The expressions "believe there isn't a deity" (active denial) and "do not believe there is a deity" (absence of belief) are not equivalent in any sense
But if I say "I believe there isn't a Tooth Fairy" and you say "I do not believe there is a Tooth Fairy" aren't we both going to hurt Her feelings (if She exists)?
Sorry, I think that your thinking and language is theistically-slanted, and you are making a distinction where there is none. Saying "I believe there isn't an X" does not have to mean that I am opposed to the very idea of X.
If I say "I believe there isn't such a supernatural deity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in actuality" I mean no more or less than "I do not believe there is such a supernatural deity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in actuality". It is only religious people who take the word "believe" so seriously, since it is used to describe their faith.
In normal everyday English if I say "I believe Man Utd are going to win the Premiership this year" it's not some almighty pronouncement or declaration of clairvoyance, it's just an opinion based on past and present facts, i.e. they're 15 points ahead with only 8 games left to play. And I certainly don't need to support Man Utd to say it.
It is the classic weaselly theistic response to play on the word "believe". If an atheist says "I believe the sky is blue", theists say "ha, see you believe things just like we believe in god". Therefore we're just two sides of the same coin.
> If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition.
NO. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
That is not the same as saying you do not believe in God.
I assume from all the quibbling over this that a lot of people are living somewhere where it is dangerous to identify yourself as an atheist, so presumably the US or Iran.
Of course, the whole conversation ends up being kind of dumb, because who gives a fuck?
As an atheist, I give a fuck for the very simple reason that theists do not simply sit in their rooms reading their holy books and being nice and cool.
They influence laws and wars in places like the USA, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Their representatives appear on TV criticising couples who want to have sex without producing babies, women who want to control their own bodies, people who want to have relationships outside marriage, gay people and so on. Here in the UK, Bishops get a place in the House of Lords and I am restricted from doing certain things on a Sunday.
Their authority comes from the fact that they are taken seriously as somehow representing the word of god, so it is a pretty big deal if their whole house of cards is built on sand (as it were).
An atheist denies the existence of God in the same way he denies the existence of little green men on Mars, i.e. if you show him a picture of some little green men on Mars, he will cheerfully acknowledge that they are there, but until then he uses his experience and knowledge of the world to conclude that it is highly unlikely.
Your friend Dr Craig chooses to define an atheist as someone who is not a theist, as though they are two equally plausible descriptions of the universe which it is simply a matter of taste to decide between. This is simply untrue, unless you want to make the extraordinary claim that people should choose to believe whatever they like in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary (which is pretty much a definition of insanity).
When a believer mentions to you that he or she can't make plans with you because of a religious obligation, do you say the equivalent of "ok, talk to you later" or do you go off on a rant about how useless, backwards and primitive their religious rituals are? If you do the latter, you're an asshole and people tend to avoid interactions with assholes.
You seem to be mixing up Truth with Social Skills. They are orthogonal.
I'm suggesting that the mere fact that the universe doesn't contain enough information to establish with any certainty either way about the notion
doesn't prove the non-existence of god
No, your argument was that it was 50/50 either way and therefore just as logical to believe in god as not.
In fact, what you have is an overwhelming mass of negative evidence that there is no god, and the only positive evidence that there is god is in the minds of believers. Logically you can't prove a negative, but logically you can't be 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. That doesn't mean that you organise your life as though it will end tonight.
Indeed, can you prove that there isn't a giraffe sitting behind that keyboard? While we all haven't seen any giraffe that can type coherent English, can you prove that one doesn't exist?
Well OK then, can you prove that time/FTL travel is and always will be impossible?
As with God, all you would have to do is provide ONE example of time travel (or God existing) for it to be proved. But all you can actually do is rely on logic, the evidence of your own senses, and the accumulated weight of mathematical and scientific evidence about how the universe works.
That's what I find endlessly hilarious about militant atheists - they'll prattle on and on about how religious types are "idiots" for basing their entire belief structure on
pure faith, completely ignoring the fact that, since it's impossible to prove a negative, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.
No, atheism says "show me some evidence that God exists." It's called the scientific method. You come up with theories that match with available evidence and which can be tested against future events or be disproved by them. I am baffled by how apparently intelligent nerds can simply wave away the framework of science when it comes to religion.
Atheists don't believe in the existence of God for the same reason they don't believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or a teapot orbiting the Earth. If you want to believe in those things, I can't stop you, but you need something concrete to persuade me you're not just wrong.
Sigh, things would be a lot easier if we had mining, refining and spaceship/probe assembly plants in orbit.
Well, yes.
I love how when it comes to space technology, you get people making breathtakingly sweeping handwaves to get round problems. "It's just engineering". No shit. Just because something's not made of magic and fairy dust doesn't mean it's feasible.
If they decide they want to use your phone as a bug
Once "they" are taking that serious an interest in you, you're better off stopping doing anything dodgy rather than trying to outsmart them. Just because you work out a way to stop the your phone acting as a bug doesn't mean that "they" will give up on surveillance and other types of bug instead.
I assume the attraction of using phones is that (in theory) everything can be done remotely. That doesn't mean "they" won't get hands on if they think it's necessary.
Something I've always wondered about people like you is whether you're genuinely paranoid, or just like playing at it. The danger is that if you pretend to be mad for too long, you end up going mad anyway.
Just adding my voice to the "this is shit" side of the argument. Okay, so by next week it'll be fine on the website because I'm logged in, but if my RSS reader still shows ROT13ed content then I'm probably not going to bother coming back. Seriously, what muppet came up with this idea and thought it was a good one?
You're posting as though you think the idea is (a) serious and (b) permanent.
Best thing you can do is simply stuff something in her mouth to shut her up. If you don't have any items of suitable size necessary, just use a portion of your anatomy...
Yup, you get "internet tough guy of the day" award, no problem. If I were female, you'd probably be able to impregnate me over the internet, so potent is your studliness.
And Moby "stole" that idea from the hippy classic Woodstock: "we are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon". Or possibly from 2001: "it's full of stars."
It is a decent, but non scientific, philosophical question.
No, it's not a decent question. Hominids are in no way adapted to out-fighting, out-running, or out-hiding dinosaurs, and no group of hominids would last long enough among dinosaurs to out-smart them. That's why they didn't coexist.
That is a truly pathetic argument. Hominids aren't adapted to out-fighting, out-running or out-hiding big cats either, but I'm fairly sure lions and tigers exist alongside human beings.
I'm sad I have to respond as if this thread were serious. But believing people rode dinosaurs is hardly an inconsequential thing. It belies a deep, deep disfunction in a persons cognitive processes. If you're that incredibly misinformed about such a basic and easily verifiable fact of the world we live in, there is something wrong with your brain. The incuriousness it takes to allow such a belief to persist to adulthood boggles the mind.
Something like this is absolutely a deal breaker for me. Life is too short to spend it with someone you don't respect intellectually.
It's good to hear that you know the absolute truth about everything. It makes you wonder why peple still disagree about things like the existence of god, whether socialism is achieveable in my lifetime, what date the Singularity will occur on, and who was the most talented Beatle.
Slashdot Mirror
Try reading/watching Six Characters In Search of An Author.
All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies.
And the problem is...?
Labelling someone as "militant" or "fanatical" is one of the standard tactics used by those in power to smear those who aren't.
The expressions "believe there isn't a deity" (active denial) and "do not believe there is a deity" (absence of belief) are not equivalent in any sense
But if I say "I believe there isn't a Tooth Fairy" and you say "I do not believe there is a Tooth Fairy" aren't we both going to hurt Her feelings (if She exists)?
Sorry, I think that your thinking and language is theistically-slanted, and you are making a distinction where there is none. Saying "I believe there isn't an X" does not have to mean that I am opposed to the very idea of X.
If I say "I believe there isn't such a supernatural deity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in actuality" I mean no more or less than "I do not believe there is such a supernatural deity as the Flying Spaghetti Monster in actuality". It is only religious people who take the word "believe" so seriously, since it is used to describe their faith.
In normal everyday English if I say "I believe Man Utd are going to win the Premiership this year" it's not some almighty pronouncement or declaration of clairvoyance, it's just an opinion based on past and present facts, i.e. they're 15 points ahead with only 8 games left to play. And I certainly don't need to support Man Utd to say it.
It's just word-play and false equivalence.
> If the first part of that statement is true, then yes, you are an atheist by definition.
NO. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
That is not the same as saying you do not believe in God.
I assume from all the quibbling over this that a lot of people are living somewhere where it is dangerous to identify yourself as an atheist, so presumably the US or Iran.
Of course, the whole conversation ends up being kind of dumb, because who gives a fuck?
As an atheist, I give a fuck for the very simple reason that theists do not simply sit in their rooms reading their holy books and being nice and cool.
They influence laws and wars in places like the USA, Russia, Iran and Afghanistan. Their representatives appear on TV criticising couples who want to have sex without producing babies, women who want to control their own bodies, people who want to have relationships outside marriage, gay people and so on. Here in the UK, Bishops get a place in the House of Lords and I am restricted from doing certain things on a Sunday.
Their authority comes from the fact that they are taken seriously as somehow representing the word of god, so it is a pretty big deal if their whole house of cards is built on sand (as it were).
Your friend Dr Craig chooses to define an atheist as someone who is not a theist, as though they are two equally plausible descriptions of the universe which it is simply a matter of taste to decide between. This is simply untrue, unless you want to make the extraordinary claim that people should choose to believe whatever they like in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary (which is pretty much a definition of insanity).
I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist though
Yes, you are.
An agnostic could say "I am unable to decide whether God exists or not" but it is illogical to say "I do not believe in God even though He exists".
When a believer mentions to you that he or she can't make plans with you because of a religious obligation, do you say the equivalent of "ok, talk to you later" or do you go off on a rant about how useless, backwards and primitive their religious rituals are? If you do the latter, you're an asshole and people tend to avoid interactions with assholes.
You seem to be mixing up Truth with Social Skills. They are orthogonal.
I'm suggesting that the mere fact that the universe doesn't contain enough information to establish with any certainty either way about the notion doesn't prove the non-existence of god
No, your argument was that it was 50/50 either way and therefore just as logical to believe in god as not.
In fact, what you have is an overwhelming mass of negative evidence that there is no god, and the only positive evidence that there is god is in the minds of believers. Logically you can't prove a negative, but logically you can't be 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. That doesn't mean that you organise your life as though it will end tonight.
Indeed, can you prove that there isn't a giraffe sitting behind that keyboard? While we all haven't seen any giraffe that can type coherent English, can you prove that one doesn't exist?
Well OK then, can you prove that time/FTL travel is and always will be impossible?
As with God, all you would have to do is provide ONE example of time travel (or God existing) for it to be proved. But all you can actually do is rely on logic, the evidence of your own senses, and the accumulated weight of mathematical and scientific evidence about how the universe works.
That's what I find endlessly hilarious about militant atheists - they'll prattle on and on about how religious types are "idiots" for basing their entire belief structure on pure faith, completely ignoring the fact that, since it's impossible to prove a negative, atheism is also a faith-based belief structure.
No, atheism says "show me some evidence that God exists." It's called the scientific method. You come up with theories that match with available evidence and which can be tested against future events or be disproved by them. I am baffled by how apparently intelligent nerds can simply wave away the framework of science when it comes to religion.
Atheists don't believe in the existence of God for the same reason they don't believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or a teapot orbiting the Earth. If you want to believe in those things, I can't stop you, but you need something concrete to persuade me you're not just wrong.
Sigh, things would be a lot easier if we had mining, refining and spaceship/probe assembly plants in orbit.
Well, yes.
I love how when it comes to space technology, you get people making breathtakingly sweeping handwaves to get round problems. "It's just engineering". No shit. Just because something's not made of magic and fairy dust doesn't mean it's feasible.
If they decide they want to use your phone as a bug
Once "they" are taking that serious an interest in you, you're better off stopping doing anything dodgy rather than trying to outsmart them. Just because you work out a way to stop the your phone acting as a bug doesn't mean that "they" will give up on surveillance and other types of bug instead.
I assume the attraction of using phones is that (in theory) everything can be done remotely. That doesn't mean "they" won't get hands on if they think it's necessary.
Something I've always wondered about people like you is whether you're genuinely paranoid, or just like playing at it. The danger is that if you pretend to be mad for too long, you end up going mad anyway.
It's as if slashdot had jokingly set a "maths contest" to find the solution to 2 + 1 and every fucker was posting 3 as though it made them Einstein.
Just adding my voice to the "this is shit" side of the argument. Okay, so by next week it'll be fine on the website because I'm logged in, but if my RSS reader still shows ROT13ed content then I'm probably not going to bother coming back. Seriously, what muppet came up with this idea and thought it was a good one?
You're posting as though you think the idea is (a) serious and (b) permanent.
It's a crappy April Fool's joke.
Couldn't you have just bought her a basic biology textbook or something?
Best thing you can do is simply stuff something in her mouth to shut her up. If you don't have any items of suitable size necessary, just use a portion of your anatomy...
Yup, you get "internet tough guy of the day" award, no problem. If I were female, you'd probably be able to impregnate me over the internet, so potent is your studliness.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Hint: you are not a precious snowflake.
Wouldn't it be more like masochism? I thought Shadenfreude was the enjoyment of others' misery.
You come to slashdot on April 1st to laugh at the huge numbers of rage-filled nerds who are incapable of seeing when something is a joke.
It is a decent, but non scientific, philosophical question.
No, it's not a decent question. Hominids are in no way adapted to out-fighting, out-running, or out-hiding dinosaurs, and no group of hominids would last long enough among dinosaurs to out-smart them. That's why they didn't coexist.
That is a truly pathetic argument. Hominids aren't adapted to out-fighting, out-running or out-hiding big cats either, but I'm fairly sure lions and tigers exist alongside human beings.
I'm sad I have to respond as if this thread were serious. But believing people rode dinosaurs is hardly an inconsequential thing. It belies a deep, deep disfunction in a persons cognitive processes. If you're that incredibly misinformed about such a basic and easily verifiable fact of the world we live in, there is something wrong with your brain. The incuriousness it takes to allow such a belief to persist to adulthood boggles the mind.
Something like this is absolutely a deal breaker for me. Life is too short to spend it with someone you don't respect intellectually.
It's good to hear that you know the absolute truth about everything. It makes you wonder why peple still disagree about things like the existence of god, whether socialism is achieveable in my lifetime, what date the Singularity will occur on, and who was the most talented Beatle.