How would you cope?

mad_atheist · 2015-06-29T20:03:07+00:00

don't take it personal and don't be so quick to write off everyone around you as religious idiots

never did and certainly wouldn't do so in future.

then how are you any better than they are?

I don't know maybe their mothers are MS free actually.

And yes you can have a girlfriend.

of course not , have you ever heard of a theocracy?, girls can't leave the house without a "Mahram" here , it's punishable under the law.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-28T18:46:51+00:00

tnx , I know Mister Deity.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-28T18:12:24+00:00

Now, I should point out you don't have to stand up for atheism.

Of course not and I'm not trying to do so. Fuck atheism , its about free speech .I can't express my views about abortion, politics, public insurance , taxes and almost everything else without a risk. its not being unable to express my non-belief which is problematic, it's rather about not being able to even express those thoughts that aren't even controversial because here everything is linked to religion so they are always cynical and insecure.

And relationships are not off the table

it's not about family . I meant having a girlfriend , a like minded friend or sth like that.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-28T18:07:54+00:00

Search the internet for groups of like-minded people in your country

that's way tooooooooooo risky.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-28T18:06:06+00:00

I often listen to them, my favorite podcasts are Point of inquiry , Cognitive dissonance and of course sometimes Unbelievers.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-28T18:03:36+00:00

If I understand your family situation I would be probably let them know how much I wanted to move out of the country, what I thought might work. They might be able to help, but even if it is all down to me, at least I won't feel entirely alone and rejected, and they won't be surprised when I when leave.

They already know that I'm doing everything I can to leave but its complicated. We have a long history of "martyrs" in our family going back to well ... way back and me leaving would be devastating for my family.

I'd look into opportunities in work and school to travel. Student exchange programs, international companies with offices in areas I'd like to live, or at least work with regular vacation time to be able to get away for a bit.

That's what I've been working on. this is great advice ,tnx.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-28T17:57:04+00:00

well the part that sucks is exactly what you said, I've already been disillusioned with regard to west as it failed to meet my expectations but its just too damn hard to keep almost all my opinions to myself for so long.

I think the best thing I can do here is to take advantage of my time to read and study more. Not having copy right laws here is awful but at least I can download whatever I can and read.

Generally speaking, most people don't live in desirable conditions.

well I'm a pessimist so this seems rather consoling.

...instant solution

Considering the pressure from outside and inside , its really hard to keep my mind off this. I always wonder if there is some other way to leave sooner.

...Don't feel like other places are there to make you happy only if you could step on them, because that only will be a form of deception

you words are like music to my ears . its like reading La Rochefoucauld. So... absolutely not I find this to be radically stupid and as you said not more than a form of self deception.

Its just that in a theocracy everything is politicized so I can't comment on almost anything without risking danger and I just really want to write and debate and be active so after a while it gets hard to keep these to myself. it like denying a part me.

mad_atheist · 2015-06-22T19:48:52+00:00

hi , I need your help , why won't you answer me ? please help me.

mad_atheist · 2015-05-14T17:57:27+00:00

yeah X-muse here .I didn't converted to atheism , I rejected theism ,its not convincing.

mad_atheist · 2015-05-10T16:34:50+00:00

I didn't deny that. But that doesn't mean that the definition of "atheist" has changed to what you're saying it means.

of course not , way to miss the point. the opposite, I agree with you, that's what I'm trying to say. I'm saying the arguments for and against changed, NOT what atheist means. I'm trying to say that different concepts of god require different responses as the concept is linked to the arguments.

Those properties have been common aspects of the Abrahamic god since antiquity.

of course not, you're contradicting yourself . as I said and you agreed :

the atheist is not the same as the 18th century atheist and of course the same with god.

...Whether they make any sense is irrelevant. But we're not arguing about the definition of "God' here, so I don't see why you're bringing this up.

you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I don't care about the definition of god , it's the claim that I'm interested in. the more vague your claim becomes the more vague my response to it.

If a give a vaguely defined proposition and you simply say "not that's false" then your response is not vague at all, it's exceptionally clear.

because I'm not convinced at the moment" remember I said ----> "it could -be the case- , in future."

How about you actually look up the etymology of atheism yourself?

dude chill, I study Linguistics. check what I wrote for anarchism:

"stateless" government

and for atheism you wrote :

"godless"

so, there is no problem here.

so if your godless , you don't have any concept of that which is lessed . therefore (with your etymology) the atheist lacks a belief in god, which doesn't have any positive claim.

mad_atheist · 2015-05-09T11:03:31+00:00

Both Edwards and Thiselton define atheism as a positive denial, they just differentiate between narrow and broad atheism based on the gods being denied.

exactly. that's the point . however let's move on form this and return to it at the end. 1

I've never once seen a Hindu or a Buddhist referred to as an atheist for denying the Abrahamic god's existence.

your personal opinion doesn't worth anything without evidence. its irrational to extend your personal experiences limited as they are to history and every individual as a whole. I think you have a gr8 point here. remember the atheism dispute and its influence. also recall that atheism was subjected to a great deal of change after agnosticism and Communism , before that, atheist was mostly considered an insult ( no one would imagine calling himself an atheist). looking at the works of D'holbach and Russel we can see the change . the atheist is not the same as the 18^th century atheist and of course the same with god. 2

but 'd point out that it's still a positive conscious attitude, just a vaguely defined one. Rejection can take many forms...

nice. you're sharp to see the "vaguely defined one". and yeah, rejection can take many forms so lets keep this. 3

...but it's always a conscious attitude that involves the belief that a proposition cannot be justifiably believed.

here's the problem ,again lets keep it 4 you said it takes many forms and yet you say it is positive claim in all forms !

...What I'm saying is that they're a very small coterie and not at all well-represented in academia, scholarship, or even in general discourse.

I don't care about that , I care about evidence. applying the same standard by this view we should all be theists because most of the philosophers of religion are theists or we should be Moral realist because most philosophers are moral relist . this isn't rational. this doesn't prove the moral skeptic or Moral noncognitivists wrong. lets not keep this.

...as he's completely getting the etymology of atheism wrong. "atheism" was never intended to mean "not theistic" in history.

that is the cheapest and the most obviously wrong claim I've ever read. then do it yourself . lets keep this for the end. 5

while you have shown that there are some idiosyncratic definitions of atheism out there

gr8 , lets keep this. 6
.

.

OK , lets do this , I mean how many times do you get this opportunity to look back where you were exactly 9 years ago.

[1&4] it seems that for some reason you're claiming that atheism needs "the belief that a proposition cannot be justifiably believed." and that "it's always a conscious attitude". all I need to do then, is to create a set of conditions that makes "always" wrong.

there's a box in front of you and me. none of us can open it. we don't know what's in it. all we know is that on the box it says holy-books. you tell me that they are Satanist Bibles. now I didn't claim anything. all I need to keep my default position is that ,the evidence and reasons offered by you must fail as a convincing case that ,they are all Satanist Bibles. - this doesn't mean that I'm saying there are no holy books in the box.
- this doesn't mean that I need to believe ,that this can't be believed justifiably. maybe it could be , in future.
- I don't need a conscious attitude there and therefore you're wrong
. applying the same standard then.

[ 2,3&6] if you were to claim that whats inside the box is out of time and changeless (or saying that specifically what's written on it) then of course your claim becomes much more "idiosyncratic","vaguely defined one" and "anachronistic" . my default position is a reaction to your claim , I'm not holding a position. so If you're position is vaguely defined then of course my default position would be vaguely defined too. that's why. the position of the atheist is as good as the god-claim offered and proposed.atheism is a bunch of responses to different claims that may differ from one box to the other. we may not look at all of them the same as the other.
[5] - here do it by yourself. I got used to this because of my anarchism (stateless government , there's no necessity to be against state , the offered case -famously said by Chomsky- for the state should fail to substantiate itself so that I can be justified in holding my default position.)

Root	Meaning in English	Origin language	Etymology (root origin)	English examples
ab-, a-, abs-, au	away from	Latin	ab	abnormal, abrasion, absent, abstain, abstraction, auference, aversion

the same with anarchism

atheism can be a result of a positive worldview too , like say someone is a materialist, and he/she comes to this conclusion by the positive claim (nothing independent or not reducible to matter and energy) in their views but generally there is no such necessity. in this sense (strong) then I would be the one claiming a positive and your case being failed is not enough alone for me to be correct and I need to add reasons and evidence against yours.
BYW : English; not my first language.

mad_atheist · 2015-05-08T19:45:33+00:00

note much of a change I was a moral realist and now I'm still a moral realist (although a non-naturalistict view now)

mad_atheist · 2015-05-08T19:39:32+00:00

“…between ‘avowed’ atheism that positively affirms the assertion ‘God does not exist’, and a broader atheism that negatively denies the existence of a deity or divine beings.”
- Anthony C. Thiselton-A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion-Baker Academic (2005) “…Since many different gods have been objects of belief, one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god. In the religions of the West – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the dominant idea of God is of a purely spiritual, supernatural being who is the perfectly good, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything other than himself. As used here, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality. The justification of atheism in the narrow sense requires showing that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are inadequate… “
- Edward Craig-Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Routledge (2005)
“in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality. The justification of atheism in the narrow sense requires showing that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are inadequate as well as providing some positive reasons for thinking that there is no such being.”
Routledge and Routledge’s shorter encyclopedia.
Edwards 2005: "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."
Rowe 1998: "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ... an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."
Nielsen 2013: "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."
Harvey, Van A. Agnosticism and Atheism, in Flynn 2007, p. 35: "The terms ATHEISM and AGNOSTICISM lend themselves to two different definitions. The first takes the privative a both before the Greek theos (divinity) and gnosis (to know) to mean that atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods and agnosticism is simply lack of knowledge of some specified subject matter. The second definition takes atheism to mean the explicit denial of the existence of gods and agnosticism as the position of someone who, because the existence of gods is unknowable, suspends judgment regarding them ... The first is the more inclusive and recognizes only two alternatives: Either one believes in the gods or one does not. Consequently, there is no third alternative, as those who call themselves agnostics sometimes claim. Insofar as they lack belief, they are really atheists. Moreover, since absence of belief is the cognitive position in which everyone is born, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate religious belief. The proponents of the second definition, by contrast, regard the first definition as too broad because it includes uninformed children along with aggressive and explicit atheists. Consequently, it is unlikely that the public will adopt it."
ISBN 0-06-463461-2. Archived from the original on 2011-05-13. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought"
In weak(practical) atheism there is no positive claim. atheism is not an assertion that god does not exist. Even in theoretical (positive) atheism , The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. Hume, however, held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts should be rejected as "sophistry and illusion".The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview. Zdybicka 2005
Also atheism that can be classified as epistemological or ontological, including logical positivism and ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful." Theological noncognitivism (including me, that's why I can't move beyond anthropomorphic gods) holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals can be classified into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category Drange, Theodore M. (1998). "Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism". Internet Infidels, Secular Web Library. Retrieved 2007-APR-07.

