Agnostics And Atheists Thread

[FleurDeLune]

Take time to read this. It's only visible just for today.

 

 

manilatonight.com/index.php?showtopic=50297&page=35

 

The 2nd thread. Or you may look around here and you'll find the link.

Edited September 3, 2015 by FleurDeLune

[Spanner_works]

 

Nice try at logic. The only problem was that I definitively give the context behind my assertion that using a concept derived from religions whilst professing that you don't believe in such things is incoherent. You conveniently disregard my post about anti-American activists eating at an American joint without realising how incongruent those 2 can be.

Your "context" does nothing to explain why the Wednesday-Odin connection is any different from the demons-religion connection.

 

Your Negroboy and American example falls flat for the following reasons:

 

(i) The term Negro is not universally regarded as racist or offensive (alot of people however do regard it to be so). Martin Luther King Jr. referred to his own race as Negro in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech. This writer, for example prefers being called Negro. So strictly speaking there is nothing contradictory for a user named Negroboy ranting against racism.

 

(ii) Your American example suffers from automatically conflating the American Government, with everything American (American people, culture, food, etc.). You can protest the actions of the American Government while still loving American culture. They are two different things. Again Americans themselves do protest actions of their own government.

 

 

And it's funnier that you have to defend that behaviour! Are you one of them?! Wow! Those activists complain about Americans encroaching on our sovereignty and oftentimes would cry out that they 'want America out of our lives'. Now, how's that congruent to eating at McDonalds? Eating at an American joint is implicitly supporting the American presence in the Philipinnes! Oh wait, is that too hard to understand? Tsk tsk

Who's defending anything? It's a simple statement of fact. Again you are automatically conflating the term American with the American Government. I personally support a bigger American military presence so it's stupid to lump me together with those activists.

 

 

You're arguing ad nauseam by repeating your arguments whilst ignoring my attempts to connect the dots for you. And your argument is nothing but a strawman as it narrowly focus on a statement that you've taken out of context and misrepresented.

Misrepresentation? Are you telling me that you are not arguing that using the concept of demons while denying religion is incoherent because demons are concepts which came from religions?

 

 

The only problem was that I definitively give the context behind my assertion that using a concept derived from religions whilst professing that you don't believe in such things is incoherent.

Oh wait, you actually made that assertion. So much for misrepresentation.

 

 

Name-calling? Nah, it's called respect. Any atheist fueled by that intellectual drive to extricate themselves from the grips of religions would have read their works and not bother with the Oxford dictionary. Hume's 'commit it then to the flames' or Sartre's 'God is dead' are nothing but staples in any intellectual discourse involving atheism. The mere fact that you opted to quote a dictionary says a lot about your non-belief. It's as hollow as it can possibly be.

 

First of all it is Name-Dropping not Name-Calling

 

name–dropping

noun name–drop·ping \-ˌdrä-piŋ\

: the act of trying to impress someone by saying the names of well-known people that you know or have met

 

name-calling

 

noun name–call·ing \ˈnām-ˌkȯ-liŋ\

: the act of using offensive names to insult someone

 

See this is why referring to a dictionary is so useful. It helps us avoid the mistake of confusing one concept from another.

 

You'll have to show where Hume and Sartre actually contests the dictionary definition in any of their writings. And then you will have to explain why we should follow their definition. Flippant phrases like: 'commit it then to the flames' or 'God is dead' (which actually came from Nietzsche) is not enough. Shouldn't be hard for someone who is supposedly familiar with the work of these guys.

 

 

Yeah, going to mass is a cultural tradition...oh wait, it is a RELIGIOUS custom. You're funnier than believers for attending something that's totally meaningless to you. What's worse than a lazy believer is an atheist who's a faker. It's always easy to expose fakers...all you have to do is nudge them a bit. Taunt them and they'll stupidly expose themselves. My post regarding demons and religions wouldn't register the same passionate retort from the real atheists. Discussing demons isn't worth any real atheist's time. But fakers do get offended by it. It works all the time. Tickle them a bit and they wiggle vigorously like they're having a convulsion or something.

This s@%t is lame. You should focus your energies on improving your arguments rather than coming up with crap like this.

 

 

Since you seem to want to try using logic, let me point out that the absence of evidence is not the evidence for the absence. Only amateurs would ever fall into this logical trap.

 

Yes. Here are a list of some other things for which we do not have any evidence of absence:

 

Unicorns

Dragons in my garage

Russell's teapot

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

Are you "reasonable" enough to believe in these things as well? Like the Christian God, there is no evidence for their existence, there is also no evidence for their non-existence.

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Spanner_works

[airport-noo]

'Certain' standard? REASON is what you guys often claim as the basis of your non-belief. It's reasonable then to use reason as the yardstick on how well you're doing as an atheist. You can't cry foul when someone (like me) ridicule your logical inconsistencies when you yourself dismisses God because such a thing is illogical and unreasonable.

 

Or are you now saying that your non-belief is not based on reason but rather a whim? ...that you chose not to believe 'just because'? In that case, such non-belief becomes equally as arbitrary as believing in a God and is no different to having a religion. Like I said, this isn't more wrong than practicing religion. But please, never ever say that religious people are illogical for believing in a God that they couldn't see. Never ever say 'science this, science that' bullshit when your lack of belief is just as arbitrary as religion.

 

To sum up, if you claim to have used reason to conclude that there is no God, then be consistent with that claim and live in the realm of reason and logic, devoid of any religious elements that you attest as illogical. And if you have become an atheist 'just because' (like you just want to justify your carnal life and not hold yourself to the dictates of morality rooted in religions), then you just accept it as that...no need to distinguish yourself from people who worship a tree or God since for all intents and purposes, you're no different from them. And frankly, this version of non-belief is a lot lame compared to having faith. at least the latter has structure

 

I see nothing unreasonable about being physically present in a church while not believing the dogma of that church. You want to hold non-believers to a standard that believers hold upon themselves. But let's face it -- we do not share that belief. You have a problem with it but we don't. If I was invited to a wedding or baptism by a close friend, the logical thing is to attend. It's even reasonable enough to the person who made the invitation.

 

If that's not reasonable to you, then I will leave you to deal that problem, as it is not a problem for me or any of my friends. As far as I'm concerned I didn't suddenly become a believer because I was there, but you're free to believe otherwise if that sounds logical. Yes, it's lame and pathetic to some believers; we know. But that's not gonna change anything, so why bother?

[FleurDeLune]

Guys, I am reading your posts. Every word and every line. Take control of your emotion please. I don't want any of you to take a vacation from posting for days!

[vgbond]

Can the previous Agnostics and Atheists Thread be shown again? It seems like a waste

to just delete them. Even if they ended badly, there are also lots to be learned from the thread.

Maybe they can be shown again but still remained locked?

[FleurDeLune]

Can the previous Agnostics and Atheists Thread be shown again? It seems like a waste

to just delete them. Even if they ended badly, there are also lots to be learned from the thread.

Maybe they can be shown again but still remained locked?

 

NO, it's just hidden. I am just waiting for anyone's appeal to get the old thread back. That is, for reference purposes.

[FleurDeLune]

It is visible now. You can check it out here.

 

 

[airport-noo]

what? You lost me! I'm not in any shape or form holding you to a standard that believers have for themselves! Where did that come from?

 

I'm holding you to a standard that governs non-believers, which is Reason! Atheism is borne out of reason! If it wasn't, then it becomes no different to believing in God.

 

Now, if you don't find it unreasonable that you participate in religous ceremonies and what not, then fine by me. I consider you as one of those non-believers without the intellectual need to be logically self-consistent. And I find that incongruence amusing. I couldn't care less if you find it ok at all.

 

Yes, but your idea of reason in this instance is different from mine. Basically it is just your opinion of our level of intellect. Doesn't really affect the person much if you think they're dumb (+ carnal, lame or pathetic) for going to a ceremony. Those are your character judgement of the person. That is expected from some believers.

[Spanner_works]

 

The irony escapes you! It is a common trait amongst fakers to not be able to distingiush metaphors, analogies, hyperboles, and other figures of speech. That you have to dissect bit by bit and debate each statement in the vacuum of space says a lot about your grasp of philosophical thinking.

 

In short, you cannot defend your statement. There is nothing metaphorical about this assertion: The concept of demons is inherently tied to religions. To use it and then deny the existence of what gave rise to such a concept just screams incoherence. You haven't provided a good reason why using demons while denying truthfulness of religion is incoherent, I gave you a counter-example where we use a concept (Wednesday) that came from a pagan religion religion (Odin) which we have no problems dismissing as untrue. This counter-example clearly fits in with your assertion:

 

 

The only problem was that I definitively give the context behind my assertion that using a concept derived from religions whilst professing that you don't believe in such things is incoherent.

