[QUOTE=RedFury]
Thought I’d play some more.
If you really must assign a value to atheism, try “-1” as that is the exact number of gods less that we don’t believe in. Versus pantheists I’d go with a “?” value, and lastly in comparison to Deist why not use “close cousins” as value?
[/QUOTE]
Now that almost works. Are you suggesting 0 is agnostic, -1 is atheistic, +1 is theistic, etc?
If so… I think I kinda like that.
Of course, Bryan just had to come in and ruin all the fun what with making sense and all. But yeah, what he said. 
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
If 0 is accepted as a value, that doesn’t everything have a value relative to everything else? What’s a Tasmanian tribesman’s opinion on a pen sitting on an accountant’s desk in Omaha? Zero? What about the pencil next to it? Zero, also, huh? Well, what about the stapler…
Much easier rule - if it’s zero, don’t count it.
[/QUOTE]
Until Zero claims to negate the existance of 1, yeah.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
No. But I like your passion as you hack at the strawman.
See… I like to fancy myself a reasonable man. A bit cool headed. I can’t say I never slip, but… the voices of Dawkins and Harris can get a bit shrill at times. And the adherents go still further.
Dogma=Dogma
Dogma=Certainty that must prevail
Tell me the atheism being displayed doesn’t fit that mold?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t. When people insist that the sky is blue, and the other side insists that it’s actually plaid but an undetectable force makes it look blue, are the blue-skyers “dogmatic” for insisting they are right ?
Once again, give me some evidence. Give me some evidence that shows that religion deserves to be taken seriously, even as something that has a reasonable chance of being true, much less is true. You won’t, and mswas won’t, of course; you’ll just pretend that there’s an equivalence between skepticism of what is obviously mythological nonsense, and between insistence that nonsense is true.
[QUOTE=mswas]
This precisely shows why you are not qualified to have these discussions. These sorts of logical analogies are used all the time. If something stretches your ability to understand you accuse them of word games. Funny that, considering Anomalous Reading is an atheist.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming he really is an atheist, so what ? He/she is still defending religion with word games.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Appears to be TO YOU.
[/QUOTE]
And to everyone, including you; you just won’t admit it. Otherwise, you’d be able to come up with some of that evidence that I and others have been asking for.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I debate the argument with people who have a stronger grasp of it, or at least aren’t mean and nasty about it.
[/QUOTE]
There isn’t much there to have a grasp OF. Your beliefs, like all religions, are foolish and empty. There’s no one who has a better grasp of the evidence for your beliefs than I do, because there is no such evidence. That’s why you haven’t produced any. This is not some profound, subtle, difficult subject. This is a matter of people insisting that an obvious fantasy is truth; exactly like someone believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy as an adult.
And you aren’t in much of a position to call other people nasty.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And to everyone, including you; you just won’t admit it. Otherwise, you’d be able to come up with some of that evidence that I and others have been asking for.
[/quote]
I am reporting this post because you called me a liar.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I am reporting this post because you called me a liar.
[/QUOTE]
And now you go towards the intimidation part of your “argument”.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
Now that almost works. Are you suggesting 0 is agnostic, -1 is atheistic, +1 is theistic, etc?
[/QUOTE]
I was just toying with this “value” idea. But sure, if that works for you instead of simple words, why not? If it helps cut through the BS, I’m all for it. Besides it’d save quite a few key-strokes. As in “I am a -1 when it comes to religion yet qualify as a ‘weak’ 0 when it comes origins.”
Silly as all get-out methinks, but if it helps…
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And now you go towards the intimidation part of your “argument”.
[/QUOTE]
Stick within the rules bub. If you can’t be civil of your own accord, then the rules of civility are there to intimidate you.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Stick within the rules bub. If you can’t be civil of your own accord, then the rules of civility are there to intimidate you.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve hardly been civil. Plenty of your posts have been insults to me - none of which I’ve reported as such, by the way. I don’t look at the mods as a club to win arguments with.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I am reporting this post because you called me a liar.
[/QUOTE]
Good, great even. Now that you’re done with that, can you move on and take care of actually backing-up your axiomatic claims with some cites and/or logic?
You’re welcomed to use my newfangled nomenclature if that makes it any easier…
Don’t mention it.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It doesn’t. When people insist that the sky is blue, and the other side insists that it’s actually plaid but an undetectable force makes it look blue, are the blue-skyers “dogmatic” for insisting they are right ?
Once again, give me some evidence. Give me some evidence that shows that religion deserves to be taken seriously, even as something that has a reasonable chance of being true, much less is true. You won’t, and mswas won’t, of course; you’ll just pretend that there’s an equivalence between skepticism of what is obviously mythological nonsense, and between insistence that nonsense is true.
[/QUOTE]
I have, in THIS thread, stated why I think spiritualism is a default state for humans. I think I arrived at that point logically and sensibly. Then to posit that religion has done NO GOOD in this world is to demonize wholesale a significant part of the world - and despite evidence.
I’m not saying we should be quiet. I do have an idea. Right now? In this thread?? Atheism looks mad. Angry. Hurt. A lot of things. Trick is, it ain’t a woman so it ain’t cute or attractive when angry. It’s actually kinda ugly. Just like angry religion.
Religion has provided structures for people to latch onto (yes, in error, imo) that some people need. Is that condescending? No. Dammit… I latch onto certain things too. It’s that whole splinter/plank thing.
Some atheists seem to be ignoring the necessary introspection and beyond that - a focus on finding center.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Assuming he really is an atheist, so what ? He/she is still defending religion with word games.
[/QUOTE]
No… arguing for a more reasoned approach. What are you? The Saint Peter of atheism? One of the Sons of Zebedee (aka sons of thunder)?
Incidentally, really kinda tired of you putting words and intents in my mouth and mind.
Incidentally - I’ve already clarified once what my gender is. And I did so TO YOU. Tactfully. In THIS thread. I’m a guy. Man. I gots man parts. Can we get that right in the future?
Thank you
[QUOTE=mswas]
Until Zero claims to negate the existance of 1, yeah.
[/QUOTE]
Zero here is just pointing out that 1’s existence, though widely believed for a long time, was never proven in the first place, and there are plenty of other 1s in the same boat, so aren’t they all pretty much interchangable?
If you’ve got evidence of a particular 1 that beats out all the others, please present it.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
You’ve hardly been civil. Plenty of your posts have been insults to me - none of which I’ve reported as such, by the way. I don’t look at the mods as a club to win arguments with.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t argue. I have yet to see anything that isn’t simply an imperious proclamation. I don’t even ask you for cites anymore, because you never provide them. Feel free to report my behavior, or to feel better than me for not doing so.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Zero here is just pointing out that 1’s existence, though widely believed for a long time, was never proven in the first place, and there are plenty of other 1s in the same boat, so aren’t they all pretty much interchangable?
If you’ve got evidence of a particular 1 that beats out all the others, please present it.
[/QUOTE]
That is still not value neutral. If it is pointing something ‘out’ it is not value neutral.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Good, great even. Now that you’re done with that, can you move on and take care of actually backing-up your axiomatic claims with some cites and/or logic?
You’re welcomed to use my newfangled nomenclature if that makes it any easier…
Don’t mention it.
[/QUOTE]
Now you’re just being facetious. But I like it. It was my 0, 1, etc thing. And it’s still being debated.
Rightly by mswas imo. Atheism has some of the same blind spots as religion. We need to own up to that if we want to be any KIND of persuasive. Or hell… even credible.
[QUOTE=mswas]
You don’t argue. I have yet to see anything that isn’t simply an imperious proclamation.
[/quote]
“Give me some evidence” comes to mind.
And I argue alot. You seem to be operating on the theory that if someone doesn’t basically agree with you, they aren’t arguing.
[QUOTE=mswas]
I don’t even ask you for cites anymore, because you never provide them.
[/QUOTE]
When have you ever ?
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading=]
Then to posit that religion has done NO GOOD in this world is to demonize wholesale a significant part of the world - and despite evidence.
[/QUOTE]
And who is saying that ? Not even me. I have said that the evil cause by religion massively outweighs the good, but that’s not the same thing.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
Atheism has some of the same blind spots as religion. We need to own up to that if we want to be any KIND of persuasive. Or hell… even credible.
[/QUOTE]
Such as ? And no, being “dogmatic” about the blindingly obvious isn’t the same as insisting that obvious nonsense is true.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And who is saying that ? Not even me. I have said that the evil cause by religion massively outweighs the good, but that’s not the same thing.
Such as ? And no, being “dogmatic” about the blindingly obvious isn’t the same as insisting that obvious nonsense is true.
[/QUOTE]
What did your “God” do to you? Are you sure you are an atheist and not just mad at a god you can’t believe in?
A lack of a god in the universe isn’t blindingly obvious. I’d say that we are in such a minority might be a bit of a tip off.
Btw - that’s the offensive approach I was talking about. It just looks mad. I dunno what to do about it except to point it out.
I’m arguing about style - not substance. Does that make sense?
[QUOTE=mswas]
This precisely shows why you are not qualified to have these discussions. These sorts of logical analogies are used all the time. If something stretches your ability to understand you accuse them of word games. Funny that, considering Anomalous Reading is an atheist.
[/QUOTE]
I’m quibbling with myself. Should I report this post, filled as it is with disqualifying ad-hominens and devoid of content? Naaw…my universal Christian ethics tells me that it’s wrong to tell on people when it comes to such minor infractions.
Guess some can dish it out but can’t take it back in kind. “Eye for an eye” Christian universal I’d bet.
:::sigh:::
Seriously now, some content would be nice. To say the least.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
What did your “God” do to you? Are you sure you are an atheist and not just mad at a god you can’t believe in?
[/quote]
No, but his followers have done plenty of damage to immense numbers of people ( and still are ).
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
A lack of a god in the universe isn’t blindingly obvious. I’d say that we are in such a minority might be a bit of a tip off.
[/quote]
And the vast majority of people haven’t believed in foolish things before ? And why should that be taken as a criticism of atheism, when they don’t agree about which mythology is real ? On the contrary; that’s evidence FOR the negative position, for atheism.
And again, where’s the EVIDENCE ? It’s blindingly obvious that there’s no God, for the same reason it’s blindingly obvious there is no Santa Claus.
[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
I’m arguing about style - not substance. Does that make sense?
[/QUOTE]
Not really. As a rule, the nice, polite people get ignored, or steamrolled. And there’s not much point in being polite to people who find your very existence evil.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And the vast majority of people haven’t believed in foolish things before ? And why should that be taken as a criticism of atheism, when they don’t agree about which mythology is real ? On the contrary; that’s evidence FOR the negative position, for atheism.
[/QUOTE]
This is misleading. The lack of evidence FOR a god, becomes a form of accepted proof of no god. Others will disagree. Again, it’s easy enough to find god in things - right or wrong, it happens.
Numbers don’t make them right. Numbers mean it might not be as blindingly obvious as you insist.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And again, where’s the EVIDENCE ? It’s blindingly obvious that there’s no God, for the same reason it’s blindingly obvious there is no Santa Claus.
Not really. As a rule, the nice, polite people get ignored, or steamrolled. And there’s not much point in being polite to people who find your very existence evil.
[/QUOTE]
So far, I don’t see too many people taking you seriously. Are you sure you are working within a successful model?
Edit: I am STILL an atheist. I don’t know how many times I have to say that. I’m not going to try to prove god exists - that would be asinine.