(March 11, 2019 at 7:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 11, 2019 at 6:22 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What on earth are you talking about?  The fact that unicornism doesn't drive important things the way that theism does isn't semantic..that's not at all what that word means.  If unicornism -were- driving important things you would see vocal a-unicornists, and ever was it thus.

You're only telling me that words don't make sense to you...am I supposed to be able to make sense of that.........?  Wrong guy, man, I may not agree with this or that position but words do make sense to me even so.

Here again, I can only remind you that I'm not the typical atheist, as you are.  I'm not an agnostic....but still, I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand your own position in this way.  The believing set has clearly poisoned the well so effectively that you're distancing yourself from it literally as you drink.  That's part of my antitheism, bluntly.

Me: I don't consider my atheist, and here's why. (gives half a dozen reason why)
You: Nuh uh!  You're atheist.  Your'e ATHEIST!

Is the motivation for 97 pages of that really only an interest in semantics?  Why wouldn't you just leave it at "Well, that's not really how I see it, but whatevs," and, realizing that to me it's an important difference, not keep trolling me about it?  What's the currency involved here, bruh?  Why are you fighting so hard to ensure that I understand that like it or not, I'm one of you?

You may not consider yourself a human being, either, but that won't change any fact of the matter. You're not "one of me"..nutball..you're the standard atheist, an agnostic. I'm not that, lol.

Recall that I'm responding to your comments that the difference between a-unicornism and atheism as a motivation is somehow an issue of semantics and no one spends time on such even as you yourself are a productive member of these boards. You're not just confused about your own atheism..you have trouble with words and basic self awareness.

(March 11, 2019 at 8:55 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You may not consider yourself a human being, either, but that won't change any fact of the matter.  You're not "one of me"..nutball..you're the standard atheist, an agnostic.  I'm not that, lol.

Recall that I'm responding to your comments that the difference between a-unicornism and atheism as a motivation is somehow an issue of semantics and no one spends time on such even as you yourself are a productive member of these boards.  You're not just confused about your own atheism..you have trouble with words and basic self awareness.

Yeah, no. "Atheism" breaks down in two ways, as you very well know. I do not identify with weak atheism, because to me it's a meaningless position. I'm a gnostic strong atheist about most definitions of god, and a pure agnostic on the general idea of some kind of god.

I'm not saying the word can't mean what you say it means. I'm saying that for me personally, it's a useless definition, and I have no interest in identifying myself with it. I'm still not sure why your discussion with regard to how I should be identified goes beyond, "In my view, you're an atheist, but if you have something against the term, whatevs."

What's your currency, bruh? Why does it matter to you?

I'm an antitheist, pointing out how centuries of the theistic status quo have poisoned not only the minds of believers but the context of the discussion itself in the course of engineering cultural hegemony is kind of our thing.  As others have meantioned, no one can make you identify -as- an atheist and I'm not particularly interested in making you do so myself.  Only noting that when you describe yourself as an x-ist others will quite accurately conclude that you're talking about the same thing they are regardless of whether you choose to identify as such and no matter how strongly you object.  

The reasons you give for that objection are what interests me, not your self identification.  For example, the idea that you're a gnostic atheist (so much for not identifying yourself as an atheist, I guess....?) with regards to some gods but a pure agnostic not-an-atheist with regards to others isn't, at all, how the word atheism works.  Atheism isn't a negotiation on which gods are believable, and if a person is an atheist -at all- they are an atheist regardless of which of histories endless parade of gods one refers to.  Not believing in the christian god..in fact knowing that the christian god doesn't exist, won't actually make a person a gnostic atheist, or an atheist of any kind...as any muslim could tell you, though, ofc, that;s how theism under christian hegemony has described such people. Hell, it's how pagans described christians when they were in charge too. The historical trend of use as a pejorative runs deep and finds itself expressed in your own objections through the lens of "meaningless", which you justify as having something to do with unicornism and semantics and a sort of inauthenticity.

---

-and, for the other side of that coin, believing in a conscious universe (as your hypothetical example) isn't capable of making you a theist, or of somehow contradicting the status of your belief in gods as an atheist of any kind.  I can also think of dozens of things, true things...not hypothetical, that explain why people believed in gods and what they were describing with the employment of the concept.  This acknowledgement doesn't express a belief in gods or a change in the status of my belief, only that believers were misinformed about the object of their worship.   In the same vein, if it turned out that the universe were conscious, then I would believe in...the universe, which is conscious.  Perhaps some of the faithful were trying to describe that, I'd tend to argue otherwise..but even if both of these things were the case I would remain an atheist beause the contention has nothing to do with -gods- and the god believers were still wrong.

TLDR version, your fundamental understanding of atheism is inaccurate, and proceeding from that inaccurate understanding you justify novel employment of the concept and criticism of those who possess a more accurate understanding by invalid means. I can't help but strongly suggest that wondering about my "currency, bruh" is a way of deflecting a question that might be better asked of yourself.

(March 11, 2019 at 8:41 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 11, 2019 at 8:35 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yeah, I can parallel park like a boss, drive a stick shift and navigate gigantic trucks in city traffic, so I guess I'm a unicorn.

For sure.  Some of the best drivers I've met, mechanically, are women.  In my experience, women who really take an interest in driving have an aggressive edge to them.

They also crash a lot, though, so. . .

I've only ever had one accident. It happened when I was at an unfamiliar intersection and a snowbank literally blocked the light, so I didn't even know there was one, let alone that it was red.

(March 12, 2019 at 9:16 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and, for the other side of that coin, believing in a conscious universe (as your hypothetical example) isn't capable of making you a theist, or of somehow contradicting the status of your belief in gods as an atheist of any kind.  I can also think of dozens of things, true things...not hypothetical, that explain why people believed in gods and what they were describing with the employment of the concept.  This acknowledgement doesn't express a belief in gods or a change in the status of my belief, only that believers were misinformed about the object of their worship.   In the same vein, if it turned out that the universe were conscious, then I would believe in...the universe, which is conscious.  Perhaps some of the faithful were trying to describe that, I'd tend to argue otherwise..but even if both of these things were the case I would remain an atheist beause the contention has nothing to do with -gods- and the god believers were still wrong.  

That's fair enough. I didn't say that a conscious Universe would be evidence for or proof of God. I said that I'd be well-disposed toward someone who would call a panpsychic Universe God; to me, that's a non-trivial difference. I suppose I might think of the Universe as a mega-entity then, and that I also would think God was a good term for that. What I wouldn't do is start believing that Jesus was resurrected, or that praying would kill Aunt Ethel's kidney stones.

All this revolves around a slightly silly question: "Do you believe in anything that you'd call God?" And the answer is yes / no / maybe / needs resolution: which I resolve down to "I don't know." It doesn't mean that I'd suddenly be open to the mythological narratives of ancient sand-dwellers as an expression of universal truth.

---

(March 12, 2019 at 12:06 pm)Shell B Wrote: I've only ever had one accident. It happened when I was at an unfamiliar intersection and a snowbank literally blocked the light, so I didn't even know there was one, let alone that it was red.

I had several accidents in my teens and twenties. It's because I was rally-driving, often in the Canadian winter roads, and was much more interested in excitement than in my own survival-- and the safety of others rarely entered into my calculus at all. Now that I pretty much consider anything exciting a nasty jolt to be avoided, I'd say I'm an excellent driver-- I can predict what people will do, I have a good awareness of the vehicles around me, I rarely get upset, and so on.

(March 12, 2019 at 3:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 12, 2019 at 9:16 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -and, for the other side of that coin, believing in a conscious universe (as your hypothetical example) isn't capable of making you a theist, or of somehow contradicting the status of your belief in gods as an atheist of any kind.  I can also think of dozens of things, true things...not hypothetical, that explain why people believed in gods and what they were describing with the employment of the concept.  This acknowledgement doesn't express a belief in gods or a change in the status of my belief, only that believers were misinformed about the object of their worship.   In the same vein, if it turned out that the universe were conscious, then I would believe in...the universe, which is conscious.  Perhaps some of the faithful were trying to describe that, I'd tend to argue otherwise..but even if both of these things were the case I would remain an atheist beause the contention has nothing to do with -gods- and the god believers were still wrong.  

That's fair enough.  I didn't say that a conscious Universe would be evidence for or proof of God.  I said that I'd be well-disposed toward someone who would call a panpsychic Universe God; to me, that's a non-trivial difference.  I suppose I might think of the Universe as a mega-entity then, and that I also would think God was a good term for that.  What I wouldn't do is start believing that Jesus was resurrected, or that praying would kill Aunt Ethel's kidney stones.

All this revolves around a slightly silly question: "Do you believe in anything that you'd call God?"  And the answer is yes / no / maybe / needs resolution: which I resolve down to "I don't know."  It doesn't mean that I'd suddenly be open to the mythological narratives of ancient sand-dwellers as an expression of universal truth.

Yeah, look...whatever.  You offered these sentiments up in this thread and they just don't apply.  No one is asking you what you know or don't know when it comes to atheism.  That's part of your inaccurate misunderstanding.  They're asking you what you do or don't believe, that's the only "conditional" you need know to answer the question...which you've both strongly answered and strongly objected to in turns.....but based on your hilarious misunderstanding you've been shitposting and then asking about other peoples "currency, bruh".



Work yourself out...as the beet-root-son would say. You're not a pre-adult...you should know your own mind by now.

I can very confidently say at this point that I don't misunderstand what you're saying. I disagree with it. I do not accept belief and knowledge as biaxial. A couple of philosophical positions (like non-solipsism) aside, my beliefs are an expression of incomplete knowledge-- and my pursuit of more knowledge is an expression of my desire to confirm (or, if I'm not too emotionally invested, to disprove) my beliefs.

I believe I will have a good day today, because I got enough sleep and I don't have any stressful appointments; I know those things, but what I don't know is whether the universe will throw a curve ball at me today. Maybe I'll win the lottery, maybe I'll get hit by a car. I start my day with a belief, and see how things pan out in order to confirm or disprove it.

If I wasn't feeling particularly good or bad, and you asked me whether I believed I would have a good day, I wouldn't say "I happen to lack that belief." I'd say, "I need more information to make that assessment. I do not have sufficient knowledge to form a coherent belief right now." i.e. I'm purely agnostic about the outcome of this particular day.

This is how science works, as well. When a scientist makes a hypothesis, it's not a purely academic affair-- usually, they think, "Well. . . I see a correlation between A and B, and I have a hunch based on past observations that it's caused by C. That seems like a good thing to check for." That's a belief based on knowledge. This belief in place, the scientist acts to see whether the belief represents the actual state of things, i.e. reality-- by increasing their knowledge through experimentation. Then, if necessary, they will revise their beliefs based on the new knowledge.

Good for you?

--edit--

bump.

(March 12, 2019 at 6:23 pm)bennyboy Wrote: --edit--

bump.

Bump Bump.

Twin bumps!