Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Michael Nugent speaks for Atheism
Comments
-
-
-
What's with the large, god-like image?Michael Nugent wrote: »Feedback welcome.
Good article. Nice and straightforward.
Nothing that could be construed as a generalisation about atheists to get you in trouble here!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Arcus it would have helped if you'd taken the time to actually read past
the title before condemning the article:
I know it'll be hard to re-read that passage without instantly assuming
all the fluff you've propped yourself up on but to any unbiased reader
it's as clear as day that the "We" follows on from the "most of us", so
already the self-promotional overarching grandiosity of the "We" claim
you'd love to have existed just isn't there (where did it come from?
).
Context is a bitch, but if you really want to string this out then I think
your argument is with the "most of us", despite any 8 year old knowing
what is meant by the sentences being used. In any case the "We"'ness
you're striving for makes no sense if you actually read beyond the title.
Your'e making the self serving presumption that because part of the title was quoted then I must only have read the title. Then you quote a passage, take a part of it out of context and then say "context is a bitch". I'll take your word for the problem as you experience it. The "We" is in the title which you ought to have read.sponsoredwalk wrote: »It would have been great if you'd quoted some sentences to show us the logical link between this delusion & the actual sentences, some quotes to back up the self-promotional qualities of the article would have been nice too.
Do you think that anyone can speak for people based on the fact they don't believe in god's and after that may have nothing of note in common? There may even be many atheist who are anti-atheist! For any statements about atheists to be true they would have to first distinguish which groups of atheist or collective movements or membership of an atheist organisations they referred to. An atheist might just as well be a Pope in the Vatican planning and plotting to crush a movement which was based on professing atheisms as any other sort of atheist. Joseph Stalin didn't like rivals and claiming to be an atheist wouldn't have done you any good.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Is this an "I was atheist before it was cool" steam reliever or can you
actually justify, by means of quotations, that the article is just about
these central bank good charlotte rockers new atheists?
I used the term professed atheist or so called "New Atheists" which is a term being used whether rightly or wrongly. Do you think that an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods or someone who does not believe in gods and says so? Professed atheists by the way include the "I'm an atheist now that it's cool" types...
I'm not an atheist I'm a human being. That's not as simple a statement as you might imagine. I just happen to be of the opinion that there is no reason to believe such things as gods exist. As soon as you immerse your identity (as something other than a human being) in a collective stance you can start to become part of a flock. Then you can start viewing things almost totally from within the flock. If flock leaders are criticised you jump to their defence. In a few short passages of time sure you'd probably have yourself a new religion..sponsoredwalk wrote: »I see that a (voluntary, of course) public mark displayed on those things you despise would have a place in your "ethical" society.
That's silly enough on it's own.We would change our minds if we were given new and credible evidence that we are mistaken.
Do you think this repeat of something Richard Dawkins has often said is true or to what extent is it true or is it substantially wrong?0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Thanks for that feedback. I tried to use qualifiers like ‘some’, ‘many’ and ‘most’ when it seemed appropriate, and to stress that most atheists do not make claims of certainty, and to only leave out qualifying words when I was making what I thought were uncontroversial observations.
However, I do agree that it is a valid issue, and I am always open to improving how I communicate my ideas. Which generalised statements specifically in the article do you suggest that I should qualify in future?
Michael, just to say really enjoyed your second installment. Your point about qualifiers is taken, and on second reading it might be reasonable that you had to generalise to that extent.
Another poster has de-constructed the article already, so don't want to bore with my thoughts on every sentence and paragraph. But i suppose if i had to pick a part i wasn't personally in agreement at all with, it would be the following:
We do not get our morality from books such as the Bible and the Koran, regardless of whether we read these books literally or metaphorically.
As an ex-catholic, i must say i did enjoy reading the bible and i daresay many ex-cons like me would admit to learning much from it morality-wise in childhood. It's a great book; and it's a brave writer that would completely rule out it's moral value to non-believers; not that you have done mind. So it's sort of horses for courses.Michael Nugent wrote: »Also, there are broadly two ways to approach addressing this, and I’d welcome feedback as to which is the best way:
One way is to qualify every noun with a suitable adjective, which would make articles more precise but harder to read, particularly for general readers who have to ‘get’ the basics before they can consider all of the nuances.
Another is to start articles with an early disclaimer (or finish them with a late disclaimer) to the effect that some generalisations are made that have implied exceptions.
Any thoughts on which approach would be most effective?
Very admirable that you have asked moi for advice! Off the bat? The latter.
IMHO, given the diversity of the people you are currently in the spotlight on behalf of; that would go towards helping keep things inclusive. But that's just me. To be honest, i have no idea about AI or what it's aims are.
You've set yourself up though, by dint of your position and some of the phrasing of your first article as a spokesman for athiests to the IT readership so all eyes are on you Michael apparently! No pressure then hehe.
Forgive the use of a silly analagy now, but it's like you've been charged with serving a 4 course meal (athiesm) to a table at a restaurant. (IT readers)
You as the head waiter have just served the soup as a first course.
For one diner the soup may have been too hot for his/her taste (offensive in some way to theists/misrepresentative to some atheists/agnostics)
For another it may have been too cold (not strong enough for some atheists).
But i gather you've done very well so far for most judging by the feedback; the soup tastes just right. So fair play. And at least you didn't do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6aYLOf8CUQ
Best of luck and thanks for the reply.0 -
-
-
*** We could ignore every single point & question here if you'd just
answer the one particular part of my response with these *** things.***Arcus Arrow wrote: »Where did I say you were trying to preserve anything? Sponsored are you getting this mixed with a thread about jam making?
Apologies, I read "self serving" as "self preserving", jam may have
had something to do with it
Arcus Arrow wrote: »Did you or did you not presume I hadn’t read the article?
Okay, bad question. I actually did presume you hadn't read the article.
I guess I am just mired in contradictions now, because in my original post
I began with the presumption that you hadn't read past the title only later
to imply that you were quoting half sentences from the article out of
context, one wonders how the two can be resolved, I mean surely it is
me talking out of my ass to say you hadn't read past the title only to then
imply you were quoting half sentences from the very article whose title
I had just said you hadn't read past!
Maybe, just maybe, I meant something a little more subtle when I said
"it would have helped if you'd taken the time to actually read past the
title before condemning the article", I doubt it though...
So I take it you just misread the article then, if so could you perhaps
re-read the passage I quoted in my original post & explain to me how
the title of the article is not linked to the conditional "most of us"
considering it's the only part of the article at all that you could link the
title to, with deference to the few grammatical moments where Nugent
actually goes out of his way not to be so general & breaks people up
into respective categories ("at least in the western world", "most of us", "About 60",
Only about 40").
Note that when a person writes a sentence like the one just written it's
actually a question as well as a follow on from the implications of a "yes"
to that question as opposed to an actual declarative presumption, the
thing about extended sentences such as the above is that it's hard to add
a question mark when the end of the extended sentence doesn't allow for
it.
To be pedantic it's a means to express a point based on the presumption
of an expected answer, the vitally important aspect of such grammar is
that it allows for the possibility of being wrong but it a nice time-saver.
If you re-read the passage where you inserted {presumption} I think
{presumption?} you'll see I'm following the exact same common style of
rhetoric which oddly enough is found in reams of literature.Arcus Arrow wrote: »All again based on you original self-serving presumptions. The title of the article presumes to speak for people based on what they don’t believe. The title of the book represents it’s content which is what the title is for. There’s a difference.
This might be a bit spooky, but you'll notice something amazing if you
re-read my point about the selfish gene title without assuming that the
point I was making follows on from my very serious presumption that
you hadn't read past the title of the article.
It might be even spookier to notice that both examples, you & the selfish
gene example in the link, are based on assuming lots of corollaries based
on what you both thought after you read the title, both ignoring the actual
words of the book/article which, had either of you read (and/or thought
about) notice how many possibilities are allowed for with my language here, I have the rare gift
of envisioning many possibilities & structuring my language accordingly... the actual words
contained within (and from which both titles inextricably follow on from
- as any good title should), your assumptions about what the title implies
couldn't be anything but sheer nonsense.
Here's an analogy, if an article has a title like "Water was found on the
moon!" only for the article to be talking about Europa, surely {presumption?}
you'll agree it would be a bit foolish to be railing the magazine for
implying that the earth's moon had water and not engaging the content
of the article?Arcus Arrow wrote: »Here comes a question…….
Do you think anyone can write an article about people based only on the fact they don’t collect stamps?
Absolutely, what to one person is a piece of wood is to another a
soon-to-be boat & to another is a scene in Wayne's World 2. I even bet
you'd be able to write an article about people based only on the fact that
they don't collect stamps. The books being sold in the nearest petrol
station containing them should {presumption?} convince you of the
non-impossibility of such a task.
