"hostility is a better test than civility I find" - FXR

[FXR]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Probably not,but I'm not with you.

By definition an atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods.A mode of behaviour is neither implied or may be inferred

Consequently 'as an atheist' I don't give a flying fuck what PZ Myers says.He can shoves his patronising attitude about 'accommodationists' up his arse.

Bollocks and hyperbole.

There is no 'should' apart from a disbelief in gods. I really don't care what other atheists choose to do personally.What they may NOT do is tell me what I 'should' think,feel,say or do,about anything.

Seamus I have to agree to a great extent. PZ Myers is a not an atheist precisely: he's a professing atheist. As a single human brain his success and self image is intrinsically dependent on being occupied with a position that relates to not believing in the brains concept of a god. As an individual human being it appeals to me he's anti-religion but only because I am and one more anti is one less pro.

But he's still a belligerent American whose words receive more attention around the world due to the phenomenal dominance of American culture all over the globe in the last century. As a result humans thousands of miles away end up discussing the latests thing that's upset another human brain on another continent. Atheism in the human brain when it becomes a collective produces it's own versions of gods. Technology makes the world smaller. It's evolution.

[FXR]

There is no such permanently achievable state as "happiness". People who spend their time trying to quantify or identify it as a goal that can be pursued and achieved are regurgitating the religious idea of there being a heaven that can be earned.

On Tuesday 29 th March 2011, I was sitting in a Spanish restaurant with a beautiful girl who has surprised me by asking me out. The meal was exceptional.
During the meal my brother rang to let me know his wife had suffered a second miscarriage.

As I put down the phone I tasted one of the most delicious starters I've eaten in years. I remembered that I'd had another bad pain in my chest that morning. That brought to mind the fact my father had died of a heart attack two years earlier.

The girl asked me how business was just as the main course arrived. Luckily it was that day that the shares I'd bought in a computer firm 10 years ago had tuned into a profit of €X,000000000000. She told me how glad she was that I accepted her invitation to dinner because nobody ever asks her out. I could see I was on a winner and I ordered more wine. Strolling down by the river after the meal she told me she had AIDS. Was I happy that day?

[FXR]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

And you "know" all this by what means, FXR?

By what means, through which of your interests and in terms of which relative subject do you know the name of P Z Myers, Mr. Black?

[wolty]

Answering a question with a question (even to make a point) is IMO poor form.

A link to how PZ has explained his rationalising of atheism will be forthcoming I expect.

[FXR]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Oh, my! FXR has all the benchmarks today.

Whether it's precisely defining atheism (PZ Myers isn't, because FXR knows what lurks in the minds of men, muahahaha), or attributing the pursuit of happiness to a religious idea, he's got it nailed.

FXR, how long is a piece of string?

I just like being happy, so I pursue that state because I like it. Who gives a fuck if it's not permanent: I'll take what I can get.

A piece of string is precisely as long as the particular piece of string in question.

Why do you think an illusory state is worth pursuing? Wanting to be happy is wishing for a perfect world which doesn't exist. Why not strive to be calm and logical in order to be in as good a position as possible to react to everything that might happen?

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by FXR

A piece of string is precisely as long as the particular piece of string in question.

A fine answer. You could take it on.

Why do you think an illusory state is worth pursuing?

Endorphins, Oxytocin, Serotonin and their physiological effects are illusory? Please write up the paper and let us know when it is published.

Wanting to be happy is wishing for a perfect world which doesn't exist.

No, actually it is wanting to be happy. After all, a perfect world does not exist. I also like to be not hungry and to scratch my balls when necessary. Alas, it is not a perfect world but one gets by.

Why not strive to be calm and logical in order to be in as good a position as possible to react to everything that might happen?

Let me assure you that I follow the sequence logically, impartially and calmly. My balls are itchy. No-one seems to be around. I scratch them. Job done. Now I can be happy, not irritated by anything itchy.

Logic is so wonderful.

[FXR]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

And you "know" all this by what means, FXR?

It's an opinion based on observation of a behaviour and the application of a term in order to distinguish it.

Firstly I'm using the term "professed atheist" to distinguish one type of atheist from the basic term atheist. All it means to say there are humans who are atheists is to say that there are people who don't believe the earth is overseen by some space yoke master.

Atheist does not mean a person who tells others they are an atheist. Seriously I think people should keep that in mind. You don't know for sure if the Pope is not an atheist. If you want to say he's not then the same question to you: how do you know?

I'm using that term to class P Z Myers as a professing atheist because he is famous for doing just that. He is invited to speak in other countries on that basis and other humans will pay money to hear him speak.....about atheism.

I know it kind of upsets some people to use the term "professing atheist" but if you don't like it you can suggest a better one. I don't have anything against him in particular one way or the other.

[FXR]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

A long time ago, in a thread not too far away...

* - Black's emphasis.

You obviously didn't take the time to read the definition thread, and continue on your own way, heedless.
Please consider finishing up old business before starting to redefine other parts of the world. We can wait.

You're obviously upset about something. If it's OK around here to go crossing one thread with another and going off topic that's fine with me.

Mr Black did I not send you a PM to apologise for having the leave that thread when I did?

Most boards I've been on (admittedly Irish ones) don't allow old threads to be revived but if you wanted to continue all you had to do was say so instead of getting all upset.

[FXR]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

@FXR: So why would an atheist who professes atheism be "not an atheist precisely", rather than a member of a subset of "those who are atheists" (with the usual precision)?

There must be some reason you would make that distinction.

I'm using the term to distinguish a particular type of atheist from the general term atheist Mr. Black.

I'll try put it another way:

Would you agree that the term atheist means a person who does not believe in a sky fairy but does not necessarily mean a person who says they don't believe in a god thing?

[FXR]

Originally Posted by Protium

Click on the quoted links and finish the older discussions as you promised.

How do you conflate a request with being upset?

I'm basing it on the fact Mr Black that, on a thread about happiness, he brought up a thread about P Z Myers and in the thread about P Z Myers he brought in a whole other thread whereas about something else. He could have just sent a PM or posted the simple line "Could you go back to thread A and finish the discussion". Like I said something came up and I had to go. Generally I enjoy Mr. Black and I've got great regard for him based on past experience. I'm not to know he holds my opinions to such a high degree of his notice he'd even remember a previous thread from whenever.