(July 16, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 8:20 pm)whateverist Wrote: I'm not sure "Pigeon Turdist" conveys my position as well as "atheist".  But it certainly conveys the level of importance I attach to deciding the claims made by theists rather well.

It has been a while since we've been graced by your efforts to set us straight.  What brings you here today?

Well I was hoping to grant atheists a bit more epistemological grandure than that of a pigeon turd...but they seem to not want it.  Boredom has brought me back my friend, it is great to interact with you once again, I hope that you are well.

Well we'll do our best to help you with that boredom.  But remember we have very little faith and zero belief so it may be hard to find common ground.  Also, you'd be surprised at the low regard in which philosophy is held around here by many.  But you should definitely match light sabers with Nestor.  He is a young firebrand chugging down philosophers like there is no tomorrow.  If you two connect, would someone please PM me to make sure I don't miss the fireworks?

Hey, lookee here.  Waldork must have gotten a discharge from the asylum.

Whatever drugs they gave you didn't work.  You're still a fucking asshole.

Creed
We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin - "We"? I believe they were human beings who were born in the 19th century. Darwin's ideas were revolutionary for their simplicity, clarity, and rigorous methodology; they have stood the test of time incredibly well. Marx was a fierce critic of capitalism/industrialism, and many of his attacks are undeniably valid. With regards to the solutions he proposed though, I can't say I support most of them. Not too acquainted with Freud, but I get the impression that many of his theories were a bit too naive and simplistic.
We believe everything is OK -
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge. No, because while intentions do matter, so do consequences.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. Sure, sex is fun.
We believe in the therapy of sin. Never heard of that technique. Is it for sex? Because that makes it sound delicious.
We believe that adultery is fun. For whom? 
We believe that sodomy is OK. I can't speak from experience but whatever you and your partner agree upon, for sexual pleasure, is certainly OK with me, seeing as it is none of my business.
We believe that taboos are taboo. That would be the meaning of the word, yes?

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary. Well, if the evidence is to the contrary, then why would we believe that?
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence. Evidence sure helps, but it must be interpreted correctly, of course.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons; LMAO. No. "We" skeptical folk (that's who we is meant to imply, yes?) do not typically give credence to miracle-workers and jugglers.
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves. Never met any of them, and unfortunately, the narratives about their lives are least concerned with their actual lives.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad. What does it mean to say that something which is good was bad?

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was. Hardly.
They all believe in love and goodness. Hardly.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation. "Only"! LOL. I'd say there's a few more things they probably disagree on.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. Well, that's what a child would probably think, and I'd tell him that he's on the right track before giving him a pat on the head and a Snickers bar.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan. Huh?

We believe in Masters and Johnson. Can't say one way or another.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good. No comment.

We believe in total disarmament. No.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Duh.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow. Probably not.

We believe that man is essentially good. Depends on what we are evaluating in man. We're good at some things. Pretty terrible at others.
It's only his behavior that lets him down. 
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society. No comment.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. I'd prefer each found the truth that is right. But yes, it must accord with each person's ability to recognize and accept the truth, and who's to say how far anyone has yet to go?
Reality will adapt accordingly. Sure.
The universe will readjust. It's always in flux, as Heraclitus taught.
History will alter. That's inevitable.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth. That makes no sense.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought. Amen.

"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

That shit was weak.

Okay waldorf whats your game here? Even if we suddenly agreed to your definition of atheism what would that achieve? You making an ass of yourself by arguing against a position that no one here actually holds? Why not cut the semantics and get to the chase.

You can define atheism however you want, and dictionaries differ.

The agreed definition in the atheist community is lacking a belief in God, or disbelief in God. We think of them as the same. If you want to use different words for those two things, then fine. But we only need to agree on one set of definitions. I personally like default atheist (has no concept of a god) and cognitive atheist (has heard claims about Gods and doesn't believe them)

"Do you have an active belief in God?"

Yes- Theist
Any other answer- Atheist

It does not necessarily mean you believe there is no God, that is a seperate statement. Is the difference between a weak and a strong atheist. Please see my website for more details (link in signature).

As for the creed, I have not much of an opinion on it. Trying to lump atheists together is a common mistake. There is no atheist belief system.

Hey, Stat's back!
Welcome, welcome!
How are your eyes?

Guys, don't multi-quote him... you'll quickly find yourselves in a rabbit hole of quotes in your replies... and it will never end!

Could it be that the philosophers are wrong with their definitions?

All I know is that I actually loathe philosophy. Had several classes in college, and found them terribly boring. They always seemed to devolve into masturbatory discussions about words, finding distinctions without meaning. An over analysis of things that don't actually matter, in most cases.

To that end, I could really give a shit with what some philosophers say atheism is. I know what I do and don't believe, and if that doesn't fit the term, all that means is that I need to find a new word for it. It says nothing about the veracity of my belief system.

Agreed.

At the start of a conversation, agree what words mean.

Job done.

If you want disbelief in God to be "optfitterism" then fine. If you want a lack of belief in God to be "jorghiyyuism", then fine. I would say they are the same thing, but if you want to refer to them separately, that's fine too.

(July 17, 2015 at 11:36 am)robvalue Wrote: Agreed.

At the start of a conversation, agree what words mean.

Job done.

If you want disbelief in God to be "optfitterism" then fine. If you want a lack of belief in God to be "jorghiyyuism", then fine. I would say they are the same thing, but if you want to refer to them separately, that's fine too.

Moreover, SW's snide "Why didn't you reference any philosophical works?  Could it be that they disagree with you?" is simply an appeal to authority.  These guys say you're wrong, so you're wrong.  Really?  That's the best you can do?  By what authority are these philosophers correct?  Their own through consensus?

Color me unimpressed.

Oh, yay. Stat's back /sarcasm.

Stat, if the definition of atheism doesn't describe my lack of belief in deities, what is the word that does?