 

Your own words. Wednesday (day of Odin) is clearly a concept derived from the pagan worship of Odin (religion), following your own logic, it should be incoherent to use Wednesday without also believing in worshiping Odin. It should be easy for everyone to see why this, and therefore your assertion, is wrong.

 

 

Negro is a racially offensive word. To argue that it isn't by way of highlighting that African-Americans have used the term themselves is being naive. They do that for rhetorical reasons and the great leaders amongst them do recognise and use the rhetorics effectively to stress a point. Now that handle of speech is something that you incredibly lack. You seem to be trying hard to be logical yet failing miserably to differentiate a rhetoric or a metaphor from the literal. And that's just sad. Anyway, if you really believe that negro is not racially offensive, try calling an African-American a Negro in downtown Boston. Let's see where that will get you.

So many words and you fail to properly address the main point that was made. When Martin Luther King Jr. says things these in his speech:

 

 

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

 

he is literally calling himself a Negro while ranting against racism. It is nearly a perfect example of "if you call yourself 'Negroboy' and then go on a diatribe against people who are racists". Is he being incoherent? Clearly he is not, and if he is not being incoherent then your analogy completely falls flat on its face.

 

 

Ditto for anti-American student activists. You simply fail to grasp the subtext behind that. I would guess that you're not from UP, or you haven't been one of them. When they do scream anti-American diatribes, they don't just 'hate' the American gov't...they object to the American presence on Phil soil - they argue against that perceived American influence on our national policies and our day-to-day lives. Hence, your whole shitty exposition about hating just the American gov't is just your own conclusion. It's not what that movement is about. How do I know? Well, I was once with them. And no, I didn't eat at McDonald's those days because I cannot stomach such incoherence between thoughts and actions.

Point to me of any political movement here in the Philippines which is aimed at completely eradicating American culture (including the English language) or deporting/banning all American citizens in the country. Show me an example of a rally where UP activists are explicitly fighting for such a cause. A fan of the empiricist Hume should find my request for actual examples to be perfectly acceptable.

 

 

Now, I have to admit that I made an error about name-calling when I meant name-dropping. It's a mistake. Everyone makes them. The thought that follows that made it pretty clear that I was referring to name-dropping and that it was obvious mistake. But for you to swoop in and zoom into that obvious mistake and make an exposition about it justifying your use of dictionary is just so pathetic. It's the forest, not the trees. But that just escapes you. You're the type who'd take things as literal as they can be. You can pass as an INC kapatid. You remind me of those guys who'd take literal meanings of the bible passages as gospel truths

 

That thought that followed was: "nah, it's called respect". If you really had the concept of name-dropping in mind then that would have been a completely unnecessary addition. It would have made of lot of sense to append that phrase if someone was refuting the charge of name-calling. So no, it was not pretty clear that you meant name-dropping.

 

There's nothing pathetic about capitalizing on your mistake. It was a pretty good example of why referring to the dictionary is so important during discussions and arguments. So people don't confuse terms and actually understand each other.

 

I am also interested to hear how I can pass off as an INC kapatid given my very vocal non-belief in a god.

 

 

Anyway, I lack the time to expound more on Sartre and Hume, except to say that both definitely rejected the idea that the lack of evidence proves the absence. Both concluded, despite coming from different schools of thought, that the God's existence cannot be reasonably proven, or disproved. But anyway, I'll deal with these in detail when I have time. Suffice to say that nothing's inherently wrong with Oxford's dictionary entry for atheism per se. But that's not to say it's the whole of it and that people could simply use such a one-liner definition to describe the essence of their beliefs (or non-beliefs).

 

It was a decent discussion of Sartre and Hume. I think the Hume post was better written and easier to understand than the Sartre one. It's also good that are you are now admitting that there is nothing wrong with the dictionary definition.

 

What your Hume and Sartre discussion doesn't show is why my atheism is intellectually bankrupt. Let me remind that this started with your statement:

 

 

Atheism is a life philosophy, which apparently isn't the case for most bandwagon self-confessed atheists. To most, it's just a convenient excuse to do whatever they want without the responsibility of truly extricating themselves from the bounds of religion.

 

Since you are saying that there's nothing wrong with the dictionary definition then Atheism is not actually a life philosophy, It is simply non-belief in the existence of gods. The dictionary thing only started because of this:

 

 

Now, I find you amusing that you call yourself an atheist when all there is to it is doubt. Doubt is agnostic's bread and butter. Atheism requires more conviction. Anyway, in the end I really don't give a rat's ass about your brand of non-belief. Like I said, I'm not saying it's wrong because there's really no right and wrong when it comes to these things. But I say it's pretty lame and devoid of any substance that renders itself to any kind of meaningful discourse. It's an intellectually bankrupt brand of atheism.

 

You found it amusing I called myself an atheist. But what am I gonna call myself? Can't really call myself Christian because I don't believe in the Christian god or any church doctrine. The only term we have that describes my non-belief is atheism. You are fond of accusing me of misrepresenting you but now I am going to accuse of misrepresenting my position in this statement:

 

 

Oh hmm, dictionary...wow. Not intellectually bankrupt yet your reference turned out to be a dictionary?!!! I wonder what would Hume, Sartre, et al would say about your brand of atheism founded on a dictionary entry.

 

My atheism is not founded on a dictionary entry. That one is a pretty stupid statement. It is founded on a simple unanswered question: Where is the evidence for the existence of a god? In the thousands of years humanity has existed in this world, we haven't been able to find any evidence for the existence of a god. With such an overwhelming absence of evidence, it doesn't make sense for me to believe in one.

 

 

There you go Spanner! How's the namedropping accusation now? Err, do you anything philosophically meatier than 'unicorns' to cling to that fallacious argument about 'absence of evidence as evidence for the absence? Maybe ask for some revelation whilst you're having a communion. Who knows? He might whisper a thing or two about how you'd support that assertion other than presenting unicorns and what not.

.....

I suggest you read what's an argument from ignorance. And while at it, read on how, say, in carefully designed experiments can the 'null' result actually proves the absence. I do hope you'd see how the 2 differ. Judge yourself then whether you had committed an informal fallacy or you've just proven with certainty that the absence of evidence for a God does prove the absence of a God instead of sheepishly asking a rhetorical question about the reasonableness of believing in unicorns.

 

Another misrepresentation. Firstly, I have already agreed that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But as I have already discussed, this actually does not mean anything. We don't have any evidence for the absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we also don't have any problems dismissing this creature as fictitious. Why? Because we don't have any evidence pointing towards the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The same can be said for other mythical creatures such as unicorns and dragons.

 

If we have no problems dismissing these creatures as fictitious on the basis that there is no evidence then why can't apply the same reasoning in order to dismiss god as a fictitious being? We never had any evidence for the existence of a god, so why should we believe there is one?

 

I am very careful with my words. Not once have I used the word proof/prove, I've always used evidence. You're the one who's been using the word proof/prove. You know why? Because I completely agree that the lack of evidence now does not definitively show that god does not exist. Tomorrow, it is always possible that an omnipotent being shows itself in front of millions of people and then start performing miraculous feats which defy the laws of Physics. If such an entity does make an appearance then that is very clear evidence for the existence of a god, and we can conclude that both Hume and Sartre had it wrong when it comes to the existence of a god. Atheism, therefore becomes untenable, and reasonable people (like me) should abandon it.

 

If you insist on claiming I made an argument from ignorance then back it up and show where I made it. If you want an example of what an argument from ignorance can look like, you are actually quite close to making one:

 

Because we cannot disprove the existence of God, therefore God exists

[Julianda]

Agnostic here, can someone here give a concrete difference of a cult and a religion, besides being one is more legit than the other?

 

In a nutshell, religion is a set of beliefs while cult is a small group of people who are (likely) obsessed with a particular person (i.e. leader) or thing (i.e. offering salvation in exchange for monetary). Unfortunately, many religions do nasty things like soliciting money, corruptions, etc. They start to act like cults. What is being scary especially to the faithful ones, religion can possibly be an old cult while the latter is a new religious movement.

[Spanner_works]

 

1. When I mention the incoherence about atheists using satanic/demonic cliches and their atheism, the context was analogous to anti-American student activists eating at McDo. I further elucidated that with an anti-racist person label calling himself Negroboy. Now anyone with half-a-brain would have picked up that the incoherence lies in the irony of using a label that's supposedly part and parcel of what you are against. Now, to remove my statement from this context and argue it in the vacuum of space is clearly just a strawman fallacy. And to do that over and over again is simply ad nuseaum. --- Alvin.teng

 

The basic point that you keep on missing is that an atheist using demon as a username is as ironic as a Christian using Wednesday in his calendar. Which is to say it is not ironic.

 

So what if it is part and parcel of religion (an unsupported assertion)? Why can't an atheist make use of the concept? It's not as if atheists claims that demons actually exist in real life. If a Christian uses a username like "Zeus_thunderbolt", it's not as if he actually believes in Zeus. It simply means he likes the concept or thinks it is cool. Nothing ironic or incoherent there.

 

 

What's worse is your counterargument that the word negro is not racially offensive because one of the greatest African-American leader used it in his speech! Now that's being stupid beyond any known measure. Clearly, speeches are made to invoke emotions. He wanted to rally the African-Americans to embrace their heritage and be united. That's why he addressed them as Negros. Context! Context! Context! He is using the term in a rhetorical sense - as a literary weapon! For you to then swallow this as a literal truth that there's nothing wrong with the word Negro clearly demonstrates how you're no better than INC ministers who'd claim Manalo is the 'prophesied prophet of the end times' as the bible 'clearly says the prophet would come from 'malayong Silangan'. That's how literal they can be. And that's just what you've done here. Now, since you are fond of evidences, just follow my advice. Go to downtown Boston and call an African-American a Negro. If you're still standing after you've said that, then that's my evidence that I was wrong to think that such a word is racially offensive. Come on. Do it. Or wait, maybe you haven't been to the US? Err, maybe that's why you're ignorant of how charged this word truly is. ---Alvin.teng

 

I clearly recognized that alot of people consider it offensive today. So you are attacking a strawman. The main point that went over your head is this: If an African-American, who identifies as Negro, rants against racism then there is nothing incoherent there. Therefore your analogy fails.

 

You are ignoring the simple reason why Martin Luther King Jr. used the term Negro: it was not considered as an offensive term back then

 

http://www.amazon.com/Famous-American-Negroes-biographies-people/dp/B0007FTFYK

 

In case you are too lazy to click on that link, it is a book written by Langston Hughes. The guy had absolutely no problem using the term Negro.

 

Some older African-Americans (the ones who actually saw the Civil Rights movement) still prefer using the term Negro (like the writer I linked in an earlier post). So if these guys want to rant against racism then there is nothing incoherent there.

 

So once more your comparison is falling flat. Negro, as it was used in the speech, was meant to be taken literally (i.e. it refers to the African American population of the United States), the far east thing of INC is a convenient excuse used by Manalo to claim he has access to divinity.

 

 

As for UP activism, are you from UP? I guess not. What's the proof that the movement was indeed serious about getting rid of anything American? Err, haven't you heard of students going to the mountains to become hardcore commies? No, they don't dine at McDo. Well, they attacked the US embassy though. You must have lived a sheltered life tsk tsk tsk. Do you live in your mama's basement and hasn't seen the world?--- Alvin.teng

 

Which part of the Philippine communist ideological position involves removing all influences of American culture, where do they say they want to deport all Americans? Why are they still using English if they are so hellbent in getting American culture out? The US embassy is representative of the US government here in the country, so citing this actually supports my claim that what is protested is the action and influence of the US Government.

 

Also I have to say, your insults suck ass. Try better. At least give me something I can use elsewhere

Edited September 5, 2015 by Spanner_works

[vgbond]

It is visible now. You can check it out here.

 

 

thanks

[FleurDeLune]

thanks

You're welcome. So, anymore thoughts?

[vgbond]

You're welcome. So, anymore thoughts?

 

Too busy right now lol. Although sinubukan ko din basahin yung thread last time but I got lost in the discussion of the current residents of this thread. Too lengthy. Ayokong munang umepal sa discussion nila

[FleurDeLune]

 

Too busy right now lol. Although sinubukan ko din basahin yung thread last time but I got lost in the discussion of the current residents of this thread. Too lengthy. Ayokong munang umepal sa discussion nila

 

You can just try to add or continue from your previous post - not necessarily be opposing though.