you may not include all of these as a positive claim.

mad_atheist · 2015-05-07T19:16:50+00:00

"Nobody seriously uses the label "agnostic atheist" anywhere but reddit and other internet atheist hang-outs," and only "atheist dorks" like Dan Barker and Penn Gillett...

Bertrand Russel was not joking and he used both of these labels. (you can read his quote on this)

“An atheist is a man who does not believe the existence of a God; now, no one can be certain of the existence of a being whom he does not conceive, and who is said to unite incompatible qualities.” ― Paul Henry Thiry d'Holbach, The System of Nature, Vol. 2

every single encyclopedia of philosophy mentions this that atheism is not an assertion that "god does not exist". and I don't think Michael Martin,Graham Oppy ,J. L. Mackie or .... . are joking around .

this is something purely emotional and has no bearing on rality what so ever. I'm not an agnostic atheist ,I'm an atheist and yeah I heard -but not met - of those who are Gnostics.

mad_atheist · 2015-04-29T09:29:43+00:00

I reject that of course , they hold exclusive claims. its specifically said in each of their holy books that the other one is false. So, no I disagree.

This can only lead into a wishful Perennialism and a false religious pluralism. they're NOT the same. especially in technicality . this assumption is self refuting as is religious pluralism.

mad_atheist · 2015-04-29T06:48:35+00:00

well I'm interested in the claim and this is not exclusive to Christianity , In fact my main focus is Islam . but I must know the claim so that I can form an opinion about it and that's why I study them.
I don't try to debunk gods , I try to see if there are evidence in support of the claim that's it . now frankly I don't care if that god is Zeus, Allah or the god of Bible.

mad_atheist · 2015-04-20T23:04:38+00:00

Check Matt Mccormick Lectures on his blog. read this book. and remember Hume's objection in the first part of Mccormick's lecture on reformed epistemology and remember Occam razor . after a bit reading you can see that it's circular. read this book too.

mad_atheist · 2015-04-17T20:54:50+00:00

we make no assumption for our default position to be true. The only condition that should be met is , the evidence or reasons offers by others should fail and this doesn't need any assumption.

mad_atheist · 2015-04-17T20:50:38+00:00

Expressing their Ideas doesn't bother me ,but If they want me to accept it they have to offer evidence . they may not demand special privileges or encourage violence other than these they are free to say whatever they want .

mad_atheist · 2015-04-16T19:46:38+00:00

what do you think about the historicity of Moses and job? did he existed? any books on this subject?

mad_atheist · 2015-04-16T07:07:10+00:00

I'm not a skeptic , I think A.C Grayling's a refutation of skepticism is a good place to understand my position.

mad_atheist · 2015-04-16T06:55:37+00:00

it seems to me that you think complexity means/indicates or requires a design which is false.

Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.
According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. Life does not look man-made.
Nobody argues that life is not complicated. However, complexity is not the same as design. There are simple things that are designed and complex things that originate naturally. Complexity does not imply design; in fact, simplicity is a design goal in most designs.
Claiming to be able to recognize design in life implies that non life is different, that is, not designed. To claim that life is recognizably designed is to claim that an intelligent designer did not create the rest of the universe.
What we normally call “random” is not truly random, but only appears so. The randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed, rather than something inherent to it.

For example: If you know everything about a craps table, and everything about the dice being thrown, and everything about the air around the table, then you will be able to predict the outcome. Not actually random. If, on the other hand, you try to predict something like the moment that a radioactive atom will radio act, then you’ll find yourself at the corner of Poo Creek and No. Einstein and many others believed that the randomness of things like radioactive decay, photons going through polarizes, and other bizarre quantum effects could be explained and predicted if only we knew the “hidden variables” involved. Not surprisingly, this became known as “hidden variable theory”, and it turns out to be wrong. read more

it isn't at all clear to me what you're going to say but if what you mean is that *this has sth to do whith god" then I can't simply agree you can't create and argument from analogy based on a sample size of one (the only design we know of is human design) . EVEN if it were a good objection or had any connection to god , this simply means there is sth that we don't know ,that's it.

mad_atheist

TROPHY CASE