Atheist no longer
Posted on: March 6, 2009 - 7:56pm
Offline
Atheist no longer
Strictly a Pearlian.
I think, perhaps, tf00t has now coined the phrase that Dawkins, Harris and Dennett were looking for.
Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
I've never understood why atheists want to make up new names for themselves "New atheist', 'Bright", and now "PEARLIST".
Saying Muslim is a non-invisible pink unicornist, says nothing about their stance on God
It's like this a set of stances on God
Christian- Believes in the Christian God
Muslim- Believes in the Muslim God
atheist- doesn't believe in any Gods.
see the difference? Where does the non invisible pink unicornist come in?
I think it's just a ploy. Just re-defining something that didn't need re-defining in the first place.
So what, there's sects of atheism now? Bright New atheist and PEARList?
Okay, Stalin wasn't a "pearlist." But he definitely was an atheistic materialist.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Well, you'll note that 'atheism' is a rather crude way to define oneself. Luminon is technically an atheist, for example, and as is EXC - despite framing the world in a way that conforms with few, if any, facts.
Not worshipping a deity is not the same thing as striving to understand the universe as it really is. Hoxha, as you pointed out yourself, was an atheist - but in no way was he otherwise a person with a healthy respect for evidence or reasonable logic. In that way I think that it woud be nice to have an ideological label t distinguish, say, Stalins and Hoxhas from Einsteins, Spinozas, Dawkins's, etc.
'Pearl' is a very elegant-sounding acronym, and accurate enough for my own liking.
Well then, I'll just refer to you as a Creationist, since the 'Deism' is clealry just a 'ploy'. I mean, that's fair enough, right? Afterally, you do believe, in some respect, that the universe was created by an intelligent agency, right?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
WOAH!
I really can't believe it! Paisley, of all people, beat me to my own point.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Just FYI, Big Brother was an atheist.
Ministry Edit: Of course Big Brother is an atheist, citizen. Big Brother only believe in you.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Right so you'd rather create a superiority complex alright then
Hoxha's main method was Communism, a political stance, not a scientific one. Besides, as you pointed out, he had ample evidence that Communism was the cat's pajamas [for him and his party at least] from the Soviet Union. He had ample evidence that Communism would benifit him.
What evidence did he ignore again?
Of course there are different types of God believe. The difference is that God believe is a positive stance so there are many forms of it, there are however, not different ways to NOT believe in God.
WOAH!
I really can't believe it! Paisley, of all people, beat me to my own point.
This what I meant by it being a ploy BTW.
He also didn't believe in invisible pink unicorns. So should I respect all the people that do?
Alison, why did you decide to come, attempt to start a flame war and derail this topic?
While I do enjoy pissing you off, I just thought this concept was rather stupid and wanted to say it, you just got the extra-bitch seasoning.
Are we going with Pearlist or Pearlian?
and..
exactly. They dont fall into the same category
''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''
Kevin, what do you think of the philosophy of defining oneself as a teetotaler?
Actually, shelley, while I've heard the term before - I'm not sure what a 'teetotaler' is. What is it?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Somebody who doesn't consume alcohol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teetotalism
I was really just trying to get at your thoughts on other categories defining themselves as a "lack of..."
That's a good point. So if we look at what being a teetotaler or, say, a vegetarian or a non-smoker means, however, we see that it often covers something very specific: I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't eat meat, etc. None of these stances, by themselves, really gives us an indication of why that person is making that choice. That are dozens of reasons a person might have fr not choosing to smoke or eat meat or drink; medical reasons, religious reasons, personal history, etc.
Atheism is the same. It covers one very specific thing: that you don't believe in/worship a deity.
This gives no indication of the premise behind that lack of belief. If I tell you, "I'm an atheist," I'm actually not telling you much of anything at all, in the same way that, "I don't smoke," doesn't tell you much about me.
"I'm a Pearlian (I really like the 'ian' ending better than an 'ist' ending; 'ist' tends suggest something in the negative)," or, "I'm a Pearlian Atheist," offers a much fuller picture, in the same way that, "I'm a Vegan," or, "I don't smoke because my mother died of lung cancer," offers a much fuller picture.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Yes, but saying you're a Christian or (insert other religion here) also gives no indication as to why you made that choice. It just further clarifies the 'theist' category.
Should Christians call themselves "raised Christians," "scared of hell Christians," "just going to church to get laid Christians," "I actually believe this crap Christians?"
In case you're wondering, my only point here is that I think defining people by what they aren't is much more common than many people instantly realize. Look at all these fancy words we've come up with - teetotaler, abstinent, etc.
This is true, and also a good point - but look at how much confusion it causes when theists stick with their very vague identities.
"I'm a Christian," really doesn't tell me as much about you as a Christian might think it does. Are you a Calvinist? Baptist? Catholic? Are you more like Ken Miller (who would also be largely a Pearlian, except for his belief in a deity), or are you more like Ken Ham? Consider how much more information the term, "Young Earth Creationist," gives us. Now we know more or less exactly where you stand.
Personally, I am all too happy to when Christians further clarify things for me. "Christian since childhood," "Born again Christian," etc, are all completely superior to the typical, "Well, I'm a true Christian! DUH!" answer you usually get when asking one which of the myriad Christian belief systems they conform to.
By that same reasoning, I think we would be only be doing ourselves a service to be a little more specific than simply saying, "I'm an atheist," when talking about our beliefs.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm sticking with wonderism. For me it's not enough to enumerate the methodological principles that lead to knowledge. That doesn't guide you in the application and appreciation of knowledge. Wonder, on the other hand, does. I think Thunderf00t is on the right track -- it's a track I've been on for a long time -- but he hasn't yet gone deep enough into it. He's getting there, and I think he'll eventually arrive at a similar position, just not yet.
In fact, he implicitly applies the idea of wonderism. However, it is a hidden assumption, not one that's explicitly acknowledged. He seeks knowledge, but doesn't acknowledge why he does. To him, it is "self-evident". He says, "If you start from first principles, you can get as far as 'I think therefore I am', before you have to start making assumptions." But why do we 'have to start' making assumptions? Why bother pursuing the problem any further? Why not, like the bomb in Dark Star, be happy with solipsism or nihilism? What difference does it make?
To solve the problem of the bomb from Dark Star, you have to give a good reason why nihilism and solipsism are to be rejected. The bomb is fundamentally right: It is true that we cannot know absolutely that we are not brains in vats. What reason, therefore, can we summon to rise up out of the 'Nihilistic Pit', as I call it.
There is one not-so-obvious-until-you-think-about-it-and-then-it-becomes-so-obvious-that-it-seems-like-a-no-brainer reason: We wonder. I don't know that my 'sensory inputs' are not 'false data', but I do wonder about it. I desire to learn and to know more than I do. I spontaneously ask questions of my experiences, and seek answers that satisfy this desire to know. I wonder. It is in fact this natural capacity of wonder that is the foundation of understanding, upon which thunderf00t's PEARL is built.
So, I have no problem with thunderf00t's PEARL idea, but I do see its limitations. Specifically, I find that my focus on wonder has allowed me to make progress against positions such as postmodernism, new ageism, apathetic agnosticism, and liberal theism, for example. I find that arguments from pure scientific pragmatism are not sufficient, as these ideologies are resistant to what they perceive as 'scientific dogmatism'.
"Sure, science can give us cell phones, but what's so great about that?" they will ask. They will talk about the value of metaphor, intuition, and aesthetics. PEARL will not have a reply to these lines of discussion, but wonderism does.
(Everything else in the video I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with.)
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Atheism is not really the same. You define yourself as an atheist in order to draw the ire of believers.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You're so correct, Paisley.
How anyone could ever recover from those devastating one-two punches you throw escapes me. Surely this whole forum's membership can only writhe at your feet in agony by now.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
This is ridiculous. I call myself an atheist simply because it properly describes my lack of belief. The word would not even be used if theists had not necessitated such a designation with their constant badgering and interrogation of others throughout the millenia. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a world where the word "atheist" doesn't need to be used at all.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
...Well, okay.
Everyone except Brian. He's a real trooper.
Aside from this being a naked assertion, the two sentences aren't even logically coherent. It is irrelevant what term I use to define myself because it wouldn't change of the definition of the word; you equivocated a definition with an intent! How the **** did you do that?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Atheist is a political put down by theists as they assume theism is the default position and someone has made the effort to reject it.
This is of course bollocks as everyone is born an atheist but that is the political reality and while some people try to rebrand the word (awful word bright) others just try to reclaim it.
Thank you for that, Paisley.
That displays about as clearly as possible in a short comment just how thoroughly ignorant, arrogant, deluded, and illogical you are.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Paisley is just a theist, he isn't a C.L.A.M
You know what's funny? Other people call me an atheist far more often than I call myself one. I call myself a rationalist, or a materialist. If my audience knows enough about either one, the fact that I don't believe in God should be relatively obvious.
That's the thing a lot of people don't seem to get about me. To me, atheism is a byproduct of my worldview, not the defining paradigm. Sure, I'll argue the reasons why I'm an atheist, and point out why the arguments for theism are bunk, but if it's slipped past anybody, I'm much more interested in studying the science of what IS real than spending all my time harping about what's not. I try to sell science, rationalism, and materialism, which naturally entails atheism.
Having said that, I don't give a shit if you call me an atheist or not. It's true. KB has a point -- it doesn't say a lot about me other than my lack of one belief. However, who says I necessarily want everybody to know everything about me from one moniker? I find the whole atheist/bright/freethinker debate to be tedious and boring.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Of course he was.
Where's that "beating a dead horse" picture, Captain? It's desperately required.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Don't forget "cringeworthy" and "ultimately pointless".
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence