Questions for the heart, not the head

[omega minimo]

"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."
-Penn Jillette

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom too?"
-Douglas Adams


I like these quotes, even if I don't agree with the point of view. It seems bent on disbelieving, for the sake of disbelieving. If Penn Jillette is right, he has "more room for belief in" other things. How much room does his disbelief take up? What if there is a God, what if there isn't, believing either way takes up some space, doesn't it?

What if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?


I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown.

Is disbelieving active, the way believing is active -- both forms of faith, taking up essentially the same space?

Does one feel better than the other? Does believing in a positive rather than a negative have an innately different effect on the believer?

[Ohio Joe]

1. Well... for me personally

It is not that it is important to disbelieve, it is simply that I don't believe. It is not something that I actively work at, it is just the way it is. I've looked at many religions and listened to countless people trying to recruit for theirs and not a single one of them ever made any sense to me.

[omega minimo]

2. I see.

Hmmm more questions but I'll thank you and refrain....... :spray: :hi:

[Ohio Joe]

3. Feel free to ask anything

I talk about my atheism all the time with one of my room mates and her minister (Church of Spiritualism).

[omega minimo]

5. Thanks. Based on your common sense reply

one question is: Given that you don't identify with a religion or tradition, how do you view aspects of exisitence that are mysterious, unexplainable, etc.?

Another: Would what you are describing be agnosticism, rather than atheism? (I know there's a range and some on DU have been helpful in describing some of the various gradations......)

[Ohio Joe]

7. No problem

No, I am an atheist, I do not believe in life after death, I do not believe there is a god of any kind. I find religion fascinating and love discussing it but there is no doubt in my mind that there is no god.

There are most definitely things that cannot be explained... yet. I think that eventually we will be able to explain them when we have grown enough scientifically and technologically. We most certainly do not know everything, we cannot answer every question but we learn more and more every day.

[omega minimo]

8. ok.

How do you explain the Universe? :shrug:

I'm not advocating for belief in Something. I simply don't understand certainty in belief in Nothing. And believing we'll someday explain everything sounds like faith to me.

But then I though calling the search The Theory Of Everything was pretty damn funny :spray:

[Ohio Joe]

9. I can't

I also do not have any problem admitting that there is currently no explanation for it (I'm assuming you mean, how was it created). Perhaps it is faith but it is faith in man's ability to learn and not faith in an all powerful being watching over us. There are theories but they cannot be proven at this time so they are no explanation. I look at it this way... Religion wants us to believe that there is some all powerful being that wants us to worship him/her/it... follow it's rules... be "good". Why? Reward or punishment after you die based on if you chose the correct god to worship. To top it all off, this god offers zero proof of their existance... you must believe.

To quote Sid Meier's Alpha Centuari:

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

I do not have an answer.

[omega minimo]

43. What about spirituality?

The definitions you cite are not the only ones ........

[Ohio Joe]

118. No, I don't consider myself a spiritual person

To be honest, I was unaware that there were many definitions of atheist. I did a quick look through the ones on wiki and would probably use positive atheist.

[obxhead]

4. A couple of points

First, I have never met a person of faith that leaves any part of their mind open to the possibility of no god.

"Does one feel better than the other? Does believing in a positive rather than a negative have an innately different effect on the believer?"

That makes a huge assumption that belief is positive, and that disbelief is negative. I can't follow logic like that in any way.

[omega minimo]

6. Heart, not head

You seem to be misreading my OP. I'm sorry if it is not clear enough.

You first point doesn't relate to it and don't know where you got "person of faith."


Second, you ignored the sentence preceeding the one you quoted:;

"Is disbelieving active, the way believing is active -- both forms of faith, taking up essentially the same space?

"Does one feel better than the other? Does believing in a positive rather than a negative have an innately different effect on the believer?"


Do I need to reword that, or do you want to reread it and reply? Again, I apologize if it could be stated more clearly.

[TexasObserver]

10. Religion seems to comfort many.

Some people need to meet every week to remind themselves to be moral and decent.

Others don't require such meetings to remind themselves to be moral and decent.

[AlecBGreen]

26. theres nothing wrong with reminders

thats why we re-read out favorite books and poems, why we re-watch our favorite movies, etc. We are reminded of their lessons and, hopefully, we see something new each time. Nothing wrong with a pep-talk. Everyone likes to be told "hey, you're doing a good job! keep it up!" Everyone likes some encouragement from time to time.

[skepticscott]

11. It's not that it's important to withhold belief just for the sake of disbelieving

And it's not just the believing as a mental state or even a mental action that Penn is talking about, but the practical waste of limited time, money and resources of all sorts that accompanies the practice of a religion. That DOES take up room in a person's life that could be better spent elsewhere.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I'll give my response to the garden quotation.

The moment in my life when my atheism really landed (wasn't a revelation but a final confirmation) was when I was rafting down the Colorado River. The mountains, trees, everything were so damn beautiful. And it just hit me so clearly that I know the explanation for how all of those things came to be (I am not a scientist but a Communication major so don't ask for intense scientific descriptions) and that they were so much greater than I. I was so insignificant in the mix. It was at that moment that any remaining grasp I had on the god of the gaps went away. I may not be able to explain how life came into being but to say that it was god, to me, was silly. There is no need for a god to get to the creation of these majestic mountains and there was not need for god in the rest. Science will catch up and explain things and then there will be more questions that need to be answered. There is no proof nor no need for god in the mix. Those mountains and that stream were beautiful and a belief in god doesn't make them more beautiful.

I realize that was rambly but it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet this morning. Plus I am answering in a spirit of getting to know where everyone comes from and not from a "let's argue about this stance" which the OP seems to be looking for.

Good questions.

[tama]

18. God is just a word

that can be defined in many ways - including scientific definitions. The definition of "god" should not be limited to quarrel between this and that dogmatic view, but remain open to also scientific (non-dogmatic) approaches.

Francis Crick, who got Nobel for DNA research and was a strict atheist, however supported the theory of "intelligent design", ET's spreading DNA biotech to Earth where according to propability math DNA could not develop spontaneously from processes of classical physics. We don't know where and how DNA came from or what is hidden in the 97% of "junk" DNA that shares common characteristics with human languages (Zipf's law and Shannon entropy), but if the evidence points the way that it's not a mere blind coincidence then science should explore that direction.

Panpsychism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) or some version of it - which is the default world view in most human cultures (animism etc.) except Western materialism and some versions of Abrahamic religions - is just as valid foundation of science or even more valid if it turns out to have wider explanatory power of phenomenological reality than the currently prevailing paradigm, and Quantum Mind hypothesis is growing and evolving field of science that in many approaches lead to panpsychism. It is easy to see that panpsychist science and "spirituality" can easily find common ground and even talk about "god(s)" with common understanding and experience and definitions.

Science and gods need not have a relation of either-or (which leads to dogmatic quarrels and pissing contests), both-and is also perfectly possible.

[AlecBGreen]

27. excellent post

thank you for sharing! :bounce:

"Plus I am answering in a spirit of getting to know where everyone comes from and not from a 'let's argue about this stance' ..."

I hope more people here, both believers and nonbelievers, would take this to heart. I wish that we would all just share what we believe, why we beleive it, and stop all the games of picking each other apart. Lets be more constructive. A guy can wish, cant he?

[omega minimo]

30. so far so good

:thumbsup:

[trotsky]

13. Do you wake up and leave space in your mind for the possibility...

that the electromagnetic force doesn't exist, and that when you stand up, your atoms will pass right by (and through) the atoms of the floor, and you'll sink all the way to the middle of the earth to be roasted alive?

I mean, really, why shouldn't you remain open and observant that this could happen, and not devote inner space to the "absolute" that when you stand on the floor, it will support you?

[tama]

14. Yes

It's good to remain open and observant.

In fact, doesn't quantum theory say that this could happen, though with near impossible propability?

Or it could happen as shamanic experience with different sense of "me" and different level of being.

Then again, even if these are just habits of nature with no absolute support, it would seem silly to quarrel with electromagnetic force etc. and rebel and wish them otherwise on this level of being which is defined by them as this level being. They feel friendly habits as they happen and are, I wouldn't be thusly without them.

[trotsky]

15. Your post illustrates my point perfectly. Thank you.

The OP is full of ridiculous strawman characterizations based on a misinterpretation of two quotes and a woeful lack of understanding of reason. You demonstrate just how silly the OP is by echoing it. Thanks!

[tama]

19. Care to expand on

"woeful lack of understanding of reason."?

[omega minimo]

32. Your venom precedes you. Even when you make a point worth discussing, your claws are out

your blinders are on. Part of your woefully irrational belief system.

[omega minimo]

31. Do you wake up and leave space in your mind for clinging to and fighting something

that you supposedly don't believe in? Your own personal "ridiculous strawman characterizations based on a misinterpretation" of the concept of Divinity?

Perhaps a victim of your own "woeful lack of understanding of reason."

[trotsky]

35. As usual, rather than answer a question,

you viciously lash out. How enlightened and open-minded of you. Guess you are no better than the people you bash all the time.

[omega minimo]

42. I did answer your question

with a question (as you did the OP) which you are welcome to consider. It does not "viciously lash out" at all. Nice try, pretending that someone other than you brought the venom (# 15).

If you were here "in good faith" as the saying goes, that would be welcome. Your hollow insults and fabrications are not.

[trotsky]

68. You did nothing of the sort.

I did pose my question in good faith, hoping to get you to think about this issue from a different angle. You refused and instead attacked me.

About what I expected, sadly.

[omega minimo]

95. You had one chance. You blew it.

# 31 is an answer to your question in # 13.


trotsky
# 15. Your post illustrates my point perfectly. Thank you.
The OP is full of ridiculous strawman characterizations based on a misinterpretation of two quotes and a woeful lack of understanding of reason. You demonstrate just how silly the OP is by echoing it. Thanks!




You had a chance. Your choice how you handled it. Don't try to change the record when it's right there.

[trotsky]

127. I totally agree that you had a chance and blew it.

And I'm not surprised.

[omega minimo]

147. You will have one chance next time

If you choose not to blow it, I will be pleasantly surprised.

Try it. It might feel good.

[trotsky]

154. I did try, right in this thread.

Instead of rising to the occasion and proving me wrong, you sunk into the muck and tried to pull everyone else in with you.

Better luck with your next thread.

[omega minimo]

156. "Rising to the occasion and proving me wrong" is what you want? Sounds kinda

sexy. :wow: Not everyone gets a hardon for discussion as BATTLE Trotsky. Whatever else you think about me, you must have figured that out by now. :rofl:

I answered your question with a question -- and noted that I had. That doesn't suit you? So who made you God Of How Other People Post?

I answered your question and noted your "point" which you made early on:

"The OP is full of ridiculous strawman characterizations based on a misinterpretation of two quotes and a woeful lack of understanding of reason. You demonstrate just how silly the OP is by echoing it. Thanks!"

You call that trying? Maybe half risen to the occasion. :spray:


"Do you wake up and leave space in your mind for clinging to and fighting something that you supposedly don't believe in?"

That was my point and still is. I'm curious about certitude or investment in NOT believing in something, where it requires a definition of that which is not believed in, as the only possible definition of the concept of god or divinity or whatever it may be called. Are those who say "I don't know if ...." or "I don't know what ..." called agnostic?

And if someone disbelieves so strongly in an image of what they think god is, does that give it power, do they in some way believe THAT's what god is, in order not to believe in god?

The range of experience and comments is interesting.


Oh, are you still there? :spray:

[Odin2005]

16. For me my disbelief is similar to what Buddhists call "Beginner's Mind".

It is the lack of belief, it is the lack of pre-conceived notions tested by observation. So I agree with Jillette and Adams.

[omega minimo]

34. that's deceptive

given your numerous frustrations with "woo" and whatever you don't believe in, your mind in not open as in Beginner's Mind.

"...is the lack of pre-conceived notions tested by observation.." and Buddhists do not attack people for personal "tests of observation," during meditation and daily life. Buddhists also recognize the interconnectedness of all being, which the pinball universe "skeptics" seem to want to stay stuck in. Witness Trotsky's test of whether you believe in the floor when you wake up or not. Does someone like that remember their dreams? Experience wonder? Love?

Disbelieving in god is "a preconceived notion." It depends on having a preconceived notion of what god is, then determining not to believe in it. :crazy: Many of those who call themselves atheists seem to be still wrestling with the god they grew up with or the one they think IS god, even if they don't believe in it. Isn't that giving that god life?

[tama]

39. Cosmologies

Singularity that blew itself up in Big Bang (and was no more) and Nietzsche's Dead (Creator) God do have strong analogous resemblance.

Comparative cosmology (closely related to anthropology and comparative linguistics) is very interesting. And helpfull in the constant deconstruction of one's own worldview, which is a fun hobby.

[Odin2005]

79. Most Buddhists (including the Dalai Lama) accept science as the best way to understand...

...the physical world. Besides the notion of rebirth there is nothing in the core tenets of Buddhism that are at odds with modern scientific knowledge. Interconnectedness refers to the fact that humans ourselves are part of the universe and so anything we do impacts the world around us.

I don't "disbelieve" in God, I simply have no belief in God, I think the term is simply not helpful, it simply means too many different things to different people, one term used to describe many different concepts for historical and social reasons. The personal "Sky Daddy" of the average person is a very different entity from the "God of the Philosophers" and different again from the "God of the Mystics". labeling all these concepts "God" is like inventing a label "foom" to mean "brooms, cheese, or broken glass".

[Silent3]

275. "Foom" is clearly anything that...

...you don't want to leave sitting on the floor where somebody could step on it. Except, of course, when "foom!" means "voom!" but with a bit more "whoosh!" to it.

[dmallind]

17. Well your premise is meaningless from the start

Questions can only ever be answered by the brain. The heart is a a group of muscles for pumping blood. It has no neurons or synapses or any other mechanism for understanding or answering questions.

That bit of literalism aside, yes believeing takes up far more space than disbelieving, because believingentails a response beyond the initial question of "do I believe this claim without evidence or not?" If you answer "yes I do" then it necessarily follows that you have to decide how much of your life will be determined by this belief, and that could be anything from the occasional prayer or church visit a couple times a year to entering the clergy. The answer "no" can also of course lead to things like, well, this post, but is not a necessary corollary like that of belief. I get into these discussions because, as long as they remain interesting on some level, I enjoy them. I'm not driven to "devangelize" because of my disbelief. I spend no more time on it here than I do similar discussions which interest me.

[tama]

20. To be precise

your premise is meaningless from start. Phenomenologically questions can be thought about by thinking, ie. in meaningfull mental processes. Brain is a thought-concept, theory (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_Materialism) is a collection of thoughts, meaning is a mental process.

"Heart" can refer to the concept of heart muscle or the experience of sensing heart chackra or number of other meanings. Imposing the meanings one has adopted as definitions and belief systems and theories over discussion instead of staying open to other meanings and experiences does not further dialogue and finding common understanding.

[dmallind]

21. You cite woo woo as refutation? Snort!

"common understanding" for anyone with a lick of anatomy knowledge suitable for a five year old would dictate that the heart can and does nothing related to thought in any way beyond supplying blood to the brain.

Cite me a single reputable anatomical or epistemological or neurological reference that tells me the heart can in any way think.

What woo-woo nuttery!

[darkstar3]

22. Good luck with that. n/t

[tama]

24. "woo-woo"?

Why dont you first tell me where is the well developed physical theory with all the math required proving that all mental processes reduce to classical mechanisms in the brain (and what would falsify such theory). AFAIK that line of thinking is just vague hypothesis at best and more usually dearly held though unfounded dogmatic belief.

Keep in mind that observable coincidence does not prove causative relation - which is of cource, is a specific meaning in mental processes.

Also read again what was written about various meaning attachable to the string "heart" as your "woo woo nuttery" - reply was a total non sequitur and nothing but rehash of what you choose to or are conditioned to mean by that expression.

[dmallind]

129. Nope - the claim was made that the heart can think

how about we establish that rather than shift the burden of proof.

That thought derives from the brain is hardly a "vague hypothesis". Neither is the nature and purpose of the heart.

The very mention of "chackras" speaks to the nature of woo-woo nuttery. Demonstrate a chackra to me.

[omega minimo]

150. Where was that claim made? Please point it out.

Google Chackra. It will ask you if you meant to Google the correct spelling. Click on a link or images. See what you find. Check it out.


One that's easy to demonstrate for yourself is the heart or solar plexus center, when something happens that frightens/hurts/outrages you, "breaks your heart."

Are you going to say the heart can't break?

[tama]

186. Sorry

but you have given me no reason to assume that you are capable of rational and scientific discussion, so it's better for both of us to waste no more time.

[darkstar3]

202. At long last, sir, have you no sense of irony? n/t

[tama]

268. No need to 'sir' me

Irony is for amusement, I guess.

I just got tired, I don't want to and try not to get in the fighting game and the negative mood it creates, but I'm also plagued by eagerness to find and correct logical fallacies to further the art of thinking. These are often contradictory aims and finding and keeping a well working balance between them is not easy and can be sometimes tiresome.

[omega minimo]

228. Please note the title of the OP

[tama]

269. Thanks for reminding

Speaking from the heart is not easy, especially when there is lot of negative feelings and (so very tempting :)) inter-personal power games around. Every body gets tired once in a while and I'm not exception.

[omega minimo]

48. You don't seem able to set "That bit of literalism aside"

Where do you find in the OP any assertion that "the heart can in any way think"? "Questions for the heart" too poetic for you? Never heard the term before, of appealing to the heart, of feeling.............?



"Common understanding" in 2010 includes science and medical studies on how the body works, understands, perceives, hears, registers/conveys information, far beyond the "Operation!" plastic man in a box level of "anatomy knowledge suitable for a five year old" that" would dictate that the heart can and does nothing related to thought in any way beyond supplying blood to the brain."

Even without setting "that bit of literalism aside," the scientific and medical information is there. It might even corroborate WOO!!!! :scared: :hide: :freak:

[dmallind]

128. Where? What corroborates a heart thinking?

Of course I understand the language - and answered the metaphorical question initially. It was the OPs deranged insistence that the heart actually CAN think that prompted the response you are replying to.

[omega minimo]

159. Show it

"It was the OPs deranged insistence that the heart actually CAN think..."

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. What are you referring to?

[ironbark]

306. I recommend caution and restraint

Terms such as “I’m broken hearted and adrift on a sea of misery” may automatically evoke a 911 for a Surgeon and Search and Rescue.

;-)

[darkstar3]

23. The bottom line is, why worry about it?

My toaster could grow fangs and try to devour me like I'M the piece of toast at any given moment, but the PROBABILITY of that possibility is quite trivial.

I do not worry myself overmuch about things that are wildly improbable, including fairies at the bottom of the garden or old men living in the sky. To concern myself with those improbable things, to alter my life due to the possibility that they might exist or happen, is wasteful.

[laconicsax]

28. Hey, that happened to a friend of mine...true story.

If you'd like to read more about it, and what it means for the future, please send $49.99 + shipping and handling. Don't miss out on your chance at eternity! Order today!

[omega minimo]

37. ever consider the possibility that

god is not "an old man living in the sky"?

[omega minimo]

52. yes, why yes I have.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x239559

[darkstar3]

54. Pick a definition.

I still don't believe in any conscious being that you could call God.

[tama]

44. Indeed

Why worry about anything? Worrying does not help or prevent unexpected from happening.

Of course we do worry occationally or a lot, especially parents for their children, but that's just how it goes. No need to worry about worrying, either.

[Iggo]

25. The absence of a belief in god takes up no space. (n/t)

[iris27]

29. Your answer to the below is my answer to the OP.

I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve (in leprechauns), rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown.

Is disbelieving (in leprechauns) active, the way believing (in leprechauns) is active -- both forms of faith, taking up essentially the same space?

Does one feel better than the other? Does believing in a positive rather than a negative have an innately different effect on the believer?

[omega minimo]

41. What if there are fairies in the garden?

See how you have decided that god = leprechauns in order to not believe in god? How can you know what god is if you don't believe in god? How can you not believe in god without your strawman leprechauns?

Even wonder what "god" might be?

Happy Leprechaun Day :toast:

[darkstar3]

55. How can you know what god is if you don't believe in god?

How can you know what leprechauns, unicorns, or snufflebumps are if you don't believe in them?

This little bit of logical self-gratification brought to you by Weak-Ass Arguments, Inc. Remember, once they say "the fuck?!", you've won!!

[tama]

56. Actually

The best and widest evidence I've come by points the way that "fairies" or old stories are same or very similar as "greys" that many people meet (and breed with!) in spontaneous or otherwise produced trance experiences accross cultural boundaries.

The cross cultural nature of these experiences (including "UFO kidnappings" and scientific DMT studies) together with the mystery of DNA - that e.g. DNA scientist Crick was convinced that is from extraterrestial origin and contains 97% "junk" with language like properties - leads to very interesting questions and speculations. But no definite answers, of course...

[darkstar3]

58. The sweeping claims made in your post

require a mountain of corroborating evidence. I've never read or heard of a single scholarly source that discusses anything you've mentioned here.

[tama]

66. Yup

Graham Hancock's 'Supernatural' is the main inspiration and source. And yes, despite the name it is a well written scholarly work. Fascinating and thought provoking book.

As for the DNA, Crick's views about exoterrestial DNA shouldn't be news to you and if you are interested I can dig you the article about Zipf's law and Shannon entropy found in non-coding "junk" DNA (but not in the coding areas). But for the collection of cross cultural data of trance experiences (cave paintings, fairie-stories, Ayahuasca and DMT experiences, UFO kidnappings etc.) you got the read the book, the mass of evidence is too wide to discuss in this short space and time, and the writer seems to have been quite thorough collecting it.

[skepticscott]

67. Would you care to cite

any sources where Crick says he's absolutely convinced that life on earth is of extraterrestrial origin (as opposed to just entertaining the possibility) ? And your "97%" figure is just an ignorant anachronism, just like the old saw that we only use 10% of our brain capacity. Biologists know a great deal more about that 97% than you apparently do.

And UFO kidnappings being "cross-cultural" is a lot less interesting once you recognize that there were no such things before people had a concept of space ships and flying saucers...in past times, something else substituted. All of those are merely a reflection of the commonality of human senses and psychology, (which is no great revelation at all), and say nothing about the independent reality of any of it.

[iris27]

69. yup, those cross-cultural UFO's and OBE's were demons, jinns, and ghosts back in the day...

all of them really sleep paralysis. It's creepy, but it's not supernatural. Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" is an excellent look at this and other fun such as Atlantis and crop circles.

[tama]

76. Sleep paralysis

may be related phenomenon usually connected with OB experience, but DMT trance, meditation etc. are not sleep paralysis and nor is spontaneous trance. Perhaps it would be best to say that sleep paralysis is one spontaneous way to trance but certainly not the only one.

Supernatural IMO is a silly word and the book should have had a better name.

[iris27]

85. Looking at the book, I think the title isn't referring to the trance process but

rather the beings supposedly encountered during such a state. There are 17 people waiting ahead of me for this title at my favorite book-trading website, but it looks to be an interesting read. To me, the universality of such experiences seems to point to the strange elements of a trance experience being biologically-based phenomena rather than a cross-cultural encounters with civilization-enhancing aliens/demigods/'ancient teachers'. But perhaps that is addressed in the book.

[tama]

87. Yep

various hypothesis are thoroughly discussed, but no definitive answers given. I think the book could be most valuable for people who are haunted by such experiences and feel very scared and alone for not being able to share their experiences with others (and not getting the help they need from modern farmaceutical psychiatry).

Happy reading. :)

[tama]

74. Not in the mood to cite

because your tone is not nice. So search for yourself. Or read the fable about north wind and sun competing which one is more powerfull.

Yes, lot is known also about the non-coding areas of DNA (wikipedia gives 98% instead od 97%) and lot unknown. Perhaps it was unclear to you what is meant by coding and non-coding areas of DNA and what is the distinction?

The cross cultural experiences interpreted as "UFO kidnappings" are of course culturally dependent interpretations, as you rightly point out. The main point of interest is not the culturally dependend interpretations of those experiences but the cross-culturally shared characteristics - which of course have culturally dependent interpretations. The relation of those shared characteristics with commonality of human senses and psychology is exactly the question.

[skepticscott]

77. Nice dodge

From which I will assume that your assertion about Crick was nothing but baloney. You made the claim, and I'm calling BS, so either prove it or retract it, if you have any intellectual honesty. And while you're at it, explain why an argument from authority has any weight, regardless.

And thank you, I do know what is meant by coding and non-coding regions of DNA, and that the label "junk" is a significant misnomer. Just because a section of DNA doesn't code for a protein doesn't mean it isn't active and important. But what exactly is the "mystery" of DNA, and what are the "interesting questions and speculations" that you mention, other than those that are well within the realm of science? Already understood mechanisms can account plausibly for why so much DNA is non-coding, without invoking extraterrestrial or other "spooky" explanations.

Ditto for UFO kidnappings..what are the "interesting questions and speculations" that their cross-cultural nature evokes? The simple fact that we have cross-culturally shared characteristics and commonality of senses and psychology is not a remarkable revelation, and certainly didn't depend on reports alien abductions for its demonstration.

[tama]

83. First,

your assumption is not logical but silly debate tactics of made up rules and I'll leave you play that game alone.

Second, I'm not saying argument from authority has or has not weight. Fact is that there is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis and the main problem has to do with propability math. Propability math was the reason why Crick ended up supporting the exogenesis hypothesis.

I fully agree that "junk" is a misnomer, but I didn't make it up, a scientist did. Much of the functions of the non-coding areas are still unknown, and in science what is not known is a call for speculation, searching hypothetical connections including "wild ones" if that is what you mean by "spooky" instead of just scary.

The common characteristics are not just random and not based on personal experiences but outside "normal" perceptions, so where does the "non-normal" sensory information perceived in deep trance come from, exactly, in human psyche? And why, what evolutionary mechanisms produce and explain them? Why are they considered profound learning experiences, cross culturally, and is there good reason to doubt that actual learning would not be happening, as experienced?

[skepticscott]

174. My original assumption was

that you were an intellectually honest person who wouldn't just make things up to support an argument, and would happily cite actual evidence to support your claims if they were questioned. But seeing you use every rhetorical dodge (including the classic "you hurt my feelings, so I no longer have to prove what I'm saying") to avoid proving your contentions, I've had to fall back to the alternate theory. Maybe on the planet you live, backing up your contentions with evidence is a "silly debate tactic", but here on Earth, among the woo-free, things are a little different.

And you clearly do think that argument from authority has weight, or you would have cited actual evidence for an extraterrestrial origin of DNA, rather than citing (questionably) as your main support for that contention the opinion of one scientist that you apparently thought would impress people. And WTF is "propabilty math"?

The "non-normal" sensory information in deep trance comes from the same place that dreams, hypnopompic and hypnogogic hallucinations and NDEs come from: our common neurochemistry and neurophysiology. No woo-woo is needed to explain them, but if it makes you happy, just go on believing that.

[tama]

192. Woo

Woo woo woo. Woo woo? Woo woo woo, woo woo. Woo woo woo woo woo woo woo. Woo, woo woo.

[skepticscott]

204. Dodged once again

But thanks for playing. We've got some lovely parting gifts for you.

One of these days, the religionistas and woo-wooers are going to send their A-team in here to make some really well-coordinated and supported arguments. Would that I live to see it.

[tama]

271. Enough of games

"Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,<1> or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

It would be nice to see that those who call themselves sceptics could and would show some degree of doubt regarding the claim that mental processes reduce to brain neurology - instead of attacking all attempts to entertain also other possibilities with derogatory and cultish term "woo-woo", strawmen and ad-hominems. Such "pseudoscepticism"* gives bad name to real philosophical and scientific scepticism.



*"Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion...I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.<10>"

[skepticscott]

273. And now you try to define what a skeptic is too

despite being nothing like one yourself, and knowing so little about the thinking of people who are that you have to go to Wikipedia for a definition (and no better than a "loosely used" one at that).

Skepticism is based on the premise that the strength of one's convictions should be directly related to the strength of the evidence supporting them. You, on the other hand, seem to regard evidence and the requirement to justify claims with it as merely a silly debating tactic. If you want to convince people that there are explanations for mental processes that cannot be explained by brain neurology, then the burden is on YOU to provide evidence. The scientific community is under no obligation to take seriously or to debunk every possibility that's tossed out there without any support. It accepts the best and most likely explanation for things based on the reliable evidence available (and the fact that science cannot yet answer every question concerning the current explanation is not proof that another explanation is better, btw). If new and different evidence emerges, then explanations and convictions change, but not before. Entertaining the possibility that such evidence MAY at some point be introduced is the only "doubt" that enters into the process.

And a lot of "strange claims" and "alternatives" HAVE been investigated, tried and tested over and over and over and over and over by skeptics' groups, and they fail miserably to justify themselves every single time. So yes, some people consider further consideration of those claims (especially when they contradict already well-supported facts) to be a waste of time, until and unless better evidence comes along. More argument from authority doesn't change that.

[tama]

274. Arguments from authority:

1. "scientific community" (which you don't speak for as I call BS on your claim of papacy over scientific community)
2. "skeptics' groups" (pseudoskeptic group of dogmatic materialistic world view you identify with)

"and they fail miserably to justify themselves every single time."

Simply untrue. Please don't try to convince me to buy your belief system with blatant lies.


According to your own rules of game that you should follow unless you are a hypocrit, you are making positive claims and the burden of proof is on you. So instead of vacuous arguments from authority and blatant lies, why don't you just prove what you claim. Oh, sorry, you admit that you can't:

"(and the fact that science cannot yet answer every question concerning the current explanation is not proof that another explanation is better, btw)"

The fact you mention would indeed suggest it wiser or at least more skeptical to withhold judgement and refrain from positive claims. That said, withholding judgement until further notice leaves much room for discussions about what is "better" in what respect and by what criteria. In other word, philosophy.

[skepticscott]

293. You're really not very good at this, are you?

I don't speak for the scientific community....hard evidence speaks for the scientific community, and that is exactly the opposite of an argument from authority, even you even know what that means. As far as defining skeptics or skepticism, you frankly fail completely at it, so I'd devote my efforts elsewhere.

And what positive claims about the physical world have I made, and what arguments from authority? List them SPECIFICALLY (I know you'll just dodge that challenge, like you have every other, but there it is).

For pity's sake try to gain even the smallest understanding of science before you weary my eyes again....

[tama]

311. Actually,

i'm too good at rivalry, games of uppity, etc. snd I could "win" all I want. My problem is, <i don't wanna play that game no more. No more. If you ever want to listen what I got to share, hear. And I'll want to know you, too.

And not really, so don't trust me.

[tama]

316. Respecting empirical evidence

>>>And what positive claims about the physical world have I made,>>>

E.g. the one that I called a blatant lie. A real skeptical rational inquiry respects evidence, even and especially when it is anomalous in relation to prevailing views. Pseudoskeptics don't respect empirical evidence, they deny it by lying. That's not only pseudoscientific, it's antiscientific.

[darkstar3]

317. "even and especially when it is anomalous in relation to prevailing views."

Please don't tell me that you think outliers should be given special consideration in data analysis.

[tama]

318. Why not?

The anomaly of Mercury's orbit in respect to Newton's theory certainly deserved special attention as Einstein's theory had wider explanatory power. But then again, I wouldn't make that into a general rule.

There is really only one generally accepted rule in empirical science that I'm aware of, respect for empirical evidence. You either respect it or don't. Do you? ;)

[darkstar3]

322. That is not an outlier, or an anomaly.

Mercury's orbit was a repeatably observable phenomenon that simply didn't fit current models. Outliers and anomalies don't fall under that heading, most importantly because they are not repeatable.

Tell me this. You have a set of data points that are grouped very tightly in one particular group, and one data point, when charted on the graph, is far away from all the rest. That is an outlier, now what do you do about it?

[tama]

330. I believe

"repeatably observable phenomenon that simply don't fit current models" is exactly what scientific anomaly means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalistics

Telepathy experiments are repeatable and have been repeated nough times to show that the phenomenon is real. They don't fit current explanatory models - > anomaly.

I don't follow your outlier argument.

[omega minimo]

321. "Pseudoskeptics don't respect empirical evidence, they deny it by lying. That's not only pseudo"

"Pseudoskeptics don't respect empirical evidence, they deny it by lying. That's not only pseudoscientific, it's antiscientific"

[beam me up scottie]

323. Nice use of #9 and #40!

9. Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.

40. When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.

:applause:

[tama]

331. Come on

This is not about obscure list of debate tactics for the believers to defend their position - except for you.

You made counter factual claim about non-existance of evidence. Honourable thing would be to correct your mistake.

[omega minimo]

295. It's authoritarian behavior

*"Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion...I have to say it—most of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type.<10>"

[skepticscott]

299. Her quote is sexist nonsense

"I have to say it—most of these people are men."

So most of them are men...so what? Most people in skeptics groups overall are men, so why is she attaching any significance the fact that a certain subgroup is also mostly men?

"Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type" So the fact that she personally hasn't meant a woman of this type means exactly what?

And her label of "pseudoskepticism" is pretty much BS too. Sure, after you've seen the same type of claim be debunked a hundred times, some people tend to lose enthusiasm for investigating the 101st such claim when it has no more evidence supporting it than any of the others. How many dowsers and psychics and other assorted charlatans and delusionals have to fall flat before it's OK to decide that they just aren't worth the time and effort to "investigate" any more? Sure, anything might be possible sometime, somewhere, and if we all had unlimited time and patience, we could exhaustively investigate and weigh every "strange claim" out there, but in the real world, some people like to feel they're spending their time in a way more likely to lead to useful knowledge.

[omega minimo]

297. The current crop

of authoritarian games-players disbelieve in "actual learning ... as experienced"

[iris27]

64. Leprechauns are an example to say that my lack of belief, whether in

fairies or Snuffleupagus or any god defined to me thus far in my life, does not take up any "inner space" in my psyche. It's not disbelief for the sake of disbelief, it's just the default state of humanity.
Until someone presents you (general) with a reason to believe in something unseen, you do not possess a belief in that unseen thing. When they do, you consider what you've heard and either embrace that belief or retain the default state.
Lacking belief is not active in the way that believing is active.

[ironbark]

71. That’s true….

“Until someone presents you (general) with a reason to believe in something unseen, you do not possess a belief in that unseen thing.”
…and the presentation/reason may not induce ‘belief’ but rather open possibility/potentiality.

When someone presents an account of a thing unseen the possibility/probability is calculated on a range of factors- Who is presenting this? Are they trustworthy/reliable? How many people are presenting this? Are they trustworthy/reliable? Is there anything to be gained from falsification/ deception? Can the claim be investigated/verified.

“When they do, you consider what you've heard and either embrace that belief or retain the default state.”

Do you?
Prior to the presentation/reason there was no ‘belief’ because there was nothing proposed to believe in (default position). If convinced by the presentation/reason you may embrace belief, if not convinced you possibly may regard it as an open question…a possibility requiring further evidence…or reject the possibility of the unseen thing and/or any potential belief in it.

There is a distinction between-
Child in default position- has not heard of aliens.
Presented with concept of aliens and believes they exist.
Presented with concept of aliens and does not believe they exist.
Presented with concept of aliens and neither believes nor disbelieves but holds their potential existence to be somewhere on a small possibility to high probability sliding scale awaiting further data.

“Lacking belief is not active in the way that believing is active.”

But disbelieving can be very active- “The belief is a lie and I will fight it”
And lacking belief one can still very actively seek to confirm or deny the validity of the belief.

I would suggest that the calculation of sliding scale probability is the healthy/common human approach for all claims of things unseen- from God, to aliens, to the notion of love…and that anyone operating on absolute unwavering belief or disbelief is cruising for a fall ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

72. "Active-disbelievers" are usually believers in denial.

The rest of us just want you to show us the money.

[darkstar3]

73. Little problem with your alien analogy.

This sentence does not make sense:

Presented with concept of aliens and neither believes nor disbelieves but holds their potential existence to be somewhere on a small possibility to high probability sliding scale awaiting further data.

Everything after the word "but" states that this child does not currently believe in aliens. The open possibility for the future does not change the fact of the current belief state held now. So this child falls into the exact same camp as the child mentioned just above.

In other words, if we number your distinctions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, it turns out that all children covered by definition four are just a subset of the children covered by definition 3.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

82. Not only do you fail at reading comprehension,

you fail to remember your own posts. Go back and read it again, and you will find the word "but" in that quoted text.

Furthermore, rejecting the proposition is not a "position of disbelief".

Let me see if I can clarify...Here are two statements. Do you know the difference between them?
"I do not believe in fairies."
"I believe that fairies cannot possibly exist."

One is a rejection of a proposition, skepticism if you will, while the other is an active belief, a positive assertion that requires proof. Do you know which is which and why they are different?

ETA: The rest of your post is a weak attempt at ad hom dismissal, not surprisingly, and it does nothing to refute what I have said. It may upset you to no end, it may even make you "bark"ing mad, but like it or not, ALL agnostics are atheists by definition.

[ironbark]

88. "ALL agnostics are atheists by definition"

Definitions of Atheists on the Web-

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God

atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods


Definitions of Agnostic on the Web-
•someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
•of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
•a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
•uncertain of all claims to knowledge

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ...

•agnosticism - a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove

Let me know when you find a definition of Atheism and a definition of Agnosticism that match up.

[darkstar3]

91. The definitions deal with two separate subject matter,

because the words themselves deal with two separate concepts.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. It is the position that you don't know, and can't know (and I can't either).
Atheism is about belief. It is the position that you don't believe in any gods.

Here's the thing: In order to claim that you can't know, you must first admit that you do not believe.

[beam me up scottie]

94. sigh...I can't believe we're still arguing about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=140800&mesg_id=141116

I am both an implicit and explicit atheist, if you're just going to copy and paste so you can define atheists, please dig a little deeper.

[darkstar3]

97. I know,

it's ridiculous, and obviously rooted in a desire to look down-nose at as many people as possible.

[beam me up scottie]

109. We have quite a comprehensive collection of knowledge about this subject.

It's most impressive, if only people bothered to listen to us...

[darkstar3]

111. Why should they listen to us?

Hank already told them we're evil people who are full of lies, determined to make them stray from the path.

My wife and I have actually been referred to as "the den of vipers" before...by family...it's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go to in order to dismiss, denigrate, hide, or ignore viewpoints that question what the know in their heart of hearts...

[beam me up scottie]

112. Down here you're better off being a muslim/jew/wiccan/etc, 'cuz at least you believe in SOMETHING.

How many times have you heard that ? :puke:

It's safer to remain unidentified where I live but you can only take so much before you kick down the closet door. Bf's family now knows (Christmas dinner, I tried to get out of going and I swear I did not bring it up, had to sit through several insults before I spoke up).

I grew up in New England and we NEVER discussed religion. EVER. Nobody cared what church you went to, or even if you went at all.
I was like a babe in the woods when I left home for the Marines.

[darkstar3]

113. I grew up in the rural south,

so believe me when I tell you, I've heard it all. I've even heard "I hope you're satisfied when you're in hell" uttered with the biggest of smiles.

I don't bullshit with people. I keep my lack of belief in general and my flat rejection of Christianity to myself, until someone starts in with some stupid shit like "you just gotta thank God no one was hurt" or something similar.

What really sucks are situations like now, with a great aunt in the hospital and the family determined that they can pray away the bowel obstruction and subsequent complications. Since I don't believe that's possible, I'm not exactly welcome. I was actually told, years ago, when another distant relative had cancer, "if you can't be a prayer warrior in times like this, what good are you?" Yes, the term "prayer warrior" was not only used, it's popular down here. :puke:

[beam me up scottie]

115. Atheist DUers have been accused of hindering crusades to lesson hurricanes and shorten wars.

We're the perfect out when their prayer/woo fests fail, it's OUR fault you see...

It would be funny if it wasn't so damned predictable.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dmallind]

130. Erm that IS a binary choice

You either believe or you don't. If you think gods could possibly exist but don't have any belief that any actually do, you disbelieve. You lack theism. You are atheistic.

It doesn't matter how much you care, or how open your mind is, or how persuadable you could be, or what probability (below 1) you put on the existence of gods. If you believe in one or more you are a theist. If you don't, what else can you possibly be but an atheist? There really is no middle ground. Atheist does not mean(but does include as a subset "person who is convinced there can not possibly be any gods").

[ironbark]

135. Your definition does not accord

with the dictionary definitions provided (however shallow you hold them to be), nor does it accord with popular contemporary parlance (a valid indicator of what a term has come to mean) nor does it accord with the prevailing attitude of atheists on this board.
In all these respects atheism is-

atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God

atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods

“Atheist does not mean(but does include as a subset "person who is convinced there can not possibly be any gods"

Then if you wish to change the predominant meaning you had best persuade atheists to change the predominant behaviour because it is not manifesting as benign disbelief. It is manifesting as a complete contempt for all things religious, it is manifesting as an arrogant certainty that there is no god and “nothing good ever came of religion”. Beyond that it is manifesting as a mindset that entitles atheists to assume psychic insight, fabricate and forge the others pov, and treat the points, arguments and questions of the other with smarmy pack mentality contempt.

“If you believe in one or more you are a theist. If you don't, what else can you possibly be but an atheist? There really is no middle ground.”

I can be an agnostic. Because there really is a middle ground. Accorded to me by dictionary definition as distinct from atheism, accorded to me by popular parlance and understanding of what it is to be an agnostic…and most importantly of all- accorded to me of my own free will to reject and deny and refuse ANY association with a group whos behaviours I find increasingly abhorrent.
I cannot an will not be appropriated into association with atheism, not by semantic gameplay, not by deep dug definitions that suit your meaning/purpose alone and certainly not by incessant browbeating.

I am not an atheist, principally because, no matter what you think or claim or define it to be…the term has for me, through attempted dialogue with atheists, come to reflect something narrow minded shallow and nasty….and I refuse and reject any association with it.

I remain an agnostic-
•agnosticism - a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove.

[dmallind]

140. Nope

Dictionaries list ALL usages. An atheist can be somebody who denies the existence of god but I doubt you will find a secular dictionary that lists that as the ONLY definition.

Atheists' benign or otherwise approach to religion is neither relevant to the definition or inexplicable. I don't play golf. I dobn't give a damn if others fo, but if the rules of golf were applied to all of us, and how good a golfer you were was used as a measure of how decent a person you are, then I'd get pissy about golf. Most atheist angst is easily defined as self defense against religious hegemony.

What IS the middle between having a belief in a god and not having such a belief? Honestly?

Men are the majority of murderers - do you refuse to be called one?

(I didn't check by the way - if you are a women the majority of own child-killers are women. Do you refuse to be called one?

[ironbark]

157. No, they don't list ALL usages

they often list only common use and meaning.

“Dictionaries list ALL usages. An atheist can be somebody who denies the existence of god but I doubt you will find a secular dictionary that lists that as the ONLY definition.”

Google- atheist definition

Very first cab off rank-
Definitions of atheist on the Web: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:atheist&ei=8KKiS7WBMozY7AOT9uTHBw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE
• someone who denies the existence of god
• wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Check for other definitions-
WordNet Search - 3.0
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheist&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=
Noun
S: (n) atheist (someone who denies the existence of god)

Just found a “secular dictionary that lists that as the ONLY definition.”

It is not only the first and singular definition provided in a dictionary it is also the most common and prevalent…….just as it is in popular parlance and common usage.

“Atheists' benign or otherwise approach to religion is neither relevant to the definition…”

National socialists benign or otherwise approach to minorities is neither relevant to the definition….”

Nope, it just doesn’t work does it, technical definitions do not erase behaviour and reputation,
nor can or should such definitions be used to COMPEL association.

“What IS the middle between having a belief in a god and not having such a belief? Honestly?”

AGNOSTACISM! As defined, separate and distinct from atheism, as used in popular parlance/common
speech, as identified as un tainted and un sullied by the definition, common usage, behaviour and prevailing attitude of atheist- “someone who denies the existence of god”.

You want another definition, another common usage, another perception or profile for atheist?
Then get yourselves some spin doctors and/or change name and behavior.
But don’t try to rope in, appropriate and COMPEL agnosticism into your discredited atheism.

“Men are the majority of murderers - do you refuse to be called one”?

And how do you intend to determine what a ‘man’ is? Through dictionary definition? By physical/ physiological attributes?
Because in my culture an appendage does not make a man.
A man is a set of behaviours, a cosmology and a conduct.
So the answer is YES…if murder became reflective of what a man is and what a man does…I would refuse identification as a man.

And that’s the core and crux that you and your buddies just don’t get, will not even acknowledge
it has been said and refuse to even speak to-
That atheism as manifested in behaviour (not some twee definition or semantic technicality) but behaviour towards other people, is not something I will be labelled with or associated with or compeled into. It is not some philosophical objection to the disbelief in god…it is a basic gut level rejection of the rudeness, arrogance and contempt for others that is so prevalent from atheists on this board and elsewhere.

But do keep coming back and insisting, over and over, that I must be an atheist because you guys have the right definition and the right to impose atheism on me……because that’s blowing huge holes in everything I have said about the conduct of atheists.

[iris27]

183. Godwin's Law - you lose.

"National socialists benign or otherwise approach to minorities is neither relevant to the definition..."

[ironbark]

193. “The rule does not make any statement about

whether any particular reference or comparison might be appropriate”

To loose the point/arguement would necessitate refutation of-

"....the core and crux that you and your buddies just don’t get, will not even acknowledge
it has been said and refuse to even speak to-
That atheism as manifested in behaviour (not some twee definition or semantic technicality) but behaviour towards other people, is not something I will be labelled with or associated with or compeled into. It is not some philosophical objection to the disbelief in god…it is a basic gut level rejection of the rudeness, arrogance and contempt for others that is so prevalent from atheists on this board and elsewhere."

The continued refusal to even acknowledge the point being made is ample confirmation of its validity.

[darkstar3]

194. Yet another broad brush from you against atheists,

and you wonder why there are those of us who don't treat you nicely...

[beam me up scottie]

197. Yep, that's pretty hateful.

Maybe an atheist kicked sand in his face or gave him an atomic wedgie when he was a kid.

[ironbark]

207. Yup, I hate people telling me I must be a member of their group.

I will not be assimilated.

[darkstar3]

213. I didn't tell you that you "must be a member".

I simply said your current lack of belief falls under the classic definition of atheism. The level of venom and repetition you employ in fighting this is astounding. Methinks you doth protest too much.

[beam me up scottie]

214. Right, lmao, you've got us, we simply must have you in our posse!

:rofl:

You're safe, really.

:rofl:

[ironbark]

200. No broad brush, I specify, you cut, omit and ignore.

“…you wonder why there are those of us who don't treat you nicely”

No, I wounder at the chutzpah of fabricating anothers pov, of ignoring evading all pertinent points/questions, of assuming psychic insight, of attempting to compel association with atheism.

It’s not about ‘nice’…it’s about not treating others with complete contempt.

That’s not “broad brush” “against atheists”, that’s specified objection to specific behaviours.

You can cut, run from and ignore the core point/issue…but I will not be associated, compelled or assimilated into your atheism.

[darkstar3]

201. You continue to ignore facts.

Your continued ad hom dismissal of my point was answered in #137, which you have yet to respond to.

ETA: BTW, t is a basic gut level rejection of the rudeness, arrogance and contempt for others that is so prevalent from atheists on this board and elsewhere." is a brush you could quickly paint a house with.

[ironbark]

206. Facts are- You have consistently engaged in-

"fabricating anothers pov, ignoring evading all pertinent points/questions, of assuming psychic insight, attempting to compel association with atheism."

You earned the add hom in doing so.

You have not and clearly will not say anything regarding such behavior and yet present as if you are some how entitled to a response to #137....???

Clean up your room first.

[darkstar3]

210. Coward.

You know that any answer you give to #137 will either be disingenuous or define you as an atheist, and so you continue to distract from that fact by trying to attack me personally.

I haven't fabricated your point of view in any way, at any time. I have simply attempted to make sense of it in order to determine whether or not you do indeed "lack belief." You, ironbark, lack belief in any god at this particular time, according to your own admission. The fact that your lack of belief defines you as an atheist is not my fault, and thus I am not compelling you to any association.

[iris27]

216. I have buddies? Woo-hoo!

:)

Seriously, though, I have barely even been following this subthread; all I'm saying is everyone loses credibility when they compare their opposition to Nazis. And, um, don't quote without either citing or linking, please. Not all of us have Wikipedia memorized.

[omega minimo]

241. Makes sense

"I remain an agnostic-
•agnosticism - a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove."




Why would anyone try to tell you that is the same as being atheist? This is a distinction I have tried to understand better -- you can see how well that goes here -- but haven't come across anyone denying the distinction before. What does it matter to them, anyway?



btw, this person has just supported the supposition in the OP:


91. The definitions deal with two separate subject matter,
because the words themselves deal with two separate concepts.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. It is the position that you don't know, and can't know (and I can't either).
Atheism is about belief. It is the position that you don't believe in any gods.

Here's the thing: In order to claim that you can't know, you must first admit that you do not believe.
------------


So this atheist has stated that atheism is a form of belief. The statement begs the very questions that are asked in the OP.

[beam me up scottie]

246. "Why would anyone try to tell you that is the same as being a (believer)?"

Why do you keep telling atheists we "actively disbelieve" (whatever the fuck that means)?

Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected is intolerant.


You have been informed * repeatedly * by both atheists and others that your statements and definitions in this thread are incorrect, yet you continue to spread disinformation.

Bigotry against atheists is hateful and illiberal. Stop telling us what we do and/or don't believe.

[omega minimo]

249. Despite your efforts, this is still a discussion.

Funny, you expect others to BELIEVE your per/versions of reality. Now that you are bringing in even more and more heinous false accusations, with evident intention to cause as much harm as possible to others, the "disinformation" is yours.

If you can, perhaps address why one poster here is determined to tell an agnostic that they are an atheist. Is that information on the link you provided?




I don't hate or bash any person or group here. Please don't try to project hatred on others as an excuse for your own behavior. THAT is "hateful and illiberal."

[beam me up scottie]

251. "You've managed to show how that disbelief is an equivalent faith..."

You've managed to show how that disbelief is an equivalent faith.

Rather than mere ambivalence. Another type of black and white thinking.

Interesting how you and others put a quantitative value to it.

You are redefining my atheism.

It is intolerant.

Stop it.

[omega minimo]

254. You dictating what intolerance is

:rofl: GOOD NIGHT DEAR BMUS. :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

256. Actually it was ReligiousTolerance.org, here is their definition again:

Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected is intolerant.

You claim that atheists "actively disbelieve", that is misinformation that has been checked and corrected.

And it is intolerant.

[ironbark]

260. I thought you got to choose your own belief/s

seems not so for some.

“Why would anyone try to tell you that (agnosticism) is the same as being atheist?”

Don’t know…but the last time anyone put this much effort into trying to define my beliefs for me it was in a Pentecostal church….go figure ;-)

“What does it matter to them, anyway?”

Perhaps it’s a branch of Atheist Amway and you Go Gold if you designate enough people as atheists in a week?

I don’t know.

But it sure seems that some non beliefs are more active than others ;-)

[omega minimo]

264. LOL

"But it sure seems that some non beliefs are more active than others ;-)"

There's a clue there, if the distinction is not recognized of COURSE the OP might be misunderstood. That's the distinction suggested in the OP ...



There have been atheists in this thread and previous ones who are helpful with info and personal views.

[darkstar3]

278. It's simple.

You consistently bash atheists with broad brushes and ad homs, and I'm trying to educate you on the fact that you're making yourself look bad in the process. Your insistent denial of the label that defines your lack of belief does not change the fact that you have admitted repeatedly that you lack belief.

Go ahead and come out of the closet ironbark. It's really not so bad out here once you stop lying to yourself. Join me..."I'm an atheist and I'm OK, I sleep all night and I work all day..."

[omega minimo]

286. "the label that defines your lack of belief"

sounds a lot like disbelief :shrug:


What interest do you have in trying to force your opinion and definition on someone else. Isn't that kind of unatheistic of you?

[darkstar3]

290. I don't think you really care about the answer to your question,

but if you do, here it is:

I am not interested in "forc{ing my} opinion and definition on someone else." What I am interested in is honest usage of language. I'm also interested in ending cognitive dissonance when that cognitive dissonance results in a string of insults directed toward me and others who think like me in the form of a broad brush.

[omega minimo]

291. Wow, another barb? Instead of a dodge?

In the interest of honest usage of language, are you convinced you don't believe in agnostics? There is a difference, right? If you'd like to clarify your terms, that might help.

[darkstar3]

292. Belief has nothing to do with definitions.

Agnosticism is not the middle ground between belief and non-belief. Agnosticism doesn't even DEAL with belief, but rather with knowledge. It has been explained elsewhere in this thread.

Unless you (general) believe in something that you call a deity, then you (general) lack belief, and are therefore an atheist. Check the Greek if you think I'm wrong on the definition.

[darkstar3]

277. Flat wrong.

These two sentences you quoted from me:

Atheism is about belief. It is the position that you don't believe in any gods.

Here's the thing: In order to claim that you can't know, you must first admit that you do not believe.

In no way give rise to the statement:

So this atheist has stated that atheism is a form of belief.

You have been repeatedly told that lack of belief and active denial of existence are two separate things. Your insistence on conflating them does not make them the same, nor validate or "beg" the questions in your OP. You are being highly disingenuous.

[darkstar3]

134. Oh, I see how it is.

You have no response to #91, so you refer to me as a twat while talking to someone else and attempt to brush the whole problem aside.

I'll restate the issue: In order to claim that you cannot know, you must first admit that you do not believe. Do you have anything to say to that besides the usual ad hom (twat, fuck off, etc.)?

[ironbark]

136. No you don’t, your blind as a bat.

I asked ya nice to stop formulating my arguments based on pure assumption because that’s kinda like you talking to yourself.

And ya came straight back with assumed psychic insight fabrication because you were talking to yourself and to your own agenda.

You ask me if I believe in Jesus, I ask you (twice) the appropriate/pertinent question- “Which one”?
You ignore all questions, including those seeking clarification of your own pov and embark on an endeavour to label me as an atheist…so, being superfluous to your need for a conversation with yourself….

“I'll restate the issue: In order to claim that” I am an atheist rather than an agnostic you would need to-
1/ Find dictionary definitions that demonstrate "ALL agnostics are atheists by definition"
2/ Demonstrate that in popular parlance and common usage these definitions apply.
3/ Convince me that atheism as manifested on these boards is not a reflection of a deep seated and bigoted contempt for all things religious and is not something that I aught strenuously refuse any association with.

But do keep coming back to tell me I have no choice about being an atheist cos that’s sure gonna win me over and impress the gallery.

[darkstar3]

137. You ignore facts

When you say I'm ignoring all of your questions, you are missing the fact that your "which one" dodge still qualifies as a lack of belief.

Unless you DO believe in something. Let's find out. Tell me if this is an accurate statement:
As of this moment, you have never been presented with a definition of God that you believe in as a real being.

[ironbark]

209. You can't see this can you?

“I'll restate the issue: In order to claim that” I am an atheist rather than an agnostic you would need to-

1/ Find dictionary definitions that demonstrate "ALL agnostics are atheists by definition"
2/ Demonstrate that in popular parlance and common usage these definitions apply.
3/ Convince me that atheism as manifested on these boards is not a reflection of a deep seated and bigoted contempt for all things religious and is not something that I aught strenuously refuse any association with.

But do keep coming back to tell me I have no choice about being an atheist cos that’s sure gonna win me over and impress the gallery.

[darkstar3]

211. Total dodge,

not to mention a restatement of a bigoted remark. You are obviously afraid to answer the question in #137.

[ironbark]

225. Mr McCarthy. I am not now nor have I ever been an atheist.

“I'll restate the issue: In order to claim that” I am an atheist rather than an agnostic you would need to-

1/ Find dictionary definitions that demonstrate "ALL agnostics are atheists by definition"
2/ Demonstrate that in popular parlance and common usage these definitions apply.
3/ Convince me that atheism as manifested on these boards is not a reflection of a deep seated and bigoted contempt for all things religious and is not something that I aught strenuously refuse any association with.

But do keep coming back to tell me I have no choice about being an atheist cos that’s sure gonna win me over and impress the gallery.

[darkstar3]

226. And yet you lack belief.

But it's nice to know you can twist history to meet your own rhetorical needs as well as language.

Remember, though, that hyperbole will get you nowhere.

[omega minimo]

245. Perhaps

the poster needs you to be an atheist in order to not understand or consider the questions in the OP.

One reason for the serial nastiness that you and I both object to may be an unwillingness to think through the question about what is (active) disbelief or certainty about the unknown; denial in the face of uncomfortable awareness.

It's very personal and I can understand that. Each person may be a different story, a different experience of how and why they came to their dis/belief. I wonder how many are naturals, just never had any particular belief or exposure to belief systems from birth onward.

[beam me up scottie]

247. Stop telling us what we believe and/or don't.

Are you utterly incapable of understanding how revolting that is, or is it just another excuse to bash a group of people you dislike?

[ironbark]

255. WTF?

Your posting in a sub thread that has an atheist insisting that I cannot be an agnostic and must be defined as an atheist....no matter how long, loud or clear I reject that propisition.

Because I do not and will not accept atheism as the definition of my pov there must be something wrong with me.

This has been going on for two dozen+ post across two threads and you want to pop in and advise "Stop telling us what we believe and/or don't." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT INCREDIBLE DOUBLE STANDARD TRIBAL HIPOCRICY!!!!!!!!!

Are >YOU< utterly incapable of understanding how revolting that is?

[beam me up scottie]

257. Where did I tell what you believe or don't, perhaps you can point that out.

Since you continue to redefine my atheism, your hypocrisy is indeed staggering.

[ironbark]

263. Where did I tell you rabbits eat chooks, perhaps you can point that out.

Are we even now?

Your header bore no relation to anything I said now mine extends the same courtesy to you.

"Since you continue to redefine my atheism, your hypocrisy is indeed staggering."

And at this point we are going to see the glories of logic and critical thinking as you cite and demonstrate how I "continue to redefine" your "atheism"......hmmmm?????

[beam me up scottie]

266. I was addressing another poster, one who DID tell me what I believed.

If I wanted to know what you thought I would have addressed you. Frankly, your selective copy and paste definitions of atheism are a real snooze fest.

[ironbark]

270. Your post #261 is a reply to my #259

So your “addressing another poster” in a post replying to me?

“If I wanted to know what you thought I would have addressed you”

Like this-

261. Where did I tell what you believe or don't, perhaps you can point that out. Response to Reply #259

Even the content of your post was responding to mine.

Having trouble working out who your talking to? ;-)

“Frankly, your selective copy and paste definitions of atheism are a real snooze fest.”

Then you have a little Nanny Nap on the couch until you work out who your talking to ;-)

[trotsky]

281. bmus, based on YOUR half of the discussion that I can see...

I recognized who you must be arguing with, and am thankful I put them on ignore a long time ago.

[omega minimo]

261. All

of your objections are well put and apparently well founded. I hope we might have opportunity to discuss points I commented on. The other poster will continue to try to ruin the thread and deprive others of the right to discuss.

[darkstar3]

279. Reject the label as loudly and clearly as you want, you still lack belief.

So stop staring down your nose at the rest of us.

[ironbark]

280. (Wispers)….Pssst….Darkstar…

"By 5.30pm…when I stand in the fernery amidst the orchids and lilliums, with a garden hose in one hand and a Cointreau, ice and mineral water in the other and the dog at my feet…then God is in Her glorious heaven and alls well with the world."

(Don't tell anyone ok ;-)

PS. You was fun ;-)

Bye.

[darkstar3]

195. Bueller?...Bueller?

[iris27]

78. Except that "does not believe they exist" and "holds their potential existence to be somewhere on

a small possibility to high probability sliding scale awaiting further data" are the same thing.

I've never met someone who currently believes something doesn't exist and insists that there is NO possible evidence they could be given that would ever change their mind.

If, say, Buddha appeared in a vision to every single human on the planet at the same moment, you can be sure I'd be doing some re-evaluation.

[ironbark]

86. Not necessarily

Disbelief can run as far as- I do not believe it exists, I never will believe it exists, there is nothing that could make me believe it exists, it is a lie and I am opposed to the very notion of its existence.

Disbelief can be neutral and disinterested.
Disbelief can also be active and oppositional.

“I've never met someone who currently believes something doesn't exist and insists that there is NO possible evidence they could be given that would ever change their mind.”

Oh please….there have been expressions of Atheism on this very board declaring that nothing would convince them, that a personal visitation from god would doubtless be an hallucination and, more commonly, that no evidence can be considered because there is no evidence.
Disbelief can be neutral and disinterested.
Disbelief can also be active and oppositional.
Disbelief can be virulent, closed and blind.

“If, say, Buddha appeared in a vision to every single human on the planet at the same moment, you can be sure I'd be doing some re-evaluation.”

Yea…me too. But I wouldn’t be leaping straight to a belief that it was indeed the Buddha because-

1/ Such an act/apparition does not accord with anything I have read about the Buddha/Buddhism…in fact it would be contrary (Likewise apparition of Jesus, Mohammed etc)…and a profound restraint/termination of human free will and a terrifying experience for many.
Would the Buddha described in Buddhism do that?...I don’t believe so ;-)

2/ The possibilities of mass hallucination, subliminal messaging, mind control, alien mental probe, satanic apparition… remain open and (in the light of 1/ ) equally feasible.

3/ There would remain those for whom no ‘Sky Daddy Buddha’ is going to take their Christian belief or Atheist disbelief lest it be from their cold dead hand.

[iris27]

90. You're equating lack of belief with belief in non-existence, but they are not the same thing.

"I do not believe it exists" is lack of belief, and the only thing I've ever seen espoused by real people. All of the last three would fall under "believe it does not exist", because they are asserting that despite later evidence that may come up, their position will remain the same.

If you have seen "expressions of Atheism on this very board declaring that nothing would convince them", please let me know where. Until recently, I wasn't on R/T nearly as much. I really HAVE never encountered this personally.or online before, though.

But please don't mistake someone expressing skepticism about possible evidence they could be given as "declaring that nothing would convince them", especially since you say you would do just that in the event of a worldwide Buddha vision. I wouldn't leap straight to a belief that it was indeed the Buddha, either...but I would sure be believing that something is out there powerful enough to affect the minds of everyone on the planet at once, which is a belief I currently do not hold!

[omega minimo]

240. .

“Until someone presents you (general) with a reason to believe in something unseen, you do not possess a belief in that unseen thing.”



"When someone presents an account of a thing unseen the possibility/probability is calculated on a range of factors- Who is presenting this? Are they trustworthy/reliable? How many people are presenting this? Are they trustworthy/reliable? Is there anything to be gained from falsification/ deception? Can the claim be investigated/verified."


Many children, if not most, have experiences of and witness "unseen" or unexplained phenomena and either forget or are indoctrinated/punished/shamed to forget and doubt their own experience/observations.

[Laura902]

33. Faith does not leave people open and observant

It does the exact opposite. Faith taken to its logical conclusion rejects any explanation- scientific or not for the existence of life on this planet that it does not agree with. It is utterly silly to believe in anything solely based upon "faith" but it does make life more meaningful to some whose lives would otherwise be wrapped up in "the afterlife". So believe what you want, but don't misjudge what atheism is, it is not a close-minded approach to life, it is non-belief that happens to be, for me and many others, the only rational way of thinking about the natural world.

[darkstar3]

36. +1. n/t

[omega minimo]

38. The non belief makes sense

The active disbelief, the struggling against and wrestling with that which one supposedly doesn't believe, seems as faith-based as believing and not based on a "rational way of thinking about the natural world."

If that active disbelief is always responding and reacting to a god/bogeyman, it believes that it exists in order to react to it.

This reinforces the notion that we all know what god is -- or isn't. Thinking in black and white -- from either side -- is also not "a rational way of thinking about the natural world.'

[darkstar3]

51. A classic straw man.

There are 3 very distinct possible stances on believing in God.

1. Believing in God.
2. Not believing in God.
3. Actively believing that there cannot possibly be a God.

All 3 are mutually exclusive. Position 1 is that of all monotheistic believers, position 2 is that of every atheist and agnostic I have ever known, and position 3, while a possibility, is NOT espoused by anyone I've ever met, read, or heard of. Yet position 3 is constantly brought up on this board by holders of position 1, and I think I know why.

Positions 1 and 3 both require faith. Faith flies in the face of logic, and states that no proof or evidence one way or the other will move it. Positions 1 and 3, therefore, are logically untenable. Position 2, on the other hand, since it makes no declarations about the existence or non-existence of anything, requires no proof, and is therefore logically tenable.

I am firmly in camp 2, not camp 3. Every atheist I know, on this board, in real life, and in literature, is also in camp 2, and not camp 3. Your continued insistence here, in the OP, and in prior threads on railing against camp 3 is nothing more or less than a straw man. Just like so many others who would like to equate atheism with belief or a belief system, you are improperly changing the definition of atheism to something that you can easily tear down, while completely ignoring the fact that your preferred definition is an improper description of any real atheist.

In short, there is no "active disbelief". There is only belief, and the lack thereof. In practicality, camp 3 does not exist.

[omega minimo]

57. Information is welcome. Insults are not.

So I will not tell you which part of my anatomy you can kiss, for your bogus insistence that I am "railing" here or previously, or "improperly changing the definition of atheism to something that you can easily tear down, while completely ignoring the fact that your preferred definition is an improper description of any real atheist."

That's just bogus.

The OP presented questions. Your post has the potential to contribute to an actual discussion. Do you mind keeping your petty bullshit and barbs out of it?

Think you know everything? Discussion over? Okay. Maybe you're done.

If you want to continue, consider this:

You left out of your numerical equation all non-monotheistic views or beliefs.

You have set up your own strawman to knock down.

You may be right about your assertions about #2 and #3. However, many aetheists here seem to be tussling with their own strawman, some incomplete but personal notion of what god is, which they refute, without considered that believing and struggling with it gives it power; without considering that god may be something (or nothing) else entirely. They seem to be locked in hostile embrace with someone else's religious strawman.


Your #2 and #3 cover some of the more subtle different levels of aetheism/agnosticism, which some on DU can discuss without the 'tude. There is a blurred distinction on your short list, because for those who actively don't believe in God, #2 and #3 are similar.

1. Believing in God.
2. Not believing in God.
2.5 Actively not believing in God.
3. Actively believing that there cannot possibly be a God.


If there was no "active disbelief" there wouldn't be names for it, would there? :spray:
"In short, there is no "active disbelief". There is only belief, and the lack thereof. In practicality, camp 3 does not exist."

Those certain and actively believing that there cannot possibly be a God would be the most "active" of them all. All of them, except some in the #2 group, depend on having some definition of what god is, in order to refute "god."

Someone else picked up on this aspect of this discussion and chose to start a new thread, with some revealing comments on this concept: See "What Is God?"



If this isn't clear, I apologize. If you don't understand it, ask, don't attack.

[darkstar3]

59. Who's attacking here?

You've setup a straw man and you continue to beat at it. Your entire response here is nothing but a defense of your straw man, and I see no reason to engage any further in this digression.

BTW: I specifically noted that my camps 1, 2, and 3 left out polytheism. I was trying to be specific to your discussion so as to avoid confusion.

In the future, if you wish to ACTUALLY discuss these matters, you should avoid redefining atheism in a way that suits your rhetorical needs but doesn't apply to any real person. Your camp 2.5 above just as non-existent as camp 3, and if you think you can prove otherwise, you're going to need to cite specific examples and show your work.

[omega minimo]

60. you don't understand and you are attacking

again.


So much for "openmindedness."

[darkstar3]

61. Show me my attack.

Telling you that you are using a straw man is not an attack.

Now if I called you an asshole, that would be an attack.

[omega minimo]

92. I already did. And you keep doing it.

Now if I called you an asshole, that would be an attack.

[darkstar3]

93. You did no such thing.

And your quote is my hypothetical, not an attack.

You are now diverting. I have simply stated that you are using a straw man, no more, and no less. Your attempts to dismiss this simple revelation as an attack on you are futile.

[omega minimo]

96. I said If you don't understand, don't attack. You don't understand. Fine.

[darkstar3]

100. You still can't show me any "attack".

If you don't want to debate, then don't engage. Don't simply accuse people of things like attacking you and then run the fuck away when you can't show how.

[omega minimo]

101. We're done. Reread it yourself.

[darkstar3]

102. You were done before you started.

You had no basis for your accusations, as has now been thoroughly proven, and all you wanted to do was distract from the fact that I showed your original point for what it was: a logical fallacy.

[omega minimo]

103. You are not interested in discussing or even reading for comprehension. Bye

[iris27]

65. What names have you heard for "active disbelief"?

I've never encountered this before. It seems a contradiction in terms.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Me too.

:popcorn:

Care to join me? This could take a while, it's not easy to find a way to redefine JUST the atheists you dislike.

[iris27]

99. Need something to wash that down?

:toast:

Looks like he'd rather argue with darkstar about what is or isn't an attack...

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iris27]

107. Am I an asshole too now?

:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

110. Meh, you're in good company.

The op only appreciates posters who agree with her. She rewards them by not calling them assholes.

More fun this way ;)

[omega minimo]

151. Body part humor. Guess it doesn't work if one has no

funny bone.

[iris27]

155. I was just curious whether or not I'd been included in the ranks

of people you consider jerks and thus don't deserve to have their questions answered. But it's pretty clear by now that you won't answer mine either way.

[omega minimo]

158. Hi

No I did answer, down below, though not before you had already commented up here that you weren't being replied to, which was a matter of timing, that's all.

And to also answer your question about down below, it was deleted b/c it commented, civilly, on the attempts of some here to toxify the thread. For some reason it's okay for them to do that but not for others to comment on it. Go figure. I had never met you and gave you the benefit of the doubt, despite your inclination to think you were not being responded to.

I said a couple things about the OP, clarified a point perhaps, inviting some discussion with you. Too bad it got sent to the septic tank.

:hi:

[iris27]

177. So your deleted post mentioned some names that you've heard for "active disbelief"?

That's what I was curious about in #65, though none of your deleted messages are in response to that one.

In your back-and-forth with darkstar, you asserted the existence of a middle category "2.5-actively not believing in a God" between his "2-not believing in God" and "3-actively believing that there cannot possibly be a God".

I have heard #3 referred to as 'strong atheism' or 'gnostic atheism'. I have heard #2 called 'weak atheism' or 'agnostic atheism', which is the position that almost every atheist person I've ever met actually holds.

What names have you heard that are specific to your #2.5?

Separate observation - on having a definition of something in order not to believe in it - everyone gets these definitions from the larger culture, possibly from family and friends. They're considered and refuted or not refuted. I don't think the simple act of consideration gives an idea power, nor do I think it's accurate to say anyone is "believing and struggling with it" as you do in #57.

Assuming for the purpose of this post that you are not Muslim, Hindu, Hare Krishna, or Scientologist... Are you tussling with your own strawman, some incomplete but personal notions of what Allah, Vishnu, Krishna, and Xenu are, without considering that believing and struggling with them gives them power? No, you just don't believe in them. No more, no less. Same deal for atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

199. You're still waiting for an answer?

I'll get the first round tonight.

Does anyone want to be a designated driver or should we take a taxi home and split the cost?

[iris27]

205. I just found some money in my garage (hooray for going through old crap!), so I'll spring for a cab.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Because I'm going to need a lot of drinks. Maybe then I will be able to see how darkstar characterizing OM's argument as "railing" against a form of atheism few people espouse is less civil than OM's flat-out calling people assholes....or turning trotsky's use of the phrase "rise to the occasion" into sexual innuendo and jokes about poor performance.:yoiks:

[beam me up scottie]

215. You're a quick study, woo hoo!

I must be honest with you, though, you might not want to be seen with me since I'm not a real woman. My periods don't exactly sync with the moon's cycles, you see, and according to DU woo-folklore, that's not natural.
I'm so ashamed...

[iris27]

218. Wait--what? That's a whole new level of whoa right there.

:wtf: :rofl:

But then, I take 'unnatural'/'allopathic' medicines that restrict mine to 4 a year, so that I'm not constantly stabbed from the inside by my otherwise-cyst-generating ovaries. So if we've got lady purity tests going on, that puts me out too.

[beam me up scottie]

222. Oh yeah, you missed it, after we bombed the moon everything went all to hell.

Our periods no longer mesh with Mother Moon and we must wear The Cone of Shame. :(

I do not like The Cone of Shame.

[omega minimo]

227. The difference

is who instigates the antagonism. Not me. Not the others who were here having a discussion. The difference is the instigator's intent to detract and the self righteous hypocrisy they use to do it, including doing to others which they whine and scream about having done to them; the viciousness and mob mentality, well oiled tag teams, purporting their own misinterpretations and demanding that those misrepresentations be defended -- with little to no effort to ever have any common ground or common courtesy in discussion. They even have discussion killing talking points lists and web sites to help achieve this mighty vindictiveness.

The difference is they have no intention of being civil and feel self righteous about attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow POV.


As for your intentional misrepresentations in that post, both -- as already pointed out to you about the "body part humor" -- used humor to try to lighten up this mess. I might still keep my "one chance" rule next time, with the some of the same folks who unfailingly try to eviscerate me and others, previously and here again. Haven't quite decided about that. Seems the civil thing to do. Give them one more chance to not enter a thread with their claws out.

[darkstar3]

230. You're kidding, right?

This thread is all about you being an instigator. It's also about you denying your instigative nature.

This thread is all about you attacking anything that doesn't fit your narrow POV.

And your attempt to throw around the word asshole wasn't about "body part humor", which isn't real humor BTW, but instead a simple insult that got deleted and that you are now trying to back away from.

Your continued insistence on giving and taking offense while constantly acting as though you are the put upon victim in this whole thread is old hat.

[iris27]

233. So it's a "cross me once and all gloves are off" scenario?

Thanks for the heads-up. To new eyes, though, I have to say, it does not look like using humor to lighten the tone. It looks like using humor to insult, shut down someone's argument, and avoid the substance of the post. If you notice, it completely killed that subthread - it did not further discussion.

My intent was not to misrepresent but to summarize; please feel free to tell me where you think I've been unfair.

I also don't think it's fair to assume the worst of someone simply because they describe your argument in a way you don't like. On other boards (different subject matter), people have called my arguments hysterical and my tone strident...sometimes I asked them why they thought that, other times I just ignored it and focused on the meat of their post. Either way, it kept the discussion moving instead of devolving into "quit attacking me" -- "I'm not attacking you!" -- "yes, you are!"

[omega minimo]

235. No it's: despite what some here have perpetrated previously, they are treated as if this is a new

thread, a new opportunity, which is in keeping with the spirit of DU Rules, which prohibit dragging arguments from one to the other, which a couple of them came in and immediately did in this thread, even referencing offline resentments, to hijack this thread and badmouth anyone who got in the way of the all purpose victimization and vitriol.


"please feel free to tell me where you think I've been unfair."
Are there two of you posting? The one with potential for discussion and the one making shitty comments to others about me.


This is a pivotal point in the subthread you're referring to. It invited a "civil" reply and got nothing of the kind. Please read my attempt to communicate with the person and keep the thread relevant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=239458&mesg_id=239598

[iris27]

238. Ack, no time, must sleep (almost 1 am here)...

started a reply but if I finish it now I will need the Jaws of Life to pry me out of bed in the morning!

[iris27]

282. So then it’s “cross me once *in this thread* and all gloves are off”?

I understand not liking the way particular people approach an argument. But parrying insult with insult just raises the overall level of vitriol.

The ‘pivotal point’ you reference is right after darkstar called your argument “railing against X”...and you respond by saying that "insults are not (welcome)...so I will not tell you which part of my anatomy you can kiss”. To me that is no different than actually telling him to kiss your ass. So you come across as saying “insults are not welcome, but now I’m going to insult you.” And later in the same post you object to his tone & word choice by calling them his “petty bullshit and barbs”. Do you not see how this continues a spiral of irrelevant bitterness? This is what you call inviting a civil reply?

Yes, the rest of the post continued to address things that were actually on-topic, but when it’s preceded with several paragraphs of “OMG STOP ATTACKING ME JERK”, the issues that actually started the discussion take a back burner and are quickly ignored.

And for what it’s worth, darkstar’s next reply contained no vulgarity or insults, though he does do the mildly annoying thing that you’ve also done at times in this epic thread, saying “I’m not talking about this anymore” but continuing to post in the subthread anyway. Elsewhere, later, yes, he does break out some actual insults – the snide “you must be a middle child” and the Addams Family Values quote. Maybe he also thought he was using humor to lighten the tone?

But none of that was before the post you link. In that post, you seemed incredibly angry at someone whose only mistake so far *in this thread* was picking a word you didn’t like to characterize your argument.

Anyway.

No, I am not two people. I also don’t think it’s shitty intentional mischaracterization to say:

- that a post which referred to people only with the word “asshole” - used as a noun - is “flat-out calling people assholes”

- that these quotes are “turning trotsky's use of the phrase ‘rise to the occasion’ into sexual innuendo and jokes about poor performance”:
“Rising to the occasion and proving me wrong" is what you want? Sounds kinda sexy. :wow: Not everyone gets a hardon for discussion as BATTLE Trotsky.”

“You call that trying? Maybe half risen to the occasion. :spray:”

Again, I would love to know in what way that seems unfair if you want to tell me.

Moving on.

Look, I can’t speak for anyone else, but here are things you will never see me do:
- use the phrase “woo” to describe any number of non-mainstream medical or spiritual beliefs, no matter how much I do or do not agree with them
- swear at people (I tend to use “fucking” as an adverb replacement for "very", but you’ll never, for example, see me call someone’s argument “fucking ridiculous”.)
- call names…the ONLY time I have EVER called someone an asshole on DU, he had spent the last dozen+ posts responding with nothing but one-liner insults and curses, and it was my last post to him before I headed to “Options” to make him the one and only person on my ignore list.
- use snarky little emoticons in any post where I am putting forward an actual argument and not just venting frustration/playing silly games with others.

If you do see it, feel free to link this post and call my ass out.

So how’s about we get back to actual discussion? I’m still curious to know what names you’ve heard for “active disbelief”...

[Silent3]

284. It's OM's SOP.

She's on a hair-trigger just waiting for someone to offend her oh-so-delicate sensibilities, mostly based on her pre-defined criteria of who's worth listening to and who's a minion in the oppressive forces of an evil orthodoxy out to crush all things free and enlightened and imaginative and soulful and beautiful, and once you cross that line, a single time in a thread or even if you remind her of someone else who once crossed that line with her sometime in the past, then you're no longer worth her precious time... except for all of the precious time she'll spend spewing vitriol and telling you how awful you are while getting more of her own say in and conveniently never having to answer any tricky questions because you aren't, after all, worth the trouble or worth her great wisdom that she's sure you can't properly appreciate anyway.

[omega minimo]

288. That post is much more revealing about you than about me.

Not everyone considers "discussion" to be battle, competition, bullying, badgering, etc. Hope that's okay with you. If not, don't expect others to reply to you the way you expect or demand that they should. If posters can't make their point or ask their questions without instigating hostility or antagonizing other posters and the thread itself, they're not capable of meeting DU's basic level of civility, are they? Bullies can demand lunch money, but we don't have to give it to them.

[Silent3]

294. And you've been so terribly, terribly bullied.

How do you persevere? Those bullies are practically reaching through the screen, turning you upside down, and trying to shake the lunch money out of your pockets. :eyes:

[omega minimo]

304. I'm glad you are here.

As you show some interest in communication and may help temper the ill temperment that overtakes such discussions. Myself and others in this thread have described what goes on, the objectionable behavior, the agenda, the instigation of it not our choice at all. One of those things is having our words reiterated incorrectly, held up by those who bludgeon us with their resulting strawman arguments, as if they are ours, rather than their own. Even tho I just answered your post, someone below has posted a misrepresentation, proving again their willful ignorance and blunt disregard for DU Rules or the recent call for Civility from the Admin and Mods.

Another indication of abuse of the Rules is the pretense that we don't all know what respect is, or it has to be "earned," or respecting people is separate from respecting their beliefs ... it seems a recent interpretation, a confusion about the more liberal, progressive, cohesive concept of respecting people and their beliefs as their own. Somehow, respecting basic human dignity (yes, I know it's the Internet) has shifted to an episode of Survivor. The splitting of hairs over "respect has to be earned" reveals that somehow these people feel threatened by respecting others' beliefs, as if it says something about them; as if this is all about competition and to the victor go the spoils and People magazine cover.

Also, some of the people here have experienced battles IRL where those conflicts are quite serious. That doesn't justify bringing that antagonism here and pretending not to know what basic respect is.

When I used the word "pivotal," there was already behavior in this thread by that poster that indicated the attitude and agenda here ... I will give one chance, I will treat each person new in a new thread if they choose to "rise to the occasion." However, I will not take their shit or perform to their dictates AFTER they have pissed all over my and others' posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.acphp?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=239458&mesg_id=240031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x239458#239883

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x239458#239558

Your point about how to handle it is elevated and well taken. If you can help foster that here, we might have more interesting discussions, getting past basic obstacles, to what people think and know and might learn from each other. Or the dominant group may continue to bludgeon others and then cry foul.



For the sake of discussion, I used the term "active disbelief," alluded to in the OP. I did not presume to create a new category. A link provided in this thread reveals that there are quite a few distinctions that might relate to the concept:

Religious Tolerance.org:
Overview:

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

There is a general consensus that:

A person who believes in a specific God, Goddess or combination of deities is a Theist.

A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is at least one form of Atheist.

A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.


But there is no consensus on how to classify the other possible belief systems about deity/deities listed above (see link for more descriptions). Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.

"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.

Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.

The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

"Apathetic Atheism," or "Apatheism" have been suggested to cover the individual who doesn't really care whether Gods or Goddesses exist. They probably live with the assumption that no deity exists.


From About.com:

What Is Atheism? Strong vs. Weak Atheism

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism.

With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.


Types of Atheistic Belief
http://uberkuh.com/node/341

Atheism can be divided into a number of hierarchical types. At the highest level of analysis, atheism can be divided into 'disbelief' (D) and 'belief' (B). 'Disbelief' can then be divided into 'aware' (Da) and 'unaware' (Du) types, while 'belief' can be divided into several types, to be discussed. I will explain each of these types and provide examples during the lowest level of analysis to clarify how atheists identify with them.

First, consider atheism as type D. D represents the absence of belief in one or more deities. This is a relatively passive type as opposed to B, which is relatively active. B contrasts with D as a belief in the nonexistence of one or more deities. As mentioned, D can be divided into Da and Du types. Da can be further divided into 'unmotivated' (Da1), 'incapable' (Da2), and 'unconsidered' (Da3) types, while Du can be further divided into 'able' (Du1) and 'unable' (Du2) types. Below are descriptions with examples for each D type.

[iris27]

305. On respect

I might be violating the DU Rules considering this is being addressed in another thread, but I think it is possible to have respect for an individual without having respect for their beliefs. (However, the way that works in practice doesn't look much like the snark and disdain often shown on both sides in R/T.)

But I think it's actually impossible to make yourself respect a belief that you find toxic or foolish or simply misguided...to use the example being given over there, a belief in the subset of Islam that upholds Sharia law. I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do to make myself respect a belief in a religious law that punishes a raped woman for adultery and does not punish her rapist unless she can produce four male witnesses. That doesn't mean I should insult or be snide to a person who holds these beliefs, even if Sharia law is the topic we are discussing.

Conversely, and I remember this clearly from my days as a would-be-ministry-student, when atheists (especially ones who have no religious past) discuss how religious beliefs appear to them, it can sound like disrespect because such beliefs are usually such a closely-held part of a religious person's sense of self. But comparisons between God and Santa, or references to "Christian mythology" or even just not capitalizing the word god (yes, as young Christian iris27, I was even offended at THAT initially), are not attacks on any individual and do not indicate a lack of respect for a person. I still try to avoid the first two myself, simply because it's easy enough for me to do so and that way I can avoid a back-and-forth about whether or not I'm insulting someone, but I don't think it's disrespect if someone else makes a different choice.

Anyway...

I'm not sure what your links were intended to be pointed to, because the first took me to a "404 not found" (maybe it's a now-deleted post?), the third to my #301. The second goes to a skepticscott post that occurs more than halfway through the thread, after a fair amount of bitterness on both sides had already taken place.

Gotta admit, I don't know how much my presence will do. :) I can be here and play nice, but I think the maelstrom may continue around me. I can write an OP on "Don't be a Dick 101", but I can't make people read it, KWIM? But from what I gather of the board drama, everyone thinks their posts (and the posts of those who hold similar views) are perfectly civil and above reproach...or at least until someone really gets on their last nerve...but that the posts of the other side are bitter, insulting and hateful from word one. To somebody who's fairly new, it looks like just about everyone is snarky and unfair from the moment the starting pistol fires. Which is made all the more amusingly ironic when both sides then point fingers at the other and yell "Why are you always such jerks?"


Moving on...now for actual discussion about theology, LOL!

Way back when in posts #38 and 57, it certainly looked like you were asserting "active disbelief" as a separate category, because atheists were telling you, "Look, we just lack a belief that others possess - doesn't take up any inner space." They even conceded that SOME atheists have a positive belief that no gods can possibly exist, which is called "strong atheism", but pointed out that they personally didn't identify that way, and that very few atheists actually fall into this category.

You responded by saying there was a middle category in between "doesn't believe in a god or gods" and "believes no god/gods can possibly exist":

"Your #2 and #3 cover some of the more subtle different levels of aetheism/agnosticism, which some on DU can discuss without the 'tude. There is a blurred distinction on your short list, because for those who actively don't believe in God, #2 and #3 are similar.

1. Believing in God.
2. Not believing in God.
2.5 Actively not believing in God.
3. Actively believing that there cannot possibly be a God.

If there was no "active disbelief" there wouldn't be names for it, would there? :spray:"

This is what everyone was reacting against. It came across as if you were trying tell R/T atheists what they did and didn't believe, when they were trying to tell you otherwise.

For what it's worth, none of those definitions in the latter part of your post seem to be a name for "active disbelief". The last link throws out half a dozen names for atheism that I've never heard of before and when I try to go to the link for more explanation, it takes me to a dead link/German parking page.

Anyhow, just based on the demographics, most atheists you talk with are going to be weak/implicit atheists; enough so that it's safe to assume they are until they tell you otherwise. To atheists, there is a world of difference between weak and strong atheism. The latter is making a claim that would require as much evidence as any religion. The former is simply saying, "I do not believe."

[ironbark]

307. Leaping in leaping out

“I think it is possible to have respect for an individual without having respect for their beliefs…”

I’m cool with that, in fact people can be as disrespectful to me and my beliefs as they like and/or as the Mods will let them get away with.
I honestly couldn’t care less. I’m Australian…insulting each other is considered bonding and affection...a national sport.
Seriously.
My beliefs? It makes no dam difference at all if someone is disrespectful or attacks/ridicules them.

Just as long as they >ARE< actually my beliefs being whacked at.

Half the time the response has >nothing< to do with anything I even said. It’s commonplace-

“One of those things is having our words reiterated incorrectly, held up by those who bludgeon us with their resulting strawman arguments, as if they are ours, rather than their own.”
omega minimo

I’ve been here for about 500 posts and I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been obliged to repeat- “I didn’t say, suggest or infer anything like that”
And the worst bit is, if you re post what was actually said and compare it to the misrepresentation/fabrication….they just ignore it and move on. Not a word.

If you complain about this being a repeated, identifiable, demonstrable commonplace atheist behaviour on DU R&T your “hateful’ and “hate atheists”

Even when the misrepresentation or falsification of what has been said is crystal clear and exposed…
no one >ever< utters a word recognition…in fact it’s at that moment the buddies show up to ride shotgun.

And the weirdest thing about it is that time after time after time I sit here looking at people ignoring the black and white clear evidence of their and others blatant fabrications…and thinking “These are the same people who expect to see evidence for god”???

My apologies, didn’t mean to intrude.

[omega minimo]

308. Compounded

... by talking points lists on web sites dedicated to smack down anything and everything, pre identified, pre gurgitated, for simplistic and potentially misguided, inappropriate application to others' words and meaning.

[iris27]

310. Huh?

I don't think I've ever seen this in action. Would you care to share what sites you're talking about or a thread in which this is used?

[iris27]

309. No worries, intrusion is a-ok by me.

I do see misrepresentation of other people's ideas on here quite a bit, again on both sides. Everyone could do with a bit of stepping back, and trying not to "go in for the kill", seizing upon whatever part of someone's post they feel is ridiculous, and trying to address their primary argument instead.

I also don't think it's fair, for example, for an atheist poster to play word games with an OP title and pretend an assertion is being made that the heart can think, when the OP is just referencing a common cultural meme to make a point. I also don't think it's fair, in said OP, to label atheists as struggling against a god they must sort of believe in, in order to not believe in it.

You are right that when someone has made a plain error and is called out on it, a very few do admit to being wrong and apologize, but most often the subthread will be responded to with a one-liner non-sequiter or simply abandoned altogether. The one poster on my ignore list got there because whenever he was backed into a corner, instead of admitting he was wrong, he would lash out with one-liner insults along the lines of "It's clear you cannot read, asshole!" When I asked what part of his argument I must be missing, I'd get back "It's there, you moron. Read it." Yeah, not helpful.

Anyway.

I gotta say, one of the other things I think is a hindrance instead of a help is calling someone's argument a strawman, ad hom, etc. These terms are thrown around constantly everywhere on DU. It's important to understand what those concepts ARE, but all too often the word "ad hom" gets thrown out when someone's tone gets snarky, not when they've actually said "your argument is invalid because you're a moron". Similarly, calling someone's argument a strawman instead of pointing out what key parts of the argument they're ignoring tends to shut down instead of further discussion.

Last minor quibble... :) Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they don't believe because they don't think the question of existence can be proven one way or another, so why worship a god who can't be proven? So they're not really expecting to see evidence for god, if you know what I mean.

[omega minimo]

313. Good luck

with the spirit and attitude you are bringing to DU. I hope you are able to nudge in a healthy direction.

"I also don't think it's fair, for example, for an atheist poster to play word games with an OP title and pretend an assertion is being made that the heart can think, when the OP is just referencing a common cultural meme to make a point. I also don't think it's fair, in said OP, to label atheists as struggling against a god they must sort of believe in, in order to not believe in it."

I did not "label" atheists. At all. And where do you get "a god" and "they must sort of believe in"? This reflects a lack of understanding of the question -- definitely a misread. Worth discussing.

"I don't think it's fair" that one can't post a thoughtful, carefully worded, consciously edited, invitation to discussion, consideration, sharing information ... without this sort of mess occurring. Although this one has survived as a relatively civil mess. The invitation is to those who might answer the questions rather than being affronted and hostile about them --

"Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning they don't believe because they don't think the question of existence can be proven one way or another, so why worship a god who can't be proven? So they're not really expecting to see evidence for god, if you know what I mean."

If you can bring some balance to the board, more power to ya. Maybe some more folks here will consider actually discussing the topic at hand, rather than project assumptions and preemptive attacks that kill discussion.

[iris27]

324. Ok, my bad, not the OP but later posts.

#57 again - "many aetheists here seem to be tussling with their own strawman, some incomplete but personal notion of what god is, which they refute, without considered that believing and struggling with it gives it power"

Oh, and #41 - See how you have decided that god = leprechauns in order to not believe in god? How can you know what god is if you don't believe in god? How can you not believe in god without your strawman leprechauns?

If it's a misread, it's a misread that every atheist who posted in the thread seems to have made.

[omega minimo]

329. The question is about disbelieving in reaction to an image of god when there may be more to god and

The question is about disbelieving in reaction to an image of god when there may be more to consider about "god" than that image/s.

[ironbark]

276. +1

"..the self righteous hypocrisy they use to do it, including doing to others which they whine and scream about having done to them; the viciousness and mob mentality, well oiled tag teams, purporting their own misinterpretations and demanding that those misrepresentations be defended -- with little to no effort to ever have any common ground or common courtesy in discussion. They even have discussion killing talking points lists and web sites to help achieve this mighty vindictiveness."

Only just caught up with this part of the thread and...couldn't agree more.
All that you observe and describe has been going on here for ages.

From the time I first began posting here every single protracted conversation has had the same hallmarks-
Having to say-"I didn't say that. I'm not saying that. Please dont assume my pov, please don't misrepresent my pov, stop fabricating my pov, stop telling me what I think/believe"...over and over.

If you object your being evasive, if you strongly object your being hatefull and nasty.

The board has come to have one use and purpose only, the denigration and condemnation of religion.

[omega minimo]

152. Body part humor. Guess it doesn't work if one has no

funny bone.

[beam me up scottie]

108. Why, thank you! Don't mind if I do...bmus runs to fridge and comes back with a cold Magic Hat

It's nice to see that posters in this forum are still jaded enough to see through an incendiary op.

Nothing like being asked to define yourself and being told you're wrong when you do. And if you defend yourself you're accused of attacking.

A friend calls this forum the Arena, the lions' teeth are sharp tonight.

[omega minimo]

114. the op appreciates those who can be civil. no one needs you here misrepresenting proceedings

with your "incendiary" comments.

[iris27]

116. Except questions from those who are civil but are on the other side appear to

go unanswered...?

[beam me up scottie]

117. Uh huh.

"I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown."

Who are these "some" people?

And why won't you let them define themselves?



What kind of response should an atheist expect if I posted something like:

"I'm wondering why it's so important to some to believe, rather than see the world as it is, remain skeptical and use critical thinking, not devoting valuable time and money believing in fairy tales."


Yeah, right, thought so.

[omega minimo]

123. You've managed to show how that disbelief is an equivalent faith.

Rather than mere ambivalence. Another type of black and white thinking.

Interesting how you and others put a quantitative value to it.

[darkstar3]

133. Where and how, because I certainly don't see it.

Please substantiate this apparently baseless claim.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

244. From ReligiousTolerance.org: We consider the following actions as exhibiting religious intolerance:

We consider the following actions as exhibiting religious intolerance: Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected;

You have repeatedly been informed by both atheists and others that your statements and definitions in this thread are incorrect, yet you continue to spread disinformation.

Bigotry against atheists is hateful and illiberal. I suggest you stop telling me what I do and/or don't believe.

[omega minimo]

252. I suggest

you quit falsifying the record.

I further suggest that you take heed of your own quote and apply it to your actions towards other individuals and groups on this board and IRL.

[beam me up scottie]

258. I don't need to falsify anything, your op speaks for itself.

You have learned nothing from the atheists who responded, but that's okay, we knew that wasn't your intent. ;)

[omega minimo]

262. .

:crazy: :freak:

[Laura902]

143. Who is struggling here?

I don't understand your comment, are you questioning me or merely making a judgment upon those who happen to struggle psychologically with the fact of their own mortality?
Being rational about religion does not require much effort if one possesses common sense enough to make a reason based conclusion and decide for oneself why it is simply irrational to believe something that is obviously fantasy.In fact for me and others I know of, not thinking of the world as having a god makes not only logical sense but it makes life more fulfilling knowing that there is no universal set of strange rules and rituals to follow in order not to go to "hell". But, this is still not active in the sense that one is struggling with the matter-knowing does not take effort.
By the way, you seem to view atheism as a bleak outlook on the world, "black and white" as you said, this is not true at all. For those comfortable with their own beliefs who do not feel the need to "struggle", accept that there is much humans cannot and will never know. That doesn't mean we need to believe in something false that we generated thousands of years ago in a response to our own fear of mortality and inability to explain the natural world.
I do not mean to be harsh or seem like I am making a judgment on you for your belief in a god but do understand that it is not innate that people have faith in religion to explain the seemingly unexplainable-it is how they happen to be raised and that most of us who call ourselves atheists do not in fact have problems with or actively struggle against believing in a god.
I do not believe for one moment that there is anything more to this universe than the beautiful complexity that surrounds us everyday, the thrill of discovering new things about the world around us and the wonder of nature itself. That in itself does not call for any fantasy, the world and the vast universe around us is already so great.

[omega minimo]

153. I never said I "believed in a god"

Thank you for that thoughtful post. The personal answers are helpful in understanding and also reveal that there may be as many definitions of atheist as there are atheists.

[tama]

46. Faith and (dogmatic) belief

There's is also another meaning for the word faith besides rigid world view of dogmatic belief system, which has something to do with 'trust'. Einstein, so I've heard, was haunted by the question 'Is universe a friendly place?', and as far as I can think and feel, the most logical or rational response to that question is trusting or faith that if one treats universe friendly - openly and observantly - it responds in kind - or at least there is no harm trusting so. AKA the golden rule.

[iris27]

81. That's a great definition of a faith that works for you; unfortunately, that is almost

never the faith held by the people who like to make life hard for non-believers. All too often, it's the "this book gave me all the answers, so I never need to think critically" variety.


In my "wouldn't it be nice if?" moments, I like the view that life is the universe's way of figuring itself out. Pairing that with your thoughts, trusting the universe to be friendly would actually help to *make* it friendly, or at least understand itself to be so.

[tama]

89. Yup :) n/t

[omega minimo]

120. Interesting

"In my "wouldn't it be nice if?" moments, I like the view that life is the universe's way of figuring itself out. Pairing that with your thoughts, trusting the universe to be friendly would actually help to *make* it friendly, or at least understand itself to be so."


Similar to musings that inspired this OP.

[iris27]

148. Hmm..then I wonder what happened in the middle to

turn those musings into musings about how much psychic space it must take up to not have a belief in a god...?

[omega minimo]

162. Wondering how it felt

"In my "wouldn't it be nice if?" moments, I like the view that life is the universe's way of figuring itself out. Pairing that with your thoughts, trusting the universe to be friendly would actually help to *make* it friendly, or at least understand itself to be so."

At some point, doesn't the type of awareness you're talking about feel personal, reciprocal? Not in a predetermined sense of anthropomorphic "god." A feedback loop? Co-creation? Karma? The Way The Universe Works?

[iris27]

223. I don't claim any sort of awareness about the universe; it's just a fun little

thought experiment that I don't find all that likely to contain any real truth. Kinda like "wouldn't it be nice if Obama called a press conference tomorrow and announced that he's signing an executive order to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

Other, similar thought experiments include:

- I really like the idea of an eternal soul that is a recognizable *me* who would retain memories and personality...what would be a way to square this idea with existing brain research on the drastic personality changes and memory loss that occur with brain trauma/Alzheimer's/etc.? (Haven't found one yet.)

- If reincarnation were real and souls traveled in groups, would that mean I'm stuck with my pathological liar of a sister for eternity? (I really, really hope not.) If my brother knocked up his 18-year-old girlfriend the same week that my uncle died, what would be the chances that my nephew is Uncle 2.0? (The rational part of me says zero...the rest of me thinks it would be hilarious because both my brother and his now-wife are rabid asshole fundies, while my uncle was gay!)

- If we learned tomorrow that aliens were real, how would Christian doctrine change? Would they say that Jesus' sacrifice on earth count for aliens too, as long as they believed? What about all the aliens who lived and died before first contact -- would they be hell-bound?



It's just what I do instead of counting sheep.

[tama]

272. Spoken like a real skeptic

Skepticism of any and all claims does not mean inability to entertain all kinds of thought experiments and speculation - what would be fun in such (pseudo)skepticism?! It is actually quite sad that thought experiments and speculation are constantly interpreted as claims and attacked as such by certain very competitive participants - who don't doubt the claim that mental processes reduce to brain neurology - in these discussions.

[iris27]

287. I don't see any difference between myself and those who are taking criticism as your supposed

pseudoskeptics, except maybe in tone and/or willingness to overlook perceived slights.

To me, skepticism is about "show me the money" - being critical of any and all evidence put before you. Does this data come from a double-blind experiment? A longitudinal study correlating X with Y? An ethnography describing the rituals of culture Z? Who paid for it? How many people dropped out of the study over time? Were all the subjects male, or all Causcasian? Is it reproducible? And so on.

I think a person's ability to be a skeptic is entirely independent of their inclination or reluctance to engage in thought experiments or speculation. I think all that's necessary is a willingness to look critically at data before accepting it, and a willingness to believe that our understanding of Topic X could change tomorrow (perhaps drastically) if new, reliable, reproducible data were presented.

I believe most of these "very competitive participants" you mention are taking issue with the fact that the thought experiments and speculation usually aren't identified as such when posted here. It is thus difficult to distinguish such speculation from a claim that the poster might believe is on equal footing with concepts that have a great deal of experimentation and data supporting them.

Say Johns Hopkins ran a study on near-death/out-of-body experiences where, say, a secret "word of the day" was taped to the top of cabinets in each operating room, and each patient was asked after recovery if they could tell researchers that word. If the number of patients who got the word right was even the barest percentage above chance, I think it'd be headline news. I'd also be willing to bet that the people here who "don't doubt the claim that mental processes reduce to brain neurology" would be doing just that (though of course, they'd likely want the study replicated to be certain of the results).

[omega minimo]

298. Where does

the skeptics personal autonomy and personal experience and self respect/value of one's own experience fit into your view of this?

[iris27]

301. I'm not sure what autonomy has to do with anything, but as far as experience goes,

I do not believe personal experience has value on the same level unless it's repeatable and able to be experienced by others in a controlled, observable way. Otherwise we as humans have a tendency to assign meaning to things that may not have any.

You can show a group of people a page filled with colored dots and tell them there may or may not be a message printed inside, and ask them to write it down if they find it. They won't write down the same thing, but almost all of them will write something. It's how we made constellations out of the stars.

For another example, you put someone in a box and bombard it with infrasound (below the range of human hearing), a small but not insignificant amount of them will report to have seen ghost-like apparitions. And interestingly enough, 19 Hz is the resonant frequency of the human eye.

Overall, I find the same rule applies to personal experience as applies to the cosmos -- weird things happen from time to time that we can't explain. But I think it is better to admit that sometimes things happen that we can't always explain, than to claim significance/knowledge from such an occurence.

One night in college, my husband (then-boyfriend) and I saw a whole lot of weird lights in the sky, and no mind-altering substances were involved. We got back to the house we shared at the time, and asked our roommates, but none of them had seen anything. We checked the news and found no reports of it. I don't claim that this was UFOs, nor do I think "oh, must've been a weather ballon/test plane/colored lightning, etc." It was just a really weird thing that happened and I don't know what caused it.

[omega minimo]

302. Perhaps

"But I think it is better to admit that sometimes things happen that we can't always explain, than to claim significance/knowledge from such an occurence."




Perhaps the significance/knowledge is that sometimes things happen that we can't always explain.

[omega minimo]

296. There's more potential common ground suggested there

than not. :thumbsup:

[skepticscott]

300. Again you assume you know how skeptics think

when you really have no clue. And why would you, since this type of evidence-based thinking is alien to you? Saying that no other explanation than brain chemistry and neurology needs to be invoked to explain certain phenomenon is not the same as saying that no other explanation is possible. Saying that our current understanding of the brain is not complete is not the same as saying that current theories are fundamentally incapable of ever explaining certain things. And until direct, verifiable evidence of alternate explanations is presented, we do not acknowledge them as anything other than unsupported (even if interesting) speculation.

[omega minimo]

303. You do?

"... we do not acknowledge them as anything other than unsupported (even if interesting) speculation."

Where do *you* acknowledge such interesting speculation? Is it open to all? Sounds interesting.


The post you replied to is all true. It also seems to have potential for some common ground or less of the Us and Them attitudes that prevent interesting discussion.

Unfortunate that you had to turn it on its head, proving the point you are refuting:

"It is actually quite sad that thought experiments and speculation are constantly interpreted as claims and attacked as such by certain very competitive participants.


When did science become blood sport?

[tama]

312. Good post.

But as for "how skeptics think", been there, done that.

Ir's boring. And most of all, irresponsible. Skeptical thinking is healthy, if real. Doubt everything. Then take all possibilities into consideration, act accordingly. That's logical. And ethical.

I feel "my" chackras. And so on. A theory that does not account or allow me is empirically wrong since I'm real.

I'm no better. We are here to help each other.

[skepticscott]

314. Yep, I was right

You have no concept of how skeptics think. In all of that babble, you didn't once mention what is most important to skeptical, rational inquiry.

And you still have no clue what it is, do you?

[tama]

315. The only clue you give

is that your breed of pseudoskeptics think with air of superiority, personal rivalry and by founding self esteem on bashing others - with apparent certainty of allready possessing The Truth.

This is just "empirical skepticism" and rational inquiry based on observation of how you think when you write. I'm sure this little observation is not the whole truth of and about you.

[omega minimo]

319. omg they BREED?

:scared::rofl:

[omega minimo]

320. "And you still have no clue what it is, do you?"

a tight sphincter?

)*(

[iris27]

325. Nevermind...I was under the impression that you wanted the board to turn

toward civil discussion and less pointing and laughing.

But that's ok; I can get down with mockery. Just so long as we're all fine with the idea that no one's going to actually learn a damn thing about someone else's perspective around here... :rofl:

[omega minimo]

326. oh unclench

it's funny!

I fully welcome and support your attitude, as I've said. i also have noted that these recent discussions might yield some improvement.

However, do NOT attempt to judge me. You apparently have no idea of what has gone on here and how bad it's gotten. I have experienced it perpetrated against me firsthand and have not tried to convince you or bring up how vicious, mindless and insane the behavior can be. So my "one chance" rule per thread is much more open minded than "gloves off."

I also will continue to use GOOD NATURED humor where and when I BLOODY WELL FEEL LIKE IT so get a grip.

If there is improvement, that's fine. The fact that recent discussions have the perpetrators claiming absolute self righteousness and aw-shucks innocence is not a good sign. The lack of self reflection, self awareness and honesty about how they treat others, combined with the excuses and justifications for why mockery and disrespect are actually CALLED FOR, indicates how challenged some are in the responsibility department.

I'll believe it when I see it. I trust that you will observe for yourself, either the usual level of abuse of the pathological pecking order and notice who organizes it, or by some MIRACLE, a new day on DU.

:thumbsup:

[iris27]

327. Right.

"I have experienced it perpetrated against me firsthand and have not tried to convince you or bring up how vicious, mindless and insane the behavior can be."

Please, you've done nothing but whine that there is a vast atheist conspiracy against you. It's hilarious to me that what is "GOOD NATURED humor" when you dole it out is "vicious, mindless and insane" when it's directed against you. You took quite a bit of offense and told me to go back to the "septic tank", when I had been here all of two days, just because I suggested you'd rather trade insults with someone than engage in debate. But your "unclench", "OMG they breed?", etc. is supposed to be the height of hilarity. Fuck that.

I thought I was engaging others in an attempt to move past the pettiness and get to real discussion. But I refuse to be the lone idiot in crossing guard colors while the traffic rushes past.

[omega minimo]

328. Grasp this

"I have experienced it perpetrated against me firsthand and have not tried to convince you or bring up how vicious, mindless and insane the behavior can be."

You apparently have no idea. As I said, I trust that you will observe for yourself, either the usual level of abuse of the pathological pecking order and notice who organizes it, or by some MIRACLE, a new day on DU. The total denial expressed by many of the perpetrators does not bode well for their potential for improvement.

"Please, you've done nothing but whine that there is a vast atheist conspiracy against you."

Outrageously false statement.

"It's hilarious to me that what is "GOOD NATURED humor" when you dole it out is "vicious, mindless and insane" when it's directed against you."

You don't know what you're talking about. You're comparing apples and oranges.

"You took quite a bit of offense and told me to go back to the "septic tank", when I had been here all of two days ..."

That remark was not directed to you.

"But your "unclench", "OMG they breed?", etc. is supposed to be the height of hilarity. Fuck that."

Yes, unclench. Seriously.

Considering the fact that "OMG they breed?" was in reply to a post that made very cogent, relevant and truthful statements about what you and others are in complete denial about (i.e. Rilly Crappy Serial Behavior) my little joke WAS an attempt to lighten up, rather than underscore what that poster -- and others -- are CORRECTLY bearing witness to:

"The only clue you give is that your breed of pseudoskeptics think with air of superiority, personal rivalry and by founding self esteem on bashing others - with apparent certainty of allready possessing The Truth."

As many affirmative and openminded comments I've made directly to you and refrained from campaigning for you to take "sides," you really do need to get a grip, now. Not "fuck that" and more attempts to twist my words.

"I thought I was engaging others in an attempt to move past the pettiness and get to real discussion. But I refuse to be the lone idiot in crossing guard colors while the traffic rushes past."

You will see for yourself. We will see if there is any improvement.

I'll believe it when I see it. I trust that you will observe for yourself, either the usual level of abuse of the pathological pecking order and notice who organizes it, or by some MIRACLE, a new day on DU.

Recent conversations have revealed new glimpses of common ground. Maybe it will be given a chance to breathe.

[DeSwiss]

208. Excellent.

+1

"The church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber dislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness. Tyranny likes courtiers, flatterers, followers, fawners, and superstition wants believers, disciples, zealots, hypocrites, and subscribers. The church demands worship -- the very thing that man should give to no being, human or divine.

To worship another is to degrade yourself. Worship is awe and dread and vague fear and blind hope. It is the spirit of worship that elevates the one and degrades the many; that builds palaces for robbers, erects monuments to crime, and forges manacles even for its own hands. The spirit of worship is the spirit of tyranny. The worshiper always regrets that he is not the worshiped.

We should all remember that the intellect has no knees, and that whatever the attitude of the body may be, the brave soul is always found erect. Whoever worships, abdicates. Whoever believes at the command of power, tramples his own individuality beneath his feet, and voluntarily robs himself of all that renders man superior to the brute."

Robert G. Ingersoll

- Ye shall know the truth, and the truth (only) shall set you free.....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. (Sigh) It's happening again

Some atheist posters here absolutely bristle when someone attempts to talk about their worldview (I don't remember whether it's OK to call it a worldview--I think one poster objected to that, too), but they feel perfectly free to caricature theists in ways that show that they're just stereotyping and have no idea what they're talking about.

[omega minimo]

45. Well put. The most serial are heavily invested in it.

They have not been able to spoil this outing, as of now. Some are interested in sharing POV rather than duking it out.

And some on DU previously have been helpful to me with clarification in the terms and layers of aetheism. :thumbsup:

I was thinking of it last night, in terms of feeling, how does it FEEL to actively believe or disbelieve, similar? different? equivalent? Of course it will be different for different people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Having spent 19 years in Oregon, where non-belief is the default position,

I've noticed that there are those who have no religious background and have never given the matter any thought, those who have pondered the question and don't know, those who have decided that they're atheists and don't hide it but don't make a big deal of it and are cool with you if you're cool with them (although they will smack down any evangelical who tries to convert them; This was the majority of the atheists I met in Oregon), and those who seem to take personal offense at the very existence of religion and can't hear the mention of it without bringing up the Inquisition or the Scopes Trial or whatever.

I think I met an average of one hostile person per year in Oregon, which means that R&T feels unusually hostile.

It's especially annoying when people who have never met me assume that they know what I think or can't figure out why I am affiliated with a faith community and have no idea of the many joyous and satisfying experiences it has brought into my life.

[omega minimo]

50. yup

sounds pretty durn reasonable LL :hi:

over that same time period, the influence of evangelical churches on the national (and personal) psyche has grown in influence ... some here seem to be reacting to that and assuming that's what being "Christian" is.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

63. We don't bristle when others talk about our worldviews

We bristle when others redefine our worldview to fit into their own ideological box, then attack that worldview as invalid. The OP has made a point of denigrating atheism, and this OP is simply a thinly veiled attempt to tell us to go away and be quiet. If the OP hadn't previously shown a pattern of attacking atheism and was sincerely attempting to further discussion then it would be different.

[darkstar3]

70. +25. n/t

[omega minimo]

98. "Denigrate"? That post is totally false. You need to check yourself and learn to read.

[darkstar3]

105. You deny denigration with denigration? Not so clever...n/t

[omega minimo]

121. It's a true statement about false accusations.

[darkstar3]

132. You cannot prove that "you need to...learn to read" is a true statement.

It was simple denigration on your part, which only makes sense given how much of that you've used in this entire thread.

[omega minimo]

145. I'm sorry

You need to learn to read for comprehension.

I'm also sorry that you have also chosen to join the tag team denigrators who attempt to kill discussion.

I invited you to come back in the spirit of attempting to understand each other's words. You made your choice and your attitude very clear.

[darkstar3]

164. Now you're insulting my reading comprehension,

which is simply more denigration. I'm beginning to think you don't know how to engage someone who disagrees with you in debate without insulting them and trying to get a rise out of them.

[omega minimo]

165. !!

oh I'm sorry. i thought you made the totally false statement. You were the one who agreed with the totally false statement "+25"

oh that's right, you made a different false statement:

"Your continued insistence here, in the OP, and in prior threads on railing against camp 3 is nothing more or less than a straw man. Just like so many others who would like to equate atheism with belief or a belief system, you are improperly changing the definition of atheism to something that you can easily tear down, while completely ignoring the fact that your preferred definition is an improper description of any real atheist."

[darkstar3]

167. I'm sorry,

in what universe does maniacal laughter constitute a whole response?

[iris27]

106. This is a mischaracterization so far off base to the lived experiences of most atheists

that it does feel denigrating:

"I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown."

This reads like religious belief run through the Reverso Machine, which is pretty much the complete opposite of the way I live my life. I am an atheist because I refuse to assert absolutes about the unknown, instead of believing that a holy book has the answers about life, the universe, and everything. My inner space is all about remaining open and observant to the wonders of the universe as we discover them with the tools we have, instead of pretending the goosebumps I got at church when the sanctuary was kept too cold were the touch of Holy Spirit.

You may not have intended it that way, but other people's reading comprehension skills are not to blame here.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iris27]

149. Whatever this deleted post was, I never got to see it

before it was zapped. Maybe try again without whatever you think got it dinged?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

160. You may do it subtly, but it's still denigration

I'm an atheist, and I often find your posts offensive. Are you telling me that I'm imagining that?

[omega minimo]

163. It is not intended as such.

If I misstate something that I could phrase more clearly or understand better, the input is welcome. Have you tried to engage on that level or just attack me? Speaking of denigration and offensive, that's my association with your name.

[darkstar3]

168. Do you really expect any of us who have seen you in action to believe that?

This is a serial behavior for you. You misstate the position of atheism in what many consider an offensive way, and then when anyone tries to educate you on how exactly your statements are wrong, you claim umbrage. The evidence for this serial behavior is all over this thread, and furthermore, the fact that it IS serial in nature leads me to believe that it is deliberate.

You seem incredibly vested in the giving and claiming of offense, especially when it comes to your discussions with atheists. I don't believe for a moment that you intended to do anything more or less than what you have done with this thread, and I don't believe for a moment your claim that "input is welcome."

And speaking of denigration and offensive, I haven't seen a SINGLE post of yours in this thread that didn't contain some parting shot, some snide remark, some claim of offense where none was given, all designed to madden the people you disagree with while trying to seem the victim.

You must be a middle child...

[omega minimo]

170. Nonsense

[darkstar3]

175. What an effective argument!

:eyes:
Oh, and don't look now, but it seems I'm not the only one who has you pegged.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

171. I'll readily admit that I'm sometimes offensive

Other than a few posters (like California Peggy) who are more patient and understanding than the rest of us can ever hope to be, everyone is bound to offend someone from time to time. I'll bet I've done it more than once. If I do something over the top, point it out to me and I'll retract it if I think I went too far. Just be warned that defending my right to choose belief or lack of belief will be defended heartily.

But, you seem to go out of your way to post these subtle digs at atheists. I dunno - I think if you posted what you really thought, you'd get your posts deleted a lot. Your posts, at least on the surface, seem to be really passive-aggressive attempts to denigrate. I genuinely think they come across this way. Often.

[omega minimo]

178. I'm curious about the topic in the OP

If I thought I knew everything about atheism, I wouldn't ask about it. The range of experience/views on this seems broad, which the thread has further revealed.

IMHO some of the attitudes and un"civil" behavior here are due to experiences in "defending"-- as noted above drug in from IRL -- atheism with resulting assumptions -- and hair trigger reactions -- about what someone means, esp. if it resembles anything they've heard/argued before or found on one of the infamous discussion checklist/sites of what to say and how to counter..... I fell into a viper pit of it here, before knowing how contentious the topic was here and IRL.


BTW given the way "woos" are treated on DU, participants who perceive "subtle digs" objectionable might want to look in the mirror.



"If I do something over the top, point it out to me and I'll retract it if I think I went too far." "Your posts, at least on the surface, seem to be really passive-aggressive attempts to denigrate. I genuinely think they come across this way. Often." Then let me know, too. "But, you seem to go out of your way to post these subtle digs at atheists." You might also consider rereading with an open mind, giving me the benefit of the doubt.


What's "over the top" here is not necessarily individual behavior but group behavior that inflames and incites misunderstandings, misrepresentations and then carries it over into other future encounters, even tries to drag it in, as someone did here.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

190. I'm pointing out, in a pretty civil way, that I think your OP denigrated atheists

Yes it was subtle, but I often think that's worse than the outright "you dumb atheists are going to hell" offenders who are at least honest in their opinions.

FWIW - I don't consider any previous vax wars to be relevant to the current discussion. But, in those battles you were at least honest about where you stood. I didn't agree with your position, but I could understand the passion you have for your position. The current topic strays into territory where you seem less open about saying what you really think about atheists, but the underlying message is clear and offensive to many of us.

[omega minimo]

219. You are mistaken

I am not a participant in "vax wars." You must be thinking of someone/something else.

"The current topic strays into territory where you seem less open about saying what you really think about atheists, but the underlying message is clear and offensive to many of us."

You are projecting. Extremely mistaken. The only ill association I have regarding the topic is the hostile behavior encountered on DU and out in full force on this thread. Actually, not full force -- it can be even more disturbed.

[omega minimo]

47. The OP could have been more clear

regarding the context of the questions if it had been written:

"What if there is (a) God, what if there isn't, believing either way takes up some space, doesn't it?"




The questions in the OP question the images that non/believers have of what they think they (don't) believe in.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. skepticscott in reply #11 expresses the answer to "does believing takes up some space" well

It's the consequences of believing or not believing that 'take up space' - do you judge yourself, or alter your behaviour, against an external standard in which you don't have an equal say with others? Will that belief cause you discomfort if it goes against your personal feelings, or cause you to miss opportunities because they are incompatible with your faith? Will it cause you to alter your life choices because you expect to continue to exist after you're dead?

"To remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown" is the basis of a lot of atheists' attitude to religion and gods. I'm not sure that people to whom it's "important to disbelieve" are particularly likely to be atheists - if it's important, they tend to disbelieve in the most powerful entities, which, these days, are governments rather than religions. I think the DUers who are most invested in disbelieving are to be found in the Sept 11 forum rather than the Atheists and Agnostics group.

It seems a good rule of thumb that people have chosen the stance they feel most comfortable with. Clearly, people of faith feel better with a positive belief in something unknown. Whether that's because they find strength in having a common belief with many others, or because they want an ethical guide to living ready-made for them, or other reasons, will vary. Any belief that involves an afterlife seems very burdensome to me - you have to plan for eternity, without any real information on what will happen. I'm more comfortable with just my experiences than with adding others' claims that don't seem to match well with the reality I've seen.

[beam me up scottie]

62. "How much room does his disbelief take up?"

None, the absence of belief is the null hypothesis.

Not believing in a personal deity takes up no more room than not believing in Santa Claus, astrology or others' personal deities.

How can you actively disbelieve in things you have no knowledge of?

[JerseygirlCT]

75. I think for some disbelief *is* active

for some, it's not something they ever give much thought to, either way.

[DeSwiss]

124. Please take this as a positive criticism.....

...but I don't really know what it is you're driving at here. Your questions seem almost like free-association, so I'll treat them in-kind:

How much room does his (Penn Jillette) disbelief take up?

I have no idea. Maybe a two or three bedroom. Everyone's disbelief is a different size. So I don't know. Send him an email and maybe he'll tell you. (http://www.pennandteller.com/)

What if there is a God, what if there isn't, believing either way takes up some space, doesn't it?

Take up space where? How? In my junk drawer? Garage? Closets? You'll need to be more specific.

What if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?

There is no such thing as a fairy. If you don't realize this you need help from a mental health professional. And hurry, it'll only get worse.

I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown.

Is this a question? From the phrasing here it appears more as if this is an on-going process of "wondering" and that I should not interrupt it. On the other hand, bullshit is bullshit. No matter how open to bullshit one is, it's still bullshit all the same -- and I know bullshit when I hear it. So I avoid hearing bullshit unless I don't have a choice. Most of the time I make sure I do have a choice. I realize that many believers now feel threatened, because more and more people are beginning to admit that they too don't want to hear bullshit either. This is new for believers and they can't understand why people are saying this because before, everyone seemed okay with it and now they're not. That has changed. That changed for some when religious people began to actively try to insert their beliefs into our laws. Then on 911 a lot more realized how dangerous religion really is. Of course some people do like to hear bullshit. Which is fine with me. I just don't want to hear it and I don't want to be made to hear it, nor do I want to be told I must respect bullshit either. Because I don't. Bullshit assumes someone is an idiot and that they have no intelligence and that they are prepared to suspend all reason and their knowledge and experiences in order for bullshit to be accepted. I don't accept bullshit and I call bullshit when I see it or hear it. So being observant, doesn't make bullshit not bullshit. And this is an absolute. A law of nature, if you will. It has been this way since the beginning of time. I'm certain that we will find evidence of this in the fossil records soon. Very soon.

Is disbelieving active, the way believing is active -- both forms of faith, taking up essentially the same space?

Huh? Here you go with the "space" questions again. Look, what religion are you practicing that requires all this "space" that you speak of? All I know is that disbelieving is the opposite of believing. So therefore if believing takes up space, then non-believing doesn't take up space. And if believing is "active" then disbelieving must be "inactive."

Does one feel better than the other?

Yes. I've done both and I can say without question that disbelieving feels better. Lots, lots better. Especially on Sunday mornings.

Does believing in a positive rather than a negative have an innately different effect on the believer?

Does believing in a positive or negative what have an innately different effect the believer? In my experience I would say that religious believers believe what they believe based upon a negative. That negative being FEAR of themselves burning in hellfire for eternity. Two concepts of which (hellfire and eternity) most can't even define. Negatives and positives are opposites of each other -- but they can be opposites of many things. For example, being rich is the opposite of being poor. I'd rather be rich -- I think -- but at the same time all the rich people I know about mostly seem like pricks. So I assume that becoming rich makes people into pricks. Is that an innately negative or positive thing? I don't know.

But I still think I'd rather be rich.

[omega minimo]

125. humor a bit cluttered with cute cleverness

clogged with cliches, perhaps clean out the junk drawer, a bit of feng shui and space clearing, sage and clapping could help, get rid of those narcissistic cobwebs and pesky generic 'tudes.

:applause:

[omega minimo]

126. thanks for the link

http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/

[beam me up scottie]

203. STOP SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO FAIRIES!!1!!1 YOU KNOW WE HAS PROOF!!

http://raincoaster.com/2007/04/01/mummified-fairy-remains-found/">This is totally legit.

In news bound to rock doctrinaire Evolutionistas everywhere, another set of ancient fairy remains has been found. Assiduous readers of the ol’ raincoaster blog will recall our original reporting on the fossil fairy of Coney Island, which we broke to the larger world several months ago, much to the consternation of the scientific orthodoxy.

The proof is undeniable:

[DeSwiss]

212. I remember that image.....

...from the movie "The Exorcist....."




- The guy has really aged since the 60s. Must be a smoker......

[beam me up scottie]

217. Well, there you go, I didn't recognize him with the blond wig.

How embarrassing for him. :(

[TZ]

131. Some of us believe thinking with our head is better

than thinking with emotions. And before anyone accuses me of being a cold fish,no..I'm actually a very emotional person.
I just don't give a damn about religion, not in my life. Since I don't believe their is an after life why the hell should I spend my life worrying about stuff that doesn't make a difference? I've only got one life to live and I'm going to make the best of it.
I'm not going to fritter it away worrying about whether god exists or not. My belief doesn't make a difference one way or another anyway, God's existence doesn't depend on what one insignificant person thinks after all. If there is a God, well, I guess I'll find out after I'm dead won't I?

[omega minimo]

144. This is a good example of thinking

that you can define something you don't believe in. If it doesn't exist, how can you define it, in order to not believe in it?

[darkstar3]

166. You don't know it,

but you just showed how the logic in your OP is flawed.

You started the OP with the idea that lack of belief in something and active denial of that thing's existence are the same thing. You have continued with this conflation of two separate viewpoints in several subthreads. Now, here, thankfully, you begin to see where that falls apart. This statement:

If it doesn't exist, how can you define it, in order to not believe in it?

should be re-examined from all sides until you understand its impact on your argument.

Let me give you a starting point for that examination. Ask yourself this question:
True of False? You lack belief in any and all things that don't exist and that you haven't heard about.

[omega minimo]

169. Apparently that's where

your problem with the comprehension is. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. I did not, however:

"You started the OP with the idea that lack of belief in something and active denial of that thing's existence are the same thing."

[darkstar3]

173. To quote:

It seems bent on disbelieving, for the sake of disbelieving.
...
What if there is a God, what if there isn't, believing either way takes up some space, doesn't it?
...
I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown.
...

Three different statements all from the same OP representing atheism as an active denial rather than a simple lack of belief.

You can insult my reading comprehension all you like in an ad hom defense of your own statements, but you should remember 3 things:
1. A defense of that type is fallacious.
2. What you write and what it means to others can be very different. The concepts of implication, symbolism, metaphor, and many other writing tools come to mind...
3. Phrasing is important. Ask a cop. Sometimes, even though we might wish to remain shrouded in secrecy, the phrasing that we choose in communication can give people worlds of information. You showed your bias flat out with the statement I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve.

[omega minimo]

182. The OP is brief. It is questions. It is titled "Questions for the "Heart, Not the Head"

It is in context. It will not be chopped to bits and pinned to a board, rearranged or reinterpreted by you.

Bias? Some do disbelieve, don't they? I'm wondering about that. You're the one with the major 'tude, not me. Read in context, the selection you purport as indication of bias, is anything but.

I'm sorry you were offended.

Now you can apologize for purposely TRYING to be offended, in reply to my peaceful post indicating that the emphasis is on "not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown." Something we might all be able to relate to or discuss.

Or perhaps you enjoy being offended.



"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."
-Penn Jillette

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom too?"
-Douglas Adams


I like these quotes, even if I don't agree with the point of view. It seems bent on disbelieving, for the sake of disbelieving. If Penn Jillette is right, he has "more room for belief in" other things. How much room does his disbelief take up? What if there is a God, what if there isn't, believing either way takes up some space, doesn't it?

What if there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?


I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown.

Is disbelieving active, the way believing is active -- both forms of faith, taking up essentially the same space?

Does one feel better than the other? Does believing in a positive rather than a negative have an innately different effect on the believer?

[darkstar3]

185. You're trying to tell me about context,

when the quotes you've chosen are out of context? Are you REALLY going to go so far as to say that Douglas Adams or Penn Jillette ACTIVELY disbelieve in the supernatural? If you are, then you should know that these quotes do nothing to support that assertion.

[omega minimo]

187. "the supernatural"

is that what you actively call what you passively don't not disbelieve in?

:evilgrin:

[darkstar3]

191. You should always remember that, no matter how clever you think you are,

double negatives never make sense.

Your pulled quotes still don't support your assertion, and your little "context" defense still doesn't make sense in light of that.

[omega minimo]

188. "the supernatural"

is that what you actively call what you passively don't not disbelieve in?

[iris27]

224. If vampires don't exist, how can you define them, in order to not believe in them? n/t

[Jim__]

138. "Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic." - Penn Jillette

He makes this statement in the same interview that he makes the statement cited in the OP. I'm not clear on how he justifies it. I'm also not sure what this indicates about how much space his disbelief takes up.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

139. The answer is...

THUMP thump
THUMP thump
THUMP thump
THUMP thump

Because. you know, the heart is only a hydraulic pump. A critical-for-life hydraulic pump, but a hydraulic pump nonetheless.

The body part you really wanted to address is the Limbic System. I'll let mine answer. The keyboard's yours, LS.

Thank you, Neocortex! Thank you! I love you! SMOOOOCH!!!! You're the bestest! Why can't all those people's Neocortexes and Limbic Systems get along with each other like we do? Sigh.

Oh, the question! It's very simple, my dear. We feel extremely good with our disbelief because truth feels good. The act of Knowing, although it's largely concocted by my outer-layer darling here, fills me with joy, pride, and a warm sense of belonging that the ancient methods you favor just can't match.

And -- give me a hint here, Neo -- ah, of course, our disbelief is important because truth is important.

The active thing... lemme see... it does feel less active than believing. Sorry, don't know why, can't give you more details -- hey, I'm not the thinker, I'm the feeler! Back to you, Neo sweetie! And thanks for lending me your language circuits. Kisses! Mwah mwah!

Thanks, LS. Let me elaborate a little about why disbelief is less active. It's, essentially, being informed of something and reaching a conclusion. This kind of thing happens automatically and without a deliberate effort. If someone tells you no houses in Toronto are painted yellow, then eventually you visit Toronto and see a yellow house, you immediately come to the conclusion that that person was wrong. This comes into your head and there's nothing you can do to to take it off.

[iris27]

161. YES. THIS.

"Let me elaborate a little about why disbelief is less active. It's, essentially, being informed of something and reaching a conclusion. This kind of thing happens automatically and without a deliberate effort. If someone tells you no houses in Toronto are painted yellow, then eventually you visit Toronto and see a yellow house, you immediately come to the conclusion that that person was wrong. This comes into your head and there's nothing you can do to to take it off."

None of this "defining something (and therefore believing in it on some level, hur hur) in order to disbelieve it" nonsense. Other people who exist in the world say (for example), "This is my God, Jesus! You should believe in Him!" And we look at the deity so presented, and say "Nope, sorry, it would hurt my head to believe that God loves everyone so much that they'll burn forever if they don't worship him." And we walk on, continuing life without a belief in that god, and maybe wondering a little bit about the friend who suggested him to us.

[omega minimo]

172. ".... not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown...."

I have reread the OP again, due to some of the reactions to it. The core of what I was trying to open discussion about comes down to that phrase above.

[darkstar3]

176. Which is still an assumption and mischaracterization.

Tell me, what in the phrase "I lack belief" leads you to see any kind of "absolutes"?

[omega minimo]

179. belief in what?

[darkstar3]

181. It doesn't matter,

and you're dodging the question. Where is the absolute(s)?

[omega minimo]

184. nevermind

you think you've got me "pegged"

[darkstar3]

189. Dodged, and gone. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

196. Nicely done.

What's that old saying about giving people enough rope?
:toast:

[darkstar3]

198. Thank you.

:beer:

[omega minimo]

220. Time to go back to the septic tank

pat each other on the back.

[iris27]

180. Quoted from my #106

"My inner space is all about remaining open and observant to the wonders of the universe as we discover them with the tools we have, instead of pretending the goosebumps I got at church when the sanctuary was kept too cold were the touch of Holy Spirit."

There's a lot out there we have no explanations for...isn't it better to admit that and stand in awe at what we don't know, than to pretend we do know because Scripture X or Faith Tradition Y says "these are the answers"?

[omega minimo]

221. This was interesting

but you made your choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=239458&mesg_id=239921

[iris27]

229. So civility, in your definition, means ignoring everyone else's incivility?

Or do you just dislike the company I keep?

Whatever. I haven't gotten any answers from you anyhow, so I can't count this as any big loss. It appears to the casual observer as if you would rather bicker back and forth with those you deem venemous than engage in polite discussion where you actually might have to answer questions.

[omega minimo]

231. I was looking forward to continuing this exchange

with you when I returned to the thread. I have "engage in polite discussion" with you. Your jibes don't do you any favors. And "where you actually might have to answer questions" is just an echo of the same shite repeated about me by the toxic marauders. When antagonists attack, they have no right to make any sort of demands.

The reason I poked fun at "rise to the occasion" and "proving me wrong" is that it expresses that same ill spirit of antagonism, which I pointed out, is not the only way to have a discussion.

Being antagonistic, instigating derogatory activity in threads, ganging up to do it together, whether the bell is rung in the septic tank or not, is NOT CIVIL.

By any definition.

[darkstar3]

232. "I'll be the victim!"

All your life...

[omega minimo]

237. Wise guy, eh?

[beam me up scottie]

239. Stay tuned to find out what happens next week on "As the Breaking Wheel Turns".

Brought to you by Persecutions-R-Us™ where Your Fantasy is our Crusade.

Pleasure working with you. :patriot:

[omega minimo]

243. Classic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=239458&mesg_id=239740


                     sigh...I can't believe we're still arguing about this.
 beam me up scottie 
 Mar-17-10 09:01 PM 
 #94 
                        I know,
 darkstar3 
 Mar-17-10 09:05 PM 
 #97 
                        We have quite a comprehensive collection of knowledge about this subject.
 beam me up scottie 
 Mar-17-10 09:24 PM 
 #109 
                           Why should they listen to us?
 darkstar3 
 Mar-17-10 09:27 PM 
 #111 
                              Down here you're better off being a muslim/jew/wiccan/etc, 'cuz at least you believe in SOMETHING.
 beam me up scottie 
 Mar-17-10 09:46 PM 
 #112 
                                 I grew up in the rural south,
 darkstar3 
 Mar-17-10 09:53 PM 
 #113 
                                    Atheist DUers have been accused of hindering crusades to lesson hurricanes and shorten wars.

[beam me up scottie]

248. Are you seriously comparing actual bigotry to the responses your ignorant op elicited?

"a couple of them came in and immediately did in this thread, even referencing offline resentments, to hijack this thread and badmouth anyone who got in the way of the all purpose victimization and vitriol."

Compared to people who have lost jobs, alienated friends and relatives and had their patriotism called into question by a sitting president, this selfish little pity party is pathetic.

Maybe next time you're in the mood to stereotype a group of people you'll be wise enough to avoid DU atheists (and their buddies).

[omega minimo]

250. It's impossible to keep up with your spin gone over the edge...............

Get some sleep, BMUS. Sweet dreams. :boring:

[beam me up scottie]

253. Maybe you should reread your ignorant and biased op.

And then read the objections from all of the DU atheists posted in this thread. (I would ask you to re-read them but it appears you've either skipped over or are ignoring them altogether)

It's not hard to keep up, o, you told us what we believed and we didn't like it.

It is illiberal and intolerant.

Stop it.

[omega minimo]

259. stated a couple times in the thread that I have reread the OP several times, with replies in mind

I have stated a couple times in the thread that I have reread the OP several times, with replies in mind, with an eye for what might have offended unintentionally, for what I might have worded differently and offered to clarify or answer CIVIL objections.

Perhap "you've either skipped over or are ignoring them altogether"




You don't speak for "all of the DU atheists posted in this thread."
They haven't all said the same thing or marched in lockstep behind you.
Several provided valuable insights, including those who couldn't be civil about it.
They are appreciated.

[beam me up scottie]

265. You ignored most of those "valuable insights" including my first post #62.

beam me up scottie (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-17-10 06:53 PM
Response to Original message

62. "How much room does his disbelief take up?"

None, the absence of belief is the null hypothesis.

Not believing in a personal deity takes up no more room than not believing in Santa Claus, astrology or others' personal deities.

How can you actively disbelieve in things you have no knowledge of?

Then you decided you knew better than I what I believed or didn't:

"You've managed to show how that disbelief is an equivalent faith.
Rather than mere ambivalence. Another type of black and white thinking.

Interesting how you and others put a quantitative value to it."

And if you really think my opinion regarding your ignorance and intolerance on this subject is isolated, I recommend a strong dose of reality - none of that homeopathic crap.

[omega minimo]

267. Which you have absolutely no way of knowing, what I read or not

You are not in any position to make any demands about how or when or if you receive a reply to your posts. Perhaps if you were more civil.



My comment is valid. It's not. Your claim is specious: " ...decided you knew better than I what I believed or didn't." You are the one who made these two equivalent:
..........................
beam me up scottie
117. Uh huh.

"I'm wondering why it's so important to some to disbelieve, rather than to remain open and observant, believing our experiences, not devoting inner space to absolutes about the unknown."

"Who are these "some" people? And why won't you let them define themselves?

"What kind of response should an atheist expect if I posted something like:

"I'm wondering why it's so important to some to believe, rather than see the world as it is, remain skeptical and use critical thinking, not devoting valuable time and money believing in fairy tales."

"Yeah, right, thought so."
........................................






"And if you really think my opinion regarding your ignorance and intolerance on this subject is isolated ..."

It's clear that you try to infect others with your opinion, which is one reason your misrepresentations and persistent hostility is objectionable. Also another reason you may find your posts ignored.

[iris27]

234. I am part of no gang.

I am frustrated at having been ignored in favor of the people you claim you can't stand. You say they're not civil. But you're talking to them and not to me.

[omega minimo]

236. Yes

"There's a lot out there we have no explanations for...isn't it better to admit that and stand in awe at what we don't know, than to pretend we do know because Scripture X or Faith Tradition Y says "these are the answers"?"

[iris27]

283. I'm glad you agree.

To me, that statement describes one of the primary reason I lack belief in any gods. Most other atheists that I've spoken to on the topic hold similar opinions. This might be why you're getting such confusion at and resistance to the idea that we have devoted inner space to absolutes and/or are struggling with one deity or another.

[Deep13]

285. The reason is because those things are not true.

I can see why you don't want people using their heads to answer this. The actual evidence is at the very least strongly suggestive of a purely naturalistic universe with no supernatural control at all. In my view and in the view of many, the way the universe actually is precludes anything we might call a god. For me to pretend otherwise is an act of self-deception.

[omega minimo]

289. As long as everyone shares your assumptions

(Actively ignoring your barb in your first sentence)


"The actual evidence is at the very least strongly suggestive of a purely naturalistic universe with no supernatural control at all. In my view and in the view of many, the way the universe actually is precludes anything we might call a god. For me to pretend otherwise is an act of self-deception."


Who said anything about the supernatural? What is "the supernatural"? Why assume any suggestion of "the supernatural," whatever that is?


"Anything we might call a god...." What does that mean? Think about it. Feel free to use your head. ;-) It contains and depends upon an assumption of what you mean by that.


"...the way the universe actually is precludes anything we might call a god."

Without the (previously questioned) mutually accepted assumption about "anything we might call a god," does that sentence make sense? "Precludes" as in what? The assumption proves that something else is a given?


"For me to pretend otherwise is an act of self-deception."

"Pretend"? As in "assume" and expect others to accept the same assumptions without question?

:shrug: