Hiya ~looks like a good group of people and idea(l)s being shared on this forum. Happy to be on board. The atheist nature here caught my eye (raised Irish catholic ~ emancipated in early 2000's), but have moreso been impressed by the width of topics, intellect and good nature here.
--Kevin
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Welcome.
Also, a former Christian, but never identified the hoax until I was in my mid 50s. Hard to believe now. While the teachings never really seemed reasonable, they did seem like something that could be true if you didn't think too much. Finally, I couldn't do it anymore. Truth cannot be found by not thinking too much. If it has to be that shallow and absurd, it's not worth the bother.
Welcome, Kevin!
Welcome, Kevin. My wife terms it 'recovering Catholic' since she began to see the religion of her birth for what it really is.
Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2018, 06:35:03 AM
Welcome.
Also, a former Christian, but never identified the hoax until I was in my mid 50s. Hard to believe now. While the teachings never really seemed reasonable, they did seem like something that could be true if you didn't think too much. Finally, I couldn't do it anymore. Truth cannot be found by not thinking too much. If it has to be that shallow and absurd, it's not worth the bother.
Fortunately, I figured it out in my mid 30's. Following a difficult life experience, my wife - who was never involved in religion - got sucker-punched by a friend to come and visit her church. We both needed "something" at the time, and for two long years we participated in the madness. But I will say, we were having fun while it lasted. I mean, how could you not have fun being part of the chosen few who begged for forgiveness often enough to ensure passage through the pearly gates? At the end of those two years, we moved out of the area. During the move, we were met with hostility from our christian friends, to the point where most of them cut off communication with us. This got me thinking, which apparently one does not do while on the inside. It only takes a little *thought* for the entire dogma to start falling apart. It took my wife a little longer to get there, as I kept poking holes in her beliefs - till she ultimately passed me on the road to the truth. It was a longer road for me, as I had been indoctrinated at birth, and god was an addiction of habits, burned and buried in my brain. It's a difficult prison to escape, but worth the effort.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Quote from: Emancipated on April 11, 2018, 11:08:43 AM
Fortunately, I figured it out in my mid 30's. Following a difficult life experience, my wife - who was never involved in religion - got sucker-punched by a friend to come and visit her church. We both needed "something" at the time, and for two long years we participated in the madness. But I will say, we were having fun while it lasted. I mean, how could you not have fun being part of the chosen few who begged for forgiveness often enough to ensure passage through the pearly gates? At the end of those two years, we moved out of the area. During the move, we were met with hostility from our christian friends, to the point where most of them cut off communication with us. This got me thinking, which apparently one does not do while on the inside. It only takes a little *thought* for the entire dogma to start falling apart. It took my wife a little longer to get there, as I kept poking holes in her beliefs - till she ultimately passed me on the road to the truth. It was a longer road for me, as I had been indoctrinated at birth, and god was an addiction of habits, burned and buried in my brain. It's a difficult prison to escape, but worth the effort.
Yes, it's not easy shaking off the indoctrination. Not like you must suffer from it or lose sleep. It seems to follow a natural path that is probably more accurately described as absurdly time consuming. Although, I've talked to some atheists that said that letting go of God did cause suffering on the order of withdrawal from an addiction. Mine took so long that it was just a gradual adaptation, but I do remember clearly the day that I realized I was an atheist and fully embraced the recognition. It was an epiphany and a thrill of self discovery.
I would think this experience must seem odd to those who grew up as atheists, although what I hear from those people, is that they, "simply never had that experience." In retrospect, it may seem more odd to me. How can it be so hard to accept that the whole religion thing is nonsense? Everything about it defies logic and it's lesser cousin, common sense. But that is the nature of indoctrination into the world of the occult during the formative years.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 10, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
but have moreso been impressed by the width of topics, intellect and good nature here.
You are very easily impressed.
Welcome to the forums. Please help yourself to an internet cookie.
Welcome. But can we trust a cadaver in spandex? You avatar is Deadpool, amIright?
Many Catholics are holiday-only church goers. Fundie Protestants are the opposite. Sounds like you were sucked into church activism, and burned out. It happens even with religious folks. My experience with congregations is ... they only care when y'all are in the same room, otherwise not so much. The community part is rather shallow. But having had that experience, you seem to be more mature than you would be otherwise.
Good on you to become an emancipated freethinker! I hope you'll have fun here, since this is the best atheist forum on the entire web. We talk about all kinds of stuff, though, not just religion, which is what makes it so much fun.
So welcome to our little band of apostates!
Quote from: Baruch on April 11, 2018, 01:18:27 PM
Welcome. But can we trust a cadaver in spandex? You avatar is Deadpool, amIright?
Many Catholics are holiday-only church goers. Fundie Protestants are the opposite. Sounds like you were sucked into church activism, and burned out. It happens even with religious folks. My experience with congregations is ... they only care when y'all are in the same room, otherwise not so much. The community part is rather shallow. But having had that experience, you seem to be more mature than you would be otherwise.
Precisely ~across the board. I believe I am better for having had the experience, and shaking it off, versus never having had it at all. I saw recently, in another forum, a user with no beliefs trying to shut down a bible thumper. Without any foundational information it was like two guys yelling at a wall, and expecting results - from the wall. I studied four years of theology in high school. And, while I can't say that I would start an argument with a believer (I just don't care that much) - I could definitely end such an argument.
And yes ~that would be Deadpool :)
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 11, 2018, 01:21:28 PM
Good on you to become an emancipated freethinker! I hope you'll have fun here, since this is the best atheist forum on the entire web. We talk about all kinds of stuff, though, not just religion, which is what makes it so much fun.
So welcome to our little band of apostates!
It was the "other stuff" here that drew me in. I want to see and hear more of what atheists have to say, but keep running into the big argument that ~there is no proof (duh). I watched The Atheist Experience for a short while, till I figured out that every caller was met with the burden of proof argument. I want to hear other points of view - not just the easy knockout punch line of proof. I am finding that here. Good group - glad to be on board.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Hiya.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 11, 2018, 03:43:52 PM
It was the "other stuff" here that drew me in. I want to see and hear more of what atheists have to say, but keep running into the big argument that ~there is no proof (duh). I watched The Atheist Experience for a short while, till I figured out that every caller was met with the burden of proof argument. I want to hear other points of view - not just the easy knockout punch line of proof. I am finding that here. Good group - glad to be on board.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
It seems to me that the theist needs to be the one to shoulder the burden of proof for what they believe. It would be like me saying that Bugs Bunny is God--prove that He isn't.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 11, 2018, 03:43:52 PM
Good group - glad to be on board.
That might change as you get to know us, lol. But thanks for the compliment.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 11, 2018, 03:43:52 PMI want to see and hear more of what atheists have to say, but keep running into the big argument that ~there is no proof (duh). I watched The Atheist Experience for a short while, till I figured out that every caller was met with the burden of proof argument. I want to hear other points of view - not just the easy knockout punch line of proof.
Well, the proof thing is the polka-dotted elephant in the room. In almost all discussions with theists, there are these big, grandiose claims thrown about with a telling lack of concern for whether or not these claims are actually supported by any facts on the ground.
Mostly, these people are operating on standards of evidence that would work in a church or mosque, and unaware that their "arguments" don't fly in mixed company, let alone an actively skeptical setting.
Because of that glaring weakness, all a skeptic has to do is ask for any supporting evidence, and viola, the topic has suddenly changed.
There are other arguments that have to be dealt with, most of which have to do with relevance (a billion Catholics can't be wrong, no one would die for a lie, etc), reversing the burden of proof, false dilemmas, assuming what you're trying to prove, special pleading, no true scotsman, courtier's reply, etc.
It all gets very tiresome and old hat after a while, to be honest.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 11, 2018, 04:49:57 PM
It seems to me that the theist needs to be the one to shoulder the burden of proof for what they believe. It would be like me saying that Bugs Bunny is God--prove that He isn't.
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 11, 2018, 05:26:34 PM
Well, the proof thing is the polka-dotted elephant in the room. In almost all discussions with theists, there are these big, grandiose claims thrown about with a telling lack of concern for whether or not these claims are actually supported by any facts on the ground.
Mostly, these people are operating on standards of evidence that would work in a church or mosque, and unaware that their "arguments" don't fly in mixed company, let alone an actively skeptical setting.
Because of that glaring weakness, all a skeptic has to do is ask for any supporting evidence, and viola, the topic has suddenly changed.
There are other arguments that have to be dealt with, most of which have to do with relevance (a billion Catholics can't be wrong, no one would die for a lie, etc), reversing the burden of proof, false dilemmas, assuming what you're trying to prove, special pleading, no true scotsman, courtier's reply, etc.
It all gets very tiresome and old hat after a while, to be honest.
I agree fully with both of you. Once you have cleared your head of the religious spiderwebs, as I had to spend much time doing, the arguments against theism are short and sweet. I kept looking for that one-level-up argument... But, if the theist cannot get past the initial burden of proof question - and so far not one of them has - then there's no need to keep talking, as there is no foundation for further discussion.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
My favorite argument against the existence of God, if the definition of God is the theistic, omni-max type of God, is that its properties, as claimed by theists, are incompatible (https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html). Mutually exclusive characteristics can't belong to the same being at the same time. And if a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 11, 2018, 06:41:29 PM
My favorite argument against the existence of God, if the definition of God is the theistic, omni-max type of God, is that its properties, as claimed by theists, are incompatible (https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html). Mutually exclusive characteristics can't belong to the same being at the same time. And if a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
A rational person would argue that ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on April 11, 2018, 07:34:33 PM
A rational person would argue that ;-)
I have heard it said that if you give a rational person a false premise, they can reason their way to a rational solution ~ albeit, wrong :)
Quote from: Emancipated on April 11, 2018, 03:43:52 PM
I watched The Atheist Experience for a short while, till I figured out that every caller was met with the burden of proof argument. I want to hear other points of view
The burden of proof is the big one, for me anyway, and it's one that theists often fail to understand, especially the ones who would call into the Atheist Experience. They get hammered with "burden of proof," because they seemingly don't get it. If they got it, they might think twice about calling in, because they would realize how invalid discussions about the nature of God are with out proof of existence.
There are other points of view of course, and other arguments against God. But proofs against God can be dicey. More important, they are irrelevant. I can tell you honestly that in my transition to atheism, I didn't waste time trying to prove that God didn't exist. I would have if I could, but intuitively, I knew this was a lost cause. As a doubting Christian, all I cared about was rock solid evidence that God was real. That was the single most important nugget that would convince me to stay in the fold, and the single biggest question that needs to be answered. As a Christian on a quest, it was the single biggest question about my entire life and it's meaning. The issue is positively enormous, and dwarfs everything else. It supersedes all discussions about a master plan and what a deity may or may not want from humans.
Other discussions are interesting, and we have them here. Lately, the topic of whether Jesus actually existed at all is fashionable. An interesting thought indeed, and it generates philosophical musings that are not unreasonable questions, but they don't answer the big question, "Is God real?" That question must be answered first. If it can't be then all the rest of the religious bullshit is meaningless.
In my case, I might have asked, "Should I be a good Christian," but before I know that God exists, it's an irrelevant question. If God does truly exist, then we can talk about whether I should be a Christian, Muslim, or Jew. Other topics may be interesting on a philosophical level, however, but they fail as proof. And that simple most basic thing was all I ever needed as a Christian, but I never found it.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 12, 2018, 01:55:01 AM
I have heard it said that if you give a rational person a false premise, they can reason their way to a rational solution ~ albeit, wrong :)
That's true, but you can't simply ignore the validity of the premise, and happily go on stringing sequiturs together to derive a rational conclusion. If we all accepted that the Milky Way was made of splatters of cow's milk, I suppose we could work through logic to arrive at lots of logical outcomes, excluding of course that the Milky Way was cow's milk, which would be circular.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 12, 2018, 01:55:01 AM
I have heard it said that if you give a rational person a false premise, they can reason their way to a rational solution ~ albeit, wrong :)
Talk to poster Vulcan about that. Logic only works if you are Vulcan, not if you are Terran.
Quote from: SGOS on April 12, 2018, 05:53:51 AM
That's true, but you can't simply ignore the validity of the premise, and happily go on stringing sequiturs together to derive a rational conclusion. If we all accepted that the Milky Way was made of splatters of cow's milk, I suppose we could work through logic to arrive at lots of logical outcomes, excluding of course that the Milky Way was cow's milk, which would be circular.
All arguments in ordinary language, given that the validity of the definitions of ordinary language are in question (Milky Way .. isn't that a candy bar?) turn on semantics. Basically a random walk across the dictionary, which is itself the single largest circular argument. This is why math has to use jargon. Actual logic research has to be so abstract as to not touch even math.
Logic originated negatively in "reductio absurdum" ... by Parmenides ... who was a mystagogue by profession. The arguments of Socrates were designed to demonstrate that ordinary people don't even know what the words they use mean. Positive logic started with Euclid, and only applied to geometrical abstractions.
Your example is taken from empirical evidence ... which isn't about rationality at all, but correspondence with facts. Yes, the Milky Way isn't made up of cow's milk. In common language, "I am rational" simply is virtue signaling that "I am right and you are wrong".
Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 06:55:48 AM
In common language, "I am rational" simply is virtue signaling that "I am right and you are wrong".
That's true, but it's not limited to virtue signaling. Sometimes it's simply a reflection that the signaler has no conception of what logic is. He uses the phrase, "It's totally logical," instead of "I believe it without thinking about it," in an attempt to add credibility to some nonsense or other. Common language is simply common. Its only virtue is that it is common, and there is nothing particularly useful about that.
Common meaning also varies between sub groups. I'm guessing for most people here, the common definition of logic isn't "I'm right. You're wrong." I'm guessing they see logic as something that transcends that, more about what claims can be made with a degree of safety, a tool to test a claim, not foolproof, but several notches above an unsupported authoritarian claim. I see it as the best set of rules on clear thinking that are currently available to me. Not to say I always follow the rules. I fall into the thoughtless void from time to time, but at my peril.
Quote from: Baruch on April 12, 2018, 06:55:48 AM
Basically a random walk across the dictionary, which is itself the single largest circular argument.
I've seen this statement before, but it was mired in a weak discussion. Is it that the dictionary does not define words - but rather that it only shows common usages of them?
I had a hard language lesson two days ago with my doctor. I've only been seeing her for a few months, but I have had this feeling that there was a language barrier - despite the fact that we were both speaking English. I just couldn't put my finger on the problem. I said something to her about my life. A few minutes later, she brought that point back up - completely out of the context in which it was intended. I am actually looking for a new doctor now, as her mistaken context would have lead to an improper diagnosis - which would have been a critical mistake in this case. Yet, right up to the point of her revealing her misunderstanding of my meaning, I believed that we were talking about the same thing.
On any important medical thing, get a second opinion. I have worked in the medical area for over 20 years, and doctors do have a complex.
Officially, a dictionary should reflect current common usage, unless it is a specialized dictionary (say a medical dictionary). They haven't always been that way ... Samuel Johnson's, Voltaire's, or Ambrose Beirce's. Those are full of editorial and humor. Stan Kelly-Bootle wrote the Devil's Dictionary for IT ... was a Renaissance man, and got the first post-graduate degree in computer science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Kelly-Bootle
But of course, the content of any dictionary, has definitions using words in that dictionary. That is complexly circular by nature. To be independent, one would have to define words using something other than words. This was Confucius' POV, that words should match up with what they empirically describe. The Reification of Names project. That the word for "house" shouldn't suggest to you something other than, or in addition to ... a house. Confucius was against poetic license and polyvalence. He liked clarity. This was hard phonetically in Chinese, since Chinese uses many same sounding spoken words for different things ... homonym hell.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 12, 2018, 11:54:49 AM
I've seen this statement before, but it was mired in a weak discussion. Is it that the dictionary does not define words - but rather that it only shows common usages of them?
I had a hard language lesson two days ago with my doctor. I've only been seeing her for a few months, but I have had this feeling that there was a language barrier - despite the fact that we were both speaking English. I just couldn't put my finger on the problem. I said something to her about my life. A few minutes later, she brought that point back up - completely out of the context in which it was intended. I am actually looking for a new doctor now, as her mistaken context would have lead to an improper diagnosis - which would have been a critical mistake in this case. Yet, right up to the point of her revealing her misunderstanding of my meaning, I believed that we were talking about the same thing.
It is sometimes essential to agree on common terms. Maybe get a basic medical dictionary and point to terms you aren't understanding ( and the doctor might be misusing). I have had to "educate" a doctor more than once. I do my research when I think I have a problem.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 02:41:07 AM
It is sometimes essential to agree on common terms. Maybe get a basic medical dictionary and point to terms you aren't understanding ( and the doctor might be misusing). I have had to "educate" a doctor more than once. I do my research when I think I have a problem.
The patient does have an obligation to be both independently informed, but also cooperative with the doctor once a care plan is agree to. Doctors/nurses use jargon, so word definitions aren't much of a problem for them.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 02:41:07 AM
It is sometimes essential to agree on common terms. Maybe get a basic medical dictionary and point to terms you aren't understanding ( and the doctor might be misusing). I have had to "educate" a doctor more than once. I do my research when I think I have a problem.
Quote from: Baruch on April 13, 2018, 06:50:25 AM
The patient does have an obligation to be both independently informed, but also cooperative with the doctor once a care plan is agree to. Doctors/nurses use jargon, so word definitions aren't much of a problem for them.
Without going into details, the word that was misunderstood was, "always," in reference to something that I do, as opposed to an ache or pain. Being that this word is not medical jargon, but rather a common word used in everyday conversation, the doctor's understanding of my usage of "always" was taken in a context that better fit a common diagnosis; a wrong diagnosis. She went word-fishing, and was interpreting my language to fit what she was thinking - not what I was meaning.
I've had issues with understanding other people and being understood due to different uses of the same word.
I talked with a guy who used "fallacy" to describe widely held beliefs that aren't true rather than invalid logic.
And my brother refuses to switch over to nautical terminology. At sea, I say starboard and east. He says right for both. :*[
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 13, 2018, 04:20:08 PM
I've had issues with understanding other people and being understood due to different uses of the same word.
I talked with a guy who used "fallacy" to describe widely held beliefs that aren't true rather than invalid logic.
And my brother refuses to switch over to nautical terminology. At sea, I say starboard and east. He says right for both. :*[
An interesting note on the derivation of starboard and port: The earliest sailing ships did not have rudders. Instead, they used a permanently attached board that hung over the side of the boat. It was called the steer board. Since it was always in the way when docking at port, the other side of the boat was the only side available to tie up to the dock, and became the port side. Since language and pronunciation changes over time, steer board ended up as starboard. And that's how the cockamamie nomenclature got started. I assume it must have been traditional to put the steer board on the right side of the boat. Or maybe not.
Quote from: SGOS on April 13, 2018, 04:37:19 PM
An interesting note on the derivation of starboard and port: The earliest sailing ships did not have rudders. Instead, they used a permanently attached board that hung over the side of the boat. It was called the steer board. Since it was always in the way when docking at port, the other side of the boat was the only side available to tie up to the dock, and became the port side. Since language and pronunciation changes over time, steer board ended up as starboard. And that's how the cockamamie nomenclature got started. I assume it must have been traditional to put the steer board on the right side of the boat. Or maybe not.
I had honestly wondered about this from time to time... It was one of those things that I promised myself I would look up - - later. Thanks for the info.
Sent from my HiBook using Tapatalk
Quote from: Emancipated on April 13, 2018, 11:26:41 PM
I had honestly wondered about this from time to time... It was one of those things that I promised myself I would look up - - later. Thanks for the info.
Sent from my HiBook using Tapatalk
Of course, most people are right handed. The steering board (aka rudder) was naturally on the right rear location. It wasn't until the oceans were crossed by the Portuguese and Spanish explorers that a properly centered rudder, and steering wheel, were invented.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 10, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
Hiya ~looks like a good group of people and idea(l)s being shared on this forum. Happy to be on board. The atheist nature here caught my eye (raised Irish catholic ~ emancipated in early 2000's), but have moreso been impressed by the width of topics, intellect and good nature here.
--Kevin
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
We don't want any! Sit down son a nd have a cigar. Don't you start smoking in here! Welcome my son to the machine!
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on April 14, 2018, 03:55:43 AM
We don't want any! Sit down son a nd have a cigar. Don't you start smoking in here! Welcome my son to the machine!
You do realize that made little sense, right?
Quote from: Cavebear on April 15, 2018, 02:56:08 AM
You do realize that made little sense, right?
Then I wasn't the only one who had that reaction.
Gilgamesh might not be the only one using recreational substances ...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 15, 2018, 02:56:08 AM
You do realize that made little sense, right?
I've just been keeping my mouth shut... Didn't want to offend any "special" members :)
We're all "special," and hence, none of us are.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 16, 2018, 01:28:35 PM
We're all "special," and hence, none of us are.
Cavebear isn't into Absurdist poetry.
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 16, 2018, 01:28:35 PM
We're all "special," and hence, none of us are.
We are not all equally "special". Therefore, some of us are.
Everyone is special. Some are just more special than others.
- Animal Farm
(Kind of. I took some liberties with the quote)
Urgh! You're all individuals!
What, you mean to tell me we're not part of the Borg Collective!?
Quote from: Unbeliever on April 19, 2018, 01:37:17 PM
What, you mean to tell me we're not part of the Borg Collective!?
There are only 9 members in that group, Ernest Borg-Nine ;-) 7 of 9 was a member.
Quote from: Emancipated on April 10, 2018, 11:23:09 PM
Hiya ~looks like a good group of people and idea(l)s being shared on this forum. Happy to be on board. The atheist nature here caught my eye (raised Irish catholic ~ emancipated in early 2000's), but have moreso been impressed by the width of topics, intellect and good nature here.
--Kevin
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DangerousEuphoricGopher-size_restricted.gif)
Whalecum, you are very unique here.
Quote from: Jason78 on April 19, 2018, 01:35:51 PM
Urgh! You're all individuals!
Horrifying as it may seem, yes we (atheists at least) are.