So tell me, what defines a True Atheist?

[tomndebb]

@sear

LD #228

sear, we have a very nice built-in quote function that allows one to indicate the exact words that were posted while providing a direct hyperlink to the post in which they appeared.\

You would do yourself a favor, (by refraining from causing your audience to be irritated with your non-standard citations), if you would simply use that function. Click the “Quote” button at the bottom right corner of the post you would like to cite and then use the text editor that pops up in a new window to eliminate any text that you did not wish to include in your citation. That is all that is needed.

There are a couple of board rules to follow:
Do not change words quoted
do not cut out words without standard editor marks (ellipses for removed words, for example)
do not truncate text in a way to make it misleading.
but it makes one’s post much easier to follow for one’s audience.

[sear]

td #241

Thanks.
Perhaps you’re referring to my #233.

Are you surfing this forum on a mobile device by chance?

My surf-engine is an i7 computer with two display screens.

"There are a couple of board rules to follow:

Do not change words quoted
do not cut out words without standard editor marks (ellipses for removed words, for example)
do not truncate text in a way to make it misleading." #241 

Is the format of the quotation box immediately above this line inadequate, substandard? Unacceptable for some reason?

I would conform to the 3 standards you’ve listed whether it were a local requirement or not,
for it is a criterion of ethics; standards I adhere to whether coached or not.

If you think you can quote any example I’ve posted that violates any of these standards, please quote me w/ reference so I may examine the evidence in detail in context.
Thanks.

Regarding #233:
The formatting issue there is, two consecutive quotation windows can be confusing, both visually and by attribute.

That’s why I used bold highlight for the premise (setting the context for the follow-through), and the quote feature for the conclusion.

The objective is to make the most vivid, the most unmistakable distinctions in such layered posts.

The problem with quoting all or most of a previous post before replying:
it leaves the reader to guess at which specific portion of the quoted text is being referred to / replied to.

Narrowing it down; not to change meaning, but to focus attention on it without being obscured by the extraneous is a journalistic skill that some professionals develop over decades.

Clarity:
that’s what it’s about.

[tomndebb]

@sear

Is the format of the quotation box immediately above this line inadequate, substandard? Unacceptable for some reason?

The format of your posts does not violate any rules, hence my suggestion rather than an order to change it.

The issue is that your posts force other posters to scroll back looking for the source and the context, irritating them and losing you points in any discussion.

@sear

The problem with quoting all or most of a previous post before replying:

is a red herring. Using the method I indicated, I was able to quote seven characters of your post (including a space) and conveyed the meaning I intended. I am not going to order you to follow the etiquette of using the board software; I am simply noting that posters find your style irritating, making them less receptive to your arguments.

[AHunter3]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

@AHunter3

Umm, you misunderstand me. I’m not talking about a conclusion about God. I’m talking about a conclusion about anything whatsoever.

Gotcha. I still think that evidence for gods is particularly difficult to come by.

My favorite example of something that would be persuasive is pi. IIRC, if you theoretically built a circle as perfect as possible, the size of the universe, out of the smallest particle known to humans, pi taken to thirty-two digits would be sufficiently precise to describe the ratio of the diameter to the circumference. You want to prove you’re God? Fix the universe so that any derivation of pi ends after thirty-two digits.

We really really aren’t communicating.

You wrote this:

I require evidence before I draw a conclusion (or at least that’s how I think of myself; let’s stipulate that it’s true).

Question: how did I decide that was the best way of reaching a conclusion?

If I cite evidence that this is a productive way of drawing conclusions, I’m begging the question: I’m citing evidence to support my conclusion that I should cite evidence to support a conclusion.

If I don’t cite evidence that this is the best way to reach a conclusion, am I suggesting that I adopted this epistemology without evidence–in other words, that I’ve adopted it on faith?

I know I’ve been throwing “epistemology” around like it’s on my word-of-the-day calendar, and I apologize for that; but I think it’s a useful word, inasmuch as it allows us to examine this question without resorting to describing materialism as a religion.

In response to that, I wrote this:

May I humbly suggest (as a person who does not identify as “atheist”) that a relevant factor here is whether or not one concludes without finality — that is, the question may be reopened at any point if new evidence appears — as opposed to holding the attitude that the question has been dealt with and the truth in this matter is known?

I wasn’t talking about God. You were not talking about God. You were talking about how you decide that something is or is not real — epistemology! You posed a question to yourself about the validity of citing evidence as a route towards truth. (A very good question, I thought). I liked your post about epistemology so I posted the suggestion that alongside of being evidence-dependent, a good atheist’s approach would be, also, to never enshrine a conclusion as a final conclusion. A good evidence-based epistemology would never do so, but would always consider a conclusion to be “as of this point only”, open to reconsideration were more evidence to come forth.

I did put in a throwaway line about not identifying as an atheist myself, but there’s no gotcha. I do speak atheist as a second language I was absolutely totally not talking about God, nor intending to do so in a follow-up post. Do I fail to correctly comprehend the good atheist evidence-dependent epistemology? Does my follow-up comment have no appeal?

[raventhief]

@sear

td #241

Thanks.
Perhaps you’re referring to my #233.

Are you surfing this forum on a mobile device by chance?

My surf-engine is an i7 computer with two display screens.
Is the format of the quotation box immediately above this line inadequate, substandard? Unacceptable for some reason?

I would conform to the 3 standards you’ve listed whether it were a local requirement or not,
for it is a criterion of ethics; standards I adhere to whether coached or not.

If you think you can quote any example I’ve posted that violates any of these standards, please quote me w/ reference so I may examine the evidence in detail in context.
Thanks.

Regarding #233:
The formatting issue there is, two consecutive quotation windows can be confusing, both visually and by attribute.

That’s why I used bold highlight for the premise (setting the context for the follow-through), and the quote feature for the conclusion.

The objective is to make the most vivid, the most unmistakable distinctions in such layered posts.

The problem with quoting all or most of a previous post before replying:
it leaves the reader to guess at which specific portion of the quoted text is being referred to / replied to.

Narrowing it down; not to change meaning, but to focus attention on it without being obscured by the extraneous is a journalistic skill that some professionals develop over decades.

Clarity:
that’s what it’s about.

I for one don’t find your method to be useful. I don’t want to scroll up to see what precisely you are addressing in your reply. The quote function not only quotes the post, but also links to it. It’s very useful.

[kayaker]

The “True Christian” thread barely made two pages, while the “True Atheist” thread is about to go to page six.

That’s fucked up; something a merciful god would never permit.

Ergo est.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@AHunter3

We really really aren’t communicating.

Indeed.

I wasn’t talking about God. You were not talking about God. You were talking about how you decide that something is or is not real — epistemology! You posed a question to yourself about the validity of citing evidence as a route towards truth. (A very good question, I thought). I liked your post about epistemology so I posted the suggestion that alongside of being evidence-dependent, a good atheist’s approach would be, also, to never enshrine a conclusion as a final conclusion. A good evidence-based epistemology would never do so, but would always consider a conclusion to be “as of this point only”, open to reconsideration were more evidence to come forth.

I did put in a throwaway line about not identifying as an atheist myself, but there’s no gotcha. I do speak atheist as a second language I was absolutely totally not talking about God, nor intending to do so in a follow-up post. Do I fail to correctly comprehend the good atheist evidence-dependent epistemology? Does my follow-up comment have no appeal?

Two things:

1. I understand entirely your point, and I agree entirely with your point. What I posted wasn’t disagreeing with your point at all; I prefer not just to post “+1,” so I posted a note about how what you said–which I agree with–ties back into the original topic.
2. “Gotcha” in this context didn’t mean I thought you were asking a trick question. It meant, “I understand.”

Hope this improves the communication!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@raventhief

I for one don’t find your method to be useful. I don’t want to scroll up to see what precisely you are addressing in your reply. The quote function not only quotes the post, but also links to it. It’s very useful.

FWIW, sear, your posting style is one that leads to a lot of pagedown hits by me. I find it opaque enough that I’m not interested in trying to decipher it, so I’m mostly skipping your posts. You may be fine with that, which is great; but if you’re interested in having your posts read by most people, you may wish to take Tom’s suggestions to heart.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@sear

td #241

Clarity:
that’s what it’s about.

Unfortunately your quoting style interferes with clarity. By not quoting the text at all I must scroll up and down to read your referenced post, back to your comment, back up to the referenced post to look at it again, back down to your post etc.

A quoted and pared down reference aligns the quoted text with the subsequent comment, making reading both and understanding your post much easier.

It’s not against board rules, but the net effect is that I scroll past your post with zero interest.

[QuickSilver]

@sear

Clarity:
that’s what it’s about.

In that case, may I suggest you eschew expatiation & espouse elucidation.

[CarnalK]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Because it’s an important cultural phenomenon that we all engage with in some way?

I had to figure out at some point whether I believe in China. It was easy: done! I had to make the same determination about ocelots, the Marianas trench, telepathy, Steven Hawking, galoshes, and god.

My lack of belief in telepathy, when I was an infant, is changed, because as a child I hadn’t grappled with the idea. Now that I have, I’ve rejected (provisionally) the idea of telepathy. That’s a significant change.

Religion is a fascinating part of human culture. But that doesn’t mean I have had to revisit or refine my lack of belief in god. I grappled as much as I needed to by adulthood.

[x-ray_vision]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

but the net effect is that I scroll past your post with zero interest.

You obviously don’t have an i7 “surf engine” with two display screens.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@CarnalK

Religion is a fascinating part of human culture. But that doesn’t mean I have had to revisit or refine my lack of belief in god. I grappled as much as I needed to by adulthood.

Agreed, and I hope nothing I wrote sounded as though I was suggesting otherwise.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@CarnalK

Personally, my lack in belief in God has not changed much at all if we discount childhood years. Why should it have?

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Because it’s an important cultural phenomenon that we all engage with in some way?

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Agreed, and I hope nothing I wrote sounded as though I was suggesting otherwise.

Your response about the cultural importance of religion was the direct answer to the question CarnalK posted about why should he personally engage in grappling with the idea of g-d.

I think that is where both CarnalK and I got the idea.

[AHunter3]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Indeed.

Two things:

1. I understand entirely your point, and I agree entirely with your point. What I posted wasn’t disagreeing with your point at all; I prefer not just to post “+1,” so I posted a note about how what you said–which I agree with–ties back into the original topic.
2. “Gotcha” in this context didn’t mean I thought you were asking a trick question. It meant, “I understand.”

Hope this improves the communication!

+1

[DrDeth]

@tomndebb

Spoken like someone who has not participated in any threads on the topic on the SDMB.
The fervor and venom that has been expressed when various posters have submitted (or challenged) the definitions of atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic, and related terms have rivaled any number of disputes among the numerous Christian denominations.
This is not a claim that “atheists are just like theists,” but an observation that some atheists are quite as capable of internecine warfare as any Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Sunni, Shia, Orthodox Jew, or Reform Jew and claims to the contrary will be contradicted by even the most cursory examination of such discussions. The attempt to blame such feuds on “occasional nutters” simply indicates the amount of sugar that one chooses to apply to or withhold from one’s porridge.

This is quite true and a excellent point.

[DrDeth]

@kayaker

The “True Christian” thread barely made two pages, while the “True Atheist” thread is about to go to page six.

That’s fucked up; something a merciful god would never permit.

Ergo est.

Very good, hilarious!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Your response about the cultural importance of religion was the direct answer to the question CarnalK posted about why should he personally engage in grappling with the idea of g-d.

I think that is where both CarnalK and I got the idea.

Ah. Since the discussion was originally about the difference between infant atheism and adult atheism, I didn’t get that you were saying you’d grappled with, and come to a conclusion about, the idea during childhood years; of course that matches with my understanding of a considered rejection of the idea. My apologies for missing that bit.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

Very good, hilarious!

Would you mind pointing out what this “hypothetical” is that you claim people are fighting?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Ah. Since the discussion was originally about the difference between infant atheism and adult atheism, I didn’t get that you were saying you’d grappled with, and come to a conclusion about, the idea during childhood years; of course that matches with my understanding of a considered rejection of the idea. My apologies for missing that bit.

I did not say that at all. This exchange started with your definition of atheism seeming to require a lot of conscious thought before deciding to be an atheist. I have alway been one and so far nothing has changed me to being a theist.

To recap, I said:

>My baseline was a lack of belief and that is what my earliest memories are.

>Nothing I’ve been exposed to since then has changed that.

>I feel little need to make grappling with these issues a part of my life. If something changes I’ll think about it, but there’s not a whole lot that has happened in my decades on earth to make thinking about my feelings about god important to me.

It was that idea- that I do not think about routinely that you responded to about it being of cultural importance. If that’s not what you meant, fine. But that was the train that led to both CarnalK and I interpreting your post similarly.