Observations on atheists

[The GM]

P.s. Radrock, I am amazed how much time you apparently spend frequenting these forums to tell people that debating is a waste of your time.

Is Riddick and Radrook the same guy? Would that make him Raddick, or Ridrook or even Riddadidrok?
Sometimes I wonder. They seem alike in attitude on occassion. :|
*shrugs*

 

[Zep]

I've just stopped by to say...what a totally inane OP. A bunch of nobodies say nothing and go nowhere with it. And Riddick thinks he's seen the centre of the universe?? I'm sure all the psychologists nearby are salivating now...

 

[Ratman_tf]

Re: Re: Re: Observations on atheists

"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man."

Perhaps when the deep mystery of the nature of Humanity is discovered - God will be found therein...of course, this will be some time into the future, as can be evidenced, humanity is still infantile.

Perhaps. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

 

[Kopji]

Metacrock, age 48
why are you so resistant to learning? You guys constantly just show your ignorance daily and when we try to correct even factual errors where you get christian beliefs wrong

And this begs the question of what is the definition of a Christian? And while we are at it, could we discuss ONE subject in the Bible where there is only ONE interpretation or opinion? For every two Christians there are eight opinions. Chances are, it is impossible to get Christian beliefs “wrong” because someone, somewhere, in some tiny obscure sect will have a different view.

radorth, age 55
I saw empirical, visible evidence of God, therefore your "empirical evidence" against his existence a bunch of BS atheists take on pure faith.

Excellent examples of this are people whose personal experience of God is so strong they gladly become martyrs.

Theresa, age 26
LOL, yeah we tend to disagree on what is reasonable or not. Atheists are always more reasonable no matter how arrogant, biased or insulting they are of course.

Whoa, a Christian with a sarcastic sense of humor. Hey, still young and plenty of time to become an atheist!

On Riddick… I liked ‘Pitch Black’ better than ‘Chronicles of Riddick’. I do like Vin Diesel as an action hero though so the series shows promise.

 

[Doctor X]

A greater argument in favor of atheism I have not seen in quite some time.

Congratulations!

--J.D.

 

[Batman Jr.]

When you're picking out specific religions and their gods, where discrepancies in internal logic always seem to abound, it is not so unreasonable to say that, oh, a "Christian" god or an "Islamic" god, for example, do not exist. Despite heeding that, I must still remain an agnostic as there may be some kind of god that does not affiliate itself with any number of dogmas or only adheres to one or more selectively.

 

[wittgenst3in]

Despite heeding that, I must still remain an agnostic as there may be some kind of god that does not affiliate itself with any number of dogmas or only adheres to one or more selectively.

I understand what you are saying Bjr, but there are many objects that may exist (such as a three headed monkey that shoots fire.) that you probably wouldn't describe yourself as being agnostic about the existence of.

If you had a child, and in the middle of the night they came screaming and said "Daddy, I'm worried about three headed fire-breathing monkeys" I'd be willing to bet you'd tell them that they don't exist, not say that we have no evidence, but no-one has searched all over the planet, and they might still be out there.

Also, in scientific terms the statement "there are no three-headed monkeys" is falsifiable, by one reliable observation of such a monkey.

 

[Batman Jr.]

I understand what you are saying Bjr, but there are many objects that may exist (such as a three headed monkey that shoots fire.) that you probably wouldn't describe yourself as being agnostic about the existence of.

If you had a child, and in the middle of the night they came screaming and said "Daddy, I'm worried about three headed fire-breathing monkeys" I'd be willing to bet you'd tell them that they don't exist, not say that we have no evidence, but no-one has searched all over the planet, and they might still be out there.

Also, in scientific terms the statement "there are no three-headed monkeys" is falsifiable, by one reliable observation of such a monkey.

The example you present with the monkey describes something which is detectable. Given that, the fact we've never seen one greatly increases its chances of non-existence. When we talk about things simply beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, we're dealing with an entirely different situation.

 

[wittgenst3in]

The example you present with the monkey describes something which is detectable. Given that, the fact we've never seen one greatly increases its chances of non-existence. When we talk about things simply beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, we're dealing with an entirely different situation.

Say for example I was to replace it with Carl Sagan's invisible (and untouchable) dragon. This then becomes beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, but you still don't see people describing themselves as agnostic about invisible dragons.

If you choose to be agnostic that's fine, but I'm just pointing out that there is no obligation that you must be agnostic as you said earlier.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Say for example I was to replace it with Carl Sagan's invisible (and untouchable) dragon. This then becomes beyond our sphere of potential cognizance, but you still don't see people describing themselves as agnostic about invisible dragons.

If you choose to be agnostic that's fine, but I'm just pointing out that there is no obligation that you must be agnostic as you said earlier.

Though I might sound crazy for saying it, I'm agnostic about invisible dragons as well.

 

[wittgenst3in]

Though I might sound crazy for saying it, I'm agnostic about invisible dragons as well.

Okay, I respect that for being consitent.

I don't think that it is necessary to have agnosticism as the only option though. Most people have to take a somewhat practical approach to philosophy, otherwise we'd all be solipsisits.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Okay, I respect that for being consitent.

I don't think that it is necessary to have agnosticism as the only option though. Most people have to take a somewhat practical approach to philosophy, otherwise we'd all be solipsisits.

I don't agonize over any of this stuff if that's what you mean.

 

[Radrook]

The word "detectable" means one thing in reference to God but an entirely different thing in reference to abiogenesis. A very convenient modus operandi based on the fallacy of equivocation.

Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course.

But that would peal away the necessary camouflage veneer and make the equivocating pro-atheist tactic untenable by making it too obvious.


Absolutely amazing!

 

[Peter Jenkins]

The word "detectable" means one thing in reference to God but an entirely different thing in reference to abiogenesis. A very convenient modus operandi based on the fallacy of equivocation.

Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course.

But that would peal away the necessary camouflage veneer and make the equivocating pro-atheist tactic untenable by making it too obvious.


Absolutely amazing!

The word 'detectable' means one thing in reference to an engineer talking about a signal transmitted by a cell phone, and something entirely different in relation to an archeologist talking about the Maya civilisation.
"Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course."
Well, yes, but most people would understand the difference, without straining the language.
When a Mormon friend tells me that Jesus is still in my heart, I don't feel a need to rush to a cardiologist.

It's not an 'Atheist tactic', It's called the 'English language'

Did you see the article on the Sun, in the latest National Geographic - Absolutely amazing!

That my Mormon friends still think that I could be brought back into the church - Absolutely amazing!

P

 

[Radrook]

The word 'detectable' means one thing in reference to an engineer talking about a signal transmitted by a cell phone, and something entirely different in relation to an archeologist talking about the Maya civilization.
"Simple stipulation of specialized meaning can be used at the outset to avoid this inevitable discrepancy of course."
Well, yes, but most people would understand the difference, without straining the language.
When a Mormon friend tells me that Jesus is still in my heart, I don't feel a need to rush to a cardiologist.

It's not an 'Atheist tactic', It's called the 'English language'

Did you see the article on the Sun, in the latest National Geographic - Absolutely amazing!

That my Mormon friends still think that I could be brought back into the church - Absolutely amazing!

P

Perhaps I should have explained what equivocation is.

I think you might have misunderstood me.

I am aware that English or any other language can and is employed to deceive, misrepresent, beg the question, and so on. Actually, I assume the usage of language for that particular purpose as a given when speaking with atheists.

The point is that words that should remain stable throughout a discussion are suddenly, and conveniently employed in an entirely different sense.

It should be obvious that I was not referring to words that are mutually recognized initially as ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT. if they had been recognized that way at the outset then there would not be any basis for protest of equivocation.

So I was referring to words which are genuinely and LEGITIMATELY and intially accepted as applicable to both arguments UNTIL the moment when atheists feel it convenient to change their meaning slightly so as to exclude their application to what they had previously been quite willing to acknowledge was legitimate application and to which they will later acknowledge is a legitimate application once they have extricated themselves from an untenable situatron.

Please try not to attribute arguments to me which are not mine.

Thanx

 

[Z]

Please... elaborate. Whereupon has this misuse of language occured? I'd be fascinated to learn this one.

 

[Doctor X]

Perhaps I should have explained what equivocation is.

His posts rather exemplify the phenomenon.

--J.D.

 

[Peter Jenkins]

I am aware that English or any other language can and is employed to deceive, misrepresent, beg the question, and so on. Actually, I assume the usage of language for that particular purpose as a given when speaking with atheists.

Well, ok, English can be misconstrued, without any particular intent to deceive or misrepresent. Thats one reason why smilies are so useful
You obviously assume the worst when you talk to atheists, so it's hardly surprising that meanings get mixed up.

The point is that words that should remain stable throughout a discussion are suddenly, and conveniently employed in an entirely different sense.

Perhaps the change in meaning is in your interpretation given your stated bias when speaking with atheists.
P

 

[Radrook]

Well, ok, English can be misconstrued, without any particular intent to deceive or misrepresent. Thats one reason why smilies are so useful
You obviously assume the worst when you talk to atheists, so it's hardly surprising that meanings get mixed up.

I obviously assume that those are the tactics they will employ because my experiences involving hundreds of debates and conversations with atheists, unfortunately, have been those in which those same tactics have been repeatedly employed.

Since I am not brain-dead and am susceptible to reaching conclusions based on inductive observation, I have concluded that the next dialogue with an atheist would likely be one in which these same tactics would be employed.

Up to now my predictions have not disappointed me.

Perhaps the change in meaning is in your interpretation given your stated bias when speaking with atheists.

I have more than sufficient command of the English language to know when a person is legitimately using language or illegitimately using language. Otherwise I would have never been asked to tutor in English at the college level nor ace all my English composition courses. So your assumption that I lack the sufficient discriminatory perception to tell the difference doesn't really hold much water.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have more than sufficient command of the English language to know when a person is legitimately using language or illegitimately using language. Otherwise I would have never been asked to tutor in English at the college level nor ace all my English composition courses. So your assumption that I lack the sufficient discriminatory perception to tell the difference doesn't really hold much water.

This isn't English though, this is Philosophy.

In Philosophy, we do our best to respect a convention referred to as the Principle of Charity. This is the convention that we interpret other people's arguments and claims in the most charitable manner possible. The flip side of the principle is that when you critique someone's position, you engage with the best possible version of their thesis.

This is because it's very easy and very pointless to interpret someone in such a way that they don't make sense, and then beat up the resulting straw man.

That is all you have done. You've found (or rather, created) a nit to pick and then taken the rest of the day off while you still have a lot of work to do.

It's also worth pointing out that yes, some atheists also ace undergrad courses or even tutor them. So appealing to your own claimed authority on the linguistic abuses of atheists as a group is not an approach that will get you far.