Atheist Temple

Nonbelievers To Get Place Of 'Worship' In UK

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Atheist Temple

#121  Postby amkerman » Jan 31, 2012 11:47 am

monkeyboy wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Quite, which is expressly why this group of people with literally "nothing" in common (who ever suggested that?) are all 'up in arms' in our traditional militant, aggressive, condescending, smug and petulant manner.


All atheism is is a "lack of belief in God or gods" correct? Well a lack of belief is an absence of something, it is nothing. All atheist's literally have in common, by virtue of their atheism, is "nothing".


Absolute genius!! You've got us. All us atheists have nothing in common, not one single thing because of our lack of belief in God/s. :doh:

I'm prepared to agree to a point that you're right. We will all differ in our morals slightly, our level of empathy towards other people/animals etc. We're different in our political leanings, levels of education etc. Now explain to me how that is different from someone who Does believe in any form of God and you've made your point.


I don't know what point you think I'm trying to make.

There isn't a big difference between atheists and the religious. The religious share in something, "a belief in God or gods" while atheists share in nothing, "an absence of said belief."

Aside from the belief or lack there of there is no difference between atheists and theists.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 38
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#122  Postby amkerman » Jan 31, 2012 11:55 am

Fallible wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Fallible wrote:But atheists are human, so one thing they all share is their humanity.


How can you not see that they all share in their humanity because they are human, not because they arer atheists?


Oh, is that what you meant by 'by virtue of their atheism'? I do understand they share in their humanity because they are human. I guess that when you say atheists have literally ''nothing'' in common, that can be taken in more than one way.

Atheists have only have "an absence" of a "thing" (belief in God or gods) in common by virtue of their atheism. Anything else they may or may not have in common is not due to them being an atheist. They only have "nothing" in common by virtue of their atheism.

It's not an insult, and it's shouldn't really be open for debate. It's true by definition.


Well this isn't really true. It would be impossible for people to accept some things and also be theists. So people who have the acceptance of these things in common probably need to be atheists, and therefore have those things in common 'by virtue of' their atheism.


Back it up with evidence, not speculation and conjecture. I have no idea what "things" theists cannot accept. If you say, "the fact that there is no God or gods" I will agree. That is the only thing you could say that is self-evident. A theist can believe anything else, or not, and still be a theists. The only requirement for theism is a belief in God or gods.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 38
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#123  Postby rainbow » Jan 31, 2012 11:59 am

amkerman wrote:Aside from the belief or lack there of there is no difference between atheists and theists.

Well I for one have learnt from this website that Atheism can only be defined in terms of what it lacks.

:dopey:
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#124  Postby monkeyboy » Jan 31, 2012 12:00 pm

amkerman wrote:My understanding of reality and yours are so far off that I can't even concede to you that I disbelieve in fairies because we mean different things by the word "disbelief". I am probably closer to the definition of atheism "lack of belief" when it comes to fairies, they may possibly exist but i have no reason to believe in them.

I do not disbelieve things I have no reason to believe. It is invincibly ignorant to do such.

No, I feel no kinship with other people who don't pay attention to fairies because I will never talk about belief or disbelief in fairies unless asked, so really I don't have a good method of knowing who else lacks belief in fairies, nor do I care to know such. Anyways I feel more kinship with those who actively choose to believe than with those who actively choose to disbelieve.


Of course you're going to feel more kinship with people who actively believe inthe same thing you do.

It's the same as people who are fans of say, Manchester United Football club. They will feel a certain tribal allegiance towards other fans of Manchester United and indeed perhaps in a similar way towards fans of football in general the world over. There however some people who having seen football and are aware of it's existence who don't like it and do not support football in any way or just don't get the game and hold no inerest in it at all. There are others who have never encountered football however and have no concept of football and hold no opinion one way or another.

Do the people who don't like it or have no experience of it share anything in common in that they will not be passing any of their spare time talking about, watching football, playing football or even thinking about football? Do you have to choose not to like football to be a non football fan in any way shape or form? Personally, I don't think it matters whether it's a conscious decision to not like the game, knowing of it's existence or to be one of those people who don't know it exists. They are all non fans of the game as opposed to actual fans of the game. They have a lack of being a fan in common!!
Last edited by monkeyboy on Jan 31, 2012 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5494
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#125  Postby NilsGLindgren » Jan 31, 2012 12:05 pm

spearthrower wrote:
Quite, which is expressly why this group of people with literally "nothing" in common (who ever suggested that?) are all 'up in arms' in our traditional militant, aggressive, condescending, smug and petulant manner.

Strident, for Darwin's sake! You forgot 'strident'!
H.L. Menken: "Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
User avatar
NilsGLindgren
 
Name: Nyarla Thotep
Posts: 6454

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#126  Postby Aern Rakesh » Jan 31, 2012 12:06 pm

I honestly don't think a monument to atheism or an atheist community would work.

However I do think a monument to the human spirit and a humanist centre would be a good idea.
Image
User avatar
Aern Rakesh
RS Donator
 
Posts: 13582
Age: 74
Female

Country: UK (London)
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#127  Postby rainbow » Jan 31, 2012 12:08 pm

Nora_Leonard wrote:I honestly don't think a monument to atheism or an atheist community would work.

It would be like having an exhibition for people that don't collect stamps.
:shifty:
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#128  Postby Fallible » Jan 31, 2012 12:14 pm

amkerman wrote:
Fallible wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Fallible wrote:But atheists are human, so one thing they all share is their humanity.


How can you not see that they all share in their humanity because they are human, not because they arer atheists?


Oh, is that what you meant by 'by virtue of their atheism'? I do understand they share in their humanity because they are human. I guess that when you say atheists have literally ''nothing'' in common, that can be taken in more than one way.

Atheists have only have "an absence" of a "thing" (belief in God or gods) in common by virtue of their atheism. Anything else they may or may not have in common is not due to them being an atheist. They only have "nothing" in common by virtue of their atheism.

It's not an insult, and it's shouldn't really be open for debate. It's true by definition.


Well this isn't really true. It would be impossible for people to accept some things and also be theists. So people who have the acceptance of these things in common probably need to be atheists, and therefore have those things in common 'by virtue of' their atheism.


Back it up with evidence, not speculation and conjecture.


You first, if you please. I asked you in response to your claim that atheists get all up in arms over the 'correct ways one should lack belief in God', how many ways there are to lack belief. You apparently felt it was OK to simply state things at that stage. Now, you find evidence to be if import.

I have no idea what "things" theists cannot accept. If you say, "the fact that there is no God or gods" I will agree.


You word things in ways which I find difficult to grasp the meaning of. How is 'there is no god or gods' a fact? It's a statement of belief, made by some atheists.

That is the only thing you could say that is self-evident. A theist can believe anything else, or not, and still be a theists. The only requirement for theism is a belief in God or gods.


I think it's a little more complicated than that, since depending on which definiton you are using, a theist will believe in a creator god, and so cannot accept theories concerning the origins of the universe which do not involve their god, for example.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 50
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#129  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 31, 2012 12:30 pm

amkerman wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:


Duh.

How's about our humanity? ;)

Your humanity is not shared by virtue of your atheism. I, for example, am not an atheist. Yet somehow, I still manage to share in your humanity... crazy.



Didn't you see the wink? ;)

The 'duh' was the main response as it best sums up how far you missed the target but it was a bit short, so I offered a similarly offbase response effectively modelling your reply! :)

But then I went back and added another paragraph to explain it: how's about them fairies, amkerman? I take it that your disbelief in fairies is of practically zero importance in your life, amiright? However, if you were living in a society where people routinely extolled the virtue of fairies, the necessity of their being for morality, and your lack of belief in them was seen as an almost inhuman deficiency.... wouldn't you feel some degree of kinship with people who shared your disbelief?


I addressed your contention. Disbelief and absence of belief are not congruent. A disbelief is a -1 and an absence or "lack" of belief is a 0.


It must be fascinating getting so hung up on semantics that you can't even engage someone on a simple level of discourse.

Let's try again:

1) I believe there is a God = 1
2) I lack belief in a God = 0
3) I disbelieve in God = -1

Both the latter 2 are in direct contradiction to the first - they are the same position with different degrees of strength. If there is a God, only the first is 'correct'. If there is no God, then 2 and 3 are both 'correct'.

I think you're getting lost in translation.

The -1 position would actually be 'there is no god'.

This would make it:

1) There is a God
2) I lack belief/disbelieve in a God
3) There is no God.

That makes a lot more sense for your 1/0/-1 summary.



amkerman wrote:My understanding of reality and yours are so far off that I can't even concede to you that I disbelieve in fairies because we mean different things by the word "disbelief".


Youch, I've never met someone who lets semantics dictate what they can and can't concede.

How is it you know so much about 'my' understanding of reality, incidentally?


amkerman wrote: I am probably closer to the definition of atheism "lack of belief" when it comes to fairies, they may possibly exist but i have no reason to believe in them.


And so, grasping quickly onto the first sensible statement so far: if the majority of society around you held the positive belief in fairies, as I clearly explained in 2 previous posts, with consequent societal pressure to believe in them, would you not share something with the others of your species that likewise lacked belief in fairies?


amkerman wrote:I do not disbelieve things I have no reason to believe. It is invincibly ignorant to do such.


I disbelieve in fairies in the same way as I disbelieve in gods - they're the same class of beings. They're both just humans projected out onto the natural world. While your particular god might be the font of benevolence and order, plenty of other religions have had gods as fonts of mischief and misery, which is precisely the role of fairies.


amkerman wrote:No, I feel no kinship with other people who don't pay attention to fairies because I will never talk about belief or disbelief in fairies unless asked, so really I don't have a good method of knowing who else lacks belief in fairies, nor do I care to know such. Anyways I feel more kinship with those who actively choose to believe than with those who actively choose to disbelieve.


Amazing how you went to so much trouble to evade the entire point of my post.

Allow me to reiterate it in such a way that you can not blatantly avoid doing so again: Note that this time I am belabouring the point, and it has ceased to be perfectly analogous, and has instead become a caricature - don't use this as a means of evading answering though, because it is directly as a result of you having evaded the thrust twice before:



You live in a society where everyone believes in fairies. Fairies are the font of morality and goodness. Everyone knows that believing in fairies is uplifting, beneficial, and upstanding. When swearing in court, one puts one's hand on the Book of Fairies to assure everyone of the seriousness of their character, and to ensure that they will not demean the fairies by lying. You often hear people talking about a strange, reclusive group of people who disbelieve in fairies, and all manner of atrocities are lain at their feet. In fact, it's a threat to society, nay civilisation.

You have a very good method of knowing who at least claims to believe in fairies, because they're not afraid to say so in public.

But you don't believe in fairies.

Now, of course you're not going to admit to this when friends, family, coworkers, and your boss are all ardent Fairyists who make regular trips to the Grove to offer fruitcakes, and they routinely express their gratitude and praise to Fairies for any good coincidence, or just for the food on the table. You'd feel like you were letting them all down, and potentially risk being an outcast.

But then by chance, you meet some people who question the existence of fairies. They don't believe in them! And you're telling me that in such a situation, you wouldn't feel a sense of kinship for your shared disbelief?

If you do claim that, then I think you fail at empathy 101. :)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32645
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#130  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 31, 2012 12:30 pm

amkerman wrote:
Aside from the belief or lack there of there is no difference between atheists and theists.


In the abstract, I agree wholeheartedly.

In practice, it's not quite that simple in many parts of the world.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32645
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#131  Postby hackenslash » Jan 31, 2012 12:31 pm

amkerman wrote:I addressed your contention. Disbelief and absence of belief are not congruent. A disbelief is a -1 and an absence or "lack" of belief is a 0.


Bzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

The prefix 'dis' is a privative, much like the prefix 'a'. It describes the rejection of belief, not a positive belief in the opposite conclusion. Let's see what a lexicon has to say on the topic:

The Free Dictionary wrote:Noun
1. disbelief - doubt about the truth of something; disbelief - doubt about the truth of something; incredulity, mental rejection, skepticism, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, incertitude, uncertainty - the state of being unsure of something

2. disbelief - a rejection of beliefdisbelief - a rejection of belief; unbelief, cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
scepticism, skepticism, agnosticism - the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge; atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods


You were saying?
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 53
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#132  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 31, 2012 12:35 pm

rainbow wrote:
amkerman wrote:Aside from the belief or lack there of there is no difference between atheists and theists.

Well I for one have learnt from this website that Atheism can only be defined in terms of what it lacks.

:dopey:


That's what the word means, rainbow.

Recall?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... x#p1168946

Spearthrower wrote:Let's help Rainbow again.... not that it's necessarily going to do any good for him, but perhaps some poor fellows a bit confuddled by his obscurantism:

Examples of the prefix 'a-'

http://wordinfo.info/unit/2838/ip:1

abacterial (adjective)
Free of bacteria; without bacteria: "The wound had been cleaned and was now considered an abacterial injury."


abiotic (adjective)
A reference to the absence, or deficiency, of life: "Is there such a thing as the abiotic existence of matter that is devoid of life or any specific life conditions?"


abranchiate (adjective)
Without gills; no gills: "An example of an abranchiate mammal is a whale."


abrosia (s), abrosia (pl) (nouns)
The total lack of food consumption; fasting (no food, not eating): "The prison inmates organized a fasting campaign to emphasize the poor prison conditions and so they were participating in total abrosia."


acarpous (adjective)
Without fruit, not bearing fruit; sterile: "The fruit tree is strictly acarpous and will not bear any more fruit."


anephric (adjective)
Having no kidneys at birth: "With sadness, the doctor told the parents that their anephric baby could not survive because its fetal kidneys failed to develop."


anergy (s), anergies (pl) (nouns)
1. A lack of reaction by the body's defense mechanisms to foreign substances: "Anergy is a condition in which there is immune unresponsiveness."


aphyllous, more aphyllous, most aphyllous (adjectives)
Lacking or having no leaves: "Cacti are the most common aphyllous plants known."


apodia (s), apodias (pl) (nouns)
Those who have a congenital absence of feet: "Generally, apodias are born without feet."


asymmetry (s), asymmetries (pl) (nouns)
A lack or absence of parts that are the same or similar in form or structure: "When the doctor checked the X-ray, he was surprised to see the asymmetry of the corresponding parts of bodily organs that were on the opposite sides of the patient's body which were normally alike."


athermic (adjective)
1. Without fever or with no rise of temperature: "Since the woman's temperature didn't get any higher, the doctor was relieved to see that she was getting closer to the athermic condition that he was striving to achieve for her."


azoic (adjective)
Devoid of living organisms; without life: "Biologists talk about an azoic time when our Earth existed without any life on it."



And so on.

It's very easy to understand that a-theism is the lack of theistic belief. It is easy, that is, if you don't have an ulterior motive in repeatedly making absurdly ineffective arguments to provoke people.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32645
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#133  Postby amkerman » Jan 31, 2012 12:37 pm

Fallible wrote:
amkerman wrote:
Fallible wrote:
amkerman wrote:

How can you not see that they all share in their humanity because they are human, not because they arer atheists?


Oh, is that what you meant by 'by virtue of their atheism'? I do understand they share in their humanity because they are human. I guess that when you say atheists have literally ''nothing'' in common, that can be taken in more than one way.

Atheists have only have "an absence" of a "thing" (belief in God or gods) in common by virtue of their atheism. Anything else they may or may not have in common is not due to them being an atheist. They only have "nothing" in common by virtue of their atheism.

It's not an insult, and it's shouldn't really be open for debate. It's true by definition.


Well this isn't really true. It would be impossible for people to accept some things and also be theists. So people who have the acceptance of these things in common probably need to be atheists, and therefore have those things in common 'by virtue of' their atheism.


Back it up with evidence, not speculation and conjecture.


You first, if you please. I asked you in response to your claim that atheists get all up in arms over the 'correct ways one should lack belief in God', how many ways there are to lack belief. You apparently felt it was OK to simply state things at that stage. Now, you find evidence to be if import.



That is the only thing you could say that is self-evident. A theist can believe anything else, or not, and still be a theists. The only requirement for theism is a belief in God or gods.


I think it's a little more complicated than that, since depending on which definiton you are using, a theist will believe in a creator god, and so cannot accept theories concerning the origins of the universe which do not involve their god, for example.


-I'm surprised the point of this thread is lost on you. This "monument" to atheism is polarizing among atheists, some of whom see the monument as a good idea while others are adamantly opposed to such a structure. It has been claimed to be polarizing among atheists, and not be me, by atheists. If that is not atheists getting all up in arms about the correct way to "lack belief" I don't know what is.

apparently atheists have found multiple ways to lack belief, not all of them being correct. I, however, am still of the opinion that it is impossible for one to actually "lack belief" in a concept, though, idea, or thing, they are consciously aware of.

-No, it's not more complicated than that. You are talking about individual beliefs now, you are no longer talking about theism as a concept. If a theist doesn't believe in a particular version of God, that does not mean they cannot believe in the concept of God. Just as there are atheists who don't belive in the ToE in its current form. That doesn't make them theists.
Last edited by amkerman on Jan 31, 2012 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 38
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#134  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 31, 2012 12:38 pm

amkerman wrote:Anyways I feel more kinship with those who actively choose to believe than with those who actively choose to disbelieve.


So if I believe in Fairies, then you feel a stronger sense of kinship with me because I actively choose to believe in them, regardless of whether you share that belief.

What an interesting notion.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32645
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#135  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 31, 2012 12:40 pm

rainbow wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:I honestly don't think a monument to atheism or an atheist community would work.

It would be like having an exhibition for people that don't collect stamps.
:shifty:



How many times does your ineptitude need to be spelt out for you Rainbow?

The quote is:

atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby


Not:

Atheism is like not collecting stamps.

If a Magic Man were to combine all your posts making this utterly stupid error into one single post, I think your post count would drop by half.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32645
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#136  Postby trubble76 » Jan 31, 2012 12:43 pm

rainbow wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:I honestly don't think a monument to atheism or an atheist community would work.

It would be like having an exhibition for people that don't collect stamps.
:shifty:


It sure would, and in a world where stamp-collecting groups had undue influence in their societies we can see why there might be value in it..
That was your point, wasn't it?
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 46
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#137  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 31, 2012 12:44 pm

amkerman wrote:
No, it's not more complicated than that. You are talking about individual beliefs now, you are no longer talking about theism as a concept. If a theist doesn't believe in a particular version of God, that does not mean they cannot believe in the concept of God. Just as there are atheists who don't belive in the ToE in its current form. That doesn't make them theists.


Those gods are mutually exclusive concepts - rolling them all up into a theist 'concept' is the stuff of biased sampling.

And the ToE is not remotely required to disbelieve in gods, it's entirely inconsequential to a position on the divine.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 32645
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#138  Postby rainbow » Jan 31, 2012 12:52 pm

trubble76 wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:I honestly don't think a monument to atheism or an atheist community would work.

It would be like having an exhibition for people that don't collect stamps.
:shifty:


It sure would, and in a world where stamp-collecting groups had undue influence in their societies we can see why there might be value in it..
That was your point, wasn't it?

Not really.
I don't live in the UK, so stamp-collecting groups don't actually bother me much.
:smug:
Kill the Wise One!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155419

"Það er ekki til betri tími en núna til að fresta"
User avatar
rainbow
Banned User
 
Name: Señor Moderato
Posts: 6903

Mozambique (mz)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#139  Postby Fallible » Jan 31, 2012 12:57 pm

amkerman wrote:
You first, if you please. I asked you in response to your claim that atheists get all up in arms over the 'correct ways one should lack belief in God', how many ways there are to lack belief. You apparently felt it was OK to simply state things at that stage. Now, you find evidence to be if import.


I'm surprised the point of this thread is lost on you.


This kind of thing is quite unnecessary. The point of the thread is not lost on me.

This "monument" to atheism is polarizing among atheists, some of whom see the monument as a good idea while others are adamantly opposed to such a structure. It has been claimed to be polarizing among atheists, and not be me, by atheists. If that is not atheists getting all up in arms about the correct way to "lack belief" I don't know what is.


Then I humbly suggest that you don't know what is. Again, how many different ways do you think there are to lack belief? Not to express lack of belief, but to lack belief? How do you think that some atheists sharing different opinions regarding the erection of an atheist 'temple' equates to arguing over the correct way to lack belief?

apparently atheists have found multiple ways to lack belief, not all of them being correct.


You keep saying that, but only you seem to be suggesting that there are multiple ways to lack belief. What are they?

I, however, am still of the opinion that it is impossible for one to actually "lack belief" in a concept, though, idea, or thing, they are consciously aware of.


So what? That's your problem, no one else's. If you want to blithely carry on holding erroneous opinions, feel free. You should probabably know though that you are conflating belief in a concept with belief about a concept. Because not recognising this will mean that following your opinion here to its conclusion would reveal that you think atheists believe in God.


No, it's not more complicated than that. You are talking about individual beliefs now, you are no longer talking about theism as a concept.


First you criticise me for 'conjecture', then when I expound I'm not talking about the right thing.

If a theist doesn't believe in a particular version of God, that does not mean they cannot believe in the concept of God.


A theist, depending upon which definition you are using in this instance, believes in a creator god. How can a person who believes in a creator god also accept theories concerning the origin of the universe other than those which propose creation by their god? Perhaps you could elucidate - what definition of 'theist' are you using?

Just as there are atheists who don't belive in the ToE in its current form. That doesn't make them theists.


Again, the way you phrase things makes it incredibly difficult to gather your meaning. Depending on the way in which you are using the term, no one 'believes in' the theory of evolution. People accept it as a suitable explanation.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 50
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Atheist Temple

#140  Postby amkerman » Jan 31, 2012 1:11 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Allow me to reiterate it in such a way that you can not blatantly avoid doing so again: Note that this time I am belabouring the point, and it has ceased to be perfectly analogous, and has instead become a caricature - don't use this as a means of evading answering though, because it is directly as a result of you having evaded the thrust twice before




You live in a society where everyone believes in fairies. Fairies are the font of morality and goodness.

You inclusion of God in the same group as fairies or unicorns is simply a category error, but i will play along. God is a concept responsible for the creation of all things, including humans, fairies, and unicorns if they exist. If they don't exist, it's bc God hasn't created them. If God doesn't exist, then neither could anything else. You fail to put God in the correct category. But like I said, I'll play along. So ok.


Everyone knows that believing in fairies is uplifting, beneficial, and upstanding. When swearing in court, one puts one's hand on the Book of Fairies to assure everyone of the seriousness of their character, and to ensure that they will not demean the fairies by lying.
By what authority are fairies the paragon of morality in your example. Were they created through natural processes like humans? Did they create humans? Can they be contradicted? Are they omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Are they around me right now as I type? What kind of being is a fairy? OK, i'll take you at your word...


You often hear people talking about a strange, reclusive group of people who disbelieve in fairies, and all manner of atrocities are lain at their feet. In fact, it's a threat to society, nay civilisation.

Do these people not extol the uplifting, beneficial, and upstanding morality of those who believe in fairies? Are these people guilty of said atrocities? Are they a threat to the morals espoused by the majority which you have claimed are uplifting, beneficial, and upstanding? OK... still taking you at your word.


You have a very good method of knowing who at least claims to believe in fairies, because they're not afraid to say so in public,

OK. They would have no reason to be afraid to say so, they are the majority after all.

But you don't believe in fairies.
Do i believe in the morality that believers in fairies say comes from fairies? If so, on what authority do I claim those morals are correct? If not, do I believe in morality at all? If so, on what authority do I claim THOSE morals correct? If not, do I nevertheless behave in a moral fashion, even though I hold no morals? OK...

Now, of course you're not going to admit to this when friends, family, coworkers, and your boss are all ardent Fairyists who make regular trips to the Grove to offer fruitcakes, and they routinely express their gratitude and praise to Fairies for any good coincidence, or just for the food on the table.

Am I afraid because I am a coward, or because I lack conviction, or because I lack evidence to back up my belief? Or is the reason I don't admit it because I actually am amoral and don't want to be ostracized? Or is it because of something else? Or is it some combination? OK...

You'd feel like you were letting them all down, and potentially risk being an outcast.
So I'm getting confused. Do I actively disbelief that fairies exist, or do I just "lack any belief" as to whether or not fairies exist? Am I saying, "I believe fairies do not exist"? Or am I saying, "I don't have any beliefs in Fairies, I don't know if they exist, but I have seen no positive evidence in support of their existence". The two claims are very different, and it's important I know what my "belief" or lack of belief" is.

But then by chance, you meet some people who question the existence of fairies. They don't believe in them! And you're telling me that in such a situation, you wouldn't feel a sense of kinship for your shared disbelief?

This is why it's important that you tell me what my hypothetical belief is in this situation. If I actively disbelieve in fairies then yes, I would feel a kinship with others who actively disbelieved. If, however, I simply lack belief in fairies no, I would feel no kinship.

Personally, there are many things that I am atheistic, in the sense atheists use the phrase "lack belief" (although I would use the phrase "am ambivilant towards". Because of my ambivalence to these great many topics, I feel no particular kinship with those who believe in them, disbelieve in them, or are also ambivalent to them. It makes no difference to me, as I DO NOT CARE about said things.

I however, do not actively disbelieve in anything. Cynicism is just not a quality I hold in high regard.

If you do claim that, then I think you fail at empathy 101. :)


There simply is "nothing" to coalesce behind if all atheists do is "lack belief in God or gods." If, however, they hold a positive belief that God or gods do not exist, that is an active disbelief, and I can see why there is a sense of kinship among them.
Bring me gold and bring me wisdom- give me scars to bring me grace.

A wicked wit and when I use it I dash the hopes of those who hate me.

Give me love- big as a mountain.

Dave Matthews
amkerman
 
Posts: 1820
Age: 38
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest