...Where a theist claims that his reality co-exists and supersedes the empirical (as in a young earther who uses pseudo-science to challenge science) then this is true but not where the religion places its reality outside of science.
In your box model you assume that there can only be one reality (essentially assuming empiricism). There are clearly realms that can exist in contradictory states, dreams, quantum scales, hallucinations and so on. Of course the empiricist will assert that his ‘reality’ is an enveloping interpretation of the others but then so would the theist. cont...
@herbiepop There CAN only be one reality, and only one version of it. You cannot both have left this comment and not left it. The Earth cannot be an oblate spheroid, a flat disk with a crystal dome over it, and a cube. If reality appears contradictory, this is a problem with our understanding of what is real. What is ASSERTED is irrelevant.
Realms which can be perceived are not the same as realms which actually EXIST.
@herbiepop In some ways, light APPEARS to behave like a wave, and in other ways, APPEARS to behave like a particle, but this does not make it both. This is a mystery. Most likely, light is something else entirely which, at times, resembles one, and at other times, resembles the other.
@lazyperfectionist1 No you are just asserting this. You have no way of demonstrating your assertion except by reference to your macroscopic reality and the observation that scales that you are familiar with behave like this.
@lazyperfectionist1 You are asserting that objects may only be in one state for example. You are also asserting that there is only one version of reality, Schrödinger had trouble with the same thing. I don't think that you understand contemporary physics at a basic level.
@herbiepop Physics is a field of science, and as such, works not with reality as we can be undeniably certain it is but as best we understand it. The conclusions of science are inductive, and as such, are always subject to revision in light of new evidence about objective reality.
@lazyperfectionist1 Again you are asserting that there is an 'objective reality', this is just an assertion on your part. As for your notion of physics it does nothing to support your assertion. One thing that physics has ascertained is that 'reality' on a quantum scale does not behave like 'reality' on a macroscopic scale. Similarly dream reality is outside of 'objective' reality.
@lazyperfectionist1 That may well be the case. As any solipsist will tell you.
You continually assert things without proof or argument much like a theist. Just because you imagine reality exists in a particular way does not make it so, any more than imagining a god makes one exist.
Of course for pragmatic purposes we behave as though reality is objective but then theists behave (sometimes) as though god exists.
@lazyperfectionist1 Obviously one can't. Even an integral self is open to doubt (alas Descartes was in error on so many things).
Scientific method can demonstrate that following a rational chain of action and reaction from the macroscopic to the quantum that the quantum does not behave like the macroscopic. Similarly on cosmic spacetime scales. However there are still laws that are obeyed, just not the traditional laws of logic.
@herbiepop I don't see how anything you're saying is inconsistent with what lazyperfectionist1 is saying.You'll have to be *much* more clear about what you mean by "objective reality". This conjunction, like so many other (un)loaded philosophical terms, is almost wholly vacuous prima facie; without explication it's nebulous at best.
My mantra (borrowed from Voltaire):
I say again; define your terms sir, or we will never understand each other.
@polymath7 Let me take a stab at it. objective reality: reality as it truly is, contrasted with subjective reality which is reality as we best understand it.
@polymath7 I am in fact saying that 'objective reality' is undefinable. It is lazyperfectionist1 who is saying it has absolute meaning. I don't think that you have been paying attention to the discussion. I was the one to introduce parentheses to the term.
@herbiepop You've got it exactly backwards. Terms are niether "definable" nor "indefinable" in themselves; they either have clear, identifiable referents or they do not. You introduced the phrase to this context; the onus is squarely on your shoulders on to define it for the purposes at hand, and make it do some actual descriptive work.
Sorry, but t reamins *entirely* unclear what you're saying lazyperfectionist can't say.
@polymath7 You want to know what I am actually saying as opposed to only what it may appear that I am saying? Looks like you understand it well enough.
@lazyperfectionist1 Not exactly. You're clear enough that I have some idea what issues you're raising and how to go about objecting to or refining them. I'd like to hear (though I have some idea what you'll say) what your distinction is between reality and appearance before I go any further.
@lazyperfectionist1 If one holds that the 'laws of logic' apply to both yes. However the two behave consistently if one suspends insistence on certain of these laws. This is why the quantum realm in our current description of it appears to be a non-intuitive place. Our logical intuition is based on our macroscopic experience.
@herbiepop I'd really steer away of quantum mechanics unless you really have some clear idea what you're talking about. Forgive me for being so blunt , but if you don't have formal training in physics (perhaps you do) I don't think you get to reference QM.
How exactly are the "laws of logic" inconsistent when applied to QM and macroscopic systems? For now I'm not even disagreeing with you. (Your imprecision hasn't even left the options of agree/disagreement open to me, as far as I can see).
@polymath7 Forgiven, I studied quantum mechanics for seven years, admittedly it was in the mid 70s. A particle may be in two or more states symultaneously and infinite locations, wave particle duality and so on.
@polymath7 I wasn't getting into questions of randomness and determinism. I don't think that they are necessarily relevant to the discussion which has in any case strayed from the point that I originally made. a system may follow deterministic rules and still disobey our host's notion of the constraints on reality.
@herbiepop "logical intuition" is a contradiction. There are the conclusions one is lead to by logic and those to which one is lead by intuition and the difference can be profound.
@lazyperfectionist1 To insist the 'laws of logic' are inherent in the universe is to say that they are intuitive. That they are consistent as axioms is one thing but to say that they must apply to reality is another.
@herbiepop I aree here. I am most emphatically not a Platonist as regards the ontology of mathematics. I think math is simply (well, not simply) analogous to program being run on the human brain.
@lazyperfectionist1 "Logicl intuition" most definitely is not a contradiction. There is no line of demarcation to be drawn between the two (and it's not really "the two" at all) any more than you can define a coastline. Cognition is far, far, more complex than that. Where do you get premises or axioms without intuitions?
@lazyperfectionist1 No my unsolicited suggestion would be to let them figure it out. Have you seen rozeboosje's video "Oh my word?" I can relate to Bofumytofu's sentiment.
when i first saw the title of this video, i thought....could it be lazy has gone to the darkside...well i guess it would be rather, found the light...
After careful consideration... I'd say I'm an empirical rationalist ... however even calling myself that doesn't change the fact that I am an agnostic atheist.
@CKSBoltaction My point. All rational roads lead to atheism, but not all roads that lead to atheism are rational. Atheism is a state that results from the method we utilize for assessing the world. It is not the method itself.
But what if a believer asks you what "empirical rationalist" means? What will you say? Is it different from a rational empiricist?
Honestly though I have a.d.d. I can't watch the entire video without becoming horribly bored. You are wearing sunglasses and you speak with no passion at all. You make it very obvious you are reading from the screen and one wonders which are your own ideas and which are of others. I prefer to call my self an atheist it's simply more effective. From what little I watched it seems you're quite arrogant. You're trying to highlight you intelligence. Not your idea.
@lazyperfectionist1 After actually watching your video. I still consider myself a anti thiest. Yes, there are negative attachments but it won't matter what you label yourself, there will always be someone to critisize it. I don't mind explaining to people that I am rational.. emperical.. and so on... makes for good convo. When I say I am an athiest/anti thiest the get the point fast.
I am a freethinker.. a critical thinker... these are labels I give myself... I don't need anymore like the ones you produce in your video. So here we go... I am an Athiest free thinker and a critical thinker :)
@CKSBoltaction We all consider ourselves free thinkers and critical thinkers, though. How many many exercises in pontification make the insistence that it is a "logical truth."
@CKSBoltaction But what does that say about your method for assessing the world? How much does it say about you? Only that you are against god-belief, which evokes all manner of absurd, fallacious, misleading strawmen.
@lazyperfectionist1 Buddy, I'm not into labels the only reason I call myself an anti thiest is because I don't believe in God. Why I don't doesn't matter. It's like asking someone why they don't collect stamps.
@CKSBoltaction Here, you're confusing anti-theism with atheism. An anti-theist is against god belief, while an atheist simply lacks it. They are compatible, but clearly not the same thing.
This metaphor does not apply. You aren't just someone who doesn't collect stamps. You're someone who is against the practice, or so you say.
@lazyperfectionist1 I am against seperatism however my hand is forced. with that I carry a label... anti thiest.. now athiest or anti thiest the differ in term is not relivent to this convo.
I'm not a fan of pointless debate and as neither side will likely ever be proven this is a prime example, then it's a shitty metaphor, a rose by any other name, and my glasses win by default because they're magic.
@malixth Yes, it is true that one can never prove that no gods exist. Nor, for that matter can it ever be proven that no leprechauns, dragons or gremlins exist, so I guess both sides in each of those debates are likewise equally well based.
@malixth I might point out how the vast majority of non-religious people are people who were, at one time, religious. This includes me. Our religiousity was never due to a lack of intelligence or cognitive development. It was due to things like partitioning of the mind, undeveloped reasoning skills, and reasoning habits that had long been drilled into us which disuaded us from examing certain claims. Religion depends on a lack of examination, not a lack of intelligence.
In short your entire argument is somewhat flawed as it is based on a lot of subjective argument and straw men on your part, and your presentation makes me want to spend all day at the senior center hosting bingo, because it would be more lively. I'm a man of science, and not a theist. As such, I'm asking you to please stop being such and absurdly arrogant prick. The idea here is not to foster discussion. It is to not give a shit about religious twats, and continue on with the good work.
Additionally, your use of the term "straw men" is spurious at best. The real straw man in your argument is your use of a box with notes on it describing what is inside as a representation of reality. This is the difference between theoretical atheists and objective physics. While the box can be opened, and instant and total understanding is then obtained, the origins of reality can never be known for certain.
The use of subjective in that context was completely correct. Our puny human brains cannot possibly know all objective, empirical evidence in the universe, so we form subjective views of reality based on past experiences. Now, if that weren't bad enough, you then jump from an argument on objective vs. subjective to an argument on changing what atheists are called to avoid judgment from theists. You then use subjective arguments to make this case. cont.
The whole reading from a script thing wouldn't be bad, if you actually learned the script, didn't wear those stupid fucking glasses, and didn't put on grandiose affectations that are obviously foreign to you. You're a terrible actor, so please, just stop. It's hard for me to watch this video because I just want to punch you in the face for being a pompous ass. However, after about a dozen tries, I've nailed down the content of what you're trying to say, and will provide requested rebuttal.
@malixth I would advise you, in that case, to wear shades yourself to conceal the green in your eyes, as you clearly wish you looked as cool in shades as I do.
@DreadsideNubune First of all, the word is "you," not "u." Someone who can't be bothered to make two extra keystrokes is hopelessly lazy even by MY standards.
Second, in your use of the word "god," it's a name, right? That means it should be capitalized.
despite this personel attack on me beleifs i still stay subbed to ur videos because i like to get as much knowledge as possible, that is jsut the way i am
@lazyperfectionist1 u r so superior wow all atheists r so mad at ppl who they perceeve as below them... maybe this is why u will never CONVERT people to your BELIEF in science and related topics
Putting what you said into practice, then a believer of a deity is an atheist of every other religion that exists is you believe in a single religion?
In this video, speaker wears glasses to hide obvious eye movement that would give away cue card reading, and tries to speak in measured robot voice to imply logic.
@malixth First of all, it's not cue cards. It's a script and I make no secret of that I rely on one. Second, what's wrong with using a script?
Third, I don't need to imply logic. I know enough about it to use it, as you would be able to tell if you knew jack shit about the subject yourself. If there were any places in my argument in which my reasoning breaks down, you would point to them. But you can't, so instead you have to be content to speak ill of me.
@malixth and yet makes perfect sense if you pay attention...
in his reply (to the video) the listener malixth is offended (or didn't pay attention) and tries to make lazyperfectionist1 seem less credible by making comments that doe not effect the over all message.
Good vid. I don't mind that you're reading script. It makes your vid coherent and organized.
I don't think I could call myself a "pearlist" although it fits. "Reasonist" would be better. But just because adjectives like "black" or "overweight" might evoke negative connotations in some, we shouldn't abandon them for something "better." We should instead attack those negative connotations.
@DeaconVerter "We should instead attack those negative connotations."
What I am proposing here is a means to that end. What better way to collectively undermine and debunk ALL the negative connotations attached to this particular label then by introducing ourselves with words that makes sense, but that aren't known, and therefore require and subsequently evoke thought on the part of the parties we are speaking to as a segue into a discussion to give them something to think ABOUT.
PEARList? The method he uses is already called the scientific method.Thunderfoot needs to move on from religion and find solutions, instead he tries to rename methods that already been proven feasible.Why does one become religious in the first place?Surely his approaches are more divisive then soothing.Religion can be phased out as we become increasingly capable of understanding human psychology and social conditioning.
@rickdelagarza In my opinion, yes. An animal that has a spine is accurately described as a vertebrate regardless of how that animal may feel about the label. A house built before the Civil War is accurately called antebellum regardless of how anyone feels about the label. Such is how labels and terms of description are applied and I see no reason to make an exception for "atheism."
The title of this video is one I chose mainly to draw attention. So admittedly, it is a tad misleading.
Although you produce very enlightening content, could you perhaps take off your sunglasses? I can see the screen you're looking at, and this would also extinguish my assumptions over you not being able to use complex words without a script. it would truly prove your ability to contain an extravagant vocabulary.
It's because I enjoy people scrambling for information so they can mount either an extravagant and vicious rebuttal to comments, or to just drink in their own delusions of grandeur.
Problem with those terms is they say nothing directly about your religious declaration or non-religious declaration. It seems the same to me as calling yourself a skeptic. The person you tell that to will just conclude after a short explanation from yourself that you're an unbeliever or an atheist. The straw-mans associated to that are not necessarily limited to the word atheist, but I would argue would include the entire notion of not beliving in god. It doesn't matter what you call it imho.
Well no. They don't. That's the whole point. Atheism is not a method of reasoning. It is the conclusion of one. These strawman fallacies of the method entailed are what get in the way of open discourse with believers.
I might point out that you yourself are using a logical fallacy in your argument here: the false dichotomy. An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in God, but someone who doesn't believe in any gods (plural).
@lazyperfectionist1 I never defined or limited the word atheist to only one god, its not even in the subject matter. In short I just said in my opinion your going to get Stereotyped no matter what you call yourself
I wholeheartedly agree that the term "atheist" has very negative cultural/social connotations associated with it; in turn possibly prohibiting proper dialogue associated with it.
However, I think the last thing we need as a loosely defined "atheist" group is more labeling. It seems to just be muddling the real issues, in my opinion.
I may be alone in this, but I enjoy using the term "atheist," especially with people I see on a regular basis. They may have a lot of baggage attached to the word initially, but the difference between the stereotype and my actual actions will help them recognize that the stereotype is wrong.
I like both terms: PEARList or empirical rational dualist. They both refer to the method rather than the conclusions, allowing opportunity for change as more data accumulates. PEARList rolls off the tongue more easily, but if I use empirical rational dualist, I can start a Web site, Nerds for ERD. I agree that the term "atheism" is too restrictive, dealing only with the mythologies. Maybe we need something with a little marketing spin.
I giggled a bit when I you said you were reading science friction. I've been working on finish it between classes and my growing addiction to world of warcraft. Shermer is definitely an entertaining and informative author if you ask me.
No as for the term, I use "non-theist". I cannot exactly remember where I saw it but it was probably in one of Michael Shermer's books. The reason I use it is because the people around me have never heard it so they don't jump to conclusions about my ...
... personal life. I also use it because I can simply explain it as a term meaning I don't believe in God. I've found that when I used to say I was an agnostic people reacted as though I was an atheist or as if I were "against their God".
I think the "non" part of non-theist also represents how non-confrontation I want to be in my simplest explanation of my belief. My experiences have shown I'm more likely to alienate people than to gain their trust so I typically choose to keep it to...
or to just not share at all. I do this because I don't wish to offend the people I tell it to and because they typically think different of me after I tell them. Different in usually a negative way.
Sorry for the long winded post and i think the posts will show up backwards....oh well if anyone reads it they will surely figure it out.
Yes. Michael Shermer is definitely a new favorite of mine. I especially loved his cameo in a recent episode of misterdeity.
There's nothing wrong with someone else getting long-winded in my comments. Complaining about such a thing would make me a hypocrite.
I would point out, though, that it's not about belief or absence of belief in one particular god, but in gods in general. It's not that you don't believe in God but that you don't believe in any gods.
It seems to me that you would be doing them a favor to take this opportunity to clear up this false dichotomy. After all, the idea here is not to get them thinking the same way you do but to clear up misconceptions about the way you think so they can examine it as it truly is.
No, I was asking about what larasque meant by living with the social stigma attached to playing WoW and being a non-theist. Can't say I really understand what he means. I play the game because I enjoy playing it with my friends. The only parallel I can think larasque is drawing is between the game lore and real life. Maybe? Or are you being sarcastic? Binary doesn't seem to transmit sarcasm so well.
I was just joshing you. Atheists/non-theists are a small portion of the population and often marginalized. Gaming nerds are considered eccentric (at best, sometimes). The combination would seem to be a combination to earn anyone the Outcast Seal of Approval. As a WoW player (Eitrigg) and cognitive eupraxist, I have earned that seal myself.
This IS how the propaganda works. You take the people in their less credulous stages and teach them to associate all manner of fallacious strawmen with the term "atheist," so then whenever they hear the term, those strawmen get evoked.
This happens with any label we all adopt. But if, in such a situation, we all have one of a wide variety of different labels, then this propaganda machine can't target each and every one of them.
I'd be careful with using "dualist". I think you're using it to mean that you use both reason and evidence, but "dualist" is already a pretty loaded term in philosophy (e.g mind/body dualists.)
Yes, it *is* the complementary to "monist", in the sense that monists believe there is only one substance, e.g. in the mind/body problem they can believe the body alone exists (materialism) or that the mind alone exists (idealism).
In your case, if I understood you, you're trying to say you use a combination of reason and evidence. Looking around for a term now I came across someone's page who calls it "combinationalist", but it's not "official" as far as I can tell :)
I prefer to blatantly declare myself an atheist. It perfectly describes my position regarding God(s). I don't want to sugar coat it to make it more palatable. This also gives one an opportunity to educate those who do not understand the meaning of the word and to expose the strawmen for what they are. One thing I have found fairly effective is to explain that I did not choose to become an atheist. It is simply a word that describes one aspect of myself.
But it describes nothing about the approach one takes to assessing reality. Think about this, now. I was a victim of the propaganda machines which influenced my upbringing, teaching me to make the association I refer to in this video. These associations got in the way every time I tried to discuss with an atheist. If that hadn't been the case, I would have reached this point much sooner and I wish that I had. That conditioned association was a form of mental bondage.
Sure. Maybe it's best to have a small arsenal of interchangeable terms which can be rotated in and out depending on which seem to be inspiring false preconceptions.
I would like to donate to the arsenal: my first term is "cognitive eupraxist." This term is my own creation and refers to not only the method of looking at the world but in how I use the method to derive my ethical stance and define my actions. From "cognitive: 1) of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering) 2) based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge. "Eupraxist" from the Greek for good actions.
Materialist has too many negative or specific connotations for me. There are implications of mercenary motivations (I am a material girl!)--that we're "in it for the money."
That is a social definition rather than a philosophical one.
Like the difference between a scientific theory and "just a theory". I can see how that could be a problem, but that could also be a boon if used well.
True about "if it were used well." However, I am considering the burden under which the term "atheist" toils, with negative connotations heaped upon it. "Materialist" already has these connotations. Nonetheless, it is a useful addition to the arsenal.
This won't help distance people from negative connotations if they don't understand the difference and that, sadly is most people. There can be merit in explaining the difference, but then we're teaching semantics and have lost the point of the argument. Eupraxism will similarly need defining.
Of course it needs defining. That's the whole point. The idea with taking the approach I'm suggesting here is to give ourselves the chance to define our position without evoking all the strawmen the individual in this case has been trained and will be trained to associate with any blanket term in such a situation.
Yes, I see. Well then I guess I would support those terms which refer to the methodology rather than the conclusion. Then any quibble would itself be a distraction from our position. Empirical Rational Dualist sounds good, but seems to be an oxymoron. I'm not a dualist. Cognitive Duelist maybe. ;)
I like the term "Secular Humanist". It's just outside of the realm of most vocabularies to leave out any pre-set biases towards the term, it sparks enough curiosity most of the time, and it speaks volumes about the beliefs that I do hold.
That said, I still think atheist is an apt title and worth stating as a position about theistic claims. I just tell those who respond negatively to the term that they don't actually understand what it mean in as neutral of a tone as possible.
I like the word Atheist quite a lot, but that's because it's always been synonymous with "rational person" in my household, so I don't understand the negativity around it.
A also seem to take a liking to inflammatory language (and activities) so I'm not a good one to ask. Any "identity" label that doesn't create a strong reaction in others isn't worth having, in my opinion. (^.^)
I'm not suggesting abandoning "atheist" as a label. The idea is to escape this association in one-on-one dialogue at least until one has had the chance to explain one's real position without invoking the strawmen theists have been trained to associate with the term.
I'll stick with "atheist", I am used to it. And I like it.This way the others know one thing about me - I lack a belief in god. If they interact with me, they will learn other things about me.
I'm not suggesting abandoning the title "atheist." I'm suggesting, when we find ourselves in one-on-one discussions with theists, that we use less known titles (only in that circumstance) to give ourselves a chance to explain our position.
Hey, what is happening here? I can't find my original comment, where I say that I'll stick with "atheist", I am used to it. I think I commented first, and this comment has disappeared. I hope this is a temporary situation, and later all comments will appear. I have this happening in the comment sections of my videos, too. :(
The problem with acronyms is that there are too many already out there, the world is filled with acronyms (its a very commercial approach) and every person can change the meaning of each letter to make fun of it or distort its initial meaning.
I always liked Thunderfoot's concept of the PEARList, and it may fit the bill, the the problem really is that essentially we will just be considered atheists, no matter what we call ourselves. It's like how creationists tried to fancy themselves up with "Intelligent Design."
Film buffs have been trying to do away with the term "movie" for years in lieu of more appropriate words like film or cinema, but the general population has movie fixed in its popular culture. Don't expect it to disappear.
You've missed my point completely. Yes, the term is accurate, once one understands it, but not if one has been trained to make all kinds of absurd, fallacious associations with it.
I understand this, but I'm also trying to make the point that alternative labels for something will usually be defaulted back to the original one, because most people understand things by associating them with other things that are related. You're not trying to use another term to make us clear to like-minded people, correct? The purpose is to invent a phrase that will identify us to theists without having negative connotations. I'm simply saying that it's difficult to do such. I apologize.
"I understand this, but I'm also trying to make the point that alternative labels for something will usually be defaulted back to the original one,"
This is what happens if we all adopt the same one in such a situation. But if we all prepare to adopt different labels in such a situation, the propaganda machine can't possibly target each and every one of them.
I don't really call myself a title. I have 3 names (first, middle, and last) and not one of them is inaccurate or misleading because they are not attempts to describe me. Any attempt to use a single word or phrase to describe me would ultimately fail because either part of it will not hold true 100% of the time, or there will inevitably be something left off.
If someone asks what my religion is I tell them that I have no religion. This is unambiguous an answer to the question as you can get.
...Where a theist claims that his reality co-exists and supersedes the empirical (as in a young earther who uses pseudo-science to challenge science) then this is true but not where the religion places its reality outside of science.
herbiepop 1 month ago
In your box model you assume that there can only be one reality (essentially assuming empiricism). There are clearly realms that can exist in contradictory states, dreams, quantum scales, hallucinations and so on. Of course the empiricist will assert that his ‘reality’ is an enveloping interpretation of the others but then so would the theist. cont...
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop There CAN only be one reality, and only one version of it. You cannot both have left this comment and not left it. The Earth cannot be an oblate spheroid, a flat disk with a crystal dome over it, and a cube. If reality appears contradictory, this is a problem with our understanding of what is real. What is ASSERTED is irrelevant.
Realms which can be perceived are not the same as realms which actually EXIST.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 wave and particle anyone?
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop In some ways, light APPEARS to behave like a wave, and in other ways, APPEARS to behave like a particle, but this does not make it both. This is a mystery. Most likely, light is something else entirely which, at times, resembles one, and at other times, resembles the other.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 No you are just asserting this. You have no way of demonstrating your assertion except by reference to your macroscopic reality and the observation that scales that you are familiar with behave like this.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop Asserting which?
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 You are asserting that objects may only be in one state for example. You are also asserting that there is only one version of reality, Schrödinger had trouble with the same thing. I don't think that you understand contemporary physics at a basic level.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop Physics is a field of science, and as such, works not with reality as we can be undeniably certain it is but as best we understand it. The conclusions of science are inductive, and as such, are always subject to revision in light of new evidence about objective reality.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Again you are asserting that there is an 'objective reality', this is just an assertion on your part. As for your notion of physics it does nothing to support your assertion. One thing that physics has ascertained is that 'reality' on a quantum scale does not behave like 'reality' on a macroscopic scale. Similarly dream reality is outside of 'objective' reality.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop "Again you are asserting that there is an 'objective reality'"
Well, if there isn't, then you and I are not really having this conversation.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 That may well be the case. As any solipsist will tell you.
You continually assert things without proof or argument much like a theist. Just because you imagine reality exists in a particular way does not make it so, any more than imagining a god makes one exist.
Of course for pragmatic purposes we behave as though reality is objective but then theists behave (sometimes) as though god exists.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop First, how do you demonstrate that any solipsists actually exist?
Second, if objective reality does not actually exist, then why should science be open to changing its conclusions in light of new clues?
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Obviously one can't. Even an integral self is open to doubt (alas Descartes was in error on so many things).
Scientific method can demonstrate that following a rational chain of action and reaction from the macroscopic to the quantum that the quantum does not behave like the macroscopic. Similarly on cosmic spacetime scales. However there are still laws that are obeyed, just not the traditional laws of logic.
herbiepop 1 month ago
Comment removed
polymath7 1 month ago
@herbiepop I don't see how anything you're saying is inconsistent with what lazyperfectionist1 is saying.You'll have to be *much* more clear about what you mean by "objective reality". This conjunction, like so many other (un)loaded philosophical terms, is almost wholly vacuous prima facie; without explication it's nebulous at best.
My mantra (borrowed from Voltaire):
I say again; define your terms sir, or we will never understand each other.
polymath7 1 month ago
@polymath7 Let me take a stab at it. objective reality: reality as it truly is, contrasted with subjective reality which is reality as we best understand it.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Now you are stuck with defining 'as it truly is' and distinguishing that from the subjective.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@polymath7 I am in fact saying that 'objective reality' is undefinable. It is lazyperfectionist1 who is saying it has absolute meaning. I don't think that you have been paying attention to the discussion. I was the one to introduce parentheses to the term.
herbiepop 1 month ago
Comment removed
polymath7 1 month ago
@herbiepop You've got it exactly backwards. Terms are niether "definable" nor "indefinable" in themselves; they either have clear, identifiable referents or they do not. You introduced the phrase to this context; the onus is squarely on your shoulders on to define it for the purposes at hand, and make it do some actual descriptive work.
Sorry, but t reamins *entirely* unclear what you're saying lazyperfectionist can't say.
polymath7 1 month ago
@polymath7 You want to know what I am actually saying as opposed to only what it may appear that I am saying? Looks like you understand it well enough.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Not exactly. You're clear enough that I have some idea what issues you're raising and how to go about objecting to or refining them. I'd like to hear (though I have some idea what you'll say) what your distinction is between reality and appearance before I go any further.
polymath7 1 month ago
@herbiepop Do the quantum and the macroscopic behave in contradictory ways?
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 If one holds that the 'laws of logic' apply to both yes. However the two behave consistently if one suspends insistence on certain of these laws. This is why the quantum realm in our current description of it appears to be a non-intuitive place. Our logical intuition is based on our macroscopic experience.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop I'd really steer away of quantum mechanics unless you really have some clear idea what you're talking about. Forgive me for being so blunt , but if you don't have formal training in physics (perhaps you do) I don't think you get to reference QM.
How exactly are the "laws of logic" inconsistent when applied to QM and macroscopic systems? For now I'm not even disagreeing with you. (Your imprecision hasn't even left the options of agree/disagreement open to me, as far as I can see).
polymath7 1 month ago
@polymath7 Forgiven, I studied quantum mechanics for seven years, admittedly it was in the mid 70s. A particle may be in two or more states symultaneously and infinite locations, wave particle duality and so on.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop Are you familiar with the distinctions between epistemic and ontic indeterminism?
polymath7 1 month ago
@polymath7 I wasn't getting into questions of randomness and determinism. I don't think that they are necessarily relevant to the discussion which has in any case strayed from the point that I originally made. a system may follow deterministic rules and still disobey our host's notion of the constraints on reality.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop "logical intuition" is a contradiction. There are the conclusions one is lead to by logic and those to which one is lead by intuition and the difference can be profound.
So what is the contradiction?
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 To insist the 'laws of logic' are inherent in the universe is to say that they are intuitive. That they are consistent as axioms is one thing but to say that they must apply to reality is another.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop I aree here. I am most emphatically not a Platonist as regards the ontology of mathematics. I think math is simply (well, not simply) analogous to program being run on the human brain.
polymath7 1 month ago
@polymath7 I agree.
herbiepop 1 month ago
@herbiepop "but to say that they must apply to reality is another."
Again the limits of language shows its head. Here the ambiguity it seems to me to lie in the verb "apply".
polymath7 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 "Logicl intuition" most definitely is not a contradiction. There is no line of demarcation to be drawn between the two (and it's not really "the two" at all) any more than you can define a coastline. Cognition is far, far, more complex than that. Where do you get premises or axioms without intuitions?
polymath7 1 month ago
You have got to be a Star Trek fan! your talking at the same pace and tone as Spock 8D
maidenjapan66 1 month ago
@maidenjapan66 I've also been told I sound like Agent Smith.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@maidenjapan66 I think that he might be half Vulcan.
NeoPsiTom 1 month ago
PASTAFARIAN!
losghost 5 months ago
just... no.
bofumytofu 1 year ago
@bofumytofu "no" to what?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 How you describe yourself to a theist. No.
LictorCrotch 1 year ago
@LictorCrotch You're suggesting that I describe myself to a theist as "no?"
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 No my unsolicited suggestion would be to let them figure it out. Have you seen rozeboosje's video "Oh my word?" I can relate to Bofumytofu's sentiment.
LictorCrotch 1 year ago
What if they were all correct, upon the time of writing?
Zuifan 1 year ago
unconvinced...
prudent shopper...
unpersuaded...
baffled...
concerned...
I bet we could find other metaphoric terms within the bible & other 'mystic books' to use as well.
billygundum 1 year ago
when i first saw the title of this video, i thought....could it be lazy has gone to the darkside...well i guess it would be rather, found the light...
GMunny5 1 year ago
After careful consideration... I'd say I'm an empirical rationalist ... however even calling myself that doesn't change the fact that I am an agnostic atheist.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction My point. All rational roads lead to atheism, but not all roads that lead to atheism are rational. Atheism is a state that results from the method we utilize for assessing the world. It is not the method itself.
But what if a believer asks you what "empirical rationalist" means? What will you say? Is it different from a rational empiricist?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
Honestly though I have a.d.d. I can't watch the entire video without becoming horribly bored. You are wearing sunglasses and you speak with no passion at all. You make it very obvious you are reading from the screen and one wonders which are your own ideas and which are of others. I prefer to call my self an atheist it's simply more effective. From what little I watched it seems you're quite arrogant. You're trying to highlight you intelligence. Not your idea.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction "You make it very obvious you are reading from the screen and one wonders which are your own ideas and which are of others."
Does it matter who the ideas are from if the reasoning is sound?
"From what little I watched it seems you're quite arrogant. You're trying to highlight you intelligence. Not your idea."
Do you know what the practice of trying to distract from the argument by hurling criticisms at the arguer is called?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Deflection. I'm not the only one doing it. You quoted me and didn't answer.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction Actually, it's called ad hominem. It's a logical fallacy. Yes, I am aware that others have done it here. It's still a logical fallacy.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 After actually watching your video. I still consider myself a anti thiest. Yes, there are negative attachments but it won't matter what you label yourself, there will always be someone to critisize it. I don't mind explaining to people that I am rational.. emperical.. and so on... makes for good convo. When I say I am an athiest/anti thiest the get the point fast.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
I am a freethinker.. a critical thinker... these are labels I give myself... I don't need anymore like the ones you produce in your video. So here we go... I am an Athiest free thinker and a critical thinker :)
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction We all consider ourselves free thinkers and critical thinkers, though. How many many exercises in pontification make the insistence that it is a "logical truth."
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 no we don't. I know many who wouldn't consider themselves a critical thinker.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
I'm an anti thiest... Simple.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction But what does that say about your method for assessing the world? How much does it say about you? Only that you are against god-belief, which evokes all manner of absurd, fallacious, misleading strawmen.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 It says I look at the world from a logical stand point.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction No it doesn't. All it says is that you are against god-belief. The term itself conveys no explanation about why.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Buddy, I'm not into labels the only reason I call myself an anti thiest is because I don't believe in God. Why I don't doesn't matter. It's like asking someone why they don't collect stamps.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
@CKSBoltaction Here, you're confusing anti-theism with atheism. An anti-theist is against god belief, while an atheist simply lacks it. They are compatible, but clearly not the same thing.
This metaphor does not apply. You aren't just someone who doesn't collect stamps. You're someone who is against the practice, or so you say.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 I am against seperatism however my hand is forced. with that I carry a label... anti thiest.. now athiest or anti thiest the differ in term is not relivent to this convo.
CKSBoltaction 1 year ago
I'm not a fan of pointless debate and as neither side will likely ever be proven this is a prime example, then it's a shitty metaphor, a rose by any other name, and my glasses win by default because they're magic.
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth Yes, it is true that one can never prove that no gods exist. Nor, for that matter can it ever be proven that no leprechauns, dragons or gremlins exist, so I guess both sides in each of those debates are likewise equally well based.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 To which I can only reply, who is the more retarded? The retard, or the idiot who insists on a logical argument with the retard?
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth I might point out how the vast majority of non-religious people are people who were, at one time, religious. This includes me. Our religiousity was never due to a lack of intelligence or cognitive development. It was due to things like partitioning of the mind, undeveloped reasoning skills, and reasoning habits that had long been drilled into us which disuaded us from examing certain claims. Religion depends on a lack of examination, not a lack of intelligence.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
In short your entire argument is somewhat flawed as it is based on a lot of subjective argument and straw men on your part, and your presentation makes me want to spend all day at the senior center hosting bingo, because it would be more lively. I'm a man of science, and not a theist. As such, I'm asking you to please stop being such and absurdly arrogant prick. The idea here is not to foster discussion. It is to not give a shit about religious twats, and continue on with the good work.
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth "The idea here is not to foster discussion. It is to not give a shit about religious twats, and continue on with the good work."
Perhaps fostering discussion is not *your* objective, but it is for most of us. Most of us are atheists, not apatheists.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
Additionally, your use of the term "straw men" is spurious at best. The real straw man in your argument is your use of a box with notes on it describing what is inside as a representation of reality. This is the difference between theoretical atheists and objective physics. While the box can be opened, and instant and total understanding is then obtained, the origins of reality can never be known for certain.
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth Listen again. The box in my metaphor cannot be opened.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
The use of subjective in that context was completely correct. Our puny human brains cannot possibly know all objective, empirical evidence in the universe, so we form subjective views of reality based on past experiences. Now, if that weren't bad enough, you then jump from an argument on objective vs. subjective to an argument on changing what atheists are called to avoid judgment from theists. You then use subjective arguments to make this case. cont.
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth Not "judgment." Preconception.
And as you yourself explain, subjective arguments are really all our "puny human brains" can comprehend, so of course they are what I relied upon.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
The whole reading from a script thing wouldn't be bad, if you actually learned the script, didn't wear those stupid fucking glasses, and didn't put on grandiose affectations that are obviously foreign to you. You're a terrible actor, so please, just stop. It's hard for me to watch this video because I just want to punch you in the face for being a pompous ass. However, after about a dozen tries, I've nailed down the content of what you're trying to say, and will provide requested rebuttal.
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth I would advise you, in that case, to wear shades yourself to conceal the green in your eyes, as you clearly wish you looked as cool in shades as I do.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
if god dont exist u cant do blasphemy ok, but u said u were a blasphemeing okay so that means u admit god is real LOL!!
DreadsideNubune 1 year ago
@DreadsideNubune First of all, the word is "you," not "u." Someone who can't be bothered to make two extra keystrokes is hopelessly lazy even by MY standards.
Second, in your use of the word "god," it's a name, right? That means it should be capitalized.
Third, it's spelled "blaspheming."
Fourth, have you no concept of sarcasm?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1
despite this personel attack on me beleifs i still stay subbed to ur videos because i like to get as much knowledge as possible, that is jsut the way i am
DreadsideNubune 1 year ago
@DreadsideNubune Which of your beliefs did I attack? A belief about spelling, capitalization or sarcasm?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 u r so superior wow all atheists r so mad at ppl who they perceeve as below them... maybe this is why u will never CONVERT people to your BELIEF in science and related topics
DreadsideNubune 1 year ago
@DreadsideNubune So then you are going to answer my question?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@DreadsideNubune
Atheism is a non belief derp
brendankhoury 1 year ago
@brendankhoury No, it is an absense of belief.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1
do you understand what a troll is? It seems you are intelligent enough to spot a troll, or maybe you are just good at reading essays you've written.
brendankhoury 1 year ago
@brendankhoury I see. When in doubt, give up on saying anything relevant.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1
When in doubt, wear sunglasses and read off random over-intellectual statements. You are no AronRa my friend, stop pretending to be.
Still respect the few videos I've watched of yours. But yeah, you gotta learn that everyone doesn't take youtube as seriously as you do.
brendankhoury 1 year ago
@brendankhoury Why in the world are you bringing AronRa into this?
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@brendankhoury atheism is the belief that there is nothing to believe in
MrCableguyken 1 year ago
@MrCableguyken
No, there is the absence of belief.
Putting what you said into practice, then a believer of a deity is an atheist of every other religion that exists is you believe in a single religion?
Makes sense?
brendankhoury 1 year ago
In this video, speaker wears glasses to hide obvious eye movement that would give away cue card reading, and tries to speak in measured robot voice to imply logic.
malixth 1 year ago
@malixth First of all, it's not cue cards. It's a script and I make no secret of that I rely on one. Second, what's wrong with using a script?
Third, I don't need to imply logic. I know enough about it to use it, as you would be able to tell if you knew jack shit about the subject yourself. If there were any places in my argument in which my reasoning breaks down, you would point to them. But you can't, so instead you have to be content to speak ill of me.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@malixth and yet makes perfect sense if you pay attention...
in his reply (to the video) the listener malixth is offended (or didn't pay attention) and tries to make lazyperfectionist1 seem less credible by making comments that doe not effect the over all message.
unixman84 1 year ago
Good vid. I don't mind that you're reading script. It makes your vid coherent and organized.
I don't think I could call myself a "pearlist" although it fits. "Reasonist" would be better. But just because adjectives like "black" or "overweight" might evoke negative connotations in some, we shouldn't abandon them for something "better." We should instead attack those negative connotations.
DeaconVerter 1 year ago
@DeaconVerter "We should instead attack those negative connotations."
What I am proposing here is a means to that end. What better way to collectively undermine and debunk ALL the negative connotations attached to this particular label then by introducing ourselves with words that makes sense, but that aren't known, and therefore require and subsequently evoke thought on the part of the parties we are speaking to as a segue into a discussion to give them something to think ABOUT.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
i like a hot dog
Crangeru 1 year ago
PEARList? The method he uses is already called the scientific method.Thunderfoot needs to move on from religion and find solutions, instead he tries to rename methods that already been proven feasible.Why does one become religious in the first place?Surely his approaches are more divisive then soothing.Religion can be phased out as we become increasingly capable of understanding human psychology and social conditioning.
rickdelagarza 1 year ago
Is one an atheist even if they fit the definition but reject the label as such?I would like to hear your answer to this.
rickdelagarza 1 year ago
@rickdelagarza In my opinion, yes. An animal that has a spine is accurately described as a vertebrate regardless of how that animal may feel about the label. A house built before the Civil War is accurately called antebellum regardless of how anyone feels about the label. Such is how labels and terms of description are applied and I see no reason to make an exception for "atheism."
The title of this video is one I chose mainly to draw attention. So admittedly, it is a tad misleading.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
Although you produce very enlightening content, could you perhaps take off your sunglasses? I can see the screen you're looking at, and this would also extinguish my assumptions over you not being able to use complex words without a script. it would truly prove your ability to contain an extravagant vocabulary.
588holly 2 years ago
Am I to understand, then, that you don't actually find any problems with the reasoning I present here?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Did I say no?
588holly 2 years ago
Indeed not. Nor did you say yes. For that matter, you still haven't. Are you going to answer my question?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
It's because I enjoy people scrambling for information so they can mount either an extravagant and vicious rebuttal to comments, or to just drink in their own delusions of grandeur.
but yes, i agree with you.
588holly 2 years ago
it's good to hear that others have hobbies similar to my own.
RomanLions 2 years ago
Problem with those terms is they say nothing directly about your religious declaration or non-religious declaration. It seems the same to me as calling yourself a skeptic. The person you tell that to will just conclude after a short explanation from yourself that you're an unbeliever or an atheist. The straw-mans associated to that are not necessarily limited to the word atheist, but I would argue would include the entire notion of not beliving in god. It doesn't matter what you call it imho.
AtheistKharm 2 years ago
Well no. They don't. That's the whole point. Atheism is not a method of reasoning. It is the conclusion of one. These strawman fallacies of the method entailed are what get in the way of open discourse with believers.
I might point out that you yourself are using a logical fallacy in your argument here: the false dichotomy. An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in God, but someone who doesn't believe in any gods (plural).
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
@lazyperfectionist1 I never defined or limited the word atheist to only one god, its not even in the subject matter. In short I just said in my opinion your going to get Stereotyped no matter what you call yourself
AtheistKharm 2 years ago
That's true, if we adopt one blanket term for all of us. But one cannot associate stereotypes with an unfamiliar term.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
you're a retard.
SaintJimmyI 2 years ago
Ah. You can say unpleasant things about me. Kudos. You get the gold star.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree that the term "atheist" has very negative cultural/social connotations associated with it; in turn possibly prohibiting proper dialogue associated with it.
However, I think the last thing we need as a loosely defined "atheist" group is more labeling. It seems to just be muddling the real issues, in my opinion.
jared10ant 2 years ago
This is not my suggestion here.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I may be alone in this, but I enjoy using the term "atheist," especially with people I see on a regular basis. They may have a lot of baggage attached to the word initially, but the difference between the stereotype and my actual actions will help them recognize that the stereotype is wrong.
azsuperman01 2 years ago
I like both terms: PEARList or empirical rational dualist. They both refer to the method rather than the conclusions, allowing opportunity for change as more data accumulates. PEARList rolls off the tongue more easily, but if I use empirical rational dualist, I can start a Web site, Nerds for ERD. I agree that the term "atheism" is too restrictive, dealing only with the mythologies. Maybe we need something with a little marketing spin.
laraesque 2 years ago
I giggled a bit when I you said you were reading science friction. I've been working on finish it between classes and my growing addiction to world of warcraft. Shermer is definitely an entertaining and informative author if you ask me.
No as for the term, I use "non-theist". I cannot exactly remember where I saw it but it was probably in one of Michael Shermer's books. The reason I use it is because the people around me have never heard it so they don't jump to conclusions about my ...
Remijdio 2 years ago
... personal life. I also use it because I can simply explain it as a term meaning I don't believe in God. I've found that when I used to say I was an agnostic people reacted as though I was an atheist or as if I were "against their God".
I think the "non" part of non-theist also represents how non-confrontation I want to be in my simplest explanation of my belief. My experiences have shown I'm more likely to alienate people than to gain their trust so I typically choose to keep it to...
Remijdio 2 years ago
or to just not share at all. I do this because I don't wish to offend the people I tell it to and because they typically think different of me after I tell them. Different in usually a negative way.
Sorry for the long winded post and i think the posts will show up backwards....oh well if anyone reads it they will surely figure it out.
And as usual, nice video sir.
Remijdio 2 years ago
Yes. Michael Shermer is definitely a new favorite of mine. I especially loved his cameo in a recent episode of misterdeity.
There's nothing wrong with someone else getting long-winded in my comments. Complaining about such a thing would make me a hypocrite.
I would point out, though, that it's not about belief or absence of belief in one particular god, but in gods in general. It's not that you don't believe in God but that you don't believe in any gods.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
It seems to me that you would be doing them a favor to take this opportunity to clear up this false dichotomy. After all, the idea here is not to get them thinking the same way you do but to clear up misconceptions about the way you think so they can examine it as it truly is.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Rem, non-theism AND WoW? How do you live with the social stigma?? (Eitrigg) I'll have to look into Shermer. FIrst I've heard of it.
laraesque 2 years ago
I'm not sure what exactly you mean. Please explain.
If I may recommend a good Shermer book read "Why People Believe Weird Things"
Remijdio 2 years ago
That one is definitely on my reading list.
Are you asking what I mean about the false dichotomy?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
No, I was asking about what larasque meant by living with the social stigma attached to playing WoW and being a non-theist. Can't say I really understand what he means. I play the game because I enjoy playing it with my friends. The only parallel I can think larasque is drawing is between the game lore and real life. Maybe? Or are you being sarcastic? Binary doesn't seem to transmit sarcasm so well.
Either way, his statement thoroughly confused me.
Remijdio 2 years ago
I was just joshing you. Atheists/non-theists are a small portion of the population and often marginalized. Gaming nerds are considered eccentric (at best, sometimes). The combination would seem to be a combination to earn anyone the Outcast Seal of Approval. As a WoW player (Eitrigg) and cognitive eupraxist, I have earned that seal myself.
laraesque 2 years ago
Rational Empirical Dualist - acronym RED. That means you are a Commie Atheist.
FantasticBabblings 2 years ago
Oh dear. You've caught me.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I literally laughed out loud on that one!
Remijdio 2 years ago
This IS how the propaganda works. You take the people in their less credulous stages and teach them to associate all manner of fallacious strawmen with the term "atheist," so then whenever they hear the term, those strawmen get evoked.
This happens with any label we all adopt. But if, in such a situation, we all have one of a wide variety of different labels, then this propaganda machine can't target each and every one of them.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Hey LP,
I'd be careful with using "dualist". I think you're using it to mean that you use both reason and evidence, but "dualist" is already a pretty loaded term in philosophy (e.g mind/body dualists.)
darktango78 2 years ago
So it's not just an alternative to "monist?" Can you recommend a term which conveys this significance? "Dichotomist," perhaps?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Yes, it *is* the complementary to "monist", in the sense that monists believe there is only one substance, e.g. in the mind/body problem they can believe the body alone exists (materialism) or that the mind alone exists (idealism).
In your case, if I understood you, you're trying to say you use a combination of reason and evidence. Looking around for a term now I came across someone's page who calls it "combinationalist", but it's not "official" as far as I can tell :)
darktango78 2 years ago
I'll bear that one in mind.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I prefer to blatantly declare myself an atheist. It perfectly describes my position regarding God(s). I don't want to sugar coat it to make it more palatable. This also gives one an opportunity to educate those who do not understand the meaning of the word and to expose the strawmen for what they are. One thing I have found fairly effective is to explain that I did not choose to become an atheist. It is simply a word that describes one aspect of myself.
Ansonidak 2 years ago
But it describes nothing about the approach one takes to assessing reality. Think about this, now. I was a victim of the propaganda machines which influenced my upbringing, teaching me to make the association I refer to in this video. These associations got in the way every time I tried to discuss with an atheist. If that hadn't been the case, I would have reached this point much sooner and I wish that I had. That conditioned association was a form of mental bondage.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Why not simply use the term materialist?
xmacd 2 years ago
That works too, as long as it doesn't become too much of a blanket term.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Sure. Maybe it's best to have a small arsenal of interchangeable terms which can be rotated in and out depending on which seem to be inspiring false preconceptions.
xmacd 2 years ago
Also a good idea.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I would like to donate to the arsenal: my first term is "cognitive eupraxist." This term is my own creation and refers to not only the method of looking at the world but in how I use the method to derive my ethical stance and define my actions. From "cognitive: 1) of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering) 2) based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge. "Eupraxist" from the Greek for good actions.
laraesque 2 years ago
P.S. Cognitive eupraxist can't have any negative connotations yet--it's new (to my knowledge), and it has "good" or "right" built right in!
laraesque 2 years ago
Materialist has too many negative or specific connotations for me. There are implications of mercenary motivations (I am a material girl!)--that we're "in it for the money."
laraesque 2 years ago
That is a social definition rather than a philosophical one.
Like the difference between a scientific theory and "just a theory". I can see how that could be a problem, but that could also be a boon if used well.
xmacd 2 years ago
True about "if it were used well." However, I am considering the burden under which the term "atheist" toils, with negative connotations heaped upon it. "Materialist" already has these connotations. Nonetheless, it is a useful addition to the arsenal.
laraesque 2 years ago
Indeed. One needs to clarify whether one is speaking coloquially or philosophically.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
This won't help distance people from negative connotations if they don't understand the difference and that, sadly is most people. There can be merit in explaining the difference, but then we're teaching semantics and have lost the point of the argument. Eupraxism will similarly need defining.
xmacd 2 years ago
Of course it needs defining. That's the whole point. The idea with taking the approach I'm suggesting here is to give ourselves the chance to define our position without evoking all the strawmen the individual in this case has been trained and will be trained to associate with any blanket term in such a situation.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Yes, I see. Well then I guess I would support those terms which refer to the methodology rather than the conclusion. Then any quibble would itself be a distraction from our position. Empirical Rational Dualist sounds good, but seems to be an oxymoron. I'm not a dualist. Cognitive Duelist maybe. ;)
xmacd 2 years ago
Just look at him! There is no spoon!
DavidBowieILoveYou 2 years ago
I like the term "Secular Humanist". It's just outside of the realm of most vocabularies to leave out any pre-set biases towards the term, it sparks enough curiosity most of the time, and it speaks volumes about the beliefs that I do hold.
That said, I still think atheist is an apt title and worth stating as a position about theistic claims. I just tell those who respond negatively to the term that they don't actually understand what it mean in as neutral of a tone as possible.
IAmTheBlurr 2 years ago
I like the word Atheist quite a lot, but that's because it's always been synonymous with "rational person" in my household, so I don't understand the negativity around it.
A also seem to take a liking to inflammatory language (and activities) so I'm not a good one to ask. Any "identity" label that doesn't create a strong reaction in others isn't worth having, in my opinion. (^.^)
BornWithoutReligion 2 years ago
I'm not suggesting abandoning "atheist" as a label. The idea is to escape this association in one-on-one dialogue at least until one has had the chance to explain one's real position without invoking the strawmen theists have been trained to associate with the term.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Shermer is the MAN!
ReddmanDGZ 2 years ago
I'll stick with "atheist", I am used to it. And I like it.This way the others know one thing about me - I lack a belief in god. If they interact with me, they will learn other things about me.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
I'm not suggesting abandoning the title "atheist." I'm suggesting, when we find ourselves in one-on-one discussions with theists, that we use less known titles (only in that circumstance) to give ourselves a chance to explain our position.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Yes, in that case, any number of titles can be used. The more, the better, I would think. If it has to be just one, PEARL would do.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
"The more, the better, I would think."
That's the point I am trying to make here.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Hey, what is happening here? I can't find my original comment, where I say that I'll stick with "atheist", I am used to it. I think I commented first, and this comment has disappeared. I hope this is a temporary situation, and later all comments will appear. I have this happening in the comment sections of my videos, too. :(
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
I've noticed it as well. It has also happened on my video about Scientific Steps.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
The problem with acronyms is that there are too many already out there, the world is filled with acronyms (its a very commercial approach) and every person can change the meaning of each letter to make fun of it or distort its initial meaning.
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
If it becomes too well known. If too many of us begin to apply it to ourselves.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I always liked Thunderfoot's concept of the PEARList, and it may fit the bill, the the problem really is that essentially we will just be considered atheists, no matter what we call ourselves. It's like how creationists tried to fancy themselves up with "Intelligent Design."
Film buffs have been trying to do away with the term "movie" for years in lieu of more appropriate words like film or cinema, but the general population has movie fixed in its popular culture. Don't expect it to disappear.
DeadbeatShadows 2 years ago
You've missed my point completely. Yes, the term is accurate, once one understands it, but not if one has been trained to make all kinds of absurd, fallacious associations with it.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I understand this, but I'm also trying to make the point that alternative labels for something will usually be defaulted back to the original one, because most people understand things by associating them with other things that are related. You're not trying to use another term to make us clear to like-minded people, correct? The purpose is to invent a phrase that will identify us to theists without having negative connotations. I'm simply saying that it's difficult to do such. I apologize.
DeadbeatShadows 2 years ago
"I understand this, but I'm also trying to make the point that alternative labels for something will usually be defaulted back to the original one,"
This is what happens if we all adopt the same one in such a situation. But if we all prepare to adopt different labels in such a situation, the propaganda machine can't possibly target each and every one of them.
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
I don't really call myself a title. I have 3 names (first, middle, and last) and not one of them is inaccurate or misleading because they are not attempts to describe me. Any attempt to use a single word or phrase to describe me would ultimately fail because either part of it will not hold true 100% of the time, or there will inevitably be something left off.
If someone asks what my religion is I tell them that I have no religion. This is unambiguous an answer to the question as you can get.
raythetse 2 years ago
i just keep calling myself an atheist because I know it winds 'em up.