On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
> here:
> 
> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
> 
> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.

I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since 
about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later 
posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the 
possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been 
weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and 
stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's 
consistent with what he's thinking.

In one of his more recent posts, he talks about his methodology and the 
ties between belief and action.  I found it to be a very enlightening 
post, and I'm looking forward to seeing how he progresses through the 
year.

But my initial reaction was "this is a guy who actually probably /is/ an 
atheist, and is just coming to realize that himself.  He's at the point 
of consciously changing his behavior to match his current state of belief 
- or disbelief."

He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process 
and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who 
decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with 
teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those 
organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them 
ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience 
has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that 
"out" atheists experience.

But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as 
well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:40:39 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as
> well.

Not quite.

Atheisim is about probability to many (or even most) atheists.  The 
evidence doesn't support there being a deity (or anything "supernatural") 
in the universe.  So while the word derives from the Greek for "denying 
god," practically, it's a bit more nuanced for most.

Most atheists are probably more accurately self-labeled "rationalists," 
because they take the stand that if testable evidence arose for the 
supernatural or deities, they would change their position.  But 
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, too - so it's not 
just "well, look at the Universe, it's just obvious that God created it."

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>
> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 19-1-2014 14:40, clipka wrote:
> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
> simply can't know for sure.
>
> Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in
> the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but
> either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.

I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After 
long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism 
can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you 
are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and 
disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can 
check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear 
that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the 
same god meant.

Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god 
does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a 
part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will 
be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)

I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I 
stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.


> It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

*) I do not mean they are incompatible. I do know many theists that live 
a very ethical life and don't bother that the prophet was possibly 
making things up. It does not stop them from being good.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 

The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
the form:

1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
3) Therefore God exists.

This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
further evidence it's not possible to say.

The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.

Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
> the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
> towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
> as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:

Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> > The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> > It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

> That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
> are atheists.

I was talking about the *colloquial* usage of the term "agnostic", which
invariably means "I don't have a stance in one way or another on the
subject of whether a god exists."

(In philosophy "agnosticism" means something different, as I described
in my previous post.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> > views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

> It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
> is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
> common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact,
they are rather independent concepts that deal with different questions.
A person *can* be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Atheism deals with belief in a god.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

They don't even discuss the same subject matter.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 22:03, schrieb clipka:
> Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>>
>> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
>> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
>> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
>> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)
>
> Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Had to find this again on Youtube, just for the fun of watching it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>
> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

Would you say...

( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> > The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
> >
> > Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

> Would you say...

> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
you are.

Take for example, the definition in the The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the
belief that there exists none."

I know that many people for some reason want theism and atheism to be
the extreme ends of the spectrum and agnosticism to be right in the
middle, and all three to deal with the exact same subject, but that's
just not what the terms mean.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message