Author Topic: Jason lisle vs solipsism  (Read 2337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13032
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2013, 07:09:11 PM »
I just read reviews, and comments on the book, and it seems to be just what magicmiles says it is; and many of the atheists who made comments about it (after they researched the book) stated they didn't like the fact it seems to be a "deconverting" manual. One person stated The God Delusion, and books like it are "deconverting" books but another person stated that it was more a nonfiction work based on the opinion of one (Dawkins) over the religious (though noting evidence and factual statements); that that's what makes The God Delusion not a deconverting book but this one being exactly that. So, though magicmiles was judging the book by its cover, and a small synopsis of the book, he does seem to be correct, based on my research, of it being exactly what he states it is.

If smiting him for judging the book without him actually reading it, perhaps that's warranted but sometimes one can judge a book by its cover.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #59 on: November 15, 2013, 07:09:55 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

In light of your comment to Neo Pagan when you gave him a karma:

Bold for emphasis. You shouldn't make assumptions.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #60 on: November 15, 2013, 07:17:37 PM »
So, though magicmiles was judging the book by its cover, and a small synopsis of the book, he does seem to be correct, based on my research, of it being exactly what he states it is.

If smiting him for judging the book without him actually reading it, perhaps that's warranted but sometimes one can judge a book by its cover.

-Nam

Thing is Nam, even if I was wrong about the book, there is just no way in hell it's correct to call my assumption irrational. By Median's apparent understanding of 'irrational', it would be irrational to purchase tickets to a Metallica concert and turn up expecting to see Metallica perform.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #61 on: November 15, 2013, 07:20:26 PM »


Median,




Is the book about something other than how to become an atheist? I am confused because the title and the summary do seem to indicate that this book might be a guide on how to shed one's concept of God.


So...what the fuck is the book about...since Magicmiles got it so very very wrong?


It isn't about "evangelizing" anyone. Evangelizing is a religious term used in the context of Christianity specifically. And as neopagan earlier noted the title is misleading (which is why I stated what I did - don't judge a book by it's cover, etc). Christians love to point the finger at anyone who notes the irrational nature of religion/theology as someone who is "evangelizing for atheism". This simply isn't true and it's highly misleading, and dishonest, when Christians attempt to use that term for anyone who looks to them to be doing what they are doing. The book is in no way "evangelistic", nor is it anywhere near religious or promoting any faith.

e·van·ge·lize
i?vanj??l?z/Submit
verb
verb: evangelize; 3rd person present: evangelizes; past tense: evangelized; past participle: evangelized; gerund or present participle: evangelizing; verb: evangelise; 3rd person present: evangelises; past tense: evangelised; past participle:evangelised; gerund or present participle: evangelising
1.
convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.
synonyms:   convert, proselytize, redeem, save, preach to, recruit; More
2. preach the Christian gospel.
"the Church's mission to evangelize and declare the faith"

Now, are you going to continue to claim that it is "evangelizing for atheism"?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 07:30:02 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #62 on: November 15, 2013, 07:27:47 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

In light of your comment to Neo Pagan when you gave him a karma:

Bold for emphasis. You shouldn't make assumptions.

So then, are you admitting that atheism is NOT a worldview and that the book (which you haven't read) is NOT evangelizing atheism to anyone?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2013, 07:28:38 PM »


Median,




Is the book about something other than how to become an atheist? I am confused because the title and the summary do seem to indicate that this book might be a guide on how to shed one's concept of God.


So...what the fuck is the book about...since Magicmiles got it so very very wrong?


It isn't about "evangelizing" anyone. Evangelizing is a religious term used in the context of Christianity specifically. And as neopagan earlier noted the title is misleading (which is why I stated what I did - don't judge a book by it's cover, etc). Christians love to point the finger at anyone who notes the irrational nature of religion/theology as someone who is "evangelizing for atheism". This simply isn't true and it's highly misleading, and dishonest, when Christians attempt to use that term for anyone who looks to them to be doing what they are doing. The book is in no way "evangelistic", nor is it anywhere near religious or promoting any faith.

e·van·ge·lize
i?vanj??l?z/Submit
verb
verb: evangelize; 3rd person present: evangelizes; past tense: evangelized; past participle: evangelized; gerund or present participle: evangelizing; verb: evangelise; 3rd person present: evangelises; past tense: evangelised; past participle:evangelised; gerund or present participle: evangelising
1.
convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.
synonyms:   convert, proselytize, redeem, save, preach to, recruit; More
2. preach the Christian gospel.
"the Church's mission to evangelize and declare the faith"

Now, are you going to continue to claim that it is "evangelizing for atheism"?

Evangelism....synonyms

Spreading the word. Teaching. Sermonizing....considering that certain people are sermonizing the idea that there are no gods. I can not see any fault in magicmiles judging of the book.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/evangelism

Al Gore is evangelical about global warming. How is that religious?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #64 on: November 15, 2013, 07:33:18 PM »

I heard about that one, but mysteriously I couldn't find it's exact location, no address or anything was ever provided.

Maybe you could start here.

http://sundayassembly.com/
Ah, good point, I haven't heard of that.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2013, 07:39:34 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

In light of your comment to Neo Pagan when you gave him a karma:

Bold for emphasis. You shouldn't make assumptions.

So then, are you admitting that atheism is NOT a worldview and that the book (which you haven't read) is NOT evangelizing atheism to anyone?

As Azdgari points out, 'worldview' is such a broad term it is difficult to say what might and mightn't be considered one. I certainly understand that atheism is a rejection of belief.

However, regardless of what definition of evangelise one might care to use, that book is very obviously marketed as a guide on how to turn somebody from belief. It clearly goes further than simply pointing out why belief might be irrational - it provides tips on how to actually talk theists into rejecting their belief.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2013, 07:40:22 PM »

Evangelism....synonyms

Spreading the word. Teaching. Sermonizing....considering that certain people are sermonizing the idea that there are no gods. I can not see any fault in magicmiles judging of the book.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/evangelism

Al Gore is evangelical about global warming. How is that religious?


That isn't evangelizing. Evangelizing comes from the Medieval Latin evangelismus which means "a spreading of the Gospel." Reasoning is NOT evangelizing whatsoever and it's an important distinction b/c this accusation is brought up quite often among Christians - attempting to pin the label on any non-believer who uses reason to point out fallacies in their theology as someone who is "evangelizing" - when they're not. There is a big difference between those two, both in verbiage and in method. The book is, quite simply, NOT evangelizing anyone.

EDIT: Need it also be noted that the book is NOT directed toward Christians? Are you actually going to keep up this accusation?

EDIT 2: What makes MMs assumption/assertion irrational? It actually is on two accounts. Equivocation fallacy (for switching the definitions of terms) and straw-man (for misrepresenting the position of Boghossian and other atheists).
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 08:01:24 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #67 on: November 15, 2013, 07:47:23 PM »
So, since when is deconversion a kind of evangelism?

That, I think, is the key point here.  Evangelism is the process of converting people to a particular belief system.  The word itself refers to Christianity, but I suppose it could refer to any belief system if you wanted to generalize it.  The thing is, atheism isn't a belief system at all, anymore than the statement "I dislike apples" tells you anything about what a person likes.  So how, precisely, do you convert people to atheism?  Deconverting them from Christianity or some other religion, sure.  But atheism in and of itself doesn't provide a replacement belief, anymore than saying, "I don't believe in gods" tells you what a person does believe in, or if they believe in anything.

So, I would hardly call Peter Boghossian an atheist evangelist.  The question is, what is he trying to promote, not what is he arguing against.  And according to the Amazon blurb posted earlier by magicmiles, what he's trying to promote is reason and rationality.  So if he's evangelizing for anything, it would be those things.  It's certainly true that he's arguing against religious belief, but this is no different than a Christian evangelist arguing against, say, Islamic belief or Hindu belief.  But you don't refer to them as an "anti-Islamic" or "anti-Hindu" evangelist, you refer to them as a Christian evangelist.  So, by the same token, you don't refer to someone who's pushing reason and rationality instead of religious belief as an "atheist" evangelist.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 07:49:39 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #68 on: November 15, 2013, 07:55:27 PM »
So...I guess synonyms are pointless.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #69 on: November 15, 2013, 07:58:04 PM »
So...I guess synonyms are pointless.
In most contexts yes, synonyms are only useful when the context matches the desired synonym, otherwise it's very misleading.

Remember that synonym doesn't mean that they are the same, just similar.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #70 on: November 15, 2013, 08:04:15 PM »
Whilst it may be technically correct to say that atheism is a rejection of belief rather than a belief in itself, isn't it true that in order to lack belief in God you must have certain other beliefs? Such as: the world was created via natural processes, there is no such thing as inherent good or evil, the bible is fictitious. By attempting to convince somebody to become an atheist, as this book encourages, I consider it quite reasonable that it is trying to convince people to hold actual beliefs. Therefore I continue to consider the term 'athest evangilist' completely valid.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #71 on: November 15, 2013, 08:06:06 PM »
Whilst it may be technically correct to say that atheism is a rejection of belief rather than a belief in itself, isn't it true that in order to lack belief in God you must have certain other beliefs? Such as: the world was created via natural processes, there is no such thing as inherent good or evil, the bible is fictitious. By attempting to convince somebody to become an atheist, as this book encourages, I consider it quite reasonable that it is trying to convince people to hold actual beliefs. Therefore I continue to consider the term 'athest evangilist' completely valid.

No, that is not a requirement, in fact that's a strawman. All atheism is, is a rejection of the god claim.

In fact, an atheist can believe that the universe was created by a magical race of invisible pixies if they so desired.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #72 on: November 15, 2013, 08:07:49 PM »

Remember that synonym doesn't mean that they are the same, just similar.

A synonym is a word with the same or similar meaning.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #73 on: November 15, 2013, 08:09:06 PM »

Remember that synonym doesn't mean that they are the same, just similar.

A synonym is a word with the same or similar meaning.
Nitpicking semantics, yes I wasn't as verbose as I could have been, but I felt it unnecessary.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #74 on: November 15, 2013, 08:12:46 PM »


In fact, an atheist can believe that the universe was created by a magical race of invisible pixies if they so desired.

Possibly. But is that an argument an atheist trying to turn a theist into an atheist is likely to use? Or is it more likely that an atheist is likely to use, as a cornerstone of their perceived rational argument, that the world was created by natural processes (a belief) ?
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #75 on: November 15, 2013, 08:14:51 PM »


In fact, an atheist can believe that the universe was created by a magical race of invisible pixies if they so desired.

Possibly. But is that an argument an atheist trying to turn a theist into an atheist is likely to use? Or is it more likely that an atheist is likely to use, as a cornerstone of their perceived rational argument, that the world was created by natural processes (a belief) ?

An honest atheist will simply deconstruct and evaluate the theists argument and provide reasons why they personally don't believe it, a dishonest one would try and convert someone using some other means. I consider myself an honest atheist because I don't try to tell people they believe in a fantasy (though that is what I think it is), that's David Silverman's shtick
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #76 on: November 15, 2013, 08:14:55 PM »

Remember that synonym doesn't mean that they are the same, just similar.

A synonym is a word with the same or similar meaning.
Nitpicking semantics, yes I wasn't as verbose as I could have been, but I felt it unnecessary.

If you intend to claim nitpicking semantics everytime you are corrected, I suggest a forum filled with mostly intelligent discussion is not the place for you.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #77 on: November 15, 2013, 08:16:22 PM »

Remember that synonym doesn't mean that they are the same, just similar.

A synonym is a word with the same or similar meaning.
Nitpicking semantics, yes I wasn't as verbose as I could have been, but I felt it unnecessary.

If you intend to claim nitpicking semantics everytime you are corrected, I suggest a forum filled with mostly intelligent discussion is not the place for you.
That's the first time I've claimed that, and you WERE in fact nitpicking semantics. Try again.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #78 on: November 15, 2013, 08:19:15 PM »


It's "Evangelism" 2.0



In other words.

"we (atheists) want to do everything christians do...but without God"


« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 08:21:38 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #79 on: November 15, 2013, 08:25:48 PM »
In other words.

"we (atheists) want to do everything christians do...but without God"

Not all atheists feel the same as these people, in fact I'd wager that they are in the minority among atheists. I personally feel that my personal lack of belief is enough, and dispelling creationist misinformation is important to me as well.

If you consider that evangelism, the so be it, I reject that claim.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #80 on: November 15, 2013, 08:27:25 PM »

Remember that synonym doesn't mean that they are the same, just similar.

A synonym is a word with the same or similar meaning.
Nitpicking semantics, yes I wasn't as verbose as I could have been, but I felt it unnecessary.

If you intend to claim nitpicking semantics everytime you are corrected, I suggest a forum filled with mostly intelligent discussion is not the place for you.
That's the first time I've claimed that, and you WERE in fact nitpicking semantics. Try again.

You claimed that a synonym does not have the same meaning as the base word. That is incorrect. I don't agree that to correct it is semantic nitpicking. But if you think it is, that's your prerogative. I think you'll find that similarly incorrect statements you may make in the future will be similarly corrected.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #81 on: November 15, 2013, 08:30:15 PM »
You claimed that a synonym does not have the same meaning as the base word. That is incorrect. I don't agree that to correct it is semantic nitpicking. But if you think it is, that's your prerogative. I think you'll find that similarly incorrect statements you may make in the future will be similarly corrected.
I never made that claim, all I said was that synonym does NOT mean that they are the same, just similar, some of the words can have identical meanings, I never said they couldn't.
If you could stop the ad hominem that would be greatly appreciated.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #82 on: November 15, 2013, 08:32:19 PM »
In other words.

"we (atheists) want to do everything christians do...but without God"

Not all Christians feel the same as these people, in fact I'd wager that they are in the minority among Christians. I personally feel that my personal belief is enough, and dispelling heretical misinformation is important to me as well.

If you consider that evangelism, the so be it, I reject that claim.

There...fixed it for you. Atheist are apparently very concerned about sharing their non belief. Nothing else seems to matter as much as the shared belief that there are no gods.

Aside from the "non belief" you pride yourselves on...there is also the acceptance of certain other beliefs which are proved by your clergy a.k.a. scientists. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 08:33:57 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13032
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #83 on: November 15, 2013, 08:34:15 PM »


Median,




Is the book about something other than how to become an atheist? I am confused because the title and the summary do seem to indicate that this book might be a guide on how to shed one's concept of God.


So...what the fuck is the book about...since Magicmiles got it so very very wrong?


It isn't about "evangelizing" anyone. Evangelizing is a religious term used in the context of Christianity specifically. And as neopagan earlier noted the title is misleading (which is why I stated what I did - don't judge a book by it's cover, etc). Christians love to point the finger at anyone who notes the irrational nature of religion/theology as someone who is "evangelizing for atheism". This simply isn't true and it's highly misleading, and dishonest, when Christians attempt to use that term for anyone who looks to them to be doing what they are doing. The book is in no way "evangelistic", nor is it anywhere near religious or promoting any faith.

e·van·ge·lize
i?vanj??l?z/Submit
verb
verb: evangelize; 3rd person present: evangelizes; past tense: evangelized; past participle: evangelized; gerund or present participle: evangelizing; verb: evangelise; 3rd person present: evangelises; past tense: evangelised; past participle:evangelised; gerund or present participle: evangelising
1.
convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.
synonyms:   convert, proselytize, redeem, save, preach to, recruit; More
2. preach the Christian gospel.
"the Church's mission to evangelize and declare the faith"

Now, are you going to continue to claim that it is "evangelizing for atheism"?

Most of the comments, in review and in comment about, seems to point of using the book to proselytize; and while "evangelise" is a Christian word, I think we all knew what mm meant in the grand scheme of things. And, also, while the title might be misleading, the reviews and comments, by and of atheists, about the book; whether they've read it or not, isn't and many of them (per amazon.com and richarddawkins.com) seem to believe it's a book for "evangelising".

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #84 on: November 15, 2013, 08:35:17 PM »
In other words.

"we (atheists) want to do everything christians do...but without God"

Not all Christians feel the same as these people, in fact I'd wager that they are in the minority among Christians. I personally feel that my personal belief is enough, and dispelling heretical misinformation is important to me as well.

If you consider that evangelism, the so be it, I reject that claim.

There...fixed it for you. Atheist are apparently very concerned about sharing their non belief. Nothing else seems to matter as much as the shared belief that there are no gods.

Aside from the "non belief" you pride yourselves on...there is also the acceptance of certain other beliefs which are proved by your clergy a.k.a. science.
I just KNEW you would pull this, I freaking knew it. I did not pull a "no true scottsman" like you seem to be asserting.

I can play these word games with your arguments as well, all they prove is that you're good at ad-libbing
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 08:37:21 PM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #85 on: November 15, 2013, 08:36:35 PM »
In other words.

"we (atheists) want to do everything christians do...but without God"

Not all Christians feel the same as these people, in fact I'd wager that they are in the minority among Christians. I personally feel that my personal belief is enough, and dispelling heretical misinformation is important to me as well.

If you consider that evangelism, the so be it, I reject that claim.

There...fixed it for you. Atheist are apparently very concerned about sharing their non belief. Nothing else seems to matter as much as the shared belief that there are no gods.

Aside from the "non belief" you pride yourselves on...there is also the acceptance of certain other beliefs which are proved by your clergy a.k.a. science.
I just KNEW you would pull this, I freaking knew it. I did not pull a "no true scottsman" like you seem to be asserting.

Prove me wrong.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #86 on: November 15, 2013, 08:38:43 PM »
In other words.

"we (atheists) want to do everything christians do...but without God"

Not all Christians feel the same as these people, in fact I'd wager that they are in the minority among Christians. I personally feel that my personal belief is enough, and dispelling heretical misinformation is important to me as well.

If you consider that evangelism, the so be it, I reject that claim.

There...fixed it for you. Atheist are apparently very concerned about sharing their non belief. Nothing else seems to matter as much as the shared belief that there are no gods.

Aside from the "non belief" you pride yourselves on...there is also the acceptance of certain other beliefs which are proved by your clergy a.k.a. science.
I just KNEW you would pull this, I freaking knew it. I did not pull a "no true scottsman" like you seem to be asserting.

Prove me wrong.

Did I say they were bad atheists? Did I say they weren't atheists? No, all I said was that not ALL atheists feel the same as them, which is NOT the same as saying they aren't an atheist, if they claim they do not believe in a god, they are atheists, anything beyond that is extra.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.