Robert Farquharson joins us

[Praxis]

Hi and welcome.

I am an atheist.

I have an armchair which I like very much.

I guess you don't want to talk to me.

But for what it's worth, your argumentum ad antiquitatem regarding how long you've been an atheist is, with respect, a little bit of a wank and doesn't get you off to a very good start, just quietly. I do wonder if your "armchair atheist" gibe (and of course it was a gibe, wasn't it?) meant that you are seeking atheists who have been visibly active about it rather than just sitting around talking about it, am I right? If so, you've definitely come to the right place and you'll find lots of people like that here. And I'm sure we would all be delighted to hear what you do in regard to atheism when out of your armchair.

However, if you'd like to join in the discussions on an equal footing with everyone else here, with the only criteria being none of us believe in god(s), and leave the age-upmanship out of it, then you're most welcome to do so.

Will watch this thread with interest.

[Soup Dragon]

Originally Posted by Annie

I grew up in a religious household but have always been an atheist. I reckon one year of my religion surrounded atheist years counts for two non religion surrounded atheist years. I'm not yet fifty but in atheist years I am 68! I win!!!!

Seriously?

I wouldn't want to be rude to Darwinsbulldog, but in dog years...

[Seamus]

Yes, but only in a fair way.

Ohhh, the bad pun monster is gonna get YOU.


Do you think we upset Robert? If he's that dogmatic and thin skinned,better sooner than later.

[Robert Farquharson]

I will give you an example of an armchair atheist, they are people who think they are atheists, but are not; for instance; when an atheist says that there is no god and the bible is pure fiction, another atheist would not say to prove why I say it, an atheist would already know.
Atheism is a response to a claim that god exists; if someone says god exists then that claim should be verified, no verification, no god.
The same with the supernatural, if someone says that ghosts exists, then that claim should be verified, no verification, no ghost.
I belong to an American forum, where atheists do not ask atheists for verification; also, atheists do not quote from religious links to verify a point of argument.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Robert Farquharson

I will give you an example of an armchair atheist, they are people who think they are atheists, but are not; for instance; when an atheist says that there is no god and the bible is pure fiction, another atheist would not say to prove why I say it, an atheist would already know.
Atheism is a response to a claim that god exists; if someone says god exists then that claim should be verified, no verification, no god.
The same with the supernatural, if someone says that ghosts exists, then that claim should be verified, no verification, no ghost.
I belong to an American forum, where atheists do not ask atheists for verification; also, atheists do not quote from religious links to verify a point of argument. (my emphasis)

@RF: Hmmm... FWIW, I'm still unsure what this necessarily has to do with armchairs.

It's already been pointed out in this thread that your expectations of *what properly constitutues an atheist*, are merely yours. I'd suggest that potentially deriding other members' atheism, if their conduct in debate doesn't satisfy your personal criteria, is unlikely to go down well. Moreover, it does not provide any basis for ignoring valid questions or requests for substantiation from others.

Rather than a further point-by-point address, I will merely redirect your attention to The Great Big List (the forum's rules of argument), as IMO it covers much of the ground that your post seeks to.

In terms of your bolded sections above, TGBL is non-discriminatory. It applies to all members equally, whether atheists or not. This includes the philosophic burden of proof, which falls on all claims made, regardless of who they originated from. After all, can't have Special Pleading, can we?

This portion of your Welcome Message from AFA Admin similarly applies equally to all posters:

Originally Posted by Welcome Message extract

We're friendly but we're skeptical, and if somebody calls for proof, it's not an accusation. Only the strong ideas thrive here: we try to respect people.

I note that we have no blanket ban on "religious links" being used, it is merely a question of what constitutes relevant and credible evidentiary support for the argument or point being advanced/refuted.

All ideas and claims are tested here. I hope that you're prepared to appropriately support and evidence yours, when this occurs.

Cheers.

[AUSloth]

Welcome back Robert you took a while.

Originally Posted by RF

when an atheist says that there is no god and the bible is pure fiction, another atheist would not say to prove why I say it, an atheist would already know

Why not? I might agree (and in this case do) with your conclusion but I would be keen to see the thinking or evidence you used to get to the conclusion and how it might vary from the path I followed. For a start the idea the bible is pure fiction I would contest, there are some historically acurate things in the dribble that are not disputed but these in no way lend credibility to the wildly inaccurate parts as a theist might claim.
You still have not shown how my very comfy armchair is related to my athesim. I do my best thinking there with a glass of red synaptic enhancer, just before I nod off

[Darwinsbulldog]

I don't believe in "accidental atheists". Stable atheism comes from reason and evidence. Some people who may call themselves atheists are just random noise. One day catholic, another day Buddhist, a third day , atheist, and then "New Ager" or FSM knows next. They are bubble-heads, not atheists. Classic case is Alain deBotton. "Forget god, but let's keep religion because we are all hysterical ninnies"
People come into atheism because they are rational skeptics. Intellectual honesty is a big part of this. So is science, because science provides alternative theories to theological claims, thus rendering religious bullshit to be something a lot less than self-evident truths.
Atheism is neither part-time, nor armchair. It is a realisation that accomodating both reason and faith is compartmentalism, leading to cognitive dissonence for the intellectually honest.

Not all atheists would put it in those terms. But that is the basics of what is going on. Religion creates fractured social realities that sooner or later conflict with more general physical reality, or rather the more rigourous scientific modelling of natural phenomena.

To be sure, most people do not philosophise about the reality of an approaching number 42 bus, as we are evolved creatures where are senses conflate naive reality for reality, because that is what helps us survive.

To the professional scientist, the map [science] is not the territory [nature or reality], it is only a model.

But the very presence of science itself, invalidates religion. So every true atheist [No true Scotsman rebuttal in 5, 4, 3...2 seconds] is in fact adopting the scientific world view. We are immersed in the product of science. We don't get sick because we are sinners, but because we are infected with pathogens.

God does not save babies from tsunamis, luck and emergency services do that. God causation, to the best of our knowledge, does not exist. irrespective of truth, the reason-science model works. It is predictive.
Even theists who are great scientists, only produce great output when they are doing science.

Kenneth R. Miller, creationist-fighter, Catholic, and biologist of note, makes sense every time he invokes methodological naturalism. But when he goes into god mode, QM becomes infused with god's will.

Blaise Pascal, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. Switch on "god-mode", and a child can refute his inane wager.

The deep and rigourous rationale for atheism may be armchair, but the practice, the world view, the being of atheism is simple and pragmatic. Fucking woo doesn't work, never has, and never will.

[simonecuttlefish]

Originally Posted by Robert Farquharson

I would like to speak with all those who look upon themselves as atheists in this forum; I’ve been an atheist for 50 years; to make sure I am not speaking to armchair atheists; could any of the senior members explain to me what an atheist is and what an atheist thinks about god.
There is a reason for asking this, once I know who I am speaking to, I'll be able to post my reply to the threads.

Hi Robert.
I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I have no belief in the existence or nonexistence of gods or the supernatural. I enjoy reading about science, and biology in particular, but I in no way 'require' science to justify my position, and I have no formal education beyond high school in the sciences.

I think the character Jesus is as real to history as Hercules, Gandalf and Noddy.

I have no problem with people who identify as being religious, but where I perceive harm being done by religious practice I do care. Burning children and adults as witches in Africa and the global conspiracy (gee that's a bad word to use ... but anyway) to shelter and protect sex offenders, and child sex offenders in particular by an organisation that makes NAMBLA seem like Santa's workshop (the Catholic church), are two examples of where I see harm being done by religion. The Catholic church's position on condom use in AIDS ravaged parts of Africa is also something I hold with a special degree of contempt and disgust.

I am concerned that we use tax dollars to teach mythology as reality in public schools. I'm not a fan at all of what I consider to be a refined and novel form of Stockholm syndrome that trains people to be ashamed by their very humanity, and is something I perceive as an integral part of the Abrahamic religions. The concept of 'thought crime' is central to Christianity, and in doing so marks it as a threat to mental health in my uneducated opinion.

There's more; the above is a subset of my current mindset and my decision to identify as atheist.

(I've edited this a bit, but I've changed nothing of the substance - I keep hitting the 'Submit Reply' button instead of the 'Preview Post' buttons)

[Mjt]

Originally Posted by Robert Farquharson

I will give you an example of an armchair atheist, they are people who think they are atheists, but are not; for instance; when an atheist says that there is no god and the bible is pure fiction, another atheist would not say to prove why I say it, an atheist would already know.
Atheism is a response to a claim that god exists; if someone says god exists then that claim should be verified, no verification, no god.
The same with the supernatural, if someone says that ghosts exists, then that claim should be verified, no verification, no ghost.
I belong to an American forum, where atheists do not ask atheists for verification; also, atheists do not quote from religious links to verify a point of argument.

Robert, dear, darling, sweetie
This small blue fish, atheist and all, will feel free to question should the whim take me. I will ask, I may require verification, I may even disagree.
I am not part of your group, your ass kissers, or your fan club.
You can be the standing up not sitting down atheist till the cows come home my love, you are not that important.
Here we ask, and we are free to do so.
Nobody tells us what to think.
I like it like that.
Feel free to disagree with me, thats how this place works.

[Robert Farquharson]

Originally Posted by simonecuttlefish

Hi Robert.
I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I have no belief in the existence or nonexistence of gods or the supernatural. I enjoy reading about science, and biology in particular, but I in no way 'require' science to justify my position, and I have no formal education beyond high school in the sciences.

I think the character Jesus is as real to history as Hercules, Gandalf and Noddy.

I have no problem with people who identify as being religious, but where I perceive harm being done by religious practice I do care. Burning children and adults as witches in Africa and the global conspiracy (gee that's a bad word to use ... but anyway) to shelter and protect sex offenders, and child sex offenders in particular by an organisation that makes NAMBLA seem like Santa's workshop (the Catholic church), are two examples of where I see harm being done by religion. The Catholic church's position on condom use in AIDS ravaged parts of Africa is also something I hold with a special degree of contempt and disgust.

I am concerned that we use tax dollars to teach mythology as reality in public schools. I'm not a fan at all of what I consider to be a refined and novel form of Stockholm syndrome that trains people to be ashamed by their very humanity, and is something I perceive as an integral part of the Abrahamic religions. The concept of 'thought crime' is central to Christianity, and in doing so marks it as a threat to mental health in my uneducated opinion.

There's more; the above is a subset of my current mindset and my decision to identify as atheist.

(I've edited this a bit, but I've changed nothing of the substance - I keep hitting the 'Submit Reply' button instead of the 'Preview Post' buttons)

At last, an intelligent argument, my atheism is known as strong atheism, I have no response other than to say I totally agree with you and thanks for your comment.