Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: whateverist: Makes an interesting comparison to religious people. But the comparison fails, because with most atheists, their atheism is a shift from theism to atheism, which assumes they have good rational reasons to be atheists. Being raised atheist, or even being raised religious does not need rational justification. It's just a matter of circumstance. But for making such a valiant effort, rational response #4. He's also wrong about people in general whining on forums. I've been on a number of them, and it's not the case. Also what's with all the crying about me trying to intimidate people on here? That's a laugh. I can't really call your response rational #4 given the heaping helping of ridiculous claims you're making on the side. That and he thinks Anthony Flew is John Searle. LOL all going downhill for you buddy.
You probably do spend more time on forums than I do so perhaps there are places where people whine less. Personally I cringe when some atheists pine for the day when theism will fade into the past altogether. What do I care what the mass of people believe so long as their reasons for believing it are as shallow and weak as they are now. It isn't what is believed that is paramount, but rather why it is believed.
However, your reading comprehension needs improvement. I made no comparison to religious people.
(Today 20:14)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: A lot of us point to the supposed intelligence of atheists, but what I've come to realize is that most of us have become atheists at quite a young age. Too young, honestly, to have a full grasp of our logical faculties or the world around us. Age 13 or 14 is simply not when your mind is fully developed. This includes the vast majority of atheist intellectuals who become atheists at a young age and just engage in confirmation bias throughout their academic careers.
I've said it before: it doesn't take a genius to be an atheist and neither will it prevent you from being an idiot. Atheists are just people without a whole lot in common aside from the lack of religious belief.
As for the age at which folk become atheists, I hope you do realize how very much younger most of the religious are when they are indoctrinated as theists?
(Today 20:14)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Atheists whine. A lot. If you spend time on internet forums, you notice 98% of their time is spent hating Christians and whining about Christianity. For a "rational", "skeptical" group of people, such lack of rationality is alarmingly hypocritical.
About matters of the intellect, atheists are very superficially educated. They have a basic foundation down "EVOLUTION RULZ, GOD SUX HAHA I HAVE BIBEL VURSES THAT SUX LOL" but fundamental nuances are often glossed over or missed because their interest is not in knowing things, but in confirming what they want to be true.
If you stop to realize that all you say applies to many people generally and that people is all atheists really are, you might not be so surprised to realize we take all kinds.
(Today 20:14)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: When I started off as a skeptic, I started with a sense of intimidation. I was scared of all the intellectuals. Now that I'm a little older, a little smarter, a little more educated....I feel sorry for them.
You've come a long way, Vinnie. You've gone from being intimidated to trying to intimidate. But is that really progress? Also, why do you have a picture of John Searle as your avatar?
My whole point was that atheists are a subset of people generally and as such embody all the same strengths and foibles.
But you seem to latch onto the fact that many atheists, like myself are born into a religion and then leave at a young age. You seem to think that makes us irrational. I've yet to hear a good reason to agree. I would assume that people have all sorts of stories for why they leave a religion. Rationality doesn't demand that one abandon God though there are plenty of rational reasons to do so. So I am unconvinced of your claim.
But what about you Vinnie. Why are you an atheist? Are your reasons entirely rational, or were you born such? And if you were born such, why is it that you believe the status quo requires no rationalization once considered?
September 27, 2013 at 11:37 am (This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 11:37 am by Faith No More.)
(September 27, 2013 at 10:34 am)whateverist Wrote: But what about you Vinnie. Why are you an atheist?
He isn't.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
September 27, 2013 at 1:05 pm (This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 1:18 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
(September 27, 2013 at 7:15 am)Rahul Wrote:
(September 26, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I take it, since you said you've been tested at higher institutions, you've been to college. If you don't mind me asking, what did you do in college?
In the military I took the Advanced Electronics field. After I left I obtained a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology.
(September 26, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: That's funny because the word "proof" doesn't come up in science. In fact, very little in science is known with certainty, and all theories supported by evidence are liable to be overturned as further discoveries are made. Rather, proofs are only discussed in the context of mathematics (and law).
Don't get hung up on a single word. We can call it a burden of independently proven supporting facts if it will get you over the mental hump you are hung up on.
I'm less hung up on the word and more on it's use as a poorly-conceived mantra in the atheist community. The fact that it's not a concept taken seriously in academia (not even in science, IMHO) suggests that it's less of a legitimate intellectual factor and more of a debating trick, where people are constantly trying to foist burden of proof on each other instead of having a discussion.
