believe in god. Here's our commandments and such"
Ridiculous.
My opinion is if you don't believe, then just shut up. Right?
So I should shut up then, I guess.

I tend not to visit sites on topics I tend to agree with (minus this site) so take this with agnosticism on the topic. Just as I also tend to read books of opinions I do not share to see if Im wrong about my opinions or what is the position I do not agree with it.

As far as I know atheism is just lack of belief in Gods. You could make the case that many Buddhists are athiest. They would deny that due to the word has baggage to it. Anything beyond that is separate issues. ie. no commandments, ect. I am blissfully unware of AM

Also I don't believe you should just shut up. I 100% disagree in fact. Yes there is a time and place for everything but like I said it is better to have a world where people discuss things, debate things, and are willing to give their beliefs no matter how unpleasant they are to others, then live in a world were people are scared to discuss their beliefs....
unless of course they are scared of being mocked by discordists...

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 05:48:07 PM

Quote from: Squid on August 06, 2009, 05:36:26 PM

As far as Athiestic Materialism I think I understand what you're getting at Kai. I've been given many a website via Stumble that were annoying as shit.
"We're atheist and we don't believe in god. Here's our commandments and such"
Ridiculous.
My opinion is if you don't believe, then just shut up. Right?
So I should shut up then, I guess.

I tend not to visit sites on topics I tend to agree with (minus this site) so take this with agnosticism on the topic. Just as I also tend to read books of opinions I do not share to see if Im wrong about my opinions or what is the position I do not agree with it.

As far as I know atheism is just lack of belief in Gods. You could make the case that many Buddhists are athiest. They would deny that due to the word has baggage to it. Anything beyond that is separate issues. ie. no commandments, ect. I am blissfully unware of AM

Also I don't believe you should just shut up. I 100% disagree in fact. Yes there is a time and place for everything but like I said it is better to have a world where people discuss things, debate things, and are willing to give their beliefs no matter how unpleasant they are to others, then live in a world were people are scared to discuss their beliefs....
unless of course they are scared of being mocked by discordists...

I don't visit them on purpose. Stumble gives them to me, you know, the Stumble button, the thing what keeps people up at night.

As far as shutting up(myself), it isn't that I'm scared to discuss this stuff or whatever, I just don't think I care enough to get into a big discussion or debate about it. That's all.
Same with talking about cars. Couldn't give a shit really so I don't think I have much to add to the topic.
Meh.

they can be fun to troll, they cant win against the argument that they are a religion and that the absence of god requires as much faith as the existence , and eventually some of them bring the soft atheists Hawkins scale crap out and they  define there beliefs exactly like agnostics do but they want to measure how unconvinced in gods existence they are...

Shit how have I missed this thread? Brilliant Kai. I've been feeling the same way about most atheists for a long time.
One of my main problems is the evolution thing. Yes I believe in evolution
Yes so does everyone
The Pope conceded
But he also said it was compatible with church teachings.
Evolution doesn't "disprove God" as the common argument goes but rather just disprove Creationism and Bible literalism. If the atheists moved on to a new battle that actually "disproved God" then sign me up damn it.

Shit how have I missed this thread? Brilliant Kai. I've been feeling the same way about most atheists for a long time.
One of my main problems is the evolution thing. Yes I believe in evolution
Yes so does everyone
The Pope conceded
But he also said it was compatible with church teachings.
Evolution doesn't "disprove God" as the common argument goes but rather just disprove Creationism and Bible literalism. If the atheists moved on to a new battle that actually "disproved God" then sign me up damn it.

Quote from: Pir Pariah on August 06, 2009, 07:30:18 PM
Shit how have I missed this thread? Brilliant Kai. I've been feeling the same way about most atheists for a long time.
One of my main problems is the evolution thing. Yes I believe in evolution
Yes so does everyone
The Pope conceded
But he also said it was compatible with church teachings.
Evolution doesn't "disprove God" as the common argument goes but rather just disprove Creationism and Bible literalism. If the atheists moved on to a new battle that actually "disproved God" then sign me up damn it.

Was just thinking earlier today about Darwin's religious beliefs. Early on in life he was rather religious, nearly became a clergyman for the Church of England, but as he moved on to scientific pursuits, he struggled with religion (and his wife; she was a very religious woman and they argued) and eventually considered himself agnostic. By the end of his life, clear in his autobiography, he had become an atheist. Still, he thought that a belief in god and transmutation weren't incompatible. Most people would consider his views deist these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion actually a very good article on the subject from Wikipedia

You know who else doesn't like Atheistic Materialists?

(http://macsd.org/KenHam.jpg)

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 06, 2009, 09:00:26 PM
You know who else doesn't like Atheistic Materialists?

(http://macsd.org/KenHam.jpg)

Who's that? Let me guess, some Christian/IDC advocate/ YEC?

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 07:52:34 PM

Was just thinking earlier today about Darwin's religious beliefs. Early on in life he was rather religious, nearly became a clergyman for the Church of England, but as he moved on to scientific pursuits, he struggled with religion (and his wife; she was a very religious woman and they argued) and eventually considered himself agnostic. By the end of his life, clear in his autobiography, he had become an atheist. Still, he thought that a belief in god and transmutation weren't incompatible. Most people would consider his views deist these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion actually a very good article on the subject from Wikipedia

Deists FTW!

i dont think he's much into ID kai.. more like dinosaurs and Jesus living together....

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 09:18:51 PM

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 06, 2009, 09:00:26 PM
You know who else doesn't like Atheistic Materialists?

(http://macsd.org/KenHam.jpg)

Who's that? Let me guess, some Christian/IDC advocate/ YEC?

If I remember correctly, he made the creationist "museum"

Ah, Ken Ham. What a crazy primate.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:20:19 PM
But the initial question doesn't make a claim either way.


"Is there a supernatural God?"


The question cannot be answered, because a valid test cannot be devised.  Therefore, to hold a position of either Yes or No indicates a belief without evidence.

This seems like a bit of Special Pleading to me. How much faith does it take to not believe in something when there is no positive evidence for it? Do you have faith that Russell's teapot doesn't exist? Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Or the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage? Or Thornie's ogres? Or Eris?

Why do all the kooky Creationists get the cool beards
:(

Quote from: fomenter on August 06, 2009, 07:18:12 PM
they can be fun to troll, they cant win against the argument that they are a religion and that the absence of god requires as much faith as the existence , and eventually some of them bring the soft atheists Hawkins scale crap out and they  define there beliefs exactly like agnostics do but they want to measure how unconvinced in gods existence they are...

Atheism doesn't fit into any definition of "religion" that you can give. It has no dogma, no clergy, no holy books, no rituals, etc. It is a religious viewpoint akin to theism. You are either one or the other. There is no in between.

And technically everyone is an agnostic whether they want to admit it or not. ;)

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 09:23:36 PM
Ah, Ken Ham. What a crazy primate.

:lulz: Yes, the irony that the guy screaming that he ain't no monkey looks exactly like a caveman.

Quote from: LMNO on August 06, 2009, 04:20:19 PM
But the initial question doesn't make a claim either way.


"Is there a supernatural God?"


The question cannot be answered, because a valid test cannot be devised.  Therefore, to hold a position of either Yes or No indicates a belief without evidence.

I would consider myself a Agnostic Deist (with a little bit of Sufism thrown in there for good measure). It's rather impractical to say without any certainty there is or isn't a God. In my case I'm about 51% sure there is.

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 06, 2009, 09:29:56 PM

Quote from: fomenter on August 06, 2009, 07:18:12 PM
they can be fun to troll, they cant win against the argument that they are a religion and that the absence of god requires as much faith as the existence , and eventually some of them bring the soft atheists Hawkins scale crap out and they  define there beliefs exactly like agnostics do but they want to measure how unconvinced in gods existence they are...

Atheism doesn't fit into any definition of "religion" that you can give. It has no dogma, no clergy, no holy books, no rituals, etc. It is a religious viewpoint akin to theism. You are either one or the other. There is no in between.

And technically everyone is an agnostic whether they want to admit it or not. ;)

evangelical Fundy atheists might make the no dogma claim tough to prove :D

i have done it using dictionary definitions but an exact fit and being sufficient to troll the dogmatic Fundy's are two different things  :wink:

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 06, 2009, 09:30:28 PM

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 09:23:36 PM
Ah, Ken Ham. What a crazy primate.

:lulz: Yes, the irony that the guy screaming that he ain't no monkey looks exactly like a caveman.

Thats Homo neanderthalis to you!  :lulz:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 06, 2009, 04:16:34 PM
Yes but the claim of God is the claim. Like I said the default position is non belief in the claim till evidence.

It goes the other way like I said. If you said there is no God, then that claim is rejected as well.

But what is disbelief in disbelief?
So the only claim that can be considered is the affirmative claim that there is a God. Just as my leprechaun example. The leprechaun is the claim not the lack of the leprechaun.

:piss:

This thread is about a couple different things so I'll try to comment on all of them:

On Atheism's status as a religion - Atheism, especially the stronger reductionist/materialist brands certainly can be, but I don't think that not holding a belief in some form of the divine is the same thing as having Faith.  If the question of "Is there one or more Gods?" is an important question to you, then the way you answer it will be important to you, quite possibly religiously so.  But if you don't think the question is especially interesting or worth answering - if it just isn't a topic that you think about often, if at all - then I don't think it quite counts as Faith.  I would say that it is entirely possible not to have an active, strong or even well-formed belief one way or the other, and to disbelieve in a God in completely areligious way, just like people who go to church every couple of years on major holidays when invited by friends may technically acknowledge God if you ask them directly about it aren't really religious.

On the question of God's existence, or lack thereof - I agree that the question "Is there a God?" is meaningless - but it could be given meaning with a proper explanation of what the question asker means by God.  Some specific formulations are falsifiable, and some are self-contradictory, or even true by definition.  For those questions, a answer can be given without requiring any serious faith or belief.  For example, if the question goes "Setting someone on fire is wrong.  God is a being who sets people on fire for eternity, and who never does anything wrong.  Does God exist?" has a pretty obvious answer.

On the testability of God - If God is relevant, God is testable.  If something does not interact with anything in existence, then it is functionally the same as not existing.  If it does interact with something, then that interaction can be tested.  In the first case, a God who is sufficiently massless, chargeless, spinless, tiny, far away, invisible, quiet, etc. and never does anything is functionally the same as a God who doesn't exist.  So if someone asks you if such a God exists, you don't even need to answer - it's the same both ways.  Just keep thinking whatever requires the least effort and get along with your business.

On personal reflections of belief in one or more Gods - Most of the time I don't believe in a God, sometimes I believe in the absence of Gods, and very rarely I even believe that a God could quite possibly exist, although he'd better have a pretty damn good explanation for all of this.  That said, I'm the kind of guy who was never entirely convinced (when he was younger) that the aliens from the Animorphs series were fictional, and that the world really wasn't being run by gray brain-infesting slugs, and who always wondered if the reason he couldn't move/set on fire things with his mind was because he just wasn't concentrating hard enough.  I still wonder about the questions "Do other people have inner lives?" and "Did the past really happen?" which is apparently not commonplace?

Quote from: GA on August 07, 2009, 05:37:50 AM

On personal reflections of belief in one or more Gods - Most of the time I don't believe in a God, sometimes I believe in the absence of Gods, and very rarely I even believe that a God could quite possibly exist, although he'd better have a pretty damn good explanation for all of this.  That said, I'm the kind of guy who was never entirely convinced (when he was younger) that the aliens from the Animorphs series were fictional, and that the world really wasn't being run by gray brain-infesting slugs, and who always wondered if the reason he couldn't move/set on fire things with his mind was because he just wasn't concentrating hard enough.  I still wonder about the questions "Do other people have inner lives?" and "Did the past really happen?" which is apparently not commonplace?

My mom says when they told me about Santa Claus when I was 4/5 I pulled an all nighter and set traps by the tree, which ironically actually worked and somehow injured my fathers leg, or knee or something. Then when my father tried to tell my baby sister about Santa Claus four years later I immediately ruined it for her...
:cry:

I think Im incapable of belief lol

Its possible to not have religion and not believe in god, and its possible to not have religion and still believe in god (this used to be very common, simply because it seemed necessary for a god to exist).

The fundie atheists are still fundie religious nutjobs though, regardless of what they do or don't believe in, that kind of thing is a lifestyle.

Quote from: Kai on August 06, 2009, 09:23:36 PM
Ah, Ken Ham. What a crazy primate.

He owes me a quarter million dollars  :argh!:

I honestly don't understand creationists. I can understand the religious (I'm one of them, in any case) but I don't understand supernatural creation scemes that go so far from the current scientifically revealed reality. It seems like wishful hoping that reality is wrong. But furthermore, how is creationism satisfying to anyone but the most small minded? To be told your place in the universe instead of seeking those answers yourself is stiffling to the circuits of any person, especially when those answers turn out to be false. It's only really possible to keep creationist when you have an insular community backing you up. Science can operate in isolation, somewhat, because it is at least based on real measurements, but a creationist among non-creationists who has no community of creationists to run back to will quickly be unable to operate in that society under their held beliefs, unless there is some sort of change of worldview and acceptance of other ways to see the universe.

Unrelated tangent, of course. This thread was about evangelical atheists.

I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

to which they'd answer, wtf is emergence?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 07, 2009, 05:47:57 AM

Quote from: GA on August 07, 2009, 05:37:50 AM

On personal reflections of belief in one or more Gods - Most of the time I don't believe in a God, sometimes I believe in the absence of Gods, and very rarely I even believe that a God could quite possibly exist, although he'd better have a pretty damn good explanation for all of this.  That said, I'm the kind of guy who was never entirely convinced (when he was younger) that the aliens from the Animorphs series were fictional, and that the world really wasn't being run by gray brain-infesting slugs, and who always wondered if the reason he couldn't move/set on fire things with his mind was because he just wasn't concentrating hard enough.  I still wonder about the questions "Do other people have inner lives?" and "Did the past really happen?" which is apparently not commonplace?

My mom says when they told me about Santa Claus when I was 4/5 I pulled an all nighter and set traps by the tree, which ironically actually worked and somehow injured my fathers leg, or knee or something. Then when my father tried to tell my baby sister about Santa Claus four years later I immediately ruined it for her...
:cry:

I think Im incapable of belief lol

Oddly enough, I figured out Santa Clause pretty early on.  It was obvious that the Santa stories were written is the same register as any other fairy tale, and all the "save Christmas from people who don't believe in Santa" TV specials were so condescendingly banal.  That, and beardy fat strangers in red suits always scared the shit out of me.

Quote from: Kai on August 07, 2009, 12:54:36 PM
I honestly don't understand creationists. I can understand the religious (I'm one of them, in any case) but I don't understand supernatural creation scemes that go so far from the current scientifically revealed reality. It seems like wishful hoping that reality is wrong. But furthermore, how is creationism satisfying to anyone but the most small minded? To be told your place in the universe instead of seeking those answers yourself is stiffling to the circuits of any person, especially when those answers turn out to be false. It's only really possible to keep creationist when you have an insular community backing you up. Science can operate in isolation, somewhat, because it is at least based on real measurements, but a creationist among non-creationists who has no community of creationists to run back to will quickly be unable to operate in that society under their held beliefs, unless there is some sort of change of worldview and acceptance of other ways to see the universe.

Unrelated tangent, of course. This thread was about evangelical atheists.

The central story among many of the more fundamentalist Christians is not the life, death, and Resurrection of Christ but the old Adam and Eve story.  Specifically, God created a perfect utopia for humanity, who promptly fucked it up through their own sinfulness which taints humanity forever.  (Except for Mary, who still has her hymen intact after bearing multiple children.)  What is important is that the death of Christ is payment for the Original Sin, not your own personal sins.  Accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior is the only way to be forgiven for the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve, and is necessary (and some say sufficient) for getting into Heaven.

For this to work, the events in the Garden have to have actually happened.  You can't have Christ paying price of death for something that only happened metaphorically.  Likewise, humanity has to fall from grace of its own volition - if the story is just an allegory of how humanity is inherently sinful, then that means that God created humanity to be naturally sinful.  Humanity has to be made in God's image, and then mess it up through the liberal application of their own dang free will.  Otherwise there's nothing to be forgiven; seeking forgiveness for basic human nature is as meaningless as asking forgiveness for having four appendages.  There needs to be a definite point in time where humans were not sinful that God's grace can return you to.  And humans need to have been humans at said time, rather than single celled organisms looking forward to having a functioning nucleus.

And of course there's a lot of theologically important stuff in Genesis that's relevant to all branches of Christianity.  Specifically, that God looked down on creation and saw that it was good is important (especially to the more affirmative versions of Christianity) as is that humans are created in the image of God.

As to how creationists can maintain their worldview in the modern world - it's surprisingly easy.  Kids love dinosaurs, so you just replace the sciency dinosaur books with creationist ones that hasten to explain that scientists are fallible just like everyone else (true) that the mechanics underlying fossilization are still largely unknown (almost true, and possibly true for books that were published early enough) and very controversial, even among scientists (false) and that all forms of geological dating are wildly inaccurate and very controversial (false) and that the whole thing is just one model and theory about reality, which is kind of silly given that we already know what happened - it's written right there in the Most Important Book In The World.  Those wacky evilutionists!  If you combine this with the belief that Satan Is Real, and that everyone who isn't a member of your sect is willingly or unwittingly an agent of Satan, it's pretty easy to generate the kind of insularity you require.  (This involves not watching degenerate television, not going to schools controlled by the Athiest Zionist Homosexual Satanists, and not reading anything not pre-screened by ultraconservative groups as being safe for Christian consumption - effectively isolating yourself from everything outside your church.)

see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

Didn't an atheist come through here ranting about how we were no different from the Christians because we worship Eris?

Quote from: Kai on August 07, 2009, 04:42:27 PM
see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 09, 2009, 03:36:29 AM

Quote from: Kai on August 07, 2009, 04:42:27 PM
see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Dissent is an entirely different thing from a lack of support.

I don't think it takes a talented individual to sustain worldviews which fall into either category - I have some going back a decade or more - at least several worldviews in both categories. The difficulty in comparing maps is a motivating factor in any society, to modify your maps to match the others you've seen. But if you're prepared to put up with a little difficulty, you don't need to fully internalise that conceptual compromise.

Probably every member of this (or any) community believes that the community consensus is wrong on at least one issue - not worth fighting, but not exactly a struggle to remember it as an exception to the map, either.

Now, to take Kai's example, and to put it into my mapping above - I'd say the Creationist doesn't necessarily stop believing the worldview, but without support they stop communicating it in the same way as before. Functionally there might not seem to be any difference, but the test might be whether they go back to expressing Creationist thought when placed in a tank of Creationists -- if so, then you could make the argument that Evolution is not robust.

So I think 'robust' might be a red-herring, as isn't it the utility of the belief, in any given environment, that which drives its uptake?

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 09, 2009, 04:12:09 AM

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 09, 2009, 03:36:29 AM

Quote from: Kai on August 07, 2009, 04:42:27 PM
see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Dissent is an entirely different thing from a lack of support.

I don't think it takes a talented individual to sustain worldviews which fall into either category - I have some going back a decade or more - at least several worldviews in both categories. The difficulty in comparing maps is a motivating factor in any society, to modify your maps to match the others you've seen. But if you're prepared to put up with a little difficulty, you don't need to fully internalise that conceptual compromise.

Probably every member of this (or any) community believes that the community consensus is wrong on at least one issue - not worth fighting, but not exactly a struggle to remember it as an exception to the map, either.

Now, to take Kai's example, and to put it into my mapping above - I'd say the Creationist doesn't necessarily stop believing the worldview, but without support they stop communicating it in the same way as before. Functionally there might not seem to be any difference, but the test might be whether they go back to expressing Creationist thought when placed in a tank of Creationists -- if so, then you could make the argument that Evolution is not robust.

So I think 'robust' might be a red-herring, as isn't it the utility of the belief, in any given environment, that which drives its uptake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments)

Sorry for linking ebaums but it's the only site that hasn't had the video pulled off (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/710170/)

Don't underestimate the power of conformity.  It can be resisted without a doubt, but that is not the norm for human behavior.  To assume that creationists are any more susceptible to conformity than atheists or any other widely supported worldview is to disregard our highly social nature.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 09, 2009, 03:28:15 AM
Didn't an atheist come through here ranting about how we were no different from the Christians because we worship Eris?

A stunning example of evangelical AM.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 09, 2009, 06:54:03 AM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 09, 2009, 04:12:09 AM

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 09, 2009, 03:36:29 AM

Quote from: Kai on August 07, 2009, 04:42:27 PM
see, thats just what I was saying. A single creationist cut off completely from other creationists would not be able to sustain their worldview. It's not self sustaining, it needs support and validation of coconspirators to continue. Without this it withers. Creationism isn't particularly robust in that sense, it can't handle dissent. When my people are telling me one thing and reality another, I need constant reinforcement that "reality" is "the devils work" or I start to think otherwise.

I see what you're saying, but this logic can be extended to almost any ideology.  Few, very very few, individuals could sustain their worldviews without support.  Primates are too social a creature to face such constant and resounding dissent.

Dissent is an entirely different thing from a lack of support.

I don't think it takes a talented individual to sustain worldviews which fall into either category - I have some going back a decade or more - at least several worldviews in both categories. The difficulty in comparing maps is a motivating factor in any society, to modify your maps to match the others you've seen. But if you're prepared to put up with a little difficulty, you don't need to fully internalise that conceptual compromise.

Probably every member of this (or any) community believes that the community consensus is wrong on at least one issue - not worth fighting, but not exactly a struggle to remember it as an exception to the map, either.

Now, to take Kai's example, and to put it into my mapping above - I'd say the Creationist doesn't necessarily stop believing the worldview, but without support they stop communicating it in the same way as before. Functionally there might not seem to be any difference, but the test might be whether they go back to expressing Creationist thought when placed in a tank of Creationists -- if so, then you could make the argument that Evolution is not robust.

So I think 'robust' might be a red-herring, as isn't it the utility of the belief, in any given environment, that which drives its uptake?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments)

Sorry for linking ebaums but it's the only site that hasn't had the video pulled off (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/710170/)

Don't underestimate the power of conformity.  It can be resisted without a doubt, but that is not the norm for human behavior.  To assume that creationists are any more susceptible to conformity than atheists or any other widely supported worldview is to disregard our highly social nature.

Nice video. Both sources could be equally well explained by the subjects not wanting to look stupid. In the case of the Asch experiments, it was said that the individuals blamed things like "poor eyesight" for giving the same (obviously wrong) answer as the rest of the group. But this says nothing about what they believed internally at that time. E.g. "I really don't want to look stupid so I'll blame my eyesight". If they had no reason to remember that they just didn't want to look stupid, then it's likely the eyesight excuse would become dominant in whenever they recounted the event. Perhaps even to themselves within a short amount of time.

In the case of the elevator video, I can absolutely imagine the subjects saying something like "You wouldn't believe the bozo's in the elevator this morning - they were all looking the wrong way - well yes, I turned too - it was more uncomfortable not to - I just wanted to get to the office asap". If the subject knew the people standing the wrong way - say co-workers - isn't it more likely he'd laugh and say "Why are you guys facing the other way?".

But in both cases you're taking something which the individual had little or no personal investment in - you can't use that to extrapolate that a worldview is as easily malleable - and setting up an artificial path of least resistance seems a parlour game amusement.

E.g. if you have three cones and set them up in a rough 1m side triangle on any thoroughfare, people will flow around it even though there's nothing wrong with the ground it deliniates. "Hahaha" - they're conforming vs. "Hahaha" - they don't give a shit and it takes a negligible amount of energy to avoid. If you do the same on a narrow sidewalk, taking up most of it, people are more likely to evaluate the situation and walk through the triangle rather than step onto the road. What does that prove?

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 09, 2009, 02:35:09 PM
Nice video. Both sources could be equally well explained by the subjects not wanting to look stupid. In the case of the Asch experiments, it was said that the individuals blamed things like "poor eyesight" for giving the same (obviously wrong) answer as the rest of the group. But this says nothing about what they believed internally at that time. E.g. "I really don't want to look stupid so I'll blame my eyesight". If they had no reason to remember that they just didn't want to look stupid, then it's likely the eyesight excuse would become dominant in whenever they recounted the event. Perhaps even to themselves within a short amount of time.

There's no "poor eyesight" on which to blame a worldview.  They might not internalize others' beliefs, but even without fear of reprisal they're unlikely to voice their dissent for fear of being othered.  If they aren't acting on it, speaking about it, or otherwise doing anything with it, then why does it matter whether or not they have it?

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 09, 2009, 02:35:09 PM
In the case of the elevator video, I can absolutely imagine the subjects saying something like "You wouldn't believe the bozo's in the elevator this morning - they were all looking the wrong way - well yes, I turned too - it was more uncomfortable not to - I just wanted to get to the office asap". If the subject knew the people standing the wrong way - say co-workers - isn't it more likely he'd laugh and say "Why are you guys facing the other way?".

Probably, but remember we're talking about an individual lacking support here.  They might think it was odd for people to be standing incorrectly in the elevator, but because those people seemingly have no relation to one another and came to that practice individually, they might begin wondering who was standing properly in the first place, themselves or the others.  Consensus comes to dictate reality.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 09, 2009, 02:35:09 PM
But in both cases you're taking something which the individual had little or no personal investment in - you can't use that to extrapolate that a worldview is as easily malleable - and setting up an artificial path of least resistance seems a parlour game amusement

E.g. if you have three cones and set them up in a rough 1m side triangle on any thoroughfare, people will flow around it even though there's nothing wrong with the ground it deliniates. "Hahaha" - they're conforming vs. "Hahaha" - they don't give a shit and it takes a negligible amount of energy to avoid. If you do the same on a narrow sidewalk, taking up most of it, people are more likely to evaluate the situation and walk through the triangle rather than step onto the road. What does that prove?

The Asch study is a bit more personal than avoiding a patch of sidewalk.  You're talking about people who can see very plainly that everyone else is wrong but are unwilling to voice their opinions.  That's a very damaging and disheartening thing to do, doublethink from 1984 essentially.  Now since I'm at work I can't verify this is the correct video, but if it is pay attention to the people who actually do voice dissent.  They quickly become almost lethargic and broken for not conforming in their opinion.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x44uze_conformity-asch-recreation_blog (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x44uze_conformity-asch-recreation_blog)

Again, sorry if it's the wrong video or if it just plain doesn't work.

My point is, subtleties of the argument aside, that creationism is not the only point of view that will fail to stand up against popular dissent.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 10, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
There's no "poor eyesight" on which to blame a worldview.  They might not internalize others' beliefs, but even without fear of reprisal they're unlikely to voice their dissent for fear of being othered. 

Not wanting to shake the paranoia stick - but surface agreement in many cases does not imply acceptance. One instance is when the suppressed worldview meets a person who expresses a neutral opinion - upon discussing the issues, which worldview is given the most weight in that conversation?

There isn't a right answer precisely because it depends on the complexity of the individual circumstances. However, if we're talking about how memes spread, I don't think we should discount the effect.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 10, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
If they aren't acting on it, speaking about it, or otherwise doing anything with it, then why does it matter whether or not they have it?

I think this is an impossible construct. To agree with you, I'd have to insert the hidden term that the individual does not ever think about the issue again.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 10, 2009, 12:51:18 AM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 09, 2009, 02:35:09 PM
In the case of the elevator video, I can absolutely imagine the subjects saying something like "You wouldn't believe the bozo's in the elevator this morning - they were all looking the wrong way - well yes, I turned too - it was more uncomfortable not to - I just wanted to get to the office asap". If the subject knew the people standing the wrong way - say co-workers - isn't it more likely he'd laugh and say "Why are you guys facing the other way?".

Probably, but remember we're talking about an individual lacking support here.  They might think it was odd for people to be standing incorrectly in the elevator, but because those people seemingly have no relation to one another and came to that practice individually, they might begin wondering who was standing properly in the first place, themselves or the others.  Consensus comes to dictate reality.

I find this conclusion too broad.

Consensus effects an individuals reactions to an environment, which in turn effects perception, which in turn effects how that individual thinks about the world.. nudging them into a particular reality tunnel. But if we're still talking about the instance where the individual suffers fools, and acts like one because it's the path of least resistance, while maintaining their internal worldview.. then you need to define some additional parameters which would negate that individuals internal processes.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 10, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
The Asch study is a bit more personal than avoiding a patch of sidewalk.  You're talking about people who can see very plainly that everyone else is wrong but are unwilling to voice their opinions.  That's a very damaging and disheartening thing to do, doublethink from 1984 essentially.  Now since I'm at work I can't verify this is the correct video, but if it is pay attention to the people who actually do voice dissent.  They quickly become almost lethargic and broken for not conforming in their opinion.

I say good! People who can't dissent with a smile and a healthy attitude and inner confidence, are not doing any cause any good.

Unfortunately I couldn't get the video to work - my flash is broken, and I couldn't find the swf video link on that page.

Quote from: Eater of Clowns on August 10, 2009, 12:51:18 AM
My point is, subtleties of the argument aside, that creationism is not the only point of view that will fail to stand up against popular dissent.

I completely agree.

Given our worlds view, where the scientific method has consistently provided tangible results, evolution is more "robust" than creationism. If we start burning scientists and anyone who uses confusing logic, then creationism would become more "robust" than evolution.

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 07, 2009, 02:03:05 PM
I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge (unless your Huxley agnostic and too wussy to actually form a position)
atheism deals with lack of belief
They are used just generally by people to give a quick position on where you place on the scale. Depending on the type of God in discussion depends on the type of term used.
It gets much more thorny when you actually apply it to certain situations. In fact you could be atheistic, theistic, agnostic, and gnostic about a specific God. For example if you show me a small idol you say is our God, I would be theistic and gnostic about the existence of that specific God (I have special knowledge of it's existence, especially if I could get independent verification) but atheistic about your claim that if you pray to the idol it rains.
Most atheists I talk to know and use the terms in these ways

You have a point. Reading back, what I wrote was just a silly riff on the tired old "well where do you think the universe comes from, dummy?"

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 03:12:23 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 07, 2009, 02:03:05 PM
I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge (unless your Huxley agnostic and too wussy to actually form a position)
atheism deals with lack of belief
They are used just generally by people to give a quick position on where you place on the scale. Depending on the type of God in discussion depends on the type of term used.
It gets much more thorny when you actually apply it to certain situations. In fact you could be atheistic, theistic, agnostic, and gnostic about a specific God. For example if you show me a small idol you say is our God, I would be theistic and gnostic about the existence of that specific God (I have special knowledge of it's existence, especially if I could get independent verification) but atheistic about your claim that if you pray to the idol it rains.
Most atheists I talk to know and use the terms in these ways

Huxley agnostic?

Given that he made the word up, wouldn't Huxley agnostic be the default form of agnostic?

QuoteNice video. Both sources could be equally well explained by the subjects not wanting to look stupid. In the case of the Asch experiments, it was said that the individuals blamed things like "poor eyesight" for giving the same (obviously wrong) answer as the rest of the group. But this says nothing about what they believed internally at that time. E.g. "I really don't want to look stupid so I'll blame my eyesight". If they had no reason to remember that they just didn't want to look stupid, then it's likely the eyesight excuse would become dominant in whenever they recounted the event. Perhaps even to themselves within a short amount of time.

One of the key findings of the Asch experiment is that the people who conformed were not actually aware that they were conforming, they didn't know they gave the wrong answers, or weren't sure what the right answer was.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 10, 2009, 04:30:54 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 03:12:23 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 07, 2009, 02:03:05 PM
I don't know any Evangelical AMs, but here is a tack I'd try:
"If I were a God who had invented Emergence (with Evolution as a by-product), I'd sure be proud of my creation. In fact, I wouldn't bother doing anything else, I'd just throw some shit together and let everything else work itself out inevitably. If I got bored, I'd just invent myself some patience. If you can't explain the force behind Emergence, aren't you just.. agnostic?"

..then back away slowly.

agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge (unless your Huxley agnostic and too wussy to actually form a position)
atheism deals with lack of belief
They are used just generally by people to give a quick position on where you place on the scale. Depending on the type of God in discussion depends on the type of term used.
It gets much more thorny when you actually apply it to certain situations. In fact you could be atheistic, theistic, agnostic, and gnostic about a specific God. For example if you show me a small idol you say is our God, I would be theistic and gnostic about the existence of that specific God (I have special knowledge of it's existence, especially if I could get independent verification) but atheistic about your claim that if you pray to the idol it rains.
Most atheists I talk to know and use the terms in these ways

Huxley agnostic?

Given that he made the word up, wouldn't Huxley agnostic be the default form of agnostic?

Not so much anymore.
To be honest I haven't heard the word used like that, expect in older writings.

But if you think of it, you could not deny the existence, but still have no belief, which by definition still puts you in the atheist terminology, since it really just lack of belief in a God. One of the reasons why in many world religion classes will admit by strict definitions many Buddhists are Atheists because many don't believe in a God. Raelists are also Atheists cause they don't have a God, despite the fact they are UFO cult.
In other words it's a single position on a single question. Just as Gnosticism could also be looked upon like that, even in Huxleys terms. They can be mutually exclusive, but they may not also be.

I know it's all getting really confusing. But we live in a religiously steeped world, and one thing religions love is categorizing people. It goes into that Us and Them mentality.

I remember having a discussion with my old room mate months ago, where he asked what religion I follow.
I told him I don't believe any God, I'm atheistic.
Then he immediately accused me of saying there is no God. Which I never said. I said I don't believe in any, not that I believe there is none. There's a slight difference. Though to be honest I'm closed to the point were Im ready to make a leap of faith, so to say, and say until further evidence is given I believe there is none.

 :?

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 10, 2009, 08:11:40 PM
:?

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Let me put it this way.

I don't know (and Im not using absolute certainty here) if our models for Abiogenesis is completely correct, and therefore I can't believe it is. So agnostic about question can still mean your lack belief in the claim... make sense?

If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 10, 2009, 09:30:51 PM
If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 09:39:02 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 10, 2009, 09:30:51 PM
If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

OK... so?

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 10, 2009, 09:43:44 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 09:39:02 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 10, 2009, 09:30:51 PM
If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

OK... so?

:lulz:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 09:44:15 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 10, 2009, 09:43:44 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 09:39:02 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 10, 2009, 09:30:51 PM
If we can observe something, then we can make some useful statements about it. If we can't observe something, then the only statement I think applicable is 'I Don't Know'. As for belief, believing in anything seems like a bad idea to me.

I have an invisible leprechaun that lives in my basement who lives in my basement, which you can't observe, and he says if you don't believe in him he's going to eat your soul.

OK... so?

:lulz:

:fnord:

I swear, being agnostic is so much more fun than theist or atheist... and I've tried both. As an agnostic you can play the devil's advocate for either side, or just make fun of the fact that adults are arguing over the existence or nonexistence of something they both agree that they can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell.

Atheists would get a lot more traction, IMO, if their argument was "I don't know, you don't know, so STFU" rather than the "NO YUO HAZ TO PROOF IT!" argument that prevails today.

I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?
You don't get to be a jury and after hearing both sides stand up and say "I'm agnostic over the whole thing."

Besides I hate Buddha too...
middle ground up my ass!

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:02:52 PM
I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 10, 2009, 10:27:27 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:02:52 PM
I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

I hate Taoism too

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:02:52 PM
I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?
You don't get to be a jury and after hearing both sides stand up and say "I'm agnostic over the whole thing."

A jury is asked, "Is there evidence that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?" rather than "Is this person the murderer?"

If we said "Do you believe in God beyond a reasonable doubt?" I would say No. If you ask "Is there a God?" I'd say "I dunno, define God and I might have an opinion about that particular definition."

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 08:17:02 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 10, 2009, 08:11:40 PM
:?

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Let me put it this way.

I don't know (and Im not using absolute certainty here) if our models for Abiogenesis is completely correct, and therefore I can't believe it is. So agnostic about question can still mean your lack belief in the claim... make sense?

That's not being agnostic about abiogenesis.  Agnostic about abiogenisis would be 'I don't know, and there's no way to find evidence, so I'm not going to bother with the question'.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:30:46 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 10, 2009, 10:27:27 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:02:52 PM
I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

I hate Taoism too

What is your opinion on the worship of Mothra?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 11, 2009, 12:11:08 AM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 08:17:02 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 10, 2009, 08:11:40 PM
:?

I think we're talking about different concepts here.  The Agnosticism that Huxley described in his writing is not simply being unable to affirm that God does not or not exist.  But that 'I don't know' is the correct answer in the first place.

Let me put it this way.

I don't know (and Im not using absolute certainty here) if our models for Abiogenesis is completely correct, and therefore I can't believe it is. So agnostic about question can still mean your lack belief in the claim... make sense?

That's not being agnostic about abiogenesis.  Agnostic about abiogenisis would be 'I don't know, and there's no way to find evidence, so I'm not going to bother with the question'.

but it not a question it's a claim...
When someone says they believe in a specific God (and theres thousands of them/ possibly billions since everyone has their own definitions) they are making a specific claim no matter how vague and insignificant it may be.
Even if you say your not going to bother with the claim your still not believing the claim.
Not bothering with the claim is not believing the claim, not matter how irrelevant the claim is

Even if you say the claim is possible until you believe that claim your still atheistic about the claim, in other words your still a nonbeliever in the claim. Believing in a possibility doesn't mean you believe the outcome

When it comes to a claim of a God (and theres tons of different ones) it's either yes or no when it comes to acceptance of that claim, but with various degrees.
You can have a no I don't accept but there's still a possibility, there's a yes there's a likely possibility but Im not positive, there's a no I need more evidence, there's a yes and Im sure, and there's tons of others.
By saying maybe, or the claim is irrelevant in terms of study, your still kind of saying your not accepting the claim, but to a very light degree. Until you accept it and become Theistic about the claim (believing) your ATheistic (not believing) - no matter how you got there.

Quote from: Father Kurt Christ on August 11, 2009, 12:23:52 AM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:30:46 PM

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 10, 2009, 10:27:27 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 10, 2009, 10:02:52 PM
I never understood true agnosticism... how do you know that something is unknowable?

The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao?

But I thought it was broken down into "I do not know if I could know it to be true or false.. therefore.."?

I hate Taoism too

What is your opinion on the worship of Mothra?

Can't
I have a horrible singing voice
:cry:

This may be a rare instance where E-Prime makes more sense:

Based on the current evidence available to me, there may or may not be some sort of god. However, most but not all of the systems I've studied have yet to make a compelling argument for God as they defined it. There may be a god named YHVH,  who is victim to a terrible PR firm that has completely flummoxed his image. There might be a god that we have no system to describe. Cthulhu may be real, but everything I've seen on the topic appears to support his existence as a fictional entity only.

:lulz:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 11, 2009, 12:58:05 AM
By saying maybe, or the claim is irrelevant in terms of study, your still kind of saying your not accepting the claim, but to a very light degree. Until you accept it and become Theistic about the claim (believing) your ATheistic (not believing) - no matter how you got there.

