Fact David, why don't you suck my balls?

[old.Tohtori]

All i know is that atheists and anti-godististists(whatever the f*ck you want to call them) rabble on and PR religion more then any religious folk ever do. Not that it really matters, but just an observation.

Maybe we should be called Unicorns?

Bad image idea, you'd be mixed with bronies

 

[Scouse]

All i know is that atheists rabble on and PR religion more then any religious folk ever do. Not that it really matters, but just an deliberately erroneous observation.

All I know is we're not rambling on about god and the human guide book, trying to convert unbelievers, meeting in a special building once a week to sing hymns and listen to sermons and we're definitely NOT volunteering to walk around Nottingham town centre with special god squad t-shirts on so we can find highly drunken teenagers in vulnerable situations so we can add to their woes by telling them that they're living their lives wrong and they should stop drinking and having sex or they'll go to hell, but by the way we've a lovely building they can come and sing servile worship songs in (which handily doubles as a money-donation centre for a structure of men seemingly devoted to the cover-up of paedophilia and the protection of paedophiles).

At least we're talking the finer points of the english language on a forum, rather than standing on a box in the centre of town shouting at passers by that they're all gonna burn, eh?

This is like the ultimate troll sentence, right?

Nah. I wish I was that good a troll. In the non-tired light of a new day I remember why I disliked @DaGaffer's sentence so much. I don't need to "actively disbelieve". I just don't do anything...

 

[throdgrain]

Nerds

 

[old.Tohtori]

At least we're talking the finer points of the english language on a forum, rather than standing on a box in the centre of town shouting at passers by that they're all gonna burn, eh?

.

More towards standing on a box in the centre of town shouting that religious folk should burn

As a nontrolly honest opinion i couldn't care either way, anyone bothering their life with how others live theirs is their problem really. I personally don't "actively" believe, it's more like "do you like apples" to which i have an answer. I'm thinking atheism(if you want to call it something for clarity) is the same.

EDIT: and yeah, people shouting others are eternally damned and need to embrace jebus can, to be a bit ironic, go to hell.

 

[Job]

I can only presume Dave is going for the Christianity against Islam angle in a
non threatening, 'but you know we kicked your ass in the crusades' sort of way.

 

[Scouse]

Nerds

Says the guy posting on a forum

 

[DaGaffer]

I just don't do anything...

Except you do...as you just showed. Which is my point.

 

[Scouse]

Except you do...as you just showed. Which is my point.

No. I don't, and I didn't.

What I'm doing right now is engaging in a discussion with you on the meaning of different definitions of belief and unbelief.

However:
The "action of believing" - i.e. believing in a god - is not performed by me.

The "action of not believing" isn't an action. Nothing has to happen for you to not believe. You just simply sit there thinking about cakes, or football, or mountain biking, or having a wank.

Believing is an action that is performed. Not believing isn't. Geddit?

 

[DaGaffer]

No. I don't, and I didn't.

What I'm doing right now is engaging in a discussion with you on the meaning of different definitions of belief and unbelief.

However:
The "action of believing" - i.e. believing in a god - is not performed by me.

The "action of not believing" isn't an action. Nothing has to happen for you to not believe. You just simply sit there thinking about cakes, or football, or mountain biking, or having a wank.

Believing is an action that is performed. Not believing isn't. Geddit?

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Engaging in a discussion about the subject creates a philosophical position on that subject. The action of not believing isn't an action, but discussing the action of not believing is an action. This is why simply saying "its non-belief, the end", isn't really valid, because that non-belief doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whether you like it or not, stating "I have no belief" places you in opposition to those who do.

I completely understand the desire to not create an equivalence between faith and non-belief, and as I said earlier, in the strict technical sense, its correct, but whether you like or not, the baggage that comes with "non-belief" creates opposition.

 

[MYstIC G]

This, the choice is an action, you cannot disagree @Scouse as your position is only valid if you've never been asked the question

 

[old.user4556]

ffs

 

[Raven]

That's fine if it is opinion on the subject but it isn't an opinion it is just acceptance of the simple fact that there is no god or gods.

Or is not believing in the spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn somehow the same as believing in a god?

Religion is the result of the mental conditioning of the young by people in a position of trust, nothing more. People don't believe in a god at birth.

 

[Scouse]

IT DOESN'T MATTER

Actually, being tarnished with the belief-brush by believers matters a lot - it's why I'm a stickler on the subject.

However, what doesn't matter is that people must, obviously, take a position in a discussion on the subject. That doesn't really create an "equivalence" between belief and non-belief - other than the fact that to discuss both requires you to take up one side of the argument.

If that's your bar for "equivalence" it's hard to see that it could be any lower. Imagine if you're in objection to paedophilia or pro-paedophilia - is there an "equivalence" between the two as soon as you discuss it? I'd argue not one that matters - because to argue over something you must take up opposite stances and that's simply unavoidable.


I think we may be talking about different things here Gaff. I'm talking, completely, about belief, the lack thereof and the actions of a solitary human around it and the effects thereof (including the labels applied to him). I'm not talking about said solitary human arguing about his position against another with an alternative position.

Having said that, I'll enter into that discussion:

discussing the action of not believing is an action

Yes. It's the action of discussing. Which is a completely different subject to the one I'm actually trying to discuss - which is the action of belief.

You're muddying the waters slightly I think Gaff. And you also don't go far enough:

non-belief doesn't exist in a vacuum

Non-believing doesn't only "not exist in a vacuum" - it doesn't exist period. Arguing about it doesn't bring it into existence (like your schrodinger's cat misjudgement implies).

There are two things that immediately come to mind about this and the discussion of it:
1) The "unbeliever at home": Non-belief doesn't exist. This is in the case of a solitary man at home. He doesn't believe - and isn't doing anything to achieve that. - this is the vacuum you're talking about. Without argument it's not even a thang.

2) The "unbeliever in an argument": Non-belief doesn't exist, but the position of "non-believer" is taken up for the purposes of an argument - which is the position I take up when I argue about belief. But my position describes 1) above - the non-existence of non-belief. Non-belief still isn't a thang - and arguing about it doesn't make it so.

This thought just occured to me - non-belief is itself a vacuum. When you're describing a vacuum you're describing the absence of anything. But you wouldn't argue that a vacuum has an equivalence to matter in anything other than you're describing the lack, thereof, of matter - which is, again, the lowest bar possible if you're going to describe a vacuum...


(However, I dislike the physics side to this discussion - it's messy)

 

[Scouse]

(However, I dislike the physics side to this discussion - it's messy)

Hmm. Maybe not - can be illustrative maybe?:

There's equivalence in matter - sodium is a salt as is potassium - and they share a number of the same properties (same construction materials, similar reactive properties). There's a genuine equivalence there. There's no equivalence between sodium/potassium/matter in general and a vacuum.

There's an equivalence between different belief systems - christianity, islam, buddhism (despite that crock of shit trying to position itself as "not a religion" it's still a belief-system and comes with all the baggage). Amongst many things they all share an equivalent action in common.

However, there's no equivalence with an absence of belief. It shares nothing with any of the above. In fact, there's nothing to share.

 

[Scouse]

This, the choice is an action, you cannot disagree @Scouse as your position is only valid if you've never been asked the question

It's not a choice.

You don't choose to be a non-believer. You just "are".

When you enter into an argument about belief you haven't made a choice about anything other than entering into an argument. Arguing about it doesn't magic a mythical thing called "non-belief" into existence that you choose to side with. (This is why DaGaffer's schrodingers cat comparison is so very wrong).

You take an intellectual position against something - you do not automatically identify with something that doesn't exist.

The only choice you've made if you enter into an argument with a religious person is to agree to bang your head against a brick wall with a believer - who, by the very nature of his chosen action, can never accept what you have to say even if you've definitive cast-iron video-and-DNA-evidence proof that he's full of shit.

 

[DaGaffer]

Maybe you shouldn't take "in a vacuum" quite so literally...

 

[leggy]

For the love of God (or the absence of or the absence of belief of) @Scouse, you must be seriously bored.

 

[Scouse]

Maybe you shouldn't take "in a vacuum" quite so literally...

I knew what you meant

Still, my argument stands old bean...

For the love of God (or the absence of or the absence of belief of) @Scouse, you must be seriously bored.

I type very quickly.

We use(d to) use this forum to discuss things. Don't be so surprised to find posts longer than one-sentence "this is for random spam" style pointlessness constantly - especially on tricky subjects...

 

[old.Tohtori]

@Scouse how would you differentiate taste and belief? For example you don't actively like apples versus dislike apples; as in there's no real difference in the two, you just have an opinion on the apples. Not asking in any "well belief is a fairygod thing" way, just as human traits.

Do read that as a question, not a trap or something to lash out at, just poking holes in your stance to see how it holds.

 

[old.user4556]

Scotland's figures are more telling. 54% consider themselves Christian with 37% considering themselves having no religion.

Christians are in quick decline here, and atheists are on the significant increase.

Following the trend, Scotland will not be a Christian country by the next census.

 

[Scouse]

@Scouse how would you differentiate taste and belief? .... Do read that as a question, not a trap

I'm not lashing out - I've read it as a question - I read it as neither having anything to do with each other in any sort of way.

I find the fact that you do rather puzzling tbh.

Edit: Maybe not puzzling per se. TBH I think you're completely muddled on the topic of belief so I can see why you'd think there was a relationship between the two.

 

[old.user4556]

I don't believe in the Easter bunny. Does that mean I'm a "non believer"? I find it insulting to be labeled as such, I'm going to campaign that "believers" will be called "fairy worshipping archaic morons" and "nonbelievers" as "normal".

"Nonbeliever" has pejorative connotations, let's go the whole hog and call them heretics shall we?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not lashing out - I've read it as a question - I read it as neither having anything to do with each other in any sort of way.

I find the fact that you do rather puzzling tbh.

Edit: Maybe not puzzling per se. TBH I think you're completely muddled on the topic of belief so I can see why you'd think there was a relationship between the two.

See there you go again, dragging religion into it and "lashing out"(as in just insults since you can't come up with anything else) instead of discussing it.

Not worth the time.

 

[Syri]

It's not a choice.

You don't choose to be a non-believer. You just "are".

You choose not to believe, ergo you choose to be a non-believer. Unless you have belief in something, you are a non-believer. You might be open to the possibility, for example in the case of something you don't yet have knowledge of, but once you make the conscious choice NOT to believe, you are a non-believer. plain and simple. You can't say "I don't believe in that. but I don't not-believe in that either", if you don't not-believe, then you are open to the possibility, therefore you must have some belief to be open to it.

 

[Scouse]

just insults

Does anyone else think I was insulting Toht there or can you see that I was answering his question truthfully - that I don't think taste and belief have the slightest thing to do with each other.


Syri:

You choose not to believe

Sorry m8, but you're 100% wrong.

I presume you're a believer - so I don't expect you to try to see this a different way from how you currently do. In all my discussions with religious people I've none have ever made the mental leap. You choose to believe. You don't "choose" not to - you just don't perform the action of believing in the first place. Someone asks, you go "nope, never did that".

Beliving is an action. A verb. A verb is a "doing word" (remember your basic schooling).

People who perform that action do something. People who don't perform that action don't.


Can you see the difference?

Furthermore:

you must have some belief to be open to it.

Belief, and the actions associated with it, are not necessary in human life. Ever.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Does anyone else think I was insulting Toht there or can you see that I was answering his question truthfully - that I don't think taste and belief have the slightest thing to do with each other.

I wasn't saying they are the same, i asked you to differentiate them. If you don't know how, then you have 0 knowledge of what belief is to begin with.

And as far as insults go; "I find the fact that you do rather puzzling tbh.

Edit: Maybe not puzzling per se. TBH I think you're completely muddled on the topic of belief"

Discrediting someone, like you do above with Syri with "i don't expect you to..." just on your base assumption of religious people.

 

[Scouse]

I wasn't saying they are the same

I never said you did.

It's why I'm not going to continue these discussions with you - experience (and this is one of them) shows you can't read answers clearly enough and are not stringently accurate enough in your replies to be worth conversing with on these topics.

I'm sorry if it's because you have english as a second language and I don't speak finnish, but there it is...


Edit:

Discrediting someone

Touchy bitch

I'm appealing to Syri to take a step back and question his own assumptions (based on my stated assumption that he's religious). It's an appeal for him to doubt himself and really read and think about what I've said (which, again is based on experience). I re-read DaGaffer's posts several times - especially after prompting so it's not hypocritical of me.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It has nothing to do with a language barrier, you're just refusing to answer a simple question by stating something else.

I ask you if you can differentiate taste and belief as human traits(which should be really simple), you answer by saying they are not connected. That wasn't what was asked and your answer has nothing to do with the question.

Answer a simple question and stop wiggling like a religious person who's been asked for proof of god.

EDIT: I'm not touchy, but insults are still insults.

 

[Scouse]

Ok. Just to shut you up - but this is the last time I speak to you in this thread:

answer a totally retarded simple question - differentiate taste and belief as human traits

be•lief
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

taste
A personal preference or liking

Your tastes are immediately susceptible to rigourous proof and easily scientifically verifiable. Your reasons for those tastes may be unknown, but your preference and/or liking is easily tested quantified and verifiable.

Well done with doing your usual thread derailment through inane pointless shittery thing...

Edit: Come on then cuntybollocks. Why the facepalm? Or do you just hate facts that are plainly stated?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Are you claiming someones belief can't be proven?

You're talking about the target of belief/taste, not belief and taste as a human trait.

And it's not derailment, it's very much on topic.