Athesim radicals and Theist Radicals

[chevyrunssometimes]

Why are they hostile? "Because they are atheists" doesn't work.

It does work.

So you say. But logically there's simply nothing there. Atheism is just the recognition that there is insufficient evidence for believing god things. Not much else follows from this -- it is also a position open to further evidence; your "atheist" crusades are not.

 

[Denny Crane]

So you say. But logically there's simply nothing there. Atheism is just the recognition that there is insufficient evidence for believing god things. Not much else follows from this -- it is also a position open to further evidence; your "atheist" crusades are not.

Logically there is plenty there. Some subset of atheists mass murdered tens of millions of people because of those peoples' religion. Those people were targeted specifically because they weren't atheists. Their belongings taken. The churches raised to the ground or repurposed. The people exiled or killed.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

What part of "Every atheist isn't about doing away with religion and religious institutions." didn't you parse?

Didn't miss a bit of it. What part of begging the question don't you grasp?

Saying that all atheists are not bad does not prove that any truly are. The last bit is what you would need to show. I agree many folks are bad, but we gain nothing attributing their badness to our unestablished beliefs about their beliefs.

The belief that god doesn't exist is not an atheist belief. An atheist may also have that believe, just as he may also believe that frosted corn flakes are good for you, but his belief in corn flakes is not an aspect of his atheism anymore than his belief in the non-existence of god is.

'God does not exist' does not follow from 'there exists insufficient evidence to form a belief in gods.' Thus, anyone claiming god doesn't exists is doing so merely as a believer in that belief, and not because he is an atheist -- one who believes there is sufficient evidence for believing in god things.

 

[Denny Crane]

Didn't miss a bit of it. What part of begging the question don't you grasp?

Saying that all atheists are not bad does not prove that any truly are. The last bit is what you would need to show. I agree many folks are bad, but we gain nothing attributing their badness to our unestablished beliefs about their beliefs.

The belief that god doesn't exist is not an atheist belief. An atheist may also have that believe, just as he may also believe that frosted corn flakes are good for you, but his belief in corn flakes is not an aspect of his atheism anymore than his belief in the non-existence of god is.

'God does not exist' does not follow from 'there exists insufficient evidence to form a belief in gods.' Thus, anyone claiming god doesn't exists is doing so merely as a believer in that belief, and not because he is an atheist -- one who believes there is sufficient evidence for believing in god things.

"There is not sufficient evidence" is agnosticism.

There is some reason for these atheists (who don't care about sufficient evidence, there is no "god" period!) killing people of religion and ransacking their holy places and relics. The common theme is atheists (who happen to be "communist") targeting religion.

I could consider some other motive, like nationalism (as with the Nazis who weren't hostile to all religion), but I don't see anything like that in the Chinese or Russians or Pol Pot or Castro. Religion is the common theme.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Logically there is plenty there. Some subset of atheists mass murdered tens of millions of people because of those peoples' religion.

Yeah, I'm not disputing that folks were bad, people died, etc., etc., I'm just pointing out that they behaved badly because of other reasons. Because killing and all that bad stuff doesn't follow logically from the atheist position, namely that there is insufficient evidence for believing in god things.

If you can show how "that" actually leads to killing then you will have satisfied your contention.

You're simply mislabeling psychopathic activities and beliefs for atheism, that's what it appears like, anyway.

 

[Denny Crane]

You haven't suggested a single and plausible alternate reason the Commies purged religious institutions.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"There is not sufficient evidence" is agnosticism.

Nope, sorry. I've got my card right here, and it reads:

"Bearer of this card finds there to be insufficient evidence for forming a belief in god things. Please ignore any additional claims card bearer makes regarding what this card or card label entails. This card only entitles bearer to wear the label "atheist" in compliance with this definition and any logical entailments of this definition, and as such, can not, and will not be held liable for those who use this card unlawfully or untruthfully or illogically."

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

You haven't suggested a single and plausible alternate reason the Commies purged religious institutions.

But I'm a philosopher, not a historian. Even so, you're simply wrong on this in the main. I pointed out that each of mag's 4 quotes themselves contained far more plausibly-attributable beliefs for the actions mentioned than does "there is insufficient evidence for forming a belief in god things."

 

[magnifier661]

Nope, sorry. I've got my card right here, and it reads:

"Bearer of this card finds there to be insufficient evidence for forming a belief in god things. Please ignore any additional claims card bearer makes regarding what this card or card label entails. This card only entitles bearer to wear the label "atheist" in compliance with this definition and any logical entailments of this definition, and as such, can not, and will not be held liable for those who use this card unlawfully or untruthfully or illogically."

This isn't the "atheism isn't a sound belief" thread. Search for it and you can muster all those "where are the God things" all you want.

We are talking societies; heavily isolated on a belief that do bad things. Possibly referencing the Catholic Church during the dark ages or communism using atheism to spearhead their witch hunt against theists.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denial may be a river in Egypt, but it's not making your case or refuting mine.

I have no beef with atheism or agnosticism or religion. So it's not like I have some agenda here. I'm calling it like it is.

 

[magnifier661]

Chevy; if you haven't noticed; Denny and I disagree 100% with each other about God or lack thereof. You seem to constitute that anyone in disagreement is some theist that is using this thread to give atheism a bad name.

This thread is giving blind following a bad name. It's giving the people that abuse a generalized way of thinking to justify mass murder, persecution or exile.

Find the other thread or get back on topic.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"There is not sufficient evidence" is agnosticism.

Nope, wrong again. Agnosticism is ultimately an epistemological claim: can't claim knowledge unless certainty is achieved. It's a false conception (criteria) of knowledge applied to the yes or no of god's existence. Atheism is about belief in belief. It says genuine belief is compelled, god is not compelling, ergo, no belief. It's not a choice. The true atheist can't help but not be compelled. That is the fact he is faced with -- the inability to form such a belief, because belief is not a free choice, is not a guess made against a 50/50 proposition, but rather is a response to what reality presents.

 

[Denny Crane]

An agnostic is not compelled. An atheist is somehow compelled to DENY.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Chevy; if you haven't noticed; Denny and I disagree 100% with each other about God or lack thereof. You seem to constitute that anyone in disagreement is some theist that is using this thread to give atheism a bad name.

This thread is giving blind following a bad name. It's giving the people that abuse a generalized way of thinking to justify mass murder, persecution or exile.

Find the other thread or get back on topic.

Nope. That's not how I view it at all. I understand that you two differ with regard to your god beliefs and that you are both somewhat confused about atheism.

I'm only here to help. I've pointed this out and clarified where I thought was necessary. Nothing more. I try to specify what I am responding to by my quotes.

Feel free to quote anything I write seeking clarification or relevance.

 

[magnifier661]

Nope. That's not how I view it at all. I understand that you two differ with regard to your god beliefs and that you are both somewhat confused about atheism.

I'm only here to help. I've pointed this out and clarified where I thought was necessary. Nothing more. I try to specify what I am responding to by my quotes.

Feel free to quote anything I write seeking clarification or relevance.

Seems like you are the one that needs clarifying. Almost like you preaching "godless" things in a thread talking about exploitation of ideology.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

An agnostic is not compelled. An atheist is somehow compelled to DENY.

Well you have a product. Good look finding a buyer.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well you have a product. Good look finding a buyer.

Like I've already posted, neo nazis can label themselves social democrats. It doesn't make it so, even if there are buyers.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Seems like

It needn't seem like anything. I am sufficiently articulate to say what I mean. When you have a question, place the citation of my text where I can read it. That way it's easy to indicate where and (possibly) how your interpretation of my post has gone off track. Passing off your interpretations of what I've written is without any point that I can see. I mean, why pretend to argue with someone else when I am right here?

 

[magnifier661]

It needn't seem like anything. I am sufficiently articulate to say what I mean. When you have a question, place the citation of my text where I can read it. That way it's easy to indicate where and (possibly) how your interpretation of my post has gone off track. Passing off your interpretations of what I've written is without any point that I can see. I mean, why pretend to argue with someone else when I am right here?

I've responded to you plenty. You have a funny way of thinking you gained some ground in a debate. Do you shadow box too?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Like I've already posted, neo nazis can label themselves social democrats. It doesn't make it so, even if there are buyers.

And like I indicated in response the first time ... you're merely assuming my notion of atheism is a relabeling. It isn't, while your example, clearly is. Come on. You can do much much better.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

I've responded to you plenty. You have a funny way of thinking you gained some ground in a debate. Do you shadow box too?

Nope. This is just more of your unsupported vague attempts at casting a wide net so as to appear as if you're doing something. Note how there is nothing to indicate what you have in mind -- just vague references: a bald assertion that you've "responded plenty" but nothing indicative of said responses, no example of my funny way of "thinking" I've gained ground, and finally, just an allusion to shadow boxing.

Is this what you call ... debate?

 

[magnifier661]

Nope. This is just your unexamined BS. Note how there is nothing to indicate what you have in mind -- just vague references: a bald assertion that you've "responded plenty" but nothing indicative of said responses, no example of my funny way of "thinking" I've gained ground, and finally, just an allusion to shadow boxing.

Is this what you call ... debate?

Not really. I would need a quality opponent. This is more like "keep away", I being 6'4" and you being 4'5"

And bs? Lmao! Come on man. Stop living in denial about the communist movement!

 

[Denny Crane]

And like I indicated in response the first time ... you're merely assuming my notion of atheism is a relabeling. It isn't, while your example, clearly is. Come on. You can do much much better.

I'm doing no relabeling.

What flavor of atheist simply hates religion because he was fondled by a priest as a child?

There's no Reason to that belief. Fine, because Reason isn't a requirement, just denial is.

Do you know, for certain there is no Gods? For certain?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

I'm doing no relabeling.

Yes you were. You were characterizing my position as a relabeling of atheism -- like "neo nazis can label themselves social democrats," both relabelings YOU created. That's all I meant. Surely you could figure that out.

You also added that the labeling doesn't make it so. I would agree but would add that 1) you've not established a relabeling, 2) if you did, it doesn't mean the labeling is necessarily invalid, 3) As I said when you coughed this up previously, language changes as understandings change so relabeling itself doesn't establish anything except that there may be a change or development in our understanding of what experiences the term attempts to comprise.

What flavor of atheist simply hates religion because he was fondled by a priest as a child?"

LOL, way to whip the language into shape. Denny, I would simply say (and be able to argue) that the fondled child hates religion because he was fondled by a representative of religion. I would take this to be much more meaningful (plausible, likely) explanation than the formulation that the person hates religion because he's an atheist.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes you were. You were characterizing my position as a relabeling of atheism -- like "neo nazis can label themselves social democrats," both relabelings YOU created. That's all I meant. Surely you could figure that out.

You also added that the labeling doesn't make it so. I would agree but would add that 1) you've not established a relabeling, 2) if you did, it doesn't mean the labeling is necessarily invalid, 3) As I said when you coughed this up previously, language changes as understandings change so relabeling itself doesn't establish anything except that there may be a change or development in our understanding of what experiences the term attempts to comprise.



LOL, way to whip the language into shape. Denny, I would simply say (and be able to argue) that the fondled child hates religion because he was fondled by a representative of religion. I would take this to be much more meaningful (plausible, likely) explanation than the formulation that the person hates religion because he's an atheist.

The point being that nobody cares why he disbelieves. Reason (capital R) has nothing to do with it.

You didn't answer my question.


Do you know, for certain there is no Gods? For certain?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Stop living in denial about the communist movement!

Ah so we finally get to your real agenda. I felt certain there was something you were going on about.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're a philosopher. I'm a political economist.

JS Mill is my guy.

 

[magnifier661]

Ah so we finally get to your real agenda. I felt certain there was something you were going on about.

And what agenda is that?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

The point being that nobody cares why he disbelieves. Reason (capital R) has nothing to do with it.

The point being that nobody cares why he disbelieves. Reason (capital R) has nothing to do with it.

It isn't clear that no one cares why he doesn't believe. And also, if no one cares then why argue for such a lame account (hates religion because he's become an atheist instead of hates religion due to the emotionally disturbing event?).

You didn't answer my question.

Yes. I know. I'm the one who didn't answer it. I was trying to determine the relevance of the question and couldn't, so I didn't. I mean, I've stated twenty times what I understand the meaning of atheism. Given that, I could not make sense of your query.

Do you know, for certain there is no Gods? For certain? You didn't answer my question.

The question of gods existence isn't compelling enough to even form a belief about. It makes no sense to me conceptually and there is not sufficient development as a concept for all those who claim to believe to even believe in something shared. As an atheist, I am simply acknowledging that there is simply nothing I meet as a knower, in this world, that would cause me to form a belief in any thing (or things) like gods. Without the ability to form a belief in such things, the question of existence is severely misplaced. There is no way to get from "atheism" to "god doesn't exist." Atheism is about the adequate grounds for "belief formation," not "someone's opinion on the existence of supernatural beings."

Do you know, for certain there is no Gods? For certain?

I don't know anything for certain. Certainty is not an epistemological reality for me. There's merely the illusion -- the feeling of feeling positive about this or that, married to the theoretical/propositional side. As an honest person, I've seen too many cases where that feeling of certainty was too soon replaced with the certain truth of one's ignorance. The feeling of certainty is no promise of infallibility. In fact, for me, it's often a flag to back off epistemologically and reconsider the actual terms in play.

 

[magnifier661]

That has to be the biggest run around answer I ever seen.