Zero Point Native
Registered Senior Member
Correct
Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe
- Thread starter Trek
- Start date
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
There should be tick box when signing up here: Are you conscious?
Zero Point Native
Registered Senior Member
That's a pretty close analogy.Maybe there's a consciousness pool... sort of like RAM in a computer. When we're born the system allocates consciousness to our subroutines. Then when we die it gets deallocated back to the consciousness pool. I don't know what happens to our local variables...
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's a pretty close analogy.Maybe there's a consciousness pool... sort of like RAM in a computer. When we're born the system allocates consciousness to our subroutines. Then when we die it gets deallocated back to the consciousness pool. I don't know what happens to our local variables...
I don't believe you chose. I think you just realised you were (atheist, as in not having the belief that God exists, rather than going as far as believing that God does not exist).
Fair enough - but you obviously care enough to have posted on this thread.
Agnostics would likely say that noone knows.
Why do people go out of their way to tell people that they're not interested in the discussion at hand, rather than, well, simply not being interested?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
He didnt say he's not interested in the discussion per se, he said he's not interested in the verdict of whether God exists or not.Fair enough - but you obviously care enough to have posted on this thread.
Why do people go out of their way to tell people that they're not interested in the discussion at hand, rather than, well, simply not being interested?
In principle, every atheist in this thread feels the same way. We are comfortable with our positon on it, but are still happy to discuss it, including our own beliefs.
He explicitly says: "Work it out amongst you, then get back to me. Better things to do". This is an explicit statement of lacking interest in the discussion itself. So, sorry, but you're simply wrong here. In fact, you have it completely backward, as it is a statement that says it is the discussion that he has no interest in, whereas the verdict he is (that's the implication, at least, from "get back to me" - why would he want us to "get back to" him if he's not, in some small way, interested in the verdict?).
That's a generalisation that is also not true. In principle, every atheist may feel the same way, but you can not say that they do. FWIW: I care very much about the verdict. It doesn't mean I'm not comfortable in the position I take, given what I know/don't know, but if someone can provide either a compelling argument, or compelling evidence, then I very much care. Hence my interest, in both the discussion and the verdict. Are you not the same? Or is your atheism beyond consideration, such that you couldn't care one iota about the verdict? And that if the discussion uncovers an argument you find compelling enough to become a theist then, sod it, you'll stay an atheist anyway because, well, heck, you're just not interested in the verdict?? Seems... weird.
But, again, Mr.G has explicitly stated that he is not interested in the discussion, yet is interested enough to read the thread and post that he's not interested in it.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No it isn't. Thats your interpetation.
I am demonstrably not wrong, as evidenced by the incontrovertible fact that Mr G has, in fact, cared enough to participate in the discussion.
Your interpretation, therefore needs updating.
That would be the "in principle" part, because, in practice, it's not always true. That's what "in principle" means.
You are too busy tilting at windmills.
Since that's a contradiction, it follows that you have interpreted incorrectly. Notably, you have also claimed something is explicit that is not, in fact, explicit.
No, it's the logical conclusion of what he has said. Okay, maybe saying it is explicit was wrong, and I should have said implicit, but he hasn't said, explicitly or implicitly, that he is not interested in the verdict, as you claimed
You are wrong. Let me demonstrate...
You said he's not interested in the verdict.
He said when we have a verdict to get back to him.
Ergo, he's interested in the verdict.
You're claiming that he didnt say he wasn't interested in the discussion, yet he implicitly withdraws from the discussion.
Ergo, no interest in it.
No, it doesn't, as demonstrated above.
Learn English, please.
A principle is a fundamental truth. It's not a "rule of thumb" or a rule that has exceptions. It is a fundamental truth, or the basic proposition that serves as a foundation for a belief system etc.
So, I repeat, there is no such principle as you have claimed. Heck, it's not even a rule of thumb, or general rule, or anything like that. Sure, some people may hold those views, but even with your inaccurate English you're suggesting it is the "norm". Really? Your evidence being...?
That it is a contradiction is the point I'm making, FFS! It is because I have interpreted it correctly (use of explicit rather than implicit excepted, which I have explained above) that I recognise it as a contradiction and highlight it as such, in my roundabout way.
E.g. someone might post in a thread about a game of golf and say "I'm not interested in golf"... yet have sufficient interest to post about their lack of interest in golf in a thread about golf. It's a contradiction. Otherwise known as an example of trolling. But I was being polite.
Mr G similarly posted about his lack of interest in the discussion of a subject in a thread discussing the subject. Whether he has previously discussed it or not is, frankly, irrelevant. That would merely speak to whether he's lying or not about being uninterested in the discussion.
It's not rocket science.
You do realize, the part about, "Too many people who don't actually know", includes atheists?
Then again, I'm sort of wondering about the part where "he said he's not interested in the verdict of whether God exists or not". That seems kind of close to the heart of atheistic discussion.
(The flip-side is the point that it's G, and the entire point of his post↑ is to ridicule the thread and its participants, and thus nothing he says should be taken as anything more than provocation.)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
"Logical conclusion". In other words:
- not explicit.
- an interpretation.
Now, how many more posts are we going to use up on you gate keeping how others get to participate? Hmm?
This is why you are on Ignore.
If X=A and A=B, then it is not just "interpretation" that X=B.
LOL! You criticised my comments, and now you can't deal with the response. So, unsurprisingly, you simply ignore it. Sure, better for you to ignore it than deal with the fallaciousness of your position, I guess.
Feel free to come back when you're ready to talk with the adults.
At this website, at least.
Ah, but from such provocation comes great finger-tapping exercise, and a welcome distraction from whatever Aunt Betty is regaling one with (for the umpteenth time). Anything more than that would likely be a waste.
But it is ironic, I find, given the title of this thread, that an atheist was trying to say how other atheists "in principle" feel about things. Or is that just me?
It's not just you.
In truth, though, it runs deeper than this thread. And I don't just mean in terms of atheism and religion. There is something about the Sciforums Style that might, actually, stand out in history as a weird sort of crystallization. It's one thing if a major socmed algorithm feeds a certain result, but the difference in participants is extraordinary. Our version just seems so obstinate, and even impeded. Sometimes I refer to a square zero, because around here it's never just back to square one.
What I find striking is that it's probably a fascinating story, except they, as such, don't ever get around to telling it.
And here's a not-quite paradox: It's one thing if ceteris paribus is not in effect, but at some point we must recognize, then, we are always dealing with extraordinary and exceptional cases.
(I swear unto you, things make more sense if you start with the presupposition that the words some people say simply do not mean what you think they mean. I'm still trying to figure out what it means that "every atheist in this thread" is somehow "not interested in the verdict of whether God exists or not". I think I've winnowed it down to the word "verdict", but that really feels like atom-laser hairsplitting pretending to be surgery.)
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Baggage is usually just your history as a kid. I was taught it was all real, true by adults so I believed it despite my questions and doubts.
I have a lot of happy memories of being a Catholic as a kid, some not so nice but I can say the same of family, school, friends etc.
I am currently trying to explain to a creationist why he is wrong about a few things.
He will walk away a creationist still but there will be a doubt there, perhaps just a small one but it will be there.
Well that's one side of the coin...
But some people tie concepts of morality to "God". They may ask what's to keep a person from stealing, killing, whatever if they don't believe in God? I, of course, have to ask them if belief is the only thing keeping them from doing the same thing.
Others have various books of "scripture" that they assign differing levels of authority to.
Others have a more "Deist" concept of God, where God created the universe and then sits back and let it run.
Some have a more pantheistic view - god IS the universe. That one is kind of hard to argue with. I mean, I do believe in the universe. I have to wonder why they use the word "God" when the word universe works just fine.