This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Atheism / Agnosticism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
asakawa
@TheVorago, it sounds like you hold the "non overlapping magisteria" view which is fine. It feels like giving one's self up to ignorance (not intending the negative connotations that go with this word, just simply not knowing/understanding things fully) to me but that could probably be something that divides many theists and atheists.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
No one can prove to me that I will die. True, significant factors indicate that I will, but empirical evidence does not exist. This is just a "gap" of science that people are trying to fill in based on what they think, and what they have seen of other things, rather than what they can prove about me. It isn't real science. Science is always right, and shows that I have never died. I trust science, not illogical assumption.
^This is about how atheist logic looks to me.
I'm intrigued. Could you please explain how this parallels an atheist's lack of belief or disbelief in god(s)? I can see the obvious absence of reason in the mind of the character you've produced, of course, but don't see the correlation to atheism.
Atheists constantly accept things that cannot be proven. They say they trust science, which they do, but the way they insist on science is that the limits of science are the limits of their beliefs. I've brought up things like "love", and some people are so stubborn in their insistence that the limits of science is the limits of beliefs, that they will actively reject love, and only accept neurological chemical reactions. They believe things which have not been discovered nor proven
do not exist
, which is actually very unscientific, and false. At the very least, they won't believe that these things exist. Things which there are overwhelming indicators for, like love, God, death, fear, morality, etc, they will wholesale reject, but then go about their day as if many of these things exist, relying on them for much of their decision making. I'm just pointing to the nonsense of it. The worst is when this very personal belief they have is pushed on others, usually with mockery. That is where we get the teapot in orbit, the zombie comparisons, the Harry Potter stuff, etc. Ironically, it's all the same "holier than thou" brash disregard for others that they convict the religions of.
Post by
Monday
That is where we get the teapot in orbit, the zombie comparisons, the Harry Potter stuff, etc. Ironically, it's all the same "holier than thou" brash disregard for others that they convict the religions of.
This. I'm always getting asked on the forums and email as to why I don't debate anymore. The above is why. The atheists on the forums
love
to point out hypocrisy and the way religious people treat atheists (which I believe to be the minority with a large dose of accent the negative, but whatever) yet will come on the forums and do
exactly
the same thing, regardless of whether the person they are arguing with deserves it or not. I'm obviously not an impartial source of whether I deserve it or not, but I attempt to be kind to everyone (barring a few snarky remarks, which are directed at everyone, including myself) and respect everyone's beliefs.
However, I am
never
shown the same courtesy, and I am often confronted with highly immature "what if" and "extreme" scenarios, and when I can't answer them, it's considered stupid. Yet when others attempt to do the same, the atheists then shun said person and completely ignore any argument they've made regardless of how relevant or well constructed it was.
(also, feel free to point out any irony in this post. I don't mind).
So yes, there's my views. It probably makes me sound self pitying and holier than thou and the like, but hopefully it makes a person or two look at how they've been acting.
Post by
asakawa
Funden, I think that is a description of internet discussion though isn't it? And this subject affects you most deeply because it's one about which you care most deeply?
Or perhaps it's more related to identity and discussions of anything that we feel is inextricably bound into our identity.
Personally I try to make a distinction between people and institutions. I respect you and have no wish to cause you upset or make fun at your expense but there are belief systems that I don't respect.
I
think that's okay and that I don't have to. I feel I can tread this line of respecting
people
and finding a way to understand and relate to people without paying respect to their beliefs but I totally I understand that it's a distinction that might mean a lot to me but nothing to someone that feels like they're on the receiving end of mockery. It's nigh impossible for me to make this distinction clear in short snippets of text on the internet.
This is (one reason) why I largely stay clear of any debates of substance also. When trying to make a point innocently I have offended people in the past and there's few or no points I feel the need to make on Wowhead's OT board that I feel warrant people's offence - even if my intention was never to cause it.
There's a reason why politics and religion are taboo subjects in public discussions like this I guess.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
Funden, I think that is a description of internet discussion though isn't it?
It is, though I like to pretend that Wowhead is above most of that stuff.
Personally I try to make a distinction between people and institutions. I respect you and have no wish to cause you upset or make fun at your expense but there are belief systems that I don't respect.
See, I try to do the same thing. Most of the people of off-topic are atheists and I respect pretty much all of them.
I dunno, I'm going to shut up now.
Post by
MyTie
I feel I can tread this line of respecting
people
and finding a way to understand and relate to people without paying respect to their beliefs but I totally I understand that it's a distinction that might mean a lot to me but nothing to someone that feels like they're on the receiving end of mockery.
asakawa, I totally respect you, but believing that humans comes from monkeys is totally stupid. You can't prove it, and yet you believe it. This is like believing that your mom was a pan of lasagna and your dad was a horse. A horse out in a field with a knocked up pan of lasagna, and
bam
, asakawa was born. So ridiculous. But, you shouldn't get mad because I'm just mocking what you believe, not you personally. If you get mad, it's just because
you
can't make that distinction.
So, how do you feel about that? Do you feel that it wasn't insulting to you at all when I trivialize what you believe, and twist it down to the lowest common denominator, and mock it? Here's a better question: Do you feel it made me look enlightened and open minded to mock your belief? Did I make any steps to resolve any arguments, or make any friends? Do you feel I opened doors to discussion with other atheists on this board, or have I stiffed potential discussion?
Imagine that this were a board with an overwhelming majority of vocal Christians, who all mocked atheism every chance they got. Can you see how difficult it would make conversation? Is it any surprise that people like Funden don't even bother having conversations about these topics, not because the topics themselves are toxic, but the way that people handle them on this board are toxic?
Post by
OverZealous
Hi.
I think you both (Funden and MyTie) are incredibly good debaters, and I (being, as you may or may not know, a hardcore atheist) would never consciously mock your beliefs just because I don't understand them. MyTie, just like your Horse and lasagna example, I find the idea that a woman was created from a man's rib incredibly... Perhaps not stupid, but strange. Illogical. But I don't feel that gives me the right to mock what you believe; and I would always expect the same courtesy in return, from everyone.
What I want to say is that atheists do not necessarily have to mock beliefs, nor do religious people have to mock atheism and what you perceive as logical flaws, but it eventually (almost always) gets to that point when you cannot make the other part understand how stupid they are for believing what they do. It's incredibly sad, really, and I find the idea that you would have to mock someone else's beliefs to get a point across stupid.
Post by
MyTie
Agreed! Thank you OverZ.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Atheists constantly accept things that cannot be proven. They say they trust science, which they do, but the way they insist on science is that the limits of science are the limits of their beliefs. I've brought up things like "love", and some people are so stubborn in their insistence that the limits of science is the limits of beliefs, that they will actively reject love, and only accept neurological chemical reactions. They believe things which have not been discovered nor proven
do not exist
, which is actually very unscientific, and false. At the very least, they won't believe that these things exist. Things which there are overwhelming indicators for, like love, God, death, fear, morality, etc, they will wholesale reject, but then go about their day as if many of these things exist, relying on them for much of their decision making. I'm just pointing to the nonsense of it.
For a guy who writes pages about atheism and atheists, you don't seem to understand the least bit about what we believe. Specifically, there is not a person on earth for whom the limits of science are the limits of their belief.
You seem to have confused the idea of considering something outside the realm of objective proof with the idea of "rejecting it". It's the former, not the latter, that's behind what a scientific atheist (me, say) thinks about morality - it's simply a category of human inquiry where we cannot test whose theories are correct. Similar story for things like death and love - knowing that they are well-explained physical processes is not a matter of rejecting them, it's a matter of
understanding
them.So, you accept that it is possible that God exists? If so, you are not an atheist. If not, then what I said stands.Side point, but the "teapot in orbit" is a case where the offense is being taken, not given. Whether it's teapots or invisible dragons or "fairies at the bottom of the garden", the point being made by that argument (I assume we're all familiar with it) requires an example of something for which there is no known evidence. So no matter what one comes up with, it's going to seem like mockery to anyone expecting to be mocked.
(Of course there are cases, e.g. the FSM, where the mockery is intentional, but there are clearly others like the invisible dragon where clearly no mockery was intended.)I see. So, saying that me believing in God is as stupid as believing in Darth Vader, isn't actually a mockery?
Post by
OverZealous
I see. So, saying that me believing in God is as stupid as believing in Darth Vader, isn't actually a mockery? Not necessarily. Granted, in most cases it is probably meant as mockery, I agree - but it doesn't
have
to be. If I'd said it, which I wouldn't, It'd more of trying to get the point across - "Hey, I feel like believing in God is really stupid, because
I
know God is just fictional. Here, let me compare with another fictional character". On the Internet where sarcasm is hard to grasp and things may be perceived as insults when they are not, it becomes a matter of interpretation. Like you have stated earlier, religious people are more likely to be bashed on the Internet, and therefore they come into discussions being prepared for insulting and mockery, and thus interpret things that
could
be seen as mockery or insulting as just that.
Does that make sense? I'm really tired, and if I'm not getting my point across decently I'll give it another shot when I've gotten some sleep.
Post by
Lombax
I see. So, saying that me believing in God is as stupid as believing in Darth Vader, isn't actually a mockery?
No, both are fictional characters according to the person who's making the statement. Wouldn't you say a grown up believing in santa is stupid?
Post by
MyTie
I see. So, saying that me believing in God is as stupid as believing in Darth Vader, isn't actually a mockery?
No, both are fictional characters according to the person who's making the statement. Wouldn't you say a grown up believing in santa is stupid?
To OZ and Lombax -
A creater of the universe could exist. A being of infinite power is theoretically possible. Santa Claus, and Darth Vader, are imaginary beings, which we know are imaginary because we can identify the source of the imagination. To go to a grown person, who believes in Darth Vader, I wouldn't call it stupid, but I would explain about the origins of Darth Vader, explaining George Lucas, David Prowse. I'd find some behind the scenes footage of Darth Vader being put into costume, and some interviews with the actors involved. I'd present overwhelming evidence that Darth Vader is, in fact, a creation. That would be the proper way of explaining that to the person, not calling them "stupid".
You cannot do that with God. You cannot identify the source of that myth, which leaves the possibility of its truth. Empirical evidence for doesn't exist, neither does empirical evidence against. That isn't the case with Santa Claus and Darth Vader. That is why using them is a mockery, not a productive argument.
Post by
Monday
I see. So, saying that me believing in God is as stupid as believing in Darth Vader, isn't actually a mockery?
No, both are fictional characters according to the person who's making the statement. Wouldn't you say a grown up believing in santa is stupid?
What it is is somebody being too #$%^ing lazy to actually formulate a coherent argument or having enough respect for the other person to do so. It's a stupid and lazy way to argue.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I came into the thread and was ready to make the exact comments that MyTie has said about Santa Claus and Darth Vader. That's my biggest criticism of the teapot / faeries / dragons / etc. argument. I do believe the argument mocks the beliefs of others, whether intended or otherwise (though I've generally seen it to be intended, read in context), which is why I won't use it when I'm arguing with believers. There are better ways (both morally and logically) of presenting an argument.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
What example of a thing for which there is no evidence would you prefer?
I'd rather point out the spuriousness of the connection between the evidence and the conclusion. The reason for this is because most religious people believe that the natural world is evidence in and of its own right, in much the same way that scientists believe that the natural world is somehow evidence for quantum randomness, as opposed to quantum variables.
It's not appropriate to try to counter with something that has no evidence, because you're implicitly rejecting the evidence that they have without reason. If you can reject the evidence with reason, then there's no need to descend into the teapot argument.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.