The Atheist Perk

[waitasec]

"He that is slow to believe anything and everything are of great understanding, for the belief in one false principal is the beginning of all unwisdom"-Anton LaVey

i like that quote...
it describes the mind of a skeptic...at least for me it does.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Freedom to think, I can't think of a better perk than that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Empathy.

How so? Surely empathy is derived from common understanding. Based on the debates you've had on here so far, I see very little common understanding between how you and others see the world. Your logic dictates that nothing can be considered real or known, so by your own philosophy you cannot have empathy with any one or any thing since common understanding cannot possibly exist in a universe without absolutes. It makes no sense.

Though as you can see, and as you have experienced yourself.

Many people doubt me, and most likely dislike me because I tend to challenge what is commonly accepted.

That's not the reason. The reason is because you deny everything in favour of meaningless, empty philosophies with no basis in reality. A person who refuses to eat because they believe the food put in front of them does not exist is not "challenging what is commonly accepted as food". He's just being irrational.

I don't have a problem with that, what I have a problem with is people denying the very source of their motive to extend such an attitude towards me.

I think you are projecting here. For the most part, it is best to not stoke your own ego by assuming that anyone who has a problem with you only does so because of some ulterior motive.

Obviously everyone possess knowledge, its just people usually like to think they are more right than other people (including myself) which is why its so hard to try and communicate a sincere plea for self development.

I want nothing more to be more knowledgeable and more understanding of the ways of life, I don't care for what people think of me and I don't care for what most people do.

If you want to be more knowledgeable, then it would help to listen to what people tell you and dispose of your meaningless "nothing can be known" mentality that you have used as a rebuttal against so many arguments here and in other threads.

Metaphorically, I try to see the picture before it was ever brought into existence.

That makes no sense.

There is always a new horizon to seek, and by understanding the nature of ourselves we can continue towards the path in which we seek. However, most people soak in their own filth, thinking its gold.

Which is what I would say of you. You soak yourself in empty metaphors, nonsensical philosophies and try to believe you are somehow wise beyond your years. You are not.

In this regard, I cannot be content, because this filth follows me everywhere I go, and is only cleaned by those who can sincerely oppose me without attempting to boost their ego by getting personal and making hot headed remarks.

Its easy for people to say "drop the attitude" but its hard to do here when the only way of communication is through the vague meanings we call words.

Everyone else seems to be able to do it just fine. The only person who seems to have an issue with words here is you.

I know you know enough to realize that some people are more straightforward with what they are trying to say, and that other people attach double meanings to what they say.

Really its just a confusing mess I am trying to sort out, but the spite of others only encourages me more.

But you are not sorting it out, and you're never even really attempting to. Everything you say is either nonsensical jibberish or utterly meaningless.

Call me hard headed, I know my intent, and I know my own master plan, and there is nothing that can throw it off course, because it is designed to be driven without one.

That's a perfect example.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I thought it was rather simple, but I suppose I can break it down for those who lack imagination and apprehension.

Education means nothing to someone if they cannot realize that there is education that was designed in opposition of a certain aspect.

Obviously, Christian education is contrary to public education, these two positions mean nothing if one side thinks they're anymore right than the other.



Thats what I said, people who usually study one aspect of life usually become inclined to develop biases and feel the need to shoot down any opposition instead of caring for its existence and caring to learn from it.

The opposition?

What? Informed education vs. intentional ignorance?

 

[Orias]

The opposition?

What? Informed education vs. intentional ignorance?

Is a child intentionally ignorant or just willing to learn that which the elders teach?

Does educating yourself in one aspect of education make you intentionally ignorant to the other aspects?

Of course not, but then again, one could chose to say many are intentionally, perhaps helplessly ignorant, because of certain biases they possess, and what they like and don't like.

 

[Orias]

How so? Surely empathy is derived from common understanding. Based on the debates you've had on here so far, I see very little common understanding between how you and others see the world. Your logic dictates that nothing can be considered real or known, so by your own philosophy you cannot have empathy with any one or any thing since common understanding cannot possibly exist in a universe without absolutes. It makes no sense.

