Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Sledge]

And this would relate to the discussion how?

Me Sledge try speak simple so you Christian understand. Me Sledge not sure this possible. You Christian have one of three problems:

1) You Christian have beliefs that stop you listening to what they other people say

2) You Christian not able speak English well enough to understand what they other people say

3) You Christian not smart enough to understand what they other people say.

Me Grimlock Sledge not really care which your problem is.

 

[Christian]

It's the same point it always is: atheists really believe, they just won't admit it because they're angry with god.

I have said no such thing. This is false.

 

[Christian]

Me Sledge try speak simple so you Christian understand. Me Sledge not sure this possible. You Christian have one of three problems:

1) You Christian have beliefs that stop you listening to what they other people say

2) You Christian not able speak English well enough to understand what they other people say

3) You Christian not smart enough to understand what they other people say.

Me Grimlock Sledge not really care which your problem is.

I don't think this is an acceptable answer. I request you give me an acceptable answer. I don't think you should speak to me like this.

 

[Beth]

I think that you have indeed met his definition. It doesn't matter what default state you started with. Your current state is due to your giving the matter some thought and coming to a conclusion.

No it isn't. That is what I am trying to explain. I started out atheist. I did give religions some thought at one point, because it is important in understanding people and the world. To me it is self evident that we cannot answer the question "does god exist?" It is, to me, a profoundly stupid question. The interest I have is in how people manage to convince themselves that it matters: and indeed matters enough to be nasty to each other over. I have never seen anything which would suggest that it is anything other than an interesting set of speculations for a wet afternoon

Yes, I understand. And I hear Christian trying to say that, yes, that would qualify as atheist by his critieria.

if you exclude me from the definition of atheist you have missed quite a lot of us

I don't understand why you think you would be excluded from his definition? I don't think he's looking for profound philosophical consideration of this issues. I interpret what he is looking for is conscious choice rather than the unthinking acceptance a small child has for whatever beliefs his/her parents hold.

 

[Sun Countess]

I get that completely. But please follow me. Do you really believe that Superman and Voldemort are in the same category "not believing in any deities". Coming to the understand that there are no gods where religions have (have had) a profound impact on human history and it is extremely relevant today is in the same realm as Superman an Voldemort? Deities and the understanding of how people who believe in deities act is very important? You want to minize this, I don't buy it. Religious extremism can affect anyone, anywhere around the world. It is not something you just dismiss.

For me, they are in the same category. I understand that for other people they are not. Aliens are important to some people, who claim that they're visited by them or tracking their movements. Does that make them important to me? No. Absolutely not.

Do you spend much of your time thinking about what the aliens will do next? Do you worry that the Bigfoot population will explode and take over the planet? Do you worry that ghosts should be doing more to prevent global warming? Those things are important to other people, so by extension they must be important to you.

Thankfully, I live in a place where religious extremism doesn't hurt me. You are correct that religious extremism can hurt even the non-adherents of the religion and that's a horrible thing. It's just one more in a long line of ways that some people are just determined to hurt others.

Good anecdote. Do you see that it is not something without importance. A friend of yours confronts you with this idea, and you don't meditate about, affirm you conclusions convictions? There are no thought processes involved? You are relating a story that shows thinking about it, processing information, coming to a conclusion. You can't escape your brain.

Why would I meditate about it? Why would I need to affirm my convictions? If a friend of yours starting going on and on about how he's sure that Superman was going to stop your town's political corruption, would you have to meditate on the possible existence of superman, or would you take that moment to reaffirm your convictions that Superman is a fictional character?

You assign straw men to my position. I never have, never will say you are angry at gods. That is ridicuous. You confronted an idea, a very clear idea and decide on it. It is as simple as that. It is a logical conclusion based on how humans process any information. We can't process information unless we evaluate it. What is so hard to get abou this?

No, you never said we were angry at gods. Other theists have. It's a common misperception of an atheist's beliefs.

Just for giggles, tell me about the time that you confronted the idea about Superman's existence, and the logical conclusion you reached regarding his existence. Then tell me about the time you confronted the idea of Harry Potter's existence.

Deties are totally irrelevant to you, they are imaginary. What is important is the idea that other humans hold beliefs in deities and you don't. Important enough to evaluate and determine that there are no deities. All you need to satisfy my criteria is that you decided, evaluated, processed and took, affirmed, etc. a stance.

