Viewpoints on a discussion Vs Agnostic?

HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Viewpoints on a discussion Vs Agnostic?

Allright, I'm not one to normally engage people in discussion like this, but this just ended up happening, and I was curious to any viewpoints on it.

Start off, I'm on deviant art, a member of both the atheist club and the (unofficial) Brights there, well, one day the Brights posted a journal asking people to get their opinions on a comment someone left on the front page:
http://brights.deviantart.com/journal/11419165/

(Their text will be in bold, mine is normal., the entire orignal comment is included at the start)


Quote:
Many people have a negative view of atheists because of the detrimental amount of disrespect and intolerance shown toward those with religious views

Tolerance and respect are 2 different things, but I guess in this case, clumped together.
For one thing, I'll tolerate someone’s right to have a batsh*t crazy belief. I will not tolerate it being used as a cop-out under the taboo of insulting someone’s religious sensitivities. I will respect a belief when I deem it worthy, when it has gained my respect.

and their overwhelming arrogance in doing so.

I'd say that people who act so bluntly and harshly about it do so because they are tired of walking on eggshells when the religiots get to barge around like a bull in a china store with their baseless beliefs.

Atheistic beliefs are with the same credibility of religious beliefs; neither should be hailed as anything higher than.

Not believing when you have no factual basis to believe is a bit more credible than believing when you have no factual basis to believe, at least in my opinion.

Semantically, agnosticism is the only logically sound belief structure, unlike atheistic and religious belief structures.

I stand agnostic on the idea that one cannot prove god one way or another (as opposed to Gnostic), and seeing as I have no evidence to support such a positive statement as 'god exists' then I'll have to lack that belief, making me an atheist. You have a theistic stance, you are just clearly turned off by the atheist stereotype you have in your head that you dread to ever be associated with 'those people'. (Which is why, to my understanding, the freaking word agnostic was coined in the first place.)

Sadly this club only furthers the myth that atheists are as previously described, as evident by Club journals, member conduct, and several deviations. Woulda' been a nice club, otherwise.

Not much to say here.....


And this would be his response:

Quote:

“Tolerance and respect are 2 different things, but I guess in this case, clumped together. For one thing, I'll tolerate someone’s right to have a batsh*t crazy belief.”

Yet calling someone's belief batshit crazy is, well, what you would know, called “intolerance.” Hypocritical aren't you?

“I will not tolerate it being used as a cop-out under the taboo of insulting someone’s religious sensitivities.”

I haven't seen anyone insulting someone else's religious sensitivities here, unless you mean some of the insults I've seen against religious folk and religions from your club's members?

“I will respect a belief when I deem it worthy, when it has gained my respect.”

And such arrogance you've displayed. You're fulfilling your stereotype nicely.

“I'd say that people who act so bluntly and harshly about it do so because they are tired of walking on eggshells when the religiots get to barge around like a bull in a china store with their baseless beliefs.”

Religiots? What a insulting name, perhaps you should also learn tact? I like also how your entire statement is a ignorant and rather hasty generalisation, for a “bright”, you're good at logical inconsistencies, ya know?

“Not believing when you have no factual basis to believe is a bit more credible than believing when you have no factual basis to believe, at least in my opinion.”

Your opinion and objectivity are two different things. Your opinion does not supersede the fact that semantically atheism and religion holds the same amount of credibility.

“You have a theistic stance, you are just clearly turned off by the atheist stereotype you have in your head that you dread to ever be associated with 'those people'. (Which is why, to my understanding, the freaking word agnostic was coined in the first place.)”

I never told you my stance, nor, even told you my religious or lack there of beliefs. Your entire statement is based off a assumption you can't prove.

“Not much to say here.....”

Hard to face the truth, eh?



My response to that
Quote:

Yet calling someone's belief batshit crazy is, well, what you would know, called “intolerance.” Hypocritical aren't you?

I said I'll tolerate someones RIGHT to have a batshit crazy idea, just like I would tolerate someones RIGHT to have a not so batshit crazy idea. I'm not one for lawmaking that prevents people from thinking a certain way and as long as I don’t lobby or vote otherwise, I don’t see how I’m being a hypocrite.
Oh, and calling something batshit crazy is disrespectful, at least as I understand it.

I haven't seen anyone insulting someone else's religious sensitivities here, unless you mean some of the insults I've seen against religious folk and religions from your club's members?

For one thing, I think that was the point, I am not one to buckle completely to the taboo and avoid mockery, and I think that may be the case for others, but I won't talk for them.

And such arrogance you've displayed. You're fulfilling your stereotype nicely.

Well shit, I'm sorry if I place that much value on respecting something that it means it has to meet some sort of standard before I respect it, maybe I should just respect everything out of hand.
And does this mean you hold a negative stereotype of atheists? Or at least checklist people based on that negative stereotype?

Religiots? What a insulting name, perhaps you should also learn tact? I like also how your entire statement is a ignorant and rather hasty generalisation, for a “bright”, you're good at logical inconsistencies, ya know?

Well if a religious person does 'barge around like a bull in a china store with their baseless beliefs', I would call them an idiot of a religious nature, or Religiot, it was fun and I did specify who I was talking about, be it with an analogy, I still did, so it was not much of a generalisation.

Your opinion and objectivity are two different things. Your opinion does not supersede the fact that semantically atheism and religion holds the same amount of credibility.


Credibility in what sense? I mean, I think it's more sensible, more logical, more rational to not take the positive belief on something when there no clear evidence to back it up, I would say that's a more credible thing to do, and then a priest would try Pascal’s wager and claim god belief would be the proper stance... Is credibility an objective property of something?
You still do have a theistic and gnostic stance on god, just like you have a belief and gnostic stance in relation to the Martian orbital teapot, the FSM, IPU, fairies, dragons, kittens and leprechauns and any other proposed entity. (All that fence sitting must have lodged the tip of a picket up your arse… ok, that comment was just for shits and giggles, I could not resist. )

I never told you my stance, nor, even told you my religious or lack there of beliefs. Your entire statement is based off a assumption you can't prove.

That may of been a mistake on my end, I did not signal that this was the impression of you I had got, instead I worded it as fact, my bad, I am not one to do that normally.

Hard to face the truth, eh?

*coughs* “Your entire statement is based off a assumption you can't* prove” To clarify, I said that because I felt I would just be repeating sentiments already mentioned.

*I should also point out that I could of (dis)proven my statement by asking you, just like you could of too, I guess we are guilty of the same crime, I hope yours was just as much a lapse in concentration as mine.

Again, I am not used to this kind of thing. Sticking out tongue


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
"Many people have a

"Many people have a negative view of atheists because of the detrimental amount of disrespect and intolerance shown toward those with religious views..."

Well, right out of the gate, I would point out that this may be one reason for a negative view, but it certainly isn't the most prevalent.

The big reason many people have a negative view of atheists is because they think it is virtuous to believe in God. In a worldview where "bad people" go to hell and people who don't believe = "bad people" (in a culture dominated by that worldview), is it surprising that there is a prevalent negative view of atheists?

I'll keep reading and post again if I find anything else interesting.


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
"Atheistic beliefs are with

"Atheistic beliefs are with the same credibility of religious beliefs; neither should be hailed as anything higher than."

"Atheistic beliefs" ...  This one really needs to be called out every single time it crops up.  Atheism is not a set of beliefs.  It isn't a creed, or dogma, or even just one belief; it is defined by a lack of god-belief, no more, no less.

“Not believing when you have no factual basis to believe is a bit more credible than believing when you have no factual basis to believe, at least in my opinion.”

...this was a fair enough response to the overall statement though.

"Your opinion and objectivity are two different things. Your opinion does not supersede the fact that semantically atheism and religion holds the same amount of credibility."

This guy is misrepresenting semantics--I won't even get into the "agnosticism" comments.  How is he defining "atheism" and "religion"?  Contextually it would seem clear, but only because I've dealt with similar statements.  I would ask for clarifications of those terms though.

My only criticism, I suppose, would be to avoid terms like "religiots," as hilarious as that term is.  :D  Save those gems for conversing with fellow seculars ... who aren't placing themselves on some sort of agnostic high horse.  It isn't just Christians and other religionists that we have an image problem with, but also, unfortunately, other seculars.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the comments,

Thanks for the comments, and the religiots thing was kind of me feeling a little ranty, which normally is the most common time I'll ever type any long amount of text that isn’t education related. XD

(I should have also dropped the fence sitting comment too eh?)

I got a reply, and I'm gonna respond tomorrow if I have the time, but right now I'm just gonna chill before heading to bed. Sticking out tongue

 

Quote:

“I said I'll tolerate someones RIGHT to have a batshit crazy idea, just like I would tolerate someones RIGHT to have a not so batshit crazy idea. I'm not one for lawmaking that prevents people from thinking a certain way and as long as I don’t lobby or vote otherwise, I don’t see how I’m being a hypocrite.”

Claiming to tolerate someone's right...than Insulting someone's choices in life isn't tolerance, however, it is hypocrisy. Maybe you need to revisit what you think?

“Well shit, I'm sorry if I place that much value on respecting something that it means it has to meet some sort of standard before I respect it, maybe I should just respect everything out of hand.”
Yeah, you probably should lest you want to look more a bigot.

“And does this mean you hold a negative stereotype of atheists? Or at least checklist people based on that negative stereotype?”
Does this mean you need ask such flawed questions?

“Well if a religious person does 'barge around like a bull in a china store with their baseless beliefs', I would call them an idiot of a religious nature, or Religiot, it was fun and I did specify who I was talking about, be it with an analogy, I still did, so it was not much of a generalisation. “
Actually it was a generlisation, but hey, maybe next time you'll get it right. Calling people names isn't the proper thing to do, and horrible form of argument. Tsk Tsk.

“Credibility in what sense? I mean, I think it's more sensible, more logical, more rational to not take the positive belief on something when there no clear evidence to back it up, I would say that's a more credible thing to do, and then a priest would try Pascal’s wager and claim god belief would be the proper stance... Is credibility an objective property of something?”

What sense? That both atheism and religious beliefs have no evidence to support either side. Semantically, logically, they are both gifted with the same level of credibility. Again, what you think, what you feel and your general opinion does not supersede the fact that they are on that level. Feel free to think otherwise, but it doesn't change the objective truth. You also aren't one to claim what a priest would or wouldn't do, nor anyone else.

“You still do have a theistic and gnostic stance on god, just like you have a belief and gnostic stance in relation to the Martian orbital teapot, the FSM, IPU, fairies, dragons, kittens and leprechauns and any other proposed entity. (All that fence sitting must have lodged the tip of a picket up your arse… ok, that comment was just for shits and giggles, I could not resist. )”
All of your paltry examples are fallacious. Exemplar, the FSM argument is a absurd co-op. In a cosmological argument on the origin of God, If someone seriously argued that a immaculate pasta dish was created during the singularity which spawned time-space and his noodlely appendages reached throughout a branched time system it would hold no steam. Where as with God, that argument would be far more credible. God, unlike a pasta dish, can be defined more broadly. A pasta dish can't be a infinite source of quantum energy floating through space, however, God could.

It's sad you have to resort to such petty invective against me, real mature.


“*coughs* “Your entire statement is based off a assumption you can't* prove” To clarify, I said that because I felt I would just be repeating sentiments already mentioned.”

Actually that was a question, not a statement. You're not really good at this whole “logics” thang' are ya'? Secondly, I most certainly did validate my opinion and back up my claims....Here.

“*I should also point out that I could of (dis)proven my statement by asking you, just like you could of too, I guess we are guilty of the same crime, I hope yours was just as much a lapse in concentration as mine. =)
No, I don't have to disprove your statements. It's called the burden of proof, and it was rested on your shoulders, not mine. Secondly you can't validate your assumptions because that would require you to ask me for clarification on my beliefs or lack of, which you will not get. My views are extraneous in this conversation.

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Invite the guy here. We'll

Invite the guy here. We'll tear him apart in person. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Starting to wonder hos long

Starting to wonder hos long these things can last and weather or not I should bother with it. :P 

Quote:
Claiming to tolerate someone's right...than Insulting someone's choices in life isn't tolerance, however, it is hypocrisy. Maybe you need to revisit what you think?

I will tolerate someone’s right, as I said, I will not attempt to impede on their life if it's on their own dime, on their own time and infringing on others. However I, and it ay be probable that you too, will not tolerate some things and tolerate others. I hold a free and private viewpoint and my main beef with religions is when they cause people to infringe on others.

Yeah, you probably should lest you want to look more a bigot.

So you would respect proponents of Mandatory Paedophilia For Disabled children out of hand? How about killing entire races of people based on the way they think or look? How about denying people equal rights because they do not agree with you? Should they get respect automatically?
I don't know what floats your boat, but respecting something is an action I don't tend to take likely, and as a result I will hold things to standards.

Does this mean you need ask such flawed questions?
I do have a rather unsatisfactory answer to this, but I asked first. :P

Actually it was a generlisation, but hey, maybe next time you'll get it right. Calling people names isn't the proper thing to do, and horrible form of argument. Tsk Tsk.

You take it as a generalisation then, maybe I should of clarified what I meant further. It was hardly an argument either, more of a rant.

What sense? That both atheism and religious beliefs have no evidence to support either side. Semantically, logically, they are both gifted with the same level of credibility. Again, what you think, what you feel and your general opinion does not supersede the fact that they are on that level. Feel free to think otherwise, but it doesn't change the objective truth.

You know, I find it funny how you mention atheistic beliefs as plural, when in fact there is none, atheism is a non-belief, it is a lack of belief. It is not a religion. It is not a belief system.
"We can't say that it is, we have no evidence for it, so we wont say that it is"
"We can't say that it is, we have no evidence for it, so we will say that it is"
Until there is proper evidence presented for the positive statement, it seems that it would be better to not claim it to be true. That is why I am without theism, it lacks the evidence to give it any credibility to me, I am thus forced to revert to the default position. Without theism is atheism.
I don’t recall agnosticism being a belief structure either. I thought it was a stance that we do not (or can not) have evidence either way of this god being. Beyond that the beliefs of a person would probably be whatever they feel like.


All of your paltry examples are fallacious. Exemplar, the FSM argument is a absurd co-op. In a cosmological argument on the origin of God, If someone seriously argued that a immaculate pasta dish was created during the singularity which spawned time-space and his noodlely appendages reached throughout a branched time system it would hold no steam. Where as with God, that argument would be far more credible. God, unlike a pasta dish, can be defined more broadly. A pasta dish can't be a infinite source of quantum energy floating through space, however, God could.

I don’t think I was offering any alternatives to a creator or a god here, I was merely stating that people will have a belief and gnostic stance in regards to the entities proposed, I included kitten as an example of something likely to have both a positive belief and gnostic stance by people. I believe that kittens exist, and I know we have evidence for them. I can even link you to a photographer who specialises in kittens (it’s very cute). It also helps that they are more clearly defined than other proposed entities.
Oh, an infinite source of quantum energy floating through space is an infinite source of quantum energy floating through space, it’s kind of pointing out another problem with the idea of a god existing, it appears to be nothing more than a title to be placed upon anything anyone pleases.

No, I don't have to disprove your statements. It's called the burden of proof, and it was rested on your shoulders, not mine. Secondly you can't validate your assumptions because that would require you to ask me for clarification on my beliefs or lack of, which you will not get. My views are extraneous in this conversation.

Emm, dude? Lets read this again “I could of (dis)proven my statement by asking you” Now, I don’t see here where I said you have to disprove my statement, I said that I could of (dis)prove my own statement by checking what I had said. The best source to do that would have been, gee golly, you! Now, if you are not willing to tell me, I could track down your friends and family and try to see what I can get from a different source, albeit more unreliable than asking the person themselves, however if you don’t want to tell for whatever reason, then fine, keep it locked up with all your other dark secrets. I also worded it “(dis)prove” because I had to allow for the fact that the response I got could of done either. Anyway I did say that it was a mistake and I should have worded it as my impression of you.

 

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.