What doesn't make sense is how you arrived to this position, I never said that nothing can be considered real or known, just that which is, is commonly misconceived of, like God or how the universe was created. We can only guess, and we can only bring what we imagine into existence with meaning. Observation is merely placing the labels and words we have created into perception.

By empathy, I understand how other people react psychologically to that which they dislike, and to that which they like. By empathy, I understand that most people like to think of themselves as being right. My position is one that is indifferent to those who dogmatically insist that their rational is the only rational stance, when those who insist on such an instance have yet to prove that they actually know anything.

That's not the reason. The reason is because you deny everything in favour of meaningless, empty philosophies with no basis in reality. A person who refuses to eat because they believe the food put in front of them does not exist is not "challenging what is commonly accepted as food". He's just being irrational.

Denial is different from challenging.

But yes, I agree with what you said, denying what is commonly accepted can be an irrational stance (like the one you provided), but challenging what is commonly accepted is different however.

To challenge is to test and observe what the opposition has to offer, science has been pretty keen on this throughout its existence. Your example shouldn't have to be tested however, since eating is something we do from birth. But I am sure you are capable of putting different situations in practice.

I think you are projecting here. For the most part, it is best to not stoke your own ego by assuming that anyone who has a problem with you only does so because of some ulterior motive.

You say that out of the simple convenience that everyone is on your side. And the statement I made was made from the observation of who is in this thread, since most of the people here I have had many debates with, and I familiar with their tactics and their general attitude and view towards me.

Ulterior motives, bah, I am not so naive to underlying tones.

If you want to be more knowledgeable, then it would help to listen to what people tell you and dispose of your meaningless "nothing can be known" mentality that you have used as a rebuttal against so many arguments here and in other threads.

I do listen, but I don't just accept it like its some type of God given word.

I come from the perspective that respect is earned and not given, of course though many people here have earned my respect, I still tend to take the opposite side out of pure joy.

By opposing that which is commonly accepted, the common acceptance has no choice but to make itself stronger to that which it opposes and that which opposes it. Unless of course the opposition is underestimated, then its in for a big surprise.

Simple, you don't become more competent by not doing or making yourself weaker to that which choses to oppose.

That makes no sense.

To those who lack imagination, yea, it makes no sense.

But pictures come from somewhere before they become pictures, obviously.

Which is what I would say of you. You soak yourself in empty metaphors, nonsensical philosophies and try to believe you are somehow wise beyond your years. You are not.

There's no need to get personal now, you don't know me that much to be making such a giant assumption.

Heh, empty metaphors, I might give you a frubal if you can even discern what they are.

This statement is in and of itself, reflective upon your own view that you yourself are "more wise", but you know nothing. And so it pours.

Everyone else seems to be able to do it just fine. The only person who seems to have an issue with words here is you.

Thats because I understand that not all words are spoken sincerely, and are even spoken to mean what they are defined as.

Just because you aren't encountering or have encountered a situation similar to mine doesn't mean that "everyone else seems to be able to do it just fine".

Forgive me for questioning the judgement of those who present their perception as a factual sidestep.

People usually don't like to get hit, metaphorically and physically, so people usually do what they can to avoid or make the situation seem more profound than it actually is.

But you are not sorting it out, and you're never even really attempting to. Everything you say is either nonsensical jibberish or utterly meaningless.

So because people can't or don't care to understand what I say automatically means that I'm not caring to sort it out?

What makes what you have to say any more meaningful or rational than that which a baby utters? Because apparently they speak a language too, and the moon has a face on it.

That's a perfect example.

Meaningless to you, perhaps, but then again the statement above really has no meaning besides to poke the kitty in a cage.

 

[waitasec]

Is a child intentionally ignorant or just willing to learn that which the elders teach?

Does educating yourself in one aspect of education make you intentionally ignorant to the other aspects?

Of course not, but then again, one could chose to say many are intentionally, perhaps helplessly ignorant, because of certain biases they possess, and what they like and don't like.

good post...really good.

 

[laffy_taffy]

You have got to be kidding me! Heinz height? ROFLMAO! How old are you anyway? There is no such phrase referring to "Heinz height". It wouldn't even make sense the way you attempted to cover yourself by "defining" it. And then to claim you never heard of the word hindsight? Probably because you have been using "Heinz height" incorrectly in its place for so long that you never realized that the word "hindsight" existed. Busted!

Actually it was a term that I learned in school, but I wouldn't doubt it if my World Issues teacher may have misused the term. But he described it in a way that allowed understanding of certain things without it occurring to someone.

Well, that is basically how you define HINDSIGHT. Your teacher was using the term correctly, you just misunderstood what he was saying and thought he was saying "Heinz Height".

And Heinz Height is a reference to the ketchup and the difficulty it is to acquire such a perfection.

I've never heard of Hind's Sight but I looked it up and it kind is like a "post-amble" if you will.

OK, let me look again at your usage:

Atheism is merely a position that reflects upon an individuals belief involving the existence of God (not defined). When you take the label "atheist" onto yourself you are essentially denying God by saying I merely lack belief at the lack of "evidence", which is in Heinz height completely subject to the person.

Now, you're saying here, that this is supposed to be some kind of analogy related to ketchup and "perfection"? Say what??????

But to bring up another point, you say there is no such thing as that phrase, when I clearly explained the analogy behind it. So it does actually exist, I'm sorry I say things to your liking.

Yes, I googled the phrase just to give you the benefit of the doubt and never found anything even remotely close. You would think that if a "teacher" used that phrase, that one other person in the whole entire world would have used it somewhere in order to be included. After all, if they have all sorts of slang dictionaries and colloquialisms out there, you would think that this phrase would be included SOMEWHERE!

I don't mean to keep picking on you about this, but you are bringing it on yourself with your attempt to claim it is analogy about ketchup and perfection. If you can't be honest about something like this, then how are we going to take you seriously about anything else you say?

 

[Orias]

OK, let me look again at your usage:



Now, you're saying here, that this is supposed to be some kind of analogy related to ketchup and "perfection"? Say what??????

I didn't figure subjectiveness was that hard to understand.

Yes, I googled the phrase just to give you the benefit of the doubt and never found anything even remotely close. You would think that if a "teacher" used that phrase, that one other person in the whole entire world would have used it somewhere in order to be included. After all, if they have all sorts of slang dictionaries and colloquialisms out there, you would think that this phrase would be included SOMEWHERE!

Maybe you should google the definition of phrase.

I don't mean to keep picking on you about this, but you are bringing it on yourself with your attempt to claim it is analogy about ketchup and perfection. If you can't be honest about something like this, then how are we going to take you seriously about anything else you say?

You are the one saying its not, when clearly I have definitions to back me up.

 

[DinChild]

I don't mean to keep picking on you about this, but you are bringing it on yourself with your attempt to claim it is analogy about ketchup and perfection. If you can't be honest about something like this, then how are we going to take you seriously about anything else you say?

You are the one saying its not, when clearly I have definitions to back me up.

He isn't the only one. If I recall, I'm the one who originally brought up the ridiculousness of "Heinz Height." At first, I thought it was a joke. Then you provided backstory, subjective though it may have been; which even then was humorous. But now you're arguing that you've offered "definitions" to back you up? This has gone WAY too far. Heinz Height has not now, nor will ever be a phrase in ANY reality. Laffy Taffy is right, if you're this stalwart and stubborn to this cause; either defending a misinformed teacher, or defending your pride for mishearing something, then it's difficult to value any other opinion you have. I admit that is a Poison the Well fallacy, but come on. Appreciate the absurdness of this specific claim. Heinz Height...The height of ketchup. Perfection. Are we to believe, at long last, that it's actually ketchup that's 20/20?

