Atheism is a faith.

[The Atheist]

However, I will venture to say that anyone who takes the stance that they are 100% correct (on any issue) is being brazenly arrogant. Do we know anyone like that? Hmm...?

Is there a prize for answering that?

 

[Tricky]

Simply stated, the question "what is knowledge". Or, and this is by far the more common question, "can we know anything for certain?" This is where the duality of the term "skeptic" comes into play. There are (my terminology here) 'mundane' skeptics (i.e. randi, "ghosts don't exist until we have proof", etc), and then there are 'epistemic' skeptics "we cannot know anything for certain".

Thanks Taffer. I understand it better now. I guess you can put me in the camp of epistemic skeptics, but only weakly so. I don't believe you can know anything for certain, but I believe you can get so close that it makes no practical difference.

Now that I think about it, agnosticism is ever so slightly different, in saying "we cannot know anything for certain, and it's pointless to even try".

Yeah, I saw the smilie, but it is a valid distinction, if true. I don't know that I agree with it, because as a scientist and an agnostic atheist, I feel like our goal should be to try to come as close to "knowing" as possible, even acknowledging that we will always fall short.

 

[CapelDodger]

Jeeeesus, Welsh and Kiwis uniting? Not bloody likely - look what happened to Graham Henry. King of Wales one week, rotten leek the next.

There's a match coming up. We are so gonna get slaughtered ... and I'm still looking forward to it. (Wales played Pacific Islanders on Saturday, beat them handily, and the biggest cheer in the Stadium that day? At the tannoy announcement that Argentina were ahead against England .)

Put them in a large arena with sufficient spears and let them go for it.

Quality TV, that'd be.

 

[The Atheist]

We always have umbrella terms. For example, "asexual" describes the reproduction of any organism which does not reproduce sexuall, be it a virus, a bacteria, etc. The point is, "atheism" just means "not theism". We can further specificy by saying "strong atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheistic agnostic", etc.

You calling me a virus?????

I think I'll sit down and make a list of terms to use - that strong/weak stuff is ok as a description regarding accuracy of meaning, but they just don't do it.

I'll be back.

p.s. Do you students ever sleep?

 

[Tricky]

You calling me a virus?????

Of course not (at least I don't think he is). Asexual refers to organisms which are capable of reproduction, though not sexually. It does not refer to organisms which are theoretically capable of sexual reproduction, but do not do so for other reasons, such as personality.

 

[chriswl]

The dictionary defines arrogance as "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride"

It depends what you find offensive. Demonstrations of superiority can be inspiring. I love seeing Dawkins tearing his opponents to shreds. Many people regard him as "arrogant".

I find politicians like George Bush to be, at times, arrogant.

I've always thought he was just stupid.

I think arrogance is when you refuse to consider that you could be wrong especially in the face of evidence that you are. I think arrogance is typically marked by smugness and condescension. When a politician talks down to reporters and is dismissive of their questions and persist that it is they, the reporters, who don't understand. That to me, is arrogance.

Ah you mean like Rumsfeld? Actually, I've always had a soft spot for him, even though I disagreed with most of what he actually said. In politics I like straight talkers who are clear where they stand not people who prevaricate and hedge their beliefs with weasel words. And I quite like seeing journalists slapped down if they ask really stupid questions.

As a left-of-centre type I never actually supported Thatcher. So many people used to complain about her "arrogance", her insistance on following her convictions and unwillingness to listen and compromise. No, I always used to say, those are her good qualities, its her policies that are the problem; if you believe that what you are doing is right and you have the power to do it why would you want to compromise? If only there were liberal politicians with that sort of confidence.

So do you believe that no one is ever arrogant? Do you believe that a person can be smug? Do you believe that there is such a thing as hubris? Have you ever been patronized by someone in authority? I have, I find such people arrogant.

Smug is a little different. Smug is more passive whereas arrogance has to continually prove itself. Hubris is when you start to go too far and leave reality behind.

I think you have a point. I'm curious though, The Atheist says that he is arrogant. What do you think he means by that?

I don't know, a rejection of false modesty? Unwillingness to suffer fools gladly ("fools" being those who persistently disagree with him ).

 

[RandFan]

It depends what you find offensive. Demonstrations of superiority can be inspiring. I love seeing Dawkins tearing his opponents to shreds.

Agreed.

Ah you mean like Rumsfeld? Actually, I've always had a soft spot for him, even though I disagreed with most of what he actually said. In politics I like straight talkers who are clear where they stand not people who prevaricate and hedge their beliefs with weasel words. And I quite like seeing journalists slapped down if they ask really stupid questions.

As a left-of-centre type I never actually supported Thatcher. So many people used to complain about her "arrogance", her insistance on following her convictions and unwillingness to listen and compromise. No, I always used to say, those are her good qualities, its her policies that are the problem; if you believe that what you are doing is right and you have the power to do it why would you want to compromise? If only there were liberal politicians with that sort of confidence.

Smug is a little different. Smug is more passive whereas arrogance has to continually prove itself. Hubris is when you start to go too far and leave reality behind.

Ok, I understand. Thanks. I don't quite agree but I see your perspective

I don't know, a rejection of false modesty? Unwillingness to suffer fools gladly ("fools" being those who persistently disagree with him ).

 

[The Atheist]

Of course not ...

Thanks, mate!

I must try and use those smilie thingies, occasionally. I was just pulling his tail and he knows it - same as me piling it on about him using up all the tax dollars, lazing away at uni, (the pair of them even admit it!!) and instead of inventing even a better mousetrap, they're waffling away in here.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't know, a rejection of false modesty? Unwillingness to suffer fools gladly ("fools" being those who persistently disagree with him ).

Mate, e mail me your address, please. My wife wants to send you a prize for the best-ever summing up of me in the fewest words possible. I keep telling people - instead of "Train Wreck", I did ask for "Arrogant_B_Stard", but obviously that wasn't allowed because it didn't appear and this one did.

It's called honesty - yes I am arrogant - and you've summed it up perfectly.

 

[fuelair]

Atheism is a faith.
Why no, no it isn't! It is an absence of faith - not the same as all (but if it makes you feel better to think so, knock yourself out!!!!).

 

[RandFan]

As a left-of-centre type I never actually supported Thatcher. So many people used to complain about her "arrogance", her insistance on following her convictions and unwillingness to listen and compromise. No, I always used to say, those are her good qualities, its her policies that are the problem; if you believe that what you are doing is right and you have the power to do it why would you want to compromise? If only there were liberal politicians with that sort of confidence.

I'm curious, do you think that a person can be overly confident and blind to the truth? Politics isn't an exact science but what of those who hold demonstrably false notions and who will not see the truth because it is counter to their ego (if you will excuse my use of the word)? I'm thinking of conspiracy theorist nuts and folks like Jack Chick. Would you concede that arrogance can be a hindrance to finding the truth particularly in scientific pursuits?

 

[Huntster]

How can you say that god is easy to understand?

Again, compared to you, it's a piece of cake.

I can't for the life of me tell what is and is not moral based on the bible.

You've made that abundantly clear. More, you'd likely to claim that you have more intelligence and wisdom than a grapefruit.

Again, that makes you an enigma.

Do you know?

When you're involved, I know nothing. Even my wildest guesses are proven wrong.

 

[Huntster]

The dictionary defines arrogance as "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride".....

Interesting...................

Let's see if you get a full ration of BS on dictionary definitions...........

For example, I say that "arrogance" means the outside toe on a feline's front right foot......................

 

[Jimbo07]

This is fair enough, mate. The problem, for me at least, is that 'agnosticism' is not restricted to a theistic philosophy...
This is because agnosticism is an epistemological stance, while atheism is not.

Good.

I agree, but consider this. With regards to the question of supernatural beings, everyone is an agnostic. Knowbody knows for sure whether a supernatural being or beings exist or ever have existed...
My point is, people choose to be on the theist side or the atheist side, all while being technically agnostic. How about that?

Better.

Me too, but try explaining that to the average person on the street. Like Jimbo, I usually just say "agnostic" so I don't have to explain my position in detail, as well as the difference between "belief" and "knowledge".

Best.

Thanks Taffer. I understand it better now. I guess you can put me in the camp of epistemic skeptics, but only weakly so. I don't believe you can know anything for certain, but I believe you can get so close that it makes no practical difference...
I feel like our goal should be to try to come as close to "knowing" as possible, even acknowledging that we will always fall short.

Bestest!

 

[RandFan]

Again, compared to you, it's a piece of cake.

Ok, fair enough. So can you answer my questions? Based on the Bible is it ok to kill apostates? Is it ok to own slaves? Is it ok to kill your children?

When you're involved, I know nothing. Even my wildest guesses are proven wrong.

You flatter me but in truth I'm just telling you what is in the Bible. You see, unlike most believers I actually read the Bible, all of it. I have never lied to you, not once. Almost everything that I claimed was in the Bible I backed up with chapter and verse. I never took anything out of context. I gave it to you warts and all. Why is that a problem?

Huntster, I have no ill will for you. I like to discuss and debate and I give you a hard time some times but in the end I wish you happiness.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting...................

Let's see if you get a full ration of BS on dictionary definitions...........

For example, I say that "arrogance" means the outside toe on a feline's front right foot......................

I'm guessing this is important but I don't understand. Please to explain?

 

[Tricky]

I'm guessing this is important but I don't understand. Please to explain?

He's referring to the fact that earlier in this thread, people, including myself, gave him a rasher of ◊◊◊◊ because he printed eight definitions of "faith", picked three, then interchanged those three whenever he saw fit.

And if you start using multiple definitions of "arrogant" interchangeably, I'll do the same thing to you. I'm assuming, though, that you'll stick to the one you gave above, something we could never get Huntster to commit to.

 

[Taffer]

Thanks Taffer. I understand it better now. I guess you can put me in the camp of epistemic skeptics, but only weakly so. I don't believe you can know anything for certain, but I believe you can get so close that it makes no practical difference.

As am I. For the perposes of philosophical discussion, I am an epistemic skeptic. But for the perposes of every day life, I'm a scientist, through and through. And we all know how they are.

Yeah, I saw the smilie, but it is a valid distinction, if true. I don't know that I agree with it, because as a scientist and an agnostic atheist, I feel like our goal should be to try to come as close to "knowing" as possible, even acknowledging that we will always fall short.

*shrug* Perhaps it's not perfectly accurate. As I said, that's just how I learned it. As I don't really use the term, I'd rather defer to others who do before making up my mind fully. And I agree, I definately think we should try to know things. Knowing things is, above all, fun.

 

[Taffer]

You calling me a virus?????

Don't worry, I'm an Archaebacteria.

I think I'll sit down and make a list of terms to use - that strong/weak stuff is ok as a description regarding accuracy of meaning, but they just don't do it.

I'll be back.

Probably a good idea.

p.s. Do you students ever sleep?

Sleep? Sleep!? Sleep is for the weak willed! I am kept alive with caffine and aloc.....*ZZZZZZZZZGHCHGHG*

 

[Taffer]

Thanks, mate!

I must try and use those smilie thingies, occasionally. I was just pulling his tail and he knows it

- same as me piling it on about him using up all the tax dollars, lazing away at uni, (the pair of them even admit it!!) and instead of inventing even a better mousetrap, they're waffling away in here.

Damn straight I admit it! I'm a burden on society, a leech on tax-payers dollars, a menace to the elderly, a drunken, rowdy student, and just generally a slob. And I'm damn proud of it!