To engage the point you're trying to make with this example, I think
you're argument is with human nature in general really. To go back to
my Plato/Aristotle/Diogenese definition of man, such a definition does
not define the sum-total of man, neither does the word atheist. Still,
people throughout history use such language & it really is up to the
reader to decipher the meaning &, hopefully, understand what is meant
without being totally lost due to the unwritten (usually timesaving)
assumptions - especially in an opinion column on the internet...
Notice I did not also include the possibility that the article was printed in
the newspaper, because to waste time mentioning such trivialities is
nothing but time-wasting, similarly if we are to assume the worst about
what was meant about the title, I think you could argue the exact same
thing about time saving &/or speaking to a particular audience (the Irish
Times reader). If you wanted to poke holes I think you'd make a far
better point in highlighting the culturally constrained perspective of the
author & the limited scope of such a perspective in the grand scheme of
things if you really did want to poke holes in the use of such language.
But I digress, considering this has nothing to do with the actual article...Arcus Arrow wrote: »Well I’m glad you found something you like. The “we” I was referring to was part of the article so there is no other “we” bar one you’ve invented.
If you’d answered the very simple questions that were put to you it might help.
***There were a few "we's" in the article, which one precisely were you
responding to? Could you perhaps quote three previous sentences
as well as three sentences following the "we" you're referring to in the
article so that we have a chance at understanding the context, and
furthermore (this is pivotal) could you justify your understanding of
what is meant by "we" (i.e. the grand, overarching, speak for everyone
understanding) with recourse to the previous & following sentences
(where applicable). Personally I think this is an impossible task if you
are reading the article and paying attention. ***Arcus Arrow wrote: »Once again, how can anyone presume to speak for a mass of people based only on what they don’t believe?
I presume you have serious problems with the field of psychology, if you
dare to browse a textbook you'll find, to your great horror {presumption?},
that psychologists can most definitely say something about large masses
of people based on what they don't believe. One quick example, do you
deny that I can say something about a mass of people in the 21st century
based on the fact that so many people don't believe in slavery? Maybe not
though, maybe we can't say anything about people because of what they
don't believe as regards women, as regards children, as regards medicine,
as regards psychological treatment, as regards locks on doors, as regards
stealing land, as regards 1 = 0, as regards... I don't think it takes a great
deal of courage for many many many authors to even presume, let alone
speak, for masses of people when addressing & discussing such topics.
I guess what it requires is knowledge about the topic at hand & the
courage to speak about it, to answer your question as to what it takes
for someone to even presume to speak for people based on what they
don't believe.
(Notice the other possibilities, such as sheer ignorance, false knowledge,
guts, hatred of the idea of someone fearing to speak because they must
satisfy regulation X before daring to speak for people about any topic,
etc... etc... that I left out in my response, again it's an unfortunate
aspect of reality that such must occur).Arcus Arrow wrote: »All my issues are personal. So are yours. With humans everything is personal. The above sounds like the path to your presumptions. It’s a classic path common in the religious type mind. Rather than deal with the very simple questions, though they might be very uncomfortable, you've gone off all defensive possibly because you’re not hearing what you want to hear.
I apologize for my primitive, religious_type-like mind.Arcus Arrow wrote: »No I don’t get you. I even think there might be something wrong with me if I did.
Take the risk, it might cause something to go wrong with you if you try
but be brave, if you figure out what I meant by replying with something
that only tangentially has something to do with the topic of discussion if
you read sentences out of context then I think you'll grasp the main point
I'm making about your response and how it has nothing to do with the
article unless you aren't paying attention to the point being made in the
article and instead are just taking things out of context & responding
based on your own understanding of a sentence in vacuo.Arcus Arrow wrote: »There's no such thing as sin except in the religious mind and you're making up things I didn't actually say yet again. If you've started to see yourself as an atheist "sinner" don't go blaming me. Maybe you need to join an atheist confession and get a few Hail Darwins and a decade of the Dawkins for the sins you feel guilty of.
The atheist shame was drilled into me at atheist boot camp to which I
was sent because I'd spoken about my atheism
0 -
-
-
Arcus Arrow wrote: »No not me, but if by that you mean it’s possible, as the article is pompously trying to do, then go ahead. Considering the volume of text you’re capable of a few pages shouldn’t take you too long.
So in other words you now concede the possibility of something so utterly
despicable as writing an article about people based only on the fact they
don’t collect stamps? I'm glad the length of my responses has finally,
finally, been acknowledged on this site as something other than a
negative. If something such as the volume of text could go some way to
convincing you of the opposite of what seemed so definitive in your earlier
responses then I can do nothing but commend your receptiveness to
opposing opinions, perhaps next you'll try going beyond the volume of
text to embracing the meaning of the words constituting itArcus Arrow wrote: »Psychologists have problems with the field of psychology so I’m not alone by your measure. It’s not like they’re measuring lengths of rope. The best practitioners of psychology are not officially psychologists in my opinion. Since overall here you’re claiming, as far as I can tell, that a book or an article in this case can be written ascribing attributes to people based on what they don’t believe can you give me a few titles just for the hell of it. I’m sure you can by the way. I can give you books which will inform you there are ancient landing zones for spaceships in South America.
"Characteristics of Patients with Schizophrenia Who Do Not Believe They Are Mentally Ill"
(I guess this article isn't ascribing attributes to people based on what they don’t believe though...)
Why People Don't Trust Government
(I guess this book isn't speaking for a mass of people based on what they don't believe though...)
"Comparison of the smoking behaviour and attitudes of smokers who believe they have smoking-related problems with those who do not"
(I guess this article isn't ascribing attributes to people based on what they don’t believe and
contrasting that with the behaviour of people based on what they do believe though...)
I can't find an article that convinces me of the apparent equivalence
between the above articles & your books about ancient landing zones for
spaceships in South America though, so my articles may be null & voidArcus Arrow wrote: »The point is this: if the term atheists only means people who do not themselves believe in the existence of gods then how can anyone purporting to speak on their behalf ascribe to them attitudes, attributes, standards of behaviour etc without qualifying in some why which atheists they are referring to?
I'm well aware of the point you're trying to make, I think that was clear
in your first response. However I wonder are you ignoring the point I'm
trying to make because you think I don't get what you're trying to say or
is there some other reason you're repeating yourself without engaging
any of the points I'm making? I think the vital question here is how the
point you're making has to do with the point being made by the article.
I think I've summed your activity in this thread up perfectly when I quote
a random passage discussing the Principia, just try, try, to see what point
I was making by doing that & how it maps onto what you've done in here.
Better yet, try to answer the *** part of my last response, if you do this I
really doubt you can miss the point I've been making all along.Arcus Arrow wrote: »Sponsored you could have made that sound even more sarcastic and humorous if you’d thrown in a bit of the Vatican’s official language. Something like it “De omnibus dubitandum”. Maybe not that particular phrase in your case but something along those lines.
Well now I apologise for not having a religious-enough_type-mind that
permits me to strategically interject Vatican catechism passages at whim 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »So in other words you now concede the possibility of something so utterly
despicable as writing an article about people based only on the fact they
don’t collect stamps?
That's not what that meant. I hope you're deliberately making the mistake because if you're not you're reading it wrong.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I'm glad the length of my responses has finally, finally, been acknowledged on this site as something other than a negative. If something such as the volume of text could go some way to
convincing you of the opposite of what seemed so definitive in your earlier
responses then I can do nothing but commend your receptiveness to
opposing opinions, perhaps next you'll try going beyond the volume of
text to embracing the meaning of the words constituting it
If you've been feeling abused and unappreciated don't let me go upsetting something you're used to.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I can't find an article that convinces me of the apparent equivalence
between the above articles & your books about ancient landing zones for
spaceships in South America though, so my articles may be null & void
The point was you could find books that claimed almost anything. I'd wrongly had the half idea that that would give you a clue as to the pointlessness of dragging up a bunch of book titles and instead you'd concentrate on answering the question.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I'm well aware of the point you're trying to make, I think that was clear
in your first response. However I wonder are you ignoring the point I'm
trying to make because you think I don't get what you're trying to say or
is there some other reason you're repeating yourself without engaging
any of the points I'm making? I think the vital question here is how the
point you're making has to do with the point being made by the article.
I think I've summed your activity in this thread up perfectly when I quote
a random passage discussing the Principia, just try, try, to see what point
I was making by doing that & how it maps onto what you've done in here.
Better yet, try to answer the *** part of my last response, if you do this I
really doubt you can miss the point I've been making all along.
As far as I can see you're not making a point or at least not one that my short blip on earth allows sufficient time to untangle from your voluminous page fillers. What you're doing overall is providing a demonstration.
Are you a member of an atheist organisation or are you not attracted by that sort of thing or limited by location if you are?
I didn't mention anything about the catechism but never mind that's not something you'd appear to think makes any difference. As far as I'm concerned you have no one to apologise to but if it's something you've grown used to go right ahead.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Well now I apologise for not having a religious-enough_type-mind that
permits me to strategically interject Vatican catechism passages at whim
Is there a particular reason you're writing in columns instead of the full width available?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement