The need to preach.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

(a) oblivious to the matter of god but also mentally incapable of tackling it (the baby), and (b) being oblivious to the matter of god but mentally capable of tackling it (the adult islander).

By this definition the requirement is the ability to be "mentally capable of tackling it".

How can you mentally tackle (adopt a position on) something while remaining unaware of it?
Provide the answer for that conundrum and I'll be satisfied.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

I think at this stage you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Seriously... on the internet ...

axer

Dades wrote: »

I think if we are to look to the intention of the word, like vegan or pioneer, it exists to label those who are conscious of what it entails.

No, it is used by those who understand what it means to describe a persons lack of belief in a deity. That is why we can label the islanders as atheists but why they would not label themselves as atheists.

There is no point labeling something or someone something that is impossible for them to be in the first place e.g. labeling a baby as an atheist or a rock etc. That would just be stupidity since neither are capable of being theists. It would be like labeling someone without a mouth or ability to eat as being a vegan because they cannot eat meat etc.

ColmDawson

Dades wrote: »

If we're sticking strictly to the term "without god", then you have to include babies and dolphins. There's no mention of an arbitrary clause like "an atheist must have the capacity to reason about gods even if they've never heard of them" in that definition, so I don't how it's okay to assume it applies.

There's the definition of the word, and then there's the way in which it can be meaningfully and usefully used. I wouldn't expect the former to include complete information on the latter. I suggested that clause in order to try and rule out the possibility of anyone going down the inane path of 'are rocks atheists then?'.

Dades wrote: »

I think if we are to look to the intention of the word, like vegan or pioneer, if exists to label those who are conscious of what it entails.

What about a word like 'apolitical'? 'Asexual'? These don't necessarily imply a conscious rejection of their positive counterparts. Surely if there were a similar isolated community with no history of having government, we could describe it as an anarchy?

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

By this definition the requirement is the ability to be "mentally capable of tackling it".

How can you mentally tackle (adopt a position on) something while remaining unaware of it?
Provide the answer for that conundrum and I'll be satisfied.

I've clearly said several times that it's about having the brain power to tackle it, not about having specific knowledge of the issue.

Dades

axer wrote: »

There is no point labeling something or someone something that is impossible for them to be in the first place e.g. labeling a baby as an atheist or a rock etc. That would just be stupidity since neither are capable of being theists.

Neither is an islander who has never heard of gods or religion.

This arbitrary notion that because "in theory" they could be a theist if they were informed such a thing existed, so they are automatically atheists seems to be plucked from nowhere.

axer

Dades wrote: »

Neither is an islander who has never heard of gods or religion.

This arbitrary notion that because "in theory" they could be a theist if they were informed such a thing existed, so they are automatically atheists seems to be plucked from nowhere.

Of course they are. What do you think some deity sent its son to earth to tell us that a deity exists...oh wait..:pac:

Point being, we as a human race came to the false conclusion ourselves without being told - so why would the islanders not be capable of making the same false conclusion. Unless of course they used knowledge and reason not to come to that conclusion - that is not to say that they even had to consider it since it is such a crazy notion.

The islanders are atheist in our books since we know atheism and theism. They would not consider themselves atheists since they do not know theism in the first place (I would hate to count how many times I have highlighted this already).

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Well if the alternative to changing minds is to just explore your viewpoint for the sheer joy of doing so, then I'm afraid most people would probably find this a bit unfulfilling and frustrating.

So there's no value in stepping into the others shoes and having a good aul' walk around?

This to me anyway is pivotal in beginning to understand eachother adequately.

Unfortunately, it appears that liah would prefer if I exclaimed that I was an atheist after about a few posts of arguing with her!

I mean, I don't expect you guys to downplay your true position about Christianity, I'd much prefer for you to be honest. Would I like if you thought about becoming Christians? Yes. Is this likely to happen? Admittedly, no from what I can see. Does this mean I can't discuss with you? No.

Dades

ColmDawson wrote: »

There's the definition of the word, and then there's the way in which it can be meaningfully and usefully used. I wouldn't expect the former to include complete information on the latter. I suggested that clause in order to try and rule out the possibility of anyone going down the inane path of 'are rocks atheists then?'.

Okay, well it's my contention that in order to be meaningfully and usefully used, it shouldn't apply to people who have no concept of religion or gods. Those people are just people.

axer

Dades wrote: »

Okay, well it's my contention that in order to be meaningfully and usefully used, it shouldn't apply to people who have no concept of religion or gods. Those people are just people.

but they are not using the label - we are since we have a concept of religion and gods.

Dades

axer wrote: »

The islanders are atheist in our books since we know atheism and theism. They would not consider themselves atheists since they do not know theism in the first place (I would hate to count how many times I have highlighted this already).

Highlight it all you like, I don't agree we can label them, on the basis of what we have rejected.

Until such time as one islander suggests that the Coconut God made the whole world, and another islander says I don't believe (or I lack belief or whatever) in this god of yours, then atheism is as irrelevant a label to those people as racism.

axer

Dades wrote: »

Highlight it all you like, I don't agree we can label them, on the basis of what we have rejected.

Until such time as one islander suggests that the Coconut God made the whole world, and another islander says I don't believe (or I lack belief or whatever) in this god of yours, then atheism is as irrelevant a label to those people as racism.

We are comparing them relative to us who have an understanding of atheism and theism. Would would someone say "they lack belief in deities" when saying "they are atheists" describes their position perfectly in less words.

liah

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, at the same time, I think from time to time we've had some pretty good discussions on the A&A forum as specific to any other area.

Just curious, you seem to say that people shouldn't argue against me because I will never change my mind. Who of necessity said that discussion must lead to someone changing their mind?

Apologies if I have frustrated you by this post, but if your only purpose of talking to me, or other theists is to change our mind, then I don't really think you actually value the discussion we could have. Rather you value your attempt to change our thinking rather than valuing us as individuals.

So we don't end up in threads like this where people are arguing each other in circles, going COMPLETELY off-topic from the original sentiment of the thread, argue semantics and pedantics, get in a mini-tiff, stating the exact same points they've already made over and over again, trying to hammer home something that the person just won't accept.

I'm not saying people need to change their minds, but I cannot honestly figure out WHY people continue SO LONG (pages upon pages, I have my thread settings to display 40 replies per page, and these threads go on for a good 5-6 pages) about something that, ultimately, not a single one of you will ever see eye to eye on, concede to, or, last but most certainly not least, respect?

I love an intelligent debate where the answers are respectful, well-rounded, thoughtful, and interesting.

I hate the arguments that've turned me off of many threads here and in other forums like AH where it's just two sides talking AT each other and condescending the opposite side.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

So there's no value in stepping into the others shoes and having a good aul' walk around?

This to me anyway is pivotal in beginning to understand eachother adequately.

Unfortunately, it appears that liah would prefer if I exclaimed that I was an atheist after about a few posts of arguing with her!

I mean, I don't expect you guys to downplay your true position about Christianity, I'd much prefer for you to be honest. Would I like if you thought about becoming Christians? Yes. Is this likely to happen? Admittedly, no from what I can see. Does this mean I can't discuss with you? No.

TBH I never enter into a discussion with a religious person with the main aim of deconverting them, I don't believe one can be deconverted by logical argument for it is always going to be an emotional decision. People are either going to be receptive of atheism or they're not and it's very clear early on which category they fall into. If they're receptive of atheism all I need to do is show them the door, they will find their own way.

You Jackass, are clearly not receptive of atheism, the only benefit I seek from discussing religion with you is a better understanding between us. My main goal in discussing these matter with believers such as yourself, is to change their perspective on non-believers, to allay their fear and penetrate many of the myths that surround atheism. If I can do that, they will not fear us as much and they're much less likely to oppose the secular agenda.

Atheism is never going to take over the world, religion is too alluring to the human psyche. The best I'm hoping for is a world where atheism and religion is a private matter free from prejudice or obligation.

