Comments on Elizaphanian
Quizzes are fun.
1) Lack of belief in any Gods- don't ask for the definition of Gods though!
2) No.
3) Goddidit
4) Anything that gets us a space ladder
5) Nothing.
6) Its April first, isn't it?
7) Design- it is an argument from ignorance
I have no idea- it isn't like atheists get together
9) Dan Barker
10) Someone whose defection would make other theists rethink their beliefs.
1.) Atheists don't use the word God, they use the word truth. Since they can't proove there isn't a God, they're only recourse is to have faith that there isn't one. So theists also have faith, and in this case, they have faith in nothing, much like they say about the theist - seems pretty irrational.
A true atheist would not and should not even engage in the conversation because it is irrational. There's no such thing as an a-unicornist, one doesn't walk around and/or label himself as a person who actively doesn't believe in such things because of course, there's no doubt. So to call yourself an atheist is to call attention to one's own uncertainty and reveal one's own faith in a matter(where of course an atheist really shouldn't have any or need any).
2.) Zen Baptist
3.) A label whos purpose relates the way we feel about ourselves with respect to the world.
4.) Where do I start.
5.) Nothing
6.) Why?
7.) Don't have any
9.) Dawkins, he of all of them has the strongest faith in his convictions and that in itself is a contradiction to what he believes and affirms what he's against. Heck; he preaches, gives sermons, writes books - he's a traveling atheistic evangelist who believes in "notgod" and all the things that "notgod" doesn't do.
10.) I wouldn't ask a person to do this I don't think.
Sam, I find your answer re: intelligent design interesting. Have you written on this before?
Louis B.,
Your definition of atheism is self-serving to the point of solipsism. Mad props for managing to throw out accusations of nihilism and "no true Scotsmen" according to your definition of atheism all at once, though. Ballsy. Stupid. But ballsy.
What is a Zen Baptist? Is that like a Kung-Fu fighting Pentecostal, only less able to balance on tree-limbs while high-kicking ninjas and dancing with snakes?
I like how in Q9 you actually use the word "faith" in a different context but then try to relate it back to the context you self-define in Q1. Again, ballsy, but stupid.
I know many people who would quibble with your characterization of Intelligent Design as atheistic. We largely ignored this theory in our Biology class this year, but we spent some time sideswiping both Darwinism and Know-Nothing Protestants.
James,
yes, I'm being rediculous of course. I was most deffinately being self serving and most deffinately accusing the athiest of nihilism. But I'm not being ballsy, I'm being rediculous - it's a reflection of how I feel about most of these arguments. (no offense).
You can't have arguments and conversations about "A" if after we get started we're not all on the same page with what "A" is and what it means. It all seems rather amusing to me.
I don't get all this sometimes. If one doesn't believe in God, then why have a conversation with someone where God is used as part of the argument - just walk away. If someone says he was out riding his unicorn last night, are you going to argue with him about it? I mean come on. Your argument suggest your really uncertain, or so it seems. We don't go around preaching abouit how the sun is going to come up tomorrow, because we all know it is. What we talk about is if they're going to be clouds. Athiests and theists talk about God because (it seems) neither side is sure about it either which way.
I don't get it.
I'll be the first to admit that I have no certainty about anything and I'm no doubt the moron of the bunch. You can't belive in something if you don't know something. That said, I'm not sure if a sufficient argument exists such that you can know God by it, and that's exactly how you know God of course.
If you can capture God in a statement of breath, yet cannot gather water with a net, then the only mystery in the world is the creation of a bucket of some sort so that I can get a drink and quench my thirst.
Q1. How would you define “atheism”?
Atheism is the active rejection of religion. Until recently I would have unthinkingly ticked the Roman Catholic box on a census form, giving the question as much significance as the colour of my hair. For me atheism is an active stance on a single issue.
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
My upbringing was Roman Catholic. My father was raised in a small Irish village when Ireland was unofficially controlled by the catholic church and education for the ‘ordinary person’ consisted little more than learning of the torments of hell while using a lighted candle as a teaching aid. At an exceptionally bad time to be Irish in the UK, my father traveled to England for work where he was mocked for being an Irish catholic. He went through an incident in the 80’s when a neighbor and a close friend hung himself but the family had to beg for an official verdict of ‘accidental death’ so the body could be buried in the catholic controlled graveyard. Needless to say my father has a deep rooted contempt of religion but his attitude towards me was very much ‘make up your own mind when you’re 18. Now go to mass’.
My mother would describe herself as religious. Although attending the daily mass is very much a way of life for her, I would have to call her naïve when it comes to the subject as she doesn’t know, well anything, about her birth religion apart from a few common prayers.
When I was 8 or 9, I was taught by a nun who still slapped children faces at a time when it was no longer legal to do so. During my confirmation, I remember meeting and quite liking the local bishop. The people who went to the protestant church in my town were somehow slightly different than other people. I still vaguely remember the face of the kid who fainted during the abortion video a Christian brother showed us 15 year olds during a religion lesson. I can recall a feeling of contentment after attending candlelight prayers held by a priest I quite liked. A few years later this priest left the church, married and was last heard working as a banker. The bishop I enjoyed meeting during my confirmation was forced to retire in disgrace about five years ago over his handling of the child sex scandals in my distinct which the tabloids labeled as ‘the most evil parish in the world’.
Thus ends the story of my religious upbringing – mostly just a few disjointed memories of 80’s Ireland.
Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?
Oxymoron
Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?
The possible benefits of responsible stem cell research quite excites me.
Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?
Atheism is a stance on a single issue and the ‘atheist community’ can hold a very varied set of views and attitudes. But as a humanities student, I would change the polarization of opinion that all ‘non-scientific’ endeavors are worthless.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?
At least its a cozy little number.
Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
For me, theistic arguments range from the ‘merely irritating’ to the ‘not-being-able-to-sleep-for-two-days-because-of-
being-filled-with-rage’ kind. I broke my bench press record while fuming over some guy claiming that all atheists are really agnostic because absolute knowledge is need is assert God doesn’t exist. So I don’t have any favorite theistic argument because they all annoy me to varying degrees.
Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
Probably that some past / present theists are very intelligent people and the principle of charity should be applied to their writings. Also, I hold the view that some religious institutions do provide useful and essential services to their communities. The local church is very much the social hub of my grandmothers generation and if that outlet were to be removed, I honestly cant see the secular community being very effective at replacing it. But of course, this very much depends upon your background. Other communities might have very active community centers for the elderly.
Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
My father is currently on his fourth complete reading of Dawkins and I know people who have not voluntarily read a book in decades who nevertheless bought and finished the god disillusion. So although Dawkins very much popularized the issue, I have to go for Dennett because his writings featured quite a bit on the relevant section in my philosophy course and I found them quite interesting and well written (unusual for a philosopher!) so I went out and bought more of his work. To be fair, Richard Dawkins also appeared on my course but because of his biology work on the selfish gene.
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
The pope! That said I would love any president of the united states to openly admit he is an atheistic. The fallout would be quite entertaining to say the least!
I might pick that meme up Sam (despite you devaluing the word - pah!)
See you damn Dennett with faint praise, fair enough. Would agree on Hitchens & Dawkins. Despite the shrill headlines around Sam Harris - I'd sincerely recommend that his philosophy on evidence / belief / truth is plenty subtle. Definitely worth reading by the likes of you.
BTW we are so close.
God = Meaning (that is NOT in the least controversial to me, an atheist)
My simplest statement of that is ..
The ineffable metaphysical core of everything [God for short] = "significant information" all the way from the sub-quantum to cosmological levels - ie everywhere I can conceive.
Meaning / Significant-Information.
Getting closer.
PS - Put up a comprehensive post of my own.
http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1574
Enjoy
You can't have arguments and conversations about "A" if after we get started we're not all on the same page with what "A" is and what it means. It all seems rather amusing to me.
On that, we can agree. It's damned hard to argue about first principles if we can't agree to at least have arguments accepting the others' premises from time to time. In my experience, it is the theist who is most adamant about refusing to do this, rather than atheists.
That said, I'm not sure if a sufficient argument exists such that you can know God by it, and that's exactly how you know God of course.
Quoi? Que'est-ce que c'est? Je ne parle pas theological claptrap.
I nicked this meme for my blog.
My answer to the "intelligent design" question was "Dunno" because it had to be one word. I would like to ask, though, if anyone believes there can be unintelligent design. I suppose kitch could be brought forward as evidence that there can, but one could also argue that that is just bad design.
I've seen people talking on blogs and such about Intelligent Design with a capital I and a capital D. I'm not sure what it is, and I couldn't be bothered to find out, probably for fear that it might lead to one of those boring and pointless "creation versus evolution" debates, which I avoid almost as diligently as I avoid blogs with tags like "entrepreneurship" and "marketing".
Calling "intelligent design" atheistic is a cheap shot. ID is very much a theistic world view, albeit an infantile type of theism that is insecure in its beliefs and shouts them all the more loudly to compensate. IDiots can never seem to grasp that they are not only parading their ignorance of science but making a mockery of their relgion and declaring that their god is a petty, impotent god.
Louis B: you are also guilty of cheap shots and dishonesty when you write: "So to call yourself an atheist is to call attention to one's own uncertainty and reveal one's own faith in a matter(where of course an atheist really shouldn't have any or need any)." I don't call myself an atheist, it is a label thrust on me by religionist society. I prefer to think of myself as one who prefers rational to magical thinking.
NMMNG,
Cheap shot's? Yes, absolutely it's a cheapshot.
Yes, absolutely it's a cheapshot.
It's also simple semantics without any actual reasoning behind it, as demonstrated previously: Thus, it is less than worthless.
James, you stated:
"It's also simple semantics without any actual reasoning behind it, as demonstrated previously: Thus, it is less than worthless."
Certainly. My comments are only for the sake of a response and it is the content of that response that reveals what I'm looking for.
It's not worthless if you feel the need to refute and/or rebut. You do so by saying essentially, Louis B. you’re a moron, what do you know, your argumentation is flawed and therefore I’m not going to listen to you, I’m James and I have the golden ticket.
Once again, if you’re so sure in your stance on God, then why are you wasting your precious finger strength arguing with Sam and bashing me (of course I want you to bash me)? It’s real safe when you never have to offer up your own convictions for refutation. And I don’t care who it is, you can pick apart the argument of any philosopher.
As an analytical individual it’s easy to follow and believe what science tells you and not look beyond. But as that same man it’s tough to follow God (I’m thinking of Kierkegaard for some reason) especially in the face of constant scrutiny. You either think there’s something there (in God) and you’re looking for someone to tell you that, or you’re simply around for the sake of mental masturbation and/or to stroke your pseudo intellectual ego.
Why not consider where one might be right, no matter how ridiculous the argument. Part of the issue is not so much that people are “wrong”, but that they lack the ability to convey how what they feel is right…..
What are you after James?
I’m James and I have the golden ticket.
Props for the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory reference.
Once again, if you’re so sure in your stance on God, then why are you wasting your precious finger strength arguing with Sam and bashing me
1) With you: It's fun.
2) With Sam: When I "meet" someone who I think is worthwhile, I like to engage them in dialog. I want to see how rigorous their thought is, if it will stand up to scrutiny, and, if they seem honest or at least to argue in good faith, I hope to receive the same in return.
It’s real safe when you never have to offer up your own convictions for refutation.
My convictions are all over the place at my own site and on offer whenever asked for. You just gotta click the name, dude.
As an analytical individual it’s easy to follow and believe what science tells you and not look beyond.
Again, you're imputing you're own interpretation. Where you did it before -- "atheists can't have 'faith'" -- now you are doing with, an atheist must believe in science/materialism. I'm not saying you should pay attention to what I write, but if you're going to take issue with it, then you should bother to not only read but comprehend as well.
What are you after James?
Like a said before, a dialog with interesting people with interesting ideas. My own thought needs to be held to scrutiny, or it is worthless -- but I'll not spare others' thought the same in the name of comity. My assumption, given Sam's "humourless vs. sophisticated" atheism posts, is that he is interested in learning about atheism, just as I am about theism. I don't know what it's like in the UK, but over here on the other side of the pond, it's actually rare for me to find an actual church official willing to have a dialog.
I find Sam interesting. He validates a lot of my own thinking on religion. You'll note that I never question the validity of his personal experience of the divine.
But what I do for Sam, and I hope for the others who choose to dialog, even you, is hold up their arguments to scrutiny, pointing out the flaws. Like I said before, if your ideas can't withstand thorough, honest scrutiny, then they may not be worth anything.
But then, I don't do this for you; I do it for me. And no one is obliged to dialog. You choose to, and the question cuts both ways: What are you after, Louis?
James:
For the sake of advancing the conversation, could you please define parameters of "dialogue"?
Here's why I ask: I will be happy to discuss with you any topic you choose, with critical thoughts being expressed on both sides, if dialgue is properly understood.
Yes James, it is fun. And I'm intentionally being as I am. I do read what you say, I'm simply observing how you react to it.
You a said: "Like I said before, if your ideas can't withstand thorough, honest scrutiny, then they may not be worth anything."
So are most people worthless to you then? Or in the vary least they're ideas? Does an individual’s inability to vocalize the nature of his faith or general belief such that you can understand invalidate it and make it worthless – or just worthless to you? If you can't understand a Childs cry, is that worthless too? If a painter cannot explain to you his/her technique, is what he painted worthless?
All I’m saying is that, at some point reason brakes down and is unable to articulate the nature of God – this is just the way it is. So ultimately, all theists are worthles to you - oops, there I go. Because Sam's arguments no matter how good will never stand to reason. EVER.
Scott gives an interesting case here:
http://logicsinandlove.blogspot....f-
eternity.html
I understand what you mean to say, surely a dialog can help strengthen each sides position and help refine the arguments – that’s just good evolution.
And you keep saying I'm imputing my own meaning, but again I’m simply trying to provoke a response.
So what am I after?
Honestly, I don't know. It's not enough to say that I find all this interesting – beyond that I can’t say anything more. Perhaps I’d like to believe in something.
Louis:
To say that an argument is worthless is not the same as saying the person is worthless -- merely that he is mistaken. Ideas, as you suggest and as James insists, must be able to withstand significant scrutiny -- but not from those who are professional doubters: the questions must be reasonable too.
Here's an example of what I mean. Some people believe in evolution, while others accept that there are some parts of the theory which make sense, and still others who believe that the theory is nonsense or worse. To criticize the theory on the basis of "MY bible" is to miss the issue. To criticize it on the basis of significant scientific lacunae is to bring appropriate weapons to bear (as it were -- we're not at war!) and to ask reasonable questions, even those of a religious nature, is to subject the theory to reasonable criticism.
The existence of God, on the other hand, is something which many people take as an unprovable given, while others (including the woman whose book I'm reading) take it as a dangerous fiction, and still others take it, following Voltaire, as a useful fiction. Then there is the Catholic position: the existence of God can be demonstrated by reason alone, but the particular nature of God as a trinity of persons can not -- it doesn't defy logic, but merely surpasses it.
I suppose I should note that increasingly we live in an unreasonable, almost irrational culture -- not just here in the States, but also throughout Europe and in many places as well. To illustrate my point, at the very time when many well-meaning, sincere folk were condemning the war in Vietnam, abortion became "constitutional" -- so killing innocent people at home was ok, but killing foreigners wasn't. We spend enormous amounts of money helping people to achieve pregnancy, and yet allow the child to be killed while in the birth canal. America, according to a recent survey, is a "very religious" nation which never the less treats religion with tremendous casualness -- the beliefs don't matter, only being religious. In Britain, as here, freedom and tolerance and diversity are achieved by denying religious people the right to speak, by assuring that everyone is taught the same thing, and by rewriting history to serve the "common good".
If this all bears an alarming resemblance to Huxley's Brave New World or Orwell's 1984, perhaps we could all learn from that thought. If the examples I have given here seem perfectly reasonable -- if you read them and conclude -"Yes, so what", perhaps reasonable dialogue isn't possible, but I'm still willing to try.
Chris,
I know it doesn't mean you think people are worthless, I'm being sarcastic. and I believe I clerified that. Anyway, doesn't matter.
I would argue finally, to James:
By virtue of your argument that an idea is worthless if it does not stand to scrutiny, I say that your reason for being here is worthless then. That is, I "think" Sam would agree that his dfinition of God for example would never stand to sctrict logical scrutiny and further more that God can never be contained in the box of language. That is fundamental. Having said that James, your pissing into the wind with your reason for being here and it is worthless. Unless of course you believe that Sam will one day convert you? As God is not describable, so to is your reason for being as it relates.
Of course James, I don't actually feel that your being here is worthless. I feel your side is necessaray to Sam's blog and it fits well (I generally agree with Sam and just like to read)
Sam BTW,
your thoughts are so rigorous. I'd realy love it if we could engage in some dialog together and you could allow me to scutinize every.... last.... word.... oooh yeah....
Louis, I cannot shake the feeling that at some fundamental level, you're completely dishonest. When I subject an argument, say Sam's, to scrutiny, I'm not necessarily privileging rationality, but I am seeing if it is internally valid -- is there an honest case to be made for the conclusion to follow from the premise without contortions that abrogate the internal validity? This is why I have focused of late on asking Sam why Christianity is true. He predicates his belief in a god on a personal revelatory experience of the divine; I am in no place to criticize the legitimacy of that experience, even if I can posit more commonplace explanations for it.
You seem to either not grasp the distinction between the two questions, or not care that it exists. But, I am curious: how do my arguments not withstand scrutiny (since you contend they are themselves worthless)? Sam has openly conceded my theory of religious adherence when he stated that he believed in god because he had a revelation and he is Christian because he was raised that way! Far from not withstanding scrutiny, I've been completely validated so far.
Ok James, that sounds rather slippery and dishonest as well. So lets take this another direction perhaps. If you don't mind of course.
Is Sam's conclusion God?
Yes or No
No no, forget it. I get you. I mean I'd like to follow the path but I get you.
Your right, I'm being solipsistic.
Lo, I have an example. Let’s suppose that Sam’s blog is about football (soccer). Sam writes daily with a critique and analysis of the game, the player and the fans. He is a former player and is currently of coach.
On the other hand you have Jim (james). He doesn’t get football, as matter of fact he doesn’t get athletics in general. He’s short, stout, loves paleontology and operates a blog on popular science.
One day as Jim is making updates to his blog he accidentally stumbles upon Sam’s blog, “Footballology, Watching the Ball Come In”. Now, any self respecting geek would immediately high-tail it out of there as the sight of athletics makes they’re pimples sore. But no, Jim sticks around, but not because deep down inside he has a hidden interest in Football… But, simply because he finds Sam’s thought rigorous and he wants to see if it stands to scrutiny.
That sounds ridiculous to me, I don’t understand it at all. In my feeble little mind you either have a hidden interest in the topic of God, or your sitting there thinking, “lets go put some Christian thought to scrutiny today”. That sounds like pure mental masturbation to me, it’s nonsense and I don’t get it. Perhaps you’re just not to sure about your own position, so you’re testing yourself as well – I can accept that (but that would mean you have some hidden interest, or so it seems). I don’t’ know myself, I believe in “God”, I understand the search, however the objectivity of Christianity I can’t swallow. Hence the earlier comment on Zen Baptist. Subject vs. Object religion.
James, I really don’t understand. I understand Sam's engagement of Atheists because this is what he does, this is his path, he's devoloping his language. But the other side just seems like meaningless, fruitless ego stroking.
Commenting by HaloScan
