Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

I'M AN ATHEIST, AND I ABORT AND EAT BABIES.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO WORSHIP OUR LORD AND MASTER, RICHARD DAWKINS?

Well, I just got back from the convent. Ate a whole boatload of nuns (I know because I beat them to death with a scale replica of Noah's Ark).

The problem is with people who seem to think that there is really anyone who's arguing that a God does not exist, at least in this thread.

I, and no atheist I know will ever claim that God does not exist. The lack of evidence is all I need to say that I do not believe that one does exist. Under MY definition of the word Atheist, it merely means the negative of belief in a god, rather than the positive belief that there is no god. The two are entirely separate ideas and do not share anything between them philosophically. I agree with Jay in that one cannot defend a position of actively believing in the non-existence of something without proof that it doesn't exist, BUT that has never been what Atheists in general have tried to support. There are definitely morons out there on the internets who will spout off without thinking, but this just demonstrates one thing:

There is no central dogma that defines what an Atheist is. It is a label of exclusion, not inclusion. You can only tell what a person does NOT think if they call themselves an Atheist, not what they DO think. The idea that you can twist a person saying that they don't believe in a god into they believe that there is no god is asinine.

Is it moronic for someone to positively believe I am not a billionaire, or positively believe the universe isn't a simulation?  Does someone have to doubt all of reality and make no positive beliefs to avoid being a moron?  I'd like a clear, explicit answer from anyone that takes your position.

Strictly speaking, yes, it is moronic to believe you are not a billionaire or that the universe isn't a simulation. It is not moronic to not believe you are a billionaire, or not believe that the universe is a simulation. It's an acceptably low level of moronicity, though, that I don't see the point in arguing with it, especially as it seems likely to coincide with reality.

EDIT: Stop posting for one damn second, people! I hate you all.

[smigenboger]

Ah, the brain in a vat theory.

Arguably, even if everything's not real, you should still go with it. Or, run the equivalent of a virtual machine and live in a sim of the sim. There may be more dopamine there

[TheDarkJay]

Actually I'd argue all beliefs in negatives are kinda silly...Instead you have "Reasonably assume to be true" (i.e Gravity, Evolution) and "Can not reasonably assume to be true", it's like when you go to court.

You have "Guilty within reasonable doubt" and "not guilty within reasonable doubt", those are the two categories. If a person is found not guilty, they may very well actually have commited the crime, but it cannot be proved within reasonable doubt so all charges go away and they return to society. Even a Guilty verdict allows for the possibility they did not commit the crime.

I vote Religion "Not likely true within Reasonable Doubt", I'd vote you as being a billionaire "Not likely true within Reasonable Doubt", and the universe being a simulation as "Not likely true within Reasonable Doubt"...More evidence, I'll re-open the case

Then again, I'm a weird person with regards to this stuff and lots of other stuff ^.^

[Kebooo]

Strictly speaking, yes, it is moronic to believe you are not a billionaire or that the universe isn't a simulation. It is not moronic to not believe you are a billionaire, or not believe that the universe is a simulation. It's an acceptably low level of moronicity, though, that I don't see the point in arguing with it, especially as it seems likely to coincide with reality.

So you must doubt all facts, all reality, always, to avoid being moronic.  Nothing can be positively believed in, because it can be doubted and its opposite can be possible (except, you could argue, a few things, like math or existence)?  That seems a pretty harsh standard to call someone a moron over, yes?  So it is moronic to believe anything is true or false because every form of evidence can be doubted.

[TheDarkJay]

You assume it is a harsh standard, but forget we all include *ourselves* in this as moronic, and most people freely admit this ^.^

[MrWiggles]

Regardless, telling people what they should believe or disbelieve is repulsive. I can tell you what I believe, I can give you a reason why I believe so, and I might ask you if you took facts into consideration, but I won't single you out for not conforming with my beliefs. Variety is the spice of life.

Not confronting beliefs is asinine. There are wrong beliefs. Wrong in terms of harm to one self, to others, to others without consent to other that cannot give consent ect...

Confronting on someone belief is necessary. From this can we learn what we ourselves believe and what other believe. Open lively debate brings forth new ideas and eventually shuns detrimental ones.

Confrontation does not equal converting!

There are variety of ways to confront someone belief. From passive to overtly aggressive, from belittlement to enlightening areas of inconstancies and contradictions.

Not everyones belief is equal. Not everyone beliefs are valid. Not everyone belief deserve respect. The same goes for ethics/morals as well.

Simply confronting a belief does not mean you are trying to convert them to yours. It may have no ulterior motives. It can mean converting.

[chaoticag]

Those are what I like to call special cases though. Most of the time, I keep it out of my head. Most.

Thanks for pointing it out though, but you better have a solid reason for the confrontation.

[Bauglir]

Strictly speaking, yes, it is moronic to believe you are not a billionaire or that the universe isn't a simulation. It is not moronic to not believe you are a billionaire, or not believe that the universe is a simulation. It's an acceptably low level of moronicity, though, that I don't see the point in arguing with it, especially as it seems likely to coincide with reality.

So you must doubt all facts, all reality, always, to avoid being moronic.  Nothing can be positively believed in, because it can be doubted and its opposite can be possible (except, you could argue, a few things, like math or existence)?  That seems a pretty harsh standard to call someone a moron over, yes?  So it is moronic to believe anything is true or false because every form of evidence can be doubted.

The "strictly speaking" thing is rather important, you know. Practically speaking, it's silly to go to that extreme, but then, extremes have a tendency to be extremely silly. And "moronic" was your wording; I just went with it because if I didn't you'd inevitably accuse me of complicating things unnecessarily and because it really did seem beside the point what word we used for "logically unsound". No need for all these emotional appeals, dude.

[TheDarkJay]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

The use of Moronic is probably my fault, I've been using it a few times XD "Stupid" means "logically unsound" to me anway, and I'm rather immune to emotional associations to the point of not even recognising emotions in people half the time -,,,-

[Kebooo]

You assume it is a harsh standard, but forget we all include *ourselves* in this as moronic at times, and freely admit this ^.^

But see, I don't agree it is moronic.  I don't consider it moronic to believe that the universe exists tangibly, rather than being a dream or simulation.  There is hardly a point in discussing anything at all if we don't believe in truths or falsehoods, why take any position on anything?  Why believe probabilities are true?  Why default to not believing me as a billionaire because of probabilities you are resting your belief on, which themselves are based on other probabilities and evidence that can be doubted?  It's belief upon belief upon belief.  We can be wrong, we can admit we can be wrong.  I believe you're all one person, I believe that is the truth of things, but I could be wrong, and I don't believe it's been proven.  Since when are opinions on truth and falsehood moronic to have?  Presumptive, yes.

[chaoticag]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

[TheDarkJay]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

So? If they don't like it, they can just avoid me or the subject. I won't bring it up, I just respond when they do. So long as you aren't needlessly aggressive or abusive what's the harm?

[Kebooo]

Strictly speaking, yes, it is moronic to believe you are not a billionaire or that the universe isn't a simulation. It is not moronic to not believe you are a billionaire, or not believe that the universe is a simulation. It's an acceptably low level of moronicity, though, that I don't see the point in arguing with it, especially as it seems likely to coincide with reality.

So you must doubt all facts, all reality, always, to avoid being moronic.  Nothing can be positively believed in, because it can be doubted and its opposite can be possible (except, you could argue, a few things, like math or existence)?  That seems a pretty harsh standard to call someone a moron over, yes?  So it is moronic to believe anything is true or false because every form of evidence can be doubted.

The "strictly speaking" thing is rather important, you know. Practically speaking, it's silly to go to that extreme, but then, extremes have a tendency to be extremely silly. And "moronic" was your wording; I just went with it because if I didn't you'd inevitably accuse me of complicating things unnecessarily and because it really did seem beside the point what word we used for "logically unsound". No need for all these emotional appeals, dude.

Practicality is subjective and can be doubted.  Your idea of practical can be different from mine.  I think believing in a god is silly and extreme, I would be equally as likely to believe we live in a simulation.  Moronic was not my wording, someone previously described the "moronic atheist" to be someone that positively disbelieves in a god.  I haven't appealed to emotion here, not sure why you added that in.

[chaoticag]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

So? If they don't like it, they can just avoid me or the subject. I won't bring it up, I just respond when they do.

I can hardly avoid my own mother you know.

[MrWiggles]

Confrontation is a positive force, it encourages us to think about the ideas, to challenge them. I can't see how that's a bad thing :S

Or it makes people agitated and want to kill you.

Thats rather dark. The confrontation doesn't cause someone to kill you. The belief and mind of the belief holder kill you. There are few circumstances where a person can compel nother person to kill someone else. Confrontation on belief generally is not one of them. Fundamentalism can cause someone to kill soemone else over a belief, but its not the belief nor the confratation that caused but the fundamentalism that does so.