What were you before you became and atheist?

[Jason]

So what, in your opinion, was he, before he existed?

If he was anything, he wasn't an atheist.

[Exi5tentialist]

Does any of that work in Christianity, though?

Christianity is itself internally inconsistent and doesn't 'work', but yes it is applicable as a rationalization of their concept of eternity.

I agree that what you wrote has the same characteristics of displacing the reader from their life reality that Christianity has, but does all gibberish really fit into Christianity just because it's internally inconsistent?

That is after all the cultural root of our civilisation, and it is the cultural overhang of Christianity that I was referring to when I challenged Zilla's supposedly atheist statement, "Never been anything but an atheist. Live with it." By the way, he didn't say, "I have always been an atheist," which I would have agreed might be seen to be more limited to the span of time that one person has been living.

never been ... is equivalent to I have always been. I guess you missed the point.[/quote]

Did you guess wrong, I wonder? Surely always (literally: every way, every which way in time and space) has profoundly different connotations than the word Never (literally: not in the whole of eternity)? Stylistically and literally aren't they very different words?

[Exi5tentialist]

Do you apply anything resembling the scientific methodology in formulating these ideas?

No, it's a philosophical discussion. Science cannot address such questions.

Nonsense. It can fully address the question of whether atheists are closet believers or not. In fact it can do so far better than philosophy.

Is it really "nonsense"? Surely to make that assertion about what I have said, you would need to construct data, publish it and have it peer-reviewed etc? Is there any evidence you can present that shows you have done that?

Regardless, you still need grounds for your 'suggestion' as you call it or else you're just pulling things out of the aether and arguing them to no apparent purpose and with no apparent reason.

No, not regardless. Is it not right for all of us to have regard for everything that somebody has said? Regardlessness carries the possibility of dismissiveness out of hand, doesn't it?

Can't you accept that we can all build up impressions of the world around us, that each set of impressions is different for different people, and that each person has just as much right as the next to set out what their impressions are without having to resort to statistical data every time? How does this automatically translate to "pulling things out of the aether and arguing them to no apparent purpose and with no apparent reason"? If people are rejecting the hypothesis that cultural beliefs residualised from christianity remain profoundly strong, even though the core religion has fallen away, then do they not equally have to display evidence to support that rejection?

[Tyrannical]

Pretty lonely forum after the rapture I think.

[Jason]

Does any of that work in Christianity, though?

Christianity is itself internally inconsistent and doesn't 'work', but yes it is applicable as a rationalization of their concept of eternity.

I agree that what you wrote has the same characteristics of displacing the reader from their life reality that Christianity has, but does all gibberish really fit into Christianity just because it's internally inconsistent?

It isn't gibberish. It's reality.

Don't fret yourself over it, a lot of people have trouble with that concept.

That is after all the cultural root of our civilisation, and it is the cultural overhang of Christianity that I was referring to when I challenged Zilla's supposedly atheist statement, "Never been anything but an atheist. Live with it." By the way, he didn't say, "I have always been an atheist," which I would have agreed might be seen to be more limited to the span of time that one person has been living.

never been ... is equivalent to I have always been. I guess you missed the point.

Did you guess wrong, I wonder?

I didn't guess.

Surely always (literally: every way, every which way in time and space) has profoundly different connotations than the word Never (literally: not in the whole of eternity)?

No. They're both subjective, not absolute. Their range of application is fluid as such. This is not an issue of "a rose by another other name". Time is not a static thing and our measurement of it, while useful, is completely subjective - imposed.

Stylistically and literally aren't they very different words?

Style is a linguistic issue and has no correspondence to the reality of things. Literally, they are two sides of the same coin. First, example in usage: I will always love you and I will never stop loving you are equivalent. Second, they both rely on the same subjective precept - eternity. Your point is not entirely a red herring, but very near one.

[Jason]

Do you apply anything resembling the scientific methodology in formulating these ideas?

No, it's a philosophical discussion. Science cannot address such questions.

Nonsense. It can fully address the question of whether atheists are closet believers or not. In fact it can do so far better than philosophy.

Is it really "nonsense"? Surely to make that assertion about what I have said, you would need to construct data, publish it and have it peer-reviewed etc? Is there any evidence you can present that shows you have done that?

You have a bad habit of not addressing the point, but tackling side issues which are not relevant.

Regardless I will address it; you never construct data. Data is gathered by various methods. It is a passive process. Theists construct data. Scientists gather it. That's a significant point and worth considering.
Can I present evidence to show that I have done what? Conducted 'theological' scientific research? No, because I never have.

Regardless, you still need grounds for your 'suggestion' as you call it or else you're just pulling things out of the aether and arguing them to no apparent purpose and with no apparent reason.

No, not regardless. Is it not right for all of us to have regard for everything that somebody has said? Regardlessness carries the possibility of dismissiveness out of hand, doesn't it?

Can't you accept that we can all build up impressions of the world around us, that each set of impressions is different for different people, and that each person has just as much right as the next to set out what their impressions are without having to resort to statistical data every time?

Sure, so long as it is opinion and kept to yourself. If you wish to 'set out' that opinion then you need to expect to need defend it. If all you have is 'it is my impression', then be prepared for the more strictly rational to dismiss it as a mere opinion carrying no weight.

How does this automatically translate to "pulling things out of the aether and arguing them to no apparent purpose an with no apparent reason"?

See above. You have not defended your 'suggestion'. It is therefore opinion without any weight and not worth consideration. You might as well 'pull things out of the aether' and argue them. The vacuum of support you have provided for your opinion silences your argument.

If people are rejecting the hypothesis that cultural beliefs residualised from christianity remain profoundly strong, even though the core religion has fallen away, then do they not equally have to display evidence to support that rejection?

Once again you're diverting the topic. Who denied this? I presented arguments for reality. I did not attack the sociological impact of religious or cultural beliefs. The fact that you're using those same beliefs to prop up your unsupported opinion is a fault of your argumentation, not mine, and it is up to you to defend why they are true if you intend to continue to use them so.

[Exi5tentialist]

Can I present evidence to show that I have done what? Conducted 'theological' scientific research? No, because I never have.

Precisely. So why ask me to do the same?

Sure, so long as it is opinion and kept to yourself. If you wish to 'set out' that opinion then you need to expect to need defend it. If all you have is 'it is my impression', then be prepared for the more strictly rational to dismiss it as a mere opinion carrying no weight.

Why must an opinion be kept to oneself? We welcome the expression of opinion in a free society, don't we?

And what research do you have to use as the basis for rejecting my opinion? None! You just said so! (with typical culturally christian emphasis!) So we're just comparing opinions: my opinion is as good as yours at this stage. Perhaps rather than going down this petulant route of demanding data every time someone expresses an opinion, we should be more keen to explore the nuances of the opinions first, asking questions like, 'That's interesting. Why do you think that? Are there other examples you could bring to the discussion?' rather than, 'That's Nonsense! You have no data! (and nor do I!)'

Once again you're diverting the topic. Who denied this?

I may be wrong, but I think the word 'nonsense' was used, along with the word 'fauxlosophy' (meaning anyone who dares to write anything more than 2 sentences long, requiring the use of logical thought to understand).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Beyond a second sentence, Zilla can only communicate in pictures, lest he stumble headlong into the quagmire of his own fauxlosophy.

It's hard to upload the sound of laughter, so smilies will do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So what, in your opinion, was he, before he existed?

If he was anything, he wasn't an atheist.

Sophistry, pure and simple.

[Svartalf]

Find me good reason to consider biblical writing as evidence.

Evidence of what? Objective fact? None. Evidence of cultural Christianity? Where else would you look?

You're making a point that is valid only if one accepts your premise that there is a god in the first place, and that it exists in conformation to biblical description... sorry, but that doesn't cut the mustard, especially within the context of present discussion

Can you explain that? Why is it necessary to accept the premise that there is a God in the first place? How is that my premise anyway? What has mustard-cutting got to do with this? So many unanswered questions.

You predicate that one cannot have been an atheist forever on grounds that eternity and never are chretinous/judaism derivated concepts. and your quotes specifically describe eternity as a godly attribute, meaning you have to accept that theology to start discussing with you, honestly, I wonder why I'm even typing this.

[Svartalf]

I remember the moment I became an atheist. I was in undergrad studying to get into seminary to become an Episcopal priest. From Episcopalianism to atheism isn't that great of a leap, actually.

Funny... I wasn't in seminary, but I was studying the bible because I wondered if I had a vocation to the priesthood. That's not precisely what made me an atheist, as I was already full of doubt and disbelief about many doctrines (and started hoping it would give me a renewed belief in all of that), but it sure clinched a lot of things for me.

[Svartalf]

I remember the moment I became an atheist. I was in undergrad studying to get into seminary to become an Episcopal priest. From Episcopalianism to atheism isn't that great of a leap, actually.

You are a believer and a potential priest according to Exi. So there.

But what if I don't believe Exi5? And what if I don't have any urge to rape choirboys? That ought to disqualify me right there.

Do you even believe in Exi, and his all encompassing rightness and wisdom?

[Feck]

What was I before I became ???? and atheist


I'm confused

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We've done the grammar thing twice already.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you even believe in Exi, and his all encompassing rightness and wisdom?

You talking about St. Sanctimonious?