• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

devnull said:
Nobody cares. You're waaaay off topic.



Nobody cares.



Nobody cares.



Nobody cares.



Also, nobody cares.
Click to expand...

:p


devnull said:
Theyre not meaningless, you're just being obtuse. Theyre not meaningless because people's beliefs inform their actions.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I did not say that those who believe and express those beliefs thought their own expressions meaningless.

I said it was irrelevant how anyone calling themselves atheist/theist expressed themselves since there is no true theism or atheism.
 
-
Navigator said:
I said it was irrelevant how anyone calling themselves atheist/theist expressed themselves since there is no true theism or atheism.
Click to expand...

Defining the uncomfortable out of existence is rather comfortable, wot?

Usually a low mileage endeavor--
 
gentlehorse said:
-

Defining the uncomfortable out of existence is rather comfortable, wot?
Click to expand...

This statement has no context, nor does it follow the context of the conversation.

What are you referring to as being defined 'uncomfortable'? Atheism? Theism? Old mattresses? Tight underwear?

I did not say that those who believe and express those beliefs thought their own expressions meaningless.

ETA

""How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?""

Science will find a way.
 
Last edited:
Tell us again your definition of the discipline of science, and how this definition trumps those of people who have actually studied science.

This ought to be a hoot.
 
Aridas said:
More specifically, atheist as a word was created to describe those odd people who lacked belief in any gods during a time when it was frequently assumed that believing in god(s) was innate.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Belief in gods was and still is the dominant paradigm and therefore a descriptive word is required for those who do not accept such a notion, i.e. atheist as opposed to theist. The same would apply in the unlikely event that Leprechaunism or Unicornism were the dominant paradigm, which is the point I made earlier. If such were the case non-believers would distinguish themselves from the majority with a descriptive word such as A-Leprechaunism – or some such. No big deal!

As for the use of the comment of "There is 'no true atheism,'" that rather suggests that there's a failure to understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods. That would be what validly counts as 'true atheism,' whatever expression or lack thereof might be the case. What Navigator was doing before that raised that issue was trying to add irrelevant criteria to atheism for determining who counts as an atheist without any valid justification for doing so. In short, Navigator was saying that people who acted in a manner that was disliked were "no true atheists," if he also counted as an atheist.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think Navigator is exaggerating a minor point out of all proportion. For all his nit-picking most people understand what an atheist is. It certainly doesn't warrant pages of posting on the topic.
 
Navigator said:
""How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?"
Click to expand...

Scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers, whereas first-person subjectiveness is open to confirmation bias and delusion. If the two conflict scientific methodology will trump personal subjectivity every time.
 
Navigator said:
:p




Seriously? I did not say that those who believe and express those beliefs thought their own expressions meaningless.

I said it was irrelevant how anyone calling themselves atheist/theist expressed themselves since there is no true theism or atheism.
Click to expand...

Has anyone told you that you write like the Post-Modernism Generator (q.v.)?
 
Navigator said:
This statement has no context, nor does it follow the context of the conversation.

What are you referring to as being defined 'uncomfortable'? Atheism? Theism? Old mattresses? Tight underwear?

I did not say that those who believe and express those beliefs thought their own expressions meaningless.

ETA

""How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?""

Science will find a way.
Click to expand...

For the hundredth time, you have demonstrated no understanding of the discipline of science. You have no business pontificating on the subject.

I know you will ignore this, and continue to demonstrate errant pedantry, but the lurkers must not think you haven't been called on this many times before.

Now will you please stop waxing ignorant on the topic of science? You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Tassman said:
Scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers, whereas first-person subjectiveness is open to confirmation bias and delusion. If the two conflict scientific methodology will trump personal subjectivity every time.
Click to expand...

In other words, it can't be reconciled?
 
John Jones said:
Has anyone told you that you write like the Post-Modernism Generator (q.v.)?
Click to expand...

John Jones said:
For the hundredth time, you have demonstrated no understanding of the discipline of science. You have no business pontificating on the subject.

I know you will ignore this, and continue to demonstrate errant pedantry, but the lurkers must not think you haven't been called on this many times before.

Now will you please stop waxing ignorant on the topic of science? You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

John Jones - I don't often to reply to your obnoxious styled posts for obvious reasons but for the sake of 'the lurkers' will you desist with your silly harassment of me and focus on the content of whatever is being discussed.
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
Oh, I..... wait, what?
Click to expand...

It does not surprise me that you have to ask.

Here:

This post may help get you up to speed on the content of discussion and where it has moved. Perhaps you might like to contemplate reading at least some back posts in a thread in an effort to avoid making silly pointless immature sounding comments.
 
Last edited:
Just in case it wasn't noticed, this:

"How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?"

was taken from the bottom of Gentlehorse's sig. I thought it was an interesting quote, 'tis all. I wasn't expecting (nor am I accepting) any grief for it.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
It does not surprise me that you have to ask.

Here:

This post may help get you up to speed on the content of discussion and where it has moved. Perhaps you might like to contemplate reading at least some back posts in a thread in an effort to avoid making silly pointless immature sounding comments.
Click to expand...

No thanks, Im fine with not understanding your "logic".
 
Navigator said:
John Jones - I don't often to reply to your obnoxious styled posts for obvious reasons but for the sake of 'the lurkers' will you desist with your silly harassment of me and focus on the content of whatever is being discussed.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Please define 'silly harrassment' for the sake of 'the lurkers'.

Better yet, report my posts if you think I am violating some part of the MA. That's a fair counter-proposal, don't you think?

Barring that, please tell us why you think I shouldn't challenge your claims. You don't think this is a private drop-box, do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom