woodsmoke Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Oh yeah, who's Dave? Dave is Dave VanAllen, the all-powerful, all-seeing W-bmaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 I thought Dave Van A was an ex-Christian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Erm.. he is. That's kinda' why he made this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I think she means the other Dave. Doesn't Dave the Webmaster log in as Webmaster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Erm.. he is. That's kinda' why he made this site. That's what I thought... I didn't remember falling through a mirror... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 If I remember correctly, then one person in this conversation is not an exChristian and that is Dave. I understand he has never been a Christian. Therefore, it logically follows that he cannot be expected to speak like one concerning god. Nor can he be expected to know what it feels like being an exChristian who grapples with the concept of god and hell and all that crap. I think we are quite in line not to give as much weight to his opinions around exC feelings and opinions as we do to real exChristians. A real exChristian is a person who at one time self-identified as a Christian and does not at the moment self-identify as a Christian. I think we all agree on that. That has to be one of the best denouncements of why someone's view is ignorable since I stopped hanging with Chrsitians. A combination of 'Well, that's a Unitarian view' and 'Heretic!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I guess my problem is that since I can understand that the only source of knowledge about gods is mythology, I figure that we can reach a conclusion. Do we also "lack the ability to reach a conclusion" on the existence of Superman, the Easter Bunny, mermaids, faeries, and all such other myths or stories? I see no reason to give the god idea any more credence by withholding conclusions than any of those other myths I mentioned. Fair enough. But some of us are less certain. No sane, adult human being honestly believes that Superman or the Easter Bunny exist, and no-one has ever made any serious intellectual argument that they have. That is definitely not similar to claims about the existence of God or gods. I don't want to get into an argument about the existence of God as such, but I will say this...the idea that God exists is absurd. The ideas, however, that either (a) the universe is eternal or ( came from nothing are also absurd. So, when faced with two possibilities, both of them ridiculous, why should I feel myself compelled to identify more with one than with the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I guess my problem is that since I can understand that the only source of knowledge about gods is mythology, I figure that we can reach a conclusion. Do we also "lack the ability to reach a conclusion" on the existence of Superman, the Easter Bunny, mermaids, faeries, and all such other myths or stories? I see no reason to give the god idea any more credence by withholding conclusions than any of those other myths I mentioned. Fair enough. But some of us are less certain. No sane, adult human being honestly believes that Superman or the Easter Bunny exist, and no-one has ever made any serious intellectual argument that they have. That is definitely not similar to claims about the existence of God or gods. I don't want to get into an argument about the existence of God as such, but I will say this...the idea that God exists is absurd. The ideas, however, that either (a) the universe is eternal or ( came from nothing are also absurd. So, when faced with two possibilities, both of them ridiculous, why should I feel myself compelled to identify more with one than with the other? Actually, the physics of the stready state universe is pretty elegant. The big bang is more problematic, since you still have infinities flying around in the first few seconds (as well as nasty combinations of EM, Weak force, Strong Force, and Gravity) However, I'd regard neither as 'absurd' until one tries to put them into English... However, a causeless cause (God) is absurd, since it's likely an abstraction of humanity's lack of imagination. Problem with that statement is 'likely'. It's not 100% sure. I hold the opinion that Gods are absurd. I don't 'believe' that gods are absurd... if presented with sufficient proof for me to change my opinion, I would. Beliefs rely on illogic, to the point of ignoring evidence. Least by the definitions I use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Yes, Dave VanAllen signs in as webmaster, or sometimes as Dave the WM. I most definitely meant the Dave who is posting on this thread. I don't know any other names or nicks for him and I thought people would know that I meant him because Dave the WM hasn't posted on this thread that I am aware of. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope it's clear now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 If I remember correctly, then one person in this conversation is not an exChristian and that is Dave. I understand he has never been a Christian. Therefore, it logically follows that he cannot be expected to speak like one concerning god. Nor can he be expected to know what it feels like being an exChristian who grapples with the concept of god and hell and all that crap. I think we are quite in line not to give as much weight to his opinions around exC feelings and opinions as we do to real exChristians. A real exChristian is a person who at one time self-identified as a Christian and does not at the moment self-identify as a Christian. I think we all agree on that. That has to be one of the best denouncements of why someone's view is ignorable since I stopped hanging with Chrsitians. A combination of 'Well, that's a Unitarian view' and 'Heretic!' You don't have to accept it if you don't think it's valid, but you overlook a basic difference between your example and my post. I give a solid psychological/scientific reason as the basis for my thinking. All you give is a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 If I remember correctly, then one person in this conversation is not an exChristian and that is Dave. I understand he has never been a Christian. Therefore, it logically follows that he cannot be expected to speak like one concerning god. Nor can he be expected to know what it feels like being an exChristian who grapples with the concept of god and hell and all that crap. I think we are quite in line not to give as much weight to his opinions around exC feelings and opinions as we do to real exChristians. A real exChristian is a person who at one time self-identified as a Christian and does not at the moment self-identify as a Christian. I think we all agree on that. That has to be one of the best denouncements of why someone's view is ignorable since I stopped hanging with Chrsitians. A combination of 'Well, that's a Unitarian view' and 'Heretic!' You don't have to accept it if you don't think it's valid, but you overlook a basic difference between your example and my post. I give a solid psychological/scientific reason as the basis for my thinking. All you give is a name. Seen fundies do it too... long winded denouncement of someone you don't regard as part of the group. Woot! Woot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 as an addendum, I would have thought an ex-Christian would get the subtext of comments like 'Unitarian' or just plain 'Heretic'... seems there's a one size fits all ex-Christianity, as well as one size fits all Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 GH if you wish to remain uninformed re your source you shall remain so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Oh yeah, who's Dave? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It's extremely different. I'm trying to be inclusive, not exclusive. If someone doesn't think of themselves as an atheist, who are we or anyone else to force that label onto them? They can be as mistaken as they want to be. They can be the ones doing the dividing. They can be the ones setting up dichotomies. I'll stick with the inclusive definition of Atheism and try to bring us all together. "You can be wrong if you want to." Was one of the fave sayings of a very fundie So Bap pastor I knew. Which is why I used it. The common definition of Atheism is a strawman argument against Atheism. Some that call themselves agnostic use that same strawman definition and claim that all Atheists are wrong. Until I share only I know what I think, believe and feel. Atheist is to have no belief in any god, this descrition does not fit me, agnostic, which is saying "I havn't a clue." does. There is no difference. If you don't have a clue, then you also do not believe in a god. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I think we all agree on that. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I think she means the other Dave. Doesn't Dave the Webmaster log in as Webmaster? Yes. Please do not get us mixed up. There is no relation and I have never, ever, represented myself as the Webmaster or anything other than a lowly member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Fair enough. But some of us are less certain. No sane, adult human being honestly believes that Superman or the Easter Bunny exist, and no-one has ever made any serious intellectual argument that they have. That is definitely not similar to claims about the existence of God or gods. It is similar in that they are all myths. Just because someone believes in a god doesn't mean I have to give the god idea any more credence than I would Superman. I don't want to get into an argument about the existence of God as such, but I will say this...the idea that God exists is absurd. The ideas, however, that either (a) the universe is eternal or ( came from nothing are also absurd. Don't forget that ex nihilio is a theist's argument, not a scientific one. Our Universe came from a singularity of some kind. Where did that come from? We do not know, yet. Why did this singularity suddenly expand? We don't know. yet. So both those absurdities you mentioned are religious arguments or rationalizations, not scientific ones. So, when faced with two possibilities, both of them ridiculous, why should I feel myself compelled to identify more with one than with the other? I wouldn't identify with either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It's extremely different. I'm trying to be inclusive, not exclusive. If someone doesn't think of themselves as an atheist, who are we or anyone else to force that label onto them? They can be as mistaken as they want to be. They can be the ones doing the dividing. They can be the ones setting up dichotomies. I'll stick with the inclusive definition of Atheism and try to bring us all together. "You can be wrong if you want to." Was one of the fave sayings of a very fundie So Bap pastor I knew. Which is why I used it. The common definition of Atheism is a strawman argument against Atheism. Some that call themselves agnostic use that same strawman definition and claim that all Atheists are wrong. Until I share only I know what I think, believe and feel. Atheist is to have no belief in any god, this descrition does not fit me, agnostic, which is saying "I havn't a clue." does. There is no difference. If you don't have a clue, then you also do not believe in a god. Right? No, not right. Again, until I share you do not know what my position is. I do not believe in the god of abraham. As to gods, plural, little g I don't know, not, I don't believe, nope, just a I don't know. I had my jewish identity ripped from me before birth, and I had my cultural non-abrahamic, traditional religion ripped from me by well meaning xians. I am not now going to let you, or anyone else for that matter define me. Although I understand for most people, I do not believe in any gods is not a positive declaration statement, at this point, for me, due to a lot of reasons, NONE of which people in this thread have atributed to agnostics, I am an agnostic. To say I do not believe in gods would be to call the woman who owns me either delusional or a liar, I do not think she is either. To say I do not believe in any gods would be to call my maternal grandmother the same. Niether of these women were, or are xians. I respect them, and I think they are right, I know they believed what they believed (or still believe) based on their own personal experiances. I also know that personal experiance is NOT eveidence outside that person. It can though be evidence for THAT person. I also have a long line of my own personal experianceses outside xianity to deal with. Until I do I will remain an agnostic. I suppose I could call myself a theist, but that lable doesn't fit comfortably on me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Oh yeah, who's Dave? Dave is Dave VanAllen, the all-powerful, all-seeing W-bmaster. I thought Dave Van A was an ex-Christian... The member "Dave" is not the same person as "Dave VanAllen". DVA is Webmaster and he is Ex-Christian. Member Dave is not an Ex-Christian, but hard-core atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I see your point. But I still think the bickering is a bit much. My responses to Dave were based on what I felt an unfair attack on what I said when I posted an agreement to other posters. So I tried to clarify, but Dave insists that he doesn't believe anything, and that is his own choice to take that standpoint. I'm not going to argue with him anymore about it, because I know that him and I kind of get each other only 50% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 .... If you don't have a clue, then you also do not believe in a god. Right? No, not right. Again, until I share you do not know what my position is. I do not believe in the god of abraham. As to gods, plural, little g I don't know, not, I don't believe, nope, just a I don't know...... Again, If you don't know, then you don't believe in a god, right? To say I do not believe in gods would be to call the woman who owns me either delusional or a liar, I do not think she is either. To say I do not believe in any gods would be to call my maternal grandmother the same. Niether of these women were, or are xians. I respect them, and I think they are right, I know they believed what they believed (or still believe) based on their own personal experiances. I also know that personal experiance is NOT eveidence outside that person. It can though be evidence for THAT person. I also have a long line of my own personal experianceses outside xianity to deal with. Until I do I will remain an agnostic. I suppose I could call myself a theist, but that lable doesn't fit comfortably on me either. I am not going to choose a label for myself based on what other people think. Because I do not believe in gods I am not calling all believers delusional or liars (some are, but not all). I can not believe in another persons gods and still have respect for that person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 The member "Dave" is not the same person as "Dave VanAllen". DVA is Webmaster and he is Ex-Christian. Member Dave is not an Ex-Christian, but hard-core atheist. I didn't know the webmaster was named Dave when I signed up. I didn't know there would be any confusion. If I did know, I probably would have picked another name. Dave is my name, it was available, so I took it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 My responses to Dave were based on what I felt an unfair attack on what I said when I posted an agreement to other posters. So I tried to clarify, but Dave insists that he doesn't believe anything, and that is his own choice to take that standpoint. I'm not going to argue with him anymore about it, because I know that him and I kind of get each other only 50% of the time. That's about 45% more than others here get me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I didn't know the webmaster was named Dave when I signed up. I didn't know there would be any confusion. If I did know, I probably would have picked another name. Dave is my name, it was available, so I took it. Yeah. You have no idea how much confusion it has caused! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts