Jamest is right!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I don't believe there are no gods, I just don't believe theists when they say there is a God.

That makes me an atheist. A no-theist.

Actually Agnostic.

No. Atheist. If you don't believe in any god, that is atheism. If you do not know whether or not any gods exist, you are agnostic. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

I don't believe Hindus when they say Vishnu or Ganesh exists, or Pagans when they say Herne the Hunter exists either. I don't believe any person or group who says that a supernatural entity has influence over them and their lives, and I definitely don't feel obliged to take them at there word or show them some special kind of respect or give them some special privileges just because they say that what they believe in is special and important.

Maybe they exist in the reality of the Hindu, or the Pagan or whatever.
Who's to say your reality is better than theirs, or mine over yours?


There is no objective reality.

There is a school of philosophical thought that holds that there is no objective reality. There are others that hold the opposite. Claiming that either case is fact is erroneous.

[rainbow]

There is a school of philosophical thought that holds that there is no objective reality.

There are others that hold the opposite.

Yes, but they're wrong.

Claiming that either case is fact is erroneous.

...or neither, or both, it just depends on your view of reality.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There is a school of philosophical thought that holds that there is no objective reality.

There are others that hold the opposite.

Yes, but they're wrong.

Claiming that either case is fact is erroneous.

...or neither, or both, it just depends on your view of reality.

And you have evidence for these assertions, of course?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Hackenslash has been suspended for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks (including this one) and a previous 24h suspension.

[rainbow]

There is a school of philosophical thought that holds that there is no objective reality.

There are others that hold the opposite.

Yes, but they're wrong.

Claiming that either case is fact is erroneous.

...or neither, or both, it just depends on your view of reality.

And you have evidence for these assertions, of course?

Naturally. They might not stand up to scrutiny in your reality, but that isn't my problem.

[Brian Peacock]

I don't believe there are no gods, I just don't believe theists when they say there is a God.

That makes me an atheist. A no-theist.

Actually Agnostic.

I don't believe Hindus when they say Vishnu or Ganesh exists, or Pagans when they say Herne the Hunter exists either. I don't believe any person or group who says that a supernatural entity has influence over them and their lives, and I definitely don't feel obliged to take them at there word or show them some special kind of respect or give them some special privileges just because they say that what they believe in is special and important.

Maybe they exist in the reality of the Hindu, or the Pagan or whatever.
Who's to say your reality is better than theirs, or mine over yours?


There is no objective reality.

Perhaps, though you'll break your toe on a boulder if you kick it hard enough.

And besides, I'm not saying that my subjective experience is 'better than yours' or anyone else's, I'm saying that just because you're convinced of the truth of the existence of your god don't expect me to give you or it special respect or give you special privileges, and if you're going to tell me I have to wear a blue hat on a Wednesday or eat muffins on a Monday (even though Muffin Monday actually sounds like a good idea eh? "Hey everybody! It's Muffin Monday!") or that I'm not allowed to fall in love with that person because of reasons, then no matter how real your reality seems to you I'll still take the piss out of it.

(Of course, I mean the 'you' in the general sense. I'm not taking a pop.).

Oh, and all agnostics are atheists.

[pErvinalia]

There is a school of philosophical thought that holds that there is no objective reality.

There are others that hold the opposite.

Yes, but they're wrong.

Claiming that either case is fact is erroneous.

...or neither, or both, it just depends on your view of reality.

And you have evidence for these assertions, of course?

Naturally. They might not stand up to scrutiny in your reality, but that isn't my problem.

Actually, it is your problem if you want to convince people to believe them.

[rainbow]

I don't believe there are no gods, I just don't believe theists when they say there is a God.

That makes me an atheist. A no-theist.

Actually Agnostic.

I don't believe Hindus when they say Vishnu or Ganesh exists, or Pagans when they say Herne the Hunter exists either. I don't believe any person or group who says that a supernatural entity has influence over them and their lives, and I definitely don't feel obliged to take them at there word or show them some special kind of respect or give them some special privileges just because they say that what they believe in is special and important.

Maybe they exist in the reality of the Hindu, or the Pagan or whatever.
Who's to say your reality is better than theirs, or mine over yours?


There is no objective reality.

Perhaps, though you'll break your toe on a boulder if you kick it hard enough.

Of course, but only if that Boulder is part of reality. You know the joke:"Twenty-Five Square Miles Surrounded by Reality" - http://www.bouldercoloradousa.com/artic ... menuID=205

Dish!

OK never mind.

[Brian Peacock]

Looks like a nice place to visit. I'll add it to 'The List' (which only ever seems to get longer, not shorter).

[rainbow]

Looks like a nice place to visit. I'll add it to 'The List' (which only ever seems to get longer, not shorter).

Really good, and the Rockies are a short drive away.

Seth used to live somewhere near there, but I think he has moved, so it's quite safe.

[pErvinalia]

[Animavore]

It's not a preconception, it's a very carefully constructed analysis that is the result of more than 30 years of debating with Atheists, wherein the "throwaway comments" outnumber the germane and thoughtful comments by ten-thousand to one. It's hardly incorrect to conclude that Atheists, as a rule, have their own special religiously dogmatic preconceptions and biases from which all argumentation proceeds because that's the long-observed truth. Rare indeed is the atheist who is willing to cogently and rationally discuss religion, theism or anything other than hard-left liberalism.

I know precisely one, out of all the thousands and thousands of Atheists I've debated with over the years, and even he demonstrates a degree of hidebound dogmatism from time to time. Quite literally everyone else I've ever debated has, sooner rather than later, turned away from reason and logic and for the most part resorted to sarcasm, dismissal, and outright ad hom insult directed towards literally anyone who dares to challenge their religious orthodoxy.

I keep hoping someone will show up who has more intellectual horsepower and stamina, but I've not seen any evidence at all that such persons inhabit this sort of forum.

But, you get what you pay for, so I'll have to be satisfied with what's here.

Funny how you yourself resort to outright dismissal and ad hom attacks in this very post.

[Seth]

You're a dishonest cunt of the highest order.

Deny all you like, the truth sits there before the world whether you like it or not. That's what's so great about the Internet, you are what you write and what you write is there for everyone and anyone to examine and judge.

And despite us asking you MULTIPLE times for some of these alleged quotes that are there for everyone to see, you haven't provided one single quote to back up your bollocks. We even started a poll to prove you wrong, and prove you totally wrong, as usual, it id. You are a dishonest cunt. Please fuck off to dishonestcunts.com/forum.

It's not always about quotes, rEv, although if I could be arsed to do so there's a wealth of documentary proof of your particular biases. Inferences can be (and are) drawn from the body of your work regarding your (on-line) opinions about theism. For you to say that you have a neutral belief about the existence of God is simply dishonest and you know it. A poll means nothing because Atheists are incapable of admitting or acknowledging their true beliefs because, as I have demonstrated many times, their fear of being branded as religious hypocrites requires a pathological adherence to the fiction that they hold "no beliefs" about God. So all a poll does is encourage people to lie about their true beliefs because they want the approval and support of their compatriots and don't want to be excoriated as you excoriate me, for not adhering to the Atheist religious orthodoxy.

Just as you draw conclusions (often mistaken) based on the body of my work, and aren't shy about drawing conclusions and inferences based on what I write, I do the same thing with respect to your, and everybody else's contributions here, and it's my considered and deeply held opinion that nearly everyone here, or at Ratskep, or at RDF in the past, falls firmly into the category of religious Atheist zealot, which is a kind adjective for what many of them really are.

That's what makes them Atheist, as opposed to atheists. The reasonable, rational non-believer is perfectly comfortable with admitting that they don't know the truth and that the question of God's existence remains open and unresolved. They are not afraid to face this insecurity and do not feel the need to cover up their insecurity about their uncertainty with bluster, bloviation and insult. As a Tolerist™ I have no dog in the hunt either way. I'm satisfied to let theists believe what they believe and Atheists believe what they believe without judging either one of them with respect to those beliefs, so long as they manifest those beliefs peaceably. On the other hand, I also feel free, if not more than a little compelled to point out the logical and rational flaws in Atheist thinking and argumentation, just as I do so with my theist friend, and I absolutely choose to engage in defense against the many and ubiquitous slurs and slanders hurled at people who do not deserve such animosity.

Then again, when I'm attacked for doing so, as you commonly do as a substitute for rational discussion, I feel free to respond to such non-peaceable acts with vigor equal to or exceeding that directed at me, and will continue to do so because such responses are completely appropriate.

If you don't want to be branded a religious Atheist zealot, then don't act like the very religious zealots you deride constantly. In many cases, your diatribes are indistinguishable from those of the most judgmental theistic bigots. Also, it would demonstrate a greater degree of rationality and logic if you, and other Atheists, didn't constantly apply the broad brush of condemnation for hypocritical and downright evil acts by a few individuals to everyone who shares some sort of religious belief with those who commit heinous acts in the name of religion. Your stated desire for shorthand, in order to save you a few keystrokes by neglecting to aim your broadsides at specific individuals who do wrong in the name of religion, weakens your arguments and makes you look all the more like a bigoted religious Atheist zealot who doesn't bother to acknowledge the rather notable distinction between corrupt religious officials and those who's beliefs cause them to be charitable, altruistic, kind, loving and self-sacrificing to the benefit of those in need.

I understand that you like to vent, but I have yet to see you make an honest, introspective and respectful post acknowledging that for billions of people, theistic religion serves as a stable foundation in their lives that makes suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune somewhat easier. Whether or not their beliefs are a fantasy or even a delusion isn't really relevant to the potential, and factual benefits of theistic belief to those who need solace and comfort in dealing with the stresses of life, as any psychiatrist will tell you. I've not yet seen you present a credible case for why anyone should be an atheist, or an Atheist. I've not seen any evidence that your being an Atheist gives you any comfort or solace or any assistance in dealing with the perfectly natural stresses and uncertainties that come with contemplating one's own mortality and the uncertainties of life. If anything, I see the exact opposite in you. I see hopelessness, depression and a morbid attitude of uselessness because you try to take refuge in reason and logic when, as many others have demonstrated over the ages, abandoning yourself to faith in something greater than yourself might actually make your life better. I've yet to see someone as prominent as Dawkins honestly address the value of "religious delusion" to society or the individual. The best he came up with, in TGD, is a vague question asking why it isn't better to be rational and reject delusion, which he pointedly never actually answers.

One of the reasons I recognize this trait in you is because I too suffer from the same atheistic ennui and dissatisfaction with life. But rather than respond to that internal conflict by attacking others for whom theistic religion is a solace and comfort and a moral compass that leads them to be better people, I try very hard to accept that my lack of belief is quite personal and isn't the fault of anyone or anything else, and I try to respect the beliefs of others...in other words, I'm tolerant of their beliefs so long as those beliefs manifest themselves peaceably and in positive, productive ways for both the individual and society in general.

Religion and belief in God exist as an evolved behavior at the very least, and the fact that 80 percent of the planet's population hold some sort of theistic belief is not something one can simply dismiss and ignore. Even if it's all a delusion, people believe in theistic religions because it is useful and helpful to them in dealing with the difficulties of life.

And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

[Seth]

It's not a preconception, it's a very carefully constructed analysis that is the result of more than 30 years of debating with Atheists, wherein the "throwaway comments" outnumber the germane and thoughtful comments by ten-thousand to one. It's hardly incorrect to conclude that Atheists, as a rule, have their own special religiously dogmatic preconceptions and biases from which all argumentation proceeds because that's the long-observed truth. Rare indeed is the atheist who is willing to cogently and rationally discuss religion, theism or anything other than hard-left liberalism.

I know precisely one, out of all the thousands and thousands of Atheists I've debated with over the years, and even he demonstrates a degree of hidebound dogmatism from time to time. Quite literally everyone else I've ever debated has, sooner rather than later, turned away from reason and logic and for the most part resorted to sarcasm, dismissal, and outright ad hom insult directed towards literally anyone who dares to challenge their religious orthodoxy.

I keep hoping someone will show up who has more intellectual horsepower and stamina, but I've not seen any evidence at all that such persons inhabit this sort of forum.

But, you get what you pay for, so I'll have to be satisfied with what's here.

Funny how you yourself resort to outright dismissal and ad hom attacks in this very post.

Isn't it just.

But then again, my comments are directed at a very specific group of people and is more of a recitation of behavioral observations than a judgment on their characters. Although I must in truth admit succumbing to the lure of outright insult on occasion in retaliation against those who slander or libel me or others who have done nothing to deserve such opprobrium. It's a fault I freely admit, but don't take particular pride in.

[Seth]

Seth, if you say that an atheist is someone with "no belief in a god" (which I don't disagree with), and then you say you are not an atheist, then logically you are implying that you have a belief in a god, not just the possibility of one... (remembering that this definition of atheism is not "a belief that there is no god")

Which god, BTW?

Thor?

Baal?

Zeus?

Jehova?

I don't have a belief in any particular god, but I do have beliefs about the concept of God(s). The conundrum is that while one may have "no belief in God" almost everyone has some beliefs about God, be they positive or negative. Almost all persons claiming to be atheists of my acquaintance hold very strong beliefs about the existence of God (deities).

This is the distinction between "implicit atheism" and "explicit atheism."

Here's what Wikipedia says:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

So, in the "broad sense," "atheism" is a rejection of the proposition that deities exist, or put differently, a positive disbelief in the existence of deities. In the "narrower sense" it is actively a positive denial of the existence of deities.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[40] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[41] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[42]

Reduced somewhat, "implicit atheism" only occurs when the individual has either never been exposed to, and therefore been compelled to give consideration to theistic concepts, or is mentally incapable of giving any consideration to such theistic concepts, whereas "explicit atheism" is the condition of anyone who has been exposed to the concepts of theism and has given any consideration to and drawn a conclusion about the truth of the propositions.

Therefore, it is reasonable and rational to categorize everyone in this forum, and almost everyone else who claims the mantle of atheist, as "explicit atheists" because they have been exposed to theistic concepts, have studied and considered those concepts and have drawn a conclusion that the propositions are not true.

The key concept here is that no self-proclaimed "atheist" actually hold "no beliefs" with respect to the existence or non-existence of deities. Such persons must be aware of the concept of theism and must have evaluated at least one claim about the existence of deities and come to the conclusion that such claims are not true, which constitutes a belief about deities which amounts to an active disbelief in the their existence. A disbelief is not "a lack of belief" it is the polar opposite of a belief. It is a "negative belief" and therefore constitutes a belief. It's a belief because all it consists of is confidence in the falsity of the claim that deities exist that exists without evidence of the truth of the claim. In short, it's not a "lack of belief" it's an actual belief in the non-existence of deities, around which a religious order, dogma and orthodoxy has been constructed, creating the religion of "Atheism."