Professor Fenner on Human overpopulation

see0red

Good point.

see0red

So you're speaking of atheists who come to r/atheism to voice a thought on the subject. If evangelical Christians only went to r/Christianity to do the same, I don't think anyone else would notice that evangelical Christians even exist. But since we hear them everywhere without looking, it seems clear that so-called evangelical atheists are not in the same league.

see0red

Skepticism is a virtue of the critical mind and an essential part of science. It should be taught early in school, but most wait until science or philosophy classes before approaching the subject.

see0red

there are some evangelical anti-theists who behave in exactly the same way as evangelical theists

But do you see many atheists initiate a spiel on the absence of deity out of the blue? Or are you speaking of atheists who are not shy to respond when a theist says something about his god first? It's different.

see0red

I don't mock anyone for telling others what they think, I mock them for what they think. We're all free to speak and communication is great. Let the religious shout what they want but let me shout back as well. No problem.

see0red

It's only a matter of definition. I don't call what I physically feel an emotion. If I'm in pain or if I'm hungry, it's a feeling but not an emotion. I want to eat every day. It's not an emotional want, it's a physiological need. I want clothes when I'm physically cold, whereas I want good-looking clothes as an emotional need to look good. I also want to put my money in high-return deposits as a rational want that arises from the emotional need for long-term security that arises from the physiological drive to survive. So no, not every "want" is an emotion.

see0red

I don't think reason wants anything.

Neither do emotions. It was a figure of speech. We're the ones who want to be correct and to appease our emotions.

see0red

Don't wait for this, it won't happen. Some sub-reddits don't monetize well, and we've already been told that r/atheism is among those that don't. It won't be included in the default until we all start clicking ferociously on the ad links.

see0red

Is it rational to choose to be correct rather than happy?

I think reason wants to be right, emotions want to be appeased, and we're stuck in the middle of it doing a balancing act.

I don't see that I'm overriding reason.

As long as you remain aware of the difference, it's harmless. You know that prayer has no effect on the next card out of the deck because it won't magically change from what it is to what you need it to be. Yet you put in a quick prayer anyway, which gives you emotional comfort therefore I cannot call this irrational any more than just taking a deep breath. Where it would be a problem is if you allowed unfounded beliefs to affect your actions. For example, if you know you have a losing hand but make a decision to pray that everyone else has an even worse hand and then proceed with the bet. That would clearly be a case of emotions overriding reason. If you never let this happen then I don't see a problem (unless it happens unconsciously and you don't realize it).

see0red

You agree with what atheists say, which is a rational response, but you still like to pray, which is an emotional one. If you didn't have emotions then you would likely be atheist, but your feelings cause you to override cold reason for the sake of emotional comfort. It may not make you right but it makes you comfortable. We all have to determine for ourselves what makes us happier: being correct or being comfortable.

see0red

It would make early pregnancy tests perfectly accurate too. You could readily tell that a third of all souls never achieve birth but are naturally flushed into nothingness, as gods intended.

see0red

One word: twin. If the soul arrives at conception as they say, when the zygote later splits up into twins then one of them will be without a soul.

see0red

Until someone explains the distinction between normal and paranormal, I will continue to dismiss the word as meaningless. Either something happens or it doesn't.

see0red

In the most general sense, atheism is simply the absence of belief in god or gods. Within this group you find those who lack credible evidence, those who dismiss all that is supernatural because the word is meaningless, those who positively assert that no god exists, some who simply lack interest in the topic and dismiss it entirely as irrelevant, and others. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.

see0red

The "cannot believe in god" part is hard to swallow as it seems to imply that in the face of evidence to the contrary, they would still not believe.

In the face of any evidence then you cease to be agnostic so the situation no longer applies.

You then go on to claim that because they share these properties, they are equal which is not true.

I did not say that they are equal, you are reading things I did not write. Members of one group are generally also members of the other group, but both groups are not the same.

According to what I have read on Atheism, it claims that god cannot possibly exist

Then you have not read enough about atheism and I recommend that you pay r/atheism a visit once in a while. Read the FAQ if you are interested in the topic.

see0red

No. There are thousands of gods and I don't know any atheist who has gone through them all one by one and disproved each one of them. I cannot disprove Zeus, for example, I just don't think he exists. This position is called "weak atheism", meaning not believing due to lack of evidence. In contrast, "strong atheism" is a positive assertion that a god does not exist, as when it is defined in self-contradictory terms. Here's my stance (you can check Wikipedia for terms that are new to you):

I'm ignostic with regards to undefined gods.

I'm a strong atheist for gods defined in a self-contradictory way.

I'm apatheist about gods explicitly crafted to fit non-refutable definitions.

I'm a weak atheist about remaining gods.

I'm gnostic about existence and change.

I'm agnostic about most other things.

see0red

Before trying to answer a question you need to be clear on what it is. I asked about two fingers, this is the question. If you have no reason to believe the claim then you can either believe it on faith or not believe it. All other questions must be addressed separately. Ambiguity is not a productive quality. So if you haven't decided what god is then trying to determine if there is such a thing is a fool's errand.

EDIT following your edit.

I do not fully understand where I would fit in

Generally speaking, do you worship any god? Do you live your life with due consideration of what a god might think? Do you think there is such a thing at all? If so, you're a theist; otherwise, you're an atheist. You can still be agnostic like most people. All it says is that you can't be sure, but since we can't be sure about most things then agnosticism isn't saying much.

Skepticism is the opposite of gullibility. The skeptic will not accept claims until proven true, the gullible accepts them until proven false. It's related but not exactly the same.

see0red

An agnostic sees no evidence for or against god and therefore cannot demonstrate either its existence of lack thereof. In the absence of evidence, if an agnostic were to believe in a god then it would have to be on faith, and on faith alone since there is nothing else to back up this belief. In the absence of evidence, belief in god requires faith. Are you with me so far?

Saying that belief in god implies faith is the same thing as saying that lack of faith implies lack of belief in god; these are two equivalent statements. Most self-proclaimed agnostics deny having faith otherwise they would not call themselves agnostic. Given this lack of faith in god, the logical implication is a lack of belief in god. In other words, an agnostic, someone without evidence and without faith, cannot believe in god and is therefore godless, aka atheist.

Not all atheists are agnostic, but agnostics are typically atheist because it is impossible for them to believe in a god without either evidence or faith.

see0red

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login