Give me a topic and a position and I will argue it against anyone.

Go!

Argue in favor of the Vietnam war, McCarthyism, and the Third Reich.

The Vietnam war prepared the American Army for the new shape of modern warfare : Guerilla combat. Through invaluable sacrifices, the Army now possesses the skills it needs to handle the world's hottest spots like Iraq and Afghanistan and clear them of terrorist scum. Nobody lost in Vietnam. America simply won.


Okay, McCarthyism and the 3rd reich will take some time. o_O

Topic: Is this thread worth reading?

Position: Against people reading it.


I currently like this idea, but if you do a good job, maybe I'll be encouraged to ignore this thread. Conversely, doing a poor job might show that this thread isn't worth it afterall.

I love you all.

Curious, so I'll request you argue in favor of a fundamentalist view of the Bible as being true and applicable to modern life.

Topic: Quebec

Position: It sucks

Go.

Argue in favor of Atheism.

Saving this for last.

God is both timeless and outside of time. If it was His will that his message be altered to "fit" our "modern" lifetyle (ridiculous attempts at hiding the true, sloth-based motive of these accomodations - the Lord knows you're simply trying to work less for Him!) he would have sent a Prophet to announce the change in the sacred bond between Him and his people.

While it is true that God's word was recorded by a lowly human bring, he was divinely inspired by God to transcribe these immemorial truths. Their all-encompassing nature prove their selfless intent and cast aside doubts of ulterior, hidden motives. What would Moses have to gain by claiming God forebade murder?

There are mountains of evidence ( in some cases, like the Sinai, quite literally so) for a large portion of the events recorded in the Bible. Lack of records of the miracles is evidently the result of a combination of factors. First, the jealous Powers in place working to censor Jesus' message of love and peace. Second, the lack of objective witnesses in desertic areas. Finally, Satan has continually strived to erase any unprotected portion of the Bible.

Therefore, God's message should be followed exactly the way it was written.




(You have no idea how much I laughed as I was thinking of arguments)

Argue against saving it for last.

That's way too easy.


Quebec is a nation of undereducated, xenophobic and egocentric assholes. While we may try to hide it behind a "rich cultural heritage" in reality all it means is poutine, Celine Dion and the odd tendancy to simultaneously steal as many aspects of canadian english/american culture as we cn without being called on it and parade our minimalist contributions to the French language like excessive swearing, word deformations that just SCREAM "classy" like changing the "oi" sound to something that sounds closer to "ay".

I could go on, but I feel kind of bad about it

I kinda of want to move to british columbia. That way I could be BC, IN BC. Mind status : BLOWN


...what?


If I save it for last, I will rob you of much-needed closure and at the same time cast doubt on my own ability to actually come up with the argument that was asked of me. This is unacceptable and I should be suammrily shot.

I've never seen an argument for Atheism that wasn't stupid. I want to. It's always seemed at least as ignorant and illogical as any other religion out there, but at least most of them have some guding morals and life lessons in them.

...atheism isn't a religion. I can argue for what atheism is if you want, but it's basically going to boil down to occam's razor..which itself boils down to basic common sense.



that's because they ARE religions.

An atheist makes his OWN morals based on his rationnally-developped conclusions. Of course it's a lot harder than having it all pre-made and shoved down your throat - you can end up as Thomas Jefferson as easily as you could Stalin - but at leastit removes the cop-out "Not my fault!" mentality that seems to run rampant.

Wouldn't those morals generally be the same as any relgious persons most of the time? It's not like Christians go "I don't kill people because the Bible tells me not too" while Atheists say "I don't kill people because I've thought long and hard about it and figured that it was wrong." The only differences I could see might invovle different attitudes towards sex and things like the death penalty and abortion which you'd find within members of the religious community anyway.

On-topic: Argue for an Anarchist society. I'd actually like to here opinions on this one that aren't being spewed from the mouth of a whiskey swilling pot-head.

Most of the morals derived from religion are, quite frankly, common fucking sense. Of COURSE you'll find them in practically any conceivable moral code, be it derived from a holy book accepted by millions or from your own reasoning. The difference in conduct between theists and atheists will mostly appear in matters of specific dogma.

What grinds my gears is when people try to create a link of causality between religion and morals - that being religious is required in order to develop morals. Holier-than-thou bullshit like that is just silly.

Anarchy and Why This Topic Sucks tommorrow.

In that case, please do argue for what Atheism is.

I've always thought it is as much a religion as any other, at least insofar as all the Atheists I've come across (and spoken to on the subject; which, granted, isn't a ton) seem to believe vehemently that there is no God. Many believe as intolerantly as any religious zealot that they're right, and look down on anybody who disagrees. They let it guide their lives and try to convert others to their cause. I don't know, it seems like a religion to me. I would call agnosticism the only mainstream nonreligion out there. I know there's also at least one that thinks the whole question is pointless, and there are a bunch of other minor ones.

And applying Occam's Razor to the situation seems to me like it's already taking Atheism as a given. We're not complicating the situation by saying there's a God if there is one, only if there isn't.


And you don't think that religious people make their own morals based on rational thought, too? The reason I appreciate religion's enforcement of ethics is for kids and idiots. It gives them a pretty decent set of rules, that stand in place until they eventually get over Egocentrism and figure out the Golden Rule on their own (or hell, read about it in The Bible). Of course I think that Atheists can be every bit as moral as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, whatever. But I think that Atheism in and of itself doesn't offer any moral guidelines, it just offers a pessimistic take on life that can lead to hedonism and living in the moment. Maybe that's not so bad for the Atheist, but it's often got negative effects on the people around him. I've come across plenty of Christians who're dicks, but they act good if only to keep up their facade. And I think that's better than nothing. You can guilt a lot of people into not sucking with WWJD.

So you think its ok to be a hypocrite? I'd rather have people act like dicks if they are dicks but that's just me.

There's the problem with Atheism - since it isn't a religion, anyone can CLAIM tobe an Atheist. This inevirtably leads to a very bad image of Atheists for society as Atheism is the default state of any faithless individual.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. It does NOT imply the belief that deities CANNOT exist.






People who act like that are atheists AND intolerant jerks. Neither qualifier can be considered a religion.




Almost all of which identify themselves as agnostic out of fear of social stigma. Agnosticism is the pussy's way out. It's not "I don't know the answer", it's I don't want to choose". Someone who is truely agnostic about theism wouldn't even know the meaning of the word "deity".

I say, grow some balls and make a stand. Either you have a belief in a or many deities, or you don't. Period.





Occam's razor states that when presented with two explanations for a phenomenon, one of which includes more unproven elements, we should tend towards the more reasonnable explanation as the answer until new evidence changes the balance. It's just common sense.

Atheism isn't a given. However, the number of situations where our two choices are
Explanation A: CRAZY UNPROVEN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
Explanation B : God did it.

is rapidly dwindling in favor of situations where Occam's razor pushes us towards the side of science rather than faith.

Now, let me state that Occam's razor indicated the more rationnal choice. It does not imply an ORDER, and anyone who chooses differently is not crazy - people do irrationnal things all the time. That's what emotions do.




..but do we need religion then? Could we not have a set of more lax (laxer?) "laws" for kids and tougher laws for idiots? If the only need met is authority I can think of several dictator who would be interested in this "religion" thing.

I think it is okay to be a hypocrite, sometimes. Or at least preferable to the alternative.



I don't know that that is any different than with religions. There are plenty of people out there who claim to be Christians, even go through the motions of church, prayer, etc, but haven't got much of an idea what the religion is really about. I use this as an example simply because it's the only religion I'm very familiar with (not that I'm VERY familiar with it).


I think that's silly. First of all, how can you not believe in deities, but still believe that they can exist?

Secondly, you're right, those people suck. I wasn't trying to say that all atheists are like that, but I was using them as an example the way people constantly attack religions by using their dregs.

And the dictionary I have on hand also says that while your definition of agnostic is right, so is the one that you said is not. And that's what most agnostics I've talked to on the subject are, myself included (note that as with atheism, I haven't talked to many). I just don't know what to think when it comes to religion. Does that make me a wuss? I just don't like how a lot of Atheists seem to think that logically there can be no God when they offer the same amount of proof that others offer that there is one: none.


I don't really understand any of what you said here, so I don't know how to reply>_>


Well, I think a lot of people still do need it. The reason I advocate religions' varying takes on ethics are the "laws," but there are other reasons I approve of religoins overall. Firstly comes the crap I was talking about with Atheism. And I'm still not trying to say that Atheists are in some way morally worse than Christians (again, just using them since I don't know other religions worth ass), but I think that if anything the religion of Atheism teaches people to live in the moment, because there are no lasting consequences, good or bad.

But the main reason I think more people need religion is hope. Hope for a better life in the future, hope for the betterment of mankind, hope for people who've died, hope for just about everything in life.

I don't know, maybe I'm not making much sense, I'm feeling muddled. And unlike yourself, who seems to be deadset in most of your opinions, I just don't know what to think about religion, among other things. I don't think this means that I'll radically change my opinion any time soon, but it might be a little bit different day to day.

Seems to be your argument in a nutshell

Not to hijack the topic, but:

How is fairness in open debate not the single greatest argument? You can honestly call that "stupid"? The freedom to express a viewpoint and be taken seriously if you produce a solid argument? A society free of absolutes where logic is respected.

Isn't this worth anything to you? "Guiding morals" stem from survival instinct as anyone can tell you. Atheism generally brings about a state of mind which seeks to make society as productive as possible, which is why crime takes such a huge drop among the atheist population.

If these are considered "stupid arguments", I would sure like to know what you consider worthy.

And conversely, I'd love to hear an argument against Atheism that doesn't degrade people's intelligence (from blackcobra or whoever, since you don't wanna answer my first one yet). They usually seem to revolve around the logic that if I hadn't been potty trained, I'd still be shitting in my pants as a grown man.

Thanks for being a jerk instead of contributing something, or whatever.


Well, I'm already tangenting the topic with my questions, so hey.

I don't see what you're talking about? Fairness in open debate? Logic? Freedom of opinion? How are these tenants of Atheism, and not just life altogether?

Yeah, those things are worth plenty to me, but I don't see that they're the result of Atheism, or that they're oppressed by most religions. Survival instinct doesn't teach you morals, if you ask me, it teaches you the opposite. It teaches you that you are important, and nothing else. And morality is, to me, putting others before yourself. And what are you basing the next two comments on? How does Atheism make society more productive (and what do you mean by productive, besides?)? And what are these Atheist societies with such low crime rates?

I don't think they're stupid arguments, I've just never heard them before. I wasn't looking to debunk Atheism or anything with this topic, I was trying to figure out why so many people who think they're so smart subscribe to a religion (well, BC says it's not a religion, I'm still not sure) such as Atheism.

I don't really have any arguments against Atheism except for a few points that I've already brushed on. If you have already read them, feel free to dismiss them or retort. If you haven't, you might.

It's not as difficult as you'd think. It's pretty much saying that "I believe there is a God, I just don't believe in him." (which would really be an understandable thing, at least to me. There are plenty of things out there that could make different people believe God exists, but plenty of other things that give them reason to put any faith in him)



I'd really like to see some examples of this.

1. "Why is open debate a tenant of atheism?" This seems like an obvious one to me, but the foundation of religion is to give answers. Especially with our big 3 religions (christian/jew/muslim) which have a central concept of a universal good and evil. Whereas atheism leaves nothing but the subjective. Every argument is free to be rationalized.

2. "Survival instinct teaches morality?" I think the problem with a lot of people is that they tend to view things at face value. I get what you're seeing, in that you think survival would simply mean clawing at everyone to get what is best for yourself.. which in extreme isolated cases, might be true, but you're completely ignoring the fact that we live among many. Even in simple animals, they build strength and security through numbers. Societies provide safety and stability for the individual. Early civilizations establish religion and law for survival. Probably was progressive at the time, not so much any more. Like I've said a dozen times, religion is just the training wheels for a productive society, you take them off when they start to get in the way.

3. "What is productivity?" Seems simple enough, just freedom, equal rights, fairness, opportunity, economic stability, technological progression. All of these things make survival more stable.

4. "Atheist crime rates?" Feel free to do your own research, but every statistical survey I have seen has had atheists with drastically lower incarceration rates. They also have the lowest divorce rate. Granted, this is probably assisted by the fact that most atheists come from more stable backgrounds that have the luxury of philosophizing and debating social topics. I guess you could also compare the heavily religious US, with the more secular Europe.. which has a much lower prison rate. Not that this really matters. I can tell you that in my experience, atheism has only made me more interested in advancing society. And to the farther extreme, as one of the rare secular determinists, I find myself pretty uninterested in the concept of individuality.

I don't know, I might be lousy at arguing, but this stuff just seems overly clear in my head.

How can you believe in Jesus but not Allah?

Once you understand this you'll understand how I can not believe in any of the DEFINED gods but not outright reject the possible existence of supernatural entities.

In other words, if a book came out that detailed a new supernatural entity that convinced me, I'd believe it. It's not "Your God (and all Gods) can't exist", it's "I haven't seen a God I can believe in yet"



No, it makes you an atheist If you don't know, you don't hold any beliefs. You're atheist. Like I said, it's the basic state of any faithless individual.



"Militant atheists" believe that the paradoxical nature of supernatural entities prevent them from existing due to their nature conflicting with the perceived rationnality of our existence. Since absence of proof is NOT proof of absence, we cannot rationnaly make such a claim.





I thought that was pretty clear. Can you specify which part you didn't understand so I may detail it out further?



As Atheism is NOT a religion but the ABSENCE of a religion, it has no obligation to provide its NONmembers with moral code or dogmatic dictates. Atheism "teaches" you to make up your own mind. That's all there is to it. If you decide you want a better life later, yyou'll tolerate suffering right now. If you believe in short term gain, then you'll be a hedonist. It all depends on you.




I didn't just wake up one day and say "you know what? I reject all known religions". It's a gradual process. I don't think I *could* be converted "back to the flock" in a single day either, so it's not like I'm egocentric enough to believe I could do the opposite.

Why is mild salsa so much better than regular hot salsa?

Mild salsa provides tangy aftertaste without overbearing the natural flavour of the ingredients. It complements any kind of meat and provides numerous vitamins due to its high vegetable content. Hot salsa forces you to drink too much, which dilutes the nutritionnal contribution of your meal and fills you with either empty calories (soda), fast carbs (juice) or ..well.nothing (water).

In short, mild salsa is clearly superior in every aspect.

First of all, sorry for how this looks. I don't know what I did wrong in the quoting. And now that I've done it I'm too lazy to go through and change all quotes to another color, or italics or bold or something.

[quote name='Oroboros' date='Jan 5 2007, 12:39 AM' post='24767']
It's not as difficult as you'd think. It's pretty much saying that "I believe there is a God, I just don't believe in him." (which would really be an understandable thing, at least to me. There are plenty of things out there that could make different people believe God exists, but plenty of other things that give them reason to put any faith in him)
[/quote]

But considering what God has to be if He does exist, how can you believe He exists, but not put your faith in Him? Fucking capitalizing>_>

[quote name='FuckChrist' date='Jan 5 2007, 04:17 AM' post='24781']
1. "Why is open debate a tenant of atheism?" This seems like an obvious one to me, but the foundation of religion is to give answers. Especially with our big 3 religions (christian/jew/muslim) which have a central concept of a universal good and evil. Whereas atheism leaves nothing but the subjective. Every argument is free to be rationalized.
[/quote]

Well, I see what you're getting at, and it does make sense to me, but I still think there's debate in everything, including the big 3. They may have a central concept of universal good and evil, but they don't really define them that well. God is good, the devil is evil. But how do we know what is the work of which? How do we know how to interpret what we read in the texts?

[quote name='FuckChrist' date='Jan 5 2007, 04:17 AM' post='24781']2. "Survival instinct teaches morality?" I think the problem with a lot of people is that they tend to view things at face value. I get what you're seeing, in that you think survival would simply mean clawing at everyone to get what is best for yourself.. which in extreme isolated cases, might be true, but you're completely ignoring the fact that we live among many. Even in simple animals, they build strength and security through numbers. Societies provide safety and stability for the individual. Early civilizations establish religion and law for survival. Probably was progressive at the time, not so much any more. Like I've said a dozen times, religion is just the training wheels for a productive society, you take them off when they start to get in the way.[/quote]

That's true, I was thinking of survival for the one, not the whole. And I see what you're saying here, but do you really think we're ready to be out there on our own? Regardless, we do seem to be moving toward it, with things like the separation of church and state. I'm still not sure what you think the hindrance of religion is, though. I can see using them as training wheels, but what's the problem of keeping them once you get going? I guess that's a huge question, though.

[quote name='FuckChrist' date='Jan 5 2007, 04:17 AM' post='24781']3. "What is productivity?" Seems simple enough, just freedom, equal rights, fairness, opportunity, economic stability, technological progression. All of these things make survival more stable.[/quote]

I'm not so sure that maximum human survival is a good thing, though>_>

[quote name='FuckChrist' date='Jan 5 2007, 04:17 AM' post='24781']4. "Atheist crime rates?" Feel free to do your own research, but every statistical survey I have seen has had atheists with drastically lower incarceration rates. They also have the lowest divorce rate. Granted, this is probably assisted by the fact that most atheists come from more stable backgrounds that have the luxury of philosophizing and debating social topics. I guess you could also compare the heavily religious US, with the more secular Europe.. which has a much lower prison rate. Not that this really matters. I can tell you that in my experience, atheism has only made me more interested in advancing society. And to the farther extreme, as one of the rare secular determinists, I find myself pretty uninterested in the concept of individuality.[/quote]

I have been reading a bit on atheism on wikipedia while trying to make sense in this topic, and I think the main problem I'm having is that I've had a misconception of what atheism is. It's telling me basically what BC said, that atheism in and of itself is the absence of belief, not the belief of absence. And I before had the idea (apparently societally enforced) that atheism was always strong, or militant atheism, which struck me as little more than dopey teenagesque rebellion for the sake of rebellion on a massive scale. Also, I have a strange distrust of all things statistical, so I'm not too interested in looking up the figures on the crime rates>_>

[quote name='FuckChrist' date='Jan 5 2007, 04:17 AM' post='24781']I don't know, I might be lousy at arguing, but this stuff just seems overly clear in my head.
[/quote]

It seems to me you're making some good points, and definitely clearing some things up for me.

[quote name='BlackCobra' date='Jan 5 2007, 07:03 AM' post='24790']
How can you believe in Jesus but not Allah?

Once you understand this you'll understand how I can not believe in any of the DEFINED gods but not outright reject the possible existence of supernatural entities.

In other words, if a book came out that detailed a new supernatural entity that convinced me, I'd believe it. It's not "Your God (and all Gods) can't exist", it's "I haven't seen a God I can believe in yet"[/quote]

Ah.

[quote name='BlackCobra' date='Jan 5 2007, 07:03 AM' post='24790']No, it makes you an atheist If you don't know, you don't hold any beliefs. You're atheist. Like I said, it's the basic state of any faithless individual.[/quote]

Ah>_>

[quote name='BlackCobra' date='Jan 5 2007, 07:03 AM' post='24790']"Militant atheists" believe that the paradoxical nature of supernatural entities prevent them from existing due to their nature conflicting with the perceived rationnality of our existence. Since absence of proof is NOT proof of absence, we cannot rationnaly make such a claim.[/quote]

Right. I guess I've just had bad luck in the atheists I've encountered. The only people I've talked to in real life who've referred to their selves as atheists (at least in my hearing) have been this type. And just giving atheism a cursory glance in the dictionary confirmed my belief that all atheists were the type who rejected the idea of God as a falsehood. But now that I've been reading a little about it (granted, it's wikipedia>_>) and hearing a little about it from you guys I see that I was wrong.

[quote name='BlackCobra' date='Jan 5 2007, 07:03 AM' post='24790']I thought that was pretty clear. Can you specify which part you didn't understand so I may detail it out further?[/quote]
I just didn't get any of it>_>

I think I understand Occam's Razor, but I can't see how it can be applied to something like religion. Or if it is, it seems to me like it would almost always be in favor of God. It's easier to attribute everything to some zany all-powerful force that controls everything than it is to try to work out other reasons for their happening.

[quote name='BlackCobra' date='Jan 5 2007, 07:03 AM' post='24790']As Atheism is NOT a religion but the ABSENCE of a religion, it has no obligation to provide its NONmembers with moral code or dogmatic dictates. Atheism "teaches" you to make up your own mind. That's all there is to it. If you decide you want a better life later, yyou'll tolerate suffering right now. If you believe in short term gain, then you'll be a hedonist. It all depends on you.[/quote]

I guess that's true, it wouldn't really make a good person bad. But it seems to me that it would more often make borderline people bad, and religions that offer rewards based on how you act in life (not that I actually know of any like this, but this is what a lot of people seem to think they do, so it works the same way) will push borderline people toward good. Luma would call this hypocrisy, I guess, but I still think it's better for people to act good when they're not than to be wieners.


[quote name='The President' date='Jan 5 2007, 08:56 AM' post='24813']
Why is mild salsa so much better than regular hot salsa?
[/quote]
Who cares? The middle ground of medium is better than both.

okay, there's a limit to how many quotes you can put in a single post. It's around 5 or 6. I had that problem myself. If you go over it breaks them all. convenient, huh?


Occam's razor is not "go for what is simpler". that's the layman's explanation of it. It says " Go with what has the least improbable/superflouous/both elements". Since God is a HUGE improbable element, occam's razor tends to cut it out.

Uh, argue against Epicureanism ethics/rejection of fears (basically, anything but the science that Epicurus held, I guess)? I don't know if that's clear.

It's not. Do I argue FOR or AGAINST hedonism.

Argue in favor of nihilism

I don't mean hedonism in the "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" sense.

Argue against Epicurus' doctrines of pleasure and how to attain it.

ITT I love BlackCobra.

Well if God himself actually came down from the heavens revealed himself to me I'd know he exists, but I don't think I put faith in Him for simple fact that...well...look at the freaking world we live in. Genocide in Darfur and all that jazz, could God himself possibly justify letting all that happen without a "Well it's not my place to interfere."

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god, and it does not in and of itself mean anything else in regards to the mindset of one with atheist views. The problem with atheism is one of language; basically that it creates an unnatural binary opposition between faith and faithless that should not exist, because the general human tendency is to look at presence (in this case faith) as positive and absence (faithless) as negative. In this way, atheism is seen as 'just another religion,' when in reality it should be the default mode, with faith being an addition.

Egocentric atheists who overextend the application of logic and reason to the world around them as if it were a closed, logical system are lame.

Militant atheists whose sole source of pleasure seems to be destroying the faith of others are lame.

Atheists, in and of themselves, are just as diverse in nature and character as those who hold a faith, and to claim that anything else is present or implied in a word explicitly defined as absence is doing a real disservice to the world.

Seriously, I've had to argue for this countless times lately. So many people seem obsessed with trying to extend the definition of "atheism" or draw it out into something structured. My whole argument for atheism is based on the open nature of it. Creating absolutes would certainly be traveling in the wrong direction.


Edit: Also, I can understand how you can view people trying to impose their views on others as lame, but what would someone's personal opinions on logic/reason/existence have to do with being lame? Granted, I'm not sure what exactly you were trying to say with that sentence, it just seemed out of context.

Because if logic and reason are extended to the real world as if to be universally applicable, then they become your centers, your logos, your gods, and that's just (to talk within democratically saturated binaries) replacing one structure with another. Beliefs are of course fine (which is the answer to your question), but notice that I'm still using the label atheist in that train of thought, albeit facetiously, as their internal belief in logic runs fundamentally incongruent with the absentia of atheism.

Essentially, those who hold beliefs in logic and reason as absolute are not atheists, as they have faith in a logos just as any theists would, and those who still consider themselves to be are the ones that, in the most philosophical sense, are keeping the atheism-as-religion idea alive. That is why they are lame.

Well, I guess if you're trying to talk about it in terms of absolutes. You didn't mention anything about it being an absolute above. I'm not sure it matters anyway? Equating philosophies with gods? Rationality as a god? Communism, anarchism, socialism, humanism, agnosticism... these are all concepts of belief, does that make them religions? You're just stretching definitions.

Isn't it all irrelevant to atheism?

Regardless, I don't quite agree with your view that atheism is an absentia or a "default". Every definition is based on "disbelief" or "denial", both are active words, not passive. A child can not be an atheist until someone tells them what a deity is. That is the foundation of denial, you're defining it as "the absence of knowledge of a god", which isn't correct.

If the world was a closed system which logic could be applied to without fail, then logic would be an absolute, so I spared the repetition.

I don't think rationality is a god, nor would I consider your isms to be religions. The point I'm making is that when so-called atheists spurn 'god,' the logos of all deity-worshippers, but then turn around and make 'reason' their center, they have accomplished nothing other than replacing one religious fervor with another.

The reason why you don't consider atheism a 'default' seems to be because you're still stuck in between the binaries of presence and absence. One does not need to know of the concept of a deity in order to not believe in one. Random House says atheism is disbelief and Princeton says atheism is a lack of belief. Academia is just now realizing the hidden prejudices and motives in language. Daniel Webster believed in God. He believed in God and subconsciously believed in the Western constructs of an ideal Good and of presence overcoming absence. Now, don't you think it makes sense that many dictionaries following his stead would describe atheism as the negative refusal of belief? Doesn't it also make sense that they are much farther away from providing an objective truth about the meaning of this word?

You cannot believe in X until you know of X. Until you do, you do not believe in X. And once you do, you can still not believe in X. You do not refuse to believe in X (in a logical sense), as that indirectly posits a presence-as-more-natural bias onto the world.

Atheism is nothing, and yet it is invaribly 'something,' because language itself is presence. It is a 'something' describing nothing. Strike all language from the world. See a child, wandering the world in a primal state. She does not believe in a god, so what do we call her? We do not call her anything. Bring language back, and we must speak. That silence from before will now be described, and we will choose the word atheist. The bound morpheme prefix 'a' which means 'without' or 'not,' connected to the word 'theist' which means 'one who believes in the existence of one or more deities.'

A-theism : without belief in the existence of one or more deities
A-theist : not one who believes in the existence of one or more deities

The word 'atheism' does not depend on the individual's knowledge of theism, but rather on the linguistic community's knowledge of theism, as it was created out of necessity, rather than out of an arbitary force. Many other words may run adjunct to your argument that belief in one is rejection of another, but they concern worldly philosophies which all signify each other in an endless deferral of meaning, and must all be seen in relation to another. On the other hand, a deity, a perfect being, either is or is not, in accordance to the meaning of perfection, and so we are all born atheists, unless we are clinging to notions of genetic memory. One is not 'raised religious,' one is stolen from the essential nothing of atheism and forced into belief. But how many parents would go around saying this to others?

I'm not sure I understand your point, Bolt. How does trusting reason equate a belief, or even a faith? Can you name situations that defy reason? Have you seen squared circles, people ascend downwards, etc?

I don't see how reason could be wrong without tearing apart the very fabric of our existence.

At some point you need SOME kind of guiding pattern in your mind, or your thought will be unstructured chaos. As I see it you can choose to trust your brain's natural cognitive process or some stuff other people have told you. As much as I hate dichotomies there's really no other (sentient) alternative.

Squared circles, people ascending downwards? The first is a contradiction of geometry, and the second a contradiction of language itself. Neither are based purely on reason, but rather on the internal logic of the closed system of mathematics and the generally agreed upon open system of language. If enough people decided that the word 'ascending' meant moving downwards, then you could see people ascend downwards, but that is a different issue.

Let's look at science. It doesn't apply reason to the world, but rather creates closed systems which are supposed to approximate the world, and which can properly accomodate logic.

A situation that defies reason? How about women? Though our understanding of women has as little to do with 'pure reason' as the world itself, since it builds upon our own beliefs and understanding of what 'reason' itself even is.

Reason is seen by many by 'the faculty of thinking,' which is so vague as to be unusable, so assume I'm referring to logic, in regards to the western system of reasoning. And in that sense, a properly constructed syllogistic statement is only true if its premises are true. And have you noticed that its premises always have to signify human constructs--gender, political belief, and so on? The second a premise refers to the 'real world,' it is no longer logic, but science--science which must attempt to compensate for the complex, unreasonable aspects of the real world.

You make some good points, but I'm still confused.



I propose that both these systems are regulated by logic; if logic didn't apply then you COULD in fact have a squared circle that somehow shares the contradictory properties of both the square and the circle and a non-paradoxical statement of ascending downwards.

Logic's awfully simple. We've all been through the almost child-like A=A algebric approximations, but the underlying principles are key to our entire cognitive process. This is the sense I mean to give reason - applying logic to the sensory input we receive.



This is only limited by our current level of sentience and the development of our neocortexes. Since I see no evidence that these approximations aren't, in fact, approximations (in that they closely represent reality), then why should I not tend towards using these approximations, if only for the time being, as indicators of the way reality actually functions?



*rimshot*

I don't mean "reason" as in "perfectly rational". I pride myself in my own rationnality but I am a human being with emotions and as such I act irrationnaly at times. I still possess REASON. So do women. So do everyone who's not clinically insane.



If you'd like to try a new definition of reason please submit it and I will revise my earlier statements accordingly, but as long as it is a word that belongs in the wonderful open system of language that really doesn't detract from my argument.


I'm pretty sure people in the Eastern Hemisphere use logic too. They might hold different values when judging things, but an apple is still an apple even if you're in Tokyo.



They're only "unreasonable" because our reason is limited by our relatively recent sentience. If we were able to understand the implications of the fundamental laws of physics (and by this I mean the ACTUAL laws, not our approximation via closed systems) then nothing, and I mean NOTHING, would be unexplained.

You might claim I've just elevated the laws of physics to deity status. I'd reply you just knocked down God to physical equation status.

If you don't mean 'reason' as in 'perfectly rational' then we are done here.

To get back on track, atheists who replace their belief in a perfect deity with belief in an infallible reason, and are only able to be atheists by doing so, are only atheists in a semantic, technical manner, rather than by any meaningful usage of the word.

So, basically, if you elevate yourself to godhood then you believe in a god.

Enlightening.

Because you can be an atheist while believing in a god, right?
And because perfect reason is the same as a perfect self and therefore a self-as-god, right?

Not sure what you're doing here.

Argue against Evolution

...what?


Highlighting the absolute self-evidence of your argument. Hey, I'm not disagreeing with it..I just thought it kind of was implied. If you believe one of your attributes to be perfect then you have reached the pinnacle, and godhood. Not all gods share the trifecta of perfection that the Christian God has.