!	GENERAL MODNOTE SPLIT THREAD CREATED from HERE Go easy on us, Theists.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:atheism isn't a positive claim and as such doesn't require a defence in the first place

Atheism is the stance that there are no gods, so of course it's a positive claim. Whether you want to get involved in defending it or not, is up to you.

Cito di Pense wrote:The answers to 'why' questions consist of telling cute stories only good enough to satisfy someone dim enough to be satisfied by a pat answer. 'Why' questions are at best prompted by a lazy sort of idle curiosity, or worse, prurience.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:a "why" question about something which we have no reason to conceive of as having intentionality such as, for example, science. . . .

Let's consider the question why do some, and not all, birds migrate? This is a question for scientists and it is not a ""what", "when" or "how" question".

ScholasticSpastic wrote:"Why" questions are behind philosophy's most embarrassing fuck-ups.

The idiotic aversion to why-questions is one of a procession of embarrassing fuck ups associated with the Dawkins bandwagon, in particular, with arch-idiot Krauss.
Is implying that scientific curiosity is "a lazy sort of idle curiosity, or worse, prurience", Cito's most embarrassing fuck up? For anyone who wants to give the notion of quantifying the embarrassingness of fuck ups a serious go, Cito's posting history certainly offers a rich resource.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Second chance:

Fuck off. I do not recognize any authority on your part to give me chances in this forum.

You could save yourself the embarrassment of being unable to defend your fuck up by refraining from posting ill-thought out cliched crap, couldn't you?

ughaibu wrote:

Atheism is the stance that there are no gods, so of course it's a positive claim. Whether you want to get involved in defending it or not, is up to you.

Bzzt! No! Atheism is a lack of belief in god[s]. Agnosticism is a realization that there are no absolute proofs either way.

Let's consider the question why do some, and not all, birds migrate? This is a question for scientists and it is not a ""what", "when" or "how" question".

Science is about the how, not the why. Why implies intent or purpose.

The idiotic aversion to why-questions is one of a procession of embarrassing fuck ups associated with the Dawkins bandwagon, in particular, with arch-idiot Krauss.
Is implying that scientific curiosity is "a lazy sort of idle curiosity, or worse, prurience", Cito's most embarrassing fuck up? For anyone who wants to give the notion of quantifying the embarrassingness of fuck ups a serious go, Cito's posting history certainly offers a rich resource.

Incoherent trolling. So Krauss is an idiot in your eyes? We, if your lack of knowledge in the most basic definitions of everyday terms like atheism is wrong, I don't have much confidence in your opinions when you trash eminent scientists.

You could save yourself the embarrassment of being unable to defend your fuck up by refraining from posting ill-thought out cliched crap, couldn't you?

You could save yourself embarrassment by not posting.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:ughaibu wrote:

Atheism is the stance that there are no gods

No! Atheism is a lack of belief in god[s].

You're mistaken. "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Science is about the how, not the why.

But I have just given a counter example to this bullshit, and one that you are ostensibly replying to. Or do you contend that "why do some, and not all, birds migrate?" is not a question for science and that science can only address the question how do some, and not all, birds migrate?

Darwinsbulldog wrote:You could save yourself embarrassment by not posting.

Hifuckinglarious in view of the idiocy of your response.

THWOTH wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

THWOTH wrote:Atheism is a response to the claims and assertions of others. That's all it is; that's all it can be.

That's true. The response "don't be ridiculous" just covers so much more than claims about deities, so it can't be called 'anti-theism'. Do we see a pattern developing? Everything that isn't a belief in someone's (unsupported) pet idea is read as an insult.

But my beliefs are special and, goddammitdave, sacred.

Bend a spoon, dude.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Atheism is a lack of belief in gods...

Certainly, but you know me. I'm forever stumping to see some contractual language in there along the lines of "not expressly or implicitly restricted to gods that have already been invented..."

This kind of language is crucial in filosofecal discourse, which is really your chance to show that you've mastered semantics in all its variegated glory.

Your specific rights in this contract may vary from state to state...

THWOTH wrote:That you're not really listening to what atheists mean by 'atheism'

I'm a Brit and I live in Japan. I am an atheist and most of the people around me are now and always have been atheists. None of those people would take seriously the claim that their position on the existence of gods is some species of answer in an imaginary conversation with a theist. They all, as far as my interaction with any of them on the rather uninteresting question of the existence of gods goes, explicitly hold the belief that there are no gods.

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:If you make a claim for at least one god the burden of support is on you. Considering whatever support you bring to the claim the atheist is the one who does not believe you.

I see. So let's suppose a theist who claims that some god exists, Shiva, for example, and let's suppose a christian who does not believe the claim that Shiva exists. According to you, we have here a theist who is an atheist.
Of course no theist is an atheist. So, see if you can figure out where your thinking fucked up.

What's your issue? That person is an atheist regarding Shiva, but a theist regarding Jehovah. I am also an atheist regarding Shiva, and as it happens, Jehovah. I lack belief in either.

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:That you're not really listening to what atheists mean by 'atheism'

I'm a Brit and I live in Japan. I am an atheist and most of the people around me are now and always have been atheists. None of those people would take seriously the claim that their position on the existence of gods is some species of answer in an imaginary conversation with a theist. They all, as far as my interaction with any of them on the rather uninteresting question of the existence of gods goes, explicitly hold the belief that there are no gods.

Good for them. I don't. What would you call me? Perhaps just someone who lacks belief in god/s?

ughaibu wrote:Of course no theist is an atheist.

That would be the part about lacking belief in deities. Since it's impossible to name them all (there's this cute short story by Arthur C. Clarke) the name of the deity believed-in reads "this space intentionally left blank".

I don't know what to name the belief that every word has only a single and exact definition, but in those who hold it, it's stronger than a belief in deities. But you don't believe that sort of crap, do you?

Onyx8 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:we have here a theist who is an atheist.
Of course no theist is an atheist.

What's your issue?

I can't imagine what difficulty you could possibly have in understanding the above.

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:If you make a claim for at least one god the burden of support is on you. Considering whatever support you bring to the claim the atheist is the one who does not believe you.

I see. So let's suppose a theist who claims that some god exists, Shiva, for example, and let's suppose a christian who does not believe the claim that Shiva exists. According to you, we have here a theist who is an atheist.
Of course no theist is an atheist. So, see if you can figure out where your thinking fucked up.

Watch this. A theist who is also a monotheist is an atheist, once removed.

https://youtu.be/d0A4_bwCaX0

ughaibu wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:we have here a theist who is an atheist.
Of course no theist is an atheist.

What's your issue?

I can't imagine what difficulty you could possibly have in understanding the above.

Why did you clip the bit where I explained that?

Onyx8 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:They all, as far as my interaction with any of them on the rather uninteresting question of the existence of gods goes, explicitly hold the belief that there are no gods.

I don't. What would you call me?

Which is your position? Do you hold 1. that there is at least one god, 2. that there are at most zero gods, 3. neither that there is at least one god nor that there are at most zero gods?

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:If you make a claim for at least one god the burden of support is on you. Considering whatever support you bring to the claim the atheist is the one who does not believe you.

I see. So let's suppose a theist who claims that some god exists, Shiva, for example, and let's suppose a christian who does not believe the claim that Shiva exists. According to you, we have here a theist who is an atheist.
Of course no theist is an atheist. So, see if you can figure out where your thinking fucked up.

There's nothing particular difficult or controversial here, and indeed one might say that every theists is an atheist with regards to religions other than their own. However, I doubt the Christian would self-identify as an atheist in that way - would they? Perhaps then you should pay more attention to how self-identified atheists qualify their atheism, eh? Nonetheless, this has little to do with what I am saying in response to you.

This is the second post of mine the substance of which you have ignored, instead choosing to rely on a snippet to lead the discussion away from any rational challenge to your own position presented therein. Of course you're not obliged to respond to any particular post or in any particular way, but I would suggest that if one is intellectually honest and sincere one, imo, should at least try and meet rational challenges to one's own position - as I have done in good faith. Seems you are fast running out of 'second chances' here ughaibu

Onyx8 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:That you're not really listening to what atheists mean by 'atheism'

I'm a Brit and I live in Japan. I am an atheist and most of the people around me are now and always have been atheists. None of those people would take seriously the claim that their position on the existence of gods is some species of answer in an imaginary conversation with a theist. They all, as far as my interaction with any of them on the rather uninteresting question of the existence of gods goes, explicitly hold the belief that there are no gods.

Good for them. I don't. What would you call me? Perhaps just someone who lacks belief in god/s?

This points to an interesting twist in the semantics of 'atheism', which is that it's socially constructed. That's not explicit in your remarks, yet.

Onyx8 wrote:Why did you clip the bit where I explained that?

You mean the nonsense about there being someone who is both an atheist and a theist? I "clipped" it because it's nonsense.
Why not ask Darwinsbulldog if there are stamp collectors who don't collect stamps, cats which are dogs, etc.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

THWOTH wrote:That you're not really listening to what atheists mean by 'atheism'

I'm a Brit and I live in Japan. I am an atheist and most of the people around me are now and always have been atheists. None of those people would take seriously the claim that their position on the existence of gods is some species of answer in an imaginary conversation with a theist. They all, as far as my interaction with any of them on the rather uninteresting question of the existence of gods goes, explicitly hold the belief that there are no gods.

Good for them. I don't. What would you call me? Perhaps just someone who lacks belief in god/s?

This points to an interesting twist in the semantics of 'atheism', which is that it's socially constructed. That's not explicit in your remarks, yet.

Yes, I would not actually ever label myself as someone who subscribes to 'atheism'. However I see no way around calling myself an 'atheist' as I currently hold no belief in any god.

ughaibu wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Why did you clip the bit where I explained that?

You mean the nonsense about there being someone who is both an atheist and a theist? I "clipped" it because it's nonsense.
Why not ask Darwinsbulldog if there are stamp collectors who don't collect stamps, cats which are dogs, etc.

No thanks.

An atheist regarding one god, but a theist regarding another. You can't understand that?

THWOTH wrote:one might say that every theists is an atheist with regards to religions other than their own.

Yes, another monumental fuck up from the Dawkins mob that is an embarrassment to actual atheists.

ughaibu wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:

ughaibu wrote:They all, as far as my interaction with any of them on the rather uninteresting question of the existence of gods goes, explicitly hold the belief that there are no gods.

I don't. What would you call me?

Which is your position? Do you hold 1. that there is at least one god, 2. that there are at most zero gods, 3. neither that there is at least one god nor that there are at most zero gods?

I will try and make it simple for you.

A state of belief [or non-belief] is not necessarily a claim. And vice-versa. If I believe I am Napoleon, does that automatically make me Napoleon?
Positive claims should be supported by evidence and reason. If I make the positive claim that I am Napoleon, a reasonable person could demand some evidence. A birth certificate a blood sample-whatever. If I do not claim to be Napoleon, I do not have to defend it. If I don't believe in gods, I should not have to defend it either. But for most of history, including up to the present day with ISIS an theocracies that will imprison, torture or kill non-believers, it is important to defend atheism.
Freedom of religion means nothing unless it is also freedom from religion. HTH.