Wiz News Front Page

[Dunny]

Moved to off topic.. Great...

It's probably the Pandora overlords trying to put the Wiz down again, yes?

D.

 

[craigix]

Yes. We deleted our own HD thread too.

I think Michael Weston might be a Lizard in disguise. A Lizard from Space.

 

[Pickle]

Yes. We deleted our own HD thread too.

I think Michael Weston might be a Lizard in disguise. A Lizard from Space.

Only if I can be a Sectoid

 

[MWeston]

Holy shit! What are you doing with my driver's license photo Pickle?

Um, what...wait....nevermind.

 

[WizardStan]

As an atheist myself too I look at facts and not hear-say for what is going on.
As an Agnostic, I take offense to that. By definition, an Atheist does not believe in God; there's no mention about the why or how, or anything about facts and logic, they simply do not believe, in the same way that a Theist does believe. There may be logic in your decision, but it's not a requirement. In fact, I've known a lot of Atheists who claim to be Atheists simply because they don't think they need a God. No facts, no logic, just "I don't want to believe, so I'm going to be an Atheist."

From a general logic standpoint, a Theist believes something is true when there is no evidence that it is not true, an Atheist believes something is not true when there is no evidence that it is true, and an Agnostic looks at both sides and says "there's not enough evidence on either side to agree with either of you. I'm going to be over here playing with my springs and protons and other things I can reasonably prove exist making science. Have fun with your pointless religious debates."

That's not to say Agnostics make better science; there are a lot of Atheist scientists. At the same time, however, there are a lot of Theist scientists as well.
I'm just employing a little tongue-in-cheek humor there for the sake of emphasis and drama.

 

[gaterooze]

Depends on how specific you'd like to be. An atheist can simply deny the existence of "God" as defined by any particular religion - and that, my agnostic friend, is quite easy to do. Denying a nebulous, neutral supreme being, however, I agree is not entirely possible and would require as much faith as believing in one. For myself, I fall into the first camp on defined "gods" but regarding the expanded cosmological definition of "god", I find it indivisible from the universe itself (i.e. being infinite - which is the definition of a supreme being - otherwise, the question "Who created [x]" will spiral into eternity). At that level, any anthropological definition is meaningless, as is any argument for or against existence. You may as well debate whether you yourself exist.

A matter of semantics? Most assuredly.

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a perfect illustration - I find it equally credible as any other mono or polytheistic religion. That being, not at all. But a fey girl's belief that the universe is all connected, without violating any known physical laws or attempting any trite explanation? Well, she may just be onto something. I couldn't tell her she's definitively wrong. Although the minute she starts claiming it's down to a magical sky daddy who talks to her in church, you know it's definitely bollocks.

 

[WizardStan]

A matter of semantics? Most assuredly.
No, it's not a debate about God or god or creation vs expansion. Regardless of the God or system you choose to believe in (or not), the point was that neither logic nor a grounding in facts is a prerequisite to being Atheist, as DaveC seems to be implying. An Atheist is simply defined as one who does not believe in God (or a higher power, or FSM, or however you choose to define the mystical energies what may or may not have created the universe). Strictly speaking, it's the absence of a belief in God (or gods, or whatever) but I feel that few are truly capable of appreciating the difference.
The sentence "As an atheist myself too I look at facts and not hear-say for what is going on" brings the notion that all Atheists consider only facts all the time, not hear-say, which also carries the opposite implication that non-Atheists listen to hear-say at least some of the time. That's the offense I'm referring to: Atheists do not necessarily consider the facts, and non-Atheists do not necessarily follow non-facts.

 

[gaterooze]

.

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between not believing in, for example, the narrowly-defined Christian God or Lord Xenu malarky, and not believing in an undefined cosmic energy or supreme being. The first, there is plenty of evidence against, the latter not so much. Definitions matter in this case.

Just as there are a wide spectrum of theists and agnostics, there are different kinds of atheists.

 

[WizardStan]

What I'm saying is that there is a difference between not believing in, for example, the narrowly-defined Christian God or Lord Xenu malarky, and not believing in an undefined cosmic energy or supreme being. The first, there is plenty of evidence against, the latter not so much. Definitions matter in this case.
And I'm saying that it doesn't matter one lick what you do or don't believe, whether you have evidence or not. Logic and facts are not a requirement of being Atheist.

 

[gaterooze]

And I'm saying that it doesn't matter one lick what you do or don't believe, whether you have evidence or not. Logic and facts are not a requirement of being Atheist.

Of course it does matter - if you personally define atheism as the disbelief of "God" due to a lack of compelling evidence, or an active belief that "God" doesn't exist due to compelling evidence, then logic and facts have everything to do with it. If you personally define atheism as the disbelief of "God" because you "really just don't believe it exists", then it doesn't. And in all cases, "God" must be defined - otherwise you have no basis on which to place labels.

I'll try to be clear. If an "Atheist" is defined, for example, as someone who denies the existence of the Christian God solely due to strong evidence against it, then you would have to say that logic and facts are a requirement of being "Atheist" (as defined), no?

(for the record, I'm not saying all, or any, Atheists fall into this definition, and indeed I agree many do not! The above is a logic exercise in itself)

 

[WizardStan]

a⋅the⋅ist
  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There is no mention of what specific deity or supreme being or whatever you choose to call it is being denied, nor any talk about the reasons for the denial or disbelief, simply that an Atheist does not believe.

 

[Goity]

Yes. We deleted our own HD thread too.

I think Michael Weston might be a Lizard in disguise. A Lizard from Space.

Did he come from the planet Sirus? Is he the Queen? Or a US president?

 

[gaterooze]

a⋅the⋅ist
  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Stan, you know full well that there is no single, definitive definition of the word. Take the deifnition of Atheist from Websters Online for example:

QUOTE
1. Someone who denies the existence of god.


In which case, yes, "god" would need to be defined.

Even the dictionary.com definition is open to interpretation. With a narrow reading, it can refer to the denial of a specific supreme being or beings (however the atheist defines it), not the denial of any possible supreme being (otherwise it would say "any" instead of the narrower "a").

I refer to myself as an Atheist, yet I define that as "denying the existence of any *defined* supreme being or beings." How could I possibly deny the existence of an undefined supreme being? My logic is that no such "supreme" being can ever be defined.

 

[WizardStan]

Fine, define "God" as a specific entity then if it will make you happy. It doesn't change anything.
If you deny the existence of "God" for any reason, or for no reason, then you are an Atheist. You might have logic (no matter what it is, whether accurate or flawed, I don't care) but that logic is not what marks you as an Atheist.
I have now tried 5 times to demonstrate that Atheists are not by necessity any more logical than non-Atheists, and 4 times you have tried turning it into a religious debate. I will not try again.

 

[gaterooze]

I have now tried 5 times to demonstrate that Atheists are not by necessity any more logical than non-Atheists, and 4 times you have tried turning it into a religious debate. I will not try again.

Heh, the irony is that I did not in fact turn it into a religious debate at all, but into a logic exercise. Which says it all, really.

 

[rabidpoobear]

I have now tried 5 times to demonstrate that Atheists are not by necessity any more logical than non-Atheists, and 4 times you have tried turning it into a religious debate. I will not try again.

Heh, the irony is that I did not in fact turn it into a religious debate at all, but into a logic exercise. Which says it all, really.

GunPei2x, I don't see the irony here. WizardStan had a clearly-defined, and well-defended, offense to DaveC's post, and you kept bringing your beliefs into it.

He's right, logical thinking is not a necessary prerequisite of Atheism. Clearly logic plays an integral part in how you define your beliefs, but there can be Atheists who do not believe in god simply because it's Tuesday, or because their tie is not the correct shade of Blue.

The state of (an absence of belief in god / denial of god's existence / whatever definition you'd like) that is Atheism can be arrived at in any way. Logic is not required. And being in that state doesn't necessarily make you more or less logical, though it might.

What we're postulating here (and Stan can correct me if I'm misrepresenting him) is that logical thinking is not necessary for either entering the state of Atheism, nor for remaining there. It is not an essential property of Atheism. Just as being illogical is not necessary for being a non-Atheist.

I do not want to get into a religious debate either. Just a little confused about why you don't see Stan's point.

 

[gaterooze]

Poobear, you make my point for me. The postulation was *not* clearly defined, because the term atheist was not defined. And without that, the theory cannot possibly be evaluated.

Say that I define an atheist as a person who does not believe in given supreme being(s) due to the evidence, facts and logic at hand.

Say that I define a theist as a person who believes in a given supreme being or beings based purely on faith, without regard to any evidence, facts or logic.

So according to these definitions, the statement that both theists and atheists equally disregard facts and logic is clearly wrong.

You see now?

Everybody defines these concepts differently. If you or Stan define the terms in a certain way, then his statement may well be true in that context. But without this information, logically, it cannot be determined.

In the scientific method, based on, yes, logic and facts, the first step is always to define your parameters.

And at the risk of invoking a "No true Scotsman" comparison, your description of an atheist doesn't really work for me. In my mind, atheism is an active disbelief, not a whimsical one. Someone who says, "I probably don't believe in God because... well, I've never really thought about it, I just don't think I do" doesn't reach what I would call an atheist. Indeed, I know people who say they "don't believe in God" because "God failed them" in a trying time. Is that person an atheist? Clearly not!

 

[danielliu88888]

Poobear, you make my point for me. The postulation was *not* clearly defined, because the term atheist was not defined. And without that, the theory cannot possibly be evaluated.

Say that I define an atheist as a person who does not believe in given supreme being(s) due to the evidence, facts and logic at hand.

Say that I define a theist as a person who believes in a given supreme being or beings based purely on faith, without regard to any evidence, facts or logic.

So according to these definitions, the statement that both theists and atheists equally disregard facts and logic is clearly wrong.

You see now?

Everybody defines these concepts differently. If you or Stan define the terms in a certain way, then his statement may well be true in that context. But without this information, logically, it cannot be determined.

In the scientific method, based on, yes, logic and facts, the first step is always to define your parameters.

And at the risk of invoking a "No true Scotsman" comparison, your description of an atheist doesn't really work for me. In my mind, atheism is an active disbelief, not a whimsical one. Someone who says, "I probably don't believe in God because... well, I've never really thought about it, I just don't think I do" doesn't reach what I would call an atheist. Indeed, I know people who say they "don't believe in God" because "God failed them" in a trying time. Is that person an atheist? Clearly not!

by your logic, very few atheists and theists exist. either one would have to be extremely ignorant.

 

[Goity]

I can see why religious discussion isn't usually allowed on here.

 

[danielliu88888]

I can see why religious discussion isn't usually allowed on here.

well, it's not on the list of things you don't do, unless it degrades to mindless flamewars/arguments.