ok it would seem to be a little ot but some of the atheists don't seem
to understand this so i have to use this analogy to spell it out.
when you play hide and seek and you are trying to hide, it is not a
good idea to run into a corner, put head phones over your ears and
cover your eyes with your own hands.
that would make for a very BORING game.
the person who is doing the searching would see you straight away!
now when that person taps you on the shoulder and says "i found you"
you can't just say "i can't see you so you can't see me' and then
start yelling "NOT LISTING" over and over again.
what would be even more pathetic is to claim victory when the other
person walks away in discust because the game is just too boring.
there is as much point to that as there is to cheating at solitair!
so when you evade issues such as what the implications of the
'typical' atheist's world veiw maybe by cuting and pasting
"an atheist is a person who lacks belief in god(s)"
that makes for a boring discussion
don't be suprised that theists are not well represented on this group
What do you expect us to do, change the dictionary definition of a
word just for your amusement?
Here is an analogy for you:
If I'm a sci-fi/fantasy books fan, I belong to a certain group. While
all the group doesn't always agree in all the details, there is enough
common ground to publish fan magazines, forums or meetings.
But what will unite the NON sci-fi/fantasy fan group?
Can I as a member of that opposite group represent other members by
saying what books they DO like? Can I even say that others in this
group even like to read?
In a group which is created by an opposite definition, there is no
"common ground" that unites the members other than the simple
definition. If you want to know more, you need to address us by the
groups we do belong to like liberals, humanists or anything else, but
there is no guaranty that it will represent more than the single man
you are talking to.
On Aug 19, 11:28 am, DriveBy <drivexpos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok it would seem to be a little ot but some of the atheists don't seem
> to understand this so i have to use this analogy to spell it out.
> when you play hide and seek and you are trying to hide, it is not a
> good idea to run into a corner, put head phones over your ears and
> cover your eyes with your own hands.
> that would make for a very BORING game.
> the person who is doing the searching would see you straight away!
> now when that person taps you on the shoulder and says "i found you"
> you can't just say "i can't see you so you can't see me' and then
> start yelling "NOT LISTING" over and over again.
> what would be even more pathetic is to claim victory when the other
> person walks away in discust because the game is just too boring.
> there is as much point to that as there is to cheating at solitair!
> so when you evade issues such as what the implications of the
> 'typical' atheist's world veiw maybe by cuting and pasting
> "an atheist is a person who lacks belief in god(s)"
> that makes for a boring discussion
> don't be suprised that theists are not well represented on this group
> What do you expect us to do, change the dictionary definition of a
> word just for your amusement?
> Here is an analogy for you:
> If I'm a sci-fi/fantasy books fan, I belong to a certain group. While
> all the group doesn't always agree in all the details, there is enough
> common ground to publish fan magazines, forums or meetings.
> But what will unite the NON sci-fi/fantasy fan group?
> Can I as a member of that opposite group represent other members by
> saying what books they DO like? Can I even say that others in this
> group even like to read?
> In a group which is created by an opposite definition, there is no
> "common ground" that unites the members other than the simple
> definition. If you want to know more, you need to address us by the
> groups we do belong to like liberals, humanists or anything else, but
> there is no guaranty that it will represent more than the single man
> you are talking to.
The problem, though, is that atheists themselves will claim that they
have "common ground" and then either retreat to it when challenged, or
retreat to "we have no common ground" when challenged. Basically,
atheists do what they claim theists do, which is play "No True
Atheist", except that they try to do that by definition. So if any
atheist or atheistic government does something evil, it's "Well,
atheism simply means a lack of belief, so you can't claim that they
did that on the basis of atheism." But if you have nations that are
"secular", and they seem to be better off, then it's a prime example
of how much better secularism and atheism are than theism.
Also, there's the constant retreat to the "lack of belief" claim, to
gain immunity from proving points. If an atheist says that ANY god
does not exist, they gain a burden of proof. They are a strong
atheist, holding the belief that, at least, that god does not exist.
But a common tactic among atheists is to make that claim and then when
asked to provide their proof retreating to "I merely have a lack of
belief; I have no burden of proof". Thus, going from strong to weak
atheist in mere seconds.
If atheism is not and cannot be a unified group because it is simply
based on lack of belief, then we can't say anything about atheists,
but that doesn't mean that we can't say things about the reasons WHY
those people are atheists.
If atheism is not a unified group, then we cannot say how things will
be if everyone becomes an atheist.
> On Aug 19, 11:28 am, DriveBy <drivexpos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ok it would seem to be a little ot but some of the atheists don't seem
> > to understand this so i have to use this analogy to spell it out.
> > when you play hide and seek and you are trying to hide, it is not a
> > good idea to run into a corner, put head phones over your ears and
> > cover your eyes with your own hands.
> > that would make for a very BORING game.
> > the person who is doing the searching would see you straight away!
> > now when that person taps you on the shoulder and says "i found you"
> > you can't just say "i can't see you so you can't see me' and then
> > start yelling "NOT LISTING" over and over again.
> > what would be even more pathetic is to claim victory when the other
> > person walks away in discust because the game is just too boring.
> > there is as much point to that as there is to cheating at solitair!
> > so when you evade issues such as what the implications of the
> > 'typical' atheist's world veiw maybe by cuting and pasting
> > "an atheist is a person who lacks belief in god(s)"
> > that makes for a boring discussion
> > don't be suprised that theists are not well represented on this group
> On Aug 19, 5:04 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you expect us to do, change the dictionary definition of a
> > word just for your amusement?
> > Here is an analogy for you:
> > If I'm a sci-fi/fantasy books fan, I belong to a certain group. While
> > all the group doesn't always agree in all the details, there is enough
> > common ground to publish fan magazines, forums or meetings.
> > But what will unite the NON sci-fi/fantasy fan group?
> > Can I as a member of that opposite group represent other members by
> > saying what books they DO like? Can I even say that others in this
> > group even like to read?
> > In a group which is created by an opposite definition, there is no
> > "common ground" that unites the members other than the simple
> > definition. If you want to know more, you need to address us by the
> > groups we do belong to like liberals, humanists or anything else, but
> > there is no guaranty that it will represent more than the single man
> > you are talking to.
> The problem, though, is that atheists themselves will claim that they
> have "common ground" and then either retreat to it when challenged, or
> retreat to "we have no common ground" when challenged. Basically,
> atheists do what they claim theists do, which is play "No True
> Atheist", except that they try to do that by definition. So if any
> atheist or atheistic government does something evil, it's "Well,
> atheism simply means a lack of belief, so you can't claim that they
> did that on the basis of atheism." But if you have nations that are
> "secular", and they seem to be better off, then it's a prime example
> of how much better secularism and atheism are than theism.
"Secular" nation simply means that no laws will exist if their only
reason is religion.
What laws DO exist in that nation depends on other things, but it is
my belief that laws based on religion alone, regardless of what the
law is and which religion, is always bad, therefore, the alternative
of having the same laws minus the non-secular ones is always an
improvement.
> Also, there's the constant retreat to the "lack of belief" claim, to
> gain immunity from proving points. If an atheist says that ANY god
> does not exist, they gain a burden of proof. They are a strong
> atheist, holding the belief that, at least, that god does not exist.
BTW, did you notice that Theists (with the possible exception of
agnostic Theists) are also strong atheists except for their one god?
> But a common tactic among atheists is to make that claim and then when
> asked to provide their proof retreating to "I merely have a lack of
> belief; I have no burden of proof". Thus, going from strong to weak
> atheist in mere seconds.
I always define myself as a weak atheist (which is the default that
comes from the basic definition).
> If atheism is not and cannot be a unified group because it is simply
> based on lack of belief, then we can't say anything about atheists,
> but that doesn't mean that we can't say things about the reasons WHY
> those people are atheists.
Are you sure you know why people are atheists?
> If atheism is not a unified group, then we cannot say how things will
> be if everyone becomes an atheist.
I agree to that point, atheism alone cannot be used as an alternative
to Theism.
However, when most people mention that switch, they also provide
positive definitions, morals and goals as a replacement.
> > On Aug 19, 11:28 am, DriveBy <drivexpos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ok it would seem to be a little ot but some of the atheists don't seem
> > > to understand this so i have to use this analogy to spell it out.
> > > when you play hide and seek and you are trying to hide, it is not a
> > > good idea to run into a corner, put head phones over your ears and
> > > cover your eyes with your own hands.
> > > that would make for a very BORING game.
> > > the person who is doing the searching would see you straight away!
> > > now when that person taps you on the shoulder and says "i found you"
> > > you can't just say "i can't see you so you can't see me' and then
> > > start yelling "NOT LISTING" over and over again.
> > > what would be even more pathetic is to claim victory when the other
> > > person walks away in discust because the game is just too boring.
> > > there is as much point to that as there is to cheating at solitair!
> > > so when you evade issues such as what the implications of the
> > > 'typical' atheist's world veiw maybe by cuting and pasting
> > > "an atheist is a person who lacks belief in god(s)"
> > > that makes for a boring discussion
> > > don't be suprised that theists are not well represented on this group
On Aug 19, 6:43 am, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 5:04 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> If atheism is not a unified group, then we cannot say how things will
> be if everyone becomes an atheist.
Right, becasue theists are a really unified group...
And, becasue of that unity, the world is a real swell place where
everything is just hunky-dory...
So, of course, if there were no theists, the paradise we live in would
become hell...
<End sarcasm>
How many tens of thousands of different theist sects/cults/groups
exist in the world right now?
Just within christianity, how many hundreds (or thousands)?
________________________________
"I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow
the dogma of separate creations."
-- Charles Darwin
On Aug 19, 10:47 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 6:43 am, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 5:04 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > If atheism is not a unified group, then we cannot say how things will
> > be if everyone becomes an atheist.
> Right, becasue theists are a really unified group...
Except that WE'RE the ones who claim that we aren't really unified. I
would never even think about identifying myself as a theist, except
here. And only to the extent that I believe in a god.
> And, becasue of that unity, the world is a real swell place where
> everything is just hunky-dory...
Where did I ever claim that there is a unified theism at all, let
alone that it makes the world a wonderful place?
> So, of course, if there were no theists, the paradise we live in would
> become hell...
I've never argued that either. Can you make something other than a
strawman in your sarcasm, please?
> <End sarcasm>
> How many tens of thousands of different theist sects/cults/groups
> exist in the world right now?
> Just within christianity, how many hundreds (or thousands)?
Where did I ever claim otherwise? What does this have to do with the
comment that atheism is not a unified grouping -- by the claims of
atheists -- while at the same time those same atheists who claim it
isn't claim that if we just turned everyone into atheists things would
get better?
> On Aug 19, 1:43 pm, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 5:04 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What do you expect us to do, change the dictionary definition of a
> > > word just for your amusement?
> > > Here is an analogy for you:
> > > If I'm a sci-fi/fantasy books fan, I belong to a certain group. While
> > > all the group doesn't always agree in all the details, there is enough
> > > common ground to publish fan magazines, forums or meetings.
> > > But what will unite the NON sci-fi/fantasy fan group?
> > > Can I as a member of that opposite group represent other members by
> > > saying what books they DO like? Can I even say that others in this
> > > group even like to read?
> > > In a group which is created by an opposite definition, there is no
> > > "common ground" that unites the members other than the simple
> > > definition. If you want to know more, you need to address us by the
> > > groups we do belong to like liberals, humanists or anything else, but
> > > there is no guaranty that it will represent more than the single man
> > > you are talking to.
