Two atheists were talking ...

OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Two atheists were talking ...

Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)
 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:ClockCat

JillSwift wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist
 

 

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

 

W...what?

 

SAY WHAT ONE MORE TIME!  I DARE YOU.

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

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:No,

OrdinaryClay wrote:
No, I'm postulating an atheist on the lower edge of smartness such that he can not understand a fundamental concept being explained by the atheist. If you are claiming such an atheist does not exist then you are special pleading. Is the basis of your argument that all atheists are adequately smart?

 

Straw man.

 

You advanced the concept of a daft as a brush atheist. It is not my job to back up his existence.

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

=


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:Uh

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Uh ... yes. You just said the guy should believe you don't have a diamond based on your wealth status.

Right.  Evidence to the contrary.

Evidence For Diamond:  I say I have one.

Evidence Against Diamond:  I don't appear to be wealthy enough to have one.

Most people would trust the evidence against more than the evidence for.  It's called "weight."  Some evidence carries more weight than other evidence.  ...

Quote:
This is the same as saying he should believe that the likelihood of your having such a diamond is very, very remote.

No, it's not.  It's saying that given the available evidence, the correct conclusion is that I do not have the diamond.  Given the avialable evidence, it's impossible to determine conclusively whether I do or do not have a diamond.  Belief does not, however, require conclusive evidence. 

You seem confused about how weighted decisions are made. People don't arbitrarily flip a coin in a weighted decision. They use some level of reason to determine the weight - elementary. This at its heart is a probabilistic choice. As I pointed out,  you may have won the lotto or found the diamond. These are possibilities, but the decision maker knows these are unlikely cases. The reason we can consider uncertain evidence is because of probability. Otherwise I could arbitrarily flip back and forth.
 

Quote:

Quote:
 Saying a person basis his belief on trust is nothing more then saying a person magically turned an appeal to authority to a trust in the authority.

Dumbell Atheist has EVIDENCE in the form of the TESTIMONY of Mensa Atheist.  The EVIDENCE is sufficient to cause Dumbell to believe the claim.  Since he BELIEVES based on the EVIDENCE, he is in a state we call TRUST.  Trust is what we call belief based on testimonial evidence.  The belief is not based upon trust.  Trust is based upon belief. 

Your confusion seems to lie in your inability to distinguish between evidence by fiat (and its equivalence to faith based belief) and evidence used in plausible reasoning. Testimonial evidence, as in a jury system, is based on faith in the testifier nothing more. The court system by fiat has allowed us to accept as evidence a faith based belief in the testimony. The faith is that a person is telling the truth. Nothing more.

It is extraordinary how shallow your argument has become. He said it to be so, so yay verily it is so.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:OrdinaryClay

Tapey wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Tapey wrote:

There are several grounds he can use to assume it is true. When you have reason to beleive what the person is saying is true then I wouldn't say it is faith. Expert opinion is one such ground. common knowledge is another, personal knowledge, nessicary truth, your own personal knowledge, reliable testomony. ... All three questions have to be answered yes in the same catagory for the ground to apply. In other words if these apply it isn't based on pure faith, you have reason to believe even if you don't understand the the topic.

Saying the person has reason to believe is saying they have evidence. So again you are making the same argument that all atheists are sufficiently smart.

Yes they have evidance that there is a good chance what they are being told is reliable and likely the truth. Sure some atheist probably do take it on faith, the only point in making is not all do. It would be stupid to say all atheists have evidance. Just as stupid as saying all theists have evidance. 

Ok, so if some atheists have faith, then it is valid to assume all atheists have faith because we know that all atheists can not know all evidence.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:What's

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What's up with the meandering hypotheticals and hand waving, Clay? Why can't you just present evidence?

I have a feeling that we both know why.

I've come to notice that your contributions never seem to address my arguments. I have a feeling that we both know why.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy

theotherguy wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)
 

Of course not. If it can't be put into words that he understands, he has no reason to believe it. He should examine the argument himself, and take steps to educate himself on it before coming to a decision.

 

I'm sure that even the most complex ideas can be put into words that anyone could understand and agree with on the basis of logic and evidence.

So you are claiming that every atheist understands all arguments for atheism suffciently well to base their atheism on evidence. Sounds like a true scottsman fallacy.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:OrdinaryClay

Manageri wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)

Keeping in mind atheism is simply not believing in gods,

You are kidding right? This whole "atheism is nothing" meme is stunning. I responded to this in this thread. Find it and quote and we can go from there.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
AmericanIdle wrote:Is this

AmericanIdle wrote:

Is this taking your argument in the correct direction ?  If not.. why not ?

No. Read the thread.

 

Quote:

Did you mean to imply in your "hypothetical" that what the "smarter" atheist has to say is true ? 

Of course, some atheists statements are true. It would be absurd to think not. It would be a truly foolish atheist to think that all things a theist says is not true. Either way, though, the argument does not require the smarter atheist to be correct or honest. The core of the argument is whether the dumb atheist can understand and whether they still accept the "argument".

 

Quote:

Can you identify historical examples where the conceptual chain of events described (I'm referring to incidents of intentional deception here), has occurred ?

Isn't this (intentional deception) something we find while examining the history of many religious ideologies...? Say Mormonism for one example ?

There are plenty of threads and opportunities to wander away from the subject of the thread. Feel free to start news threads if you feel so inclined. Also, feel free to comment on this thread.


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Tapey

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Tapey wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Tapey wrote:

There are several grounds he can use to assume it is true. When you have reason to beleive what the person is saying is true then I wouldn't say it is faith. Expert opinion is one such ground. common knowledge is another, personal knowledge, nessicary truth, your own personal knowledge, reliable testomony. ... All three questions have to be answered yes in the same catagory for the ground to apply. In other words if these apply it isn't based on pure faith, you have reason to believe even if you don't understand the the topic.

Saying the person has reason to believe is saying they have evidence. So again you are making the same argument that all atheists are sufficiently smart.

Yes they have evidance that there is a good chance what they are being told is reliable and likely the truth. Sure some atheist probably do take it on faith, the only point in making is not all do. It would be stupid to say all atheists have evidance. Just as stupid as saying all theists have evidance. 

Ok, so if some atheists have faith, then it is valid to assume all atheists have faith because we know that all atheists can not know all evidence.

 

haha, you win! now since every human has faith you look less like an irrational dumbass. YOU WIN!!!

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:kidding

OrdinaryClay wrote:

kidding right? This whole "atheism is nothing" meme is stunning. I responded to this in this thread. Find it and quote and we can go from there.
 

 

Your ignorance of the word's definition doesn't change it into something else. And how about addressing the actual point? Give me an example of something "fundamental to their shared atheism" that they might be arguing about. If you're right and atheism "isn't nothing" that should be easy. My point was that there is no such thing and your hypothetical situation is, once again, completely devoid of any trace of reality.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Tapey

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Tapey wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Tapey wrote:

There are several grounds he can use to assume it is true. When you have reason to beleive what the person is saying is true then I wouldn't say it is faith. Expert opinion is one such ground. common knowledge is another, personal knowledge, nessicary truth, your own personal knowledge, reliable testomony. ... All three questions have to be answered yes in the same catagory for the ground to apply. In other words if these apply it isn't based on pure faith, you have reason to believe even if you don't understand the the topic.

Saying the person has reason to believe is saying they have evidence. So again you are making the same argument that all atheists are sufficiently smart.

Yes they have evidance that there is a good chance what they are being told is reliable and likely the truth. Sure some atheist probably do take it on faith, the only point in making is not all do. It would be stupid to say all atheists have evidance. Just as stupid as saying all theists have evidance. 

Ok, so if some atheists have faith, then it is valid to assume all atheists have faith because we know that all atheists can not know all evidence.

wow that is such a huge jump. Some base there decision to be atheist on faith yes. 'My favourite pop satr is an atheist so I will be an atheist to.' like that type of thing. But it is not faith if you have reason to beleve what you are being told is true. really I have know clue how you jumped to what you did. read those questions I posted.  that stupid atheist doesn't have to take it on faith. those are the logical questions to ask yourself if you havent looked at the evidance yourself.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:So you

OrdinaryClay wrote:

So you are claiming that every atheist understands all arguments for atheism suffciently well to base their atheism on evidence. Sounds like a true scottsman fallacy.

 

Not at all. My claim was about ideas being put into words that people can understand.

I was also making a claim on your assertion that the dumber atheist is "required" to accept based on faith the argument of the genius. He is not required to do so at all. I made no claims about atheists in general.

 

I then made purely anectdotal claims about myself, and tried to generalize them to an idea of what people OUGHT to do with regards to their beliefs. I am not saying that "every atheists understands all the arguments for atheism sufficiently well." In fact, I believe that many atheists do not understand the arguments at all. What I am saying is that IDEALLY people SHOULD understand arguments before coming to a conclusion. Hence, they are not "required" to accept something on faith. Some do. Some don't. So what?

 

And again if you delve into "what they SHOULD do is irrelevant," I invite you to examine your own claim again. You claim the other atheist may be REQUIRED to accept the other's authority on faith. Your claim is one of what the other atheist SHOULD do as well. I say he SHOULD not. I do not say that he WILL not, or that no atheists do so. This is a wild misrepresentation of my claim.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:You are

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You are right it is an argument from authority. Your recognition of what is clearly evident is refreshing. Now if these beliefs are fundamental to atheism then this atheist must base his atheism on faith.

No need to be a dick about it. You're the one who asked a question so easily answered. If you want answers that aren't readily apparent don't ask stupid questions.

Atheism is based on lack of evidence and that's it. If you can provide evidence for your god go ahead already. Until then, I will continue to be an atheist as it is the default logical position.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Suppose

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)
 

What is fundamental to atheism?  Lack of belief in a deity.  This is the only required link.  Their reasons for this lack can be very different. 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Which

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Which part? Some of it is ridicule, which I just pass on by. Some I've answered already. I get a lot of responses to my posts. Much of it is redundant. I respond a lot if you have not noticed. I don't avoid a reasoned argument. Perhaps you can be more specific as to which part you want answered. Please be specific and succinct.

 

OC if any of my posts contain ridicule it's because I find the post I'm responding to ridiculous.  This time, however, I wasn't involved in any sort of ridicule of your idea.  Excusing my casual language I was trying to make a serious point.  I even threw you a bone by refusing to comment on the false idea of "shared atheism".

What I wanted to know is why you're going with this hypothetical, and I made a variety of assumptions based on the fact you're a theist.  If that came across as ridicule then I'll take a couple of steps back and we can work through this, even though most of my arguments have been covered already.

 

 

So.  We have two atheists in vacuum.  Atheist Steve is smarter than atheist Bubba.  Steve has explained something to Bubba but Bubba doesn't have the mental faculties to properly understand the implications.  He knows Steve sure is bright.  Thus, does Bubba have to take what Steve said on faith?

I assumed given you're a theist that there would be two possible reasons for you creating this scenario:  you want to show that atheism is a faith or, as I spelled out in my original post, that you would want to make some correlation between lack of mental capability and our understanding of god.

 

I'll play you're game.  Yes, Bubba has to take some faith* in Steve and what he said.  What are you suggesting the implications are to my answer of "yes"?

 

*ignoring any argument of what that "faith" is, as it's been well covered by everyone else.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:OrdinaryClay

Manageri wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

kidding right? This whole "atheism is nothing" meme is stunning. I responded to this in this thread. Find it and quote and we can go from there.

 

Your ignorance of the word's definition doesn't change it into something else. And how about addressing the actual point? Give me an example of something "fundamental to their shared atheism" that they might be arguing about. If you're right and atheism "isn't nothing" that should be easy. My point was that there is no such thing and your hypothetical situation is, once again, completely devoid of any trace of reality.

I already answered the question. Your argument is unoriginal and shallow. Minds do not exist in a vacuum. People are not acculturated in a closet. The blank mind of a child is inevitability exposed to theism. Every person must at one time or another make a conscious decision to not believe. These decisions are made most certainly based on the influence of other atheists.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:...read those

Tapey wrote:

...read those questions I posted.  that stupid atheist doesn't have to take it on faith. those are the logical questions to ask yourself if you havent looked at the evidance yourself.

I read them. You are making the same argument as a host of other people in this thread, to which I provided answers. Read this for starters ...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17624#comment-244760
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy

theotherguy wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

So you are claiming that every atheist understands all arguments for atheism suffciently well to base their atheism on evidence. Sounds like a true scottsman fallacy.

Not at all. My claim was about ideas being put into words that people can understand.

Your point has been made multiple times, and I answered multiple times.

 

Quote:

I was also making a claim on your assertion that the dumber atheist is "required" to accept based on faith the argument of the genius. He is not required to do so at all. I made no claims about atheists in general. 

...

...In fact, I believe that many atheists do not understand the arguments at all. What I am saying is that IDEALLY people SHOULD understand arguments before coming to a conclusion. Hence, they are not "required" to accept something on faith. Some do. Some don't. So what?

Then if the dumber atheist still maintains he is an atheist he is doing so based on faith. 


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Right vs. wrong

 

 

   I think most of us, Atheists, are intelligent enough to know the difference between right and wrong.  I am not about to give credit to any religion for anything that I do within the law, just as I would not give credit to any gawd for the successful kidney transplant that my older brother just went through.  Good science and medicine is where this credit goes to.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

You are right it is an argument from authority. Your recognition of what is clearly evident is refreshing. Now if these beliefs are fundamental to atheism then this atheist must base his atheism on faith.

No need to be a dick about it. You're the one who asked a question so easily answered. If you want answers that aren't readily apparent don't ask stupid questions.

I wasn't trying to be a dick, honest. Actually, I liked the honesty of your post.
 

Quote:

Atheism is based on lack of evidence and that's it. If you can provide evidence for your god go ahead already. Until then, I will continue to be an atheist as it is the default logical position.

How can you be sure you have adequate evidence to conclude atheism is correct? Remember, not believing something is believing something else.
 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Remember,

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Remember, not believing something is believing something else. 

What? You sure do like playing fast and loose with definitions.

 

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:...

OrdinaryClay wrote:

... wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)
 

 

Although, if I'm going to be picky about it, I'd also point out that the "lesser" of the two isn't required to do anything.  He can cast aside or ignore the arguments he doesn't understand.  Only a fool would accept a philosophical argument he couldn't comprehend - theist or atheist.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Then if the dumber

Quote:

Then if the dumber atheist still maintains he is an atheist he is doing so based on faith

 

Even if he is, it's not the same as religious faith, which is trust placed in something for which no evidence exists that it has any foundation in fact. All the dumber guy has to do is ask the cleverer guy for help in comprehending the data. But at least the data is available.

 

Or are you saying that all definitions of "faith" amount to the same thing, in which case all theists are thick? If you are I congratulate you on your honesty but pity you for your rather basic word-blindness, the cure of which would make your life a whole lot simpler and your contributions on this site a whole lot less tedious and stupid.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Manageri

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Manageri wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

kidding right? This whole "atheism is nothing" meme is stunning. I responded to this in this thread. Find it and quote and we can go from there.

 

Your ignorance of the word's definition doesn't change it into something else. And how about addressing the actual point? Give me an example of something "fundamental to their shared atheism" that they might be arguing about. If you're right and atheism "isn't nothing" that should be easy. My point was that there is no such thing and your hypothetical situation is, once again, completely devoid of any trace of reality.

I already answered the question. Your argument is unoriginal and shallow. Minds do not exist in a vacuum. People are not acculturated in a closet. The blank mind of a child is inevitability exposed to theism. Every person must at one time or another make a conscious decision to not believe. These decisions are made most certainly based on the influence of other atheists.
 

You did not answer my question. It's quite simple, give me just one example of a belief that is fundamental to atheism. Bonus points if you can come up with similar fundamental beliefs for people who don't believe in unicorns, santa, and Iachtu Xvim.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Quote:Then if

Nordmann wrote:

Quote:

Then if the dumber atheist still maintains he is an atheist he is doing so based on faith

 

Even if he is, it's not the same as religious faith, which is trust placed in something for which no evidence exists that it has any foundation in fact. All the dumber guy has to do is ask the cleverer guy for help in comprehending the data. But at least the data is available.

We already had this discussion ...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17624#comment-244760


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:OrdinaryClay

Manageri wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Manageri wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

kidding right? This whole "atheism is nothing" meme is stunning. I responded to this in this thread. Find it and quote and we can go from there.

 

Your ignorance of the word's definition doesn't change it into something else. And how about addressing the actual point? Give me an example of something "fundamental to their shared atheism" that they might be arguing about. If you're right and atheism "isn't nothing" that should be easy. My point was that there is no such thing and your hypothetical situation is, once again, completely devoid of any trace of reality.

I already answered the question. Your argument is unoriginal and shallow. Minds do not exist in a vacuum. People are not acculturated in a closet. The blank mind of a child is inevitability exposed to theism. Every person must at one time or another make a conscious decision to not believe. These decisions are made most certainly based on the influence of other atheists.
 

You did not answer my question. It's quite simple, give me just one example of a belief that is fundamental to atheism.

A belief God does not exist.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:A belief

OrdinaryClay wrote:
A belief God does not exist.
How about atheists such as myself who simply have no belief in god?

Before you go and say it, there is a subtle but important difference between "not believing it does" and "believing it does not".

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:How can

OrdinaryClay wrote:

How can you be sure you have adequate evidence to conclude atheism is correct? Remember, not believing something is believing something else.
 

In order for it to be possible to evaluate a claim there must be some evidence in it's favor first. Without evidence there's nothing to evaluate. Some people (myself included) believe that claims about gods and other mythological creatures for which there is no evidence whatsoever may be rejected outright.

That doesn't mean that the claim has been rejected as false. It means that the question of whether the claim is true or false has been rejected as arbitrary. Rational people don't usually seek evidence to prove or disprove arbitrary claims, because there is no reason to believe that the claims are true in the first place.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:We already had this

Quote:

We already had this discussion ...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17624#comment-244760[

 

No we didn't. A discussion is when two people exchange sentences. You will notice that I did not until my last post.

 

So this is the discussion, now.

 

I'll begin with a lesson in basic English and in particular the word "faith". This has two distinct meanings, an original meaning based on its Latin root and a later one which acquired vernacular application in English mainly thanks to religion's insistence that the word be validly applied to what is also called blind belief. One meaning, as just inferred, is to believe in something which has no basis in fact. The other meaning is to trust in something with a degree of consistency, normally because there is a proven, or at least a provable, reason to do so. These are not the same thing.

 

In your so-called "scenario" you have done what religionists tend to do with a frequency depressingly often enough to suggest that they perceive an advantage in doing so, namely they hope that by conflating these meanings or at least obscuring the differences between them they will somehow magically become the same thing. The "advantage" in this would appear to be that it then equates in the religionist's mind the act of "blindly believing" in the impossible with trusting in the veracity of something without fully comprehending the proof, and (as is often the case with religionists) this assertion they hope will then prevail, even over logic.

 

This is dishonest or stupid, and in your case I suspect both.

 

The "less intelligent" person in your scenario is placing faith in something which only his inferior intellect or education restrains him from comprehending. The rationality behind that which he is trusting as true is there to be comprehended.

 

This is not even closely related to the actions on the other hand of a religious person, who trusts in something implausible and will often use as justification for that trust the very fact that it is implausible. From a rational point of view in fact the allegedly "less intelligent" person is behaving with a huge degree more intelligence than the religious person in that he has instinctively opted to trust in the rational, having learnt at least that his "more intelligent" interlocutor can demonstrate proofs for his position, even if he himself has difficulty understanding them. He is, in other words, exhibiting the first rudimentary stages of educating himself towards comprehension, should he wish to pursue it. No such education is available to the religionist and his "faith", only more assertions designed to affirm that he is correct but with nothing tangible or rational to back them up.

 

If you can get it through your skull that the concepts behind use of the one word "faith" are exclusive to each other then you will begin to understand just how stupid you yourself are being, and maybe you too can also achieve that initial step towards basic comprehension yourself. The signs however are not very encouraging, which would indicate to me that you are doomed to repeat such idiocies ad nauseum. That you are already well on the way to proving me right reveals why I am justified in having such "faith" in your potential for stupidity. Unlike as with religious faith however, my own is predicated on evidence - just like as with its semantic application when its parent expression was coined in Latin.

 

You are really not as clever a person as you seem to think you are, which in itself would not be pathetic if it was not for the evident fact that you are not very clever at all. All the same, you seem to me to have a stark choice here of desisting from posting further in this thread except to acknowledge that you are - on several levels - wrong and thereby rescuing other people's assessment of your honesty, if not your intellect or, on the other hand, you can persist as you have been and thereby prove that which many atheists suspect about religionists, that they are dishonest enough to corrupt language itself in order to protect their delusions and are therefore not capable of dialogue.

 

It is a simple and logical choice, the kind you are seemingly least conditioned to make. But if I were you I would think long and hard before I dismiss it.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:That doesn't

Gauche wrote:


That doesn't mean that the claim has been rejected as false. It means that the question of whether the claim is true or false has been rejected as arbitrary. Rational people don't usually seek evidence to prove or disprove arbitrary claims, because there is no reason to believe that the claims are true in the first place.

Exactly.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:A belief

OrdinaryClay wrote:

A belief God does not exist.

In the case of strong atheism, it's believing that no gods exist. You would be an atheist with respect to Zeus, for instance, despite the fact that the New Testament uses one of his hames to describe the god of Jesus (ὁ θεος ). I just happen to be a strong atheist with respect to all gods.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:A belief

OrdinaryClay wrote:

A belief God does not exist.

/facepalm

Fundamental to not believing in god is not believing in god? Excellent work. Did you also know that 1=1 and not 3?

All you did was took the word and defined (slightly wrong in fact, as Jill pointed out). Can we stop playing word games now? Your inability to answer this simple question should really be giving you a hint. There is absolutely nothing that can be described as fundamental to atheism. Atheism is not a position, it is the LACK of the theistic position, and that's it. Atheism doesn't even exist as an independant definition of anything, if there was no such thing as theism there would be no need for the word.

It's like if someone is found not guilty of a crime, that doesn't fucking mean he has committed some other crime (like people saying atheism is "just another religion" would suggest), that statement has absolutely zero impact on ANYTHING other than whether or not he was guilty of that crime.

 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:In order for it

Gauche wrote:

In order for it to be possible to evaluate a claim there must be some evidence in it's favor first. Without evidence there's nothing to evaluate. Some people (myself included) believe that claims about gods and other mythological creatures for which there is no evidence whatsoever may be rejected outright.

That doesn't mean that the claim has been rejected as false. It means that the question of whether the claim is true or false has been rejected as arbitrary. Rational people don't usually seek evidence to prove or disprove arbitrary claims, because there is no reason to believe that the claims are true in the first place.

Your gyrations are unconvincing. As I have said multiple times, an atheist comes into a world full of theists. This means the atheist is faced with the fact that there are people all around that have beliefs that he does not have. At some point they evaluate these beliefs. It is inevitable. It is unavoidable. It is our social makeup. They do indeed reject theist clams as false.
 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Quote:We

Nordmann wrote:

Quote:

We already had this discussion ...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17624#comment-244760[

 

No we didn't. A discussion is when two people exchange sentences. You will notice that I did not until my last post.

So this is the discussion, now.

Repetition and wordiness does not build an argument.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Gauche

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Gauche wrote:

In order for it to be possible to evaluate a claim there must be some evidence in it's favor first. Without evidence there's nothing to evaluate. Some people (myself included) believe that claims about gods and other mythological creatures for which there is no evidence whatsoever may be rejected outright.

That doesn't mean that the claim has been rejected as false. It means that the question of whether the claim is true or false has been rejected as arbitrary. Rational people don't usually seek evidence to prove or disprove arbitrary claims, because there is no reason to believe that the claims are true in the first place.

Your gyrations are unconvincing. As I have said multiple times, an atheist comes into a world full of theists. This means the atheist is faced with the fact that there are people all around that have beliefs that he does not have. At some point they evaluate these beliefs. It is inevitable. It is unavoidable. It is our social makeup. They do indeed reject theist clams as false.

Certain claims can be rejected as false, yes. But the rational person doesn't really have to get into every single one. An example:

If someone were to tell me, "A long time ago, there were only two human beings on the earth, and a snake came up to one of them and told her to eat fruit," then I'd be overwhelmed with the number of claims in that statement that were untested, and might not be testable at all.

So I would ask, "Do you have any evidence that any of this actually happened?"

The storyteller would present the book wherein she read it. Then I would laugh, because that's pretty weak as evidence. I'd assume it was a fictional story, and not bother her about it any more.

Now ... if she came on these boards and said that, we'd have words.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:OrdinaryClay

Manageri wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

A belief God does not exist.

/facepalm

Fundamental to not believing in god is not believing in god?

The question was what was fundamental to atheism. Given that not believing in God is fundamental to atheism and what I explained here ( http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17624?page=1#comment-245452 ), it follows that the dumb atheist will require information for not believing. This comes from the smart atheist. The dumb atheist will then be required to reject(in order to be an atheist) the evidence from the theists (which the smart atheist disclaims). It's an unavoidable dynamic.
 


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:The

OrdinaryClay wrote:

The question was what was fundamental to atheism. Given that not believing in God is fundamental to atheism and what I explained here ( http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17624?page=1#comment-245452 ), it follows that the dumb atheist will require information for not believing. This comes from the smart atheist. The dumb atheist will then be required to reject(in order to be an atheist) the evidence from the theists (which the smart atheist disclaims). It's an unavoidable dynamic.
 

It is indeed hilarious how you can pretend how "atheism" and "not believing in god" are somehow different, and build sentences from that like "not believing in god is fundamental to atheism". Especially when all this time I've been asking you to demonstrate how they are different. You realize that's exactly like saying being white is required to be the opposite of black? Or 2+2 must be 4? It's not required TO, it IS the same thing, which I kinda stated already but you conveniently ignored all that.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:They do

OrdinaryClay wrote:
They do indeed reject theist clams as false.
Or as "untenable" or as "internally inconsistent" or any of a number of things that don't actually classify the claim as false. It's not black-and-white. i.e. The claim "there is a god" is neither proved nor disproved.

Disbelief of claims in that state is a reasonable position. As the old argument goes about leprechauns, unicorns, the tooth fairy... None are disproved nor proved, but no reasonable person bothers to believe in them.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Repetition and

Quote:

Repetition and wordiness does not build an argument.

 

Repetition and stupidity fare even worse, yet you seem to place great "faith" in it.

 

But thanks for confirming my prediction. You are incapable of recognising, let alone admitting, you are stupid.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:OrdinaryClay

JillSwift wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:
They do indeed reject theist clams as false.
Or as "untenable" or as "internally inconsistent" or any of a number of things that don't actually classify the claim as false. It's not black-and-white. i.e. The claim "there is a god" is neither proved nor disproved.

Does not matter if the "convection" of the dumb atheist is complete. If they consider themselves an atheist, as opposed to agnostic or some kind of theist, they have concluded they have adequate evidence.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:JillSwift

OrdinaryClay wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:
They do indeed reject theist clams as false.
Or as "untenable" or as "internally inconsistent" or any of a number of things that don't actually classify the claim as false. It's not black-and-white. i.e. The claim "there is a god" is neither proved nor disproved.

Does not matter if the "convection" of the dumb atheist is complete. If they consider themselves an atheist, as opposed to agnostic or some kind of theist, they have concluded they have adequate evidence.

 

 

If they consider themselves an atheist... they likely have concluded the extraordinary claims have inadequate evidence. Unless they are not aware of a specific theist belief, and only theism as a whole, then they are an atheist by the lack of belief.


There, I corrected that for you.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Does not

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Does not matter if the "convection" of the dumb atheist is complete. If they consider themselves an atheist, as opposed to agnostic or some kind of theist, they have concluded they have adequate evidence.

No. As I just said, it is also possible to consider there is inadequate evidence for any conclusion, and take the reasonable stance not to believe until there is evidence sufficient to believe.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between atheist and theist. It's a statement of knowledge, where atheist and theist are statements of belief. I don't believe in god, thus I'm an atheist, but I am also agnostic as I can see no way of proving or disproving god.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Your

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Your gyrations are unconvincing. As I have said multiple times, an atheist comes into a world full of theists. This means the atheist is faced with the fact that there are people all around that have beliefs that he does not have. At some point they evaluate these beliefs. It is inevitable. It is unavoidable. It is our social makeup. They do indeed reject theist clams as false.
 

Well now I know that you'll probably leave this website soon because you're at the absolute end of your tether with the 'you can't prove that it's false' argument.

If you were talking about a case where the evidence is truly inconclusive then I might say you have a point because a person can honestly say that they do not know. This is a case where the claims being made were not even formed on the basis of evidence. No matter how many people believe it there's really nothing to evaluate or consider other than the fact that people are gullible sometimes.

Saying that by rejecting your baseless claim we are making an opposite and equally baseless claim is pretty weak considering that the reason you can make that accusation is because your claims are incoherent and they cannot be tested, and since you see no need to support your claims with evidence you can adjust your story as needed to ensure that no one can disprove it.  

But your accusation is not even true because rejecting a claim doesn't necessarily mean rejecting it as false. If you really want to play the who's doing something worse game consider that I'm only saying I think your incoherent ideas are unworthy of evaluation while you're saying that you have faith, which is not the idea that arbitrary premises should be evaluated but that arbitrary premises should be accepted without evaluation.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

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

=


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Well now I know

Gauche wrote:

Well now I know that you'll probably leave this website soon because you're at the absolute end of your tether with the 'you can't prove that it's false' argument.

Oh, I'll drift in and out, no doubt, but trust me, it will have nothing to do with an atheist deciding I'm "incapable". <laughing> 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Then if

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Then if the dumber atheist still maintains he is an atheist he is doing so based on faith. 

Now hold on. There may be some arguments that the dumber atheist understands, and if these are sufficient for his atheism, then he is not taking atheism on faith.

But if he is really basing his entire belief system on faith, then I would say he is mistaken. He ought to examine his own beliefs and come to a conclusion based on reason.

Again, I am not saying this is how atheists behave in general. I am saying that this is how all people, regardless of their beliefs, should behave.

Now, if he is so dumb that he cannot understand ANY arguments; or hold any beliefs based on them-- then he is no better than a stone; and is an atheist by default, just as stones and babies and puppies are atheists by default. (please don't go back into your ad nauseum defense of repeating the same nonsense about atheists having a positive belief in the non-existence of a god. This is both tiresome, and false).

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Until our little genius

Until our little genius addresses why he chooses to arbitrarily conflate two disparate meanings in the case of the words "faith" and "belief", and until he likewise owns up to the fact that atheism, as an absence of belief in a particular notion, is not something which can be conveyed merely through assertion and therefore not something one atheist can convince another to accept on faith alone, however "stupid" his interlocutor, then his "scenario" has as much relevance to polemics as a genital wart has to the law of gravity.

 

He is simply talking through his arse, and is thick enough to be proud of the fact.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy

theotherguy wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Then if the dumber atheist still maintains he is an atheist he is doing so based on faith. 

Now hold on. There may be some arguments that the dumber atheist understands, and if these are sufficient for his atheism, then he is not taking atheism on faith.

Are you saying there are people who call themselves atheists and do so on faith. If so then how do those that are "convinced" know their atheism is correct?

 

Quote:

Now, if he is so dumb that he cannot understand ANY arguments; or hold any beliefs based on them-- then he is no better than a stone; and is an atheist by default, just as stones and babies and puppies are atheists by default.

This statement is goofy.

 

Quote:

(please don't go back into your ad nauseum defense of repeating the same nonsense about atheists having a positive belief in the non-existence of a god. This is both tiresome, and false).

Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not make it false.

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Just because you repeat

Just because you repeat fallacious assertions does not make them true.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Suppose

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)
 

I am glad you brought this up. I have in recent years ran into people who discribed themselves as "atheist". When you don't know the depth required to hold ANY POSITION, on any issue, I call you easy pickings.

I don't like the use of the word "smart". I think there are uneducated people that are "smart", but merely lack certain information.

My boss, at the resterante where I work has wealth, but there is no way he could handle Dawkins, much less me, in a debate.

 The difference is not that he is smart or dumb, or that I am smart or dumb, but that we have different exposure to different information, and different priorities.

I could school him in theistic debate. But if I suddenly was put in his position without the same exposure he had, I would sink.

"Smart" in what context and on what subject?

Theists who merely are weekend worshipers are easy targets as much as someone who calls themselves an atheist just on the "intuition" that  " it does not make sense".

 

"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