This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Atheism / Agnosticism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
Edit: I need you guys to be a little more defensive and angry, and find even smaller things to nit pic about! It'll be fun. You mock an entire religion, and then get really really mad when some religious guy says he think someone said something once.
/facepalm
I need you guys to be a little more defensive and angry
Sarcasm, bud.
Obviously you didn't pick up on my point.
And so I reiterate:
I need you
guys
to be a little more defensive and angry
Post by
MyTie
~snip~
What are you a girl? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that I need to be more angry, in a way of turning the sarcasm back on me? I'm not sure. But my response to both would be the same:
A pic of a unicorn
. Have a nice day! =D
Post by
Orranis
~snip~
What are you a girl? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that I need to be more angry, in a way of turning the sarcasm back on me? I'm not sure. But my response to both would be the same:
A pic of a unicorn
. Have a nice day! =D
This picture is highly insensitive to horses by depicting them as imperfect and implying that unicorns are somehow superior. I resent it and demand you remove it.
Post by
MyTie
This picture is highly insensitive to horses by depicting them as imperfect and implying that unicorns are somehow superior. I resent it and demand you remove it.
This is actually very consistent with the style of argument for the last 2 pages.
Post by
Monday
Mr. HsR has recently contacted me and asked me to post a reply in this thread for him.
Pay no attention to the fact that I asked him to. Move along.
The problem with semantics is not that they exist. Defining words, encapsulating concepts, and trying to understand each other are integral parts of having intelligent and meaningful conversations. The real problem is when people give try to fit concepts into definitions instead of fitting definitions to concepts.
The question being argued back and forth here is in essence
what is atheism?
" Both sides are trying to construct concepts to fall under that term, and since it is ultimately all semantics, no one can get anywhere. I think the real questions that need to be asked are "
what is MyTie-ism?
" "
What is Orranis-ism?
" "
What is Squishalot-ism?
" and so on. What I mean by that is that everyone defines terms based on their own perception and understanding of real world concepts and things, and that is something that a simple debate about semantics can never even touch or begin to encompass. Rather than get stuck on applying or denying names to those concepts, it would be much more productive to work to understand
why
people use the terms they do, and what it means to them. True understanding won't happen without that.
I'll bring this down a little more concretely to the topic at hand. To MyTie, rather than stating that atheists on the board reject love and death, would it not be more productive to ask them what they think love is and why or why not they accept it? If they give you common ground to work with (e.g. similar understanding of love) then you have your basis for a discussion. If they do not give you something to work with (a completely different concept of love) then there the next step is not deny the term. The next step is to translate that concept into your own terms and see if you agree with them. If you don't, you now have common ground to argue from.
Or to take the other side of the issue. To everyone who is arguing against MyTie, rather than telling him over and over that his definition of atheism is wrong, try to understand why he defines atheism as he does. Ask him what love is, what atheism is, and why an atheist might not hold to such a concept. Then, if that's not what you define atheism or love as, then translate those concepts into terms you do think are applicable and see that is something you understand or agree with. Example:
Oh, by atheism and love you mean
this
? Well that makes sense then that you would say that, and I can agree with you; however I hold different views than what you define as atheism, and what I call love is something else. Given that, can you see how I do believe in love?
To put it into the simplest terms I can: argue, discuss, read, and understand concepts, not terms. If there's one thing I've learned over the years of debating and studying debate it's that everyone understands everything differently and until you truly understand
why
they say, believe, and argue what they do, then there can be no mutual advancement.
A truly great debater can take an opponent’s terms, definitions, and concepts and come to understand them so well that he can make all his own points and arguments using those terms, definitions, and concepts. It takes both a sharp intellect and a charitable demeanor to do that, but I know some if not most or all the typical wowhead debaters are capable of reaching that.
Unfortunately, this is something that is very hard to practice alone. Mutual understanding requires two people trying to understand, and if one person continues to force terms their way, there is not much the other party can do. I challenge everyone, both in this debate and in any debates on wowhead to try and do some of what I suggest. I guarantee that there will be many, many fewer hard feelings and everyone will emerge from their time on wowhead more enlightened instead of more close-minded.
*I would like to make one small caveat. There is a time and place to argue semantics. Terms do have historical, cultural, and grammatical significance, and everyone is perfectly welcome to discuss and debate the application of terms and phrases. That should just not be done
instead
of an actual discussion of concepts.
Regards, HsR, presented by Funden.
Post by
MyTie
Actually, HsR's point is a really really long version of what I said earlier:If someone doesn't deny the possibility of God, and for some reason wants to be called an "atheist", then fine. Go ahead. Call yourself whatever you want. My original point, quite CLEARLY, was directed toward people who DO deny the possibility of God, regardless of your definition of "atheist". In fact, that point was so clear, it was the centerpiece to my entire discussion, and this semantics discussion never needed to happen in the first place. I understand the necessity to define terms, but when my definition was an illustration of my term in the first place, perhaps we aren't going to get anywhere, as the term which is in contention (atheist) was already defined within my argument. If you have your own understanding of that particular noun, but understand how I was describing the noun, then congratulations. That's terrific. But it doesn't mean you can't understand what I was saying, and somehow need to come to an understanding there.
It all got lost, though, when people wanted to argue about what I said I thought that someone else might have said at one point. Now, unicorns.
Post by
Orranis
Actually, HsR's point is a really really long version of what I said earlier:If someone doesn't deny the possibility of God, and for some reason wants to be called an "atheist", then fine. Go ahead. Call yourself whatever you want. My original point, quite CLEARLY, was directed toward people who DO deny the possibility of God, regardless of your definition of "atheist". In fact, that point was so clear, it was the centerpiece to my entire discussion, and this semantics discussion never needed to happen in the first place. I understand the necessity to define terms, but when my definition was an illustration of my term in the first place, perhaps we aren't going to get anywhere, as the term which is in contention (atheist) was already defined within my argument. If you have your own understanding of that particular noun, but understand how I was describing the noun, then congratulations. That's terrific. But it doesn't mean you can't understand what I was saying, and somehow need to come to an understanding there.
It all got lost, though, when people wanted to argue about what I said I thought that someone else might have said at one point. Now, unicorns.
Except that nobody on this forum denies the possibility of God. That was entirely your assertion. In fact, it was you who directly defined Atheism as the position of denying the possibility of God, and then when Fenomas stated he was an Atheist but believed in the possibility of God, you called him wrong and linked a Wikipedia article that in no way shape or form made you right or him wrong. I could easily argue that's where the semantics debate started. Let's not play the blame game.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Except that nobody on this forum denies the possibility of God. That was entirely your assertion. In fact, it was you who directly defined Atheism as the position of denying the possibility of God, and then when Fenomas stated he was an Atheist but believed in the possibility of God, you called him wrong and linked a Wikipedia article that in no way shape or form made you right or him wrong. I could easily argue that's where the semantics debate started. Let's not play the blame game.
Ok dude. This is.. what.. 3 pages ago? It isn't going anywhere. Drop it.
Post by
Orranis
Except that nobody on this forum denies the possibility of God. That was entirely your assertion. In fact, it was you who directly defined Atheism as the position of denying the possibility of God, and then when Fenomas stated he was an Atheist but believed in the possibility of God, you called him wrong and linked a Wikipedia article that in no way shape or form made you right or him wrong. I could easily argue that's where the semantics debate started. Let's not play the blame game.
Ok dude. This is.. what.. 3 pages ago? It isn't going anywhere. Drop it.
In place of what? Bring up another topic of discussion.
Isn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be defining Atheism vs. Agnosticism?
Post by
MyTie
In place of what? Bring up another topic of discussion.
Isn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be defining Atheism vs. Agnosticism?
I don't think the topic is that narrow, at least, I don't think it has to be, but can be about discussing the two ideas. Anyway, even if the discussion is that narrow, we needn't continue down the same subset we are in. Unless... do you see it going anywhere?
Post by
Orranis
In place of what? Bring up another topic of discussion.
Isn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be defining Atheism vs. Agnosticism?
I don't think the topic is that narrow, at least, I don't think it has to be, but can be about discussing the two ideas. Anyway, even if the discussion is that narrow, we needn't continue down the same subset we are in. Unless... do you see it going anywhere?
Well, I'll ask you: Would you define Atheism as the rejection of the possibility of God?
Post by
gamerunknown
How about instead of a tea-pot, an invisible unicorn, or a spaghetti monster, one compares "proof of non-existence" with a
baseball
?
Also, there is a school of thought in philosophy that all arguments are essentially over definitions. We can say more or less confidently that everyone experiences reality (if we skip over solipsism for convenience), Differences in terminology and episodic experiences lead to our contentions.
Post by
Orranis
Well I think much comes out of the phrasing. "Faith in religion is no different to faith in the tooth fairy..." reads a lot more offensively than "Well there are other things that cannot be disproved that you do not believe in, e.g. gnomes and fairies."
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
I came across this today which goes some way toward addressing a video linked by Parrazell earlier in the thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U#t=59m59s
It's a very interesting discussion generally but the section I linked speaks to this idea of not being able to disprove the existence of a deistic god and maybe clarifies the idea of how that really impacts one's views on atheism and agnosticism.
Post by
Squishalot
I repeat that you seem to have misunderstood the teapot argument, or have had it presented to you by someone else who misunderstood it. The teapot argument has nothing to do with rejecting offered evidence, it merely establishes that evidence must be offered.
Sorry I didn't get around to replying before.
The reason why I claim that the teapot argument has to do with rejecting offered evidence is that it is used in spite of the fact that religious people offer evidence. For example:
@MyTie. What evidence is there of god?
Existence.
So, MyTie has provided evidence of God. To suggest that the teapot argument is somehow valid in a discussion with MyTie about religion is to imply that his evidence isn't valid, because he has offered said evidence, in line with what your teapot argument requires.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
So, MyTie has provided evidence of God.
The inverse is true too. To hold that the analogy isn't valid is to hold that there is validity to the argument that our existence is predicate on the existence of God (and we're going to assume a Judeo-Christian God as per asakawa's post). I think most posters here would claim that "we exist, therefore God exists" is a non sequitur (when stated as the cosmological argument, it may be logical, but with unsupported premises).
Post by
asakawa
Indeed. that's not actually evidence, just an attribution. If I were a teapot-theist or a Pastafarian I would attribute existence to those things but that doesn't mean it's evidence for those things (celestial teapots and spaghetti-monsters respectively).
I might write a book and in the footnotes I might say that a quote was from a real book but attribute the book to a made-up professor. Someone reading my book would think that the professor exists and that they were responsible for the quote.
edit: It is also an example of "the god of the gaps" to say that existence is evidence of a deity. Really all that's being said is "we don't understand how existence could have come about without a god, therefore god did it". It's a logical fallacy and one that was first coined by theologians not sceptics to demonstrate that theism shouldn't be weakened by poor arguments.
Further to this, it has been demonstrated now that a god is not required for our current universe to exist (see Lawrence Krauss:
A Universe From Nothing
for details) so even if it weren't an example of 'the god of the gaps' it still wouldn't constitute evidence at all.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.