A question for Atheists AND Agnostics

[matmos]

Ahem. If I may interupt the debate?

I can smell a great big rat...

Let's see: noob copypast (ahem) posts a tl;dr "take" on a topic which turns out to be a regurgitation of Pascal's Wager, but doesn't mention it. Simulatedworld (ahem) goes on to expand upon Pascal's Wager (despite Kalach having done so in an interesting and succinct way) and uses Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument, without making specific reference to the fact - a crime as bad as (so-called) copypaste's original faux pas.

Set 'em up and knock it down, eh? It's been done better than this, don't you think?

You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.

 

[garbage]

You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.

Wait, making an argument that's similar to one that's been made before is considered failing? How exactly does that follow?


My take on the whole matter is that one can define a god, a panel of gods, or the Godhead in many, many different ways, and theism, atheism, and even agnosticism are tied to those definitions. The word "god," I believe, comes from some Greek word for "that which we sacrifice to." Kind of nebulous and not well-understood as it is. To say one is an atheist or agnostic seems to conjure up or presuppose a particular definition for a particular deity, but a coherent, unifying definition for the deity which is denied or unknown does not and probably cannot exist.

But, yeah, for all intents and purposes, I know what someone means when they say that they're atheist or agnostic. Personally, I can't help but launch into the root of the problem as I see it when someone asks me what my beliefs are, though.

Someone else out there has arrived at that very conclusion, too, but I'm not saying who. I don't want to be called a failure

 

[Fluffywolf]

Seems like this thread is now argueing for the sake of arguement.

 

[matmos]

I don't want to be called a failure

Well you are a epic failure success because you can't simply have to try harder to read a simple paragraph and derive an iota of meaning from it.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

 

[simulatedworld]

Ahem. If I may interupt the debate?

I can smell a great big rat...

Let's see: noob copypast (ahem) posts a tl;dr "take" on a topic which turns out to be a regurgitation of Pascal's Wager, but doesn't mention it. Simulatedworld (ahem) goes on to expand upon Pascal's Wager (despite Kalach having done so in an interesting and succinct way) and uses Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot argument, without making specific reference to the fact - a crime as bad as (so-called) copypaste's original faux pas.

Set 'em up and knock it down, eh? It's been done better than this, don't you think?

You have failed, simulatedworld & copypaste. And you, sir, are an idiot.

Ummmm...so is there actually a logical problem with Russell's Teapot, or are you just stirring up trouble?

I really don't understand the problem here. I didn't read the entire thread; I just read the OP and responded, and I'm obviously not trying to plagiarize the teapot or hide the fact that I wasn't the first person to think of that.

So, being that Pascal's Wager is a poor argument and Russell's Teapot is a good one, I don't see how you could equate the two posts at all. Are you really arguing that my post fails just as badly because I didn't mention the argument I was using by name? Are you joking?

I think we've found the NT version of Victor. This is going to be FUN!

Good try, though.

 

[ptgatsby]

Ah, there are liberal religious people that have no interest in their holy book's definitions on how to live. Even conservative denominations no longer adhere to racism, suppressing women, and certain dietary laws.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy version of God that people have created. That doesn't make me an atheist. I still believe a higher power is possible, but I'm unable to say whether it's definitely true or not true.

That'd be atheist - literally 'without theistic belief'. You'd be classified as an agnostic atheist. The best way to see how this is true - what theistic belief do you hold? A lack of belief, even if uncertain, is still a lack.

 

[matmos]

I really don't understand the problem here. ..Are you joking?

No. I don't joke when I call you a spammer or a plagiarist.

The convention is to quote the argument. If that argument is Russell's Pizza, you should say as much from the start. Not purvey it as yours - as you have done. It's not big and it's not clever.

There is no worse crime than stealing another man's laurels and claiming them as your own. Both you and copypastey are guilty.

Don't wheedle back here all doe-eyed with a "what did I do wrong" expression on your biscuit-arsed face.

I think we've found the NT version of Victor. This is going to be FUN!

Not for you it isn't, sunshine.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ I didn't purvey it as mine. Seriously, that's ridiculous. You're not even taking issue with the argument itself! You're complaining that I didn't label it as Russell's Teapot and pretending that that was intended as an implication that I was the very first person in the history of humanity to come up with that criticism for Pascal.

The implication that I came up with it first is so ridiculous that I didn't think anyone would be stupid (or antagonistic) enough to claim that I intended it, but here you are again to prove me wrong.

I mean seriously, type Pascal into wikipedia and you'll come up with Russell. This is basic philosophy 101 material; who exactly do you think I'm trying to fool, here? You assume I'm just hoping against hope that everyone will just happen to have not heard of Russell's Teapot and that I can take credit for it?

(And by the way, copypaste sounds as if he simply hadn't heard of Pascal. Read the tone of his post; he's going through this thought process for the first time. I doubt very seriously that he found out what it was called, intentionally plagiarized it and posted it as a question to atheists on a message board hoping that he'd be given credit for being the first person to think of it. That's really, really effing stupid to even suggest.)

Honestly, that's just retarded. I never took credit for it; I just summarized it without mentioning its formal name. Go look for nonexistent conspiracies elsewhere, kitty.

 

[01011010]

That'd be atheist - literally 'without theistic belief'. You'd be classified as an agnostic atheist. The best way to see how this is true - what theistic belief do you hold? A lack of belief, even if uncertain, is still a lack.

Really?


A·the·ist: Free Dictionary
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Athe-ism: Merriam Webster
A: a disbelief in the existence of deity
B: the doctrine that there is no deity


Atheist: Google Search

• someone who denies the existence of god
• related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of belief in deities.
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

 

[garbage]

Well you are a epic failure success because you can't simply have to try harder to read a simple paragraph and derive an iota of meaning from it.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

The fact that your point is inherently flawed doesn't mean that I don't know what you mean. It just means that your statement is flawed.

You also forgot to mention that your point was made before by The Raconteurs. For God's sake, try citing your sources next time, you plagiarist!

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Seriously, wtf is he trying to pull? This is hilarious.

 

[ptgatsby]

Really?

Yup. From the Wikipedia definition:

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

You can verify it from the encyclopedia of philosophy, along with a lot more depth of the concept.

 

[01011010]

Yup. From the Wikipedia definition:

Atheism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

You can verify it from the encyclopedia of philosophy, along with a lot more depth of the concept.

I'm not saying it can't include theism, but in most formal definitions it describes absence of belief in deity or deities only.

 

[CopyPaste]

Let's see: noob copypast (ahem) posts a tl;dr "take" on a topic which turns out to be a regurgitation of Pascal's Wager, but doesn't mention it.

I honestly didn't know there was a popular argument such as Pascal's Wager. However I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I can see how the introspection of my OP can be viewed as plagiarism, but at the same time, I believe it's easier for someone with faith (or Christian anyway) to come up with a suggestion similar to Pascal's Wager on their own.

Not taking away from your INTJ ability to successfully perceive other moments of synchronicity or convergence.

 

[ptgatsby]

I'm not saying it can't include theism,

Atheism can't include theism... theism is doctrinal belief in deities (granted, some fuzzy areas on what counts as a deity).

but in most formal definitions it describes absence of belief in deity or deities only.

Hmm... that's what I just said... So, do you have (a doctrinal) belief in a deity? If not, you are atheist.

 

[ajblaise]

Hmm... that's what I just said... So, do you have (a doctrinal) belief in a deity? If not, you are atheist.

Both the agnostic and the atheist have an absence of belief in deities. In the case where someone doesn't deny their existence and doesn't rule out the possibility, agnostic would be more accurate, yet both would be applicable.

 

[Nocapszy]

I honestly didn't know there was a popular argument such as Pascal's Wager. However I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I can see how the introspection of my OP can be viewed as plagiarism

It's not plagiarism. This isn't a publishing company or a news paper, it's an online forum. You might be able to introduce plagiarism here, but it doesn't matter much.

but at the same time, I believe it's easier for someone with faith (or Christian anyway) to come up with a suggestion similar to Pascal's Wager on their own.

LOL...
It's irrelevant.

In my opinion, Pascal is an idiot.
It seems like a good idea, but Pascal leaves out the fact that if we believe in the wrong god, we're still screwed.
Additionally, any god who requires us to believe, also demands that we go to worship him, and do other services...

Nah. The safer bet is enjoying what you're guaranteed -- life on earth.

 

[01011010]

Atheism can't include theism... theism is doctrinal belief in deities (granted, some fuzzy areas on what counts as a deity).

Hmm... that's what I just said... So, do you have (a doctrinal) belief in a deity? If not, you are atheist.

What about Buddhism?


For the record, I'm rather fond of Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism. Neither require belief in deity, but it's obviously preferred. I might believe in the possibility of a God those denominations describe, but I'm not sure. Where does that put me?

 

[Nocapszy]

Numbers... it's a semantical fact that atheism doesn't include theism, except in spelling.

 

[Nocapszy]

You also forgot to mention that your point was made before by The Raconteurs. For God's sake, try citing your sources next time, you plagiarist!

I'm glad somebody noticed CopyPaste's lame attempt to plagiarize our dear Blaise Pascal.

Attention Players:

The idea of God is absolutely the most famous one in philosophy. Most people who think of themselves as philosopher (far too many) usually only talk about god. There are probably more conversations about god in a day than there are children born. There are also probably more conversations about god in a day than there are children born and people dying combined.

There is an absurd magnitude of God conversations. Everyone -- even you... yes... you too; you're guilty too -- is guaranteed to say something that's been said before by someone else. It's not plagiarism. It's debate.
Some arguments are more famous (usually the worse ones it seems, while ironically, the esoteric are the good ones) but even still it's not plagiarism.
And why would someone plagiarize a famous philosopher on a forum anyway? Not for credit -- we turned the rep system off. Remember?

It's only plagiarism if you publish it.

You can keep calling each other plagiarists... I guess it doesn't matter. But you should know that you're wrong.