Atheism and agnosticism

[drunkenshoe]

I haven't read your previous post, Hakurei. I stopped reading after the first part you told me 'can't and 'bullshit'. Who is 'we' by the way? What do you expect to accomplish by singling me out as if I represent some anti-thesis to an imaginary 'we'? Wearing your 'opponent' down? I keep forgetting that your only position is 'how to win' and you genuinely believe that you are the smartest kid in the room without question, which makes you pretty dumb in my book. Your need of defining me as some 'side' to work against -and people here as if they are some team behind you- that you need to beat down, tires me.

One would think that with all your supposed intellect, you should have gotten long time ago that my language and way of 'speaking' here is a result of choosing direct expressions in a second language, so I wouldn't make a mess of it while trying to be subtle in nuances or more 'meaningful' when it comes to complicated opinions and ideas.

Anyway, you play your game with your 'we'. I was going to send a few pdfs to you last night. Apparently, you blocked me so you wouldn't see my posts. I do not see why this should change according to the topic just because you feel like beating me down. Only thing you need to do is not to click 'you are ignoring this user'. 

Just a few things, since you wrote all that.

If we look at this from Hitchen's razor, the agnostic atheist is responsible with explaining why he is applying falsifiability to mumbo jumbo and claim a fantastical possibility that an extremely unlikely situation could exist, because we can't know. We can't know it, because it is not knowledge. Which stops there and can't go a step further. I also don't get why you don't just call it burden of proof, but Hitchen's razor. Hitchen's razor is not even something internationally accepted and used. 'Any claim without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence' is a hyperbolic word salad version of burden of proof. Not some new original idea that calls for a specific name.

From the point of socio-linguistics, pushing burden of proof in traditional way is pointless in a limited time and space. This is not biology or physics, I can't just write here and go like 'see what we have here is an evidence of the very link between language and thought, therefore the conclusion is...blah blah' Not to mention there is not a fucking claim, but just a slow change in the understanding of a huge field started to get a bit 'weird' between extremes and in our time it started to go towards the extreme. As a result, the birth of a new field which draws perfect parallels with the developing historical fields. After the rise of social history, this was inevitable. Linguistics-comparative history-social history-linguistics...etc. It could get controversial, agressive in the next decades, then calm down and fade away may be to get revived over and over again. That's what happens with tendencies in social sciences. Drawing circles. They are historical disciplines, ideas do not just die down and drop dead not to be taken as an issue again, because there is no evidence you can cut and paste. They are organic, constantly changing, yet arriving to the same points to expand it.

[drunkenshoe]

Can you honestly recall any instance, where someone made a comment in disagreement with you, who wasn't a "pompous, narcissistic idiot?"

Hakurei Reimu is the only poster here I said something like that to and I said that to him before. And you were talking about what a few weeks ago? Over the top expressions?

Why are you reading my posts then? What are you? A masochist?

[Solomon Zorn]

If we look at this from Hitchen's razor, the agnostic atheist is responsible with explaining why he is applying falsifiability to mumbo jumbo and claim a fantastical possibility that an extremely unlikely situation could exist, because we can't know. We can't know it, because it is not knowledge. Which stops there and can't go a step further. I also don't get why you don't just call it burden of proof, but Hitchen's razor. Hitchen's razor is not even something internationally accepted and used. 'Any claim without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence' is a hyperbolic word salad version of burden of proof. Not some new original idea that calls for a specific name.

Now this is an argument I find much more persuasive. Much more succinct, and touches on the things I've been thinking about lately(since having a very heated discussion of God with a Christian, a short time ago, and losing my logic a little in the process of arguing). It happens to be similar to my thoughts on it, but more formally stated.

From the point of socio-linguistics, pushing burden of proof in traditional way is pointless in a limited time and space. This is not biology or physics, I can't just write here and go like 'see what we have here is an evidence of the very link between language and thought, therefore the conclusion is...blah blah' Not to mention there is not a fucking claim,

But you did make a claim, and it is the point of our whole argument. After I said it would be dishonest to claim certainty about a creator either existing or not existing, you said:

Objection!

We do possess the knowledge that proves that a creator cannot exist. It's called linguistics.

Since that post on, page one of the thread, I have read what both you and Hakurei wrote. Just based on those posts, I find Hakuei's reasoning to be more convincing.

Hakurei Reimu is the only poster here I said something like that to and I said that to him before. And you were talking about what a few weeks ago? Over the top expressions?

Those words are not ”over the top expressions.” They are insulting arguments at the person, intended to diminish, and dismiss his opinion without answering his contentions reasonably. His thoughtful posts (which addressed your own posts point-by-point) deserve better.

Why are you reading my posts then? What are you? A masochist?

It's a two-way street. And besides, you started it, dear Shoe. CHRIST! I've never met anyone, that I have so much general agreement with, that is so hard to get along with.

[drunkenshoe]

I didn't make a claim. I put a several claims together, because it makes sense to me. I translated a book based on seminar lectures about how European vernaculars became languages last summer and had to read a lot about it. Social history of language in the Western culture.  While studying history of art and related fields -I gave 10 years to that in the univ after graduated, I was a res asst.- I had to study cultural history and anthropology and I have an idea of the general tendencies going around. So this is why, 'erm...this is different what has changed?' started in my mind. We are talking about roughly a 30 year old discipline. It has lots of problems, but it looks like with little it accomplished very good in short time.

And with general lingusitics it always goes back and forth with extreme ideas or philosophical monologues. As I said I stand behind Popper. I am not fond of linguistic determinists, but we need to work with them. Wittgenstein is one extreme, even he doesn't agree with Mauthner in his statement with Chinese/Dakotan Aristo -actually, his disagreement line with Mauthner became a famous motto about the subject; I think his answer to him is in Tractatus, not sure- but he concludes the same all over about language-thought; limits of language; limit of thought process. Mauthner's idea is developed from Nietzsche's language is 'prison' view. Yes he is a linguist determinist. Sprachkritik is always where this shit ends. There is no philosophical discourse without it; no way around it. None of it could have a conclusion, this is an ever going-changing process/discussion/production however you want to name it. Extreme or not these people belong to the same German analytical thought tradition, they cannot be excluded, so socio-linguists don't. Because they can't.

Even with someone as controversial as Whorf, (America; beginning of the 20th centur linguist) has huge influence and when they start to produce different thoughts on how to evaluate historical archives -could be it on anything, but the thing is just not the context or the texts not for what  they mean, but how they use the language- on written culture, they find themselves getting closer to 'extremes' like him or people labeled as 'biased' like Bernstein (Britan; mid 20th century, sociologist). That was what makes me think 'interesting', I recognise this from somewhere. Are they there? No. But it is getting weird.

Abstract concepts needs written culture to be born and develop. This alone is worth considering it as a handicap. We developed secular and atheistic concepts from religious concepts -not necessarily theistic, but 'religious'- in contrast with them. They are the results of critical thought. This is what I mean and why I think matters highly. This has nothing to do with science or the logic you apply to those concepts. It's about what is inherent in the very concept. This is why it is very important even to strip atheism from discussion of religions when considering its concepts.

I am sure you have heard of the humanist writer Françoise Rabelais. (France, 16th century) He is defined as a 'atheist' and anti Christian in many sources. Lucien Febvre (France 19th-20th century historian) argued in his study on language and mentality as an answer for defining Rebalais as an atheist (Lefranc) and said that atheism was impossible in 16th century France, because among other reasons, first of all the French language lacked the abstract concepts to sustain such a world view. (He said it's so ridiculous as an anachronism, 'it is like giving Digenes an umbrella' -The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais) Febvre is also close friends with March Bloch who is the father of comparative history. Its mother is linguistics, lol.

[drunkenshoe]

It's a two-way street. And besides, you started it, dear Shoe. CHRIST! I've never met anyone, that I have so much general agreement with, that is so hard to get along with.

Nope, you did when you wrote how you missed my 'condescending' posts. You can't write something to me without making a negative personal comment on me and then blame me with insulting people. You provoke me and then complain when I bite back.

Hakurei has a pattern. Next he will say that I stopped 'arguing' because I can't deal with facts. It's basically my mistake trying to get into a conversation with him.

[Baruch]

Several people here are like that.  Old men saying ... get off my grass.  I hope I am not like that when I am 80 ;-)

Some people here also think that there is no scholarship, no knowledge, except what comes out of smashing atoms at CERN.

Nerds vs Geeks, Art vs Science.  Can't we all get along?  Maybe not, too big a difference in neural arrangements.

[drunkenshoe]

Some people here also think that there is no scholarship, no knowledge, except what comes out of smashing atoms at CERN.

LOL  :bravo_2:

[aitm]

so……..back to my point...

[stromboli]

so……..back to my point...

Any thread that stays on point past page 2 is rare indeed.

Atheism/agnosticism: fuck it or meh. I win.

[drunkenshoe]

so……..back to my point...

Well, you don't need to put up with bullshit when you write "we are allowed to dismiss stupid". I am the one who has to explain herself and still be 'condescending' and 'lecturing'; talking at people who have me on ignore. 

[aitm]

Well, you don't need to put up with bullshit when you write "we are allowed to dismiss stupid". I am the one who has to explain herself and still be 'condescending' and 'lecturing'; talking at people who have me on ignore. 

You validated my point, perhaps without even realizing it. It take two to argue.

[drunkenshoe]

You validated my point, perhaps without even realizing it. It take two to argue.

No, I haven't. Stop the double standard. I was asked on why do I think the way I do about 'agnostic atheism' and I tried to explain it. All I got was how 'condecending' and 'lecturing' I am. You wrote one post general to the thread which says what I am saying -not even addressing to anyone- nor asked for explaining your 'argument' which of 'the point is that it's stupid, guys and that's all'.

Did it take two for you to 'argue' your point? Did it take you to argue your point? No.

So, don't distort the picture. If people are making constant comments by singling me out on how I am this and that in a forum full of condescending, arrogant people who rejects anything beyond their own interest as bullshit with 'no I know the best' attitude, I am going to drop a few lines to them.

And you can be sure this is about the cheapest kind of prejudice and discrimination you could ever get. The fact that the people who treat me this way are not aware of it, doesn't change the situation. It's neither about my opinions, nor how I say them. I'm not pitching home cooked 'theories' here, I'm not even having a claim.

If I had stayed away from certain subjects; made fragile, light conversations about from being a muslim country posting about her 'victimhood', how horrible the life is in her country and how 'wonderful' it must be over there I'd be a sweetheart here, aitm. Throw in a few 'giggles' and a 'sexy avatar', it is a fucking paradise, eh? Ah but unfortunately, I am completely a different animal. I don't work that way. I don't even sound like a woman, do I? Tsk tsk tsk. So everything is my doing.

Instead what we have? A bunch of men who can't handle a middle eastern woman having a strong opinion about something and writing long posts to explain herself without making a negative, snarky comment about her, getting pisssed at her, making her feel bad about posting anything in the first place after asking for it and then even when agreed with her -this is the saddest part I guess- dismissing anything she writes that actually has a place in the field, while others run around waving their dicks pissing on anything that rubs their 6 year old ego wrong.


It takes two to argue, eh? What fucking bullshit.

[stromboli]

The love fest between aitm and Shoe on here is worth the price of admission....

[drunkenshoe]

OK this is getting weird. I don't have any extra positive or negative feelings for aitm. Neither does he. I throw the same sex based jokes or flirty lines to all men -I love men- that feels OK to do it. I can be quite open and blunt with those jokes too. Not something special about him. But somehow I think people got the impression that this is about him. It's not.

[stromboli]

OK this is getting weird. I don't have any extra positive or negative feelings for aitm. Neither does he. I throw the same sex based jokes or flirty lines to all men -I love men- that feels OK to do it. I can be quite open and blunt with those jokes too. Not something special about him. But somehow I think people got the impression that this is about him. It's not.

Yeah but you two have a special relationship Shoe. Like Ralph and Alice Kramden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeymooners