What were you before you became and atheist?

[Svartalf]

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


I'm confused

No, that's SINCE you've become an atheist

[Jason]

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?

I did not. I asked that you support your opinion if you wish to 'set [it] out'. The fact that you've based it upon the 'God hypothesis' is your choice. I didn't put you in that corner, you did.

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

What I think you mean is "Why can't I spout any old bollocks I like without being challenged?"

You're free to spout your bollocks, just as I'm free to challenge you on it. If you cannot support it, which you so far have not, I'm free to dismiss it. That's fair.

And what research do you have to use as the basis for rejecting my opinion? None! You just said so!

I need no evidence to reject an unsupported hypothesis just as I need no evidence to dismiss an unsupported opinion. You apparently don't understand how argumentation works, allow me to concisely explain it. Your 'opinion' makes claims and it goes like this:

Claims are supported by warrants.
Warrants are supported by evidence and reason.
If you can have no evidence and reason then you have no warrant.
Unwarranted claims are nothing more than any other old bollocks and are justly dismissed.

In other words, the burden of proof lies with you to support your claims with warrants and your warrants with evidence and reason. There is no onus on me to provide evidence to the contrary of an unsupported claim.
As I stated already, your opinion holds no weight as it is unsupported and is so justly dismissed. I think that's fairly straightforward and easy to understand.

(with typical culturally christian emphasis!) So we're just comparing opinions: my opinion is as good as yours at this stage.

I'm afraid not. See above.

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!)'

I don't need evidence, I'm not making claims. I'm challenging yours. See above.

Also 'why do you think that?' is a question inherent in my challenge. See above.

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).

Red herring and cherry picking. 'Nonsense' may be used to dismiss an unsupported opinion. See above.

[Jason]

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

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

Sophistry, pure and simple.

So far.

[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.

So far.

He plays this game badly, it's too obvious he doesn't give a shit about the subject, only the argument. Pathological.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Feck]

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


I'm confused

No, that's SINCE you've become an atheist

[Ronja]

The vacuum of support you have provided for your opinion silences your argument.

Physics is poetry here; here poetry is physics - beautiful!

[Exi5tentialist]

I did not. I asked that you support your opinion if you wish to 'set [it] out'. The fact that you've based it upon the 'God hypothesis' is your choice. I didn't put you in that corner, you did.

If you are talking about the hypothesis that, "despite the decline in religion there remains a residual cultural dominance of christian ideas in everybody's thinking, including atheists," don't you think that to label that as the "God hypothesis" is stretching the straw man to breaking point? It is, after all, an atheist claim, coming from a fellow atheist, isn't it? Why the emnity?

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

What I think you mean is "Why can't I spout any old bollocks I like without being challenged?" You're free to spout your bollocks, just as I'm free to challenge you on it. If you cannot support it, which you so far have not, I'm free to dismiss it. That's fair.

I would invite you to consider that describing my hypothesis as "bollocks" is a displacement from what we all know is the reality - that it is actually a fair enough hypothesis that deserves rational examination. I often consider that people who use language that is displaced from the limited reality human beings experience by bringing in concepts like "never" and "bollocks" (what on earth have male genital organs got to do with the reality of discussion? You might as well talk about hell or heaven, the love of god for all the accuracy your words carry), are really just unreconstructed theists. I know this may sound like a harsh criticism but I think there is something in it. So many people like to consider themselves free of theism the moment they declare to the world that they don't believe in god, whereas that is just the starting point in a lifetime of self-questioning. I don't claim to be much more than a fraction of the way along the path, but at least I am prepared to ask questions that others would deny out of fear that they might have unpalatable answers.

And what research do you have to use as the basis for rejecting my opinion? None! You just said so!

I need no evidence to reject an unsupported hypothesis just as I need no evidence to dismiss an unsupported opinion. You apparently don't understand how argumentation works, allow me to concisely explain it. Your 'opinion' makes claims and it goes like this:

Claims are supported by warrants.
Warrants are supported by evidence and reason.
If you can have no evidence and reason then you have no warrant.
Unwarranted claims are nothing more than any other old bollocks and are justly dismissed.

In other words, the burden of proof lies with you to support your claims with warrants and your warrants with evidence and reason. There is no onus on me to provide evidence to the contrary of an unsupported claim.
As I stated already, your opinion holds no weight as it is unsupported and is so justly dismissed. I think that's fairly straightforward and easy to understand.

Haven't I supported it? Have I not used reason and evidence to support my claim? Didn't I quote passages from the Bible to show how the use of a word correlates to cultural christianity? Haven't I argued the use of the technique of displacing the writing from reality is a common feature of theistic communication? Is it really so threatening that a hypothesis supported (but I agree, not proved... yet) by a couple of reasoned arguments is considered to be something other than 'bollocks'? Have you provided anything on the same level as the biblical quotes I mentioned to refute what I said?

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!)'

I don't need evidence, I'm not making claims. I'm challenging yours. See above.

Unless I have misread you (and I might be right in thinking you would seek to capitalise on that introduction) you are making claims. As far as I can see you're claiming that the hypothesis that "despite the decline in religion there remains a residual cultural dominance of christian ideas in everybody's thinking, including atheists" is bollocks. You could say the hypothesis is unproven, that the introductory evidence is insufficient thus far, I might even agree with you and try to offer more examples, but you're doing more than merely 'challenging' at this early stage, you are actually claiming it is untrue, and for that assertion the onus of proof is on you, not me.

[Exi5tentialist]

[img] pictures, pictures, pictures [img]

Go on Zilla... try to make it to that third sentence. You can do it!

[Exi5tentialist]

The vacuum of support you have provided for your opinion silences your argument.

Physics is poetry here; here poetry is physics - beautiful!

Ronja is fond of the idea of silencing arguments. This intervention is unsurprising.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[img] pictures, pictures, pictures [img]

Go on Zilla... try to make it to that third sentence. You can do it!

That's what you get, in response to the shit you post, nothing more is needed.

[Exi5tentialist]

[img] pictures, pictures, pictures [img]

Go on Zilla... try to make it to that third sentence. You can do it!

That's what you get, in response to the shit you post, nothing more is needed.

Do you think I was asking for my benefit?

Can't you see your personal development was uppermost in my mind?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you think I was asking for my benefit?

Can't you see your personal development was uppermost in my mind?

My development proceeded nicely long before your daddy had a hardon the first time.

[JimC]

From all the sterile and cranky arguing on this thread there emerges a topic which is actually quite interesting. Stripped of the preoccupation with "atheists don't really exist", the whole question of the degree to which our Christian-dominated past still affects aspects of our current society. Most in this thread accept that it does to a degree, even if in a fairly superficial way. It seems that Exi is suggesting the effects run deeper than most of us might accept.

There is a difference between how much this past religious influence effects aspects of social organisation such as government and law, and how much it affects one's persona, even if one has consciously rejected the need for a god or a religion.

I think this is a topic worth considering...

[FBM]

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.

Reading/studying the Bible can be a good cure for xtianity, then, eh?

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

Yeah, but I'm reading/studying his book at the moment, so...