*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[Reflex]

Whuh?

That's why I decided to add he introductory story to the appropriate chapter.

 

[outhouse]

We need you to talk here!

Yep.

I would be a proud student.

 

[outhouse]

I really envy the author's ability to see the humor in many of the arguments made by atheists

You and he may think its funny when people stereotype what they do not know.

But the leap of logic and reason many theist take, leave themselves in the basket of unsupported claims, and there is no comparison here.


It is generally some theist who refuse logic and reason, and you have not shown a single credible example yet against any atheist.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Your rhetoric does nothing to justify your contention that this philosophy is outdated.

It straightens out your bogus conversation. You are completely lost in your own definitions, and are presenting the information WRONG.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Lol, didn't mean to intimidate you. When I discuss I use numbers as well....watch out.

I wasn't intimidated. I scoffed. What you were asking for didn't even relate to what I was talking about. It's weird how you love to deflect from subjects.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

No, it is shorthand for noting that you are excluding knowledge when knowledge is not excluded. You are doing so based on a semantic argument. You first note correctly that I have indicated that knowledge is a type of belief. Then you conclude that we have only beliefs. So far so good. But then you switch the definition of belief to exclude knowledge. Thus, the belief in your first part is different than the belief in your second part.

In your first part belief includes knowledge, in your second or does not. Therefore, they are different definitions. Hence, you are equivocating.

I am sorry that you assume that I do not have a more elaborate explanation for your logical errors. And, I am sorry I assumed you were astute enough to comprehend what I was saying based off a short answer. I will try to make my answers more comprehensible for you.

It was pretty obvious to those of us suffering through that conversation, that you were enjoying playing "elitist"... lol... which really is a joke.

A decent human says... Oh jeez sorry... I'm using a strict old school definition of knowledge... which is a fact that you know... like if you see a sheep in a field, then you have knowledge of that sheep in a field.

Nope. Mr. Knowitall makes an ambiguous argument, because the person he is talking to didn't take Philosophy 101 like he did. Then he uses his super elite language skills to make the guy feel bad...

Mr. Knowitall does this on purpose to feel superior. Little man syndrome or something. DB. It's laughable really.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism is an absurd worldview

I say it is unjustified.
Regards

 

[Willamena]

A decent human says... Oh jeez sorry... I'm using a strict old school definition of knowledge... which is a fact that you know... like if you see a sheep in a field, then you have knowledge of that sheep in a field.

Rather, a decent human being is honest. If they're old school, they DO use it.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Rather, a decent human being is honest. If they're using old school, they DO use it.

If you recognize someone is assuming a different definition, you make yourself clearer... you don't accuse the guy of doing WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Simply because you use the term for it... lol... it doesn't make you right.

There is honest debate to further knowledge and communication, and then there is dishonest debate to make yourself feel good about yourself, likely because you were picked on as a child.

 

[Willamena]

If you recognize someone is assuming a different definition, you make yourself clearer... you don't accuse the guy of doing WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Simply because you use the term for it... lol... doesn't make you right.

Just so; he made himself clear, especially that he was "old school."

There is honest debate to further knowledge and communication, and then there is dishonest debate to make yourself feel good about yourself, likely because you were picked on as a child.

And accusing someone of being old school is which?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

Just so; he made himself clear, especially that he was "old school."


And accusing someone of being old school is which?

I said he used an older definition of knowledge... an old school version, so to speak. My accusation was one of hypocrisy and elitism.

 

[Willamena]

I said he used an older definition of knowledge... an old school version, so to speak. My accusation was one of hypocrisy and elitism.

How is it hypocritical to be honest?


To be fair, none of us have taken Philosophy 101.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would I waste my time on something that begins with a faulty assumption?

Why would I? Or the OP?

You know that that is the topic of the thread, right?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I corrected the term and brought that awful conversation where it needed to go.

Personally, I could care less about the knowledge/belief relationship.

Depending on your definitions, of course, it is difficult to think that you could believe in something you were first not aware of. Therefore, you have some "knowledge" of what you believe.

It is also difficult to think that everything you believe is therefore true. Many people believe falsehoods.

None of it proves the existence of a God, nor proves that it is absurd to *not* believe in God... which was what I thought this thread was about. Apparently, the obscure use of "absurd" in the OP is some goober code to come debate using your favorite narrow definition of a word.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

How is it hypocritical to be honest?


To be fair, none of us have taken Philosophy 101.

He wasn't being genuine, and Philosophy 101 was used in a 'taking a course doesn't equal superior intelligence' mocking sort of way.

 

[Willamena]

I corrected the term and brought that awful conversation where it needed to go.

So he was wrong?

Depending on your definitions, of course, it is difficult to think that you could believe in something you were first not aware of. Therefore, you have some "knowledge" of what you believe.

It is also difficult to think that everything you believe is therefore true. Many people believe falsehoods.

None of it proves the existence of a God, nor proves that it is absurd to *not* believe in God... which was what I thought this thread was about. Apparently, the obscure use of "absurd" is some goober code to come debate using your favorite narrow definition of a word.

I applaud your attitude.

Are you familiar with Albert Camus (circa 1938)? Quote Wikipedia: {"The Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".}

The absurd is a philosophical position, appropriate for the atheist who promotes strict determinism and absolute realism. This atheist should embrace the absurd happily, because it's not a bad thing:

What then is meant by the notion of the Absurd? Contrary to the view conveyed by popular culture, the Absurd, (at least in Camus’s terms) does not simply refer to some vague perception that modern life is fraught with paradoxes, incongruities, and intellectual confusion. (Although that perception is certainly consistent with his formula.) Instead, as he emphasizes and tries to make clear, the Absurd expresses a fundamental disharmony, a tragic incompatibility, in our existence. In effect, he argues that the Absurd is the product of a collision or confrontation between our human desire for order, meaning, and purpose in life and the blank, indifferent “silence of the universe”: “The absurd is not in man nor in the world,” Camus explains, “but in their presence together…it is the only bond uniting them.”

So here we are: poor creatures desperately seeking hope and meaning in a hopeless, meaningless world. Sartre, in his essay-review of The Stranger provides an additional gloss on the idea: “The absurd, to be sure, resides neither in man nor in the world, if you consider each separately. But since man’s dominant characteristic is ‘being in the world,’ the absurd is, in the end, an inseparable part of the human condition.” The Absurd, then, presents itself in the form of an existential opposition. It arises from the human demand for clarity and transcendence on the one hand and a cosmos that offers nothing of the kind on the other. Such is our fate: we inhabit a world that is indifferent to our sufferings and deaf to our protests.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/camus/#SSH5ci

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

So he was wrong?


I applaud your attitude.

Are you familiar with Albert Camus (circa 1938)? Quote Wikipedia: {"The Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible".}

The absurd is a philosophical position, appropriate for the atheist who promotes strict determinism and absolute realism. This atheist should embrace the absurd happily, because it's not a bad thing:

It's been my experience that most atheists embrace all things humanly possible... that's sort of the point.

If they start requiring some special head gear be worn in symbolic unity... then perhaps atheists will become like the bad thing that is belief based on social structure and brainwashing.

Was he wrong? Yes. Except for that, "A belief must be justified and true, in order to be a justified true belief."

How could I argue with such wisdom?

 

[Willamena]

It's been my experience that most atheists embrace all things humanly possible... that's sort of the point.

If they start requiring some special head gear be worn in symbolic unity... then perhaps atheists will become like the bad thing that is belief based on social structure and brainwashing.

Was he wrong? Yes. Except for that, "A belief must be justified and true, in order to be a justified true belief."

How could I argue with such wisdom?

How would you argue against it?

 

[Curious George]

It straightens out your bogus conversation. You are completely lost in your own definitions, and are presenting the information WRONG.

Nope, try again.

 

[Curious George]

It was pretty obvious to those of us suffering through that conversation, that you were enjoying playing "elitist"... lol... which really is a joke.

A decent human says... Oh jeez sorry... I'm using a strict old school definition of knowledge... which is a fact that you know... like if you see a sheep in a field, then you have knowledge of that sheep in a field.

Nope. Mr. Knowitall makes an ambiguous argument, because the person he is talking to didn't take Philosophy 101 like he did. Then he uses his super elite language skills to make the guy feel bad...

Mr. Knowitall does this on purpose to feel superior. Little man syndrome or something. DB. It's laughable really.

Lol, what I am discussing is information available for all. If you want to engage in a topic, consider that others before us have engaged in that same topic. They have discussed at length the definition of knowledge. If you want to bring a fresh perspective to the table, I am all for it, however don't throw a tantrum when you realize that you do not, with your couple hours of thought, outseat millennia of thought on the subject.

You seem like a swell guy, howeverit is important to consider what is being said. If you want to posit a different definition of knowledge, I am all ears. If you have an actual argument, I am willing to entertain it. But do not just bring ad hominem to the discussion. Such quips go nowhere.