Atheism is a faith.

[Taffer]

No sweat, anyone's welcome to agree to disagree.There's another area we will have to agree to disagree, because there is.Aha, the very crux of the whole matter. Had the OP stated what "atheism" means in this context, then I have no problem at all - I'd agree to disagree with you and the OP.Ditto the other comments.

Fair enough.

No he's not! He's arguing his point which has the enviable luxury of being correct in every respect.

I believe he is. Becuase he is posting a single definition, which we all have stated is not accurate, nor does it reflect the way we use the term, but he then continues to argue against that definition rather then what we really mean. What we really mean is not based upon some believed 'authority' in the language, because what we mean is what we mean. I have posted a link to a definition of atheism which with I can agree.

I can do that too, but I choose not to. Arguing from definition is a fallacy for many reasons, including that it often leads to straw men. He claims we mean one thing when we say 'atheist', but it is not what we mean. I have already agreed that, if by 'atheist' you mean 'believes no god exists', then this is based upon 'faith'. But that is not what many here mean when we say 'atheist', thus to argue against that it is a straw man.

Also, note the difference between "I believe no god exists" and "I believe no god exists, because I only believe things with evidence and there is no evidence for god". The former is a position of faith, the latter is not.

 

[Taffer]

Oh my god, stop, please! I am going to dead-set ##ss my pants if you come out with more like that; "It's an argument I'd shoot down in flames if anyone else tried it, but because it's me and I hold those people in high regard, it's a legit and sound move."

Outstanding!

I agree that any appeal to authority is a fallacy, but I think this is a bit harsh, TA.

 

[The Atheist]

It's funny isn't it. I suspect that someone like The Atheist never questioned his assumptions. On the contrary, he is an atheist simply because he is an atheist. It's why he doesn't engage in argument and has such a fundamental missunderstanding of what atheism actually is. He doesn't share the same view as other atheists like Dawkins, Shermer, Randi and Dennett because he didn't come to not believe he just has never logially examined the notion that there is no god. To him it is a faith.

It's just a guess but I think it is a fair one based on his behavior.

Well, you know what they say about what happens when you ASSUME something!

Just for the record, I have been an atheist since roughly nine years of age. Because I wanted to confirm that my feelings were based on something other than intuition (and to satisfy my christian parents that I had at least looked at the alternatives), I spent my teenage years attending various religious services, camps, discussion groups and bible chapters. Most of the people I talked to and studied with ASSUMED I was a nice christian boy brushing up on my biblical studies and being such a good student that I was expected to move on to bible studies fulltime. I have been involved with all denominations of churches, from Moonies to Scientologists to Pagan to Hare Krishna to Fundamental/Pentecostal to Anglican/C of E (a church in which my uncle was a Reverend Canon, with a PhD in Theology) to Roman Catholic and Baptist.

Fair guess[?], but like a lot of your posts, 100% incorrect in every possible respect! Genius.

p.s. Why don't you just quietly slink away for a day or two. When you get back, the thread(s) will be off the front page.

 

[The Atheist]

I agree that any appeal to authority is a fallacy, but I think this is a bit harsh, TA.

Probably is, but RandFan and I have been having a little tete-a-tete elsewhere which bears remarkable resemblance to the argument here, so I've already used up my quota of restraint.

 

[RandFan]

No, certainly not my only skill

No, your only one.

When you're ever able to point out an actual fallacy, I'll bother answering the other point.

See my sig. I've noted a dozen so far.

My ego's irrelevant

On one hand, he argues that atheism isn't a cult and has no leaders, yet here, for the second time in two paragraphs, name-dropping to say I should think like those people because they're the top atheists!

Strawman, I never said you should think like anyone. Just pointing what the experts have to say.

RandFan, that is truly priceless!

The rhetoric is getting tired. It has no effect on me.

In parting, I do assure you, I'll miss our tete-a-tetes; you talk about facts and evidence and logic, yet you make the absurd claim that "religious faith is blind and based upon emotion and nothing else." And you used to be in the church? That statement is so appallingly ignorant I really should let Huntster point it out - as I trust he will - but if you think for a second that it's true, then you are even sadder than I thought.

I'm in good league considering that Dawkins, Dennett, Pinkerton and others agree. I'll grant that there is some good theory that religion is part due to genetic predisposition but there is no hard evidence for it as yet.

Let me point out that you are still just engaging in personal attack as you always do. And you accuse me of ignorance?

 

[Taffer]

Probably is, but RandFan and I have been having a little tete-a-tete elsewhere which bears remarkable resemblance to the argument here, so I've already used up my quota of restraint.

Y'know, I try not to judge people based on other threads. For example, if, in a different thread, hamme or Huntster were to show up, I wouldn't immediately assume what their actions are going to be, nor would I judge a few of their posts based upon past encounters.

And to be honest, mate, RandFan has shown to be time and time again a great thinker and a logical person. I'm not quite sure I understand your animosity towards RandFan. In this thread, he has made logical arguments, pointed out the fallicious reasoning employed by Huntster and others (as have I, remember). Personally, I wouldn't overly judge someone as long as they use logical arguments, even if I disagree with the logic.

And yes, a fallacy is a fallacy, but surely you can forgive one moment of heated exchange after so many pages?

EDIT: The same applies to you too, RandFan. The Atheist may seem over zealous at times, but I think his heart is in the right place.

 

[RandFan]

Oh my god, stop, please! I am going to dead-set ##ss my pants if you come out with more like that; "It's an argument I'd shoot down in flames if anyone else tried it, but because it's me and I hold those people in high regard, it's a legit and sound move."

Outstanding!

I'm sorry, is there an argument there?

 

[RandFan]

Well, you know what they say about what happens when you ASSUME something!

Just for the record, I have been an atheist since roughly nine years of age. Because I wanted to confirm that my feelings were based on something other than intuition (and to satisfy my christian parents that I had at least looked at the alternatives), I spent my teenage years attending various religious services, camps, discussion groups and bible chapters. Most of the people I talked to and studied with ASSUMED I was a nice christian boy brushing up on my biblical studies and being such a good student that I was expected to move on to bible studies fulltime. I have been involved with all denominations of churches, from Moonies to Scientologists to Pagan to Hare Krishna to Fundamental/Pentecostal to Anglican/C of E (a church in which my uncle was a Reverend Canon, with a PhD in Theology) to Roman Catholic and Baptist.

Fair guess[?], but like a lot of your posts, 100% incorrect in every possible respect! Genius.

p.s. Why don't you just quietly slink away for a day or two. When you get back, the thread(s) will be off the front page.

Because I enjoy watching you simply engage in rhetoric, ad hominem and personal attack. You don't make argument. You think that you shouldn't be questioned. When you are you act like a petulant child and refuse to debate. I think it is an opportunity to show others your inability to act like an adult.

There is ample evidence.

Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

I agree that any appeal to authority is a fallacy, but I think this is a bit harsh, TA.

An appeal to authority isn't always wrong. Considering the authorities I would say that it is not a fallacy in this case. I'm in good stead. Trust me on this one.

The Atheist doesn't like to be questioned. He takes it personally when someone disagrees with him and he results to personal attack and ad hominem. I confess that he pushed my buttons and I acted in kind but I've no where near behaved as poorly as he.

But that is a Tu Quoque argument and I have ceased with the personal attack. It was wrong.

 

[The Atheist]

I believe he is. Becuase he is posting a single definition, which we all have stated is not accurate, nor does it reflect the way we use the term, but he then continues to argue against that definition rather then what we really mean. What we really mean is not based upon some believed 'authority' in the language, because what we mean is what we mean. I have posted a link to a definition of atheism which with I can agree.

Always the problem with language, I agree. I agree with your concepts entirely, which is why my own group's style and website is "Extreme Atheists". We realise that there's been a softening of the term "atheist" and I'm sure we will in the future see it watered down in English. It obviously already has in American English. (I won't get started on the relative lack of merits of US English!)

We don't wish to be classed as people who adhere to the majority view, we like to go a step (and sometimes three) further than other people who call themselves "atheists". We share a view that there are no gods and treat it as a foregone conclusion. We don't claim to have 100% proof of the non-existence of god/s, because that would be blatantly incorrect, but nobody is going to suggest that our views are any less acceptable or correct than anyone else's. We love being the stereotype the churches love to hate!

I have already agreed that, if by 'atheist' you mean 'believes no god exists', then this is based upon 'faith'. But that is not what many here mean when we say 'atheist', thus to argue against that it is a straw man.

Once the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is complete, it will. Meanwhile, we'll stick with that agree/disagree thing.

Also, note the difference between "I believe no god exists" and "I believe no god exists, because I only believe things with evidence and there is no evidence for god". The former is a position of faith, the latter is not.

Yep, I can agree with that, but does anyone really go around making statements like this: "because I only believe things with evidence"?

 

[RandFan]

Yep, I can agree with that, but does anyone really go around making statements like this: "because I only believe things with evidence"?

What possible difference could it make? It is how I base my beliefs. If someone else is ignorant of that fact then it is their problem and not mine.

 

[RandFan]

EDIT: The same applies to you too, RandFan. The Atheist may seem over zealous at times, but I think his heart is in the right place.

Thanks, the problem I have is that he gets emotional really quick and won't even engage in discussion. He jumped on me immediatly in a different thread. Declared that I was wrong and then stuck his fingers in his ears humming loudly all the while attacking me personally. Please see my signature. It's there for anyone to confirm.

ETA: I've pulled the sig. It's not worth it. See politics and the thread Boo Hoo...

 

[Taffer]

An appeal to authority isn't always wrong. Considering the authorities I would say that it is not a fallacy in this case. I'm in good stead. Trust me on this one.

Of course, but I have to disagree. Simply saying "it is right because X, Y and Z also believe it" is a fallacy. Saying "I believe it because X, Y and Z" is not.

The Atheist doesn't like to be questioned. He takes it personally when someone disagrees with him and he results to personal attack and ad hominem. I confess that he pushed my buttons and I acted in kind but I've no where near behaved as poorly as he.

But that is a Tu Quoque argument and I have ceased with the personal attack. It was wrong.

It is a better man who admits his faults.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, but I have to disagree. Simply saying "it is right because X, Y and Z also believe it" is a fallacy. Saying "I believe it because X, Y and Z" is not.

Agreed.

 

[The Atheist]

Y'know, I try not to judge people based on other threads. For example, if, in a different thread, hamme or Huntster were to show up, I wouldn't immediately assume what their actions are going to be, nor would I judge a few of their posts based upon past encounters.

Jesus, I would, especially where Huntster's concerned. I could have written down his position before I read it!

And to be honest, mate, RandFan has shown to be time and time again a great thinker and a logical person. I'm not quite sure I understand your animosity towards RandFan. In this thread, he has made logical arguments, pointed out the fallicious reasoning employed by Huntster and others (as have I, remember). Personally, I wouldn't overly judge someone as long as they use logical arguments, even if I disagree with the logic.

I'll not deny having a problem with RandFan - I tend to have problems with most of the really outspoken people in here. Seen my sig? If I had room, I could have twenty different pieces of abuse in it, each and every one from an "atheist". He may well be highly intelligent and insightful. One day, I might see that. In the meantime, all I see is a person who takes a contrary view simply for the sake of it, so I take the piss. You can see from his posts that he loves it.

And yes, a fallacy is a fallacy, but surely you can forgive one moment of heated exchange after so many pages?

Hey, you're asking the wrong guy, I make my living from fallacies - I couldn't care less how many fallacies a person makes or whether there's any logic used at all. I just don't care about methodology, I care about results. I keep telling everyone - while I'm sceptical about some matters, I am NOT a "sceptic".

Take Huntster as an example. He and I think the same way, but disagree on just about everything. RandFan and I agree on just about everything, yet we think in totally different ways. Who am I arguing with and throwing ad hominems at? Who do I have the most arguments with, christians or atheists? Atheists. Why? Because they care about methodology. While I say, "Hey, that round thing's a wheel, let's use it" while RandFan and his buddies are still trying to figure out what colour it should be.

 

[Taffer]

Always the problem with language, I agree. I agree with your concepts entirely, which is why my own group's style and website is "Extreme Atheists". We realise that there's been a softening of the term "atheist" and I'm sure we will in the future see it watered down in English. It obviously already has in American English. (I won't get started on the relative lack of merits of US English!)

I hear ya there, mate.

We don't wish to be classed as people who adhere to the majority view, we like to go a step (and sometimes three) further than other people who call themselves "atheists". We share a view that there are no gods and treat it as a foregone conclusion. We don't claim to have 100% proof of the non-existence of god/s, because that would be blatantly incorrect, but nobody is going to suggest that our views are any less acceptable or correct than anyone else's. We love being the stereotype the churches love to hate!

I understand, mate. I don't subscribe to this level of atheism, but I don't hold it against you.

Once the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is complete, it will. Meanwhile, we'll stick with that agree/disagree thing.

Yep, I can agree with that, but does anyone really go around making statements like this: "because I only believe things with evidence"?

Well...yes. I do, as long as it needs any clarification at all.

 

[Taffer]

Thanks, the problem I have is that he gets emotional really quick and won't even engage in discussion. He jumped on me immediatly in a different thread. Declared that I was wrong and then stuck his fingers in his ears humming loudly all the while attacking me personally. Please see my signature. It's there for anyone to confirm.

I understand this, mate. I am exactly the same. I try not to be, but we all know how it is.

 

[RandFan]

I'll not deny having a problem with RandFan - I tend to have problems with most of the really outspoken people in here. Seen my sig? If I had room, I could have twenty different pieces of abuse in it, each and every one from an "atheist". He may well be highly intelligent and insightful. One day, I might see that. In the meantime, all I see is a person who takes a contrary view simply for the sake of it, so I take the piss. You can see from his posts that he loves it.

Interesting that you can't see your own behavior. This didn't start with me attacking you. I made the mistake of disagreeing with you. That's all and for it I got a lot of grief. You were quick with the venom and vitriol.

I think you are playing the martyr.

If Taffer would check out the thread in question I think he would agree.

 

[The Atheist]

Because I enjoy watching you simply engage in rhetoric, ad hominem and personal attack. You don't make argument. You think that you shouldn't be questioned. When you are you act like a petulant child and refuse to debate. I think it is an opportunity to show others your inability to act like an adult.

There is ample evidence.

Thank you.

Another nice try, but singularly unsuccessful, again [again] (again).

I have no problem debating with probably 90+% of the people on these forums and a quick look at many of my posts will bear that out. What's getting your panties all out of shape is that I won't debate YOU. I can debate with CTists, christians and skeptics and never feel the need to resort to ad hominem until a poster comes out with irretrievable BS. You just keep doing it.

I keep pointing out that I have a strict quota for debating with fools and you used up your time limit thanks to an incomprehensible inability to understand a simple concept, clearly expressed in very few words.

 

[The Atheist]

Thanks, the problem I have is that he gets emotional really quick and won't even engage in discussion. He jumped on me immediatly in a different thread. Declared that I was wrong and then stuck his fingers in his ears humming loudly all the while attacking me personally.

Dear me, you've got it quite bad, haven't you?

As I just explained to Taffer, I have no problem with questions and discussion - even from you. Until that quota's met....