3 ms·

You're nitpicking that I said "a deity will intervene" instead of "a deity might intervene," which is really very irrelevant to what I'm getting at. (Especially

by Retra 8y ago

You're nitpicking that I said "a deity will intervene" instead of "a deity might intervene," which is really very irrelevant to what I'm getting at. (Especially when talking about it as an assumption which is used to justify some behavior.) I'm not trying to have a religious argument, I'm trying to have an argument about how to practically classify and understand humans and their beliefs. >I think anybody, atheists included, would want to explain their position. I'd be curious as to exactly in what way I'm not acting like an atheist by responding here. I have a position, I am explaining it. An atheist would have a position and they would want to explain it. An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. When I said "act like an atheist" I meant it. I meant act exactly like an atheist -- make the decisions they would be expected to make -- up to and including the decision of what specific positions they might take up defense of.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vinceguidry 8y ago
I'm glad you edited your response. > An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important. Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.
- Retra 8y ago
  The specifics matter because that's the subject under discussion. A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one. The use of the word "atheist" is what dictates which facts are relevant to the determination, not what is convenient to me. I'd be having the exact same discussion if we were talking about what makes an auto mechanic and auto mechanic. Particularly if someone started by trying to argue that saying "I am an auto mechanic" is the only relevant fact to the matter. To be an auto mechanic, you have to act like one. That is, you have to do the things which fit the expectations and meaning of the term. That's it. That's all I've been discussing this whole time. You keep trying to drag it into the weeds because you're offended or something. Lets end this tedious conversation already.
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    Fine, whatever. I shouldn't expect an atheist to be able to be specific about what a theist is. After all, you need belief to even be able to begin to understand it anyway. Sure, ok, let's talk about atheism instead. If only so you can have a sure footing. I'll ask the questions so you can answer. > A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one. That claim is... fascinating. It hearkens all the way back to the beginning of Christianity. Faith, what you call belief, is what makes you a Christian. According to you, works, actions, is what makes you an atheist. Most atheists tell me that it's lack of belief / faith that makes you an atheist. You're literally the first atheist in my 15 years of exploring the space that has said to me that it's actions that makes you an atheist, not lack of belief. I have never even once contemplated that atheism could be so like Islam in this way. So understand that your claim is quite the interesting one to me. So are you saying that there are atheists in name but not in deed? That there are atheists who don't toe the party line, so shouldn't be considered "real" atheists? Because that's the space you're inhabiting here when you claim it's by action and not by belief. It would be a rather fun debate space to play in, markedly different from the usual one where I have to take ever finer slices out of what the meaning of "belief" is so as to show that the atheist's position necessarily reflects belief instead of the lack thereof, and then showing that the "agnostic atheist" is belied by his actual debate style rather than his stated (non-) beliefs.

by Retra 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vinceguidry 8y ago

I'm glad you edited your response. > An atheist would not explain the position that you're explaining. The existence of a commonality doesn't preclude any differences. I'm simply arguing that the differences exist and are very important when understanding what people believe. Now it's you that's nitpicking. The specifics only matter when you want them to matter. When they're inconvenient to you, you simply say you don't want to have a religious discussion. If you want to say what theists do and why, you're having a religious discussion. Because the reasons are important. Me saying I'm acting like anyone would is right in line with how everybody else would use that phrase. If I get mad at something, it's just like everyone else getting mad at something, even if the reasons why I'm getting mad are different. Acting like someone is not doing exactly the same thing. Postgres has a LIKE operator, and it's not the equivalence operator.

Retra 8y ago
The specifics matter because that's the subject under discussion. A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one. The use of the word "atheist" is what dictates which facts are relevant to the determination, not what is convenient to me. I'd be having the exact same discussion if we were talking about what makes an auto mechanic and auto mechanic. Particularly if someone started by trying to argue that saying "I am an auto mechanic" is the only relevant fact to the matter. To be an auto mechanic, you have to act like one. That is, you have to do the things which fit the expectations and meaning of the term. That's it. That's all I've been discussing this whole time. You keep trying to drag it into the weeds because you're offended or something. Lets end this tedious conversation already.
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  Fine, whatever. I shouldn't expect an atheist to be able to be specific about what a theist is. After all, you need belief to even be able to begin to understand it anyway. Sure, ok, let's talk about atheism instead. If only so you can have a sure footing. I'll ask the questions so you can answer. > A person is an atheist because of the specific things they do to be one. That claim is... fascinating. It hearkens all the way back to the beginning of Christianity. Faith, what you call belief, is what makes you a Christian. According to you, works, actions, is what makes you an atheist. Most atheists tell me that it's lack of belief / faith that makes you an atheist. You're literally the first atheist in my 15 years of exploring the space that has said to me that it's actions that makes you an atheist, not lack of belief. I have never even once contemplated that atheism could be so like Islam in this way. So understand that your claim is quite the interesting one to me. So are you saying that there are atheists in name but not in deed? That there are atheists who don't toe the party line, so shouldn't be considered "real" atheists? Because that's the space you're inhabiting here when you claim it's by action and not by belief. It would be a rather fun debate space to play in, markedly different from the usual one where I have to take ever finer slices out of what the meaning of "belief" is so as to show that the atheist's position necessarily reflects belief instead of the lack thereof, and then showing that the "agnostic atheist" is belied by his actual debate style rather than his stated (non-) beliefs.