> > The problem, though, is that atheists themselves will claim that they
> > have "common ground" and then either retreat to it when challenged, or
> > retreat to "we have no common ground" when challenged. Basically,
> > atheists do what they claim theists do, which is play "No True
> > Atheist", except that they try to do that by definition. So if any
> > atheist or atheistic government does something evil, it's "Well,
> > atheism simply means a lack of belief, so you can't claim that they
> > did that on the basis of atheism." But if you have nations that are
> > "secular", and they seem to be better off, then it's a prime example
> > of how much better secularism and atheism are than theism.
> "Secular" nation simply means that no laws will exist if their only
> reason is religion.
So either theists can and do implement such laws -- and thus theists
can be also partly responsible for secularism, and the benefits
thereof -- or they can't, and then secularism is distinctly atheist,
and something that follows from it.
> What laws DO exist in that nation depends on other things, but it is
> my belief that laws based on religion alone, regardless of what the
> law is and which religion, is always bad, therefore, the alternative
> of having the same laws minus the non-secular ones is always an
> improvement.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but find that sometimes people use
that terminology to advocate against things like freedom of religion,
which doesn't seem acceptable.
> > Also, there's the constant retreat to the "lack of belief" claim, to
> > gain immunity from proving points. If an atheist says that ANY god
> > does not exist, they gain a burden of proof. They are a strong
> > atheist, holding the belief that, at least, that god does not exist.
> BTW, did you notice that Theists (with the possible exception of
> agnostic Theists) are also strong atheists except for their one god?
Except that we actually have a reasonable reason for being so: if the
gods are contradictory, no one can believe both, so one must be
considered false. But I'm not certain what the point of bringing that
up is, especially in light of my above comment that that would simply
be the result of belief resolution processes.
> > But a common tactic among atheists is to make that claim and then when
> > asked to provide their proof retreating to "I merely have a lack of
> > belief; I have no burden of proof". Thus, going from strong to weak
> > atheist in mere seconds.
> I always define myself as a weak atheist (which is the default that
> comes from the basic definition).
Good. I hope you never, therefore, insist that God does not exist,
since a weak atheist can't do that.
> > If atheism is not and cannot be a unified group because it is simply
> > based on lack of belief, then we can't say anything about atheists,
> > but that doesn't mean that we can't say things about the reasons WHY
> > those people are atheists.
> Are you sure you know why people are atheists?
This is why I state the common ones I've heard and ask people about
it. You seem to be implying that I merely assume it.
> > If atheism is not a unified group, then we cannot say how things will
> > be if everyone becomes an atheist.
> I agree to that point, atheism alone cannot be used as an alternative
> to Theism.
> However, when most people mention that switch, they also provide
> positive definitions, morals and goals as a replacement.
Many of which they will not defend.
I have yet to see anyone actually defend humanism, or even properly
define it, despite my asking for that on many occasions.
A common one here is that ethics must be based on "empathy". Since
empathy is an emotion, and emotions are commonly held to be in
opposition to reason, I find that view puzzling, to say the least,
coming from people who insist that reason is the hallmark of
intelligence. It's also not pragmatic -- empathy is unreliable since
it requires people to be able to "put themselves in the other person's
shoes", which may not be possible -- and I think the Stoics put it
quite well when they ask what we need emotion for when we have reason.
> > > The problem, though, is that atheists themselves will claim that they
> > > have "common ground" and then either retreat to it when challenged, or
> > > retreat to "we have no common ground" when challenged. Basically,
> > > atheists do what they claim theists do, which is play "No True
> > > Atheist", except that they try to do that by definition. So if any
> > > atheist or atheistic government does something evil, it's "Well,
> > > atheism simply means a lack of belief, so you can't claim that they
> > > did that on the basis of atheism." But if you have nations that are
> > > "secular", and they seem to be better off, then it's a prime example
> > > of how much better secularism and atheism are than theism.
> > "Secular" nation simply means that no laws will exist if their only
> > reason is religion.
> So either theists can and do implement such laws -- and thus theists
> can be also partly responsible for secularism, and the benefits
> thereof -- or they can't, and then secularism is distinctly atheist,
> and something that follows from it.
Even Theocracies can have secular laws.
Secular state is not about which laws it has, but what kind of laws it
DOESN'T have.
> > What laws DO exist in that nation depends on other things, but it is
> > my belief that laws based on religion alone, regardless of what the
> > law is and which religion, is always bad, therefore, the alternative
> > of having the same laws minus the non-secular ones is always an
> > improvement.
> I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but find that sometimes people use
> that terminology to advocate against things like freedom of religion,
> which doesn't seem acceptable.
That would depend on what you and they mean by "freedom of religion".
No laws that are based on religions means that you are allowed to keep
whatever laws and rituals you believe in (with possible exceptions),
as long as you don't expect others to follow that law.
Your religion tells you to eat or not eat a certain type of food?
Great, than you are not allowed to by your faith, but there is no
reason why that law should have any effect on me if I don't share the
same faith.
> > > Also, there's the constant retreat to the "lack of belief" claim, to
> > > gain immunity from proving points. If an atheist says that ANY god
> > > does not exist, they gain a burden of proof. They are a strong
> > > atheist, holding the belief that, at least, that god does not exist.
> > BTW, did you notice that Theists (with the possible exception of
> > agnostic Theists) are also strong atheists except for their one god?
> Except that we actually have a reasonable reason for being so: if the
> gods are contradictory, no one can believe both, so one must be
> considered false. But I'm not certain what the point of bringing that
> up is, especially in light of my above comment that that would simply
> be the result of belief resolution processes.
The point was to show that most Theists are also strong atheists with
a single exception.
> > > But a common tactic among atheists is to make that claim and then when
> > > asked to provide their proof retreating to "I merely have a lack of
> > > belief; I have no burden of proof". Thus, going from strong to weak
> > > atheist in mere seconds.
> > I always define myself as a weak atheist (which is the default that
> > comes from the basic definition).
> Good. I hope you never, therefore, insist that God does not exist,
> since a weak atheist can't do that.
Feel free to remind me if you see me say something else, but I doubt
you'll ever need to.
However, I want to emphasize that while I will never insist that a
general God does not exist, I will insist that certain descriptions of
God are indeed proven wrong.
Also, I will claim that in lack of solid evidences, the default belief
should be the lack of beliefs, and not a randomly chosen religion or
one based on geographical location.
That means I don't think you are wrong because God doesn't exist,
instead I think you are wrong for picking the wrong default option.
> > > If atheism is not and cannot be a unified group because it is simply
> > > based on lack of belief, then we can't say anything about atheists,
> > > but that doesn't mean that we can't say things about the reasons WHY
> > > those people are atheists.
> > Are you sure you know why people are atheists?
> This is why I state the common ones I've heard and ask people about
> it. You seem to be implying that I merely assume it.
We have very bad experience with such assumptions, I'm sorry if I
misjudged you.
> > > If atheism is not a unified group, then we cannot say how things will
> > > be if everyone becomes an atheist.
> > I agree to that point, atheism alone cannot be used as an alternative
> > to Theism.
> > However, when most people mention that switch, they also provide
> > positive definitions, morals and goals as a replacement.
> Many of which they will not defend.
> I have yet to see anyone actually defend humanism, or even properly
> define it, despite my asking for that on many occasions.
I have, on this group, by several different users and different
threads, both links to sites that describe the guidelines and formal
definitions of the groups.
> A common one here is that ethics must be based on "empathy". Since
> empathy is an emotion, and emotions are commonly held to be in
> opposition to reason, I find that view puzzling, to say the least,
> coming from people who insist that reason is the hallmark of
> intelligence. It's also not pragmatic -- empathy is unreliable since
> it requires people to be able to "put themselves in the other person's
> shoes", which may not be possible -- and I think the Stoics put it
> quite well when they ask what we need emotion for when we have reason.
Nothing wrong with empathy, emotions or subjectivity. The problem
rises only when someone uses these tools to make an objective claim.