I mean, wouldn't you find it idiotic if in the middle of this discussion someone asked you to shoulder a burden of proof about your academic background? "Positive claim? Burden of proof, bro! Spoon pic + diploma or GTFO!"
Instead, I think both sides should go off of reason and evidence, assessing the respective merits of their own positions as well.
(September 27, 2013 at 10:34 am)whateverist Wrote:
(September 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: whateverist: Makes an interesting comparison to religious people. But the comparison fails, because with most atheists, their atheism is a shift from theism to atheism, which assumes they have good rational reasons to be atheists. Being raised atheist, or even being raised religious does not need rational justification. It's just a matter of circumstance. But for making such a valiant effort, rational response #4. He's also wrong about people in general whining on forums. I've been on a number of them, and it's not the case. Also what's with all the crying about me trying to intimidate people on here? That's a laugh. I can't really call your response rational #4 given the heaping helping of ridiculous claims you're making on the side. That and he thinks Anthony Flew is John Searle. LOL all going downhill for you buddy.
You probably do spend more time on forums than I do so perhaps there are places where people whine less. Personally I cringe when some atheists pine for the day when theism will fade into the past altogether. What do I care what the mass of people believe so long as their reasons for believing it are as shallow and weak as they are now. It isn't what is believed that is paramount, but rather why it is believed.
However, your reading comprehension needs improvement. I made no comparison to religious people.
(Today 20:14)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: A lot of us point to the supposed intelligence of atheists, but what I've come to realize is that most of us have become atheists at quite a young age. Too young, honestly, to have a full grasp of our logical faculties or the world around us. Age 13 or 14 is simply not when your mind is fully developed. This includes the vast majority of atheist intellectuals who become atheists at a young age and just engage in confirmation bias throughout their academic careers.
I've said it before: it doesn't take a genius to be an atheist and neither will it prevent you from being an idiot. Atheists are just people without a whole lot in common aside from the lack of religious belief.
As for the age at which folk become atheists, I hope you do realize how very much younger most of the religious are when they are indoctrinated as theists?
(Today 20:14)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Atheists whine. A lot. If you spend time on internet forums, you notice 98% of their time is spent hating Christians and whining about Christianity. For a "rational", "skeptical" group of people, such lack of rationality is alarmingly hypocritical.
About matters of the intellect, atheists are very superficially educated. They have a basic foundation down "EVOLUTION RULZ, GOD SUX HAHA I HAVE BIBEL VURSES THAT SUX LOL" but fundamental nuances are often glossed over or missed because their interest is not in knowing things, but in confirming what they want to be true.
If you stop to realize that all you say applies to many people generally and that people is all atheists really are, you might not be so surprised to realize we take all kinds.
(Today 20:14)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: When I started off as a skeptic, I started with a sense of intimidation. I was scared of all the intellectuals. Now that I'm a little older, a little smarter, a little more educated....I feel sorry for them.
You've come a long way, Vinnie. You've gone from being intimidated to trying to intimidate. But is that really progress? Also, why do you have a picture of John Searle as your avatar?
My whole point was that atheists are a subset of people generally and as such embody all the same strengths and foibles.
But you seem to latch onto the fact that many atheists, like myself are born into a religion and then leave at a young age. You seem to think that makes us irrational. I've yet to hear a good reason to agree. I would assume that people have all sorts of stories for why they leave a religion. Rationality doesn't demand that one abandon God though there are plenty of rational reasons to do so. So I am unconvinced of your claim.
But what about you Vinnie. Why are you an atheist? Are your reasons entirely rational, or were you born such? And if you were born such, why is it that you believe the status quo requires no rationalization once considered?
"Quid quo pro, Clarice. Quid quo pro."
Quote:I hope you do realize how very much younger most of the religious are when they are indoctrinated as theists?
Did you miss this part in your post? Seriously, the reading comprehension issue is not with me here if you don't even know what you are saying.
But in the grand scheme of things, this point is trivial.
The real point is that atheism needs to examine itself as rigorously as it examines religion. One of the greatest cons in the atheist community is the trick of making atheists think atheism is nothing but a lack of belief. It excuses such jaw-droppingly bad reasoning and lack of intellectual rigor, that I fear atheists, or at least this category of atheists will look like the westboro baptist down the road.
The solution is more logic and critical thinking and less QQ. And we're obvious off to a slow start looking at some of the responses in this thread.
(September 27, 2013 at 5:28 am)pocaracas Wrote:
(September 26, 2013 at 8:35 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Actually, I think people are born agnostic. Indifferent to the matter of God's existence, although at least one academic claims children are born believing in God (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...laims.html). I haven't had the time to look into it, however.
Ah, Vinny.... so much to learn, you have...
"Indifferent to the matter of god's existence" sounds a lot like it is contained in "lacking the belief that a god exists", hence, it is a form of atheism.
You know your definition is screwed up when you think you're an atheist but are actually an agnostic.
Quote:
(September 26, 2013 at 8:35 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: One thing I'm sure about is that people almost always claim to "convert" to atheism. They cite an age, a moment in time, a turning point for their atheism. This suggests that there is a conscious shift, and people are not born atheists.
I wouldn't call it a conversion... more like a realization.
At those ages, people do not usually belong to a given religion.. they just go along with their parents, caregivers, or other influential person(s).
If you ask a 9 year old if he believes that god exists, they may reply "yes"... but if you keep drilling, you'll find that they believe what has been told to them... which is somewhat different.
Can you spot the difference?
- I believe that my wife is not having an affair.
- I believe my wife's claim that she's not having an affair.
If you have no belief system to begin with, you can't be converted into anything else.
My realization moment came at the ripe age of 10... it came for a silly reason, yes, but it was enough to entice that "maybe" I mentioned earlier... and everything went downhill from there.
It was a silly reason, but a reason nonetheless... not irrational, just easily counterable by any apologist... had I spoken out at the time, someone would probably have put something in my mind that would have quenched this "maybe"... instead, I kept quiet... heck, I thought I was the only person in the world onto this godlessness thing!
Anyway, it was rational... within my perception of the world...
It wasn't worthy of a peer-reviewed paper, no...
(September 26, 2013 at 8:35 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I think what's happening here is that you're going off of the faulty "Lack of belief" definition, which naturally compels you to assume babies lack belief, therefore babies are atheists. But this reasoning leads to absurdity, as likewise snips, snails and puppy dog tails "lack belief" and thus thus deserve to count as atheists. Silly, right? Yeah, I thought so too!
Yeah... silly willy... the definition of atheist pertains to people, only.
And, last I checked, babies are people.
(September 26, 2013 at 8:35 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Now what I mean by "belief that atheism is true" is the simple position arrived at by reasoning. If you decide to become an atheist, or even to stay an atheist (if we believe people are born that way), you do so because you believe that atheism is a good position to hold. That it is rational, supported by evidence and most likely true.
This amounts to a belief. So atheism cannot escape having any positive beliefs.
That is a bit of faulty reasoning by your part, it seems to me.
1- I never decided to become an atheist, nor have I come across any account of any atheist having decided that. Everything after that sentence is wrong, but let's indulge ourselves, just because of your acceptance of the possibility that people are born atheists and may remain so for the entirety of their lives.
2- "you believe that atheism is a good position to hold." no, just no... there's so much wrong here... let's see if I can convey it all.
Let's define "atheism" as the state of a lack of belief in the existence of any god. This is what I (and others) perceive atheism to mean. What in this definition requires a belief that this is a good position?
I hold the position of atheism because I lack a belief in the existence of a god.[period]
If it's good or bad is irrelevant.
3- My atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief, as I'm sure others have pointed out to you...
I don't have much faith that you'll acknowledge what I'm telling you... It is my impression that you'll continue to trump your skewed definition of atheism, instead of actually accepting the definitions espoused by those who actually identify themselves with that label.
Whoa. So you don't believe atheism is a rational position? I dunno, man. Your position doesn't seem intellectual to me. It sounds psychological. Like OCD, it sounds like a description of a mental state. But hey, if you're willing to to withdraw atheism completely from rationality, then more power to you. I guess you've discredited your belief long before we got started.
What I think your problem is, is that you're not sure where the problem really lies in your reasoning. But whatever it is, you are convinced that whatever I'm saying represents a threat, so you'll do whatever you can to try and deny it.
Might I submit, humbly, that you are mistaken in assuming that?
September 27, 2013 at 2:23 pm (This post was last modified: September 27, 2013 at 2:26 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 27, 2013 at 2:08 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: A theist claims there is a god.
I don't think they're right.
Therefore I am an an atheist.
End of.
I constantly am in shock that so many people are unable, or unwilling, to understand this simple concept.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
![[Image: 2020-girl-licking-middle-finger.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i921.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad60%2Fcherrybuster_2010%2Fmovies%2F2020-girl-licking-middle-finger.gif)
