Atheist Or Anti-theist?

[Asimov]

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....

 

 

False analogy

 

No, but we would add the false dilema to your argument. You're saying it's either all solid logic or nothing. Try arguing from the middle instead of the extreme.

 

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that.

 

"Being emotional is a part of being human and there is no escaping that..."

[Dave]

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....False analogy

No, but we would add the false dilema to your argument. You're saying it's either all solid logic or nothing. Try arguing from the middle instead of the extreme.

Black and white thinking can only conceive of itself. It's the only reality and all else is absurd to it.

Couldn't one say that black and white thinking, the extremism if it, is the cause of many of todays problems?

[Dave]

Allow me to interject at this point. I stated that humans are not completely logical and cognitive beings, to which Dave replied "Would we want to be?" So, in this case, I introduced the black and whiteness of the situation...by saying we as humans are not completely "black or white", in this case, not completely logical. I brought this up to make a point about human instinct and the tools our biological heritage has equipped us with to ensure our survival, ie., those 'shortcuts' that have worked through the millenia, that maybe aren't the best, most reasonable, logical course of action, but ones which have worked because of brevity and efficiency.

That illogic, that imperfection, is what makes us human. It is what makes life interesting. Without it we would be boring Vulcans.... robots.... slaves to a way of thinking.

 

Now, when faced with the question "would we want to be?", I have to admit I was a bit flabbergasted, because I was not, in my post, extolling the virtues of being completely logical, but pointing out one possible cause why we humans are "always doomed to believe things," in Dave's words. But, I didn't want to be put on the defensive by Dave for a point I wasn't even trying to make, so I decided to be a bit flip and post something about Mr. Spock (and then Asimov has to go and make a post with his Mr. Spock avvy...too ironic!! )

It was a rhetorical question, not something that was supposed to be anything against you or any point you were making. Just something to think about.... and if I remember my original intent... I think I was agreeing with you. Humans are not completely logical... nor would we want to be.

 

Annnnnnyway....Mr. Spock is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Yeah, a cool one, and like many heroes and role models, it would be folly to strive to be 100% completely like them, unrealistic and neurotic. The best we can hope for is to borrow some of their style and try to be a little more like them. Which, in this case, I would like to emulate Mr. Spock a bit more often. Try to be a bit more coolly logical in stressful situation, evaluate situations a bit more instead of following gut instinct which isn't always 100% reliable. I never even implied that our instinctual side is harmful or completely useless, but just that it can steer in the wrong direction sometimes and is responsible for some of the more puzzling aspects of human nature.

That's what I mean my the moderation bit. Of course no one would want to be 100% like Spock. One would have to lose their humanity to do so. Sure, we all could use a little of Spock in us, but I certainly wouldn't want to be totally like that character.

[Mankey]

HiaDan:

Allow me to interject at this point. I stated that humans are not completely logical and cognitive beings, to which Dave replied "Would we want to be?" So, in this case, I introduced the black and whiteness of the situation...by saying we as humans are not completely "black or white", in this case, not completely logical. I brought this up to make a point about human instinct and the tools our biological heritage has equipped us with to ensure our survival, ie., those 'shortcuts' that have worked through the millenia, that maybe aren't the best, most reasonable, logical course of action, but ones which have worked because of brevity and efficiency.

I never disagreed with this. Moreover I didn't disagree because I can't. Basically there are other heathens that are pretty sharp that turn me on to all kinds of topics as you have done here. I agreed with you. Its in my post.

 

HiaDan:

Now, when faced with the question "would we want to be?",

Which was what I suspect was a part of Daves big red herring against logic. I have run into heathens that are anti-intellectual before...

("I second Dave, Somehow humanity is doomed to believe things.")

HiaDan : Because we're not perfectly logical, cognitive beings..........

Mankey: This is true, but if we can reject religion then it is possible for more people to do the same. And it don't hurt none for non-religious people to become a large minority. This really does not take away from the fact that any mankey can improve pretty much. This mitigates bullshit.

(HiaDan "Because we're not perfectly logical, cognitive beings......")

Dave: Would we want to be?

Dave: But he never had any fun. He missed out LIVING life.... which I think was the whole point of his character. He, and other Vulcans, suppressed who they really were in order to conform.

Dave comes off to me as someone who does not like logic, either that ,or he himself has the wrong idea about people who promote logic. Otherwise why make those comments even despite the fact that all agreed that emotions are a part of us? So I posted this. What I underlined in my post shows that I was not committed to my suspicions of Daves motives. I did suspect that, but since I do not have psychic powers I wanted to find out for sure. No one here disagreed that humans are emotional beings and emotions have their place. So why did Dave ignore all that and make such comments?

Mankey:If I am reading you right you are implying that people who value logic for self improvement and as a fair means of discussing or debating are going to suffer the same fate as the fictional character Mr. Spock and that logic turns you into a conformist in a cult then you are making the logical error of giving us a...False dilemma If I am reading you wrong then what exactly are you saying?

[Mankey:I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....False analogy Being emotional is a part of being human and there is no escaping that and to give a false dichotomy is a red herring all its own. Logic is tool not a brainwash. I notice that rhetorical tactics with little logic is a favorite pastime for some heathens. I notice that not all heathens like logic.....unless they are playing with the fundies. I suppose I could be wrong. But it sure looks like so far.

HiaDan:

I have to admit I was a bit flabbergasted, because I was not, in my post, extolling the virtues of being completely logical, but pointing out one possible cause why we humans are "always doomed to believe things," in Dave's words. But, I didn't want to be put on the defensive by Dave for a point I wasn't even trying to make, so I decided to be a bit flip and post something about Mr. Spock (and then Asimov has to go and make a post with his Mr. Spock avvy...too ironic!!

I knew that. No prob there Dan. I wasn't either. Logic is a tool. Logic is fair. I never once implied or said that emotions do not have their place...and neither did anybody else. Some here are pessimists about humanity and I was saying that logic is a tool that pretty much anyone can utilize. I never even hinted at using logic in every single aspect of life. Never.

HiaDan:

Annnnnnyway....Mr. Spock is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Yeah, a cool one, and like many heroes and role models, it would be folly to strive to be 100% completely like them, unrealistic and neurotic. The best we can hope for is to borrow some of their style and try to be a little more like them. Which, in this case, I would like to emulate Mr. Spock a bit more often. Try to be a bit more coolly logical in stressful situation, evaluate situations a bit more instead of following gut instinct which isn't always 100% reliable. I never even implied that our instinctual side is harmful or completely useless, but just that it can steer in the wrong direction sometimes and is responsible for some of the more puzzling aspects of human nature.

I am really curious why Dave would totally ignore that at no time did any one disagree with these things or try to say that we can be or should be logical every monent? Instead he kept talking about the evils of being too logical or some horse shit. Some of his posts smelled like an attempt at a red herring against logic to me. I have run into a few heathens who are anti-intellectual as well as cynics and pessimists against humanity.

[Mankey]

I always thought Mr. Spock was cool.

But he never had any fun. He missed out LIVING life.... which I think was the whole point of his character. He, and other Vulcans, suppressed who they really were in order to conform.

If I am reading you right you are implying that people who value logic for self improvement and as a fair means of discussing or debating are going to suffer the same fate as the fictional character Mr. Spock and that logic turns you into a conformist in a cult then you are making the logical error of giving us a....

 

....False dilemma

 

If I am reading you wrong then what exactly are you saying?

Moderation. All things in moderation..... even moderation. Your creative interpretation of what I said contained no moderation. You went straight to the extreme. Try coming back to the middle. Vulcans did not moderate, they went to the extreme. It's not the logic that was wrong, it was the extreme. I did not present a false dilema, you came back with a straw man.

I never made a straw man as I was open to correction. It is in both of my posts. If my suspicions were right and they probably are not, it would have been.

 

Yes even moderation I am glad you mentioned that. We wouldn't want to make the error of the fallacy of the golden mean. I didn't katch that caveat at first and had to edit. lol.

[Mankey]

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....

 

 

False analogy

 

No, but we would add the false dilema to your argument. You're saying it's either all solid logic or nothing. Try arguing from the middle instead of the extreme.

Black and white thinking can only conceive of itself. It's the only reality and all else is absurd to it.

You glossed over some of what I have said here. The quote function is a marvelous tool. People who aren't just interested in empty rhetoric use that function.

[Ouroboros]

I could be wrong, but I think the story about the Vulcans was that they were extremely emotional and violent in the past, and they had to become logical and surpress the violent emotions with reason to survive as a species.

Yes, but they took it to the extreme. They lost more than they gained. Anyway... I serioulsy doubt that humans could ever be THAT logical. It would be awfully boring.... not "interesting."

If I'm not completely mistaken I think Spock does realize this... or whas it Data... not sure.

[HuaiDan]

HiaDan:

Annnnnnyway....Mr. Spock is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Yeah, a cool one, and like many heroes and role models, it would be folly to strive to be 100% completely like them, unrealistic and neurotic. The best we can hope for is to borrow some of their style and try to be a little more like them. Which, in this case, I would like to emulate Mr. Spock a bit more often. Try to be a bit more coolly logical in stressful situation, evaluate situations a bit more instead of following gut instinct which isn't always 100% reliable. I never even implied that our instinctual side is harmful or completely useless, but just that it can steer in the wrong direction sometimes and is responsible for some of the more puzzling aspects of human nature.

I am really curious why Dan would totally ignore that at no time did any one disagree with these things or try to say that we can be or should be logical every monent? Instead he kept talking about the evils of being too logical or some horse shit. Some of his posts smelled like an attempt at a red herring against logic to me. I have run into a few heathens who are anti-intellectual as well as cynics and pessimists against humanity.

 

 

 

huuuHUHHH?!?!?!

Who is the Dan you're referring to here? Me?

 

 

I'm a bit confused here. I thought Dave misunderstood my post and thought I was trying to imply we should always be logical, that Mr. Spock is the ideal, which I wasn't saying at all. The main focus of my posts was to illustrate the role of instinct and hardwiring in human behavior, and logic/Mr. Spock were just introduced for contrast purposes.

[Mankey]

Dave. Not you Dan. I made a dumb error. I was in a hurry. Impatient to post it. Sorry. Thank you kindly for pointing that out. Its fixed now. hehe.

[HuaiDan]

Easy error to make. David is my real name, we got a Han posting here, a Dave, a HuaiDan, a Mankey....man we gotta develop some kind of code or something

[Mankey]

Easy error to make. David is my real name, we got a Han posting here, a Dave, a HuaiDan, a Mankey....man we gotta develop some kind of code or something

Correcting errors is logical. I should have taken my time. haha.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Dave:

 

I forgot about that. Well in that case to Daves post we can add....

 

 

False analogy

 

No, but we would add the false dilema to your argument. You're saying it's either all solid logic or nothing. Try arguing from the middle instead of the extreme.

You can in no wise demonstrate that I ever said or implied "all solid logic or nothing" applies in every single situation in life. Straw man. Ask for clarification of my posts next time as I did for you.

[chad]

Jun,

 

Because I asked the question, yes, it matters to me. And it obviously matters to Hitchens; otherwise, he wouldn't make a point to draw a distinction between the two names or labels. Also, insofar as others agree with Hitchen's distinction between the name atheist and anti-theist, it may also matter to them.

 

You mentioned that you were an anti-theist, so I'm assuming that means you don't want religion or the existence of God to be true as I highlighted above, correct? Recall that atheists, although they can't bring themselves to believe in God, wish that they could, whereas anti-theists don't wish that God's existance is true. On the contrary, they are actually quite happy that religion and the assertion of God's existance is bogus.

 

In my original post, I forgot to add the second part of the question: If you tend to identify yourself as an atheist rather than anti-theist, what aspects of religion or the notion of God's existence make you wish that it was true? Would you live your life any differently if it were true?

 

chad,

 

Why would it matter what others label you as?

 

Perhaps you partially misunderstood me. In asking my original question, I was solely concerned about how others would label themselves in light of the distinction between atheist and anti-theist that Hitchens makes. And futhermore, why an exian would label himself/herself as an atheist; that is to say, why he/she would want religion or God's existence to be true on a certain level based on Hitchens construal of an atheist. Therefore, the purpose of my overall post was NOT to engage in a discussion regarding the reasons others might personally label me as X,Y, or Z.

However, now that you mention it, I'm persuaded that labels are important to the extent that they are necessary to communicate one's ideas in an efficient manner. Imagine the confusion that would ensue in the field of philosophy or politics (you fill in the blank) if labels were not utilized to capture ideological nuances therein (e.g., centrist versus moderate conservative or soft determinist versus hard determinist, etc. . . )--people would begin to majorly misrepresent each other, which is not the best formula for achieving beneficial political ends or attaining philosophical truths. Imagine the time and energy that would be wasted if one were forced repeatedly to explain the subtle details of his/her position during philosophical and political (so on and so forth) discourse in the absence of concise, accurate labels–people would begin to disengage from important lines of dialogue due to exhaustion or boredom. (Wait, hold on, I don’t know if the situation is much different in the political arena; it would just be notably worse, lol)

In this case, specifically, consider an atheist (in keeping with Hitchen, one who sometimes wishes religion was true to a certain extent and thereby perceives moderate forms of theism to be positive) who begins to attend a community forum dedicated to combating its growing drug and alcohol problem in terms of treatment programs. Knowing that most drug and alcohol programs are heavily influenced by AA/NA philosophy, which prioritizes theism as an integral part of effective treatment, his motive for attending is to advocate on behalf of humanistic or secular alternatives like Rational Recovery (a treatment program geared toward the non-religious). But because most of the other attendees construe atheism to be synonymous with anti-theistic sentiment, they develop the mistaken impression that Mr. Atheist is there to oppose religious/theistic forms of treatment. Consequently, his proposed alternatives are dismissed as an attempt to thwart other programs of a religious/theistic orientation, which was certainly not his intention.

Hitchen’s distinction between an atheist and anti-theist would be handy here. If the other attendees understood the difference between an atheist and anti-theist, Mr. Atheist’s treatment alternatives would have probably faired much better; in that, they wouldn’t automatically assume that his motive was adversarial merely based on his identification as an atheist. That said, I think one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that a correct understanding of labels or names is not conducive to quality communication (i.e., conveying one’s general ideas and position on various issues in a manner that avoids, inasmuch as is possible, misunderstanding and misinterpretation). Apparently then, a good deal of communicative value is in a name (or label).

All the above does not mean that labels are not abused to circumvent quality communication (plenty of examples could be cited to this effect). However, labels are not inherently detrimental to communication just as knives are not inherently detrimental to life. Ok, enough about freakin labels already!!!!

 

 

Don't want religion to be true? My wants have nothing to do with it. What I want has no bearing on the falsity of religion.

 

I never suggested that it did; in fact, I emphatically agree!

 

Atheists don't wish that they could bring themselves to believe in "God." What nonsense. I've not come across an atheist who would wish that religion or "God" were true.

 

Speaking of nonesense, with all due respect, this claim reflects the common fallacy of over generalization! Just because you've never encountered an atheist that has never, from time to time, found himself wishing that certain aspects of religion or God's existence were true, this certainly deosn't mean that such a phenomena is bogus! When you come to a broad, sweeping conclusion on the basis of an insufficient sample, you commit an over generalization. And the limited experiences of one measly atheist (yourself) definitely constitutes an insufficient sample. That is to say, your individual experiences of other atheists are not diverse and extensive enough to make such a authoritative claim (unless you are some sort of incognito vampire who's birth dates back to the dark ages).

Case in point: I happen to be an atheist who wishes that certain aspects of religion were true from time to time. In addition to myself, I've encountered many atheists on this website that share these sentiments to one degree or another. Hitchens, a man that must have associations with a large number of atheists due to his profession and educational background, also reports that a good deal of atheists fit this profile. In view of these facts, I think a full retraction is in order.

 

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism.

 

Agreed. I never suggested that this was not a fundamental aspect of atheism.

 

Anti-theism is active opposition to theism.

 

Dito.

 

Am I active in my opposition to theism? Yes. Does my view reject theism and affirm the nonexistence of gods? Yes. Am I an atheist or an anti-theist? I don't know, does it matter? Not to me. There are no gods or supernatural powers controlling life on this rock or creating life on this rock.

 

According to Hitchens, an Atheist is one that simply can't bring himself to believe in God due to what he perceives to be a terrible lack of evidence. I thought that described an agnostic? So I chose to say anti-theist.

 

Such a portrayal does not amount to agnosticism (although this point is debatable). Micheal Martin, a prolific atheist philosopher, draws a distinction between positive and negative atheism. Positive atheism claims to prove the nonexistence of God, whereas negative atheism merely claims that there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. So how is an agnostic different from a negative atheist, one may ask. Well, a negative atheist definitively claims that the available evidence is in fact insufficient to at least justify belief in God, whereas the agnostic contends that he simply doesn't know whether the available evidence is sufficient or insufficient to either prove God's existence or justify belief in God. Subtle but important difference.

 

Peace

Jun the anti-theist, atheist, Buddhist, mammal of the human race.

[Mankey]

Hey Chad feel free to cyber kick me in the balls for derailing your thread.

 

Sorry.

[Jun]

[Mankey]

If that is for me feel free to PM me. Don't kill me.

 

[HuaiDan]

I'm not sure why the post from 2 days ago was reposted. Threads meander a bit, that's the beauty of this form of communication. Sure, it's etiquette to stay close to the topic, which I think everyone was doing here.

[Jun]

If that is for me feel free to PM me. Don't kill me.

 

 

No Mankey, my response to chad.

[Mankey]

If that is for me feel free to PM me. Don't kill me.

 

 

No Mankey, my response to chad.

Ooops. ok.

 

It looks like Chad needs help with the quote function.

[Mankey]

I'm not sure why the post from 2 days ago was reposted. Threads meander a bit, that's the beauty of this form of communication. Sure, it's etiquette to stay close to the topic, which I think everyone was doing here.

On second thought never mind. You are right I think.

 

But if it is deemed a problem there is nothing stopping anyone from drawing quotes from this thread into a new thread.

[Dave]

Dave comes off to me as someone who does not like logic....

 

And you come off as a jerk.

 

Plonk.

[Dave]

I could be wrong, but I think the story about the Vulcans was that they were extremely emotional and violent in the past, and they had to become logical and surpress the violent emotions with reason to survive as a species.

Yes, but they took it to the extreme. They lost more than they gained. Anyway... I serioulsy doubt that humans could ever be THAT logical. It would be awfully boring.... not "interesting."

If I'm not completely mistaken I think Spock does realize this... or whas it Data... not sure.

It was Data. He wanted to be human, with emotions.... and I think he found that emotions can be a pain in the ass and stopped trying so hard.

[Dave]

I'm a bit confused here. I thought Dave misunderstood my post and thought I was trying to imply we should always be logical, that Mr. Spock is the ideal, which I wasn't saying at all.

And which I hope you understand, now, that I wasn't disagreeing with you.

 

The main focus of my posts was to illustrate the role of instinct and hardwiring in human behavior, and logic/Mr. Spock were just introduced for contrast purposes.

My point, that didn't come across the way I wanted, was do we really want to be all logic? I know we can't be, but isn't that what makes life interesting, fascinating?

[par4dcourse]

Strictly from etymology: a is from the Greek for without. Theism for a god. Without a god. Anti-theism would be a much newer concoction to express a more active role. FWIW.

[Dave]

Strictly from etymology: a is from the Greek for without. Theism for a god. Without a god. Anti-theism would be a much newer concoction to express a more active role. FWIW.

Anti-theist is usually a term used by theists to dismiss, without a thought, Atheists and other non believers. They actually believe that we are against them in some kind of war. Did I mention it here, or maybe somewhere else..... it seems that theists, especially the christians, have a dire need to be persecuted. To them it somehow justifies their beliefs. They need to have anti theists so they see anyone that is not for them as against them.

[chad]

Mankey,

 

I noticed that no matter who participates in a particular thread, it always seems to stray from the original issue or topic. Therefore, I fully expected my initial comments to take on a life of their own and birth new lines of discourse. No offense taken.

 

And you are correct, I am in need of help with regard to the quote function. I responded to Jun's post by simply inserting my comments after his comments, which, I'm afraid, has created the impression that Jun's post from two days ago has been re-posted for no good reason. To avoid this confusion, I'll re-post my response to Jun by using an alternating format.