High there

[Faith No More]

Do you want the kind of currently available evidence that has changed the minds of former atheists?

I'm curious to see this. Please present it.

We're now in the 21st century. Any atheist raising the subject of evidence is lingering in the 19th century.

What exactly should a modern atheist be asking for?

[Father Herman]

where's the kudo function? I like this one.

H

---

I think by now we've pretty much completed the preliminary segment of the initial portion of my first introductory piece.

I’ll summarize things with a few comments.


Re: DEFENSIVE STRATEGY

Your defensive strategy is way overdone: clichés, stereotypes, insults, crudity … name-calling (of all things!); … the “Poe Principle,” the “Dance of the Liar.”

If you can’t dismiss someone as a “fundie,” I'm sure you can dismiss them for pushing “liberal theology.”

You're well protected! I don’t think there's a thought in the world that can bust through all these barriers. Which ones have I missed? Doesn’t matter: all that stuff is worthless.

And really, you don’t need it. You may find you enjoy thinking, once you get used to it. The grab bag of wisecracks and clichés is irrelevant. Skrap the krap.

I understand its function, of course. Its function is to confuse, to unfit the mind for reason. With the reasoning faculty disabled, the atheist’s last remaining lifeline is severed, and atheism becomes invincible.

I understand: these are entertainment forums: they’re not for serious thought; but we're going to try anyway.

And these are atheist forums. If thought discourages atheism, then atheism must discourage thought. That makes it a challenge. Fine.

We live at a unique juncture in the history of our kind. This is an optimum moment to abandon this whole meaningless defensive arsenal. Atheism is dying. So if you're committed to atheism, (“for better or worse”) now’s the time to seize the day.

Just ignore anyone who scoffs at you for trying to act like an intelligent human person.


Re: APOPHAENIA

[ link to Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia]

It's not just a matter of abnormal psychology: the human mind naturally seeks meaning, and looks for patterns. You can’t have thinking without it.

But this raises a question: How do we know (first) when the patterns we find are really inherent in the object we're contemplating, (second) when they’re being imposed by mental processes that may be quite reasonable, and (third) when we've become captive to runaway processes without reason?

The article you linked gives realistic examples of religious apophaenia. I'm confident that we'll find many in these forums who would extend the application beyond the realm of the real.


Re: THE “DANCE OF THE LIAR”

But: name-calling, of all things! That really is for children and politicians!

Actually it was, I believe, Ivy who perpetrated the first insult. I was surprised to find YOU, Apophenia, following her lead. I hope the nose-ring doesn’t hurt too much.

If there’s something you don’t understand, try a question. You can’t enter high school calling—perhaps still thinking—that anyone you don’t understand is a “liar.”

Your first post made you sound like a human being. This one puts you back in the “Ivy League.”


Re: CUTE-OHS

1 to: Freedomfromfallacy, who wrote: “You may learn something if you can stomach the strong drink you'll be offered here.” Good. I expect to learn quite a bit. As for the “strong drink:” I take it you mean all the insults &c &c. To me all that stuff is like rain on a paperboy: doesn’t mean a thing.

2 to: Psykhronic (post 13) for most incoherent post so far.

3 to: pocaracas (post 24) a Nobel Prize for perfecting cluelessness (“The poe is strong on this one.”). I like your pseudonyn, by the way. Trips nicely on the tongue.

Why the hell do you need a pseudonym?

4 To: Mister Agenda (post 26) for an eminently sane post.

5 to: Ivy! (post 33) Introductory eloquence included insults, crudity, and name-calling (of all things). Ivy managed to work all three into a single post of less than 200 words! There must be a prize for that!

6 to: ITChick (post 35) for loving Clara Bow.

7 to: whateverist (post 43) for a very nice post.

8 to: Apophenia (post 45) for a very civil, very human post. Most impressive.

9 to: Stimbo (post 52) for starting a train of thought.

10 to: Culo Dreaming (post 53) for tongue-in-cheekidity.

11 to: the Captain with the Stupidest of all Possible Names (post 56) for looking forward to my future threads.

12 A second for pocaracas! (post 57) for attempting to think. If something good exists, you should believe that it exists just because it exists. No other reason is relevant.

But “good” may be a typo for “God.” The wrong question is the one you asked: “Why can't I come to know God from my own unbiased research?” The right question is “can I come to know God from my own unbiased research?”

You can.


Culo (post 58): the limitation of my online time is a blessing. It gives us time to think.

Thinking rocks.


(Lots of Cute-ohs here! I'm impressed!)


13 to: whateverist (post 59). Good one. Bring this up later on. (Don’t expect me to keep track of all this shit.)

14 to: Stimbo! (post 60) for not liking my tone. Sorry! I missed this post at first. My tone tends to be fairly vigorous. Sorry! If you don’t like it, don’t read my posts.

But you look like you're interested in thinking, so I'm thinking you better stick with me.

15 to: Culo dreaming (post 62) for offering “known to be” and “demonstrably true.” This is something we can work with.

16 to: Apophenia for the second time! (post 65) for managing to completely reverse a good impression. Name-calling, of all things! Ha! Make it magnificent!

Ok: To use atheist terminology, “you fucked up.” Fine. But you’ve got a mind. Let’s take advantage of it.

17 to: Zen Badger (post 69) for “regale us with … your version of reality.” No hurry. Little by little.


So I think we've pretty much wrapped up the First Part of “Part One: Introduction.” Now it's time to move on to the Second Part of “Introduction: Part One.”

The End. And Glory be to God.


Father Herman

---

Do you want the kind of currently available evidence that has changed the minds of former atheists?

I'm curious to see this. Please present it.

We're now in the 21st century. Any atheist raising the subject of evidence is lingering in the 19th century.

What exactly should a modern atheist be asking for?

We'll get to all of these ... but ... one at a time, I'm afraid. Maybe we'll start with these.

the ende and glory to God

H

[Cyberman]

Dear Cookie (post 60)

1. So you don’t like my tone. Alas! I’ve lost a reader! But …

But of course you don’t like my tone: I'm a theist. Stuff that you wouldn’t bat an eye at if it came from an atheist is of course intolerable coming from a theist. Maybe you should avoid my posts.

But you're a moderator. Maybe you feel obliged to read every bit of drivel that passes through these pages.

Feel obliged? No. My job here is to maintain order and ensure the rules are applied equally. I would, and do, bat my eyes just as much if an atheist engages in disruptive activity as if a theist might, or an anti-theist, or a deist, or an anarchist, or - you get the idea. Basically, my approach is to ignore how a person identifes themselves and assess what they have to say and how they say it. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should avoid my posts. Oops, you can't, can you? Oh dear.

I'm certainly not going to change my “tone” to suit every individual. Maybe you should just have me liquidated.

Then any future concern in this area will go to Staff consideration.

If it helps, I'm not going to call anyone a “liar” (post 65); much less a “pervert” (post 33). So tell us—forgetting anything as ambiguous as the “tone:” How do you feel about the content in those posts?

Already addressed. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, so you have no basis for comment.

And … what is it that a moderator does, exactly?

Think of me as a policeman.

But it raises a question for me. If I author a thread, what assurance do I have that it's not going to be filled with an atheist “tone”—all the sneering, snide remarks, name-calling, crudity—all the inanity that atheism is heir to?

None at all. It's called freedom of speech. As long as none of the content runs counter to the rules and nobody, including Staff, finds a problem with it, everyone is free to say anything they like. That said, please bear in mind that this is a community, made up of people who in many cases have grown to know and respect each other over periods of years. A lot of us have forged our friendships over several boards during that time. That's not to say we don't welcome outsiders into our merry little band, but the general rule is don't be a dick. If someone comes in and drops a shit on the carpet, they have to be prepared for someone to say something about it.

I'm not even going to address your last sentence, since I strongly suspect it was intended to get a rise out of me. I'll just say what I say to everyone: if you see something whaich you regard as a problem, report it. It's as easy as clicking the [Report post] button.

Please. Get back to me on that one.

My pleasure.

2. If there’s some specific assertion I've made that you’d like me to address in some future thread (or as you put it, to “justify or abandon”) —please: just name it.

I'm sure somebody will oblige.

3. As for “Pascal’s wager:” you obviously have some fascination with it. But I'm afraid it’s a fascination I don’t share. “Pascal’s wager” has never impressed me much.

Fascination? Simply because I called you on it? By that reasoning, you seem to have a fascination for me, since you crafted a post all about me. If you want to take me out for a drink or something, I'll have to check my social calendar. Not promising anything, mind. Not on a first date.

But you want to hear my reasons.

Unfortunately, I haven’t given a thought to “Pascal’s wager” in at least forty years. “Pascal’s wager” is irrelevant to the subjects that currently interest me and consequently it's never referred to in the literature that I read.

Then please refrain from using it. It really is that simple.

So I have no motivation for looking into “Pascal’s wager.” Except—

Except that you're interested; and perhaps you want me to help you think it through. If this is so then I will take the time to see if there’s anything new that philosophers are saying about “Pascal’s wager.” But Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia are about as far as I'm willing to go.

No need to go anywhere; this is not so. You are trying to make me seem uncertain in my atheism. Rest assured, I am not.

Perhaps you're in pain, suffering from some terminal illness, and need answers right away. In that case of course I will help you.

Nope. Swing and a miss. Added to which, belittling my position and focussing on my character in order to elevate your own won't fly.

4. Then you mention evidence—that’s a bold step for an atheist in the 21st century.

Of course - since any fule kno that asking for evidence to substantiate unusual and extraordinary claims is so passé. Null hypothesis and Occam's Razor be damned! We've got wild assertion now!

Do you want the kind of currently available evidence that has changed the minds of former atheists? Or do you want antiques like 19th century Darwinism, or “Pascal’s wager?”

Depends. Do you have any at all? Never mind going to parodic extremes. I don't care what it is. They're your claims, you stump up.

We're now in the 21st century. Any atheist raising the subject of evidence is lingering in the 19th century.

I want you to bear this in mind the very next time a theist asks for 'book, chapter and verse' for some biblical contradiction or other.

(I won't be so patronizing as to say that you're “out of step with reality.” —But you know: we're both going to have to forgive this kind of rhetoric, like it or not. it's just too easy to do and too hard to avoid. Still (to mention this again) rhetoric is one thing—crudity and stupidity are something else altogether.)

Then I'm sure we're both relieved you didn't say those things.

5. We'll take up the subject of the definition of atheism as contrasted to what individual atheists assert in some future thread.

Or we could simply kill it here and now. Again.

Theist - a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods and often makes existential claims, thereby attracting the burden of proof.

Atheist - a person who has no such belief (the negator prefix 'a-' is the clue here - 'without gods') and rejects theists' existential claims upon examination. Further, a person whose opinion is that theists have yet to meet the burden of proof.

How many future threads have I generated already? —and this is just my first introduction.

Wow, you must be vewwy smart.

I apologise, that was rude of me.

How much does the forum revolve around one single member? How many people actually consider you worth engaging enough to continue discussing what you have to share with us? Are you asking for a prophecy? Great, I'll draw up an invoice and we can do lunch. Maybe I'll let you walk me home, but remember I'm not promising anything.

[pocaracas]

This guy is a one of a kind!
Let's keep him!

3 to: pocaracas (post 24) a Nobel Prize for perfecting cluelessness (“The poe is strong on this one.”). I like your pseudonyn, by the way. Trips nicely on the tongue.

Why the hell do you need a pseudonym?

Why I (or anyone) need a pseudonym? The web is dark and full of mysteries... (kudos to whoever gets the reference!)

And I got my first Nobel Prix! yeah!

12 A second for pocaracas! (post 57) for attempting to think. If something good exists, you should believe that it exists just because it exists. No other reason is relevant.

But “good” may be a typo for “God.” The wrong question is the one you asked: “Why can't I come to know God from my own unbiased research?” The right question is “can I come to know God from my own unbiased research?”

You can.

Ah, yes, it was a typo... if you notice, there's the symbol of a mobile phone right next to the post number. That means the post was written using the mobile version of the forum, which I use when I'm on my phone... and we all know those damn gadgets like to think they know what we want to write... Sometimes, I miss the automatic word that swype introduces.... apparently, people write 'good' more often than 'god'.

Onwards...
My version of the question was the good one... it's the one that represents my experience on this planet, and the experience many others claim to have: no amount of unbiased experimentation has yet yielded a god, any god!

You claim I can come to know some god in that manner... how do you know this?

[Cyberman]

That means the post was written using the mobile version of the forum, which I use when I'm on my phone... and we all know those damn gadgets like to think they know what we want to write... Sometimes, I miss the automatic word that swype introduces....

I feel your pain, brother! Mine is always correcting the carriage-return tag 'hr' to 'hour'. Not to mention that I have to switch back and forth between the full site and the mobile one whenever I moderate posts, which my battery loves to bits. You guys just take us for granted!

[Angrboda]

Re: APOPHAENIA

---

Re: THE “DANCE OF THE LIAR”

But: name-calling, of all things! That really is for children and politicians!

Actually it was, I believe, Ivy who perpetrated the first insult. I was surprised to find YOU, Apophenia, following her lead. I hope the nose-ring doesn’t hurt too much.

I made that post intentionally provocative because I wanted to see what was behind all the cheap talk.

And you didn't disappoint. Welcome to the forum. If you want to discuss things as equals, start a thread outside the intro section. Or, if you like, you can continue jerking off in here. If you do, though, I will not be participating.

[Father Herman]

start a thread outside the intro section. Or, if you like, you can continue jerking off in here. If you do, though, I will not be participating.

Well! I certainly don't want to lose you!
Look for something in the Ministry of Humor.

H