"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
NobleGuy said:
Ad-hom's not serious, it's pretentious.
"Goddidit" is overly-derogatory.
What's wrong with normal English?
Ad-hom is pretentious? If you say so. 'Goddidit' is 'overly' derogatory? We're you bullied at school by the bullies, and the people who used uncommon words?"Goddidit" is overly-derogatory.
What's wrong with normal English?
Edited to add..
What would you prefer?
Ad-hom
Or;
Play the man not the ball, (you can abbrieviate to PTMNTB, but it would then be the same length as ad-hom)
You decide which one makes you feel nicer.
Edited by TheHeretic on Wednesday 2nd May 14:01
NobleGuy said:
Jabbah said:
NobleGuy said:
Sorry, I gave up reading when I read the word 'woo'.
So you'll have read the question in the first paragraph and be responding to it right now then?For reasons I explained months ago on this thread, 'woo' winds me up to the point of not wanting to read any more.
"Do you agree that there's a huge difference between the 'first cause' uninvolved deity, that is Deism, and the Theistic god of personality though?"
My asnwer would be NO I do not agree. What we're talking about her is whether a creator was involved in the birth of the universe, atheism is a disbelief in that creator, or a belief in that creator not being.
Deism and Theism only diverge after the point of creation, not at the point of creation.
NobleGuy said:
Sorry, I gave up reading when I read the word 'woo'.
Ok, I'm fine with that, it's par for your discussion style. I don't know a better way of covering the huge range of mysticism's oddities, it's not derogatory and the term 'woo' is purely harking back to the classic noise ghosts make.TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
Ad-hom's not serious, it's pretentious.
"Goddidit" is overly-derogatory.
What's wrong with normal English?
Ad-hom is pretentious? If you say so. 'Goddidit' is 'overly' derogatory? We're you bullied at school by the bullies, and the people who used uncommon words?"Goddidit" is overly-derogatory.
What's wrong with normal English?
Edited to add..
What would you prefer?
Ad-hom
Or;
Play the man not the ball, (you can abbrieviate to PTMNTB, but it would then be the same length as ad-hom)
You decide which one makes you feel nicer.
Edited by TheHeretic on Wednesday 2nd May 14:01
The ones that used such words were hung upside down in their underpants, but that was because they were socially awkward and couldn't communicate with people effectively enough to tell on us
IainT said:
NobleGuy said:
Sorry, I gave up reading when I read the word 'woo'.
Ok, I'm fine with that, it's par for your discussion style. I don't know a better way of covering the huge range of mysticism's oddities, it's not derogatory and the term 'woo' is purely harking back to the classic noise ghosts make.
TheHeretic said:
mattnunn said:
So back one page you said
<I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.>
I'll take that to mean you're an atheist, but you also believe in the possibility of God, perhaps not the christian God, but "A" God.
You said "to practical extents" you're atheist, but then you and pals will tell me that atheism has no practical implications, it's not a way of life or even a thought process, it's not an ideal or a system of thought, it's simply an absence of a thought process.
By the power invested in me... I declare thee...
Confused.
You are the one getting confused methinks. Here, for those who cannot take in what is being said, a picture.<I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.>
I'll take that to mean you're an atheist, but you also believe in the possibility of God, perhaps not the christian God, but "A" God.
You said "to practical extents" you're atheist, but then you and pals will tell me that atheism has no practical implications, it's not a way of life or even a thought process, it's not an ideal or a system of thought, it's simply an absence of a thought process.
By the power invested in me... I declare thee...
Confused.
NobleGuy said:
IainT said:
NobleGuy said:
Sorry, I gave up reading when I read the word 'woo'.
Ok, I'm fine with that, it's par for your discussion style. I don't know a better way of covering the huge range of mysticism's oddities, it's not derogatory and the term 'woo' is purely harking back to the classic noise ghosts make.TheHeretic said:
You are the one getting confused methinks. Here, for those who cannot take in what is being said, a picture.
I find that a little confusing the way it is laid out. It seems to imply a space where you can define your position anywhere within. However it would make no sense to sit on the boundry between the gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. The blocks may be better arranged in a line eg Gnostic Atheist - Agnostic Atheist - Agnositc Theist - Gnostic Theist.Jabbah said:
I find that a little confusing the way it is laid out. It seems to imply a space where you can define your position anywhere within. However it would make no sense to sit on the boundry between the gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. The blocks may be better arranged in a line eg Gnostic Atheist - Agnostic Atheist - Agnositc Theist - Gnostic Theist.
And there was me thinking it was a simple diagram. I'm not sure how you would sit on the line between definitely knowing, and not knowing. Surely that is a binary decision?How about this one...
The Dawkins scale has too great a gap between 6 and 7 IMO. Six is much too moderate for me but even I wouldn't say I'm a 7 with that phraseology because it sounds too mathematical. I'm happy to say I know there's no god, in the same way I know I'm not a sitting on an elephant on Mars and just imagining my life on Earth, but I would shy away from assigning a mathematically certainty of 100% to that opinion. The difference is between the absolutes of maths, where 100% is complete certainty, to the everyday usage of the terms 'know' and 'certain'. It sounds pedantic but when talking of things as butt-clenchingly unlikely as a god then splitting hairs is the order of the day.
NobleGuy said:
fluffnik said:
They're all vanishingly unlikely to be creators.
I've already shown through logic that this not the case.All the arguments against magic hydras and wicker bulls are equally valid against any other supernatural entity that acts in the natural world.
NobleGuy said:
The problem I have with the 'scientific extremists' is that they think because they know about science that this precludes the possibility of a God. Which is doesn't.
We cannot dismiss, nor confirm, a deist creator but we can quite reasonably dismiss every interventionist deity so far posited. NobleGuy said:
fluffnik said:
Sadly it is quite difficult or even impossible to point out to someone, even showing the working, that their world view is delusional nonsense without risking upset.
True to a certain extent.NobleGuy said:
fluffnik said:
The terms used are therefore necessarily derogatory.
I don't really agree. I find it easy to talk to those guys who knock on my door and point out their pseudo-scientific arguments are flawed without resorting to calling them delusional, mad, mentally ill or anything else.No-one has yet provided an argument for such differentiation that I have found even faintly compelling, perhaps one day they might.
If someone comes to my door to try to persuade me of their (evidentially unsupported) worldview I will either dismiss them politely with a "Sorry, no gods here" or I will engage them in robust discussion...
I don't chap doors to promote my worldview but if anyone engages me in debate I'm disinclined to pull punches.
carmonk said:
The Dawkins scale has too great a gap between 6 and 7 IMO. Six is much too moderate for me but even I wouldn't say I'm a 7 with that phraseology because it sounds too mathematical. I'm happy to say I know there's no god, in the same way I know I'm not a sitting on an elephant on Mars and just imagining my life on Earth, but I would shy away from assigning a mathematically certainty of 100% to that opinion. The difference is between the absolutes of maths, where 100% is complete certainty, to the everyday usage of the terms 'know' and 'certain'. It sounds pedantic but when talking of things as butt-clenchingly unlikely as a god then splitting hairs is the order of the day.
Well, I am a 6.9. No diagram will please everyone.NobleGuy said:
Surely it's possible to say "We don't know the answer to that" (e.g. what was before the universe), yet about something other question (e.g. how does lightning flash) say "We understand how this works, but we still don't know if that phenomenon was created by a God or not."
We have no reason to expect any $DEITY to be active in the physical Universe, and whilst we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that some strongly god-like entity or system did not set the whole shebang running and step (or the pan-dimensional equivalent thereof) away, I think we can safely dismiss the possibility that any even weakly god-like entity added some whizzy features to an otherwise naturally occurring Universe...IainT said:
NobleGuy said:
IainT said:
NobleGuy said:
Sorry, I gave up reading when I read the word 'woo'.
Ok, I'm fine with that, it's par for your discussion style. I don't know a better way of covering the huge range of mysticism's oddities, it's not derogatory and the term 'woo' is purely harking back to the classic noise ghosts make.Dawkin's numbering system is b
ks, it's a marketing ploy to attract as many people as possible to align themselves with his belief system, I get it, he's got books to sell and a thought system to peddle.
There are 3 states, Theist (or Deist), Agnostic, Atheist.
If you are not 100% sure that there is no God, you're agnostic.
The problem with this whole conversation is the word belief, because it implies an element of intellectual input, replace with "trust". If you trust the universe was not created by a higher power (intellect) than humanity, then you're atheist.
Doesn't really matter, I doubt there will be consequences what ever you believe or trust in. There is no need to start shading areas grey.
ks, it's a marketing ploy to attract as many people as possible to align themselves with his belief system, I get it, he's got books to sell and a thought system to peddle.There are 3 states, Theist (or Deist), Agnostic, Atheist.
If you are not 100% sure that there is no God, you're agnostic.
The problem with this whole conversation is the word belief, because it implies an element of intellectual input, replace with "trust". If you trust the universe was not created by a higher power (intellect) than humanity, then you're atheist.
Doesn't really matter, I doubt there will be consequences what ever you believe or trust in. There is no need to start shading areas grey.
fluffnik said:
We have no reason to expect any $DEITY to be active in the physical Universe, and whilst we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that some strongly god-like entity or system did not set the whole shebang running and step (or the pan-dimensional equivalent thereof) away, I think we can safely dismiss the possibility that any even weakly god-like entity added some whizzy features to an otherwise naturally occurring Universe...
Nice website. Just downloaded that straight to iBook, no faffing. 
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff