Former Atheists

[Bearcules]

At around 02:10 you can see the baby theist starting to play the "I know it's fact" game.

Awww. Isn't that cute?


No. It's fucking disgusting.

Blah, that video makes me physically ill. The fact that his degree is a real one (apparently from the University of California) makes his "Evolution is based on faith" argument all the more slimy and dishonest.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

You'd think someone with his credentials would leave more traces on the internet.
I can find absolutely nothing about him - except Christian websites.

I did find an RL Oliver via scholar.google.com, but that's all Australian when it's about biology and british when it's about consumer behaviour. Quaint.

 

[RichardMNixon]

The guy at 2:10 was hilarious, I hope he was a Poe that managed to sneak into the video.

 

[Don-Sama]

Hmm I think most people that call themselves atheists never have really thought about it at all. so when some guy comes along and claims to know everything, and he sounds convincing and seems to be talking sense then they naturally are converted pretty easily. The same can naturally happen the other way around, a sort of self calling atheists listens to a atheists who can reason and assumes it makes sense.

many people just believe what they are told without asking or doubting. But hey everyone does this in some degree. When chompsky is talking you assume he's talking sense right? but when you hear some priest talk you assume he's talking shit.

The start of reasoning or good viewpoints is to start reasoning and doubting, but time is to scarce to doubt or reason everything you hear.. so shit happens.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

The same can naturally happen the other way around, a sort of self calling atheists listens to a atheists who can reason and assumes it makes sense.

A trick that I personally use is to pause the video when a problem is posed, come up with my own answer and continue watching. If the atheist argument goes a different direction than my counter-argument I try to anticipate what they're going to say using my own logical faculties.
Works like a charm, especially with TheoreticalBullshit's videos.

 

[ChopStewie]

At around 02:10 you can see the baby theist starting to play the "I know it's fact" game.
Awww. Isn't that cute?
No. It's fucking disgusting.

Would rage again.

How can people operate like this? It's always an endless stream coplaints about bias in the "scientific community", and 'gotcha' tactic in debates, yet no reasonable attempt to change the scientific paradigm via legitimate means. Then the inevitable criticism that science does not have sole authority on "legitimate means" , or the comment simply demonstrates the bias.

an, endless, maddening cycle.

...on topic, any 'former Atheist' I've seen has praise lavished on them by (more typical?) believers, as it strongly vindicates their beliefs. Simply narcissism might be the culprit here.

 

[jericomovie]

I used to be atheist, but now am not.

I've pointed this out in conversations because it helps move the conversation along. It also seems to help to say I was Skinnerian, and a hard determinist, so conversations can skip over preliminary talks of conditioning history and neurology.

I actually have an issue with the word. I suppose that "atheist" does not mean "I don't know". This is a point of significant contention, because most atheists assume non-belief, rather than taking a positive stance on the issue. As it seems to me, any position of "I don't know" is not going to occupy any ism.

If "agnosticism" comes to mind as an exception, I'd suppose this is actually a positive position itself, in reference to the limitation of human epistemology and intellect, and supposes that God, if such does exist, is hopelessly beyond our reckoning.

 

[australopithecus]

This is a point of significant contention, because most atheists assume non-belief, rather than taking a positive stance on the issue.

Out of interest, how would an (honest) atheist take a positive stance on an issue that has nothing to support it except the faith of those who believe in gods?

 

[jericomovie]

This is a point of significant contention, because most atheists assume non-belief, rather than taking a positive stance on the issue.

Out of interest, how would an (honest) atheist take a positive stance on an issue that has nothing to support it except the faith of those who believe in gods?

Simply to say, "There is no God."

 

[australopithecus]

Simply to say, "There is no God."

Which is why I included 'honest' in brackets. Why would one profess such a belief, and it would be a belief, with zero evidence either way? They generally don't, hence agonstic atheism (and agnostic theism). I'm not going to profess the positive belief that 'There are no gods' because I have nothing to support that claim. Besides, atheism is not the rejection of the existence of gods, it's a rejection of the claim they do, or rather the faith they do.

 

[jericomovie]

Which is why I included 'honest' in brackets. Why would one profess such a belief, and it would be a belief, with zero evidence either way? They generally don't, hence agonstic atheism (and agnostic theism). I'm not going to profess the positive belief that 'There are no gods' because I have nothing to support that claim. Besides, atheism is not the rejection of the existence of gods, it's a rejection of the claim they do, or rather the faith they do.

I see what you're saying, but again, such is not the basis of an ism.

But, I think there might be an interesting conversation in this (also):

Most people suppose that the regular dis-proving of supposed mystical events (lightning, mental illness, etc.) as "mundane" natural events is evidence "against the existence of God". Do you? Moreover, are you claiming to disagree with the phrase, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?

 

[australopithecus]

I see what you're saying, but again, such is not the basis of an ism.

Well ism is defined as many things.

-ism (iz"²Ã‰â„¢m)

1. the act, practice, or result of: terrorism
2. the condition of being: pauperism
3. action, conduct, or qualities characteristic of: patriotism
4. the doctrine, school, theory, or principle of: cubism, socialism
5. devotion to: nationalism
6. an instance, example, or peculiarity of: Gallicism, witticism
7. an abnormal condition caused by: alcoholism
8. belief, attitudes, actions, or conduct characterized by prejudice or bigotry related to: ageism, classism, sexism.

I'd argue that seeing as theism is defined as a belief and atheism a lack of the same belief then it's as much an ism as an ism can be. Personally I'd say it falls under the highlighted.

Most people suppose that the regular dis-proving of supposed mystical events (lightning, mental illness, etc.) as "mundane" natural events is evidence "against the existence of God". Do you?

I wouldn't say disproving the lack of a devine mechanism for lightening, or general 'bad things' is evidence against a god. That god could just be a bit of a sociopath, and the fact that lightening has completely natural explainations doesn't = no god(s). So no, I don't see anything that exists as evidence for or against god(s) (though I would be inclined to say it is evidence of gods that have nothing to do with the running of the universe, a deist god for example). I see those things as evidence that those things exist.

Moreover, are you claiming to disagree with the phrase, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"?

Not really, I'd disagree witht the phrase that 'absence of evidence is proof of absence' but the fact that there generally is zero evidence for god(s) is a pretty big sign. But then I also agree with the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' so maybe the evidence for gods is so extraordinary that we're not in a position to find/observe it. Or maybe gods dont exist at all. Either way, until said evidence is presented I will remain skeptical.

 

[jericomovie]

I agree on your latter two points. Your first, I do not. To suppose the prefix "a-" is only the passive negation of "theism," as you have, is not how such is normally done in the language. For example:

agnosticism: god cannot be known
amoralism: morality is not plausible
acosmism: disbelief in existence of eternal universe distinct from God
adevism: denial of gods of mythology and legend
anarchism: doctrine that all governments should be abolished
adiaphorism: the opinion that certain doctrines or practices in morals or religion are of no consequence

Thus, to claim to be an "a-theist" is to make the assertion, "God does not exist".

 

[australopithecus]

I agree on your latter two points. Your first, I do not. To suppose the prefix "a-" is only the passive negation of "theism," as you have, is not how such is normally done in the language. For example:

agnosticism: god cannot be known
amoralism: morality is not plausible
acosmism: disbelief in existence of eternal universe distinct from God
adevism: denial of gods of mythology and legend
anarchism: doctrine that all governments should be abolished
adiaphorism: the opinion that certain doctrines or practices in morals or religion are of no consequence

Thus, to claim to be an "a-theist" is to make the assertion, "God does not exist".

But 'theist' and 'theism' only defines a belief or faith in gods, and the prefix 'a' merely denotes a lacking of something so atheism isn't the assertion that gods don't exist just the lack of belief or faith that they do.

http://wordinfo.info//words/index/info/view_unit/2838/17/?spage=1&letter=A
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism

Also, your posted definition of amoralism is wrong. It doesn't mean ones finds morality not plausible it means one lacks morals.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoralism

 

[Bearcules]

To suppose the prefix "a-" is only the passive negation of "theism," as you have, is not how such is normally done in the language.

I reject all theistic claims therefore I am an atheist. I am a fan of the Theism/Gnostic plane:

As such I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. I don't know there are no gods, but I do not believe in any.

 

[jericomovie]

I always am disappointed when people refer to dictionaries in conversations like these. Dictionaries describe popular usage, not proper usage. I am not disputing that the popular usage is as you say. In a conversation like this, one is having a conversation about the English language.

As in the list of words I provided, you will find that when the prefix "a-" precedes a word using the suffix "-ism" it acts an antithesis (yes->no), and acts as an ism onto itself. Theism assumes the existence of God. The antithesis of such is to assume the non-existence of God.

 

[australopithecus]

I always am disappointed when people refer to dictionaries in conversations like these. Dictionaries describe popular usage, not proper usage. I am not disputing that the popular usage is as you say. In a conversation like this, one is having a conversation about the English language.

:|

....and the English language is recorded definitionally in dictionaries which descirbe usage in general, proper and popular. Atheism has never meant, nor means an assertion that there are no gods. It has always meant, and still means a lack of belief in gods. There's no two ways about it.

As in the list of words I provided, you will find that when the prefix "a-" precedes a word using the suffix "-ism" it acts an antithesis (yes->no), and acts as an ism onto itself. Theism assumes the existence of God. The antithesis of such is to assume the non-existence of God.

The prefix 'a-' acts to denote a lacking or absence, nothing more. Theism is the belief in gods, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's what the word means, and that's what the prefix 'a-' has meant since the ancient Greeks.

If this is just going to further descend into an useless semantic argument then I fail to see the point.

 

[jericomovie]

....and the English language is recorded definitionally in dictionaries which descirbe usage in general, proper and popular.

A book on grammar denotes proper use. A dictionary denotes popular use.

The prefix 'a-' acts to denote a lacking or absence, nothing more. Theism is the belief in gods, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That's what the word means, and that's what the prefix 'a-' has meant since the ancient Greeks.

If this is just going to further descend into an useless semantic argument then I fail to see the point.

The list of "a-ism" words I provided demonstrates that this assertion is false.

 

[australopithecus]

A book on grammar denotes proper use. A dictionary denotes popular use.

....and proper/popular use mutually exclusive because?

The list of "a-ism" words I provided demonstrates that this assertion is false.

Or your definitions are wrong.

 

[australopithecus]

agnosticism: Without knowledge.
amoralism: Wihout morals.
acosmism: Without reality.
adevism: Without gods.
anarchism: Without leaders
adiaphorism: There appears to be no such word as diaphorism so I can't imagine by any lingusic gymnatics how the 'a' is a prefix.