General / Off-Topic To Atheists, which great Atheist thinker do you allign with ?

[Koen]

Any/every belief is religious by nature. Being non-religious is a belief. Just saying.

Nope, it is a choice to be non-religious.

For others it is just something they always were since birth, and religion is something of which they even cannot understand why it would exist. I know people like that, they are horrible when they have to roleplay a religious true believer because they really don't get it.

Do I believe things without proof? Sure, I believe that I am replying to an existing person rather than that I am dreaming it or than that the whole internet is just a bot posting pages about things I find interesting and chatting to me and fighting with itself about combat logging and Trump. I do not need religion for that. I might be wrong about that, boy that would be something, this whole internet created just to fool me? And those dinosaur skeletons in the natural history museum too? Wow! Nah, let's get on with real life.

Do I have presuppositions I am not aware of? Yes, and every time I find one I shoot it with multi-cannons and plasma guns.

When I meet somebody for the first time, I have prejudices on them, based on what they wear or on what somebody once told me about this person. I also know that those prejudices might very well be wrong. So you have to keep checking what you think to not fall for that. Some of my best friends are persons I could at first not stand because of my or their prejudice, but we readjusted our perspectives. I might still be wrong about those persons now, but the chance that I am is a lot smaller. But I still have prejudices, even if I know better from experience, the important thing is to be aware of that.

The absence of belief in god is not the same as the belief in the absence of god.

Dogmatic atheists do exist. It is however also possible to be adogmatic, it is just more work.

Religion is not a necessity. It is quite liberating to discover that.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Nope, it is a choice to be non-religious.

That itself is just a belief, and a provably false one.

Can you levitate?

Can you see through solid walls?

Can you stand in fire and survive?

The idea you can control your thoughts is as absurd as believing any of the above, and for the exact same reasons. Your brain is merely a spongy mass of chemical triggers and electrical impulses. What you perceive as your thoughts are not guided by anything more than the physical laws of the universe. What you perceive as your emotions are the result of hormone and neurotransmitter reactions.

Want proof? Drink a liter of vodka (changing your brain chemistry temporarily) then come back and present a 1000 word rebuttal to this argument.

The concept of free will and notion that your brain, and therefore your mind, is independent from the physical forces of the universe is a religious idea that there is somehow more to the universe than the matter and energy it contains.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Nope, it is a choice to be non-religious.

For others it is just something they always were since birth, and religion is something of which they even cannot understand why it would exist. I know people like that, they are horrible when they have to roleplay a religious true believer because they really don't get it.

Do I believe things without proof? Sure, I believe that I am replying to an existing person rather than that I am dreaming it or than that the whole internet is just a bot posting pages about things I find interesting and chatting to me and fighting with itself about combat logging and Trump. I do not need religion for that. I might be wrong about that, boy that would be something, this whole internet created just to fool me? And those dinosaur skeletons in the natural history museum too? Wow! Nah, let's get on with real life.

Do I have presuppositions I am not aware of? Yes, and every time I find one I shoot it with multi-cannons and plasma guns.

When I meet somebody for the first time, I have prejudices on them, based on what they wear or on what somebody once told me about this person. I also know that those prejudices might very well be wrong. So you have to keep checking what you think to not fall for that. Some of my best friends are persons I could at first not stand because of my or their prejudice, but we readjusted our perspectives. I might still be wrong about those persons now, but the chance that I am is a lot smaller. But I still have prejudices, even if I know better from experience, the important thing is to be aware of that.

Dogmatic atheists do exist. It is however also possible to be adogmatic, it is just more work. And religion is not a necessity.

I enjoy your argument, but respectfully agree to disagree. And debating subjectivity gets dull fast for me, but I do however acknowledge that others can perceive the world differently than I, and that their belief/perception can be just as valid as mine.

 

[Koen]

@FuzzySpider: Oh, I am well aware that I am quite limited. But if what I think (which is, I guess we can agree, what my brain thinks) is determined (rather than merely influenced) by chemistry or not, it still is what I do think.

And it is not choice in the sense that I can choose to eat a sandwich rather than a spaghetti. As I wrote above, it was reasoning rather than choosing which led me to that conclusion, the loss of meaning of the concepts of god and religion themselves.

@Globusdiablo: Agreed. I also do not plan to keep camping this thread, I think I have made my point as clear as I can. Cheers!

 

[Boomer Kay]

The idea you can control your thoughts is as absurd as believing any of the above, and for the exact same reasons. Your brain is merely a spongy mass of chemical triggers and electrical impulses. What you perceive as your thoughts are not guided by anything more than the physical laws of the universe. What you perceive as your emotions are the result of hormone and neurotransmitter reactions.

To some extent yes - to another extent other no.
That's why I called Buddhism "meds" .. and other meds, too.

You still do have the choice to expose yourself to such outside influences or not. You can build your resilience, you can reprogram your thinking actively to some extent.
Science now even linked "character traits" like introversion to things like dopamine reception in the brain. But even knowing you have certain physical limits does not mean you can't expand them trough practice and repetition.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Nope, it is a choice to be non-religious...

Could I replace the word choice with belief?

 

[Boomer Kay]

Could I replace the word choice with belief?

No you can't.

Unless you use a less common definition of "belief", in which case, you might just confuse yourself.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choice

You could stick to the gnostic-agnostic/theist-atheist framework from one of the last pages.

 

[Globusdiablo]

No you can't.

Unless you use a less common definition of "belief", in which case, you might just confuse yourself.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

You could stick to the gnostic-agnostic/theist-atheist framework from one of the last pages.

I'm sorry my friend, but you're the one confusing yourself. This is the reference you were looking for:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Or did you not read my post that you quoted? You could try that as a start.

Edit: Ah, very clever of you to edit your post. Doesn't change a thing though. A bit sad though.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I'm sorry my friend, but you're the one confusing yourself. This is the reference you were looking for:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Or did you not read my post that you quoted? You could try that as a start.

I'm not your friend.
I've noticed my reply was too short and I was jumping to conclusions without offering you the chance to follow, so I edited the post with 2 more definitions.
You did not reply to the post you quoted.
You can replace any word with any other potato, it will just change the meaning of the elephant.

And last but not least, you could have done what I did and looked for a common defitiontion first, making sure you're "on the same page", before trying to spin the story any further.

 

[Globusdiablo]

I'm not your friend.
I've noticed my reply was too short and I was jumping to conclusions without offering you the chance to follow, so I edited the post with 2 more definitions.
You did not reply to the post you quoted.
You can replace any word with any other potato, it will just change the meaning of the elephant.

Thank you for proving my point. You are right of course. Because, you're right. Right? You know the truth, that is obvious. You've read a lot of books, thought a lot of clever thoughts. It must be wonderful to know you're right.

I won't bother debating you further, as you already know that you're right.

Edit: and leaving out my edit, that you're editing your posts... Hypocrite much?

2. Edit: Wow. I love how you edit your posts to support whatever argument. Masterfully done. Not very genuine though.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Thank you for proving my point. You are right of course. Because, you're right. Right? You know the truth, that is obvious. You've read a lot of books, thought a lot of clever thoughts. It must be wonderful to know you're right.

I won't bother debating you further, as you already know that you're right.

Edit: and leaving out my edit, that you're editing your posts... Hypocrite much?

2. Edit: Wow. I love how you edit your posts to support whatever argument. Masterfully done. Not very genuine though.

Actually it's quite simple.
You found a flaw in my logic that in turn made you correct your first omission.

Of course you won't debate me any further. You lost the debate before it started.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Actually it's quite simple.
You found a flaw in my logic that in turn made you correct your first omission.

Of course you won't debate me any further. You lost the debate before it started.

Of course. Because you're right. Right?

Fly safe Commander.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Of course. Because you're right. Right?

Fly safe Commander.

Or because I have to send you do your homework by convincing you it's your own idea to do them using the most obvious crack in your reasoning which is to look for flaws in other people's reasoning and hence mostly debate with myself.

Looks easy, doesn't it?

 

[Libluini]

Man, that poll must have been closed fast, considering only 13 people were able to vote.

To answer the OP, I'm obviously aligning myself with the greatest Atheist thinker I know of: Myself. I'm genuinely the greatest Atheist thinker of all time.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Or because I have to send you do your homework by convincing you it's your own idea to do them using the most obvious crack in your reasoning which is to look for flaws in other people's reasoning and hence mostly debate with myself.

Looks easy, doesn't it?

Good lord. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by my comments. Many of your other posts suggest that you're an intelligent individual. You seem to be running in circles now, trying to untangle your own story.

But the mere fact that you edit your posts after the fact to support your own argument, multiple times, without even spotlighting the edits, can only lead me to conclude that you're also a disingenuous individual.

I wouldn't be surprised if "someone" was to report me for being insulting. Which of course you are not.

Shall we agree to disagree, and let this thread carry on without us bickering?

 

[Boomer Kay]

Shall we agree to disagree, and let this thread carry on without us bickering?

We can agree to do our homework.

Me editing my posts is a sign that I don't get payed to post on forums. ;p

It's also a sign that I sometimes do go back to my own posts and correct, expand or reduce them.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Emphasis mine.

Any/every belief is religious by nature. Being non-religious is a belief. Just saying.

If i'm to admit that being unreligious is a belief, i must point out that it's based on belief/theory backed up by scientfic evidence that may change over time, where as religious beliefs are claims of fact set in stone, and we have already disproven the three main holy books claims that the earth is 6000 years old, not to mention we have established that many of the miracles and magical events could never have happened. So they can have their beliefs, but they should be mocked, just as i should be mocked if i claimed that i spoke to Christopher Hitchens last night. (i can't, he's dead, it's impossible just like the noahs ark story).

 

[Globusdiablo]

We can agree to do our homework.

Me editing my posts is a sign that I don't get payed to post on forums. ;p

It's also a sign that I sometimes do go back to my own posts and correct, expand or reduce them.

Nice piece of rationalisation.

Anyway. What I think is interesting about our little tête-à-tête, is the manner in which people can choose to initiate and debate each other on questions of belief, and anything else for that matter.

You chose to initiate a hostile dialogue with me on a question that wasn't even adressed to you, by attempting to belittle (italic for clarification) my question. After I explained the lack of coherence in your argument to you, you promptly changed the wording in your initial insult. You then continued to edit your post, depending on what I wrote to you. By your disingenuous responses/edits you make it impossible for me to take you seriously. So I return in kind, and we end up shooting insults and snide remarks at each other.

My point is, if one is to expect a reasonable debate on any topic, but beliefs in particular, two things are absolutely necessary; respect and honesty. You have shown neither. And I followed you down that dark and boring path to less enlightenment.

I would have been able to respect your opinions if you were respectful and honest towards me. But you aren't. But you don't care about that, and neither do I. So a wasted opportunity at exploring an interesting subject matter.

I would genuinely like to know why you chose to initiate hostile dialogue with me, on a post not even adressed to you? We have had no previous disagreement to my knowledge?

If i'm to admit that being unreligious is a belief, i must point out that it's based on belief/theory backed up by scientfic evidence that may change over time, where as religious beliefs are claims of fact set in stone, and we have already disproven the three main holy books claims that the earth is 6000 years old, not to mention we have established that many of the miracles and magical events could never have happened. So they can have their beliefs, but they should be mocked, just as i should be mocked if i claimed that i spoke to Christopher Hitchens last night. (i can't, he's dead, it's impossible just like the noahs ark story).

You put it very eloquently, and I agree.

 

[Boomer Kay]

You chose to initiate a hostile dialogue with me on a question that wasn't even adressed to you, by attempting to belittle (italic for clarification) my question.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-allign-with?p=5206733&viewfull=1#post5206733

-yawn-

Do your homework already.

 

[Globusdiablo]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-allign-with?p=5206733&viewfull=1#post5206733

-yawn-

Do your homework already.

Why are you linking to your own post? What am I missing? I repped you for that posts clarity. And why do you continue to belittle me? What's with the: -yawn- . You seem intelligent but act like a 5 year old. What is the matter?