Thanks for the exchange Theo ...
Hope things are well with you.
I rarely read your posts because they are very long winded. This is not to say that I discount what you say ...
I appreciate the encouragement and criticism - even if it was not meant as such. I have little reason to suspect it wasn't ...
... just that I find your style difficult to read
Yea ... I get that quite a bit lol, so I must still have some work to do there. I'm not always succint or salient in point, much less to the point.
I find myself constantly trying to shed layers of sarcasm which seem to build up debating amongst the various Levites.
While they are not making it easier, I guess I shouldn't expect that they would ...
brutha theo writes:
weary writes:
Atheists have employed the absence of evidence, and established it as concrete perception; the paradigm then rests upon the premise of this absence.
I venture to guess most atheist would say that there is no reason to believe in a god because there is no evidence. Provide evidence and I am sure many would reconsider their views.
I agree on both accounts ...
* Most atheists may agree that there is no reason to believe in Deity because they identify with an overall 'absence of evidence' (aka. no evidence).
* Provide evidence and perhaps many would reconsider their views.
I, for the reasons stated above, hold many atheists in high regard, despite that such a stereotype seems, imho, to promote sectarian orthodoxy.
brutha theo writes:
weary writes:
So then, atheism should be believing in something with evidence. Yet, it is common to find atheists who take a positive stance on paranormal phenomena.
I have never understood how an atheist could believe in the paranormal.
lol - me either!!
It is, nevertheless, the case we are presented with; the definition of atheism allows for belief in the paranormal. Perhaps their is a similiar dynamic between how brutha jaywill decides to promote Joshua the Anointed One as the Father and sista Peg decides to promote him as an angel. More sectarian gymnastics ... basically akin to arguing the variance between the definitions of the '
supernatural' and the '
paranormal' which we'll touch on below.
Then again this means actually nothing. What people that claim to be atheist believe means nothing to the definition of atheist. In the same vein one could say the same about anyone that has beliefs that go counter to what they claim to believe.
The definition of an 'atheist' allows for the potential recognition of paranormal phenomena. I am only making an observation here.
An atheist may be a racist of sorts by definition - allowing the potentiality of Casper within its world belief system while rejecting any deity.
I feel it's important to assert here that I do not find that atheists in general are racist towards anything other than the concept of deity.
Also, I don't suppose an atheist would reject diety, providing they percieved sufficient evidence ...
More that, as this occured, they would cease to fit the stereotype.
This is not the case when an atheist accepts Casper into reality.
I do not think that people that believe in the paranormal are atheists.
Hence, the sectarian division we encounter in the atheistic world belief system. I'm just glad it is rarely hostile, which says quite a bit afaik - lol
They obviously believe in something supernatural, this in my book would discount them from being atheists.
Ahhh - the ol'
No true Scotsman fallacy. Very common among the Levites as well ...
Again, sectarianism is accomplished through a process of selection and selective nullification, however, this dynamic does not actually provide for exclusivity.
An author from positiveatheism.org attempts to justify this issue by trudging through the murky waters of defining the '
supernatural' and the '
paranormal'.
While aptly displaying the difficulty one encounters as they attempt to distinguish between unevidenced sentient life or phenomena in general, he finally admits, '
Face it: we don't know everything about science'. I think all religious zealots, if not atheists, are in agreement there. The lad eventually swerves even more abruptly around the obstacle, that is agnosticism, which he seems to be so desperately attempting to avoid ...
quote:
Scientific method itself demands that we must admit to the possibility, however remote, that one or more of the proponents of the paranormal just might be on to something that has completely escaped all diligent search by the world's scientific community (at least there is no consensus even remotely suggesting there even might be something on the horizon along these line). True, admitting to a remote possibility is not the same as suggesting that it's true -- far from it. It only says that we don't know everything and have been wrong before.
Basically, what he's saying is ...
'
atheism looks to science, and so, atheism demands the admitted possibility, however remote, that Casper may be real, without sparing the same criteria for diety.'.
So, perhaps this gentlemen editor resorts to, '
I'm agnostic, but I can't let down my fellows' or '
The definition of atheists is suspect in nature'.
In the end of the matter it seems atheists, as a term, are not so different then any other pious nationalists without a country.
As a people, however, they are not so confined.
brutha theo writes:
weary writes:
Atheists follow those they trust - their gurus', and the general movement of their religious belief system.
Oh please!! Can you make a more generalized, unsubstantiated statement than this?
While moist with sarcasm, this was not meant as an insult.
Do I read atheistic and non-christian writers? I sure do. I Have read Dawkins, Harris, Doherty and currently I am reading "The Rejection of Pascal's Wager", by Paul Tobin(doesn't strike me as an atheist). They are not my guru's.
It seems a bit curious to note that you naturally correlate non-christian authors as what I would suggest as an atheist's guru.
By mentioning the greats - such as Dawkins & Co., whose contentions are molested as often as the tenets of Marxism or the US Constitution, if not any formally recognized scriptural canons, the point seems to have been cleverly reinforced. Nevertheless, I may have quicker said an atheist's trust began with their family and friends; regardless of the varied orientation of the kinsman's world views' - presupposing, as I do, that there is a distinct value in an actual human relation. It is these profound relations which have also lent themselves to constructing sectarian world belief systems, after all.
They are people that write about things I have an interest in. Do I agree with everything they say? Not at all.
And yet, you read and consider them anyway - I applaud you.
Sometimes, it is difficult for me to identify you as an atheist, save we hold that the definition of atheism is, at minimum, the simple absence of theism: one is either a theist or one is not (and is thus an atheist).
We are then confronted with the fact that a belief in theory need not require a belief in deity, or vice-a-versa. So then, a belief in deity needn't negate the definition of atheism, but rather the theory behind the deity is off limits. In practice however, this is rarely the case; the atheist who presupposes deity is, seemingly by tradition and orthodoxy, shunned from bearing the title 'atheist', being then naturally inclined to take cover as an 'agnostic'.
They may, perhaps like Einstein, even attempt to refuse taking cover within the confines of sectarian orthodox world belief systems whenever possible.
I find your comment laughable.
Maybe I'm funny or misunderstood - perhaps a lil of both?
Atheism does not have a religious belief system.
Honestly, there appears to be little harm done whether one considers their unique brand of Atheism as something other than a religious world belief system or otherwise. Yet, I do not wish to mince words; Atheism is a concept constructed within a syncretic world belief system.
It is borderline rascist, as are most religions; only atheistic racism is reserved for deity. It is an orthodox construct, founded on an absence of evidence which employs sectarianism, as do most religions.
Again, call it what you want.
If it does no one has contacted me. Do you know where they meet?
lol - infidels, McDonald's, freeratio, Burger King, etc. - contact webmasters and burger joints for more details.
Seriously tho - do you feel the lack of organization or archaic ritual somehow negates the confines of religious orthodoxy that atheism requires?
I bet they are a bunch of self righteous asses.
lol - perhaps we may have more in common than is gleamed from the surface ...
Scary thought?
brutha theo writes:
weary writes:
Science and atheism are not interchangeable, much less longstanding kinsman.
Who here has said they were?
The implications are naturally present; atheism's pleading thrusts her demands upon the scientific method. It's good to know we are in some agreement ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ...
'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary
™ Version 4.2