|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 8:57:46 GMT
It often happens that confusion arises about whether people believe there is no god or "lack" belief in a god. Those are not the same thing and either might happen.
A simple means of identifying which, is to note whether they join debates, if they do, they have some belief either that there is or is not a god.
Yet there are atheists here who struggle to understand this rather obvious truth.
What can make things difficult is that some beliefs are considered "justifiable" because they are so widely established as likely true. Often atheists use that excuse to claim they lack beliefs. What they are actually doing is making up their own definition of a god designed to be unlikely. To observe that there is likely no god with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds is widely accepted enough to be considered "justifiable" but that is not the definition theists use.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 6, 2019 9:47:15 GMT
It often happens that confusion arises about whether people believe there is no god or "lack" belief in a god. Those are not the same thing and either might happen. A simple means of identifying which, is to note whether they join debates, if they do, they have some belief either that there is or is not a god. Yet there are atheists here who struggle to understand this rather obvious truth. If they struggle, it's probably because it's not an obvious truth, but a point with little basis in reality. Allow me to blow it out of the water with a simple counter-example. Let's say I have a particular hobby, like playing the piano. Let's further say that I participate in an online forum about piano playing. Now let's say that someone asks a rather technical question about how to play a certain piano piece. And let's now assume that I don't know this piano piece, but I happen to know someone who does, and this person has an opinion, but does not participate in the piano forum. So I decide to post their opinion and mark it as coming from someone else. The moment I do this, I have joined the debate, but I still don't know the piece, and have no way of knowing if the opinion of my piano playing acquaintance is correct. So I have no belief regarding this particular piece. I just post a possible opinion. Conclusion: You don't need a belief in order to participate in a debate. Unless you count the belief that your friend's opinion is worth posting as a belief; but then you can also count that you believe your post will be displayed after you post it as a belief. Or belief in your own existence as a belief. This does not mean belief about the subject being discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 10:26:49 GMT
phludowin " said: [full text here]< clip >
... say that someone asks a rather technical question about how to play a certain piano piece. And let's now assume that I don't know this piano piece, but I happen to know someone who does, and this person has an opinion, but does not participate in the piano forum. So I decide to post their opinion and mark it as coming from someone else. I realize this can seem like so much pointless mincing of words, but the underlying truths are not difficult to extract and very important. What you have done here is prove my point because ... 1) You had no beliefs or opinions on the music you did not know. 2) You could not join the the debate because you had nothing to say. ... which is exactly what I was trying to say. In order for "you" to join the debate you had to enlist the aid of a person who had beliefs (or in this case perhaps knowledge) of the music in question. That wasn't really "you" joining that was you serving as a postman delivering messages from one location to another. The person who actually "joined" the debate was the person with beliefs, proving their necessity. You were merely the "typist" or whatever. Furthermore it is possible that you do believe your source, although you are quite correct it is not necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 11:27:21 GMT
It often happens that confusion arises about whether people believe there is no god or "lack" belief in a god. Those are not the same thing and either might happen. Which separation, and the fact that one is not dependent on the other, is something that Arlon has had to be reminded of several times in the past so it is good that he has now grasped it. ... Which claim would appear to mean that agnostics (those who believe that nothing is known, or can be known, of the existence or nature of God) are unable ever to debate things and remain true to themselves. Oddly enough, this is clearly not the case. This appears to be the Argument from Popularity which is a fallacy. Also the idea that the deliberate supernatural does not exist is not 'widely established' - in fact hard atheism remains around the world a minority position. So Arlon is wrong twice. And as an atheist the idea that I lack belief in a deity because others think so is frankly condescending. Suppose one was to tell Christians that they only believe in the Resurrection because others do? Exactly. Having said that of course, in some areas disagreeing with overwhelming opinion makes one less likely to be right, even if it does not necessarily make one wrong. Such as when Arlon argues with Einsteinian physics. Or dictionaries. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that positive atheists - those lacking belief who also hold a view about God - typically take umbrage at anything more specific than a deliberate, anthropomorphic and supernatural Cause. (Or indeed any thing decided to be necessarily supernatural per se, especially when we do not know all there is to know about the natural, come to that). White hair and beards need not apply, except in rude caricature. It appears Arlon is doing just that which he derides - justifiying derision based on a definition of god which serious atheists would not use except in jest. But then he does say that all definitions are arbitrary and need not be agreed, and lately when pressed, could not (he tried to suggest) find a traditional god anywhere in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 11:47:43 GMT
Perhaps you have already noticed that an abundance of words is not always an abundance of meaning. I am sorry but I was not able to extract a single coherent thought from the linked message. Perhaps someone else would like to give it a try.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 12:00:31 GMT
Perhaps you have already noticed that an abundance of words is not always an abundance of meaning. I am sorry but I was not able to extract a single coherent thought from the linked message. Perhaps someone else would like to give it a try. What I have noticed is that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my previous reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 13:27:59 GMT
Perhaps you have already noticed that an abundance of words is not always an abundance of meaning. I am sorry but I was not able to extract a single coherent thought from the linked message. Perhaps someone else would like to give it a try. What I have noticed is that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my previous reply. Again, someone else? Please?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 6, 2019 13:28:41 GMT
What you have done here is prove my point because ... 1) You had no beliefs or opinions on the music you did not know. So far, so good. 2) You could not join the the debate because you had nothing to say. ... which is exactly what I was trying to say. And that is where you are mistaken. The moment I post a message in a debate, I have joined the debate. Even if it was with somebody else's opinion. I am pretty sure that believing that only your own opinion counts in debates, and believing that using foreign sources invalidates your opinion is not a healthy opinion. It would make scientific work impossible, since you could not pursue experiments somebody else started. You had to start every experiment from scratch yourself. Same with arts. Nobody creates art in a vacuum. But I don't believe that an opinion or theory is invalid, just because it uses opinions or theories from someone else. It's much easier to have a wide outlook when you are standing on the shoulders of giants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 13:35:30 GMT
What you have done here is prove my point because ... 1) You had no beliefs or opinions on the music you did not know. So far, so good. 2) You could not join the the debate because you had nothing to say. ... which is exactly what I was trying to say. And that is where you are mistaken. The moment I post a message in a debate, I have joined the debate. Even if it was with somebody else's opinion. I am pretty sure that believing that only your own opinion counts in debates, and believing that using foreign sources invalidates your opinion is not a healthy opinion. It would make scientific work impossible, since you could not pursue experiments somebody else started. You had to start every experiment from scratch yourself. Same with arts. Nobody creates art in a vacuum. But I don't believe that an opinion or theory is invalid, just because it uses opinions or theories from someone else. It's much easier to have a wide outlook when you are standing on the shoulders of giants. Please notice that your "role" in the debate would cease to exist if your source did not. Sure you can be a typist or mailman or proofreader or any such thing "in" the debate, but without the source of belief or knowledge your role is not possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 6, 2019 15:21:59 GMT
What I have noticed is that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my previous reply. Again, someone else? Please? It's your thread Arlon. Try and step up.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 6, 2019 15:58:04 GMT
Perhaps you have already noticed that an abundance of words is not always an abundance of meaning. I am sorry but I was not able to extract a single coherent thought from the linked message. Perhaps someone else would like to give it a try. What I have noticed is that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my previous reply. To be fair, all you did was show why Arlon10 was wrong. No wonder he refuses to understand your post. It would mean acknowledging his erronous reasoning. Dunning and Kruger were right.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 6, 2019 16:22:38 GMT
me thinks you needs substitute 'convolution' for 'confusion'.
for never was there a three ring circus that compares to any religion pretending to juggle truth while holding one's breath under a cloud of handed down disinformation.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 6, 2019 16:53:49 GMT
thoughts and prayers
my inner prayer circle
has repeatedly
had
at least
one person fervently
praying
for a series of earthquakes
here
in california.
in
an attempt
to keep the current president's greedy little hands
out of our state
and
off of our economy.
seeings how
he'll never be able to take credit
for it
or laud it over at some
outdated
floridian country club
where his daughter
is already banned from going
anywhere near
the men's locker room
for reasons
only a third level porn producer would know.
so the earthquakes
finally
arrive and understandably
kids are shuffled under dining room tables
and water is horded
from
the local seven eleven
where you
wouldn't go before
because
an arab-looking dude runs it
like a bulgarian bizarre.
but now
it's your own personal pipeline
designed by god
entirely for you to have water.
next time
we really should pray for something earth shattering
like world hunger or
disarmament.
but
it's far too much fun
year in and year out
watching the newbies
with the
i knew i never should have moved here
looks
on their faces.
sjw 07/06/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the binding and the sudden release of pressure.
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 18:48:36 GMT
What I have noticed is that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my previous reply. To be fair, all you did was show why Arlon10 was wrong. No wonder he refuses to understand your post. It would mean acknowledging his erronous reasoning. Dunning and Kruger were right. You might try to be more entertaining. I might more easily tolerate your disdain if it had some entertainment value.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 6, 2019 18:52:34 GMT
To be fair, all you did was show why Arlon10 was wrong. No wonder he refuses to understand your post. It would mean acknowledging his erronous reasoning. Dunning and Kruger were right. You might try to be more entertaining. I might more easily tolerate your disdain if it had some entertainment value. Sometimes, the truth is boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 6, 2019 18:52:53 GMT
To be fair, all you did was show why Arlon10 was wrong. No wonder he refuses to understand your post. It would mean acknowledging his erronous reasoning. Dunning and Kruger were right. You might try to be more entertaining. I might more easily tolerate your disdain if it had some entertainment value. If you want him to up the entertainment value of his disdain, I suspect he'll need an incentive more enticing than the promise of your toleration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 6, 2019 19:53:43 GMT
You might try to be more entertaining. I might more easily tolerate your disdain if it had some entertainment value. If you want him to up the entertainment value of his disdain, I suspect he'll need an incentive more enticing than the promise of your toleration. You as well, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 6, 2019 20:08:46 GMT
If you want him to up the entertainment value of his disdain, I suspect he'll need an incentive more enticing than the promise of your toleration. You as well, obviously. Ooh, touché!
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 7, 2019 4:52:52 GMT
What I have noticed is that you have not addressed any of the points raised in my previous reply. Again, someone else? Please? pick me pick me 1. Atheists lack a belief in god. 2. Anyone can enter a debate. 3. God is ill defined and probably a myth. You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 9:23:15 GMT
Again, someone else? Please? pick me pick me 1. Atheists lack a belief in god. 2. Anyone can enter a debate. 3. God is ill defined and probably a myth. You're welcome. Life is so much more simple when you are, isn't it. Getting the answers without all that abominable thinking. 1) A brick wall lacks belief too. 2) That explains how you got in the debate. 3) Isn't it funny how, even if it were a myth, it would still be more valuable than anything you have to say?
|
|
