Hmmm... do I point out that the atheist "belief" which is mocked here is provisional and subject to change, and is based on observable evidence that is easily compared with all other available evidence, and that most who hold that belief would gladly accept any other story that better fits that evidence?
As opposed to the Christian "belief" that is based on nothing more than stories of Bronze Age men?
I think this confuses "atheism" with the Big Bang Theory. Which actually doesn't say that there was "nothing" in the beginning, just that we don't know yet what existed before the initial condition.
Yeah, I was just using the label "atheist" the same way the OP was. Lots of assumption in there to pick apart! Pile on, that's what the internets are made for!
Yeah, that's how Pratchett intended it to be, from context. I'm headed out now but if you're interested I can see if that's among his books that I have to type it up.
It's one of those lines that gets kidnapped and pimped until it loses all meaning. To be fair, Pratchett does start his books with wonderful lines. My favorite is "Geography is only Physics slowed down. With a few trees stuck in."
Atheism is a touchy subject with many of my friends. I annoy them when I tell them they have a belief system.
But theological debates are like trying to teach a pig to sing: wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I tell them it is as hard to disprove something as it is to prove it, they get annoyed. I tell them saying there can't be/isn't a god is a belief, they get angry. I mention that atheism is a religion, they get pissed.
It's difficult to think that anyone who believes something so adamantly can say that what they believe ISN'T, is really just an opinion.
apparently you need doctrine, precepts, covenance and organization to be considered a religion, else you're just "stupid".
I suppose that when they're "angry" that they're explaining the difference between blind faith and provisional belief.
I would imagine that they get annoyed because you're showing an ignorance of the rational version of "proof", which is contingent on evidence and conforms to what happens in the real world, and the religious version of proof, which is absolute and based on stories men told long ago and can't be reconciled against actual real-world experience.
I mean, that's what I'd be saying to a friend who tells me irrational things just to get a reaction out of me. And if said friend kept saying things only to see me get pissed off without actually listening to me, I'd probably go find better friends.
I've had this exact same argument. By technical definition; someone who claims to be an Atheist is following a structured manner of belief; thus, a religion. It's fun :)
In part, it's a matter of scale. You could discard the theory that God sends hurricanes to New Orleans because of Mardi Gras, and still be religious.
Part of the problem is the English word 'believe'. It means both 'to have a religious conviction' and more colloquially 'to follow the logic of' or even 'to have an opinion'. "I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster." "I believe that the glass fell off the counter and broke."
So, yes. If you want to abuse the term, someone who "has the opinion that there is no deity" does "have a religious conviction that there is no deity". Congratulations. You have found an Amphibolic fallacy.
I think you have atheism and agnosticism exactly backwards!
The funny part is that when you added "based on the Evidence So Far" you exactly defined "contingent belief" in the same way I've been trying to say. So, y'know, thanks for helping me out.
And the whole "can't prove a negative" thing is a common dodge. The theists are making specific positive claims, claims that can be tested, and claims that, to date, have failed to match observable reality.
When that changes, my "atheist" status will change, I promise you. Theists, at least the ones I know of, won't change their beliefs no matter what evidence is shown them. Those are two different meanings of the word "belief", though people who want to pick and choose definitions can make those separate definitions intersect for annoyance purposes...
I'm not a theist, I've my own believes. I'm merely saying that one has as much trouble proving in a god as disproving. I don't see "Doesn't exist just because you've never seen him" as proof of a non-existence.
I simply don't care if a god exists. I don't say I am agnostic, because I don't spend any time thinking about deities. But I do get drawn to conversations because I'm very interested in why people believe what they do.
Especially why so many are willing to die for, or kill for, these beliefs. It boggles my psyche and makes me curious what drives a person.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
September 14 2008, 13:12:31 UTC 3 years ago
/same vein-ish
September 14 2008, 14:45:20 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 14:56:14 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 21:57:59 UTC 3 years ago
Oh how I wish I could bring these back to Texas sometimes and not get stoned to death.....
September 14 2008, 22:37:49 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 14:23:51 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 17:07:54 UTC 3 years ago
As opposed to the Christian "belief" that is based on nothing more than stories of Bronze Age men?
Hmmm... do I?
Nah. Not worth it.
September 14 2008, 17:26:35 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 18:27:29 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 18:55:19 UTC 3 years ago
But yeah, oh well
September 14 2008, 19:11:40 UTC 3 years ago
Well, that and porn.
3 years ago
September 14 2008, 19:49:01 UTC 3 years ago
It's one of those lines that gets kidnapped and pimped until it loses all meaning. To be fair, Pratchett does start his books with wonderful lines. My favorite is "Geography is only Physics slowed down. With a few trees stuck in."
September 15 2008, 00:55:34 UTC 3 years ago
But theological debates are like trying to teach a pig to sing: wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I tell them it is as hard to disprove something as it is to prove it, they get annoyed. I tell them saying there can't be/isn't a god is a belief, they get angry. I mention that atheism is a religion, they get pissed.
It's difficult to think that anyone who believes something so adamantly can say that what they believe ISN'T, is really just an opinion.
apparently you need doctrine, precepts, covenance and organization to be considered a religion, else you're just "stupid".
September 15 2008, 01:09:25 UTC 3 years ago
I would imagine that they get annoyed because you're showing an ignorance of the rational version of "proof", which is contingent on evidence and conforms to what happens in the real world, and the religious version of proof, which is absolute and based on stories men told long ago and can't be reconciled against actual real-world experience.
I mean, that's what I'd be saying to a friend who tells me irrational things just to get a reaction out of me. And if said friend kept saying things only to see me get pissed off without actually listening to me, I'd probably go find better friends.
September 15 2008, 01:21:51 UTC 3 years ago
September 15 2008, 01:27:02 UTC 3 years ago
September 15 2008, 01:58:12 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
September 15 2008, 06:06:58 UTC 3 years ago
In part, it's a matter of scale. You could discard the theory that God sends hurricanes to New Orleans because of Mardi Gras, and still be religious.
Part of the problem is the English word 'believe'. It means both 'to have a religious conviction' and more colloquially 'to follow the logic of' or even 'to have an opinion'.
"I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster."
"I believe that the glass fell off the counter and broke."
So, yes. If you want to abuse the term, someone who "has the opinion that there is no deity" does "have a religious conviction that there is no deity". Congratulations. You have found an Amphibolic fallacy.
September 15 2008, 09:02:24 UTC 3 years ago
Deleted comment
September 15 2008, 02:58:14 UTC 3 years ago
The funny part is that when you added "based on the Evidence So Far" you exactly defined "contingent belief" in the same way I've been trying to say. So, y'know, thanks for helping me out.
And the whole "can't prove a negative" thing is a common dodge. The theists are making specific positive claims, claims that can be tested, and claims that, to date, have failed to match observable reality.
When that changes, my "atheist" status will change, I promise you. Theists, at least the ones I know of, won't change their beliefs no matter what evidence is shown them. Those are two different meanings of the word "belief", though people who want to pick and choose definitions can make those separate definitions intersect for annoyance purposes...
September 15 2008, 03:11:51 UTC 3 years ago
I simply don't care if a god exists. I don't say I am agnostic, because I don't spend any time thinking about deities. But I do get drawn to conversations because I'm very interested in why people believe what they do.
Especially why so many are willing to die for, or kill for, these beliefs. It boggles my psyche and makes me curious what drives a person.
3 years ago
3 years ago
Deleted comment
3 years ago
September 15 2008, 03:09:02 UTC 3 years ago
Most atheists I know go one step further, and say no such box CAN exist.
They're as fervent disbelievers as many bible-thumpers are that I know. It's hard to have rational "what if" conversations with most of them.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
September 14 2008, 17:38:25 UTC 3 years ago
September 14 2008, 20:09:19 UTC 3 years ago