[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506190]You can't 'believe' in atheism, because atheism is a lack of a belief.
as long as your opinion isn't backed by evidence it's not a legitimate opinion.
it doesn't mean that you can't hold it, it's just not legitimate.[/QUOTE]
Atheism is the belief that is no god or divine entity that created matter in the universe. Believing in god is a legitimate belief because IMO it dictates peoples lives and they do truly believe it to the point of killing themselves to defend it.
[QUOTE=be;44506193]Yeah but belief isn't an objective truth. Objective truths are what happens in reality, and having support from reality is vital in proving a point. When a viewpoint is based on belief then it is not actually based on reality and therefore has the same weight as any random guess. In this way I suppose it hinges on someone's opinion of the concept of the burden of proof, if you believe that all claims need to be proven true/accurate based on evidentiary support then you can easily justify an atheist's standpoint, but if you believe that claims don't need to be proven then you can justify being religious. In my mind it is clear which stance on the burden of proof is optimal, but that opens a whole different can of worms.
I see a gimmick being created in my honor as an accomplishment, truly.[/QUOTE]
You're right, viewpoints are better if they are based on reality. That's why viewpoints that don't rely on generalisations are better than ones that do, like thunderfoot's.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506201]Atheism is the belief that is no god or divine entity that created matter in the universe. Believing in god is a legitimate belief because IMO it dictates peoples lives and they do truly believe it to the point of killing themselves to defend it.[/QUOTE]
No, atheism is lack a of a belief, saying that lack of a belief is a belief is stupid.
and faith isn't a legitimate belief because it's not supported by evidence, it's only a legitimate belief for yourself, or personal justification (which can't be used a evidence)
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506201]Atheism is the belief that is no god or divine entity that created matter in the universe. Believing in god is a legitimate belief because IMO it dictates peoples lives and they do truly believe it to the point of killing themselves to defend it.[/QUOTE]
But a belief doesn't make something real, belief and reality are completely different places/things. It is real to them but that doesn't make it really what they claim it to be, what they feel/experience as god is not actually god, it is rather a delusion of some sort. Or at least that's what it is likely to be, religion has always and will always be a product of the human imagination.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506211]No, atheism is lack a of a belief, saying that lack of a belief is a belief is stupid.
and faith isn't a legitimate belief because it's not supported by evidence, it's only a legitimate belief for yourself, or personal justification (which can't be used a evidence)[/QUOTE]
Not believing in something is still believing something, you're just believing that something doesn't exist. Any understanding of the world around you is a belief. The only way you can't believe things is if you're dead.
[QUOTE=be;44506218]But a belief doesn't make something real, belief and reality are completely different places/things. It is real to them but that doesn't make it really what they claim it to be, what they feel/experience as god is not actually god, it is rather a delusion of some sort. Or at least that's what it is likely to be, religion has always and will always be a product of the human imagination.[/QUOTE]
Beliefs and viewpoints are interchangeable, ultimately you have more credibility if you have evidence to back you up. What happens when you say that certain beliefs are not legitimate is that you fall into this pitfall where you start saying that anyone who believes something you don't is illegitimate, which isn't what I'm saying at all. Some opinions can be objectively better than others if they don't generalise and are therefore prone to bias. You can't make absolute statements and be correct because ultimately it is your own opinion and view of the world that you're stating, but trying to be objective and not stating your own beliefs and generalisations as absolute fact goes a long way to making yourself more credible.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506224]Not believing in something is still believing something, you're just believing that something doesn't exist. Any understanding of the world around you is a belief. The only way you can't believe things is if you're dead.[/QUOTE]
To reiterate: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Believing there is no God because of the "fact" that no one can prove there's one doesn't make it a fact there isn't one.
Or ten. Or like, one-hundred and they are all street-fighters, or whatever your belief is.
Internet Atheism is just as militant and obnoxious as some religious persons can get.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506224]Not believing in something is still believing something, you're just believing that something doesn't exist. Any understanding of the world around you is a belief. The only way you can't believe things is if you're dead.[/QUOTE]
No, that is just silly. having a lack of a belief is not the same as having a belief.
when you have evidence for something, it's not longer really a belief it's more than that, to the point where it deserves a different name.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506201]
You're right, viewpoints are better if they are based on reality. That's why viewpoints that don't rely on generalisations are better than ones that do, like thunderfoot's.[/QUOTE]
All of thunderf00t's videos about feminism are about a small number of people that are addressed individually, I don't think TF is claiming that these people represent feminism as a whole (evidenced by the quote things on almost all his videos with the instance of 'feminism'), he's just showing why their arguments are terrible (how feminism poisons atheism for example attempts to show how poisonous and destructive the opinions of the subjects of the video are, and because the subjects of the video are in fact feminists it is fair to say 'feminism')
[editline]10th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506224]Not believing in something is still believing something, you're just believing that something doesn't exist. Any understanding of the world around you is a belief. The only way you can't believe things is if you're dead.
Beliefs and viewpoints are interchangeable, ultimately you have more credibility if you have evidence to back you up. What happens when you say that certain beliefs are not legitimate is that you fall into this pitfall where you start saying that anyone who believes something you don't is illegitimate, which isn't what I'm saying at all. Some opinions can be objectively better than others if they don't generalise and are therefore prone to bias. You can't make absolute statements and be correct because ultimately it is your own opinion and view of the world that you're stating, but trying to be objective and not stating your own beliefs and generalisations as absolute fact goes a long way to making yourself more credible.[/QUOTE]
I honestly can't imagine how someone could go from only considering beliefs with proper evidence to dismissing arguments based on personal bias, I couldn't see how this slippery slope is destined to happen, it doesn't really follow imo.
[editline]10th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506247]No, that is just silly. having a lack of a belief is not the same as having a belief.
when you have evidence for something, it's not longer really a belief it's more than that, to the point where it deserves a different name.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is the same, a belief is any opinion you hold on any subject at all. Just because the belief of atheism concerns the non-belief of religion doesn't mean atheism is somehow not a belief, it is still an opinion you hold on the subject of religion. Each topic has beliefs surrounding it, atheism is just the opposite side from being religious.
[QUOTE=be;44506250]All of thunderf00t's videos about feminism are about a small number of people that are addressed individually, I don't think TF is claiming that these people represent feminism as a whole (evidenced by the quote things on almost all his videos with the instance of 'feminism'), he's just showing why their arguments are terrible (how feminism poisons atheism for example attempts to show how poisonous and destructive the opinions of the subjects of the video are, and because the subjects of the video are in fact feminists it is fair to say 'feminism')
[editline]10th April 2014[/editline]
I honestly can't imagine how someone could go from only considering beliefs with proper evidence to dismissing arguments based on personal bias, they aren't connected much at all.
[editline]10th April 2014[/editline]
Yes it is the same, a belief is any opinion you hold on any subject at all. Just because the belief of atheism concerns the non-belief of religion doesn't mean atheism is somehow not a belief, it is still an opinion you hold on the subject of religion. Each topic has beliefs surrounding it, atheism is just the opposite side from being religious.[/QUOTE]
I think that for the overwhelming majority of atheists it's not really a belief but more of a provisional conclusion.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506247]No, that is just silly. having a lack of a belief is not the same as having a belief.
when you have evidence for something, it's not longer really a belief it's more than that, to the point where it deserves a different name.[/QUOTE]
There is no absolute proof that there is no catalytic entity that created matter at some level, we don't know enough about the exact nature of the universe prior to the big bang (because matter was so compressed back then that normal real world physics don't apply) to say anything definitive about it scientifically. All we can really say is that it is unlikely that any earthbound theories of religion actually apply because there is so many of them and they contradict themselves and each other.
The true scientific method basically sums down to "I believe it when I see it." Anything can be proven to be true if you can prove it. All of these scientific atheists you see on the internet actually lack proper understanding of the scientific process when they make absolutist statements like "The big bang created everything and that's that" because the big bang doesn't actually explain where matter comes from.
There's no statement or opinion that can be made that is anything better than a belief unless it is a pure and unbiased observation with no opinion on top. It needs to follow the scientific process. Even then it can still be disproved further down the track. Thunderfoot's overly verbose rambling speech doesn't fit into this category.
[QUOTE=be;44506250]I honestly can't imagine how someone could go from only considering beliefs with proper evidence to dismissing arguments based on personal bias, I couldn't see how this slippery slope is destined to happen, it doesn't really follow imo.[/QUOTE]
All belief's are legitimate, as in people believe in them and are willing to fight to the death for them. When you present evidence to back up you're beliefs you're always going to be far more compelling than if you make loads of sweeping generalising statements, but opinion is always separate from fact.
[QUOTE]All of thunderf00t's videos about feminism are about a small number of people that are addressed individually, I don't think TF is claiming that these people represent feminism as a whole (evidenced by the quote things on almost all his videos with the instance of 'feminism'), he's just showing why their arguments are terrible (how feminism poisons atheism for example attempts to show how poisonous and destructive the opinions of the subjects of the video are, and because the subjects of the video are in fact feminists it is fair to say 'feminism')[/QUOTE]
He creates sweeping generalisations, in the first few minutes of the video posted here he compares the action of one individual to any and all political activists who just like to get upset over nothing. While this does happen and it's a serious problem, there are also a good amount of people who have created done good by being political activists and he is slamming them for no good reason.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506286]There is no absolute proof that there is no catalytic entity that created matter at some level, we don't know enough about the exact nature of the universe prior to the big bang (because matter was so compressed back then that normal real world physics don't apply) to say anything definitive about it scientifically. All we can really say is that it is unlikely that any earthbound theories of religion actually apply because there is so many of them and they contradict themselves and each other.
The true scientific method basically sums down to "I believe it when I see it." Anything can be proven to be true if you can prove it. All of these scientific atheists you see on the internet actually lack proper understanding of the scientific process when they make absolutist statements like "The big bang created everything and that's that" because the big bang doesn't actually explain where matter comes from.
There's no statement or opinion that can be made that is anything better than a belief unless it is a pure and unbiased observation with no opinion on top. It needs to follow the scientific process. Even then it can still be disproved further down the track. Thunderfoot's overly verbose rambling speech doesn't fit into this category.[/QUOTE]
Well as long as something can be repeated and yield the same results, it adheres to the scientific method, this is pretty much true for everything.
I never claimed that thunderf00t fitted this category ...
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506201]Atheism is the belief that is no god or divine entity that created matter in the universe.
[/QUOTE]
No. Humans invented the concept of 'deity', it doesn't exist outside of our heads. Same as any other magic things ever created.
You can not straight-up make up some magic invisible unicorn and then when someone points out that it doesn't exist claim their "beliefs" are just as legitimate as yours. And no, it doesn't matter how much time ago thing was made up. Persistence doesn't add anything to the legitimacy of the claim.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506302]Well as long as something can be repeated and yield the same results, it adheres to the scientific method, this is pretty much true for everything.
I never claimed that thunderf00t fitted this category ...[/QUOTE]
I was responding to one of be's posts when I typed that, but my point was earlier that there is room to speculation as to the exact nature of the universe. It's not as founded as it may otherwise appear to say anything one way about how the universe was formed.
[QUOTE=gudman;44506312]No. Humans invented the concept of 'deity', it doesn't exist outside of our heads. Same as any other magic things ever created.
You can not straight-up make up some magic invisible unicorn and then when someone points out that it doesn't exist claim their "beliefs" are just as legitimate as yours. And no, it doesn't matter how much time ago thing was made up. Persistence doesn't add anything to the legitimacy of the claim.[/QUOTE]
When I say an opinion is legitimate, I don't mean that it is well-founded. I just mean that people truly believe it so it is unfair to dismiss it as being irrelevant and therefore not consider the rights of people who believe it. That's the trap people fall into when they start thinking of people being less than them because they believe in a certain thing they don't believe in.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506286]There is no absolute proof that there is no catalytic entity that created matter at some level, we don't know enough about the exact nature of the universe prior to the big bang (because matter was so compressed back then that normal real world physics don't apply) to say anything definitive about it scientifically. All we can really say is that it is unlikely that any earthbound theories of religion actually apply because there is so many of them and they contradict themselves and each other.
The true scientific method basically sums down to "I believe it when I see it." Anything can be proven to be true if you can prove it. All of these scientific atheists you see on the internet actually lack proper understanding of the scientific process when they make absolutist statements like "The big bang created everything and that's that" because the big bang doesn't actually explain where matter comes from.
There's no statement or opinion that can be made that is anything better than a belief unless it is a pure and unbiased observation with no opinion on top. It needs to follow the scientific process. Even then it can still be disproved further down the track. Thunderfoot's overly verbose rambling speech doesn't fit into this category.
All belief's are legitimate, as in people believe in them and are willing to fight to the death for them. When you present evidence to back up you're beliefs you're always going to be far more compelling than if you make loads of sweeping generalising statements, but opinion is always separate from fact.[/QUOTE]
how can an opinion that's not backed up by objective verification, be legitimate?
Again, I can see how someone can prove to himself that his subjective belief proves something
but once he tries to use that belief to prove something to someone else, it's not longer a legitimate opinion.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506315]how can an opinion that's not backed up by objective verification, be legitimate?
Again, I can see how someone can prove to himself that his subjective belief proves something
but once he tries to use that belief to prove something to someone else, it's not longer a legitimate opinion.[/QUOTE]
It's a legitimate opinion to have, regardless of whether it's objectively true or not. Even if you stopped people from trying to convince others that their belief's were true, people will naturally try to find the most convenient answer for things even if it objectively causes them more harm than good to do so.
An example of this would be the woman who grew up in a catholic town in Ireland. She meet a Muslim woman once at her school, and a few years later she was involved in the terrorist attack on a shopping mall in Africa. She didn't grow up in a Islamic state, she wasn't brainwashed (or atleast she was brainwashed to become catholic but she converted because something made sense to her). Why do you think she did all that stuff if she didn't legitimately belief that she would go to heaven if she killed several innocent bystanders in a shopping mall? She wasn't doing it for any economic benefit or anything, she was doing it because she legitimately believed she was right and the end justified the means.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506349]It's a legitimate opinion to have, regardless of whether it's objectively true or not. Even if you stopped people from trying to convince others that their belief's were true, people will naturally try to find the most convenient answer for things even if it objectively causes them more harm than good.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't make it legitimate though, it's only legitimate for personal justification (which can't be used as evidence)
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506362]It doesn't make it legitimate though, it's only legitimate for personal justification (which can't be used as evidence)[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about using people's personal beliefs in academic debates, what did I write that gave you that idea? I was responding to your post that beliefs that don't make sense aren't legitimate by saying that they are to the person who believes them.
My other point is that thunderfoot's use of sweeping generalisations is objectively wrong, his belief and opinion is certainly legitimate, but he's blatantly insulting people simply to boost his own ego and view count.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506314]
When I say an opinion is legitimate, I don't mean that it is well-founded. I just mean that people truly believe it so it is unfair to dismiss it as being irrelevant and therefore not consider the rights of people who believe it. That's the trap people fall into when they start thinking of people being less than them because they believe in a certain thing they don't believe in.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm arguing against. You have the right to hold whatever opinion you like. But different opinions, beliefs, worldviews are not in any way equal and claiming they are is wrong. Atheists regecting the claim deities' existence != theists claiming that deit(y/ies) exist. They have different "levels", dunno, "meanings" of legitimacy.
[QUOTE=gudman;44506389]That's not what I'm arguing against. You have the right to hold whatever opinion you like. But different opinions, beliefs, worldviews are not in any way equal and claiming they are is wrong. Atheists regecting the claim deities' existence != theists claiming that deit(y/ies) exist. They have different "levels", dunno, "meanings" of legitimacy.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, that's different to what shreddinger was saying, which was that opinions of people who believe something different to what he believes are illegitmate. It's certainly reasonable to say that people who actually have evidence to back up their personal beliefs are far more compelling, but the opinions and input of people who don't are still valid in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Zyler;44506399]Fair enough, that's different to what shreddinger was saying, which was that opinions of people who believe something different to what he believes are illegitmate. It's certainly reasonable to say that people who actually have evidence to back up their personal beliefs are far more compelling, but the opinions and input of people who don't are still valid in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
valid input ≠ legitimate belief
I didn't mean that a belief that's not supported by evidence should be completely dismissed right away, it just can't be used as evidence, (for anything)
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506430]valid input ≠ legitimate belief
I didn't mean that a belief that's not supported by evidence should be completely dismissed right away, it just can't be used as evidence, (for anything)[/QUOTE]
That depends what it's being used for. People's beliefs shouldn't be dismissed like already solved equations on a white board, they represent what a certain subset of people believe and can therefore be used a great variety of purposes, such as working out what the average beliefs of an area is for political purposes and better distribution of education and acknowledgement of cultural beliefs and customs. All religious beliefs are also founded in strict moral codes and practices that we can learn from in an attempt to create our secular morality. Finally, religion is tied in greatly to the history of our world and we generally need to learn from the past in order to not repeat mistakes in the future.
If someone believes something religious it doesn't mean they're brainwashed, it just means they found something that they consider to be convincing, just like you or anyone else found your own respective beliefs convincing. Refer back to my previous post about the woman who grew up in an all catholic town and converted to an Islamic terrorist group.
I feel like people flipping out about racism causes more racism in backlash to an extent
[QUOTE=Glitchman;44507098]I feel like people flipping out about racism causes more racism in backlash to an extent[/QUOTE]
Cause it? No.
Cause racists to reveal themselves? Yes.
Hey facepunch this is a feminism thread you're supposed to be shit flinging about feminism you'll get your weekly racism and "definition of atheism" threads soon I promise
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44515921]Hey facepunch this is a feminism thread you're supposed to be shit flinging about feminism you'll get your weekly racism and "definition of atheism" threads soon I promise[/QUOTE]
What is the point in this post?
[QUOTE=Jellyman;44516345]What is the point in this post?[/QUOTE]
To assert his perceived superiority.
[QUOTE=Shreddinger;44506211]No, atheism is lack a of a belief, saying that lack of a belief is a belief is stupid.
and faith isn't a legitimate belief because it's not supported by evidence, it's only a legitimate belief for yourself, or personal justification (which can't be used a evidence)[/QUOTE]
You are talking about areligiousness. It's different from atheism. Just throwing that out there.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;44520451]You are talking about areligiousness. It's different from atheism. Just throwing that out there.[/QUOTE]
No he's talking about atheism. "Areligiousness", if there's such a thing, seems to mean lack of devotion to any of the existing religions. It would include, say, deistic philosophies etc. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities in general, with no regard to whether there's a religion built around them or not.
[QUOTE=gudman;44520798]No he's talking about atheism. "Areligiousness", if there's such a thing, seems to mean lack of devotion to any of the existing religions. It would include, say, deistic philosophies etc. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities in general, with no regard to whether there's a religion built around them or not.[/QUOTE]
Ah, my mistake. Isn't there still the distinction of gnostic and agnostic atheism though? Agnostic being lack of belief and gnostic being belief in lack of deities.
[QUOTE=Jellyman;44516345]What is the point in this post?[/QUOTE]
To point out the thread went way off topic, twice
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
