Fed up of non believers

[RootsBooster]

The problem with that kind of labelling though, is that people get lumped into categories, when they may, or may not share the same traits and qualities. Stereotyping people can often produce misunderstandings.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

It's not stereotyping though, absence of belief in gods is the only quality needed to be an atheist. It's like saying that you stereotype theists by saying that they all believe in a god of some kind

[janie48]

I'm pleased that you agree with my final comment, but you are the poster who most frequently refers to dogmatic atheists or angry atheists, and atheist values.

 

You even started an "angry atheists rant thread".

 

There are no atheist values, just as there are no theist values, but if you insist there are then that is the hook by which one can hang prejudices.

Why are you now expressing objections to that thread on here? couldn't you have mentioned them at the time that thread was in progress?

 

Yes I have on occasions referred to angry or dogmatic atheists, that doesn't mean I deny those same traits in theists.

 

I don't recall remarking about anything specifically related to do with atheists values, can you elaborate?

 

Dear me... If my comments are going to upset the more sensitive natures amongst us, I really must try and be more careful what I say in future.

[ivanava]

Atheism isn't a guess. If you imagined a brick wall in front of you, you'd have no knowledge or awareness of what is beyond that brick wall(you'd be agnostic). So whatever is beyond that brick wall wouldn't exist to you. You'd have no experience of it. Its existence would be absent from your mind; you'd lack belief in whatever exists beyond the wall(atheist.)

 

If somebody came along and said a dragon with pink feathers lives beyond the wall, you'd assess the evidence they provide. If that evidence is lacking, or it turns out that person just has a belief, feeling or faith that a dragon with pink feathers lives behind the wall, you'd have no good reason believe that person's claim and you'd still be no wiser as to what exists beyond the wall. You'd still be an agnostic atheist.

 

And by the way, all you are doing with the Prof thing is making an appeal to authority. I could do the same: Professor A.C Grayling for instance views the agnostic stance as irrational.

 

You wouldn't be agnostic just because you didn't know what is behind the wall, you would have to believe that it isn't possible to know what is behind the wall. Believing that a the dragon with pink feathers lives behind the wall would make you theist, not believing it would make you atheist, believing that it isn't possible to know would make you agnostic. So whilst the atheist doesn't believe that the dragon with pink feathers lives behind the wall, they also don't believe that its doesn't live behind the wall. The logical answer is I don't know what is behind the wall and I don't know if its possible to know what is behind the wall, and I will only believe any claim you make about what is behind the wall if you can prove it.

 

This all assumes that the dragon with pink feathers is a God.

Edited March 3, 2014 by ivanava

[janie48]

It's not stereotyping though, absence of belief in gods is the only quality needed to be an atheist. It's like saying that you stereotype theists by saying that they all believe in a god of some kind

Never mind about that now, its these mutual prejudices that i'm bothered about at the moment.

[Ryedo40]

You wouldn't be agnostic just because you didn't know what is behind the wall, you would have to believe that it isn't possible to know what is behind the wall.

 

Technically, I guess you are correct here. But I was using agnostic in the a(without), gnostic(knowledge) sense of the word.

[Cyclone]

I'm not trying to describe myself as anything.

 

I think I'm more or less trying to highlight the inadequacy of language to describe and address such esoteric subject matter. I find it lacks something in way of granularity. It's like taking a digital photograph of a landscape, where there are say 256 intensities per R-G-B component, then considering such a photograph to be a true and accurate representation of the landscape.

 

We are perhaps assuming that 'god' is something that can be rendered in to a three letter word, and cognitively grasped. It really seems meaningless to me, but that doesn't mean the landscape (going back to previous analogy) does not exist.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 09:45 ----------

 

 

Come on! This is Sheffield Forum, you should know by now that was bound to happen! ;-)

 

If you can't describe it, then you can't believe or not believe in it.

People who believe clearly have some concept in mind that they believe in and when they describe it you can then either believe as well or not believe. (Or I suppose not understand the description). Or fail to come to a conclusion and suspend judgement.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 13:42 ----------

 

Then you are in a simultaneous state of being without belief and without denial.

 

Without belief in god/gods = atheist

 

I don't deny the existence of god/gods, but I'm still an atheist.

 

I suppose that depends on whether atheist means without belief, or disbelieving. Perhaps there should be at least one more word in addition to agnostic and atheist.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 13:43 ----------

 

If one knows god directly, but does not engage in the act of belief, then he is an atheist?

 

Possibly Jesus was an atheist, if he didn't mess around with any of this believing (speculation) nonsense?

 

How can you know something yet not believe in it? What is this 'act of belief' surely belief is an internal state, no action is necessary.

 

If he existed then he was a Jew, and if the whole mythology was real then he probably believed that his father existed due to knowing it for a fact.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 13:45 ----------

 

Then you are an atheist, most likely an agnostic one

 

I don't believe such a thing exists, to be agnostic means you cannot be atheist and vice versa.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Cyclone

[milquetoast1]

Why are you now expressing objections to that thread on here? couldn't you have mentioned them at the time that thread was in progress?

 

Yes I have on occasions referred to angry or dogmatic atheists, that doesn't mean I deny those same traits in theists.

 

I don't recall remarking about anything specifically related to do with atheists values, can you elaborate?

 

Dear me... If my comments are going to upset the more sensitive natures amongst us, I really must try and be more careful what I say in future.

 

I'm not upset in the slightest, I'm merely addressing the double standards that you keep employing in these discussions.

 

You continuously apply characteristics and values to atheists as a group, and frequently use them to express upset or offence. Projecting upset onto my reply is therefore rather funny.

 

This fits within the thread topic because it shows how some people are uncomfortable with being wrong and actually want to put up a barrier to their beliefs. This thread is a typical appeal to all those who don't share their beliefs to shut up. Some people simply cannot accept that they might change their mind.

 

My mum's an ex-Christian, my dad's an ex-Muslim, and I'm both. I used to believe in ghosts. I change my mind all the time, I enjoy the process of changing my mind, and I enjoy the process of trying to change other people's minds.

[Cyclone]

You wouldn't be agnostic just because you didn't know what is behind the wall, you would have to believe that it isn't possible to know what is behind the wall. Believing that a the dragon with pink feathers lives behind the wall would make you theist, not believing it would make you atheist, believing that it isn't possible to know would make you agnostic. So whilst the atheist doesn't believe that the dragon with pink feathers lives behind the wall, they also don't believe that its doesn't live behind the wall. The logical answer is I don't know what is behind the wall and I don't know if its possible to know what is behind the wall, and I will only believe any claim you make about what is behind the wall if you can prove it.

 

This all assumes that the dragon with pink feathers is a God.

 

That's not the logical answer. Lacking any evidence or prove for a pink dragon, you should conclude that there is no pink dragon.

You will of course be open minded enough to accept any future evidence they might produce, but in the meantime, don't go around accepting the possibility of things that don't fit in with the world as we can observe it and have no evidence or proof to support them.

[milquetoast1]

I suppose that depends on whether atheist means without belief, or disbelieving. Perhaps there should be at least one more word in addition to agnostic and atheist.

 

Atheism means without belief, or disbelieving, because I think they are the same.

 

What atheism doesn't mean is belief that there is no god, although it is a subset of disbelief, and somebody who claimed to believe there is no god is certainly an atheist.

 

Belief is a binary position, so there is only a need for two words.

 

One can be more certain in their beliefs, so one can be a strong theist, or weak atheist etc. But nobody can be without belief and without disbelief simultaneously.

[redwhine]

Taking into consideration Occum's Razor,who do you think is most likely to be correct in defining beliefs, a man who has spent his lifetime working in the field in question and is in possession of relevant degrees, or alternatively a bunch of argumentative numpties on Sheffield Forum?

This ^ is a logical fallacy.

 

"The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[5] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[6] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[6]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

I admit it's a bit of a tough one, but having given it due consideration I'm leaning slightly toward the man who actually knows what he's talking about.

Thank you. I knew you'd agree with me eventually.