An attempt at explanation...

[darkstar3]

There is no such thing as darkness. There is only light, and the absence of light.

There is no such thing as cold. There is only heat, and the absence of heat.

There is no such thing as silence. There is only sound, and the absence of sound.

And along the same lines, I would like for so many people, on the internet and in my own life, to understand:
There is no such thing as atheism. There is only theism, and the absence of theism.

[daleanime]

1. So there is no such thing as ignorance....

just an absence of knowledge? Or hunger, just missing food?





Then there are no mistakes, just missing truth. This makes my life much easier.:evilgrin:

[darkstar3]

5. In order:

Yes. Ignorance is simply the absence of knowledge.

No, hunger is a neurological response to a lack of food. An extra action, a nervous system signal (or set of signals), is required for you to feel hunger, and therefore it is more than simply the lack of food.

Your final statements make no sense.

[daleanime]

6. Sorry. up too late....

tired attempt to point out that logic doesn't work in matters of faith, you believe or you don't.

[Iggo]

2. K&R

[iris27]

3. Well, "a-theism" IS the absence of theism...that's all the word means, no more, no less.

Those who want to dismiss it as "a belief like any other" pretend not to understand this.

[darkstar3]

4. This PSA was brought to you by common sense.

We now resume your regularly scheduled douchebaggery, already in progress...

[EvolveOrConvolve]

7. Stop bashing the religious with your logic! You're a bigot!

You're just being hateful with your logic and facts and stuff! Why do you have to persecute christians!!!1!!one!!!

:sarcasm:

[Jim__]

8. "There is no such thing as darkness. There is only light, and the absence of light." Really?

Think of the night sky. Specifically, think of the part of the night sky that we perceive as black. Is there light in that part of the sky, or is there an absence of light? And, given that there is plenty of light present in the night sky (even the part that we perceive as black), are we wrong if we refer to it as dark? Does dark mean the same thing as absence of light?

[beam me up scottie]

9. whooooooooooooooooooooosh!

If you're quick you can still catch it...

[darkstar3]

34. Is dark really dark?

Is cold really cold?

:bored:

Talk of spectra if you like, but you will always find at least one end to those spectra. Everything in the 3D physical world comes to zero eventually.

[Jim__]

36. The point being that your claim is wrong.

The night sky is full of light; yet it is dark. So, darkness is not the absence of light.

[darkstar3]

37. Take a physics class and study optics.

Does darkness have rays? Particles? Does darkness travel? How is it measured? Oh, that's right, it's not! Light is measured by a photometer, and darkness is found when the photometer reaches 0.

Try again, Jim...

[Jim__]

38. I have studied optics.

I understand that the full moon reflects light rays from the sun, light rays that are present in the night sky. Yet, when we have a new moon, we see the night sky as dark. Are you denying that the night sky is (mostly - ignoring distant stars and the moon when it's visible) dark? My point is that the night sky is dark even though light is present. Therefore, darkness is not the absence of light.

The world is more complex than you like to pretend.

[darkstar3]

40. If darkness exists separately from light,

if it is in fact more than simply the absence or lack of light, then show me the hallmarks of its existence. Show me a dark ray. Show me a dark particle. Show me a way to measure darkness that does not in fact measure light and the lack thereof.

Edit: typing without caffeine.

[Jim__]

43. I've already told you.

Look at the night sky. The full moon reflects the light that is always contained in the night sky. Yet, when we have a new moon, we see the night sky as dark. Do you want to measure the amount of light in the night sky? Put a light meter up there at, say, the height of the moon, on a night of a new moon. How is it that the night sky is full of light, yet we see darkness?

Darkness is not the absence of light. To us, as we use the word "darkness," darkness is the failure to perceive light.

[darkstar3]

44. Wow, weak tea...

To us, as we use the word "darkness," darkness is the failure to perceive light.
Which, if you want to go through this language circle-jerk, could also be described as an "absence of light reaching the retina."

What's funny about your failure here is that even if you somehow HAD managed to make a point about darkness being more than the simple absence of light, you wouldn't have changed or answered what was said in the OP one iota. Now go play badly at semantics with someone else.

[Jim__]

46. Language is hardly "weak tea."

Sloppiness in language is sloppiness in thought.

Since you didn't draw the obvious analogy, I'll help you. You said: There is no such thing as atheism. There is only theism, and the absence of theism. But, atheism is also more than just the absence of theism. Previously, in this forum, I've been told that atheists frequently pray. That indicates to me that atheism is not, simply, absence of theism - if it were atheists would never pray.

[darkstar3]

48. You're gonna have to pony up the proof on that one,

'cause I don't buy for a moment that there are atheists who pray.

[Jim__]

50. Funny, you were in the middle of that discussion and did not express any surprise at the time.

I was the only one who expressed surprise that atheists pray:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=235591#235650

Look around post #32.

[darkstar3]

51. "People pray"

vs. "atheists pray"...and you lecture me on language usage...

[Jim__]

54. I also point out that you have to consider context.

The context here is, poster said:

We 'test' that all the time by falling into our magic thinking habit, which is very old in us. I mean in each of us. It takes many years of using the brain and living in the world to get over that habit. People pray when they're in danger because they simply don't know what else to do. They're praying to the same god of the gaps the intelligent design people appeal to to explain "irreducible complexity."

And I replied:

That's interesting. I don't ever pray. I wonder of some of this strong anti-religion sentiment we get here is because some people are overly defensive of their atheism. I mean, if some atheists fall into magical thinking "all the time," then it sounds like they're not very convinced of their atheism.

No one questioned my reply that it was atheists falling into magical thinking. And the whole discussion was over a story in which an atheist prayed.

[darkstar3]

55. Oh please...

The atheist in question "prayed" by reflex after years of childhood training and indoctrination. That was part of the point BurtWorm was trying to make to you. And if you want to continue that conversation then go bump that thread.

And BTW: When people ignore something you say, that doesn't make it true.

[Jim__]

57. The poster said that atheists fall into "magical thinking" all the time.

If that is true, then we can't claim an absence of theism. And, no, the athiest didn't fall into prayer because of habit, he prayed out of fear and desperation. The same thing that the poster said happens.

[iris27]

71. Well, first, that poster doesn't speak for all or even most atheists.

And I'm sure if you asked him, he would agree that this happens only insofar as it's ingrained into people by the larger culture and isn't a voluntary action.

It is not something to use to claim the presence of theism unless you want to characterize every Christian's momentary doubts as the presence of atheism.

[BurtWorm]

105. He's totally misrepresenting what I was arguing.

I was talking about the stage of magical thinking that virtually every child goes through and that many religious people never grow out of, as far as their religion goes, the kind of magical thinking that has children believing that wishing (or praying) will make something so. This culture constantly works at reinforcing the belief in wishful/magical thinking. I posited that as a plausible cause for an atheist who thinks he or she is about to die to suddenly throw caution and reason to the wind and begin praying for dear life. (Kind of like George Clooney's character in O Brother Where Art Thou when he's facing a noose. The aftermath of that scene is right to the point of this discussion.)

But just because you give in to prayer when all else fails doesn't mean you should take it seriously when it seems to bear results. Because we atheists tend to recognize magical thinking, even in ourselves, for exactly what it is, there's no good reason to believe one prayer in the wilderness refutes all previous experience of prayer. Most of us are grown up enough not to fall for that shit.

For some reason, Jim can't hear this argument. He's stuck on the idea that a prayer that seems to work is a prayer that ought to be taken seriously. He is completely incapable, apparently, of seeing that a lifetime's experience of the general fruitlessness of prayer should be weighed against the one prayer that appeared to bear fruit.

[beam me up scottie]

106. Like the "No Atheists in Foxholes" meme.

I don't want to invoke the "No True Atheist" clause in the Jim's contract, but I will do it.

I have one of these and I'm not afraid to use it (I stole uh, I mean borrowed it from trotsky) :

[darkstar3]

107. Sounds like confirmation bias.

Not to mention misrepresentation, but that's a whole other issue...

[iris27]

108. Even having not read the other thread, it was pretty obvious that he was twisting some things.

But I figured I'd blow right past that in order to point out that he probably doesn't think theists must never entertain even a second's doubt in order for the definition of "theism" to remain valid. I notice that he has yet to reply to any of the places in this thread where I've asked about that comparison.

But hey, if a prayer that seems to work is a prayer that ought to be taken seriously, then more people really ought to be praying to Joe Pesci. After all, he answered George Carlin's prayers about half the time... :)

[BurtWorm]

93. Who said "atheists" fall into magic thinking all the time?

[iris27]

56. Well, I'm an atheist who doesn't pray. Not even when I don't know what else to do.

I'd say this is just an unconscious mental reflex on the part of some people who grew up indoctrinated in religion, not something atheists do as a part of a supposed belief system of atheism or anything.

The only thing all atheists have in common is their lack of belief in a deity.

[Jim__]

58. So am I - as stated in that thread.

However, the claim that atheists pray, not challenged by anyone at the time, was made by aposter defending atheism. I accepted what he said then and I am accepting it now.

[iris27]

62. But you are using these people's ingrained vestiges of religious upbringing to try to suggest

that atheism is something other than lack of belief in a deity. It's not.

[Jim__]

64. I'm basing my claim on what some atheists have told me.

And that is that they struggle with a lack of belief, which means that they don't fully lack belief, yet they claim to be atheists.

[iris27]

72. Do you deny someone's right to call themselves a theist

if they struggle with that belief? If they ever have a momentary doubt as to whether their god is really up there, they can't be a theist? Or do you insist that the definition of "theist" as "someone who believes in the existence of a god" is incorrect if some theists have moments of disbelief?

[Jim__]

79. No. Nor do I deny anyone the right to call themself an atheist.

I think it's perfectly fine for someone who prays to call themself an atheist. People can call themself anything they want. I am noting that no one objected to that claim when it was made. Now, we are told there is no such thing as atheism. I guess I have to wonder what that self-identified atheist was identifying with.

[iris27]

83. But you are using that claim to say that the OP's definition of

atheism as "a lack of theism" is wrong. Would you similarly tell a theist that their definition as "one who believes in a deity" is wrong because some theists somewhere else once expressed doubt?

I think the OP tried a little too hard for cadence on the "no such thing as" bit...see my very first post in this thread (#3).

Atheism IS the absence of theism, just like theism IS the belief in a deity, regardless of moments where individual theists or atheists briefly consider ideas on the other side of the fence.

The OP is tired (as am I!) of people trying to say that atheism is anything else than NOT possessing theistic beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

73. You're not agnostic. You are a closet scientologist who believes fairies live in your garden.

Agnostics are not really agnostic, they're closet scientologists who leave orgone muffins for the fairies in their gardens.

I'm basing my claim on what one agnostic DUer told me.

[BurtWorm]

94. You're being deeply dishonest..

No one said atheists pray all the time. I said "people pray" when they don't know what else to do. Not all people, not all atheists. You gave an example of an atheist who prayed (in an anecdote concocted by David Foster Wallace for a commencement address he gave at Kenyon College), and, taking it as a plausible enough story, I suggested that he had fallen into an old habit of magical thinking, which is very deep in humans. You construed his behavior as an experiment that yielded, apparently, positive results. You criticized this hypothetical person for not taking his experiment seriously. I argued that doing so would be a waste of his time because very little thought would demonstrate the fallacy of believing that god had answered his prayers. In the anecdote, the atheist apparently thought so too.

[Jim__]

98. I'm being completely honest - see post #97 for more details.

[darkstar3]

53. Now you accuse me of sloppiness when you can't even show the hallmarks of the existence of darkness.

You want so badly for me to admit that darkness exists separately from the mere absence of light, and yet you can't show how. Your weak attempts at taking colloquial usage and turning that into proof of darkness being more than merely the absence of light do nothing to change scientific fact.

Then you try to combat my simple statement about atheism with the worst reading of an English language post I've seen in quite a long time. Atheists pray?! REALLY?! THAT'S what you took from the post you tried to point to?

Do you have a single argument worth considering, or are you simply content to wallow in the imprecise nature of the English language and tear EVERYTHING posted in this forum down to semantics?

[Jim__]

59. The imprecise nature of the English language? What was the OP about?

It appears to be about English usage. When people post here, they are using colloquial English.

[darkstar3]

61. So, no,

you don't have an argument worth considering and yes, you're only interested in semantics.

Have fun with that.

[Jim__]

63. So, the OP wasn't about the casual use of English? So, the terms you were using don't really ...

apply to our use of English on DU?

[darkstar3]

65. Actually, no, it wasn't about casual use of English,

and it certainly wasn't about your favorite topic of semantics.

[Jim__]

66. So, it wasn't about the use of language on DU. - n/t

[darkstar3]

67. And that changes what, exactly? n/t

[Jim__]

68. It changes my understanding of why it was posted on DU.

I thought it was posted there to address the use of certain words on DU. Now, I'm not quite sure why it was posted there. The OP appears to be expressing a point of view toward the usage of certain words; but that point of view does not apply to general English usage where the words are not considered to refer to non-existent entities. The OP seems to be quite pointless.

[darkstar3]

69. So since I won't play your semantic game the OP is pointless?

I see how you pulled that dismissal out of your ass, there.

The OP was about atheism, and the fact that it is very simple and yet very misunderstood by many here, as has been so effectively demonstrated by your semantic circle-jerk of a subthread.

[Jim__]

76. The semantic game is not mine. The OP concerns semantics.

You seem to think that semantics is some sort of perjorative. Semantics essentially deals with meaning. That's what your OP is about.

When someone challenges you are on you preferred "meaning", talking about actual "meaning" is suddenly a game you don't want to play.

[iris27]

80. I'm guessing the game he doesn't want to play is the one where

he asserts the meaning of a word as personally experienced and as derived from the etymology of the word itself, and then you tell him, "No, it can't mean that, because not all people who claim that label behave in ways consistent with that meaning 100% of the time".

[darkstar3]

82. Nice try.

You're not interested in preferred meanings, you want to hide in vagueness and claim that this vagueness somehow gives you the right to redefine atheism at will. If you were interested in anything more than dancing between different ideas of darkness, cold, and theism, you would have shown before how darkness can be defined as anything other than the absence or lack of light. But you can't show that. In fact, you can't argue any of the points made in the OP with any level of seriousness, but you still want to find a way to dismiss it because it stomps on your rhetorical convenience, so you parse words, and when nobody wants to play that game you call the thread useless.

I refuse to continue this stupidity with you unless and until you provide a way to show, define, or measure darkness that doesn't involve the absence or lack of light. (I notice also that you haven't even tried this bullshit with the heat/cold setup above. I wonder why?)

[Jim__]

85. Please.

you would have shown before how darkness can be defined as anything other than the absence or lack of light.

See post #43.

you haven't even tried this bullshit with the heat/cold setup above. I wonder why?)

You really wonder why? I thought the simple extension to those words was rather obvious; and didn't require explicit mention. Is it really necessary to go through this on each word individually?

There is no such thing as cold. There is only heat, and the absence of heat.

So, absolute zero is cold, nothing else?

There is no such thing as silence. There is only sound, and the absence of sound.

Yes, and if there is no "sound" but the "sound" of a dog whistle, is there silence? If there isn't, tell me how we know when there is silence.

[darkstar3]

86. So, restating your hypothesis as a supporting fact is a way to debate now?

You are an insufferable bore.

[Jim__]

87. Name calling is both a weak attempt at argument and childish. - n/t

[iris27]

88. We know silence when a frequency counter picks up no pressure waves traveling

through the air...which probably never happens except under controlled laboratory conditions. Kinda like absolute zero.

Infrasound has been shown to have an effect on humans even if it can't be heard - pressure on the chest, ear pain despite not hearing any sound, feelings of uneasiness or fear. In particular, 19 Hz is the resonant frequency of the human eyeball, and combined with the other effects mentioned, is thought to be a possible rational explanation for many ghost sightings.

[BurtWorm]

92. Who said atheists frequently pray?

[Jim__]

97. You said atheists pray.

Yes, you said "we test all the time". Our whole conversation was about prayer and using prayer as a test. And, in 2 separate replies to that I said, I'm an atheist and I don't pray.

You said (post #32):

We 'test' that all the time by falling into our magic thinking habit, which is very old in us.
Edited on Tue Feb-09-10 11:53 AM by BurtWorm
I mean in each of us. It takes many years of using the brain and living in the world to get over that habit. People pray when they're in danger because they simply don't know what else to do. They're praying to the same god of the gaps the intelligent design people appeal to to explain "irreducible complexity."

The 2nd time I replied that atheists don't pray, I said:

Actually, I am an atheist.
I don't pray. Not even in dire situations. That's why I was somewhat surprised you said "we" test all the time. I don't test. I'm comfortable in my atheism. I am also not anti-religion and it appears that a lot of atheists on this forum are anti-religion. If they are "testing" all the time, maybe they are insecure in their atheism and that leads to their anti-religious stance.

DFW's story to thiose students seems very clear to me. The atheist in the storm prays and says God I;m gonna die if you don't help me. He doesn't die. Then he dismisses his prayer. It seems like consummate idiocy to make that prayer and then ignore that you got what you asked for.

And, your reply - directly to that post was:

By 'we' I meant we humans.
You're fine with relgiion, but you call human nature "consummate idiocy." But I understand your point. You've become an enlightened religion-tolerating atheist and if only we would grok where you're coming from we'd be enlightened religion-tolerating atheists like you. (In that instance, my "we" meant trotsky, darkstar3 and I, just to be clear.)

You seemed to clearly accept that in your post #32, you were talking about atheists praying. From your entry into the conversation at post #19 down through post #70 we were just talking about prayer and using prayer as a test.

[BurtWorm]

99. 'By 'we' I meant we humans. ;

Where did I ever say "By 'we' I meant 'we atheists?'"

The praying atheist was your hypothetical example, not mine.

For the record, atheists as a rule don't pray. If you ever encounter a praying atheist, you can rest assured that either a) he or she is not actually an atheist or b) he or she is not really praying but doing what the hypotheticsl praying atheist in your example was doing, which is, acting supersticiously for lack of any better idea at the moment.

[darkstar3]

100. I said "oh god" last night

after the dog got under my feet and I almost fell into the dining room table. Whatever shall I call myself now that I can't be an atheist anymore?

teh stupid, it burns...

[beam me up scottie]

103. Just shut up and let other people tell you what you believe.

Now eat your peas and stop arguing with Teh Grand Poohbah of AthIests.

[Jim__]

101. Please. The whole discussion was about an atheist praying.

My prior post:

That's interesting. I don't ever pray.
I wonder of some of this strong anti-religion sentiment we get here is because some people are overly defensive of their atheism. I mean, if some atheists fall into magical thinking "all the time," then it sounds like they're not very convinced of their atheism.

And your response:

Atheism is not something you talk yourself into.
You're not an atheist, I take it, or you'd know that. It's more like a scientific theory that gets confirmed for you as you gain experience over time. ...

We were clearly talking about atheists.

The whole issue was if an antheist prayed and his prayer appeared to be answered, he should test further, otherwise the test made no sense. Your response was "we test all the time; and then how atheism gets confirmed over time.

[BurtWorm]

102. You said "It sounds like they're not very convinced of their atheism"

as though atheism were something atheists convince themselves to believe. You call yourself an atheist: Do you convince yourself to believe in your atheism? Are you an atheist because you talked yourself into being one? How would anyone manage that?

In other words, are you arguing that atheists *don't* come to atheism through life experience that reinforces their atheism? Is an atheist whose whole life has taught him that prayer has no cause-and-effect relationship to phenomena in the world going to suddenly believe in prayer because one time a prayer for help precedes the arrival of help? You think he *ought* to be so foolish. I don't understand why, but clearly that's what you think. You dress it up as "being aware," but you can't explain why this mystical "awareness" should be anymore worthy of being taken seriously after a prayer than before it. You can't give a convincing distinction between why this prayer should be taken more seriously than the rubbing of a rabbit's foot or any other act of superstition.

Clearly you're married to this idea that is utterly wrong. No amount of energy will disabuse you of that. So there we are. You seem to be a slave to your ideas about language. You want words to be like strait-jackets for meaning.

[Jim__]

111. I also said, "if some atheists fall into magical thinking "all the time," "

Which is the point here. If some atheist fall into magical thinking, then its not as simple as there is only theism or an absence of theism. Life is not that simple.

[BurtWorm]

112. Are you arguing for a category of half-assed belief?

Or belief if and only if prayers are answered, otherwise non-belief?

Some atheists fall into magical thinking (always temporarily and/or unconsciously) because humans in general fall into magical thinking. Magical thinking, despite being highly valued by religious, cultural and political leaders and highly reinforced in us from a very young age, is fallacious thinking. It's belief that phenomena can be caused by things that have no cause-and-effect relationship to them. It's what lies at the heart of most religious belief: The volcano blows because the volcano god is angry with us for not propitiating it; if we give it a goat, it will be appeased and won't blow again. If I ask God for a favor, God will grant it to me, unless I am not asking God the right way, or God is angry with me, in which case, he won't grant me my prayer. Magical thinking is caused by our mistaken belief that anything that seems to act in the world acts because something intends it. It does take discipline to unlearn the old habit of seeing intentionality everywhere and to accept randomness and accident for what they are, as frightening as it is to us to contemplate. An intentional universe is a much more comfortable place for us intentional beings. But that certainly doesn't mean that the universe is intentional. Far from it.

[Jim__]

113. I am arguing that the world more complex than black and white.

Atheists, at least some of them, occasionally fall into "religious" types of practices. It's not a complete absence of theism.

[iris27]

114. And conversely, theism is not a complete absence of atheism?

What a useless, nitpicky argument you're making.

[Jim__]

118. It's hardly "nitpicky."

Have you read 1984? Do you remember one of the cleansing actions they were putting language through in order to totally control what people were able to think. It was the removal of all nuance from language. There was not "good" and "evil", there was only "good" and "ungood". There was not "light" and "dark", there was only "light", and "unlight."

Language may be the most important tool that humans have. So, yes, I object when people try to diminish its power.

[iris27]

125. 1984? Hyperbolic much?

Yes, if you look at my reply to the "five lights" post, you'll see I am rather familiar with 1984. However, I don't at all agree that the OP was trying to diminish the power of language. It seems much more likely that he was seeking precise meaning for the label that society gives his epistemological opinions.

It seems fairly obvious to me -- a person who's only been following the central debates on this board for a couple weeks -- that the OP is objecting to those who would claim that the term "atheism" means things it does not. Most of the atheists on this board are tired of being told that if we would claim the label atheist, it must mean Things X, Y, and Z that we don't believe.

We're told that atheists deny that any gods can possibly exist. We're told that we must not believe in an afterlife. We're told we are "eliminative materialists".

In fact, the only thing that all atheists have in common - and thus, the only thing that is an accurate definition for "atheist" - is believing in one less god than most everybody else. The rest are all separate issues described with separate labels - strong/weak atheist, skeptic/not, etc.

Maybe the OP stated his objection in a way you don't think is effective. But simply saying so, or even bringing up your parallels to Newspeak your first post in the thread, would've been much less disingenuous than starting in with all the "what about the full moon" nonsense.

[BurtWorm]

115. A religious "practice" is not theism, is it?

In my experience, it's more of an old habit. Atheists address god all the time out of sheer force of habit. They speak to the dead, knowing full well the dead can't hear them. They make wishes. They cross their fingers, cross their hearts and hope to die. All of this is pure habitual superstition. It's not pious. It's not in reference to anything realer than the habit itself.

The fact remains: Either you believe or you don't believe. True, there are self-described theists who want to believe, who believe in belief, and secretly don't really believe. And there are self-described atheists who actually do fear god but wish they didn't (i.e., who believe in non-belief). But at heart those people know if they believe or don't believe.

There is no mushy third category of half-assed belief. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is, and you haven't come close.

[Jim__]

116. It is an indication that there is not a complete lack of belief.

I am quite content with the term "atheism". I do not agree that there is no such thing as atheism.

[BurtWorm]

117. Do you believe in God?

[Jim__]

119. No.

[BurtWorm]

120. My answer: no.

Is "sort of" or "sometimes" an acceptable answer?

I accept "I don't know." That's the agnostic's answer. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

[Jim__]

121. "sort of" or "sometimes" is an acceptable answer to me. - n/t

[BurtWorm]

122. To me those answers need further investigation.

What does sort of believe really mean? Why sometimes and not all the time? What are the contingencies of belief for those people?

[Jim__]

123. That's fine.

If someone gives me that answer, I just accept it. I'm not normally that concerned about whether or not someone else believes in god.

[BurtWorm]

124. I'm interested in what they say about their beliefs.

If they share what they believe, I'm interested.

[darkstar3]

126. And the "Ironic Post of the Day Award" goes to...

:rofl:

[iris27]

45. Good grief, Jim. Human tendency to pick a point on a scale

and call everything past that point "dark" or "cold" does not negate the fact that both temperature and illumination are measured beginning from zero, and are in fact only measures of how little/how much heat or light is present.

It is hotter in Minnesota in the winter than in the Arctic, but they both register as "cold" to human perception because the heat present is not sufficient for human comfort. Similarly, the night sky is lighter than the inside of a cave without artificial illumination, but they are both "dark" to human perception because the amount of light present isn't enough to do tasks, or walk or drive safely.

Doesn't change the fact that cold and dark are only ways of describing how little heat and light are around.

[Jim__]

47. Your claim is just plain wrong.

Humans do not just pick a point on a scale and claim that everything beyond that point is cold or dark. Language is far more complex. But, if we accept your claim, then we still have that darkness is not the absence of light.

But further, the point I made in post #43, is that the amount of light has very little to do with what we call darkness. The night sky that we call dark is full of light. To test my claim, look at he next full moon.

[iris27]

52. What I'm saying that casual language use and scientific measurement

are very different. Just because most people call the night sky "dark" doesn't mean there's no measurable light there. But the difference between that and high noon is measured in terms of how much LESS LIGHT there is at night, not how much MORE DARK. That's the point.

[Jim__]

60. And what is the OP about? Appears to me it is about casual language use. - n/t

[iris27]

70. No, it's not.

Casual language use is fine when no one is being incorrectly characterized by its inaccuracies, but when that happens, we try to go to the next step and nail down what a word really means.

Obviously "cold" in its casual use means different things to different people. We see this in GD anytime it snows in Dallas, when everyone from Maine is crowing "That's not COLD! We haven't seen the ground since October up here!" But when trying to speak precisely, there is no definition of "cold"...there's only less and less heat until zero Kelvin, when atoms stop moving entirely.

Atheists in R/T are continually told that they believe Things X, Y, and Z that they don't ascribe to, because it serves someone else's rhetorical purposes for the label "atheist" to mean those things. But all it really means is "no theism here". It is the absolute zero on the "belief in a deity" scale.

[darkstar3]

74. Well put.

It is the absolute zero on the "belief in a deity" scale.
I like that one.

[Jim__]

77. Casual language is what is used on DU.

Formal language is both difficult and tedious. Since we always use casual language, claiming we now need to use formal language is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

I gave a clear example above of atheist being used differently than described in the OP. But, it was used in an argument favored by some of the same people who now want to resort to a new definition. But, it was previously accepted when convenient. Sorry, that's not acceptable.

[iris27]

78. But you are trying to make casual language into a formal definition.

I never saw this other "magical thinking" thread except in what you've quoted here, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that not one atheist on there thought they were putting forth any sort of definition of atheism.

Would you say that a thread wherein theists discussed occasions on which they had doubts about their beliefs would be proof of a different definition of theist than "someone who believes in a deity"?

Casual language is fine, except when it's being used to define people in ways they tell you are inaccurate. To me, THAT is not acceptable.

I could give you many clear examples of "Christian" being used differently than the way many Christians on here see themselves...specifically, the more fringe denominations who like to say that one MUST believe in Doctrine X in order to really be a Christian.

We have had at least one epic thread in here about what the label "Christian" really means, in which Christian posters were the prominent voices. Why, then, are atheists denied the right to define themselves as no more and no less than basic etymology of their label?

[Jim__]

81. No, I'm not. I'm merely denying the accuracy of the definitions given in the OP. - n/t

[iris27]

84. You are denying the accuracy of a posited formal definition using casual language

as your support...thus indirectly suggesting that a proper formal definition would take these casual examples into account. Your denial doesn't make the definition any less accurate, given that similar casual language from a theistic perspective would not make the current formal definition of "theism" inaccurate.

[omega minimo]

10. your premise depends on

black and white thinking :think:

[Silent3]

12. So is this post an example of your great tolerance...

...or is this post an example of your absolutely justified need to respond to an intolerable attack? It's so hard to tell, being that it's simply not possible, apparently, that it could just be you being a pompous ass.

[beam me up scottie]

14. "A stupid man's report...

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

~ Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970

[omega minimo]

18. Your "clever man" is using metaphor

and an analogy that doesn't translate as intended, which is the common mistake of many Sunday preachers :wow:

[omega minimo]

16. So that post is an example of your viciousness in response to nothing at all

and your need to lash out, violate DU Rules and make personal attacks.

The juxtaposition of opposites is black and white thinking. Literally. Light/Dark, Either/Or. The OP premise depends on it.

Your reaction is out of line. How toxified with your own venom are you?

[beam me up scottie]

11. Good on you.

You won't get through to people who have an absence of education and common sense, but thank you for trying. :thumbsup:

rec'd

[rrneck]

13. There is no such thing as team spirit

only the absence of the New York Yankees.

People get the same thing from religion that they get from doing the wave at a baseball game. A deity, through the practice of religion, is found in the experience of light and dark, warm and cold, tumult and silence. It is the experience of living in the world with others of our kind.

There is no such thing as loneliness, only the absence of a tribe.

edit for lack of coffee

[omega minimo]

17. Rather

An experience of wholeness "... is found in the experience of light and dark, warm and cold, tumult and silence."

The OPs premise of artificial boundaries and non-existent opposites is not realistic.

[rrneck]

19. I think the OP works as an analogy.

Atheism is frequently referred to as a religion. The OP asserts that atheism is not a cultural phenomena designed around the collective practice of a particular idea, but rather a choice made by individuals to opt out of a set of practices already in place.

To add an analogy, atheists are sort of like anarchists. It would be difficult for them to organize into any particular faith based on some sort of doctrine because they won't accept focused leadership in matters of faith. An atheist religion is about as likely as an anarchist political party.

[omega minimo]

28. I just reread it

I see what the OP is trying to say.

"The OP asserts that atheism is not a cultural phenomena designed around the collective practice of a particular idea, but rather a choice made by individuals to opt out of a set of practices already in place."

Recent discussions on DU have shown how intimate and how varied that experience is among atheists/agnostics. The common practice is, as you say, a "rejection of a set of practices already in place." Or the lack of adherence to set practices is simply ... nothing.


The difficulty of extending the dualistic analogy, is that the premise presented of nature is not true. Since the parts are inseparable, the imagery suggests the inseparable whole, which relates to all sorts of ideas of what the universe (or god) is, including those held by some atheists.

Good thing its a big universe, room for everyone. ;-) What many of us have in common is the appreciation and awe of that universe.

[rrneck]

30. I think that we

are the nexus of the inseparability to which you refer.

The physical impact of the North Star on the earth in vanishingly small. So small, the only species on the planet that could hope to measure it is us. And we're the only ones that might want to. It's emotional and cultural impact on the other hand is significant. If that star had never existed, the only species on this planet that would have been affected would be us. I suspect that our culture would be noticeably different without that navigational aid.

Every religion probably started with "the appreciation and awe of that universe". I also suspect they fail when that awe is turned inward toward the religion itself. And the people who run it.

[omega minimo]

33. Are you sure?

Certain that other species don't use the North star and stars for navigation?

"Every religion probably started with "the appreciation and awe of that universe". I also suspect they fail when that awe is turned inward toward the religion itself. And the people who run it."

There's a whole range there too, of how that is handled: the "turning inward toward the religion itself" and "the people who run it."

[rrneck]

35. Good point.

For all I know, other species navigate by the North Star. But its physical impact on the planet and the organisms that live here is negligible or non existent, especially compared to its potential cultural impact. And that's just one star. I'd be willing to bet that we are the only species that has come up with something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars),<17> organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.<18>

Now, I have no idea what that shit means. And I don't much care. But I bet a bunch of people have devoted a large chunk of their lives to that giblet of information.

We can only be us. And while some other species are able to display the presence of a theory of mind, we are much better at it. That's how we can wonder if other species navigate by the stars. It's also how gods get made.

I don't understand the range to which you refer. If you have time, tell me more.

[Silent3]

15. I once wrote a poem inspired, in part, by the idea that coldness...

...only results from moving heat somewhere else. William Carlos Williams wonderful short poem "This Is Just To Say" was also on my mind.


After Your Last Note About the Plums

"You need concern yourself with magic." This new note importantly
was attached to the refrigerator. A million things to do, but who
has time for the impossible? I was charging toward an epiphany,
via right turns and wishful thinking, something sliding back

and forth across the dashboard. You can't create more coldness
actually. All heat goes somewhere, changes allegiance, gives life
to babies who speak foreign tongues. I can only imagine
these tidy rituals, new shoes on the first day of kindergarten,

laces untied, buses, buttons, buckles, bugs chattering endlessly
one miracle. Be nice. No shoving. Remember to share. I pour myself
a little orange juice, some evidence being only anecdotal. With luck,
something sweet and hidden can be found, wrapped in foil.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Wasn't poetry with your soul when it was sucked out of you?

Now you made me cry...

[rug]

20. The prefix a means without. An atheist is simply someone without god.

What word would you use for someone who definitively asserts there is no god?

There already is a word for someone who reflexively derides anything to do with a god or a religion.

[beam me up scottie]

22. That would be a "strong" or "explicit" atheist.

A person that despises religion would be an "anti-theist" (who could believe in god(s) or not).

There is just as much diversity among atheists as there is among christians.

They only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deities.

[rrneck]

23. Other examples

a·his·tor·i·cal
Unconcerned with or unrelated to history, historical development, or tradition

apo·lit·i·cal
having no interest or involvement in political affairs; also : having an aversion to politics or political affairs

So, here is the definition of atheist:
a·the·ist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Your post reveals a great deal. It sounds like you think you've got something special there. So special in fact, anyone that doesn't have it is less of a person. How many people have died in a most unplesant fashion because they were "without god" when what they were really lacking was power to defend themselves?

While we're fiddling around with definitions, lets add this one:

sec·tar·i·an·ism 
excessive devotion to a particular sect, esp. in religion.

God is not a commodity, although most religions make it so.

[rug]

24. Why does the prefix go from unconcerned to denial?

Now, what do you call someone who takes a Greek prefix and goes off to dying "in a most unpleasant fashion"?

Curiously, it too begins with an a.

[rrneck]

25. Can you be more explicit? nt

[rrneck]

26. If you're unwilling to expound

you must be ashamed of what you're trying to say.

[rug]

27. I see making leaps is a habit of yours.

[rrneck]

29. Oh hi, there you are.

Care to respond to post #25?

[rrneck]

32. Still can't fess up? nt

[trotsky]

39. That one is far more worried about uppity atheists on the Internet...

than priests who rape little children. What ya gonna do?

[rrneck]

41. The funny thing is I really don't know what he was trying to say.

Ask for a little clarification and doors slam shut faster than Maxwell Smart's secret bunker.

[rug]

89. I believe you just responded to one.

[rrneck]

90. ...

:rofl:

[iris27]

91. This whole subthread has been greatly amusing to watch.

I think your response is the only possible one at this point. :thumbsup: :rofl:

[meeshrox]

42. Or perhaps just a little busy

with things not DU-related...I think you need to be more patient for a response...

[rrneck]

49. Could be. But see post #27.

S/he is reading this right now, but for reasons that remain obscure no candid reply is forthcoming.

An internet message board is little more than a cocktail party in text, so it's really not that big a deal. But even on this superficial level a measure of common courtesy and candor are called for.

[darkstar3]

31. "nonexistent" n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. There is only people who believe in the easter bunny, and people who lack belief in the easter bunny

"There are two kinds of people, Blondie, those who have friends and those who are lonely like poor Tuco."

[gcomeau]

95. Since atheism is DEFINED as "the absence of theism"...

...you have just argued there is no such thing as atheism, there is only theism and atheism. Congratulations.

And yes, there are such things as dark and cold and silence too. You simply declaring that what they are defined to be is wrong or somehow doesn't count doesn't make them stop existing. It's not some profound philosophical insight, it's just playing games with semantics.

[darkstar3]

96. Well, thanks for that marvelous insight.

:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

104. It's like Whack-a-Mole in here lately.

[gcomeau]

109. Hmmm. The person who tried to define atheism out of existence...

...by pointing out it means the absense of something is apparently sarcastically rolling their eyes at my marvelous insight in pointing out they are full of crap and playing meaningless word games.

How precious.

No darkstar... thank you for your marvelous insight. :eyes:

[darkstar3]

110. "Why are you casting magic missle? There's nothing to attack.

I'm attacking the darkness!!"

*Thank you Summoner Geeks...

I was making a point, sarcasmo, and a very simple one at that. It is just as pointless for anyone to attack atheism as it is for that geek to attack the darkness, and for the same reason.