Atheism

Originally posted by Digi
None egregious. It's easier to debate when you're not on that horse.

I figure any mention of ejaculate in a (non-abortion) religious debate is a pretty good sign that the other party is not interested in reasoned discourse. I responded in kind. If you'd like, I'll apply the full test:

Was your opinion derived from facts, LC?
Are there any facts that you can imagine that would suffice to change or amend your opinion?
After discussing this topic, do you expect to be able to encapsulate my positions on the topic, and should I expect to be able to do the same for you?

Somehow, I don't expect a guy whose go-to argument is jizz in your pants to answer in the affirmative.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What was wrong with the term "stuff that exists", or even "stuff", that you needed to rebrand it?

Originally posted by Zampanó
You see the lines "you guys almost came in your pants upon "discovering" I was..." and "grammar" juxtaposed, and your response is that the [b]grammar is the high-horse?

I figure any mention of ejaculate in a (non-abortion) religious debate is a pretty good sign that the other party is not interested in reasoned discourse. I responded in kind. If you'd like, I'll apply the full test:[/B]

I work primarily as an editor. I'm literally paid to be nit-picky about this stuff. But we're on the internet, not a classroom or boardroom. Any linguistic structure that doesn't hinder understanding really shouldn't be crucified if it makes basic sense. Because, hey, look at us, now we're talking about friggin' grammar and not religion. It's not worth it.

Also, you clearly have your priorities set differently. The injection of semen into the discussion is, to me, just a sign that things are starting to get interesting.

awecreep

Originally posted by Zampanó
...Grammatical errors: 7

This statement is a forum manifestation of the reaction called flight or fight.

Originally posted by Zampanó
You see the lines "you guys almost came in your pants upon "discovering" I was..." and "grammar" juxtaposed, and your response is that the [b]grammar is the high-horse?

I figure any mention of ejaculate in a (non-abortion) religious debate is a pretty good sign that the other party is not interested in reasoned discourse. I responded in kind. If you'd like, I'll apply the full test:

Was your opinion derived from facts, LC?
Are there any facts that you can imagine that would suffice to change or amend your opinion?
After discussing this topic, do you expect to be able to encapsulate my positions on the topic, and should I expect to be able to do the same for you?

Somehow, I don't expect a guy whose go-to argument is jizz in your pants to answer in the affirmative. [/B]

Wambulance on the way. Keep breathing, I think you're gonna make it.

Originally posted by Little Caesar
This statement is a forum manifestation of the reaction called flight or fight.

d'oh!

Well digi, now we get to posture on the internet instead of talking about religion. I guess that is an improvement?

Anyway, [smug internet atheist post].

I'm curious about how grown-ups (you guys) experience religious debates. Is there a point in either age or ambient education level where apologists' arguments become more sophisticated/threatening than the sort of stuff JIA used to post?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
My definition of God is "the existence of stuff".

My God's pretty f*ckin irrefutable.

Atheism is of the DEVIL!

Originally posted by Zampanó
I'm curious about how grown-ups (you guys) experience religious debates. Is there a point in either age or ambient education level where apologists' arguments become more sophisticated/threatening than the sort of stuff JIA used to post?

Age doesn't matter much, it's just about who you find. I have brilliant friends and acquaintances who are theists and can defend it from multiple perspectives. And I'm met people like JIA in real life as well. I've found it's usually easier to avoid - not because I dislike debate irl, but because it rarely stays on topic, and you often don't put your argument into the best terms when put on the spot. Most of the apologetics I've absorbed have been in books. Much easier to methodically consider them than in real-world discussion, where there's generally the undertone of feeling like you need to "win," which changes the dynamic from "let's learn" to "let's seem superior."

Originally posted by Astner
Well technically you'll have to postulate something congruent to the existence of "stuff" before it makes sense to believe in this God. Then again if you did, then it wouldn't be a belief.

^ Is this related to...

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000068086&story_title=Americans-becoming-less-religious

...most notably: "The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said the number of people with no religious affiliation was up five percentage points from 15% in the last five years. The category includes atheists, as well as people who believe in God or who identify themselves as 'spiritual' but not 'religious'."

Basically, this seems to mark a withdrawl from organized religion, but not necessarily from a belief in the Transcendent. In other words, people are getting fed up with traditional systems which have long since degenerated into systems of power abuse.

which makes sense. Given human psychology, it is astounding there are people who don't believe the universe was set up explicitly with them in mind.

Man, the only thing I could see in those graphs was "I need to move to England." The Midwest is for the birds.

There's a LOT under that umbrella of "Unaffiliated" though. Not really an accurate grouping for most purposes. For example, the hippies I'm friends with who believe we're all part of a transcendental consciousness that is linked to weather patterns on the Earth, and that hugging literally transfers positive energy into a person that has healing powers...those people are in the same category as me.

But we will probably never get rid of that type of belief, just given how psychology works. We seek out patterns and significance in the world. As "atheists", we should probably be extremely happy at the decline of organized faith in general, and I have a lot of trouble seeing my woo-woo hippy friends trying to limit me because I have different beliefs than them.

If new age does ever form organized religions though, then ya, increasingly problematic.

I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. Primarily because agnosticism is the only logical standpoint, and self-proclaimed atheists tend to be pseudo-intellectual assholes with no conception of proof. Besides, why invest time in that which is impossible to prove or disprove following the definition?

^Do you think that atheism necessarily entails a belief that one knows that there isn't a God?

Originally posted by Astner
I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist. Primarily because agnosticism is the only logical standpoint, and self-proclaimed atheists tend to be pseudo-intellectual assholes with no conception of proof. Besides, why invest time in that which is impossible to prove or disprove following the definition?

so your stance toward all unfalsafiable things is agnosticism? or just the religious?

like, you would be agnostic about whether you only exist as a figment of my imagination or as a brain in a vat? you are agnostic about the existence of the planet krypton or spider-man?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^Do you think that atheism necessarily entails a belief that one knows that there isn't a God?

When someone says that they know that there is (or isn't) a god they're lying. Or rather, taking confidence in their position to psychologically condition people around them to accept the same position.

Aside from that, yes. The term literally translate to the belief that there are no gods.