andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2012-02-15 11:00 am
andrewducker) wrote2012-02-15 11:00 am
Entry tags:
- 2012,
- antarctic,
- apple,
- awesome,
- bbc,
- cats,
- censorship,
- census,
- children,
- chocolate,
- computer_games,
- copyright,
- culture,
- development,
- english,
- experience,
- firefox,
- fun,
- funny,
- gameofthrones,
- german,
- government,
- handedness,
- horror,
- ipad,
- israel,
- language,
- law,
- life,
- links,
- mmorpg,
- movies,
- museums,
- netherlands,
- nsfw,
- oil,
- palestine,
- politics,
- poll,
- psychology,
- relationships,
- religion,
- scotland,
- uk,
- valentines_day,
- video,
- web
Interesting Links for 15-02-2012
- When will experiences replace movie theaters?
I think people enjoy passive entertainment a lot, so I don't expect movies to go anywhere. It would be nice to see more "experiences", but I suspect that their cost is going to remain a chunk higher than a movie ticket.
- Some detail on what people who identify as "Christian" in the census actually believe
- Dutch government calls for loosening of copyright law. Could the tide be turning?
- Online RPGs WILL DESTROY YOUR RELATIONSHIP. Unless you play together, of course.
- Some common sense on prayer and councils.
What occurred to me, when reading someone else's journal, was that atheists are merely going to be irked by compulsory Christian prayers - but think about the effect it has on a Muslim, Sikh, etc. that in order to represent their constituents they have to sit through the prayers of a different religion.
- Game of Thrones Valentine's Day cards
- The UK devolved rights to Antarctica to Scotland - by mistake. Now they want them back.
- The BBC replaces the word "Palestine" with the sound of breaking glass. No, really.
- Firefox Roadmap for 2012
- This video is genius. Horrific, hilarious, genius. I can't say more than that without spoiling it.
- What If All the Cats in the World Suddenly Died?
- Chocolate + Apple = best valentine's present evar.
- Shitstorm 'best English gift to German language'
- Being left/right-handed affects your preferences
- Game Developer Gives 7-Year-Old Best Birthday Present Ever
- 9 Essential Skills Kids Should Learn
no subject
Which is to say, an ignorant restatement that marginalises and erases and belittles.
(and incorrectly reverses the burden of evidence - but that's why it's a STUPID statement, not why it's an OFFENSIVE statement)
Which is one of the main definitions of atheism, and agreed with by two dictionaries I just checked with.
If you look in a dictionary you will also find "theory" to be a synonym for "hypothesis". Try that in biology, see how that works out for you.
Dictionaries reflect casual and non-technical usage as well as technical.
you seem to be basically translating perfectly normal English into whatever you feel like.
I'm going to assume you yourself have no argument with my translation of the first part of his first sentence because I don't see any other way for it to be read. If you do disagree, please, tell me why.
Assume, for a moment, that I genuinely do feel that "atheists actively believe in the nonexistence of God, and this is an irrational leap of logic that requires at least as much faith as believing in the divinity of Jesus" to be an offensively ignorant statement, much along the same lines as "Muslims worship the moon" and "feminists hate men" and "homosexuals were abused as children".
(Because I do. But even if you don't believe me, just assume it, for a moment)
Given that, can you now see why I find his statement incredibly offensive?
no subject
I can see that you find it offensive, but I think that's _your_ problem. If you are offended by logically accurate statements then that's not something I can do anything about.
no subject
Very well: You've redefined nonreligion as a religion. What do you then call "those who lack belief in culturally postulated supernatural beings"?
(Or, to use the normal word, "atheists". But you've redefined that one.)
no subject
Of course atheist _also_ means that, because it means two different things. And agnostic also means people who believe that there is no possibility of knowledge about supernatural beings. Which verges into the territory of ignostics, who believe that the concept of God is meaningless (or at least no definition currently extant is actually coherent). I usually lump myself into the last of those, because I've never heard a definition of "God" that made sense to me.
no subject
The "standard model" that I most often see, that we used in university and that most of the current discussion follows, puts theism and gnosticism on different axes.
A "theist" is someone who believes in one or more culturally postulated supernatural beings (to wit, "gods", but also includes anima, ancestor spirits, and other beings of supernatural reverence. "culturally postulated" is meant to exclude ghosts and UFOs and Michael Jackson.)
An "atheist" is an a-theist. A non-theist. One who does not believe in any supernatural beings
A "gnostic" is someone who believes either than the existence of supernatural beings is known or can be known. It really should be split into two words for the two different concepts but nobody ever does, and it rarely lacks for context.
An "agnostic" is a non-gnostic: Someone who believe either that the existence of supernatural beings is unknown, or cannot be known. See also: needs a two-word split.
Your position, then, could be anywhere along the two (or three) axes. Several positions are incoherent and cannot be reached reasonably - theism along with agnosticism, for example, necessarily involves a logical failure, most often special pleading, somewhere along the line.
Anyway. That's the standard model.
My personal position is atheist - I lack belief in any gods - but I reject the entire gnostic/agnostic axis as meaningless along the lines of your statement of ignosticism. The statement "nonbelief in god" is meaningless, and an attempt to repaint nonbelief as a positive statement necessarily leads into the first-year philosophy dropout's "but what if ANYTHING was true, and everything else was arranged to make it LOOK like it wasn't true? What if you're in the MATRIX, man?"
(This is most often formally stated as Chris Carter[1]'s Principle: Given a large enough conspiracy, nothing can be ruled out.)
The question itself *is meaningless*, and treating the question seriously in the first place incorrectly cedes the validity of the concept of "god" as more worthy of consideration than that of werewolves from space.
[1]: Creator of The X Files.
no subject
Placing things in context is not the same thing as stating that it's the most important thing you have to say.