Strong Atheism

[Valgeir]

I tried to be as respectful as possible, but he seemed kind of indirect about his manner of explaining his reasoning, and then was insulting when I didn't get it- it obviously wasn't completely my fault, as when AUB went over it I started to understand what he was saying.

[Asimov]

Not to my knowledge.

 

It's too bad.  I like to hear what Franc has to say, and I was actually very excited to see him posting here.  I wish things could have gone a bit more civil, because I would have liked to have seen him stay.

 

 

Yea, me too. You can be intense and aggressive without being a dink about it.

[♦ nivek ♦]

I sent Franc a PM in essense asking to quit ripping new assholes in everyone he met here.

 

ExC is not a set_group_of_persons_all_in_agreement_on_anything, including his interpertation of what "strong athiesm" is.

 

I rather enjoy his no holds barred, no bullshit given, stright forward style. However I don't care to have every fucking post an argument with everyone everytime..

 

Takes fun outa party when the cake gets pissed on..

 

Franc made choice not to futher participate here; bummer, guy is intelligent and has a sharpness that does work for daFatman.

 

n

[Asimov]

I agree, nivek.

[webmdave]

Well, the webmaster has asked me to leave. Goodbye everyone !

 

 

Wrong!

 

I asked him to tone down being so rude.

 

He replied that he refused to tone it down. Then he said he would leave if I asked him to.

 

I replied that if that was his attitude, then goodbye.

 

I amend that now - good riddance.

[- AUB -]

I build bridges, they knock them down.

 

A real pity, he needs to take better care in his choice of enemies, I was hoping he's be a hit here, as his work is brilliant. I guess its down to me then, any other issues I can clear up?

 

I'm begining to think educating non-theists as to the shear depth of the interlectual fire power we have against religion is more important than taking on religion itself, as we need a more unified and organized "front" on issues that can be clarified. Educating people here is very rewarding, I dont understand FT's attitude, I guess because he doesn't understand what leaving theism does to a persons faith in humanity's powers. He should have hung around more first, reading testimony's and understanding the variety of opinion here.

 

The cause of a lot of needless division is ignorance. The misconception concerning each others positions can be easily cleared up, as for eg. most agnostics and other groups simply misunderstand atheism, or other positions otherwise they'd be more open, so a regular clarification of each view is always needed, there's a lot of miss-information out there.

[Asimov]

I build bridges, they knock them down.

 

A real pity, he needs to take better care in his choice of enemies, I was hoping he's be a hit here, as his work is brilliant. I guess its down to me then, any other issues I can clear up?

 

I'm begining to think educating non-theists as to the shear depth of the interlectual fire power we have against religion is more important than taking on religion itself, as we need a more unified and organized "front" on issues that can be clarified. Educating people here is very rewarding, I dont understand FT's attitude, I guess because he doesn't understand what leaving theism does to a persons faith in humanity's powers. He should have hung around more first, reading testimony's and understanding the variety of opinion here.

 

The cause of a lot of needless division is ignorance. The misconception concerning each others positions can be easily cleared up, as for eg. most agnostics and other groups simply misunderstand atheism, or other positions otherwise they'd be more open, so a regular clarification of each view is always needed, there's a lot of miss-information out there.

 

I had a bit of a correspondence with Franc while he was here.

 

I told him that this is not the place to get riled up and make enemies, considering that a lot of us are atheists here, ones who would support his arguments.

 

He agreed with me, but didn't care, because he thinks his arguments should be judged by how good they are, not by his personality.

[- AUB -]

A very rational position, but very few here are rationalists, so he expects people to react to his propaganda for rationalism as if they where already rationalists? Putting the cart before the horse on that one. He needs to convince others of the value of objective detachment 1st then rely on their ability to pierce through cosmetic appearances to the solid reasoning within.

I pepper my posts with ad hominims against theists, but I don't rely on them for my arguments, and I know people are aware I don't need to use fallicies, but he expects too much for a introduction, later yes, as on his site, but not among a diverse crowd, he just needs to learn how to handle non-assertives.

[Cerise]

I had a bit of a correspondence with Franc while he was here. 

 

I told him that this is not the place to get riled up and make enemies, considering that a lot of us are atheists here, ones who would support his arguments. 

 

He agreed with me, but didn't care, because he thinks his arguments should be judged by how good they are, not by his personality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if we were judging his personality and not his arguments? I couldn't give two farts how good the guy is a logic word games, a smart asshole is still an asshole. He certainly didn't have to leave, but I surely don't have to observe asshattery without commenting on it, do I? Wouldn't want to be accused of being PC or anything.

[Asimov]

What if we were judging his personality and not his arguments?  I couldn't give two farts how good the guy is a logic word games, a smart asshole is still an asshole.  He certainly didn't have to leave, but I surely don't have to observe asshattery without commenting on it, do I?  Wouldn't want to be accused of being PC or anything.

 

He was never an asshole to me.

[Cerise]

He was never an asshole to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's nice. He was an asshole to a lot of others. I really don't like to ignore things like that. It leads to pain in the long run and people thinking they can walk all over anyone without consequence.

[Asimov]

That's nice.  He was an asshole to a lot of others.  I really don't like to ignore things like that.  It leads to pain in the long run and people thinking they can walk all over anyone without consequence.

 

Well, considering I didn't let him walk all over me, I would say that it depended on other peoples responses towards him as well. Many sunk to his level and fought fire with fire....which usually only creates more fire!

[Cerise]

Well, considering I didn't let him walk all over me, I would say that it depended on other peoples responses towards him as well.  Many sunk to his level and fought fire with fire....which usually only creates more fire!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dunno, the "ignore it and it'll go away" tactic never really worked for me. And I don't think it's "sinking to his level" to tell the truth or stand up for someone else. Then again, isolationism has never been my bag.

 

Ani Difranco - "I fight fire with words. Words are hotter than flame, words are wetter than water."

[Asimov]

I dunno, the "ignore it and it'll go away" tactic never really worked for me.  And I don't think it's "sinking to his level" to tell the truth or stand up for someone else.  Then again, isolationism has never been my bag.

 

Ani Difranco - "I fight fire with words.  Words are hotter than flame, words are wetter than water."

 

I don't agree with the ignore it and it'll go away thing either, Cerise. I think maintaining civility and setting an example of respect for one another is the better way to go.

 

I noticed that while he did start many of the conflicts, people were quick to jump into the fray and instead of defending, resorted to name calling. I didn't see any actual hostility in Franc's words....only arrogance and frustration.

[Cerise]

A frustrated man is perhaps the most dangerous kind. And forgive me, but I feel there is something inherently hostile about telling people they are pieces of shit or bafoons or morons. But that's just me.

[Asimov]

A frustrated man is perhaps the most dangerous kind.  And forgive me, but I feel there is something inherently hostile about telling people they are pieces of shit or bafoons or morons.  But that's just me. 

 

That happened afterwards.

 

I think Francois' frustration is something to be understood though. When you have someone who beleives that they have the right idea, yet not everyone accepts it (rationally or irrationally), then of course he's going to be frustrated.

 

I don't see anything wrong with someone who's aggressively intense like Franc, especially considering that Franc is a very rational person.

 

But I can see that you already have your opinion of the man, and I can see why. I just think people can and should handle criticisms a little better, which goes for Franc and everyone else who instigated.

[Cerise]

That happened afterwards.

 

I think Francois' frustration is something to be understood though.  When you have someone who beleives that they have the right idea, yet not everyone accepts it (rationally or irrationally), then of course he's going to be frustrated.

 

I don't see anything wrong with someone who's aggressively intense like Franc, especially considering that Franc is a very rational person.

 

But I can see that you already have your opinion of the man, and I can see why.  I just think people can and should handle criticisms a little better, which goes for Franc and everyone else who instigated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Afterward? After...what? As far as I can tell Renee didn't do anything besides make a small notice that Frankie-boy was going up against Manata and greygirl just made a little comment about how she would call someone African American if they stated a preference for being called that.

 

And they got irrationally insulted for it. I wouldn't call that "agressively intense" I would call it blatant asshattery. Of the kind I would expect from seagull fundies and the like, not from people as supposedly intelligent as Frank. Which somehow made it worse, I think. If the man were just a moron it would be understandable.

[Asimov]

 

 

That's all I have to say about that. I'm not goint o discuss Franc anymore. I admitted that he can be an asshole. I also ask you to take note that he can be a nice guy too.

[quicksand]

I can definitely tell you what Strong/Negative/Explicit Atheism is not/

 

This site explains atheism under the umbrella of Religious Dualism as "denial of the existence of a God."

 

What's to deny that which doesn't exist heh?

 

I see this inaccurate typification all over the web and in conversations Christians most of the time.

 

I think it comforting to the Christian to explain atheism in terms that asserts the existence of God.

[Cerise]

That's all I have to say about that.  I'm not goint o discuss Franc anymore.  I admitted that he can be an asshole.  I also ask you to take note that he can be a nice guy too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's a very good question in there. If someone is an asshole to five people and a nice person to everyone else, what is his overall personality?

 

You know, I don't think I can even venture an answer.

 

Anyhoo, back to the topic of the thread (like I ever approached it in the first place) I'm not really into Strong Atheism at the moment. For all I know there could all kinds of mystical shit out there. I just don't feel like bowing down to any of it at present.

[- AUB -]

For all I know there could all kinds of mystical shit out there. I just don't feel like bowing down to any of it at present.

 

I could attitude, i was like that till I started my research a few years ago. "for all i know" is the key, once you know enough about religions and mysticism, i all starts to make sense, phycology not reality. (you'll see what I mean if you go into it yourself) "bowing down" out of ignorance ("just in case") is very unwise, as is thinking you "know" anything. What you have is the best position, not rulling out or in.

I only rule out what cannot be true, thing is that covers a lot, you'd be surprised how many firmly held beliefs can be shattered by a small amount of data, reviewed sceptically. None of it seems to ever stand up to scrutany, that's why i consider "faith" a admittance of failer to prove something. When you have to make it a religion or belief system, its because you have nothing to support your claims, be it astrology, or the resurrection. Belief is the excuse for the dog eating your homework, hence the emphasis on faith over even ethics in most religions. The deeper you look the stronger your atheism becomes, all it takes is knowledge.

[Valgeir]

I actually think our very own AUB is at least as smart as Francois when it comes to many things, and not a flaming turd, too. I post my position and give why I reach the conclusion I do so that someone with a different position can point out the weaknesses in my position, further strengthening it. When someone states that THEIR position is right, no matter what, I dump them in the "Idiot" bin. At least AUB had the decency to help me understand the position, which seemed illogical to me at first, when I asked for help. I still can't say I'm an objectivist entirely, but I can say that some of the elements of objectivity that AUB graciously showed me have been added to my worldview- because once someone actually stated WHY they believe in moral objectivity I could see what I agree with and what I don't.

[Asimov]

I could attitude, i was like that till I started my research a few years ago. "for all i know" is the key, once you know enough about religions and mysticism, i all starts to make sense, phycology not reality. (you'll see what I mean if you go into it yourself) "bowing down" out of ignorance ("just in case") is very unwise, as is thinking you "know" anything. What you have is the best position, not rulling out or in.

I only rule out what cannot be true, thing is that covers a lot, you'd be surprised how many firmly held beliefs can be shattered by a small amount of data, reviewed sceptically. None of it seems to ever stand up to scrutany, that's why i consider "faith" a admittance of failer to prove something. When you have to make it a religion or belief system, its because you have nothing to support your claims, be it astrology, or the resurrection. Belief is the excuse for the dog eating your homework, hence the emphasis on faith over even ethics in most religions. The deeper you look the stronger your atheism becomes, all it takes is knowledge.

 

[- AUB -]

Valgeir, Asimov glad my posts where worth it.

 

Although I agree with FT on strong atheism and the supremacy of logic and reason, (having used it to deck theism so many times, even before I was freethinker) we disagree on capitalism and humanism among other things, and I intend to carry on doing so. FT can logically out argue anyone (except me) so I respect his ability, but he lacks an understanding of the x-xtain, which I've gained here.

 

Never being xtian, just doing the compulsory C of E bit at school, (which is nothing like xtianity really) it took me a while to understand what it can do to people mentaly. Originaly it was it's history which made me turn against it, but now it's more subtle effects and doctrine are what interest me, one of those things is the amount of miss-information and ignorance it spreads. For eg. common knowlege in my country is utterly unknown among most in the US, trust in science and reason is lacking, so it's not suprising so many need the most basic rational conclusions explained to them, even after they've left the fold.

 

We (as in western civilisation) have been held back in every field, from ethics to critical thinking, and this has made those, especially in the US vulnerable to con-artists, (see Penn and Teller's Bullshit!) and bogus claims that are just swallowed whole by every creationist or pseudo-science acolyte. The damage is immense, and it looks like I'll be spending the rest of my life trying to undo it.

 

Strong atheism, objective morality are the natural and inevitable ends of a purely rational aprouch to life's problems, so few have ever reached them, yet this is not the elitist view found in xtianity, as we don't gloat, as individuals or groups we may benifit in some small way from knowing the truth, but not until everyone leaves their subjective, bias ridden worlds can things improve for all. We have an uphill struggle, and we know it is in humanity's best interest to explain things. No one will burn for not seeing things our way, but it will be harder to help others without the facts needed to make ethics superior to all other methods of control used under that name.

 

We may not have an attractive reality on our side, but at least it is reality. We don't offer immortality, a father figure, absolutist certainty, or a special relationship, just the cold hard facts, but despite that, we know its better than a lie, especially one like religion. Do you hve any idea what its like to see the truth, to know reality, and except it, while 99% of humanity is either living a lie or unable to reach the full objective facts? Everyone can and maybe will one day come to their senses, I just hope it doesnt take to long, you lot have at least realized what it not true, which is the 1st step in the process of elimination, get rid of all those lies, and you can start again. Many x-xtains however still have remnants of what xtianity did to them, but once they recognize that, such missunderstandings will be willingly thrown away.

 

Forget everthing the church told you, not one thing was true, but also don't dismiss what you think is just another type of lie. The certaintys of xtianity where false as they where based on faith, but those I have are based on empircaly derived reason. The method used in the search makes all the differance, as all searches find something, but not all those things have a reality behind them.

[chefranden]

You are acting like I'm the dolt, but you're not fucking explaining anything. You're not demonstrating your claim at all. Either you can tell us where the emotion helps justify the syllogism or you can't.

 

It wouldn't take very long to explain. Something like "the emotion of interest makes the deduction from 1 to 2" or something of the sort. What's the big deal ? You can be bothered to make incredible claims and treat me like a dolt but you can't do something that simple !

 

 

I will make a small apology for not explaining. I didn’t have the time at the time. I may be able to get to it later this evening.

 

I would like to point out that here it appears that emotion is involved in your induction that I consider you a dolt, which I don’t.