Challenging preconceived ideas of atheists

Shrap

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This question isn't just for jank, anyone else want to critique my response style?

Yes, I think you're very friendly and open. Never seen you insult anyone either. But I may be seen by others as guilty of being cliquey or thanks-whoring by liking what you say and the way you say it :rolleyes: However, I don't give a monkey's about that and shall carry on thanking posts I find interesting.

Have thanked Katy's posts once or twice actually.

Gumbi

katydid wrote: »

Absolutely no problem with that, although it is a bit shocking to find fundamentalist atheists who are as afraid of debate as fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.

The problem is when free speech is curtailed because of this attitude. When expressing an expectation that someone would educate themselves on a topic before commenting on it is declared "anti-social". If such an attitude were prevalent on a "religious" forum, atheists would, rightly, be jumping up and down.

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" atheist. Just as there i no such thing as a fundamentalist theist.

A theist believe in a god or gods. An atheist does not. End of.

There is fundamentalist religion (Christianity, etc.) of course, but not fundamentalist (a)theism.

swampgas

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Out of sheer curiosity, how would you rate my responses here in A+A? This question isn't just for jank, anyone else want to critique my response style?

No spelling mistakes, excellent grammar. Nice use of "critique". 10/10

robindch

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Out of sheer curiosity, how would you rate my responses here in A+A?

Useful, entertaining, a good gift for the thinker in your family and, best of all, left behind no messy or hard-to-clean stains. Would read again. Five stars.

RikuoAmero

I'll just kick back and bask for a while in the adulation of the masses :cool::P

Gbear

jank wrote: »

In some ways I am sympathetic to the OP's view. Many of the regulars who post here very much define themselves by their atheism much like many religious people define their lives by their theism.

I really don't think it's fair to say that based on interactions on a forum.
Posters who post a lot on this forum, and even more so if the majority of their posts are on this forum, are going to be defined on this site by their atheism (because it makes up a large part of their interactions with other posters) but it says very little for how they are in real life.

Someone could be super-duper non-religious on this forum and nobody in the real world might know they're an atheist.

Touching on what Swampgas mentioned, this can be an outlet for people to engage in no-holds-barred debates about religion that would never fly in the real world.

jank wrote: »

In contrast most of the atheists or agnostics I met in the real world are not the back-slapping, thanks whoring types that often comes across on this forum. This place is a bit clicky but if you stick around you will see that there are a few, not many but a few posters who actually are open-minded and write intelligent thought provoking posts. Ignore the other 95% of the dross (like most of the internet I guess). 'God made them do it' for example is favourite AH style retort, correcting spelling is another.

Have you considered that those "good" atheists would act exactly the same when posting on a forum like this?

jank wrote: »

There is a tendency for unpopular opinions to be thrown to the wolves, regardless of their merit, logic or accuracy which can be disappointing.

There's a somewhat monolithic (but far from completely) sociopolitical left wing bent on this forum and any place with a large contingent of more or less like-minded people will create some self-reinforcement but I certainly don't think it's any worse or even as bad as most other places.
I think there can certainly be an element of getting ganged up on but if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

You can see why what you could describe as "shorthand" (slagging various sacred cows that becomes ingrained in the normal posting after dozens of threads legitimising such slagging) used here to ridicule some beliefs would be unwelcoming to someone, but at a certain point, people have to accept their beliefs aren't going to be coddled when coming to a forum like this.

You can't expect a forum like this to work in as even handed a way as somewhere completely neutral. It's just unrealistic.
But I still think people are almost always given a fair crack at making their case.

silverharp

Gbear wrote: »

There's a somewhat monolithic (but far from completely) sociopolitical left wing bent on this forum

thats a debatable statement, even using the flawed terms of "left" and "right" , Im sure many people would prefer the term socially liberal and would have very little time for the Ivana Baciks or Claire Dailys of the local political scene

RikuoAmero

I also have to comment on the title of this thread "challenging pre-conceived ideas of atheists". To be an atheist you merely must lack a belief in a God. That's it. There's nothing else you need to do or have to consider oneself atheist. There are no pre-conceived ideas or dogma.
Contrast that with a self professed follower of a certain religion. S/he will most certainly have pre-conceived ideas; such as a Christian who believes the bible to be a trustworthy account of their God on at least some levels.
The title would make more sense if it was "challenging the pre-conceived notions of boards.ie atheists" or "challenging the pre-conceived ideas of my theological opponents". There, you're being specific to some degree.

katydid

Gumbi wrote: »

There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist" atheist. Just as there i no such thing as a fundamentalist theist.

A theist believe in a god or gods. An atheist does not. End of.

There is fundamentalist religion (Christianity, etc.) of course, but not fundamentalist (a)theism.

Of course there fundamental atheists. Atheists who are not prepared to accept that their view and understanding of the world may not be the only one. Who refuse to accept, despite the absence of proof, the logical conclusion that no one can say definitively one way or the other. That is as fundamental an opinion as someone who, despite the presence of proof, continues to deny that the earth is not six thousand years old.

smacl

jank wrote: »

Many of the people who have given it to me over the years here wouldn't dare do it to me to my face

Maybe ask yourself why someone would change their opinion from a face to face environment versus a more anonymous one. If someone would not dare to express themselves to you in the flesh as they would in this forum, does that imply a degree of intimidation to conform in the former instance?

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I also have to comment on the title of this thread "challenging pre-conceived ideas of atheists". To be an atheist you merely must lack a belief in a God. That's it. There's nothing else you need to do or have to consider oneself atheist. There are no pre-conceived ideas or dogma.
Contrast that with a self professed follower of a certain religion. S/he will most certainly have pre-conceived ideas; such as a Christian who believes the bible to be a trustworthy account of their God on at least some levels.
The title would make more sense if it was "challenging the pre-conceived notions of boards.ie atheists" or "challenging the pre-conceived ideas of my theological opponents". There, you're being specific to some degree.

Just to be clear, I started the thread but that was not the original title. The original title was asking how healthy criticism was "anti-social".

[COMMENTS ON FORUM MODERATION REMOVED. A+A HAS A FEEDBACK THREAD HERE FOR MINOR ISSUES WHILE MAJOR ISSUES SHOULD BE TAKEN TO THE FEEDBACK OR DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORUMS]

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

Of course there fundamental atheists. Atheists who are not prepared to accept that their view and understanding of the world may not be the only one. Who refuse to accept, despite the absence of proof, the logical conclusion that no one can say definitively one way or the other. That is as fundamental an opinion as someone who, despite the presence of proof, continues to deny that the earth is not six thousand years old.

I thought logic couldn't be applied to this subject...so why are you talking about logical conclusions? You're contradicting yourself in that you've said before you know there is a God (in other words you are able to say definitely one way or the other)

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I thought logic couldn't be applied to this subject...so why are you talking about logical conclusions? You're contradicting yourself in that you've said before you know there is a God (in other words you are able to say definitely one way or the other)

I'm not going to get on that treadmill again. I've explained this dozens of time at this stage.

[UNHELPFUL PERSONAL COMMENTS REMOVED]

smacl

katydid wrote: »

Of course there fundamental atheists.

I think everyone works from certain core fundamentals, For example nozz lists just the one;

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will not accept claims without substantiation. Other than that I can think of no core principle I hold which is not ready to change the moment I am given compelling reason to do so.

I find the above perfectly reasonable.

katydid wrote:

Atheists who are not prepared to accept that their view and understanding of the world may not be the only one. Who refuse to accept, despite the absence of proof, the logical conclusion that no one can say definitively one way or the other. That is as fundamental an opinion as someone who, despite the presence of proof, continues to deny that the earth is not six thousand years old.

I think you'll find most atheists will readily admit that our knowledge of the working of the universe is limited. At the same time we build on that knowledge through speculation or hypotheses backed up or rejected by subsequent observation. We also use logic to a large degree here, specifically within logic we search for errors or fallacies to reject false hypotheses. Your argument above is an example of such a logical fallacy, in this case a false equivocation. You implication is that an imagined religious understanding of our universe is as valid as an incomplete observational understanding, on the basis that neither can be proven. There are however an infinite number of imagined possible explanations for the nature of the universe as opposed a very limited set of observed understandings. Thus the former infinitely less probable than the latter, and can be dismissed until such time as more supporting observational evidence becomes available.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting your opinion is invalid, just that religious belief is in no way supported by formal logic.

katydid

smacl wrote: »

I think everyone works from certain core fundamentals, For example nozz lists just the one;



I find the above perfectly reasonable.



I think you'll find most atheists will readily admit that our knowledge of the working of the universe is limited. At the same time we build on that knowledge through speculation or hypotheses backed up or rejected by subsequent observation. We also use logic to a large degree here, specifically within logic we search for errors or fallacies to reject false hypotheses. Your argument above is an example of such a logical fallacy, in this case a false equivocation. You implication is that an imagined religious understanding of our universe is as valid as an incomplete observational understanding, on the basis that neither can be proven. There are however an infinite number of imagined possible explanations for the nature of the universe as opposed a very limited set of observed understandings. Thus the former infinitely less probable than the latter, and can be dismissed until such time as more supporting observational evidence becomes available.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting your opinion is invalid, just that religious belief is in no way supported by formal logic.

I absolutely accept a core principle such as not accepting claims without substantiation. Where substantiation is possible, that makes perfect sense.

The issue here is that there are those who differentiate between situations where substantiation is possible and ones where it is not. If I say today is Monday, that is a claim that can be substantiated by looking at a calendar. If I say God exists, that can't be substantiated.

So the only thing I can say about the latter is that, through careful thought and examination of likelihood, probability and other factors, combined with something intangible called faith, I believe there to be a god. You may call that a false logical fallacy because it doesn't fit with your pre-determined interpretation of logic, but who are you or anyone else to say that it is false? It is only false if you don't factor in elements that don't fit with pure logic.

I don't expect anyone to accept my belief. I am not trying to convince anyone or bring them round to my point of view. I agree absolutely that religious belief is not supported by formal logic. I have said that several times - several dozen times, it feels like.

All I am asking is that those who can't accept what I believe, can accept that my believing it doesn't make me a fool or gullible, but is the product of intelligent thought that may not conform to their specific idea of intelligent thought. Is that so hard to accept?

Mark Hamill

katydid wrote: »

So the only thing I can say about the latter is that, through careful thought and examination of likelihood, probability and other factors, combined with something intangible called faith, I believe there to be a god.

But you need evidence for "careful thought and examination of likelihood, probability and other factors". And you have admitted that you have none. So your position is purely faith based. Which is just another way of saying you believing in something because you want it to be true or because it suits your ego. Thats why you have repeatedly thrown out the follwing egotestical challenge:

katydid wrote: »

who are you or anyone else to say that it is false?

Who we are is irrelevent. This is a semi-anonymous internet forum. All you need to know is that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

katydid wrote: »

I agree absolutely that religious belief is not supported by formal logic. I have said that several times - several dozen times, it feels like.

If it is not supported by any logic then it is illogical. If it is supported by some kind of informal logic then present that logic, you have not done so.

katydid wrote: »

All I am asking is that those who can't accept what I believe, can accept that my believing it doesn't make me a fool or gullible, but is the product of intelligent thought that may not conform to their specific idea of intelligent thought. Is that so hard to accept?

How can we accept that it is a product of intelligent thought when you cannot demonstrate or explain that intelligent thought? You are asking us to take it on faith, and this is the wrong group of people to be asking that.

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

There is a tendency for unpopular opinions to be thrown to the wolves, regardless of their merit, logic or accuracy which can be disappointing.

If the opinion had merit, logic and accuracy, then it would survive the wolves, like all good peer-reviewed material does.

Harika

katydid wrote: »

All I am asking is that those who can't accept what I believe, can accept that my believing it doesn't make me a fool or gullible, but is the product of intelligent thought that may not conform to their specific idea of intelligent thought. Is that so hard to accept?

I am fully aware that someone who believes by faith won’t be convinced by logic, and also the other way round. So this is a stalemate until eternity, so from my point of view, you are fine to believe in whatever you want and this is fine.
It only becomes an issue when someone wants to convince others that their position is the only one or even worse when someone tries to force his or her faith on others and wants to dictate how someone else has to live their life, justified by faith.
IMO faith is not a problem, as long as it respects the freedom of others.

smacl

katydid wrote: »

All I am asking is that those who can't accept what I believe, can accept that my believing it doesn't make me a fool or gullible, but is the product of intelligent thought that may not conform to their specific idea of intelligent thought. Is that so hard to accept?

Intelligent people can be both foolish and gullible, and incorrect conclusions can and regularly are arrived at though largely intelligent though processes. I don't think that you are unintelligent, but I do think that even by your own standards of logic, you've reached a rather dubious conclusion in believing in the existence of God. For example;

katydid wrote: »

Myths are by their nature UNTRUE, but they are not useless; they allow human beings to think about and to explore their own nature and their society. They are starting points for discussion and thought.

Yet every religion of the past is now accepted as being a mythology, and myths as you say above are by definition untrue. Mythology can also be defined as an allegorical narrative. If we compare Catholicism in Ireland today to that of the 50s and 60s, many literal aspects of the religion such as transubstantiation are now accepted as allegorical. This drift under scrutiny from literal miracles to allegory clear indicates Christianity is just another mythology.

I would suggest a certain aspect of your belief is down to protecting a deep emotional investment. Yet again I'd ask, why come to an atheist forum to discuss your faith?

Shrap

smacl wrote: »

I would suggest a certain aspect of your belief is down to protecting a deep emotional investment. Yet again I'd ask, why come to an atheist forum to discuss your faith?

Exactly. While it's easy to understand that religious people have their own reasons for believing what they do, it's invariably reasoning that defies how most atheists came to believe there are no gods. Not sure putting up "accept that my belief isn't based on anything logical" is going to bring anything other than a big fat "why?" from atheists. I mean, I can accept that the belief isn't based on logic, but I can't respect it as much as a belief that is evidence based. The two modi operandi are coming from completely opposite directions.

TheLurker

katydid wrote: »

Is that so hard to accept?

Of course it is hard to accept, it is really really dumb (the idea, not you)

Using your example above imagine you were NOT able to substantiated if it was Monday or not AT ALL. Not that you simply do not know it is Monday, but that it would be impossible for you to work out if it was Monday or not. No tests can be performed. No experiments. Say you were knocked unconscious, woke up on a desert island with no idea how long you were out and you had no calendar or any way of working out the date and you could not leave the desert island. Working out if it is Monday or not is now impossible, it is impossible to substantiate an answer. The question of "is it Monday" has moved into the same realm as questions such as "is there a divine creator of the universe".

Under your logic (which is terrible terrible logic) you have now made the question SO UNANSWERABLE that you can now attempt an answer to it.

The answer is so far beyond our ability to answer you now answer it say "through careful thought and examination of likelihood, probability and other factors, combined with something intangible called faith, I believe today is Monday"

When there was a small slimmer of chance that this question could be substantiated you aren't able to say that because you have to support the answer with logic and reason and all that science stuff.

But now you have removed all ability to substantiate the answer you can comfortably arrive at an answer because "faith" is apparently magic or something.

You some how want us to respect this nonsense *sigh*

Turtwig

Haven't got a chance to read this thread in its entireity but open mindness was mentioned so this little gem has to be posted. (Again!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Best explanation of the concept OP.
In summary, saying you don't believe in something doesn't mean you're not saying it can't be true. What you're saying is that right now as things stand you don't believe the claim. Likewise, just because you think it's a valid claim doesn't mean someone else must. If we accepted every claim as valid because others believed it we'd fill our minds with a load of crap. Open mindness isn't about accepting claims willy nily it's about being open to consideration of new claims and previously accepted claims that may or may not challenge our preconceived notions.

RikuoAmero

Turtwig wrote: »

Haven't got a chance to read this thread in its entireity but open mindness was mentioned so this little gem has to be posted. (Again!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Best explanation of the concept OP.
In summary, saying you don't believe in something doesn't mean you're not saying it can't be true. What you're saying is that right now as things stand you don't believe the claim. Likewise, just because you think it's a valid claim doesn't mean someone else must. If we accepted every claim as valid because others believed it we'd fill our minds with a load of crap. Open mindness isn't about accepting claims willy nily it's about being open to consideration of new claims and previously accepted claims that may or may not challenge our preconceived notions.

It's like Katy saw that video and deliberately structured her arguments to match what it said.

Shrap

Turtwig wrote: »

Haven't got a chance to read this thread in its entireity but open mindness was mentioned so this little gem has to be posted. (Again!)

Wow, thanks for that Turtwig! Can't tell you how much I've been ganged up on for "not having an open mind" about spiritual/other woo based notions, none of which have ever been backed up by a fact that I can depend on. Off to put a few noses out of joint on face book with this one! (unless they have cut my science based posts out of their news feeds like I have with their angels/crystals/universal oneness/etc.)

Of course, having different approaches doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless their friendship is somehow based on my uncritical acceptance of their ideas......

katydid

TheLurker wrote: »

Of course it is hard to accept, it is really really dumb (the idea, not you)

Using your example above imagine you were NOT able to substantiated if it was Monday or not AT ALL. Not that you simply do not know it is Monday, but that it would be impossible for you to work out if it was Monday or not. No tests can be performed. No experiments. Say you were knocked unconscious, woke up on a desert island with no idea how long you were out and you had no calendar or any way of working out the date and you could not leave the desert island. Working out if it is Monday or not is now impossible, it is impossible to substantiate an answer. The question of "is it Monday" has moved into the same realm as questions such as "is there a divine creator of the universe".

Under your logic (which is terrible terrible logic) you have now made the question SO UNANSWERABLE that you can now attempt an answer to it.

The answer is so far beyond our ability to answer you now answer it say "through careful thought and examination of likelihood, probability and other factors, combined with something intangible called faith, I believe today is Monday"

When there was a small slimmer of chance that this question could be substantiated you aren't able to say that because you have to support the answer with logic and reason and all that science stuff.

But now you have removed all ability to substantiate the answer you can comfortably arrive at an answer because "faith" is apparently magic or something.

You some how want us to respect this nonsense *sigh*

I'm not asking you to accept what I believe. I'm asking you to accept that I am not stupid for believing it. Everything you say about substantiation is fine, but irrelevant to this fact.

RikuoAmero

katydid wrote: »

I'm not asking you to accept what I believe. I'm asking you to accept that I am not stupid for believing it. Everything you say about substantiation is fine, but irrelevant to this fact.

Sorry no. I won't be doing that anytime soon. I can accept that this is what you believe, respect your right to believe it, but my opinion of you when you say what it is you believe and why will be that s word.

katydid

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sorry no. I won't be doing that anytime soon. I can accept that this is what you believe, respect your right to believe it, but my opinion of you when you say what it is you believe and why will be that s word.

So you think that someone who doesn't think in the same way as you do - who believes there is more to the world than the factual, provable dimension we see around us - is stupid, although there is nothing to prove that I am wrong.

To me, that is just as close minded as someone who says that anyone who doesn't believe in god is stupid.

eviltwin

katydid wrote: »

So you think that someone who doesn't think in the same way as you do - who believes there is more to the world than the factual, provable dimension we see around us - is stupid, although there is nothing to prove that I am wrong.

To me, that is just as close minded as someone who says that anyone who doesn't believe in god is stupid.

If I were to tell you that I as a 37 year old believed fairies lived at the bottom of my garden what would you think of me?

Nodin

katydid wrote: »

So you think that someone who doesn't think in the same way as you do - who believes there is more to the world than the factual, provable dimension we see around us - is stupid, although there is nothing to prove that I am wrong.........

As you've been told innumerable times, it doesn't work that way.

Turtwig

Mod:

Let's make one thing very clear here. Believing in 'stupid' things doesn't make you stupid. Nor does believing in 'smart' things make you smart. Things are never as black or white. Any insinuation that poster is a stupid person will be very likely draw the ire of your local, currently friendly, mod team.

By all means point out what you consider a person's stupid ideas (who doesn't have them?) but under no circumstances is the implication to be made that a person is stupid.