Dades

axer wrote: »

Would would someone say "they lack belief in deities" when saying "they are atheists" describes their position perfectly in less words.

When you can say they are irreligious.

Besides I don't think word length is a crucial factor - especially given no such people probably exist on the planet!*


* Open to, and interested in, correction.

ColmDawson

liah wrote: »

So we don't end up in threads like this where people are arguing each other in circles, going COMPLETELY off-topic from the original sentiment of the thread, argue semantics and pedantics, get in a mini-tiff, stating the exact same points they've already made over and over again, trying to hammer home something that the person just won't accept.

I'm not saying people need to change their minds, but I cannot honestly figure out WHY people continue SO LONG (pages upon pages, I have my thread settings to display 40 replies per page, and these threads go on for a good 5-6 pages) about something that, ultimately, not a single one of you will ever see eye to eye on, concede to, or, last but most certainly not least, respect?

I love an intelligent debate where the answers are respectful, well-rounded, thoughtful, and interesting.

I hate the arguments that've turned me off of many threads here and in other forums like AH where it's just two sides talking AT each other and condescending the opposite side.

In fairness, I think everyone in this thread has been respectful. I don't really mind debating this stuff for pages and pages because I love semantics.:)

Also, it's not always about changing people's minds. It's often worthwhile arguing about something if only to gain a better understanding of the variety of views people hold. If you can examine and improve your own position as a result, great!

axer

Dades wrote: »

When you can say they are irreligious.

But according to your logic they cannot be irreligious either since they have never been exposed to the idea of religion?

Also irreligious and atheist mean different things. Irreligious relates to indifference to religion whereas Atheist relates to lack of belief in deities.

Pushtrak

Dades wrote: »

When you can say they are irreligious.

Besides I don't think word length is a crucial factor - especially given no such people probably exist on the planet!*


* Open to, and interested in, correction.

Are there any such people today? Don't know. I found a link on what I referred to earlier..

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090412-ENTERTAIN-904120305

The Pirahã are the "Show me!" tribe of the Brazilian Amazon. They don't bother with fiction or tall tales or even oral history. They have little art. They don't have a creation myth and don't want one. If they can't see it, hear it, touch it or taste it, they don't believe in it.

That, really is going from implicit atheism to explicit atheism. Rev Hellfire acknowledged to there being implicit atheism but not implicit atheists. I referred to this without a link, but then the stone analogy was thrown out again.

ColmDawson

Dades wrote: »

When you can say they are irreligious.

Besides I don't think word length is a crucial factor - especially given no such people probably exist on the planet!*


* Open to, and interested in, correction.

These guys come pretty close!

liah

Oh, also missed the part where you insinuated I'm trying to convert you to atheism.

That's not my point at all. I've said a few times now that I value intelligent debate, but not people talking at each other and disrespecting one another. I never enter into a debate looking to be right or in order to win people over, I use it as a process of development and understanding and "fleshing out", but that doesn't mean I can't pick my battles and let things go and not to let every single damn debate run itself into the ground with bickering and hanging onto one little point that's not relevant to the topic of discussion.

Am I the only one who honestly notices this? There's been enough digs and other examples of what I'm talking about in this thread alone.

ColmDawson

I think it's accepted that threads can meander away from the thread title somewhat.




And yes, by 'meander' I mean 'turn into pages and pages of pedantry'. :pac:

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

And yes, by 'meander' I mean 'turn into pages and pages of pedantry'. :pac:

Ain't that the truth.

Lets face it one of the main reasons people frequent forums such as these is for entertainment. Sometimes its noise for noises sake, there's nothing wrong with that.

Dades

Pushtrak wrote: »

Are there any such people today? Don't know. I found a link on what I referred to earlier..

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090412-ENTERTAIN-904120305

ColmDawson wrote: »

These guys come pretty close!

I thought initially about these guys but they have spirits and whatnot, so they don't quite qualify for the conundrum in question (imo). That the missionary became an atheist only shows he was religious to begin.

liah wrote: »

Am I the only one who honestly notices this? There's been enough digs and other examples of what I'm talking about in this thread alone.

This the INTERNET. If a debate or discussion doesn't interest you, then bow out, someone will take your place.

This thread went way off topic but for the better, it was a non-thread to begin with. We had the "atheists are preachy" thread already last week. What's left now is a discussion that counts for nothing in reality but one which a few of us are enjoying enough to keep ploughing on.

ColmDawson

And even though sometimes all we plough are the furrows in our own brows, it can usually be more enjoyable than that.

pH

This thread is delving into deep and useful philosophical ground.

Next : Can things that can't grow hair be called bald?

sink

ColmDawson wrote: »

And yes, by 'meander' I mean 'turn into pages and pages of pedantry'. :pac:

One should never start a sentence with a conjunction.

*tut tut*

philologos

liah wrote: »

So we don't end up in threads like this where people are arguing each other in circles, going COMPLETELY off-topic from the original sentiment of the thread, argue semantics and pedantics, get in a mini-tiff, stating the exact same points they've already made over and over again, trying to hammer home something that the person just won't accept.

So how exactly is this my fault? :pac:

In all due fairness, there are just some issues that we aren't going to agree on. So when we hit an impasse, all we need to do is strike a conclusion that we just aren't going to agree as quick as possible and move onto a new line of discussion. That seems to be the only way to deal with it.

Mostly, from seeing a lot of your threads, particularly a few over on Humanities in respect to education. The A&A forum does also provide food for thought in numerous respects, and I've learned quite clearly that if I am going to post in here, I should expect people to attempt to maul my views apart. I'm quite happy with that.

Expecting people to change their minds is just absurd though.

liah wrote: »

I'm not saying people need to change their minds, but I cannot honestly figure out WHY people continue SO LONG (pages upon pages, I have my thread settings to display 40 replies per page, and these threads go on for a good 5-6 pages) about something that, ultimately, not a single one of you will ever see eye to eye on, concede to, or, last but most certainly not least, respect?

Of you are you referring to A&A posters or Christians?

Personally, I won't concede to anything I find absolutely illogical. That to me is the denial of God's existence. However, when facts (verfiable) are posed to me about atrocities of believers, about mistakes we've made, about things that the churches have done wrong. I'll gladly put up my hand and say we've all made mistakes in implementation. Also, if I am clearly wrong in my interpretation of a Biblical passage, with commentaries (said commentaries being reasonable) and other things suggesting otherwise from what we know, then I will also accept I am wrong.

liah wrote: »

I love an intelligent debate where the answers are respectful, well-rounded, thoughtful, and interesting.

Agreed.

liah wrote: »

I hate the arguments that've turned me off of many threads here and in other forums like AH where it's just two sides talking AT each other and condescending the opposite side.

Agreed. I personally believe that we should engage civilly with one another. Unfortunately not all people think the same way.

AudreyHepburn

I personally enjoy a good debate and find it interesting to hear all sides of the argument whether I agree with them or not.

What gets my goat is when the argument deteriorates into both sides being condscending and hurling insults at one another in effort to make themselves feel smarter than the opposition. There have been many threads where people are simply out to convert eachother and refuse to listen to and respect eachother's opinions. Or they simply assume they can tell you what you believe or what they think you should believe.

It happens on both sides and it gets my back up because there really is no need for it among intelligent, mature adults.

By all means put your ideas forward and debate them but there is no need for disrespect or looking down your nose at some-one because you don't agree with their ideas.

ColmDawson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

By all means put your ideas forward and debate them but there is no need for disrespect or looking down your nose at some-one because you don't agree with their ideas.

Agreed. However, sometimes people confuse disrespect for ideas with disrespect for the person. The former is fine in my book.

AudreyHepburn

ColmDawson wrote: »

Agreed. However, sometimes people confuse disrespect for ideas with disrespect for the person. The former is fine in my book.

But if you disrespect some-one's ideas then you are by default disrespecting them, are you not?