Have you heard of the Snape Wives? There are real women out there who are convinced that they are married to Professor Snape. This is a very important belief to them. How much time and energy will you spend evaluating, processing, or affirming your stance, that Snape is a fictional character created by JK Rowling?

Please answer as honestly as possible. Because I don't think you spend any time wondering whether Superman or Snape are real or imaginary.

 

[Sledge]

I don't think this is an acceptable answer. I request you give me an acceptable answer. I don't think you should speak to me like this.

Which proves what I said: you either can't understand or won't understand. I don't really give a damn which it is, you're an exceptionally rude person.

 

[Beth]

No, because that isn't true. There is no mental process involved in not believing in something. I don't even need to have heard of something to not believe in it.

But once you have heard of it, there is a mental process involved in deciding whether or not to believe what you heard to be true, or more precisely how much weight to assign the probability that it was true.

I have told you more than once that I didn't. Sun Countess has told you she didn't. Agatha has told you she didn't.

But you say we are all wrong. Have it your way.

If he has heard your explanations of how you came to consider yourself atheist and says that yes, you qualify by his definition, why are you insisting that you don't meet his definition?

 

[Sun Countess]

I don't understand why you think you would be excluded from his definition? I don't think he's looking for profound philosophical consideration of this issues. I interpret what he is looking for is conscious choice rather than the unthinking acceptance a small child has for whatever beliefs his/her parents hold.

He said exactly that:

I get that you are making a judgment, an evaluation. You have structured a pros and cons analysis and come to the inequivocal conclusion that "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about". That is a profound philosophical statement. You too fit my defintion of an atheist, and very well.

eta:

If he has heard your explanations of how you came to consider yourself atheist and says that yes, you qualify by his definition, why are you insisting that you don't meet his definition?

Because when he restates Fiona's explanations in his own words, he adds a lot of stuff that she never said, so that her thought processes fall in line with his worldview.

 

[Christian]

For me, they are in the same category. I understand that for other people they are not. Aliens are important to some people, who claim that they're visited by them or tracking their movements. Does that make them important to me? No. Absolutely not.o you spend much of your time thinking about what the aliens will do next? Do you worry that the Bigfoot population will explode and take over the planet? Do you worry that ghosts should be doing more to prevent global warming? Those things are important to other people, so by extension they must be important to you

You keep giving specific examples. I'm not talking about specific examples but the "whole category". Humans think in categories. You have eliminated a whole category in your brain. That takes consideration, thought. Of course items in the category alone can be nothing, but not the whole category.

Just for giggles, tell me about the time that you confronted the idea about Superman's existence, and the logical conclusion you reached regarding his existence. Then tell me about the time you confronted the idea of Harry Potter's existence.

I understand. But this is not what you did. You eliminated a complete category. That takes thought, profound thought. Further, every time items in the category are mention you have to make mental adjustments, however small they may be.

My point is this: to satisfy my criteria all you need is to have a mental process that concluded the whole category does not exist. You satisfy this criteria.

 

[Christian]

Which proves what I said: you either can't understand or won't understand. I don't really give a damn which it is, you're an exceptionally rude person.

Once again, this is not an acceptable answer. I request you don't speak to my like this.

 

[Christian]

He said exactly that:

eta:
Because when he restates Fiona's explanations in his own words, he adds a lot of stuff that she never said, so that her thought processes fall in line with his worldview.

That is just being messy on my part. And I'm being messy because of so much information going on. I'm being careless because I'm trying to write so much in so little time.

Beth is correct.

 

[Beth]

I don't understand why you think you would be excluded from his definition? I don't think he's looking for profound philosophical consideration of this issues. I interpret what he is looking for is conscious choice rather than the unthinking acceptance a small child has for whatever beliefs his/her parents hold.

He said exactly that:

I get that you are making a judgment, an evaluation. You have structured a pros and cons analysis and come to the inequivocal conclusion that "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about". That is a profound philosophical statement. You too fit my defintion of an atheist, and very well.

My apologies. "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about" is not what I normally consider a profound philosophical consideration, but apparently he does. And apparently what you and Fiona describe as your thought processes fits that definition well enough.

eta:

If he has heard your explanations of how you came to consider yourself atheist and says that yes, you qualify by his definition, why are you insisting that you don't meet his definition?

Because when he restates Fiona's explanations in his own words, he adds a lot of stuff that she never said, so that her thought processes fall in line with his worldview.

Like describing it as a "profound philosophical consideration"? And here I thought he was just trying to clarify what he meant.

 

[Christian]

He said exactly that:

eta:
Because when he restates Fiona's explanations in his own words, he adds a lot of stuff that she never said, so that her thought processes fall in line with his worldview.

Now that I look at the quote. No, it is not accurate. I don't add to stuff she has said. I make commentary. And the quote is not from what Fiona said anyway.

 

[Sun Countess]

You keep giving specific examples. I'm not talking about specific examples but the "whole category". Humans think in categories. You have eliminated a whole category in your brain. That takes consideration, thought. Of course items in the category alone can be nothing, but not the whole category.

How have I eliminated a category? I'm telling you that Voldemort, Superman, Zeus, and Yahweh all fit into the same category for me. They were all introduced to me as characters in works of fiction.

That's why I'm giving you examples. So you can see that when you're introduced to characters as fictional entities, you don't take the time to meditate on the possible state of their existence. So when you say that Fiona or I are going through these mental processes and evaluations to say that deities don't really exist, you're putting something onto the experience that isn't there.

Whatever process you have to go through to confirm your conviction that Voldemort doesn't really exist is the exact process I went through to confirm that Zeus and Yahweh don't exist.

I understand. But this is not what you did. You eliminated a complete category. That takes thought, profound thought. Further, every time items in the category are mention you have to make mental adjustments, however small they may be.

No, I didn't eliminate a category. What category did I eliminate? There's no profound thought to learn that there's a difference between real people who live in this world, and imaginary characters that people make up for entertainment and instruction.

 

[Sledge]

Once again, this is not an acceptable answer. I request you don't speak to my like this.

Which is it: can't understand or won't understand?

 

[Christian]

My apologies. "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about" is not what I normally consider a profound philosophical consideration, but apparently he does. And apparently what you and Fiona describe as your thought processes fits that definition well enough.


Like describing it as a "profound philosophical consideration"? And here I thought he was just trying to clarify what he meant.

I overstated that, maybe. But that does not nulify the general idea of how I want to establish who is in the survey.

 

[Sun Countess]

Now that I look at the quote. No, it is not accurate. I don't add to stuff she has said. I make commentary. And the quote is not from what Fiona said anyway.

The original quote from you was a response to what Fiona said. You can click on the arrow to see your original post. Fiona described her mental processes and you described her conclusions as a "profound philosophical statement."

To me, that's not clarifying what she said, but adding weight to something that she was most decidedly stating was not important to her. (Something about "it doesn't matter all that much." That's the opposite of profound philosophical importance.)

It's like when you're trying to tell me that I go through these mental processes that I definitely am not experiencing from my viewpoint. This started way back when you said I was somehow "fighting" societal forces that compel most people to believe in the supernatural.

 

[GeeMack]

Now that I look at the quote. No, it is not accurate. I don't add to stuff she has said. I make commentary. And the quote is not from what Fiona said anyway.

Sledge is correct about you being rude. So far it appears your point consists of complaining and telling other people they're wrong. You could have saved yourself a lot of time if you'd had the honesty and decency to just say so when I asked.

 

[Sledge]

I particularly enjoy that he's telling atheists that they're defining "atheist" incorrectly, and has the gall to ask why the definition everyone else uses is right whilst his is wrong. The effort he's going to to avoid getting to his point is almost admirable. Imagine if we could focus that energy on something useful, like... I dunno... Christian getting to his point. It's been several days and two threads now. How much longer?

 

[Robin]

The most important thing I have learn is that this forum group has this well establish consensus. Atheism is not a position, it is a default condition of humans. Indoctrination results in the disturbance of this natural condition. Education might lead to the return of the default condition.

Let me cut into this and ask a question about statistics.

You have learned that this group have a particular "well established consensus".

How many people advanced this particular proposition that led you to the conclusion that it was a "well established consensus"? What are you referring to by the "forum group"? The posters on this thread, or the posters on the JREF forum generally?