Aca wrote:image shared by this FB page, (and there is more, whoever is interested and has time )

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalTreasuryOfWisdom/

I think the worst here is the disclaimer.

Aca wrote:image shared by this FB page, (and there is more, whoever is interested and has time )

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalTreasuryOfWisdom/

That looks more like satire to me ... though it if isn't, it's fucking deranged ...

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:At first sight, Mr Dickinson seems to be splitting hairs about whether atheism is an absence of belief in god(s)or a belief in the absence of god(s). However, the former seems to presuppose that the god(s) exist in the first place,

No, it doesn't.
Disbelief, means not believing X.
In this context, not believing gods exist.

Note that you have subtly paraphrased the relevant sentence, so that it's meaning is signifcantly altered.

Note that once again, you're making shit up about your interlocutros because you can't admit a mistake, even an inane mistake as this one.

DavidMcC wrote:Thus, you are burning a straw man.

Nope. I gave you one of the common definitions of disbelief: not believing X. Which means one does not believe X exists, meaning disbelief in deities does not imply deities exist.

I don't deny that "Not believing X" is one of the common definitions of disbelief, but it is not a sufficient definition, and is not the same as the one Dickinson gave. You need to pay more attention to detail.

Please explain how not believing X differs from absence of belief. Thanks in advance.

DavidMcC wrote:I don't deny that "Not believing X" is one of the common definitions of disbelief, but it is not a sufficient definition, and is not the same as the one Dickinson gave. You need to pay more attention to detail.

I couldn't give a fuck what definition Dickinson gave.
The most common definitions of disbelief are: not believing X and believing not X.
Neither implies X exists.
And you can stuff your passive-agressive suggestions.

Actually, from a rigorous standpoint, "Not believing X" is substantively different from "believing not-X". The former is an absence of belief in X, whist the latter is a belief in the converse of X.

That's not the point under discussion.

zulumoose wrote:

The claim by atheists that they have nothing to justify is, as this post says, a rhetorical dodge. It’s been my experience that atheists make statements all the time and try to defend them. They obviously believe what they say.

The only consistent thing all atheist can say, is that they have never encountered sufficient evidence or reason to find religious beliefs convincing. There is only one way to counter that statement.

I don't say I've never encountered sufficient evidence to find religious beliefs convincing. Religious belief is very convincing to the believer. People who believe that their loved ones who've died are in heaven with Jesus, really do believe that. Just this week I heard about a niece whose husband is dying of lung cancer saying that they did a prayer circle thing to tell his mother he was coming to be with her, and to ask Jesus if he can't stay a little longer. These people actually belief this horsecrap.

For me the test was, at an early age, whether it made sense or not. I didn't know anything about how children were conceived until I was in my early teens, yet when I was five, and learnt the story of Adam and Eve, I told my parents it was nonsense because all humans couldn't possibly be the descendants of a single couple. I even explained to them that in order for this to be true, their children would've had to parent the next generation, then cousins, and second-cousins and so on. I didn't understand the science, but I did know there were people spread throughout the world, so I said to them that if this was true, how did they get to Australia, and South America, from the Middle East, in a short space of six thousand years. Because calculating figures has always been a thing with me, I even drew up charts to show them the improbability.

The gods thing only happened when I learnt that different cultures worshipped different gods. Then I asked which one was it that did the creation, and if they said "God", I said it didn't make sense that the Vikings worshipped Odin and Thor, when supposedly God created them. My parents said Odin was just another name for God, like Allah. Still didn't make sense. the more I learnt, the more ridiculous it became, so I didn't believe, I can't even say "anymore" because I've never had a belief in the basis of religion.

I don't say I've never encountered sufficient evidence to find religious beliefs convincing

Well not convincing to you, certainly not convincing to any current atheist, or they wouldn't be an atheist.
I didn't think that what might be convincing to someone else would be considered relevant.

[quote]/People who believe that their loved ones who've died are in heaven with Jesus, really do believe that. [quote]
I suspect this is one of the main causes of religious belief, that inability to believe a personality has ceased to exist.
It is not evidence based belief though, it is emotionally motivated belief, quite a different thing. The rational convincing part is absent much of the time, since believers are often dumbstruck when you tell them there is no evidence, they simply don't know how to respond. Anyone who had been convinced by evidence would not be at a loss for words at that point.

zulumoose wrote:

I don't say I've never encountered sufficient evidence to find religious beliefs convincing

Well not convincing to you, certainly not convincing to any current atheist, or they wouldn't be an atheist.
I didn't think that what might be convincing to someone else would be considered relevant.

/People who believe that their loved ones who've died are in heaven with Jesus, really do believe that.

I suspect this is one of the main causes of religious belief, that inability to believe a personality has ceased to exist.
It is not evidence based belief though, it is emotionally motivated belief, quite a different thing. The rational convincing part is absent much of the time, since believers are often dumbstruck when you tell them there is no evidence, they simply don't know how to respond. Anyone who had been convinced by evidence would not be at a loss for words at that point.

I can understand that. I've lost so many people I've loved, and others who were just in my life. It's odd to think that some of them were important to me at one time, and now they're just a name from my life experience. Certainly all the adults who made me miserable growing up, and who told me I was "obstinate" or "disobedient" or "disrespectful". They're gone, just nothing now, but the pain they caused still bothers me. Imagine how great it would be if we could tell young people having a hard time with bossy in-laws, or relatives they hate, that one day they'll be old people, and those people will be nothing but a picture in a photo album. Having come to that conclusion, and getting my diagnosis a couple of years ago, has changed the way I live my life now. I also say fuck a lot more than I ever have before and if people think that's crude, well I don't have a single fuck to give about what they think.

zulumoose wrote: since believers are often dumbstruck when you tell them there is no evidence, they simply don't know how to respond.

The ones which are not dumbstruck may trot out the classic "there's more to life than evidence."

"You're lucky that God didn't make you like that..."

I was recently at a mall eatery and I overheard a mother laying this one on her teenage daughter. The girl had been whining about something or other, and the mother's tactic to silence her was to point to a man with a severely awkward gait (possibly a victim of childhood polio) for the sake of emphasising the daughter's relative wellbeing. All very well instilling in one's offspring a sense of gratitude, empathy / sympathy and so forth. But I remember my reaction decades ago when my parents used similar ploys on me one time too many...

Is this God so shit that we have to thank Him for not fucking us over too badly?! Like an assault victim thanking his/her attacker: "You really went to town on my friend there. She's going to have to go to the ICU with that skull fracture. Thank you for breaking only one of my arms".

There's a problem when one uses this sort of lesser-versus-greater-misery to emphasise the "mercy of God". Even a child will inevitably begin to ponder: "Why is this supposedly loving God more merciful toward some than others? What is the baseline level of tolerable misery for which we must be thankful?"

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...
And you can stuff your passive-agressive suggestions.

Ahem! Isn't that sentence a good example of the "passive-aggressive" attitude?
Not that I care. As usual with your posts, I'm bored by it.
[/thread until something interesting comes along]

Nope, the thread will continue whether you like it or not if people have stuff to say. Not you though, you obviously don't feel like defending your nit picky crap.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...
And you can stuff your passive-agressive suggestions.

Ahem! Isn't that sentence a good example of the "passive-aggressive" attitude?

No. Passive agressive is indirect. I am directly and openly telling you to drop your passive agressive comments.

DavidMcC wrote:
Not that I care. As usual with your posts, I'm bored by it.

Fortunately your boredom has fuck all to do with your failure to refute my point or defend your own.

DavidMcC wrote:
[/thread until something interesting comes along]

Nope, still not your personal blog.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...
And you can stuff your passive-agressive suggestions.

Ahem! Isn't that sentence a good example of the "passive-aggressive" attitude?

No. Passive agressive is indirect. I am directly and openly telling you to drop your passive agressive comments.

DavidMcC wrote:
Not that I care. As usual with your posts, I'm bored by it.

Fortunately your boredom has fuck all to do with your failure to refute my point or defend your own.

DavidMcC wrote:
[/thread until something interesting comes along]

Nope, still not your personal blog.

It seems that failing to answer you point to your satisfaction counts as "aggression", and perhaps a violation of the FUA?
Tough. You demand too much of others, and too little of yourself.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...
And you can stuff your passive-agressive suggestions.

Ahem! Isn't that sentence a good example of the "passive-aggressive" attitude?

No. Passive agressive is indirect. I am directly and openly telling you to drop your passive agressive comments.

DavidMcC wrote:
Not that I care. As usual with your posts, I'm bored by it.

Fortunately your boredom has fuck all to do with your failure to refute my point or defend your own.

DavidMcC wrote:
[/thread until something interesting comes along]

Nope, still not your personal blog.

It seems that failing to answer you point to your satisfaction counts as "aggression", and perhaps a violation of the FUA?

Only if you fail to read what I actually post, rather than the fantasies you keep responding to.

DavidMcC wrote:
Tough. You demand too much of others, and too little of yourself.

Continued personalisations in liue of actually defending your position, noted.
You're not fooling anyone David.
And you haven't a clue what I do or do not demand of myself.

Looks like it's your usual, general purpose line of attack.

EDIT: Best for me to just ignore you - we maybe don't speak the same kind of English.

DavidMcC wrote:Looks like it's your usual, general purpose line of attack.

Continued, personalised derail, noted.

DavidMcC wrote:
EDIT: Best for me to just ignore you -

Feel free. Won't be holding my breath though.

DavidMcC wrote:we maybe don't speak the same kind of English.

I have a Cambridge certificate for English Proficiency (C2). How about you?