NO FUCK YOU.  This is improper usage of the terms "theistic" and "atheistic".  Theism as a label applies strictly to the belief in a god.  The words come from theos, 'god'.

If you want to use labels that rely on "to be", use credulous and incredulous: believing and disbelieving.  Or credulous and dubious.  Curiously, credible and dubious also seem to be opposites.  Fucking English.

Atheistic indicates the "ism" of no-god, at least it does now.

This would all be easier if we just assumed that God existed, and the question was whether or not we had to do anything about him.

---

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 11, 2009, 02:06:22 AM
This may be a rare instance where E-Prime makes more sense:

Based on the current evidence available to me, there may or may not be some sort of god may or may not exist. However, most but not all of the systems I've studied have yet to make a compelling argument for the existence of God as they* defined it. There may be a A god named YHVH,  who is --possibly victim to a terrible PR firm that has completely flummoxed his image--may or may not exist. There might be a A god that we have no system to describe might exist. Cthulhu may be really exist, but everything I've seen on the topic appears to support his existence as a fictional entity only. confine him to fiction.**

:lulz:

*: they who?
**: this edit was more a matter of style.

Remember, if you wish to say "E-Prime" on its own--and get anywhere with it--you must use no form of "to be".

Quote from: yhnmzw on August 11, 2009, 02:49:57 AM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 11, 2009, 12:58:05 AM
By saying maybe, or the claim is irrelevant in terms of study, your still kind of saying your not accepting the claim, but to a very light degree. Until you accept it and become Theistic about the claim (believing) your ATheistic (not believing) - no matter how you got there.

NO FUCK YOU.  This is improper usage of the terms "theistic" and "atheistic".  Theism as a label applies strictly to the belief in a god.  The words come from theos, 'god'.

If you want to use labels that rely on "to be", use credulous and incredulous: believing and disbelieving.  Or credulous and dubious.  Curiously, credible and dubious also seem to be opposites.  Fucking English.

Atheistic indicates the "ism" of no-god, at least it does now.

This would all be easier if we just assumed that God existed, and the question was whether or not we had to do anything about him.

---

Quote from: Ratatosk on August 11, 2009, 02:06:22 AM
This may be a rare instance where E-Prime makes more sense:

Based on the current evidence available to me, there may or may not be some sort of god may or may not exist. However, most but not all of the systems I've studied have yet to make a compelling argument for the existence of God as they* defined it. There may be a A god named YHVH,  who is --possibly victim to a terrible PR firm that has completely flummoxed his image--may or may not exist. There might be a A god that we have no system to describe might exist. Cthulhu may be really exist, but everything I've seen on the topic appears to support his existence as a fictional entity only. confine him to fiction.**

:lulz:

*: they who?
**: this edit was more a matter of style.

Remember, if you wish to say "E-Prime" on its own--and get anywhere with it--you must use no form of "to be".

Very Good... all the way round :)

yhnmzw first I was relaying how these terms are being used, and then using them to question the validity of a position, and I don't believe I was being a jerk about it. And since you decided to come and to be a jerk I will no longer be considering anything you say from now on
Please do not respond to any of my post cause this will be the last response you get

thank you

You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right?  :lulz:

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there. :)

Quote from: Kai on August 11, 2009, 03:28:54 AM
You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right?  :lulz:

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there. :)

Hey, thats a snazzy motorcycle Kai.

Quote from: Kai on August 11, 2009, 03:28:54 AM
You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right?  :lulz:

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there. :)

I'm not arguing though. Have we gotten to a point that any disagreements discussion appears as an argument?

And to be honest these questions have been occupying my mind a lot this summer, ever since I don't have fossilized pond scum to occupy my mind with
:sad:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 11, 2009, 03:03:21 AM
yhnmzw first I was relaying how these terms are being used, and then using them to question the validity of a position, and I don't believe I was being a jerk about it. And since you decided to come and to be a jerk I will no longer be considering anything you say from now on
Please do not respond to any of my post cause this will be the last response you get

thank you

I thought it was an important matter of usage, but you have my apologies.  I'd not been following this thread, and now that you mention it, I'd also have a hell of a time expressing the idea the way I thought it should go.  It set off alarms in my mind, is all. :roflcake: :hi5: :emo:

Quote from: Kai on August 11, 2009, 03:28:54 AM
You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right?  :lulz:

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there. :)

I thought we were arguing about semantics.  :?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 11, 2009, 04:20:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on August 11, 2009, 03:28:54 AM
You do realize ya'all are arguing about arguments about the existence or non existence or I don't know existence of a being/force/personification/entity/spirit/etc you can't see, hear, touch, smell or even taste, right?  :lulz:

I think an absurdist wins out in this. Your gods or lack of them may be good for you but my god is better for me. So there. :)

I thought we were arguing about semantics.  :?

Quotearguing about arguments

Nope, I stand by arguing about semantics.  At least I am.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 11, 2009, 04:42:23 AM
Nope, I stand by arguing about semantics.  At least I am.

Is that right?



Now we're arguing about arguing about arguing. This is meta-argument at it's finest.

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
             \
:judge:

No it isn't!

Quote from: Kai on August 11, 2009, 04:46:49 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 11, 2009, 04:42:23 AM
Nope, I stand by arguing about semantics.  At least I am.

Is that right?



Now we're arguing about arguing about arguing. This is meta-argument at it's finest.

It is so tempting to argue with that.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 13, 2009, 01:39:34 AM

Quote from: Kai on August 11, 2009, 04:46:49 AM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 11, 2009, 04:42:23 AM
Nope, I stand by arguing about semantics.  At least I am.

Is that right?



Now we're arguing about arguing about arguing. This is meta-argument at it's finest.

It is so tempting to argue with that.

No way.

Kai, can I swipe this (some editing might be done) for posting on atheist sites?

Sure. This one is (K)opyleft.