Yes, I googled the phrase just to give you the benefit of the doubt and never found anything even remotely close. You would think that if a "teacher" used that phrase, that one other person in the whole entire world would have used it somewhere in order to be included. After all, if they have all sorts of slang dictionaries and colloquialisms out there, you would think that this phrase would be included SOMEWHERE!

Maybe you should google the definition of phrase.

1. Phrase: (noun) a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit, typically forming a component of a clause.

2. Phrase: (noun) an idiomatic or short pithy expression.

I'll go on the record and say that any individual who's graduated to middle school could define "phrase." But since you've challenged Laffy taffy with the task, I'll push further and define other words within its definition to avoid confusion...and essentially save time.

The bold definition is the only one worth looking into. While the first definition clearly allows your argument to stand on its feet, it's HARDLY what laffy taffy and myself have been saying; and basically sidelines the issue. If I may, to dissuade you from furthering this definition's cause (should you have wanted to,) I will provide a NEW phrase: *clears throat* Plank baldness of rank mounted Montague, alas!

There, according to definition #1, that is a phrase...Bearing this in mind, it's not a phrase culturally relevant, much less extant. So, we move on.

Idiomatic: (noun) using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker.

Expression: (noun) a word or phrase, esp an idiomatic one, used to convey an idea.

The definition of "idiomatic" implies that it's natural to a native speaker. Something that has grown within the cultural lexicon as a sort of verbal short-cut to convey an idea. An expression.

You, however, don't provide definitions. You claim to provide definitions because you believe what you've experienced is reality for the rest of the world. So we should all just accept what you have to say. No. Heinz Height will NEVER be a phrase. Nor an idiomatic expression. It will be nothing. Just like the basis of this entire argument.

It is fun, though. One more beer to go!

 

[paratrooper1993]

there are two kinds of atheist, the one really disbelieve in god, and the one that hates god. and i think the one that hates god is the one who loves go the most. think about it, why taje up your time and effort just to mock god if you dont believe in him? if he doesnt believe in god, why think about mocking him everyday, every second of his life? he does actually believe in god, he just haates god. and thats a sin that we cannot repent if we blaspheme god. for this type, there is no perk at all.
but the one who can really care less about god is the happiest. he doesnt have any religion and its rules to follow.

 

[Orias]

Ok then, I'll make this simple and without complication.


phrase (frz)
n.
1. A sequence of words intended to have meaning.
2.
a. A characteristic way or mode of expression.
b. A brief, apt, and cogent expression.
3. A word or group of words read or spoken as a unit and separated by pauses or other junctures.
4. Grammar Two or more words in sequence that form a syntactic unit that is less than a complete sentence.
5. Music A short passage or segment, often consisting of four measures or forming part of a larger unit.
6. A series of dance movements forming a unit in a choreographic pattern.
v. phrased, phras·ing, phras·es
v.tr.
1. To express orally or in writing: The speaker phrased several opinions.
2. To pace or mark off (something read aloud or spoken) by pauses.
3. Music
a. To divide (a passage) into phrases.
b. To combine (notes) in a phrase.
v.intr.
1. To make or render phrases, as in reading aloud.
2. Music To perform a passage with the correct phrasing.


a·nal·o·gy (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. Biology Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure.
3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
4. Linguistics The process by which words or morphemes are re-formed or created on the model of existing grammatical patterns in a language, often leading to greater regularity in paradigms, as evidenced by helped replacing holp and holpen as the past tense and past participle of help on the model of verbs such as yelp, yelped, yelped.

You skimp out on this by saying only part of the definition supports me, but thats all I need. I don't need any linguistic mumbo jumbo behind it.

As stupid as it is, it is what it is, a phrase and an analogy.

 

[crocusj]

there are two kinds of atheist, the one really disbelieve in god, and the one that hates god. and i think the one that hates god is the one who loves go the most. think about it, why taje up your time and effort just to mock god if you dont believe in him? if he doesnt believe in god, why think about mocking him everyday, every second of his life? he does actually believe in god, he just haates god. and thats a sin that we cannot repent if we blaspheme god. for this type, there is no perk at all.
but the one who can really care less about god is the happiest. he doesnt have any religion and its rules to follow.

Well, you might be right that a person who hates a god and spends every waking moment attacking a god most probably does believe in that god. And he is most certainly unhappy. But then that would not make him any kind of atheist at all, would it?
I suspect that most atheists (at least those of my acquaintance) really don't care. However, it seems to me that you are saying that there are only two types and that if an atheist mocks a god then he is not an atheist and that is just not the case. It is worth noting that mocking a religion is not mocking the god of that religion, just someones take on it, Mocking a religion it not exclusive to atheists either, in fact it would appear to be a national, cultural and compulsory aspect to many believers of certain religions to do just this.
But some atheists do care and see it as important to attack (for want of a better word) not just the idea of a god's existence but also the influence belief in that god might have in the world around them. For instance, I do not believe that the god of the Christians exists at all but I do believe HE has had a profound influence on the rights of homosexuals. Mocking or attacking that god does not realise belief in in that god and it should not be assumed - ever - that it does. We are all in this life together and nobody's beliefs get a free ride, why should they?

 

[Tristesse]

there are two kinds of atheist, the one really disbelieve in god, and the one that hates god. and i think the one that hates god is the one who loves go the most. think about it, why taje up your time and effort just to mock god if you dont believe in him? if he doesnt believe in god, why think about mocking him everyday, every second of his life? he does actually believe in god, he just haates god. and thats a sin that we cannot repent if we blaspheme god. for this type, there is no perk at all.
but the one who can really care less about god is the happiest. he doesnt have any religion and its rules to follow.

How can you hate something that you don't believe exists? It would be like saying people who don't believe santa clause exists actually hate santa clause. It's non-sensical to hate something that you don't believe exists.

 

[Orias]

How can you hate something that you don't believe exists? It would be like saying people who don't believe santa clause exists actually hate santa clause. It's non-sensical to hate something that you don't believe exists.

I think he was speaking of the attitude that some may possess. Distaste towards the object, in that sense I would have to agree with him.

 

[crocusj]

The perks of atheism are - of course; the money, the celebrity and the babes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is a child intentionally ignorant or just willing to learn that which the elders teach?

Does educating yourself in one aspect of education make you intentionally ignorant to the other aspects?

Of course not, but then again, one could chose to say many are intentionally, perhaps helplessly ignorant, because of certain biases they possess, and what they like and don't like.

Indeed.

 

[Matthew78]

there are two kinds of atheist, the one really disbelieve in god, and the one that hates god. and i think the one that hates god is the one who loves go the most. think about it, why taje up your time and effort just to mock god if you dont believe in him? if he doesnt believe in god, why think about mocking him everyday, every second of his life? he does actually believe in god, he just haates god. and thats a sin that we cannot repent if we blaspheme god. for this type, there is no perk at all.
but the one who can really care less about god is the happiest. he doesnt have any religion and its rules to follow.

A person who believes that there really does exist a god but hates that god would best be called a misotheist. In the years that I considered myself an atheist, I considered myself first and foremost a freethinker, then a Secular Humanist, and then an atheist. I never "mocked god" as an atheist but I did pardoy some religions which included taking popular church songs and perverting them to make the lyrics sound dirty and offensive to believers.

Nowadays I don't do this. I don't mock or ridicule religion these days. I have moved onto "greener pastures" so to speak. I'm more interested in learning about different holy books, religions, and faith communities and discovering where they came from and how they evolved than I am in mocking them. There are still some religions that I critique, particularly Abrahamic religions. I critique doctrines like "biblical inerrancy" and belief that Jesus Christ rose from dead. I also critique attempts to defend these doctrines and the dishonest spin performed in such attempts.