RE: Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!
March 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2013 at 5:56 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(March 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:(March 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If only, yet I have met atheists who believe in astrology, homeopothy, and reincarnation.
How does an atheist accept reincarnation, astrology, homeopathy if theres no evidence that these are possible, probable or true?
I suppose such an atheist isn't strong on requiring proportionate evidence for their beliefs. Although you asking me about it is a little like me asking you how Hindus justify their belief in reincarnation. Is it reasonable for me to expect you to know that just because you're a theist?
(March 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: And how do they reconcile their open-minded gullability in relation to one form of woo with their dogmatic insistence on scientific rationalism and empirical evidence in relation to another? (God)
Maybe the atheists who believe in ghosts are not the same atheists as the ones who are more empirical.
(March 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Looks and smells like hypocrisy to me.
Maybe if you tried a little harder to imagine that atheists aren't all alike, your perceptions wouldn't fail you so badly.
(March 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: WAIT!
Dont tell me. Let me guess.
Atheists can be hypocrites if they want.
Since that applies equally to theists, it's more a comment on humanity in general, but through a bigoted lens.
(March 12, 2013 at 8:58 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The main point I cant understand is; atheist (A) thinks its OK to believe in reincarnation and still call themself an atheist
but atheist (B) says they dont believe in reincarnation because...---> insert text book atheist mantra here <--- and that is the same reason they give when defining their atheism. ("theres no evidence")
You know, it's almost like atheism isn't an ideology that people adopt and use to conclude there's no God, but a label you slap on anyone who doesn't believe in God, kinda like theism is a label you can slap on anyone who does, no matter their reason for doing so or what else they do or don't believe.
If you're against rational skepticism, why not argue aga...never mind, that's kind of self-explanatory, now that I think about it.
(March 13, 2013 at 12:36 am)jstrodel Wrote:(March 12, 2013 at 11:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: All this effort to try to redefine the word 'atheist' into something more convenient, and we just keep kicking the straw away before they can build their man. It's a shame really.
Not redefine, I want to position a atheism in a world in which rejection of theism is subject to the same standard of justification as acceptance of theism.
Repeat after me: 'I, (insert your name here) believe in at least one god or God'. That is the standard for being a theist.
(March 13, 2013 at 12:36 am)jstrodel Wrote: What this amounts to is demanding that atheist rejection of theism proceed along the same lines of rationality, impartial analysis of known facts.
The same lines of rationality and impartial analysis of known facts that theism does, you're saying?
(March 13, 2013 at 12:36 am)jstrodel Wrote: An atheist cannot be a fidist unless an atheist can be a liar.
Anyone can be a liar. Could you elaborate more on why an atheist cannot be a 'fidist' or why one would want to be or claim to be one?
I'd like to give jstrodel props for his contributions to this thread exemplifying its title.
