Am I being irrational?

kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Am I being irrational?

 

Maybe I am being irrational?

Yes religion is a touchy subject, but please read and comment (nicely) I respect what you have to say, if I am not good for these types of forums I will leave, no issue. Maybe I am missing something?

 

Can a truly devoted atheist state that god does not exist?

Who was it that said the atheist needs to provide proof?
Why is it that an atheist cannot be accepted on his own opinion?
Why is is the 'religious' people state ridiculous things everyday (without proof) but they are accepted?

My definition of a true atheist (of which I thought went along with all?) is that there is no god.
Why then when I clearly state this on a 'atheist' forum am I victimized because I couldn't provide proof?
If this is the case, then atheists have zero rights still, anywhere. Whereas religious people cannot provide proof to substantiate their claims (at all) At least the atheist shows some proof, which is obviously more than none at all.

Here is my thread on an 'atheist' forum: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=11781
This "open" forum (?) states that because I could not provide 100% proof (Do note: no one has fully either way in thousands of years) I am now in the "Resident of Fantasy Land"??? AND I cannot post on any other sub-foum there.

Why?

Because for some reason my strong personal beliefs on atheism is NOT accepted at atheists forums? (I feel like I'm debating with religious people, there's just no sense to it.

Here is a quote from that forum made today relating to you guys:
no-one gives much of a shit about the RRS since they jumped the fucking shark a couple of years ago anyway
 


joe_2007
Theist
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-06-11
User is offlineOffline
No proof needed for opinions.

kimsland,

 

I haven't read the thread yet, but if they say you can't post there any more, then they are clearly the irrational ones.

 

Joe


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Joe, I will wait for

Thanks Joe,

 

I will wait for more replies and maybe comment back after a few days.

Since this forum in question has decided that I have no right, I need to leave the web for awhile and re-decide what is best for me.

I suspect there are others like me, yes some of my comments don't fully add up all the time (its obvious that I haven't studied this area for years on end), but they are always of my opinion, obviously that is not what people want to hear.

If there are atheists out there similar to me, without the degrees or words that go along with these 'high intelligence' of others! Maybe keep your mouth shut. I tried and generally got no where. We are still a long way off just accepting atheists as their own opinions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I only read some of the

I only read some of the thread, I'm not going to read through 7 pages.

 

But yes, you are being irrational in the us vs them dynamics.

 

 

My atheism is derieved from there being no evidence for god. That is I can't prove god DOESN'T exist, but there is a lack of evidence to show that he DOES.

 

Take Quantum Mechanics. If somebody were to doubt the existance on quarks hundreds of years ago, they would have been rational in doing so, but they would have been wrong. Only when we don't say X 100% DOES NOT exist, is when we can make scientific progress.

 

 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is onlineOnline
I haven't read

I haven't read through the thread yet, but I will say that all opinions and ideas are pretty much welcome to be expressed here.

I have seen some Atheist vs. Atheist threads get just as heated as Atheist vs. Theist threads. Especially when subjects of science, politics, current events and social issues are brought up.

I see no reason for anyone to leave over a simple disagreement or opinion (provided that they are not a troll of course, and you are not a troll) .

I remember one thread about global warming that got pretty heated, one about what should be done to child molesters, one about vegetarians, and several others that got some stirred up.

More than once, the 9/11 conspiracy theory topic has been brought up here and gets pretty wild.

There are several Atheists on here that disagree about a number of things, including the role that Atheism should play in society and the exact definitions of Atheism.

Remember, you have negative and positive Atheists. One that says there absolutely can not be a god, the other that says there could be a god, but lack of evidence defaults them to the position of non-belief.

If you feel that some people are coming on too strongly, simply post in the Kill 'em with Kindness forum.

Feel free to stick around if you want to.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Nevermind.  It was another

Nevermind.  It was another forum she was talking about.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13600
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You gave me a severe lip

You gave me a severe lip twitch when you committed the same "True Scotsman" fallacy by saying "True atheist"

THAT is what theists do. "True Christians" or "True Muslims"

DONT DO THAT

A better way of looking at it is this.

People have lots of reasons for holding their positions, but the common ground people share if they share the same position does not change, even if their reasons for holding the positions vary.

 

Atheists can have different motivations for not believing in a god. Atheists can be more educated or less educated than others. And by some theists deffinitions all atheists are merely rebelling against their god.

Any differences between people who claim the same label, does not change the same core position all in that label hold.

A liberal Catholic has the same core belief that a right wing Baptist has. The belief that Jesus is the one true son of the one true god. Their behavior or education doesn't change that.

I have run into atheists who don't do a lick of homework as to why they don't believe. I don't say that they aren't "true atheists". I might say they are easy pickings to slick theists. But we both hold the position that a god does not exist.

I HATE the "true Scotsman fallacy" AND it annoys me more when a fellow atheist uses it. BUT, that doesn't mean they are not atheists because they use an argument I don't like. It just means they are using an argument I don't like.

Litmus tests are absurd. ALL humans no matter their label, including atheists, are capable of the same range of human emotions and actions, both good and bad. Labels don't change what those in that same label have in common.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
kimsland wrote:Here is my

kimsland wrote:

 

Here is my thread on an 'atheist' forum: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=11781

I tried to follow that link but got "No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator".

I'm going to read this thread, which is connected to the other link you gave: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=11776

If this second link is the wrong thread, then please post another link to the thread you meant. Did they delete it or move it or something?

As for this:

I'll come back to this in a bit, after reading your thread (second link I gave).


Update: I'm going to post my ongoing reactions to what I read, so as to give you an accurate impression of my first impressions.

Just finished reading the initial post. So far, I'm in sympathy. What the teacher did was absolutely disgusting, in my opinion. The only seemingly questionable line in your OP was this:

Quote:
Since it looks as though you have comments for and against the idea of putting your children in the line of fire and being abused with such things as Fear and Death (please understand Hell is one of the favorite religious instructions to all its children). Then read on, for my true example of my children's first learning to jesus and his sheep.

I have no problem with the second sentence (just quoting for context). But your first sentence sounds quite accusative. And it doesn't link to the comments 'for' 'putting your children in the line of fire and being abused'. That's quite a strong, potentially explosive statement. Put yourself in the shoes of a parent who simply does not agree with you, but whom you seem to be accusing of being complicit (or worse) in abusing their child. I could imagine them thinking you're a complete asshole and idiot for saying that, especially if you don't appear to have linked to the comments you are speaking of (providing evidence of your accusations).

The second post, by Blue Devil, seems reasonable, and also objects to your usage of the word 'abuse'.

Third post, by podblack is innocuous and also informative.

Continuing to read....

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well...Speaking as someone

Well...

Speaking as someone who used to literally shake in fear of hell as a child because of what my parents taught me I will admit it is emotional abuse.

I was ready to get baptised at the age of 5.  However, my mother thought I was too young to understand and wouldn't let me.  She relented when I was 7 after I told her of the enormous fear I had of dying and going to hell.

Of course Baptists don't think you have to be baptised in order to be saved and go to heaven but I didn't understand that at that age.

It's really pretty freaking wrong to do that to a kid.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I seem to have spotted the

I seem to have spotted the problem, in the third post:

kimsland wrote:
Are you mad?
There is no choice between the matter.
It is either Fact against Fiction, or are you suggesting that there could be some truth in religios views? If so then I have no time for ignorance (especially in adults) except to mock your stupidity and have great concern of your 'views'.

Yep, I would consider that way out of line, unless you have some long history with Blue Devil, and he/she at least has a sense of where you are coming from.

This does not come across to me as someone willing to discuss much, but only in shouting and yelling to bully someone else into agreeing with them just to appease the bully.

Sorry. That's just how I see it.

I really dislike bullying behaviour, and I'm very sensitive to it. I've also occasionally been a bit of a bully myself, and I seriously regret those times when I have been. To me, on first reading, my first impression was of a bully. Sorry. Again, that's my honest impression.


Quote:
Children should be taught that we (our planet; the universe; everything) evolved, and since the opposite to this is some barbaric belief in one of the many religions (I'll assume your openness was directed at Christianity) then I feel sorry for you and your family. Why, what would Allah think of your religious unbiased viewpoints? I assume that you allowed your children to be educated and given the views of the many (many) other religions out there? Maybe the jesus one wasn't it?

A lot of assumptions in there. You even admit to them, which is good (better than not admitting), but why make those assumptions in the first place? Why not ask a sincere question first, to test your assumptions and see if they are right, or maybe wrong?

For example, going back to the first quote, you might have phrased it without the histrionics and apparent accusations, something along the lines of this:

Quote:
I really don't understand this position. It seems mad, to me. No offense, just looking to try to understand what you mean. [As opposed to: Are you mad?]
It really seems to me that there is no choice in the matter. [As opposed to: There is no choice between the matter.]
It is either Fact against Fiction, right? Or are you maybe suggesting that there could be some truth in religios views? If so then that's what I really don't get. I've heard other adults make that kind of claim, and I have no time for ignorance (especially in adults) except to mock their stupidity and have great concern of their 'views'.

It says basically the same thing (using almost all your words and phrases), but without seeming to accuse Blue Devil of holding crazy views that Blue Devil probably doesn't (or probably doesn't believe he/she does) hold.

You jumped immediately on the offensive attack, seemingly without provocation. Why not ask for clarification first?

Again, if there's some long history between you and Blue Devil, that might explain it. If not, it really seems over the top and presumptive.

Continuing...

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Wat?  This is RRS.  We

Wat?  This is RRS.  We bully theists for a living on this forum. 

Dude.

Sticking out tongue

Jeeze, I've ripped so many new bungholes for theists on this forum it's insane.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is a small but

There is a small but legitimate concern with Atheist Federation of Australia, which has come up at our local Atheist Meetup group, about the somewhat quirky definition of 'atheism' one of the organizers has. It was mentioned in that thread:

Quote:

the AFA working definition is "the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural".

which I and my group don't really agree with, as a definition of atheism. Rather it is an important justification for atheism.

But kimsland's definition is also not the general definition either, or at least not the only accepted version.

And then kimsland goes a bit overboard in his insistence of absolute certainty of no God, that even Dawkins and Dennett don't agree with.

kimsland also seems to conflate teaching about Religion, as a important aspect of human culture, which I regard as something very important to let children know about, and trying to teach them religion, ie indoctrinate them in a religion, which is something we all object to.

Kimsland, if I have that wrong, please clarify.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Wat?  This is

Watcher wrote:

Wat?  This is RRS.  We bully theists for a living on this forum. 

Dude.

Sticking out tongue

Jeeze, I've ripped so many new bungholes for theists on this forum it's insane.

I know you're probably just joking, but in the slim chance you're not, I want to address this, because although we know that we're pussycats with a hefty dose of indignation and snark, there is an (undeserved) impression out there in the blogosphere that the RRS are a bunch of bullies. Again, I'll get to that later (the rumour mill), but I just want to say there's a huge difference between standing up to the bullies with indignation and snark, and actively being a bully oneself. I'm for the former, and against the latter.

Giving the bullies a taste of their own medicine is good, IMO, especially if done with flair and humour. Picking random fights with people (intentionally or not) isn't good, IMO, and especially if it's intentional. Unintentional, I can forgive, as long as the person is open-minded to realizing what's going on. But self-righteous jerks who don't care what bridges they burn (like Jean Chauvin, or dramaticlones, or trolls, or other internet haters) can go suck their own dicks (metaphorically speaking) as far as I'm concerned.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Maybe we need to define what

Maybe we need to define what bully means.

If you mean cuss out anyone that comes into the forum spouting nonsense, heck people did it constantly.  The Fucks and Shits and Assholes would start flying everywhere.

This is the exact reason why the "kill them with kindness" section was created. 

Did you mean something else?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I remember this one muslim

I remember this one muslim that happened onto the forums one time asking people to do some algebra or something so they could reveal some revelation of Islam to us.  You know how they do.  Muslims are always trying to prove to everyone how scientificy their religion is.  Pbhttt.

I lit into that person like a tornado calling Mohammed a pedophile and that the religion was sick.  I think I used the word ass as well.

Renee Obsidianswords laughed her butt off.

I don't think I'd do it now though.  I'm a lot more laid back with religion these days.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
kimsland wrote:There is but

kimsland wrote:
There is but only one viewpoint, do you really want me to bring up all the extremely simple reasons why a 2000 year old copy of other older religions is not correct? And why it is most definitely > fiction?

I told my kids the truth, as soon as I could.
There is no single or multiple gods, the creator of everything, looking down onto us (ie people only, according to religion, only people have souls) How absurd you would allow such a thought, especially in a child's young mind.

Good god man! I should I say, jesus effing christ! We now know planets form from gases and universes collide and expand, are you suggesting that man was just blinked on this Earth? Please note that 'people' have been on Earth for an extremely insignificant time.
People on Earth = 200,000 years (Wow!)
Age of Earth = 4,500,000,000,000 years (Oh dear, and just in case I got the zeros wrong, that's 4.5 Billion years
OMG! God took his sweet time to create man in his own image

There is no choice, religion (the following of religious beliefs) is wrong

Actually, kimsland, I have a lot of sympathy for what you're saying here, and the force with which you want to say it.

I pretty much agree with the core of what you're saying.

I agree, there is really only one reasonable viewpoint (atheism), and there is really only one reasonable choice in the matter. Religion really is wrong, to the very best of our knowledge, and it is highly highly unlikely that that will ever change.

So, basically, I agree with you.

But.

Did you notice the slight differences I used in how I phrased my agreement with you?

  • "there is really only one reasonable viewpoint (atheism)"
  • "there is really only one reasonable choice in the matter"
  • "Religion really is wrong, to the very best of our knowledge, and it is highly highly unlikely that that will ever change."

I make very strong statements, but I give people who don't necessarily agree with me some 'wiggle room' so that they can challenge me on the specific details of my claims. What does 'reasonable viewpoint' mean? I know what I mean by it, and I could go on for hours elaborating on what it means to be reasonable. In fact, I invite such challenges, because it gives me an excuse to talk about what it means to be reasonable, and to challenge other peoples' concepts of what being reasonable means. For instance, if someone were to say that 'faith' is reasonable, I would have a lot to say to them about that.

What is a 'reasonable choice'? Again, I know what I mean, but maybe someone out there thinks I'm wrong or thinks that all choices are reasonable or whatever odd notion they might have.

What is the 'very best' of our knowledge? What does it mean to be 'highly highly unlikely'? These are topics I would readily elaborate on, and have a debate about.

However, if I say that "there is only one viewpoint", this is a demonstrably false claim. No. That's not true. There are multiple viewpoints. Some are just ridiculously unreasonable, while others fall somewhere on the scale from unreasonable to reasonable.

But what it sounds like, to a skeptic such as myself and others, is "There is only one viewpoint! (Mine!) There is only one choice! (My way, or the highway!) Religion is wrong! (And don't you dare debate me about that!)"

"Well, hey, fuck you," I would say to that person. "I've got my own viewpoint, and it might not be exactly yours. I'll make my own god-damned choices, motherfucker, so thanks for nothing. And religion IS wrong, but you're a fucking prick who seems to want to force his own dogma on me! And I'm fucking sick of dogma and religion, so what the fuck is this dude yelling at me for? Asshole."

It doesn't take much skill to bicker back and forth in pointless flame wars like this, and it certainly doesn't help actually getting people excited and organized to fight back against theism and religion. It just pisses people off.

But I do have a lot of sympathy for your points, and also the frustration and with the force you want to express them with.

And with that in mind, I want to recommend a YouTube user to you. He's one of my long-time favourites. Honestly, I don't watch nearly as many YT vids anymore, but when I did, this guy was near the top of my list. When he goes on a rant, it's epic. And he's fucking smart and entirely against religion: http://www.youtube.com/user/inmendham (Honestly, I don't even know if he's making vids anymore. If that link doesn't lead to thousands of videos, then google him. It's worth it.)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well, I have read the whole thread now and it is pretty obvious what the deal is.

 

You made a specific claim to the non-existence of god. Followed by several agnostics asking you what is behind that assertion. Mostly I tend to agree with you kimsland but they did ask politely. You have provided no answer but simply repeated your claim.

 

That does not make you any point with, well any community.

 

Really, I know of no definition of god which is logically consistent both internally and with the evidence (of which I know of none). That does not mean that such can't exist but merely remain undiscovered.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Maybe we need

Watcher wrote:

Maybe we need to define what bully means.

If you mean cuss out anyone that comes into the forum spouting nonsense, heck people did it constantly.  The Fucks and Shits and Assholes would start flying everywhere.

This is the exact reason why the "kill them with kindness" section was created. 

Did you mean something else?

You're right, we're using slightly different meanings. I don't consider swearing bullying. And calling someone an asshole, who acts like an asshole with no remorse, is just giving a bully a taste of his own medicine.

Bullies, in my view, are about domination, power, shutting the other person down, through violence, threats, humiliation, unwarranted social pressure, etc. On the internet, violence isn't usually an option, but there's plenty of ways to be verbally abusive, socially coercive, and even threatening. If the target has a thick skin, as I've grown, these tactics are hard to pull off, but they are still abominable, in my view. To me, they are a sign that the person has no regard for other people or the consequences of their actions.

I don't consider the way we respond to people coming on here spouting nonsense to be in this category. We're just challenging bullshit claims, expressing our extreme doubts and criticisms, and our opinions about how the person has behaved (e.g. to call them an asshole for being an asshole). But if it went beyond that, toward abusiveness, I personally would be strongly against that. I consider freedom of speech to be the appropriate way to draw the line. You can say whatever you want about stupid claims or whatnot, that's your right to your opinion; you can mock ridiculous ideas and behaviour, that's your right to free expression; but if you stoop to threats or intimidation or something like that, you've crossed a line. IMO.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
On with the reading...Post 6

On with the reading...

Post 6 is fine, and an attempt to clear things up.

Post 7 by Darwinsbulldog is sympathetic to you. I mostly agree, except there are a few points I disagree with him/her on, but these are debatable, they're not egregious.

Post 8 is a reasonable rebuttal of some minor misconceptions.

Uh oh. Post 9 is more antagonistic flame-warring.

kimsland wrote:
Go away you anti-atheists,

My impression: This is way over the line. If I were a regular on that forum, I would be thinking, "Who is this person to come in here and tell other members to 'go away', and accuse them of being anti-atheists?"

The problem, again, is in making assumptions and presumptions about the other people in the thread, and not questioning them to confirm/disconfirm your suspicions based on how they respond to your questions.

Quote:
I have no time to argue fact with fiction.

And, unfortunately, I think if you want more success in your endeavours to promote rational thinking, you are going to have to make time to argue fact vs. fiction. I know it can be frustrating, but if no one does it, it doesn't get done. Fictional beliefs need to be challenged. Challenging them takes time and energy. There is simply no way to get around this problem. It's literally a law of nature (specifically, thermodynamics). If you want something to get done, you have to expend time and energy to do it.

On the bright side, the more time you put into challenging irrational beliefs, the more you practice, the better you get, and the more enjoyable and even fun it becomes. It's actually quite a creative process. And it helps fight back against religion and other irrationality. Bonus!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:I consider

natural wrote:

I consider freedom of speech to be the appropriate way to draw the line. You can say whatever you want about stupid claims or whatnot, that's your right to your opinion; you can mock ridiculous ideas and behaviour, that's your right to free expression; but if you stoop to threats or intimidation or something like that, you've crossed a line. IMO.

 

Oh, well I completely agree with that.  One of the great things about this forum is that the only people that used to ever be banned were obvious trolls.  Otherwise everyone could say what they wanted as often as they wanted.

Well, wait a minute.  We wouldn't even ban them, just banish them to trollville.

This was a big difference from religious forums.  I would go on them, speak politely and not curse or blaspheme, but would call them out on their nonsense.

I rarely got to post a second time before I was banned and the post was removed.

I even got banned from the Richard Dawkins forum pretty dang quick.

Did you guys see what happened to them?  They dumped the forum on all the users.  It was a mass exodus to a new forum that some of the users set up.  I went over to the new forum and offered my condolences.

It didn't really matter to me that they had previously banned me from their old forum for BS reasons.

It still was a crappy thing to happen to them.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Post 11 is fine. A bit over

Post 11 is fine. A bit over the top in terms of font size and colour, but no big deal.

Post 12 by darwinsbulldog, I have some disagreements over, but they are not major, and would only require a side-discussion to hash out.

Post 13, Xeno rightly (IMO) points out some strangeness.

Post 14, a bit of a taunt, but nothing to write home about. Fair, in my opinion.

Post 15, BlueDevil takes the high-ground and tries to re-engage. Good on him/her. Rightly points out fallacies (IMO). That's something worth engaging with, and discussing. Falsely claims that you claimed absolute certainty, but I would chalk that up to misunderstanding (unless you do actually make this claim).  Generally clarifies his/her position, which he/she would obviously have done in a much less antagonistic way if you had simply asked for clarification first, instead of making premature assumptions.

Post 16, wolty chimes in, but reasonably. I get the impression that they are willing to let your initial posts/behaviour slide, if you also let it slide. Good on them. They seem fairly used to dealing with fiery threads without letting it get out of control. Just my general impression so far.


Post 17,

kimsland wrote:
Since I have so many members addressing my comments with confusion and now unrelated to this particular topic, I will forever on speak through unquestionable fact.

Uh, oh. Not a good sign.

Continuing...

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
kimsland wrote:Atheism is

kimsland wrote:
Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Atheism is not the belief that a god(s) may exist, nor is it an open mindedness that they could be wrong.
Atheism is 100% defined as the absolute total rejection of god; and simply defined as: "without god"

Statement 1 and statement 3 are logically contradictory. But I'm not going to focus on this, since you asked for overall feedback. So, continuing...


Quote:
Evolution is Fact. Evolution goes along with everything in the universe, including how every life originates. I don't confuse evolution with present life, the universe is still evolving today, new life new galaxies with huge changes all the time (ie people coming onto Earth a couple of hundred thousand years ago.

The last sentence seems strange, like it might be saying you think humans came from another galaxy or something. If I were engaged in that thread, I would have asked you for clarification on what you meant. Note that I would not have outright assumed that you definitely do believe humans came from another galaxy, although I have heard such claims before (ancient astronaut theory). I would ask first.

Quote:
If you want I could debate all day, but I'd hope that there would be at least one atheist on this atheistfoundation.org forum? So far I have seen none

Ouch, not a great way to engage others, especially others who've already told you straight out that they hold no belief in any gods, which fits your first criterion of atheism above.

The rest of the post is fine, but I think will be obscured because of the antagonistic stance you've adopted.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

I have linked them to us. I have no clue if anyone from there will show up but it is at least in the realm of contemplation.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I have minor disagreements

I have minor disagreements with posts 20 and 21, but they seem to be handling your posts quite well, as far as I can see.

Post 24, you seem to be ignoring their requests for evidence, which apparently is in their forum rules. Not looking good.

kimsland wrote:
Sources?
there's a trillion intelligent reasons posted throughout the Net, Did you want me to copy and paste them here? Seems a waste of time to prove to you that religion is ludicrous on a atheistfoundation.org forum.

This is what I mean by taking/making the time to do the work of rational debate. Yes, they do appear to want you to cite your sources, and I think they are justified in making that request, especially since it's in their forum rules.

One of the best wins in a debate is to do that hard work of hunting down all the links you remember reading once upon a time, gathering them together in a rock-solid evidence-laden post, and plopping it down in the thread with a heavy thud. It's golden. You should try it. Very rewarding. I wrote something about it called: Evidence Chicken

Take a look at that thread, then notice that a theist jumps in and tries to challenge me.

Did I just brush him off by saying, "there's a trillion intelligent reasons posted throughout the Net, Did you want me to copy and paste them here? Seems a waste of time"? No.

Instead, I took the bull by the horns, took the time and energy (and it took a good couple hours) to hunt down all those links, read the articles as fast as I could (learning a lot in the process, which I will be sure to whip out the next time some creationist challenges me with that bullshit), and put together a coherent, well-argued case with link after link after link lending weight to my case.

What happened? Crickets! No response from the theist. Why? Because there IS no response to that kind of pwnage. But you know what? I learned a lot from the process, I'm sure other forum readers learned a bit (or a lot, depending on their interest level), and quite possibly, even the theist learned something. And what else? Now I have an awesome example of Evidence Chicken to whip out whenever I want to make this point about the importance of having evidence to back up one's claims, such as right now, in this thread, talking to you.

Yes, it takes time to hunt down evidence and put together a solid rebuttal. But it is worth it. Totally worth it. Big time.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I've skimmed along to post

I've skimmed along to post 35, because I would be repeating myself if I commented on everything.

Quote:
"The Unfounded Certainty of Kimsland" ?
And I'm in the Fantasy Island' sub forum.

It does seem a bit premature to relegate you to essentially troll status. Presumably, you've pissed off some mod or two.

However, it could also be interpreted as taking preventative measures. Allowing you to continue posting, but restricting your access to one sub-forum. It's possible they are waiting to see how you respond to see if you are open to discussion, or if you're going to continue along in the same vein.

Remember, you have, at this point, ignored their forum rules about backing up claims with evidence. Personally, I would have given you a lot more lee-way, and would certainly have given you a warning before taking a measure like that. But it's their forum, and they have their own way of doing things, I guess.

So, they went further than I would have (I would be discussing it with you as I'm doing now), but I don't think they've done anything out of line yet, such as banning you.


kimsland wrote:
So far I have been met with brick walls, from members asking me to prove myself!

Even though this is extremely easy, I mean I could post any resource anywhere, I'm thinking something from Rational Response Squad (one of my other attended forums) may be applicable here.

By the way, are there any Atheists here? I would really like to know before telling the world to avoid this site.

Personally, I disagree with your claim that you've met only with brick walls. In my opinion, they've handled themselves quite well, and have been trying to engage you in conversation. There have been a couple of taunts and teases, but if you consider some of the accusations you've made in the thread, I don't see how you can fault them for that.

And again, making a threat like "I would really like to know before telling the world to avoid this site," really sets off my bully radar senses. You probably mean it in some sort of exasperated way, or like a joking way or something (though, perhaps you really mean it), but if that is the case, it is falling flat. On a straight reading, it sounds like a sincere (but weak) threat. I don't think you are coming across the way you are intending to come across.

But, I could be wrong. And if I've misinterpreted you or misrepresented you, please be aware that it was not intentional, and this is only my honest first impressions.

I will say this, however: If your goal is to convince other people of your views and that thread is representative of your methods of convincing others, then I believe that you are going to continue to meet strong resistance from skeptics all over the place, and I suspect will end up burning a whole lot of bridges, while ending up frustrated that no one seems to be listening.

I believe you're sincere in what you say, but pragmatically speaking, I don't think the way you are saying it is having the effect you are looking for. I don't consider you irrational (to answer the question of the OP), but I do think your techniques could be improved.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Well, I think that about

Well, I think that about covers it. I would like to highlight one particular post. I have a lot of sympathy for what Fearless says in this post. I think he/she is genuinely trying to engage you in more constructive dialogue:

Fearless wrote:

Protium, I agree this forum is being trolled. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Kim, I identify myself more as an antitheist. I am generally more on your side as far as being against religion, but you take it a step too far by attacking people and accusing them of being some sort of false atheist. I don't appreciate you coming here and being so disrespectful to members and these boards. Not that this bothers you I suspect. You come across to me with an attitude towards average atheists as Westboro baptist church is to theists.

In other words: 'if you are not with me, then you are against me' this is what I am reading.

We have had a few people like this before and all I can generally and somewhat respectfully say is that you have chosen the wrong forums.

You have nothing to teach us I'm afraid. If any members should reply further count it towards their generosity in time trying to get you to look outside of that very small box you live in.

Please reconsider your approach here.
Theists, please refer to The Great Big List.
After atheism resources? Check out the Atheism Resource Thread

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


DanDare
DanDare's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi from AFA

Hi folks,

just wandered over here from the AFA forums. Thanks Natural for your examination and feedback.

 

@Kimsland being sent to Fantasy Island is a defensive move by the mods (I am not a mod) at the AFA, as you have been coming across to us as both aggressive and accusatory. However it is not the policy of moderators to silence dissent, merely to remove flaming behaviour to a quarantined space. Those who feel prepared to deal with it choose to enter that space and engage there. The rest of the forum is a more relaxed space. Quite a few people who have been quarantined in this manner have reentered the full forum after calming down a bit and demonstrating acceptance of the forum rules.

 

As to the AFA's definition of atheist, I don't really agree with it. I prefer the simple "lack of acceptance of the existence of deities". However the AFA definition has proven to be very functional politically in Australia so I don't argue over it.

 

Now that I have an account here I may wander around and see the sights. I try to keep my name and avatar wherever I land. You will also find me often over at rationalskepticism.org. Nice meeting folks, see you around.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Still Unapologetic, Thanks for asking.

natural wrote:
As for this:

Quote:

 

Here is a quote from that forum made today relating to you guys:
no-one gives much of a shit about the RRS since they jumped the fucking shark a couple of years ago anyway

I'll come back to this in a bit, after reading your thread (second link I gave).

...

although we know that we're pussycats with a hefty dose of indignation and snark, there is an (undeserved) impression out there in the blogosphere that the RRS are a bunch of bullies. Again, I'll get to that later (the rumour mill)

Okay, so it's later. Had to take a break last night. Time to address this.

....


The above is the beginning of my response to this topic. It got so long I had to make it into a blog post: Still Unapologetic, Thanks for asking. 

This has been brewing in my subconscious for a long long time. Here's a teaser! Eye-wink

natural wrote:
At the time, this link to my past experiences was just an inkling, but today I see a strong parallel to what happened with the RRS' reputation.

In any case, I followed the rumours, and I tracked them down. I found the original sources (by demanding people provide links and evidence! As any skeptic should!), and I found....

(Continue reading...)

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thank-you 'natural' for your

Thank-you 'natural' for your very thorough analysis; and for your helpful ideas and points on how I should better my words to a more 'rational' response. Note: After re-reading and before submitting this post, I honestly do feel your posts were helpful in my understanding regarding how to debate effectively, thank-you again.

After much thought on the matter, I have made my decision on this matter.
I certainly respect your (and others) points of view on responding, answering, and providing documented factual information to back up my position on religion, plus to always try to be rational in my words.

Here's my answer:

I don't believe in god, I feel that anyone can have this same understanding of what is true, at any stage in their life.
I am not interested in arguing/debating with anyone who thinks this point of view is questionable, or not.
I believe that people can rationally believe that a god does not exist through common sense alone.
I fully believe that any religious viewpoints are irrational, and therefore not interested in debating with crazy people.
I do not believe that you need to take a year or two of thorough learning to become an atheist, I actually feel we are born this way (obviously) Lol
I still feel that fighting fact with fiction is a waste of time (even for atheists)

So what's my argument?
God is not real, and if you feel any different you are mad (or weak etc etc.)

Quite obviously some (hopefully not member 'natural') will say, What a waste of time that was trying to enlighten and educate me.
I say that the only way that anyone would believe in god is by stupidity and weakness, and any other decision is normal (ie being an atheist). Since both atheists and theists alike commonly do not agree with this (ie someone saying they are atheist without providing proof), then I feel sorry for both of your wastes of lives in this obvious point of view.

Am I being arrogant? Or am I not welcome on an online rational discussion forum? Probably.
But I joined because I am an atheist, not to debate the point. (except to any religious nutto)

I therefore decline responding again, until such day that atheists are accepted into this world (young or old) without any debate. When will that be? As soon as god damn possible, because I can't stand this irrational fictional pathetic 'god' talk in our society any longer, except as 'history' of what people once thought out of pure ignorance.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Kim, I kind of agree with you but you are missing a point here. We are trying to deal with specific arguments here. You are going for the gold without dealing with the actual points being made. Let me cover some of them and see if you get the deal:

 

1700. God made the world 6,000 years ago. Fine with that.

 

1800. It looks like the world is older than the bible indicates. Well, theists can deal with that, one supposes.

 

1830. The world is at least 10,000,000 years old. Theists have a problem but not one they can't deal with. A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

 

1850. God used evolution. Well, that is not what the bible says.

 

1880. The ten million year thing looks like it night be too short. Probably at least a couple of billion years. No response.

 

1920, we are looking at 4+ billion years. Not very cool.

 

1930. Wow! There are other galaxies. No response.

 

1950. The universe is expanding. Umm what?

 

1960. the universe had a beginning. God did it.

 

1970. God made life. The bible says so.

 

1980. God made life. The bible says so.

 

1985. The courts say stop being stupid. Theists say that the court is not god.

 

1995. The courts say stop trying to get your already known stupid crap into text books. Theists say, this is what god wants.

 

2000. OK we can't get our crap into text books. Then we will try a stealth move on the matter. Because god wants people to believe wrong things.

 

2005. A judge calls it a stealth attempt at getting the bible into public schools. Theists say “fuck us” as they have to admit that they don't actually have anything much to go with.

 

2011. We wait with baited breath to see what the next move will be.

 

All dates are approximate.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the reply,

Thanks for the reply, kimsland.

I certainly don't feel like I wasted my time. I didn't go into this expecting any particular outcome, and was simply satisfied to state my case regardless whatever you decided in the end. I also learned a few things myself in the process, which is always fun.

I have no problem with your position that you're not interested in spending time debating theists or crazy people. That's entirely up to you, as it should be.

One really good thing that's come out of this: At least you and we now both know where each other stand.


Should you change your mind at some point, you are still welcome to post here, as is anyone who sticks to the established forum rules (which is not hard to do). I think the key rules you would need to pay attention to would be the rules against empty personal attacks (basically insults without any argument to back them up), against personal harassment (repeatedly hounding a particular person beyond simply dealing with the topics of the posts), and against trolling (derailing threads, instigating flame wars, etc.).

If you really felt the need to vent and rant, you could always make a post in the Trollville forum, and go pretty much as wild as you like. It's even less restricted there.

As long as you stuck to the basic rules, we would have no problem with you. However, we have occasionally had some folks on here who tried to stick to the rules but simply couldn't keep themselves under control. If that happened to be the case, we would have to enforce the rules, for the sake of the rest of the forum members, and that might eventually lead to a ban. But we would give ample warnings ahead of time to let you know what's acceptable and what's not. It would then be up to you to keep it within reason. I just want to make you aware of this, because it has been an issue in a few exceptional circumstances in the past. We rarely ban people, but we will if we have to.


With all that said, I'm just going to reply to one thing you said that I disagree with. You don't have to reply if you don't want to, of course.

Quote:
I say that the only way that anyone would believe in god is by stupidity and weakness

You're free to believe that, but I disagree. Those aren't the only two factors, stupidity and weakness, although they are definitely factors.

If those were the only two factors, then religion would not be such a big problem as it is today. Religion would be like random superstitions like being afraid of black cats crossing your path, or believing in the Loch Ness monster. Stupid, but basically harmless.

Religion is bigger and badder than simple superstitions. There's something more to it than just stupidity and weakness. Somehow, it is organized. You never hear of Loch Ness Monster believers trying to get Nessie inserted into highschool biology classes. But with religion, you get organized creationism. Nobody ever killed anyone for breaking a mirror (bad luck), but with religion, you'll get people killing others for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed. Religion is more than just stupidity and weakness. It is organized stupidity and lethally enforced weakness.

That is the real big challenge of religion, and that's why I believe that it is important to do what we specialize in doing here at the RRS, which is to directly fight back against irrational dogmatic beliefs like religious beliefs. And that requires, IMHO, engaging in debate with the people who hold those beliefs. Not everyone is interested in doing that (e.g. you've said that you aren't), but lots of us are interested and focused on that, because we think it is vitally important to figure out those mind-tricks of indoctrination that religion has evolved, so that we can help people who are stuck in religion to escape it.

That's why I disagree with your statement that belief in god is only because of stupidity and weakness. I've talked to enough ex-theists to know that religious beliefs are worse than that. They are like a virus that 'infects' the mind. Some people, like yourself, seem immune to the god virus, but others aren't, and it isn't just because of stupidity. Otherwise, the majority of the people on the planet wouldn't be religious! They would simply see how stupid the idea is and stop believing. But things like the fear of hell prevent most people from doing that. There are hundreds of different mind-tricks that religions use to keep people believing.

Consider yourself lucky that you're one of the few who are naturally immune to the god virus. Not everyone is.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks again

Thanks again natural,

 

Actually I enjoy reading/learning and watching countless videos online; television reports and news reports on religion.

I've also kept up with law, including international law on religion in societies and tried to 'rationalize' other countries points of view.

 

Now, it would seem the above is improbable but certainly it is true. And I suppose the Freedom of Religion, is the one that really shows me this organized majority of the world.

 

I feel that people such as myself are the new era of understanding and acceptance, and even though we presently live in the communication and information era, (of which is overloaded with with limitations of present knowledge) I'd like to show people that some of us have willingly taken the step further of accepting common sense as just that. Think it of a backfire of the 'belief' teachings over the past few thousand years.

 

I note that people such as Richard Dawkins state they are agnostic, but are also 'agnostic' about fairies and teapots stuck in space! I feel these types of people are actually atheist only (even as scientists) but due to the way in which our world cannot accept the truth (presently) they go along with the flow.

ie If I say that the world is round, do I need to sail around it? Do I need to make tools and prove it? Do I need to blindly trust others and just accept it?

NO, in my view the world is round because I see the moon and the sun is round, plus when I look to the horizon I can't see the other side of the world, and the horizon moves! whenever I get closer to it. Is this obvious? I say yes, not because we live in the present, but because common sense prevails (always).

The people when jesus was around ALSO did not believe this man walked on water, they ended up crucifying him, not because they were scared of god!! (Although possibly in contrary to it) but because they knew he was NOT the son of god. And here they are without the science we have today! I am one of those people. I find it so obvious that we need not test it at all.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Kim, I kind of agree with you but you are missing a point here. We are trying to deal with specific arguments here. You are going for the gold without dealing with the actual points being made. Let me cover some of them and see if you get the deal:

 

1700. God made the world 6,000 years ago. Fine with that.

 

1800. It looks like the world is older than the bible indicates. Well, theists can deal with that, one supposes.

 

1830. The world is at least 10,000,000 years old. Theists have a problem but not one they can't deal with. A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

 

1850. God used evolution. Well, that is not what the bible says.

 

1880. The ten million year thing looks like it night be too short. Probably at least a couple of billion years. No response.

 

1920, we are looking at 4+ billion years. Not very cool.

 

1930. Wow! There are other galaxies. No response.

 

1950. The universe is expanding. Umm what?

 

1960. the universe had a beginning. God did it.

 

1970. God made life. The bible says so.

 

1980. God made life. The bible says so.

 

1985. The courts say stop being stupid. Theists say that the court is not god.

 

1995. The courts say stop trying to get your already known stupid crap into text books. Theists say, this is what god wants.

 

2000. OK we can't get our crap into text books. Then we will try a stealth move on the matter. Because god wants people to believe wrong things.

 

2005. A judge calls it a stealth attempt at getting the bible into public schools. Theists say “fuck us” as they have to admit that they don't actually have anything much to go with.

 

2011. We wait with baited breath to see what the next move will be.

 

All dates are approximate.

 

Umm dude, I'm not seeing the Ray Ray banana theory...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
kimsland, there seem to me

kimsland, there seem to me to be problems with this:

kimsland wrote:
I say that the only way that anyone would believe in god is by stupidity and weakness, and any other decision is normal ...
I am not referring to atheism at all, only to the principle you appear to be espousing, which appears to be that a person who believes something without evidence, who in fact does not antithetically oppose something which is without evidence, is stupid and weak.

What allowance do you make for information currently available to the person? From the moment that Aristarchus proposed a sun-centred system, was everyone who believed the Ptolemaic earth-centred model stupid and weak, until way after Copernicus getting on for two thousand years later?

Prior to discovery of a black swan, had a natural scientist of the day proposed that there was no special reason a swan could not be black, should that person have been considered stupid and weak, being without cogent evidence? By your lights, it appears that every scientist of the time should have been most vigorously opposed to the notion of a black swan, until one was discovered of course when all of the stupidity and weakness would leave one scientist and magically alight on all of the others.

I recognise that the Abrahamic religions and god have nothing going for them, but is it really stupid and weak to fail to recognise this from the instant one can, as a child, muster a thought? If so, why would they not be equally stupid and weak for imagining that a heavier object falls faster, until they learned otherwise?

I am not finding "stupidity and weakness" a very useful contribution to discourse. Could not uncertainty and enlightenment be the way to go?


DanDare
DanDare's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think this discussion

I think this discussion highlights the problem of simple assertion.

 

I may conclude there is no such things as a god, an angel, a devil, a ghost or a goblin. In fact I do conclude that. That does ot stop me from being intellectually rigorous and declining to assert those things as absolute truth. That does not make me weak or stupid, I just care about the process of reasoned thought and I will not break it for some emotionally laden end or a sense of self righteousness.

 

On the other hand I am also aware that the bulk of the people around me don't understand the subtleties and it is very frustrating having them jump about saying I can't prove god doesn't exist or saying that I have left the door open for them to be right by not 100% refuting them.

 

The big thing in Australian christianity at the moment is about how their "religious freedom" is being destroyed because we won't let them force kids in state schools to say prayers. Faced with that level of perverse discussion I agree that it is not politic to quibble about 100% certainty that their religion is wrong, but I don't have to. I can point out the dreadfulness of their argument and of their moral outlook without even worrying about weather their deity is real and as described.

 

Sorry, 1:14am, I am rambling a bit. Off to bed for me. Night all.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
No faith has proposed a god

No faith has proposed a god that actually may exist so untill then I do not believe there is a god and my non-belief is at 100 percent.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin