Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't know how you can turn your logic on your atheism ... hmm well I suppose the "ism" if you subscribe to that but then I recently decided that, although an atheist, I do not subscribe to atheism.

I'll say, "Welcome to the forum" but I suspect you'll end up annoying me just like every other theist does.

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey guys.

Ah Kyu, always a charmer!

Adrian, if I may address you. The point I was trying to make long ago was that we are all in the same boat. At least in terms of all thinking what we think, and all carrying the capacity to be incorrect. I know you all think atheism is logical and superior, but it is not. There is no superiority, expect in our own personal lives. I do not admit my beliefs are based on nothing, that is a point I never made. I only readily admit that I can and will not convince you to think like me, nor for the most part do I want too. So I will not try to convince you to think like me, and so I don't want to talk about my personal theism in objective terms. There, now go "AHA!" again, and act like you won another point, again. Like I already said, again. -sigh-

It's like making a new window with your forehead some days.

Thanks. I have said before how I shouldn't post when I wake up, I am far to bitter...
The,
-Pip

[bozo]

Arcanus, I'm new on this thread, would you care to explain your " truth leads to god " thing under your name?

[Ryft]

I dunno, maybe because we want to know where you are coming from? Perhaps because there are so many different types of theist out there, we want to know exactly how much you know, or what category you fit into. For example, are you a creationist or do you accept evolution; these are important questions.

Both questions—where I am coming from and what type of theist I am—were addressed by the answer "orthodox Christianity." As I had said to dagda, by this response "I identified which 'theism' I am coming from." So your apparent dissatisfaction with the answer indicates to me that you actually want to know a bit more than just what type of theist I am. As I had anticipated, you want to know where I stand on specific issues. My question to you (and Darwinian) was, "Why?" That is, why do you want to know where I stand on certain specific issues?

"We want to know exactly how much you know," you said. And that is a very interesting response, isn't it? Because it directly supports my comment about the "pigeon-holing" temptation. For instance, if I had said, "I am a creationist," would that tell you anything at all about how much I know? Of course not. It would tell you nothing whatsoever about how much I know. All it would do is situate me within a certain category, incite relevant prejudices and encourage biased assumptions about what I know—"Oh he's X, so he must believe A, B, and C"—based on nothing more substantive than the label applied and past experiences with people who were, quite frankly, not me.

My advice? If you want to know where I stand on certain issues and how much I know, watch how I respond within discussions about those issues. And evaluate my argument under its own self-contained merits, which accords to the principles of sound reasoning. Take it or leave it, of course. It's just advice.

Or are you aware that your views will affect a negative attitude on an atheist forum?

Completely aware, and looking forward to it. If I wanted only agreeable responses and attitudes, I would not have signed up with an atheist forum. What I am hoping for is rational dialogue based on the principles of sound reasoning. In my experience, these are virtues atheists typically claim to champion and hold dear. Hopefully the atheists found here do too, but empirical evidence will make that determination.

Perhaps you're only here to impose your views upon us and don't wish to engage in any form of exchange. Or maybe you think that as you are a Christian and we are merely atheists you hold some sort of moral superiority over us and, how dare we ask such a question.

Right, because my posts thus far have given you reason to think that.

Come on, you're a theist and we find you fascinating and intriguing and want know how you tick!

And you will, as I participate in various threads. Right?

I don't know how you can turn your logic on your atheism. Hmm, well I suppose the "ism" if you subscribe to that, but then I recently decided that, although an atheist, I do not subscribe to atheism.

I said I turned my critical thinking skills on my own "atheistic worldview" in a ruthless self-examination. There certainly are such things as atheistic worldviews, which interpret human experience in godless terms. Atheism is a class of worldviews, not a worldview in itself.

I'll say, "Welcome to the forum" but I suspect you'll end up annoying me just like every other theist does.

Briefly, tell me what annoys you about those theists. Like, three examples.

And thank you to everyone who extended me a warm welcome—including you, Pippy.

[Tiberius]

"I am a creationist," would that tell you anything at all about how much I know? Of course not.

Actually, it would tell me you know very little about evolutionary biology. I have yet to meet a creationist who understands evolution properly to formulate an unacceptance of it. The fact is, if you understood the evidence behind evolution, it's truth is undeniable. So yeah, on that issue it tells me a lot.

[Edwardo Piet]

Greetings. Welcome to the forums Arcanus.

Most people do not respond very well to insulting tones and belittling remarks. But me, I don't respond at all.

Awesome - someone I can relate to on this matter!

Any insults or 'belittling remarks' don't bother me at all either! Not in the slightest. You may be a Christian but I think I've found someone we have in common (and believe me, it's hard to find people who have this in common with me lol. Many who claim to 'not get bothered easily', the stress is on the word easily they still get 'offended' every now and then..).

I'm, what I like to call: 'Unoffendable'.

Shit I wish that was a real word - I think it should be.

Anyways, welcome to the forums Arcanus.

P.S: I love debating too. I just wish I was better at it (not that wishing gets you anywhere) and that my writing was neater...I could do with sorting it out - so feel completely free to correct my bad grammar! I need it! It would take up a lot of your time if you do it too much though lol...so don't let your OCD go overboard there!

EvF

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It seems like you felt personally patronized by Arcanus' post, and so personally patronized him. I don't see why you can patronize someone for them for making you feel such and be on any kind of higher ground than said 'apologists'. Just a little thing though.

(1) Tu quoque: I was talking about HIS behaviour,not mine.


I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS HIS FIRST POST WAS PATRONISING? I'll be surprised if that's true,although I admit it could be. The bragadoccio also got right up my nose. was enough for me


(2) Did I mention I also have a rather unaccepting attitude to both unsolicited advice [even from family] and that I'm skeptical of people who say "I like you BUT--" as you just did.


Of course I like to be liked by others and see it the first sign of friendship.The most important sign is accepting people as they are warts and all.I'm not very good at that,so have few friends. BUT I have NEVER said "I like you--Oh may I make a suggestion? A small thing--" --if it's small thing why mention it at all?

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[1]

[Ryft]

Actually, it would tell me you know very little about evolutionary biology. I have yet to meet a creationist who understands evolution properly ...

First, you provide evidential support for my statement here. If I said, "I am a creationist," you would make an assumption about what I know, judging me based upon your experiences with other creationists. The fact is, "I am a creationist" does not provide any information in the statement itself about what I know, which means—as you have proved—you have to make an assumption ("supposing a thing without proof") drawn from prejudice ("judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts") that was formed by previous experience you had with people who were not me.

Second, being a creationist does not preclude knowledge of evolutionary biology. I know creationists who well understand evolutionary biology, and I'm aware of creationists who hold relevant degrees and are vocationally involved in biological fields (e.g., Dr. Paul K. Chien; degrees in biology and chemistry, Ph.D. while research associate for marine invertebrate physiologist G.C. Stephens). Off the top of my head, Dr. Hugh Ross is a high-profile example of someone who affirms both special creation and evolutionary biology. (Furthermore, most people—atheists included—do not hold degrees or conduct peer-reviewed research in evolutionary biology; what they know comes from public education and reading popularizers of science, such as Dawkins. Hopefully you don't discredit people for not earning degrees in biology, or think that people without degrees cannot speak on the issues.)

Third, there are different classes of creationist. There are creationists who hold the Genesis account as literally true, and those who do not. There are creationists who believe that God providentially sustains creation on an ongoing basis, and those who believe creation was a one-off event after which evolutionary forces took over. There are creationists who believe the world was created no more than 10,000 years ago, and those who believe the earth is around 4.54 billion years old. I could go on, but this all supports the fact that "creationist" doesn't tell you half of what you think it does.

Greetings. Welcome to the forums, Arcanus.

Thank you very much, sir.

You may be a Christian but I think I've found something we have in common. (And, believe me, it's hard to find people who have this in common with me. Many who claim to 'not get bothered easily', the stress is on the word easily; they still get 'offended' every now and then.) I'm what I like to call 'unoffendable'. Shit, I wish that was a real word. I think it should be.

Well, mimsy atheists notwithstanding, I think there are a lot of things that Christians and atheists have in common. I think more often than not they are so fixated on differences that their commonalities are overlooked. Atheists esteem science; what, and Christians don't? Christians esteem charitable work; what, and atheists don't? Some Christians, such as myself, absolutely love science and are endlessly fascinated by scientific discovery. Some atheists are extraordinarily charitable, always doing what they can to help others. There is lots of common ground to be enjoyed, provided we can avoid letting our differences consume us.

Would you care to explain your "truth leads to God" thing under your name?

Um, isn't it self-explanatory? Which term confuses you? Let me know and I'll try to explain.

[Dotard]

How about explaining exactly what 'truth' leads to a belief in a magical sky-daddy.

[Pippy]

Dotard,

I think your missing the memo that's been going around. You're an Atheist. We are very different kinds of theists. We can not show you any 'truth', it is not our responsibility. You want to find god, find her. If not, then don't. Either way, not my problem.

I only can speak for myself, but to rudely ask for 'truth' or 'evidence' is beyond useless. It would appear that one of our camps is crazy, seeing the world as it clearly is not. Until we have a fully factual and scientific knowledge of the things beyond this world, we don't know for sure which camp is crazy. So then, lets just discuss other things, that we know we might come to a conclusion with.

Arguing about God will get us no where. I tried it when I first got here.

Just what I think, but Arcanus can answer you if he likes, of course.

Yes Adrian sounded like he wanted badly to classify you as something. Too 'pigeon hole' you. He can be a little... Whats the word? He has yet too meet a creationist who understands evolution... I have yet to meet an atheist who understands the life he was given. Stupid, stupid statements.

Sorry for being an apologist. What is an apologist?

Padraic, I only meant to point out the you said you felt patronized by Arcanus' first post. May be some other did as well, I did not, unimportant though. So based on the assumption that he was patronizing you specifically and on purpose, you patronized him specifically and on purpose. And still spoke as if you were somehow better that himself.

All I am pointing out is that you are acting the same way you accuse him of acting, to justify your actions. If that is a touque (winter hat?) argument so be it, I think it is still valid. I am certainly trying to focus and argue you position, not your self.

I didn't say 'I like you,but'. Nor did I say 'I would like you if you just did this little thing'. I said 'I kind of like you'. You are similar to myself, and I appreciate your wit. I am only disagreeing the content of your post, and enjoy that you shared it in the first place. I am disagreeing, but without syntax it's hard to follow. I am cheerful and conversational when I write. Anyways, I hope I didn't offend you too muc, and I hope you can understand what I meant.

Thanks all.
-Pip