A question for Atheists

[Fluffywolf]

Pursuit of happiness.

I think that's pretty natural for most people? Except depressed and pessimisitc people perhaps, their loss. :>

 

[ptgatsby]

Yup, it does presume, as it's from the theistic side. What if reality is turmoil, chaos, how do you figure out which side to 'fight' for? Against? How does the 'right path' come to you?

How do I determine my actions? I tend to use game theory and a mix of utilitarian and liberal principles, using my own set of heuristics as preferences.

On the other hand, "pick a side" is a human programmed response. Since I tend to look down on such views I'd argue that even the concept "picking a side" is a symptom similar to religion - the need to "pick" the right course, the right action. Not because it is right, but because it must be picked. It's just justification for the actions we take... post-action rationalization.

So, I believe in pre-decision making rationality, and that's the standard I use for myself.

 

[simulatedworld]

Yup, it does presume, as it's from the theistic side. What if reality is turmoil, chaos, how do you figure out which side to 'fight' for? Against? How does the 'right path' come to you?

By whatever moral values our particular circumstances have convinced us to believe are correct. We acknowledge that these are still just arbitrary principles, but the practical survival value in doing basic moral things like learning to coexist peacefully with others should be intuitively obvious.

 

[Totenkindly]

First:

We just don't think that God as a conscious entity as described by popular religion is very plausible. We doubt very seriously that God is a conscious entity of any sort, but we can't explain the beginning of the universe and we don't claim to know that any force higher than humanity does not exist. We don't claim to have solved the problem of causation.

Later:

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge of anything besides the existence of his own thoughts is mistaken.

Just a small attempt at clarity so I can follow you: Can you speak for all these other atheists, or do you really only know your own thoughts on the matter? Or is the latter definition theoretically sound but unrealistic in the practical sense?

(It sounds like you're saying you can only ever speak for yourself, but you're still speaking for others.)

 

[Fluffywolf]

I sometimes catch myself doing the 'we' thing as well. Sometimes so easy to see a group in which you are categorized as one unity that for some reason must all be exactly the same.

Silly, but not worthy of berating someone over on a forum, when his intentions are clear and easy to understand.

 

[Night]

I sometimes catch myself doing the 'we' thing as well. Sometimes so easy to see a group in which you are categorized as one unity that for some reason must all be exactly the same.

Silly, but not worthy of berating someone over on a forum, when his intentions are clear and easy to understand.

I don't think 'berating' is the correct term to appropriately appraise the matter.

It's a point of clarification. It's doubly important as his perspective is hinged on the inability of the individual to 'think' for anyone beyond himself.


(An ironic point of contention for us to debate, no?)

 

[Feops]

While atheists are distrusting, hard and cold with narrowed eyes. And they don't trust what their own parents tell them.

And a distrusting person can't be trusted.

And trust is the very basis of society.

So atheists are social enemies No. 1. They willfully undermine the very trust society is based on.

This thread has been vic-rolled.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Hmm, he seemed to be crystal clear on that.

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge of anything besides the existence of his own thoughts is mistaken.

This is a very clear opinion. And from this you can conclude that his earlier post where he presented his opinion about atheism in the 'we' form, he was merely presenting his own opinion. But feels that his view matches Atheism as a group. Because it is Atheism in general that is discussed in this thread, not peoples personal views, it is easy to conform to generalising accidentally and use 'we' instead of 'I'.

So, in my opinion it's still berating, wether it is intentional or not. I don't know what else he could input to make his statement any clearer.

 

[Night]

Hmm, he seemed to be crystal clear on that.



This is a very clear opinion. And from this you can conclude that his earlier post where he presented his opinion about atheism in the 'we' form, he was merely presenting his own opinion. But feels that his view matches Atheism as a group. Because it is Atheism in general that is discussed in this thread, not peoples personal views, it is easy to conform to generalising accidentally and use 'we' instead of 'I'.

So, in my opinion it's still berating. I don't know what else he could input to make his statement any clearer.

Haha.

The irony of debating individual perspective hinged on the inherent improbability of fully comprehending external perspective is a deeply satisfying quandary.

 

[ptgatsby]

The irony of debating individual perspective hinged on the inherent improbability of fully comprehending external perspective is a deeply satisfying quandary.

Curiously, even if we only can know our own thoughts, we are still able to talk to each other

I think SW's post should be prefaced with, "by definition, we". I don't entirely agree, but it does put it in context. The key part of it is that the lack of theistic belief is not a positive assertion on any belief.

Where I disagree is that there are atheists who can believe in something, or actively disbelieve. So, it's true that "we", as atheists, cannot state those things (as compared to a common set of theistic beliefs)... but individuals who are atheist can.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Haha.

The irony of debating individual perspective hinged on the inherent improbability of fully comprehending external perspective is a deeply satisfying quandary.

You assume to much.

It's about a simple mistake, vulnerable to word-play that takes the opinion in another perspective without intention. Berating!

We're not debating an individual's opinion that can be bridged to a generalisation of many individuals, for the sake of an arguement stating that doing so is a mistake. Instead, we're(I am ) 'debating' a misunderstanding.

 

[Night]

Where I disagree is that there are atheists who can believe in something, or actively disbelieve. So, it's true that "we", as atheists, cannot state those things (as compared to a common set of theistic beliefs)... but individuals who are atheist can.

I think this is the closest evaluation to what SW meant (I guess he's in a unique position to adjudicate our fissure...!)

I wasn't necessarily attacking the veracity of SW's position; more a defense of Jennifer's query. (I actually agree with much of SW has offered thus far.)

 

[ptgatsby]

I wasn't necessarily attacking the veracity of SW's position; more a defense of Jennifer's query. (I actually agree with much of SW has offered thus far.)

I wasn't defending SW's position either - I have a hard time saying that a definition can apply to a group but not the individuals it contains. Oh, right, typology forum. Forgot.

(Muahah.)

In reality, I think Jennifer was picking up an inconsistency, while all of the Ti's would leap on either clarifying or questioning it.

(Dammit! I did it again. Man, this being consistent is hard work.)

 

[Night]

I have a hard time saying that a definition can apply to a group but not the individuals it contains. Oh, right, typology forum. Forgot.

(Muahah.)

 

[Fluffywolf]

I still think you all took him way too literal.

 

[Jaguar]

Believers are warm, fluffy and cuddly with big wide open eyes and the trust of a child.

That's what Rev. Jim Jones said to his victims before they all died.

 

[simulatedworld]

First:


Later:


Just a small attempt at clarity so I can follow you: Can you speak for all these other atheists, or do you really only know your own thoughts on the matter? Or is the latter definition theoretically sound but unrealistic in the practical sense?

(It sounds like you're saying you can only ever speak for yourself, but you're still speaking for others.)

If it sounds better to you, just substitute "I and atheists who identify with me" for "we."

(btw, I don't find your comments insulting at all, for whoever said that.)


And...does anyone have a response to the actual content of my post, pronoun formatting aside?

 

[Mole]

That's what Rev. Jim Jones said to his victims before they all died.

"Trust me", said Jim, "Trust me and drink the cool-aid".

And, "Trust me", says the Koran, "Trust me and martyr yourself in Jihad and Allah will reward you with 72 virgins".

But if you can't trust Jim. And you can't trust the Koran. At least trust Mrs Briggs and her daughter, Mrs Myers.

 

[xx00oo00xx]

I haven't finished reading this thread -- though from flipping through the pages I think I should -- so this post is more with the OP in mind.

The definition of atheism that works for me starts with what I think was its original definition. I believe atheism was a word Christians used for defining those who did not believe in the existence of Jesus or God or, well, basically the Trinity. Christianity's god is like a person -- he has a personality, feelings, thinks in a similar way (albeit on a much higher level), desires a personal relationship with people (through prayer, etc.), etc. As a result, I think these days, atheism means, in order of "technical accuracy" (first is most accurate), not believing in the Trinity, not believing in any human-like god, and finally, not believing in a prominent, all-pervasive, single, non-personified entity which created and operates everything. With the last one, a person essentially believes only in that which has been explained by science and does not use any sort of holistic belief to offer an explanation for that which science has not explained. He/She generates theories for each specific phenomenon, based on existing scientific explanations.

I created this definition based on my experiences with people of varying *religiousity* [quick question: why are *s often used instead of "s in people's posts?]. Most everyone seems to consider anyone who doesn't believe in a personified god to be an atheist, but opinions differ regarding a non-personified entity. Some have told me this "entity" I speak of still sounds godly enough (I sometimes describe it as an "intelligence") for me to be not really a total atheist, whereas for others, if I don't fully personify the entity, it loses its god status and I am therefore a full blown atheist.

Any thoughts/criticisms on this definition?

Regarding what I "believe", as I've indicated, I like the idea of all pervading, natural "intelligence" which is the reason why all of reality behaves the way it does. Currently, to fill the slot of the "what started it all" question, I use an uncannily Tao-like explanation. Basically, in Tao terms, matter is the Void's(absolute nothingness) compliment and essentially that all "things" (ie. matter) did come from nothing. I like this explanation because, it confounds and neutralizes logical analysis so elegantly. I could expand on all of this, but I'm pretty drained (I edit A LOT) and I don't even know anymore if this post is suitable for this thread. So for now, goodnight. I'm out.

 

[Mole]

How ridiculous.

We have all these thoughtful, committed atheists here but not one MBTI atheist.