Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

View Poll Results: Should Atheists be actively Anti-Theist? (directed at atheists)

Voters
9. This poll is closed
  • Yes

    1 11.11%
  • No

    6 66.67%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • I don't care

    2 22.22%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 85
  1. #61
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    And attempting to start over from the beginning and lay down the foundation for common ground...isn't doing that eh?
    Its not clear to me it is.

    Libre said he was an Atheist, by which he means he does not believe in god, but clarifies he is an Agnostic Atheist in so much as he doesn't claim proof of god's non existence. That is his mental state which reflects his philosophical position on the question of God's existence.

    Do you accept that is his mental state and that he consistently uses those terms to describe it?

    ---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Anyway, just to make sure everyone is clear on this. I'm not claiming Apok is violating rules. I was just pointing out that one of his admin/moderators might be indirectly claiming he is. However, even if they are it would be via an interpretation of the rules. And if Apok owns the site then clearly his interpretation would be the deciding one. Therefore, unless Apok agrees he is violating the intent of the rule then clearly I couldn't be claiming he is actually violating the rule.
    I appreciate the concern but I promise it is needless. We've got that pretty well in hand.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #62
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Its not clear to me it is.
    Well that's a first. So NOT starting over...and instead, CONTINUING the ad nauseam debate and NOT finding common ground...is somehow, more reasonable and is more likely to lead to an understanding? In other words, the best way to understand another's position...is to simply refuse to understand! A rather unique approach...but you'll have to forgive me for not buyin' it. One doesn't need any knowledge in logic, critical thinking or philosophy to see the problem with that line of thinking.

    Libre said he was an Atheist, by which he means he does not believe in god
    state of mind

    but clarifies he is an Agnostic Atheist in so much as he doesn't claim proof of god's non existence
    philosophical position

    That is his mental state which reflects his philosophical position on the question of God's existence.

    Do you accept that is his mental state
    yes.

    and that he consistently uses those terms to describe it?
    Nope.

    Hence...the need to CLARIFY (which you SHOULD know is a good thing and is necessary at times given how long you've been a member here) and come to some common ground on how to understand concepts that are being thrown into the pot.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  3. #63
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Well that's a first. So NOT starting over...CONTINUING the ad nauseam debate and NOT finding common ground...is somehow, more reasonable and is more likely to lead to an understanding? In other words, the best way to understand another's position...is to simply refuse to understand! A rather unique approach...but you'll have to forgive me for not buyin' it. One doesn't need any knowledge in logic, critical thinking or philosophy to see the problem with that line of thinking.
    Well that isn't my meaning at all Apok. It is you forcing your meaning onto me and then rejecting it. Easy to do, but not very helpful. Your response is merely mocking me, not useful.

    The best way to understand someones position is to listen, and try to acknowledge what they are telling you. if you can repeat it back to them in your own words, and have them agree that is their position, then you know you have successfully understood them.

    What you are doing is trying to get him to see your position and agree to it. Which is normal debate of course, but when neither side bothers to get what the other side is doing, it goes no where. Heck, even if only one side is doing it it often goes nowhere.

    Nope.
    OK then, what other word has he been using to describe his philosophical position with respect to God's existence if not Atheist and Agnostic Atheist? I've not noticed any in the discussion.

    Hence...the need to CLARIFY (which you SHOULD know is a good thing and is necessary at times given how long you've been a member here) and come to some common ground on how to understand concepts that are being thrown into the pot.
    Consider perhaps that your idea of finding common ground is most often forcing your opponent to accept the ground you argue for and nearly never accepting theirs. When I do that to you, you generally get very angry and refuse to debate with me on the subject.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #64
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The best way to understand someones position is to listen, and try to acknowledge what they are telling you. if you can repeat it back to them in your own words, and have them agree that is their position, then you know you have successfully understood them.
    Well, that is ONE way. Another way is when using terms and concepts, to come to an agreement about what those terms mean and how to apply those concepts. That you may prefer to use one way in all cases...does not mean that it is objectively the best way to use in all cases for all people. Your preferences Sig...are noted...but not objective truths that all are subject to.

    What you are doing is trying to get him to see your position and agree to it.
    No. And way to disregard the principle of charity.

    I'm asking him if he agrees with the terms and concepts which are in play. If he doesn't, then obviously he can explain why and we can move to the next step...the actual application or dismissal of these terms/concepts. Accordingly. I've already stated that we are starting over, as if I've never even posted in this thread. Sometimes, people reason differently than you...and as a result, need to take a different road to discovering what it is others are trying to say, claim, or even believe.

    OK then, what other word has he been using to describe his philosophical position with respect to God's existence if not Atheist and Agnostic Atheist? I've not noticed any in the discussion.
    You are seemingly confusing methods of meaning derivation. I've already addressed this through one of the questions I asked (and it was asked because it is relevant in my observation of his usage of the term and the concept he associates with it in a post):

    1) Do you agree, that there are typically 2 ways to derive meaning from a word/term/label? The two ways being:

    a) stated definition (explicit)
    b) used in context (implicit)

    Examples:

    a) feet - the plural of the lower extremity of the leg below the ankle, on which a person stands or walks
    b) The length of the box is 12 feet.

    In other words...by reading a)...do you understand what is meant by "feet"? Also, by reading b) do you understand what is meant by "feet"?

    He's already agreed. So we are making some progress. It seems you are a hold out or were unaware. Either way, your objection here is unnecessary because he and I have moved on beyond this point.

    Consider perhaps that your idea of finding common ground is most often forcing your opponent to accept the ground you argue for and nearly never accepting theirs.
    Considered...but dismissed. That isn't what is happening Sig.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; June 4th, 2013 at 07:38 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That is mostly a bunch of bunk
    Then, I guess you will probably assume the published articles of HMs research and work in peer-reviewed journals such as American Journal of Cardiology, Stress Medicine, Preventive Cardiology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science and Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine is also mostly a bunch of bunk.

    Then there is their scientific advisory board which perhaps you also assume is bunk.

    Then there is the bunk of big brush strokes....

    You may be using truth in a different way than I am. I'm simply using it to mean accurate information. For instance. The rate of acceleration of earths gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared. That is a true statement so far as anyone can determine. If it is false then it is false for a reason on one is aware of.
    All scientific assumptions that we accept today as true and valid are based upon information and data that is always subject to change and inquiry. Science is not in the truth and certainty business; it is in the business of proposing and testing theories

    Because its the only reality we can interact with.
    Not under all conditions.

    Why should I not assume that my dream world I can be master of the pudding people is as real as your god?
    Can you know it? If you can know it, then I might suggest that you keep your lines of inquiry open about your dream world.

    Its a load of nonsense from my imagination
    How do you know without further examination? I share Einstein's view on the power of the imagination, that it's more important then knowledge. It makes sense to me and is a principle we can test in our life. "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there will ever be to know and understand.

    You want to believe in magic and fairy tales.
    What's magic and fairy tales?

    That's fine by me but your not going to convince anyone with a critical mind that its real nor do anything practical with the belief. A critical approach is to observer first, and try to understand second.
    A critical objective approach does not disregard the power of imagination and the possible. With imagination we are free to objectify, through the process of inquiry and examination, the possible and what may seem unreal, that we perceive in order to make it the probable. Critical thinking does not have to confine our thinking along a narrow path in order to connect point A to point B. Imaginative thinking gives us the ability to move forward towards objectives, along selected paths. It allows us to move freely across fields and disciplines, whereas, as useful and essential as logical thinking is, it keeps us on a narrow focused path of rules. It is from this perspective that imagination is more important than knowledge as knowledge without application appears to be useless.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  6. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,071
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    OK, since your strategy seems to be working well I'll simply leave you to it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #67
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    100% irrelevant. Remember....


    Apok: Let's pretend that there are absolutely no posts between us in this thread for a moment. That is, I haven't responded to you yet. We are going back in time so to speak.

    My first post to you then, would be one of truth discovery. Exploring the boundaries and foundation upon which further arguments can be presented and evaluated.


    Again, 100% irrelevant.

    I'm asking you a simple question. Are you admitting that you cannot answer it?

    So...let's try ONE LAST time here...it's a softball...it's very easy to knock this out of the park libre. We need to lay down the foundation by which all other arguments can be evaluated. Until we do that, nothing else can be discussed as we are using different rules and understandings.



    2) Do you agree that equivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but lexical. So, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings?


    -----------


    3) Do you agree that there is a difference between making a statement about ourselves and that of reality? That is...the statements:


    a) I like chocolate ice cream.
    b) Chocolate contains cocoa beans.


    ...are 2 separate statements with 2 separate meanings with 2 separate subjects? a) being the self, b) being a statement about reality?


    -----------


    4) Do you agree that when we debate, or argue for or against something, we are arguing about the truth, applicability, and/or reasonableness of statements made about reality (vs statements made about the self)?


    And a follow up...do you agree, that statements about reality are what competes against other statements about reality and that statements of self do not?


    For example:


    a) There is life on the planet Earth.


    competes with the statement:


    b) There is no life on the planet Earth.


    Both are statements about reality, both are positions that can be defended and attacked. Both are competing views because both are statements in the same category...statements about reality?




    And as such...statements of self, cannot compete in the same sense (as far as applicability) as statements of reality?


    For example:


    a) I like to be alive (or "I believe I am alive" or "I think about living.")


    doesn't compete or address the statement:


    b) There is life on the planet Earth.


    Correct?[COLOR="Silver"]
    Seriously, enough is enough.

    The issue at hand is NOT that complicated. The word "equivocate" means what it means. I defined the word "atheist" and I stuck with that definition. You seen me define the word, accepted it and then backtracked later claiming you were using an additional definition.

    See how simple it was for me to explain it all? If you can't present your case in something this simple... without spinning it into the ground... then maybe you don't really have a case... just a thought.

    Anyway, that's my case right there. If you don't feel you did that then fine... those reading the thread can decide for themselves which of us is equivocating... if they even care.

    I say we move on now.

  8. #68
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Seriously, enough is enough.

    The issue at hand is NOT that complicated. The word "equivocate" means what it means. I defined the word "atheist" and I stuck with that definition. You seen me define the word, accepted it and then backtracked later claiming you were using an additional definition.
    Except that's not what happened at all. Apok just broke down in very clear, step-by-step terms the precise way he arrived at the conclusion that you were using two different senses of the word "atheist" and how this clouded the debate. Unless you can demonstrate the consistency between your positions in an equally clear manner, then his position is better supported than yours. Simply asserting that it is so isn't enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by libre
    See how simple it was for me to explain it all? If you can't present your case in something this simple... without spinning it into the ground... then maybe you don't really have a case... just a thought.

    Anyway, that's my case right there. If you don't feel you did that then fine... those reading the thread can decide for themselves which of us is equivocating... if they even care.

    I say we move on now.
    So, your idea of arriving at a mutual understanding is that everybody should just stop being wrong and agree with you that you're right, simply because you said so?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  9. #69
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Seriously, enough is enough.

    The issue at hand is NOT that complicated. The word "equivocate" means what it means. I defined the word "atheist" and I stuck with that definition. You seen me define the word, accepted it and then backtracked later claiming you were using an additional definition.

    See how simple it was for me to explain it all? If you can't present your case in something this simple... without spinning it into the ground... then maybe you don't really have a case... just a thought.

    Anyway, that's my case right there. If you don't feel you did that then fine... those reading the thread can decide for themselves which of us is equivocating... if they even care.

    I say we move on now.
    Thank you for your response. And I agree that viewers of the thread can see for themselves where the problem lies. You have made it quite obvious that you are unaware of equivocation occurs and/or applies, obvious that you have misunderstand the events as they took place, and obvious that you do not know the answers to the very simple questions asked. Of course, not knowing the answer to any question is perfectly acceptable...there is no fault in that. The fault lies in the refusal to even attempt to see one's own error, the arrogance to believe that it is impossible to be mistaken, and the unwillingness to seek clarification so that a foundation can be built by which arguments can be properly evaluated. I think I've exposed those points quite well, and I thank you for your participation in that exercise.

    ---------- Post added at 08:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Except that's not what happened at all. Apok just broke down in very clear, step-by-step terms the precise way he arrived at the conclusion that you were using two different senses of the word "atheist" and how this clouded the debate. Unless you can demonstrate the consistency between your positions in an equally clear manner, then his position is better supported than yours. Simply asserting that it is so isn't enough.
    As far as I'm concerned, the debate is over (debate requires 2 participants, and he is indicating he is unwilling to continue, or perhaps incapable for some reason). Besides, I don't think that libre will understand anything you just wrote there. I've explained it to him as simply as I could numerous times already (...4x...5x? not sure). And using his own words, I think we just lack the ability to explain it any simpler than what we have. If we've explained something as simply as we could (I verified it with my 12 yr old, she understood it), and the message still isn't getting through, there is no sense beating a dead horse. When you mix not understanding with the will to not understand, there is just no reaching that person. We've done all we are obligated to do.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; June 7th, 2013 at 08:28 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #70
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    ...debate requires 2 participants, and he is indicating he is unwilling to continue
    I just said I'm willing to continue. I've even compromised and said multiple times now that I'm willing to accept your definition for atheism for the remainder of the debate. I've also pointed out that I'm willing to drop this side issue in order to continue. So, I've also shown the willingness to continue.

    I just don't see how that is a sign I'm unwilling to continue.

    Anyway...

    "In my experience, most atheists are lacking either a proper education or training in philosophy/critical thinking/logic. Most atheists IMO operate from a state of ignorance in that they simply are unaware of the elementary rules of reasoning and thus make many erroneous assumptions. From my view, the atheist is the one not utilizing the evidence, analytical skills, and dogma."

    You stated this in one of your prior posts. With the term "atheist" being used to represent all non theists.

    I get how you could say this about non theists that say there absolutely is no God... I even agree with you in this respect. However, how can you say this about those that are just saying they feel more evidence is needed?

    For you to state this about them would imo required that we accept the premise that there is no doubt that God exists. Yet, you have not supported this notion.

  11. #71
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    You stated this in one of your prior posts. With the term "atheist" being used to represent all non theists.
    No...I didn't. I do not argue or object to "states of mind" or "psychological states of being" because I know better. That which is not a position cannot be attacked or defended, argued for or against. Had you only been reading my posts...you'd know this by now libre.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; June 7th, 2013 at 01:17 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #72
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    No...I didn't. I do not argue or object to "states of mind" or "psychological states of being" because I know better. That which is not a position cannot be attacked or defended, argued for or against. Had you only been reading my posts...you'd know this by now libre.
    K, so just those non theists that claim there is no God?

    Do you feel this is a good representation of all non theists? Or are you just arguing the exception?

    Just trying to get a good feel for where we can restart the discussion.

  13. #73
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    K, so just those non theists that claim there is no God?

    Do you feel this is a good representation of all non theists? Or are you just arguing the exception?

    Just trying to get a good feel for where we can restart the discussion.
    Non-theists is a meaningless term because it's far too broad to have value. And since we can only address philosophical positions or worldviews, that leaves out any non-philosophical view that is contained in the "non-theist" category. Regardless, I did not argue "non-theists" I argued specifically "atheists" which is quite explicit and has specific meaning (in the philosophical sense).

    It is not the case that non-theist is to theist...it is the case that atheist/agnostic (hard) is to theist. These are philosophical positions, not states of mind.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #74
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Except that's not what happened at all. Apok just broke down in very clear, step-by-step terms the precise way he arrived at the conclusion that you were using two different senses of the word "atheist" and how this clouded the debate. Unless you can demonstrate the consistency between your positions in an equally clear manner, then his position is better supported than yours. Simply asserting that it is so isn't enough.
    Sorry, I just seen your post. I didn't want you to think I was being rude and ignoring you. Here is my original statement:

    "I think if most atheists operated from assumption then they wouldn't be atheists. IMO a large part of what makes an atheist an atheist is that they like to go off evidence more often than not. I think many are fine with going off assumption for small things. However, the concept of God is hardly a small thing.

    Btw, when I use the term "atheist" I am talking about what I think officially is called an "agnostic atheist". Someone that doesn't believe in Gods but isn't claiming to know there is no God. I would suspect that most non theists fall into this category and that everyone just calls themselves atheist as a kind of shorthand since most they meet probably fall into the same category. I haven't seen surveys on it though. "


    This was the start of his and my discussion. I'm not sure where in that statement I'm using two different definitions for "atheist". I define the very word in the exact same post... that is the opposite of equivocation.

    What he is claiming is that when he used the word he was not using the same definition as I was in that comment... correct?

    YET, he claims he quoted it and responded to it using a different definition for the word he quoted... without clarifying that he was using a different meaning than my definition. So, technically he has not only used equivocation but according to him his goal was to even take me massively out of context. Since he is now claiming he presented my quote... which was clearly about Agnostics... and was presenting it as anything BUT Agnostics... see post 71.

    Anyway, it is not my goal here to continue to argue the point... especially in public. I think we are moving on. However, it just sounded like you were talking from your position as a moderator and I didn't want to get dinged for ignoring you or anything like that. I would prefer we take this to pms or "Ask the Staff". I just don't see the thread as the best place to discuss it. I only responded here because it sounded like you were ordering me too. In no way though am I claiming anyone has actually broken any rules here. Personally, I think he just didn't see the end of that post until later is all. I think we've all done it. My comments above are only based on what he is claiming... not what I think actually happened.

    Anyway, sorry again for not responding to you sooner. I'm okay with just dropping the entire issue if you are. I think we are moving on.

    ---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Non-theists is a meaningless term because it's far too broad to have value. And since we can only address philosophical positions or worldviews, that leaves out any non-philosophical view that is contained in the "non-theist" category. Regardless, I did not argue "non-theists" I argued specifically "atheists" which is quite explicit and has specific meaning (in the philosophical sense).

    It is not the case that non-theist is to theist...it is the case that atheist/agnostic (hard) is to theist. These are philosophical positions, not states of mind.
    K, that in mind I agree with your comment then in regards to atheists... using our current definition for it. I'm border line on Agnostic (hard). I say border line because there are some definitions of God I think that make it impossible to prove God does or doesn't exist. I would have to research further on that though before knowing for sure.

    Now, before I speak on theists. Is there a specific definition you wish to use? Or just the one from your prior chart?

  15. #75
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Sorry, I just seen your post. I didn't want you to think I was being rude and ignoring you. Here is my original statement:

    "I think if most atheists operated from assumption then they wouldn't be atheists. IMO a large part of what makes an atheist an atheist is that they like to go off evidence more often than not. I think many are fine with going off assumption for small things. However, the concept of God is hardly a small thing.

    Btw, when I use the term "atheist" I am talking about what I think officially is called an "agnostic atheist". Someone that doesn't believe in Gods but isn't claiming to know there is no God. I would suspect that most non theists fall into this category and that everyone just calls themselves atheist as a kind of shorthand since most they meet probably fall into the same category. I haven't seen surveys on it though. "


    This was the start of his and my discussion. I'm not sure where in that statement I'm using two different definitions for "atheist". I define the very word in the exact same post... that is the opposite of equivocation.

    What he is claiming is that when he used the word he was not using the same definition as I was in that comment... correct?

    YET, he claims he quoted it and responded to it using a different definition for the word he quoted... without clarifying that he was using a different meaning than my definition. So, technically he has not only used equivocation but according to him his goal was to even take me massively out of context. Since he is now claiming he presented my quote... which was clearly about Agnostics... and was presenting it as anything BUT Agnostics... see post 71.

    Anyway, it is not my goal here to continue to argue the point... especially in public. I think we are moving on. However, it just sounded like you were talking from your position as a moderator and I didn't want to get dinged for ignoring you or anything like that. I would prefer we take this to pms or "Ask the Staff". I just don't see the thread as the best place to discuss it. I only responded here because it sounded like you were ordering me too. In no way though am I claiming anyone has actually broken any rules here. Personally, I think he just didn't see the end of that post until later is all. I think we've all done it. My comments above are only based on what he is claiming... not what I think actually happened.

    Anyway, sorry again for not responding to you sooner. I'm okay with just dropping the entire issue if you are. I think we are moving on.
    As you and Apok said... I'm just going to drop it. If both of the people involved are moving on, I'm not going to keep it going.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  16. #76
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    As you and Apok said... I'm just going to drop it. If both of the people involved are moving on, I'm not going to keep it going.
    Cool, thanks.

  17. #77
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Sorry, I just seen your post. I didn't want you to think I was being rude and ignoring you. Here is my original statement:

    "I think if most atheists operated from assumption then they wouldn't be atheists. IMO a large part of what makes an atheist an atheist is that they like to go off evidence more often than not. I think many are fine with going off assumption for small things. However, the concept of God is hardly a small thing.

    Btw, when I use the term "atheist" I am talking about what I think officially is called an "agnostic atheist". Someone that doesn't believe in Gods but isn't claiming to know there is no God. I would suspect that most non theists fall into this category and that everyone just calls themselves atheist as a kind of shorthand since most they meet probably fall into the same category. I haven't seen surveys on it though. "


    This was the start of his and my discussion. I'm not sure where in that statement I'm using two different definitions for "atheist". I define the very word in the exact same post... that is the opposite of equivocation.
    This has been explained to you about 5x now. Just because you define a term does not guarantee you are USING it as such. And that was the source of contention. You misused the term as per your own definition.

    What he is claiming is that when he used the word he was not using the same definition as I was in that comment... correct?
    No. What I am claiming is that you first defined the term, then used the term in such a way that it changed meaning, and I responded to that changed meaning of the word. .

    YET, he claims he quoted it and responded to it using a different definition for the word he quoted
    Right...the changed meaning that you used in your post.

    ... without clarifying that he was using a different meaning than my definition.
    Seeing as how it is actually impossible to argue against states of mind, and you defined the term as a state of mind, then argued it to be a philosophical position, it should have been understood that it was the philosophical position being responded to. One cannot object to a psychological state of mind. Again, this has been explained several times now libre.

    So, technically he has not only used equivocation but according to him his goal was to even take me massively out of context.
    This is a untrue. Either you are making this up or there is a serious misunderstanding of events taking place.

    However, it just sounded like you were talking from your position as a moderator and I didn't want to get dinged for ignoring you or anything like that.
    There is nothing in that post that hints at Talthas operating as a moderator.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; June 7th, 2013 at 07:59 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #78
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This has been explained to you about 5x now. Just because you define a term does not guarantee you are USING it as such. And that was the source of contention. You misused the term as per your own definition.
    Wish you would have just dumbed this down for me earlier. Since you were over complicating the explanation I was over complicating the interpretation of what you were saying. Anyway, this is easy to counter:

    "I think if most agnostics operated from assumption then they wouldn't be agnostics. IMO a large part of what makes an agnostic an agnostic is that they like to go off evidence more often than not. I think many are fine with going off assumption for small things. However, the concept of God is hardly a small thing."

    See, it works perfectly fine with the word "agnostic" in place of "atheist".

    ---------- Post added June 8th, 2013 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was June 7th, 2013 at 11:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    No. What I am claiming is that you first defined the term, then used the term in such a way that it changed meaning, and I responded to that changed meaning of the word.
    No, I think you have that backward. I used the word and then in the very next paragraph I clarified the meaning I was using for that prior paragraph. It may not have been the best way to do it but it was only a 1 small paragraph comment followed by a 1 small paragraph explanation of the word use for that comment. I couldn't imagine anyone getting lost in such a short distance. The person I was responding too seemed to follow it no problem.

    Now, had I done it the other way around then maybe I could see some confusion. However, I still wouldn't see why one would respond to it if they thought I was thinking one thing but saying another... they would just point out the conflict. To continue forward knowing there is an issue with what they are quoting would mean they intentionally wanted to generate a conflict/sidetrack to the thread. And I highly doubt that was your intent.

    Btw, please don't read any of the above as me insulting your IQ... something tells me that the misunderstanding is because your IQ is vastly higher than mine... not the other way around. I meant something simple and I think you might have seen something there that wasn't actually meant. Just a guess.

    ---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Seeing as how it is actually impossible to argue against states of mind, and you defined the term as a state of mind, then argued it to be a philosophical position, it should have been understood that it was the philosophical position being responded to. One cannot object to a psychological state of mind. Again, this has been explained several times now libre.
    It isn't impossible for you to try to argue against a state of mind. It is just impossible for you to pull it off. A good reason one might try to back step in a thread via "equivocation". Sometimes even good chess players make a wrong move and wish they could take it back. Surely you can see how your actions could be interpreted as someone trying to do that.

    That said, I really don't see why you would continue to try to take the move back... I've already said I'm okay with resetting the board to your liking... regardless of whose at fault for the issue. For the purpose of discussing the actual topic then I would think that would be all that matters here.

    ---------- Post added at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    There is nothing in that post that hints at Talthas operating as a moderator.
    Lol... you are pretty high in the chain of command on this site. You can afford to take chances that he wasn't... I can't. His last comment on the topic was last month. Then over a week later he makes this comment which to me sounded like he was trying to get us to conclude this disagreement. It sounded like a very reasonable thing for a mod/admin looking in from the outside to do. I believe you out rank him so I doubt he was going to get too directive. It just seemed a reasonable and smart way for me to view his comment under the circumstances.

  19. #79
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Quote Originally Posted by libre View Post
    Wish you would have just dumbed this down for me earlier. Since you were over complicating the explanation I was over complicating the interpretation of what you were saying. Anyway, this is easy to counter:

    "I think if most agnostics operated from assumption then they wouldn't be agnostics. IMO a large part of what makes an agnostic an agnostic is that they like to go off evidence more often than not. I think many are fine with going off assumption for small things. However, the concept of God is hardly a small thing."

    See, it works perfectly fine with the word "agnostic" in place of "atheist".
    I'm fine with that. You have moved from the generic idea of "non-theist" to a particular metaphysical view. It's something that can be evaluated (whereas, simple "non-theism" which most pop-atheists include "lack of belief" as the defining factor, is a psychological state of being and cannot be evaluated rhetorically).

    And yes, I probably could have better communicated that in the first place. But it was what I've been trying to explain for several posts.

    As a result of that particular post (if it were the original), would probably have just been challenging the idea that theists operate more from assumptions than evidence (which is a challenge I offered later in in our exchange anyway).

    It isn't impossible for you to try to argue against a state of mind. It is just impossible for you to pull it off.
    This is incorrect. A "state of mind" is not a metaphysical position that can compete in the realm of "metaphysical arguments." It's a category mistake. This was the point being made in questions #3 and #4.

    Lol... you are pretty high in the chain of command on this site. You can afford to take chances that he wasn't... I can't. His last comment on the topic was last month. Then over a week later he makes this comment which to me sounded like he was trying to get us to conclude this disagreement. It sounded like a very reasonable thing for a mod/admin looking in from the outside to do. I believe you out rank him so I doubt he was going to get too directive. It just seemed a reasonable and smart way for me to view his comment under the circumstances.
    I understand. But I see nothing in the language he used that could reasonable lead someone to believe he was operating as staff vs debater. You can always inquire however, and simply ask via pm. After a while, it will become more clear as to the capacity that the staff are representing themselves.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy of our only known Universe
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How should Atheists treat Theists?

    Atheists should treat theists with kindness, respect, and a regard for human dignity. Atheists must understand their presuppositions of their beliefs. Western modern atheism has a particular flavor, coated with post-Enlightenment ideas such as naturalism and rationalism. It may be different from the non-theism found in Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism or Confucianism. If naturalism or rationalism is a shaky ground, then would there be any support for western modern atheism? At best, I think atheists should close their mouths for just a moment and actually listen to the voices of theists, trying to understand the theistic worldview and not trying to pigeonhole the theistic worldview with naturalistic or rationalistic assumptions. By doing so, I think atheists can greater appreciate the minds of theistic writers of ancient texts.

  21. Thanks Someguy thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347, Talthas, Apokalupsis liked this post
 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A few good videos for both Theists and Atheists
    By Prime Zombie in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 20th, 2009, 10:58 AM
  2. The Nature of God, for atheists and theists
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Religion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 25th, 2008, 08:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •