Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[ShipOfTheseus]

Even staunch atheists can have 'irrational' views around images and representation. Would you be able to stab a knife into a photograph of your child's face, knowing full well that logically it could cause them no harm?

Shh. She thinks it’s an infallible way to cause acne by voodoo and it’s the only sanction left that still works.

 

[scaramanga]

@scaramanga is your man for this question

Obviously, the ability to turn empathy off at will would be a huge evolutionary step for the human race.

It seems to be (like many aspects of human character) part nature and part nurture. There's a decent chance the strange societal value we give to empathy will have the nurture part outweight the nature one.

 

[LutonSpurs]

A genuine question for the atheists here. Aren't you all really agnostic as atheism is affirming that at the beginning there was nothing and theism says at the beginning there was something. One is more rational but unprovable and both are paradoxical. Agnosticism is the only rational position in my view.

 

[Baleforce]

A genuine question for the atheists here. Aren't you all really agnostic as atheism is affirming that at the beginning there was nothing and theism says at the beginning there was something. One is more rational but unprovable and both are paradoxical. Agnosticism is the only rational position in my view.

I don't think it is, the difference is where the something came from, some believe it was the work of $deity, atheists don't.

Agnosticism suggests that something could be unknowable, I don't think anything is unknowable if you work hard enough at studying it.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

A genuine question for the atheists here. Aren't you all really agnostic as atheism is affirming that at the beginning there was nothing and theism says at the beginning there was something. One is more rational but unprovable and both are paradoxical. Agnosticism is the only rational position in my view.

Your premises don’t make any sense, sorry.

 

[DTA]

A genuine question for the atheists here. Aren't you all really agnostic as atheism is affirming that at the beginning there was nothing and theism says at the beginning there was something. One is more rational but unprovable and both are paradoxical. Agnosticism is the only rational position in my view.

Agnosticism is probably the most intellectual honest position.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Agnosticism is probably the most intellectual honest position.

With regard to what? Do we need to be agnostic with regard to absolutely anything that anyone else fabulates, in order to be intellectually honest? Or does that only apply to a small subset of narratives concerning pseudoentities?

 

[DTA]

With regard to what? Do we need to be agnostic with regard to absolutely anything that anyone else fabulates, in order to be intellectually honest? Or does that only apply to a small subset of narratives concerning pseudoentities?

well would it not be intellectually honest to be agnostic about anything that you don’t actually know? Or hasn’t been proven to any degree of certainty( if such a thing exists)

Socrates I think it was who said: “the only thing that I know for certain is that I know nothing” or something of that ilk

 

[SpurMeUp]

With regard to what? Do we need to be agnostic with regard to absolutely anything that anyone else fabulates, in order to be intellectually honest? Or does that only apply to a small subset of narratives concerning pseudoentities?

There are some pretty baffling questions. Like infinity. How can you explain there being endless space? Or is there a wall, and what is the other side of it? How could anyone rule out external forces beyond earth that we do not understand. There is a rational logic to be agnostic, as we can never prove there isn’t a GHod. If you can’t say for sure, isn’t agnostic the only rational position?

 

[scaramanga]

A genuine question for the atheists here. Aren't you all really agnostic as atheism is affirming that at the beginning there was nothing and theism says at the beginning there was something. One is more rational but unprovable and both are paradoxical. Agnosticism is the only rational position in my view.

Yes. I refer to myself as an atheist as the reality is too complex for most people and too long-winded for everyone else.

On a scale of The (fudge the motherfudging) Pope at 0 to a true atheist at 100, I'm an agnostic at 99.9°%

I'm absolutely convinced that there are no higher powers, but to believe 100% would be as departed as being religious.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

You people are getting very muddled. Or perhaps, to be kinder, it's because you are trying to adopt a middle ground in the interests of board harmony.

Firstly, atheism is not a cosmological position. An atheist does not posit anything, or affirm any statement about the nature and origin of time and the universe. The atheist merely looks on with bemusement as those for whom religion is meaningful discusses something which to them seems entirely meaningless.

Secondly, some of you are confusing generalised scepticism as the starter epistemological position, adopted playfully by various philosophers with points to prove about knowledge and belief, with viable approaches to the practical business of knowing what is knowable and what is not.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Yes. I refer to myself as an atheist as the reality is too complex for most people and too long-winded for everyone else.

On a scale of The (fudge the motherfudging) Pope at 0 to a true atheist at 100, I'm an agnostic at 99.9°%

I'm absolutely convinced that there are no higher powers, but to believe 100% would be as departed as being religious.

All you've demonstrated here is that quantification isn't a terribly useful metaphor for the strength of belief, and it's downright useless for the absence of belief.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I specifically said that I don’t think you are racist or islamaphobic. Please answer my questions one by one, so we can have some clarity.

as for your clear distinction between the extremists and normal Muslims.

I would strongly suggest that china does not make that distinction and therefore you quoting ‘their method’ is the problem.

fair play. I appreciate it was provocative, and that was my bad. I also thought I had been quite clear that I was talking about how you tackle extremists only. And that 99% of Muslims have ethics totally contrary to the death cults who borrow the religion for their own ruinous ends. And if in any doubt: Chinese abuse of Uighurs is never something anyone would want outside of Maoist or Stalinist dystopia. There are some interesting things around how totalitarian regimes can get things done - build a hospital in 5 days or whatever - but human rights and free press are very much the losers. It is a more complex situation than many appreciate, with a real possibility of civil war and Uyghurs fighting for independence from China. Totalitarian Maoist-inspired China closed down any option these people might have had of freeing themselves and it is one of the most disturbing modern day abuses by a state of its people.

 

[scaramanga]

All you've demonstrated here is that quantification isn't a terribly useful metaphor for the strength of belief, and it's downright useless for the absence of belief.

I have always taken atheism to be a certainty of no deities, rather than a simple lack of belief.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I have always taken atheism to be a certainty of no deities, rather than a simple lack of belief.

I'm not sure there's a practical difference. And I suspect that trying to find one plays into the theist's hand, by conceding (in the interests of maintaining dialogue), that lack of belief in a GHod is somehow a position, in a way that lack of belief in unicorns or floogles isn't.

 

[scaramanga]

I'm not sure there's a practical difference. And I suspect that trying to find one plays into the theist's hand, by conceding (in the interests of maintaining dialogue), that lack of belief in a GHod is somehow a position, in a way that lack of belief in unicorns or floogles isn't.

I don't believe in unicorns. But to state there are no unicorns with the unalterable certainty of one who believes in a gays/Africans hating deity is to be as bad as them.

It doesn't mean the suggestion that there are unicorns isn't preposterous, just that acting and thinking like believers is generally not a good way to approach life.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I don't believe in unicorns. But to state there are no unicorns with the unalterable certainty of one who believes in a gays/Africans hating deity is to be as bad as them.

It doesn't mean the suggestion that there are unicorns isn't preposterous, just that acting and thinking like believers is generally not a good way to approach life.

I think we're making almost exactly the same point. And even the believers have given up and gone home, so perhaps it's time to refer everyone on the thread to Prevent and call it a day.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You people are getting very muddled. Or perhaps, to be kinder, it's because you are trying to adopt a middle ground in the interests of board harmony.

Firstly, atheism is not a cosmological position. An atheist does not posit anything, or affirm any statement about the nature and origin of time and the universe. The atheist merely looks on with bemusement as those for whom religion is meaningful discusses something which to them seems entirely meaningless.

Secondly, some of you are confusing generalised scepticism as the starter epistemological position, adopted playfully by various philosophers with points to prove about knowledge and belief, with viable approaches to the practical business of knowing what is knowable and what is not.

whadda you mean you people!

 

[LutonSpurs]

All I'm saying is that the idea that we came from a ball of gas that just appeared from nothing is not scientific or logical. The idea that there was something there before everything else that wasn't created and could create is slightly more rational. Call it the first singular concept.

The people who say they have no idea how creation began as it is a paradox are agnostic and I don't know what pure atheists are other than leap of faithers who have a belief as unscientific and illogical as mine.

 

[Gutter Boy]

A genuine question for the atheists here. Aren't you all really agnostic as atheism is affirming that at the beginning there was nothing and theism says at the beginning there was something. One is more rational but unprovable and both are paradoxical. Agnosticism is the only rational position in my view.

Good point. I think on balance modern science, and particularly evolution, provide enough means, motive and opportunity to explain existence and most of the other big questions. But I guess the rational mind has to work on the old 'eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable...' basis.

Personally I've moved from complete atheism to slightly more spiritually curious (but still fundamentally critical). This is because of a few recent things I've experienced and found myself able to do. I'm pretty sure its all still explainable by psychology, chemistry and biology, but I'm definitely more curious now about exploring boundaries.