Purchasing One's Atheism Cheaply

[Zazzy]

That's my thinking as I read your post. You fail at the first step when you claim "[An atheist] doesn't subscribe to ANYONE's view."

Really? Not even his own view?

Can you tell that someone who doesn't subscribe to any view thus doesn't even subscribe to his own?

Rigorous thinking, Deidre32. This forum needs more of it.

Are you kidding? Do you really have to contort Deidre's words to try to patronize her? You know exactly what she was saying. Playing word games may amuse you, but it's a dishonest tactic. This appears to be largely how you deal with arguments- finding a sentence that can be misconstrued, misconstruing it, and ignoring everything else.

You have had a few interesting things to say, Vinny. This kind of behavior cheapens all your arguments.


*edited to spell Deidre's name right.

[*Deidre*]

While I do hold a more agnostic view than atheist, I think that these types of thread topics are ironic in the sense that if one is an atheist, guess what? He or she doesn't subscribe to ANYONE'S view. That's why we are tired of religion to begin with, because I don't need someone else telling me how I should think about god, or anything really. There is no 'new atheism,' only something theists tell themselves so they can come up with a variety of arguments against atheists. It's simply a figment of a theists' imagination, just like the god they worship.

Live in reality Vinny, and you will see that atheists actually don't care what theists have to say. They are just tired of being told what to think and told they are wrong for not thinking as you do.

Atheists nor agnostics need to prove anything to you or anyone, as to why they don't believe in what you do. That is why religion is so offensive to many of us, because it presumes to be superior to those who do not follow the same line of thinking. So, there is no 'purchasing' of atheism at all. Not a cheap or expensive 'version.' This is something you tell yourself in order to feel that the nonsense YOU have bought, means something to you.

Some people just want to live their lives, free to be who they truly are, and free to help others as we all should be doing. Religion often pits people against one another, thus your threads all seem to have that type of tone. No offense, you may be a very nice person, but whether you accept it or not, your threads are designed to make atheists and agnostics, and anyone else who is not religious as you are, to look foolish for not 'coming into the light,' as you have.

In so many words, it is degrading. Sounds to me, YOU should be getting your money back. Unless the religion you follow does promote judgment of others. Then, you have gotten your money's worth!

If you fail at the first step of the argument, and all your other steps depend on the first step, don't all your steps fail?

That's my thinking as I read your post. You fail at the first step when you claim "[An atheist] doesn't subscribe to ANYONE's view."

Really? Not even his own view?

Can you tell that someone who doesn't subscribe to any view thus doesn't even subscribe to his own?

Rigorous thinking, Deidre32. This forum needs more of it.

I was once a theist, and I would have had a better reply than this. You don't know why someone rejects the idea of a god or falls perhaps into an agnostic category like me. It often is a very private thing and has nothing to do with intellectual arguments. I don't think you should judge like you do. Quite frankly, it doesn't endear anyone to the faithful when most of them just sit around judging others.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

That's my thinking as I read your post. You fail at the first step when you claim "[An atheist] doesn't subscribe to ANYONE's view."

Really? Not even his own view?

Can you tell that someone who doesn't subscribe to any view thus doesn't even subscribe to his own?

Rigorous thinking, Deidre32. This forum needs more of it.

Are you kidding? Do you really have to contort Deidre's words to try to patronize her? You know exactly what she was saying. Playing word games may amuse you, but it's a dishonest tactic. This appears to be largely how you deal with arguments- finding a sentence that can be misconstrued, misconstruing it, and ignoring everything else.

You have had a few interesting things to say, Vinny. This kind of behavior cheapens all your arguments.


*edited to spell Deidre's name right.

That's nonsense. Even if you define atheism as a "lack of belief in God", thereby framing your belief as "there is insufficient evidence to compel me to believe that a God exists",

...that would be a view you hold. It implies the view that belief in God entails meeting a threshold of evidence, the view that the threshold is reasonable, and the view that the threshold has not been reached.

Do atheists hold to such a view? Even if they misdefine their atheism, that is the view they hold.

So to claim atheists don't subscribe to a view is nonsense.

Besides, the shitty definition of atheism you guys like to use is actually the definition most typical of agnosticism, which rejects the views of both theists and atheists.

But in rejecting both those views, agnosticism itself entails a view, namely either that one cannot know whether or not God exists, or that one does not know whether or not God exists. I think the last one is closely related to, if not identical to, "ignosticism".

If you stop playing the victim and think carefully, you'll see we can even construct a reductio ad absurdum:

Take this axiom: According to some atheists, they (typically) hold the view that atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God, that belief in God requires a certain amount of evidence, and that amount of evidence does not exist.

1) Atheists reject all views. [According to Zazzy]
2) The axiom is a view that atheists hold.
3) Therefore atheists reject their own views. [Modus ponens]

The only way you could get out of this silly situation is to deny the axiom. Which would itself be incoherent.

Herp derp, Zazzy.

[Bad Wolf]

Remember what zazzy said about playing word games, prick.

[pocaracas]

Are you kidding? Do you really have to contort Deidre's words to try to patronize her? You know exactly what she was saying. Playing word games may amuse you, but it's a dishonest tactic. This appears to be largely how you deal with arguments- finding a sentence that can be misconstrued, misconstruing it, and ignoring everything else.

You have had a few interesting things to say, Vinny. This kind of behavior cheapens all your arguments.


*edited to spell Deidre's name right.

That's nonsense. Even if you define atheism as a "lack of belief in God", thereby framing your belief as "there is insufficient evidence to compel me to believe that a God exists",

...that would be a view you hold. It implies the view that belief in God entails meeting a threshold of evidence, the view that the threshold is reasonable, and the view that the threshold has not been reached.

Do atheists hold to such a view? Even if they misdefine their atheism, that is the view they hold.

So to claim atheists don't subscribe to a view is nonsense.

Besides, the shitty definition of atheism you guys like to use is actually the definition most typical of agnosticism, which rejects the views of both theists and atheists.

But in rejecting both those views, agnosticism itself entails a view, namely either that one cannot know whether or not God exists, or that one does not know whether or not God exists. I think the last one is closely related to, if not identical to, "ignosticism".

If you stop playing the victim and think carefully, you'll see we can even construct a reductio ad absurdum:

Take this axiom: According to some atheists, they (typically) hold the view that atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God, that belief in God requires a certain amount of evidence, and that amount of evidence does not exist.

1) Atheists reject all views. [According to Zazzy]
2) The axiom is a view that atheists hold.
3) Therefore atheists reject their own views. [Modus ponens]

The only way you could get out of this silly situation is to deny the axiom. Which would itself be incoherent.

Herp derp, Zazzy.

Vinny.... when you read something around here you need to keep in mind the context.
Zazzy surely didn't mean that "atheists reject all views", but rather, in context, "atheists reject all views pertaining to the existence of gods".
Hence, your 1) has no relation to 2) nor 3).... meaning you wasted a good opportunity to remain silent.

[Whateverist]

Just a suggestion to those irritated by vinny and his lose interpretation of what you say. I've found it very helpful to set him on ignore. Now and again I'll want to see his reply but at least I have the opportunity to brace myself and to recall that whatever he says is likely to address a deliberate misinterpretation.

[Zazzy]

I didn't say I agreed with Deidre. I said you are playing word games to contort her view, seemingly to the end of patronizing her and calling her stupid. And your response was to contort my words, seemingly to get to the same end. I think you can be better than that; and if we could ever get past the "definition game" we could probably have a decent conversation.

*Edit- Perhaps I am a dew-eyed naif, but is it so unreasonable to think that playing the old political "So you deny that you beat your wife?" game is boring? I don't understand theism, and I'd like to understand it better, but all the purposeful misunderstandings and bobbing and weaving and word games make that hard. And Vinny, its certainly not confined to you- I've seen plenty of atheists play the same games. Instead of starting from a position of "how can I make you look stupid and wrong," why not start from a more generous position?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I didn't say I agreed with Deidre. I said you are playing word games to contort her view, seemingly to the end of patronizing her and calling her stupid. And your response was to contort my words, seemingly to get to the same end. I think you can be better than that; and if we could ever get past the "definition game" we could probably have a decent conversation.

*Edit- Perhaps I am a dew-eyed naif, but is it so unreasonable to think that playing the old political "So you deny that you beat your wife?" game is boring? I don't understand theism, and I'd like to understand it better, but all the purposeful misunderstandings and bobbing and weaving and word games make that hard. And Vinny, its certainly not confined to you- I've seen plenty of atheists play the same games. Instead of starting from a position of "how can I make you look stupid and wrong," why not start from a more generous position?

A first step to understanding any view, be it theism, atheism or any view in between, is to think clearly and stick to the logic rather than personal attacks.

If you are prone to complain about word games any time someone calls out bullshit definitions, you will never learn very much.

PS- Sorry if I come across patronizing. Some days I have a low tolerance for idiots.

---

That's nonsense. Even if you define atheism as a "lack of belief in God", thereby framing your belief as "there is insufficient evidence to compel me to believe that a God exists",

...that would be a view you hold. It implies the view that belief in God entails meeting a threshold of evidence, the view that the threshold is reasonable, and the view that the threshold has not been reached.

Do atheists hold to such a view? Even if they misdefine their atheism, that is the view they hold.

So to claim atheists don't subscribe to a view is nonsense.

Besides, the shitty definition of atheism you guys like to use is actually the definition most typical of agnosticism, which rejects the views of both theists and atheists.

But in rejecting both those views, agnosticism itself entails a view, namely either that one cannot know whether or not God exists, or that one does not know whether or not God exists. I think the last one is closely related to, if not identical to, "ignosticism".

If you stop playing the victim and think carefully, you'll see we can even construct a reductio ad absurdum:

Take this axiom: According to some atheists, they (typically) hold the view that atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God, that belief in God requires a certain amount of evidence, and that amount of evidence does not exist.

1) Atheists reject all views. [According to Zazzy]
2) The axiom is a view that atheists hold.
3) Therefore atheists reject their own views. [Modus ponens]

The only way you could get out of this silly situation is to deny the axiom. Which would itself be incoherent.

Herp derp, Zazzy.

Vinny.... when you read something around here you need to keep in mind the context.
Zazzy surely didn't mean that "atheists reject all views", but rather, in context, "atheists reject all views pertaining to the existence of gods".
Hence, your 1) has no relation to 2) nor 3).... meaning you wasted a good opportunity to remain silent.

pocararas, this does not work either. Because "God does not exist" is "a view pertaining to the existence of god(s)", and some atheists do hold such views. Therefore it is not true that atheists reject all views pertaining to the existence of god(s).

I know many posters here are weak in their thinking skills, but surely you can check the reasoning above and tell me I'm right.

[pocaracas]

Vinny.... when you read something around here you need to keep in mind the context.
Zazzy surely didn't mean that "atheists reject all views", but rather, in context, "atheists reject all views pertaining to the existence of gods".
Hence, your 1) has no relation to 2) nor 3).... meaning you wasted a good opportunity to remain silent.

pocararas, this does not work either. Because "God does not exist" is "a view pertaining to the existence of god(s)", and some atheists do hold such views. Therefore it is not true that atheists reject all views pertaining to the existence of god(s).

I know many posters here are weak in their thinking skills, but surely you can check the reasoning above and tell me I'm right.

I see you've added the extra "some"... trying to make up for past mistakes?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

pocararas, this does not work either. Because "God does not exist" is "a view pertaining to the existence of god(s)", and some atheists do hold such views. Therefore it is not true that atheists reject all views pertaining to the existence of god(s).

I know many posters here are weak in their thinking skills, but surely you can check the reasoning above and tell me I'm right.

I see you've added the extra "some"... trying to make up for past mistakes?

That doesn't answer the question. If you can't find a problem with the reasoning, best take your own advice and keep your mouth shut.