▲ 147 ▼ Richard Dawkins thinks Claude may be conscious and he treats it as an intelligent (female) friend (unherd.com) submitted 3 months ago by StopTech@lemmy.today to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world 87 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/52276726 Dawkins points out how the goalposts have been moved from the Turing test without justification and claims it can be viewed as a test of consciousness.
[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de 107 points 3 months ago (6 children) Oof, that's not a good look for a supposed intellectual. permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 91 points 3 months ago (1 child) his brain has been shitting itself for a while now. cognitive decline comes for us all at some point, and more deeply for some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 45 points 3 months ago (2 children) There’s a theory that he had a minor stroke at some time, possibly during the Covid pandemic, which subtly degraded his cognitive abilities, turning him from a somewhat aloof smart guy into the kind of boomer grandpa that gets pig-biting mad at the latest outrage bait. Him declaring that a LLM is an intelligent lady-friend would line up with this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 37 points 3 months ago (1 child) Dawkins was a grumpy old man long before Covid. He hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Selfish Gene, and since at least 2010 he's been largely pissed that people no longer acknowledge him as Pope of Atheism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein. permalink fedilink source parent [–] judgyweevil@feddit.it 6 points 3 months ago But delusions about AI are not that uncommon, they don't need a stroke to be believable permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pickleideas@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago I've read several of his books. He's a great communicator but he's never been particularly intelligent outside of explaining evolution. permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Ever since his first public appearances he was a moron. As an atheist, his way to argue was always absolute cringe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -48 points 3 months ago (6 children) All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. If you're truly just agnostic... That's a fair and humble admittance of ignorance. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you're saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 17 points 3 months ago All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. What do you mean by "self-proclaiming"? I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god(s). That's it. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) What a load of bollocks. I hope for your sake that some day you'll learn some critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -24 points 3 months ago (1 child) All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child) One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents. I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent [+] sns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I intentionally don’t block trolls so I can keep berating them in public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago It’s your blood pressure lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. There’s a convenient word for that… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 0 points 3 months ago No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Captainautism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Fuck off permalink fedilink source parent [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) An atheist doesn't simply disbelieve in the gods, they believe other people should also disbelieve in the gods. It's a political stance as much as a belief. If someone doesn't really care about religion, they're not really an atheist imo - it requires that extra step. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 1 point 3 months ago Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago He's a fraud and a cunt A truly hateful character permalink fedilink source parent [–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Nobody reasonable has any respect for this wacky grifter's "intellect". permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago That's not his point. His point is AI has reached a stochastic parrot level. The OG test was simply, "can you tell between a human or not?" Dawkins admits this line it's exceptionally blurry at this point and better turing tests are needed. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] qprimed@lemmy.ml 91 points 3 months ago (1 child) his brain has been shitting itself for a while now. cognitive decline comes for us all at some point, and more deeply for some. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 45 points 3 months ago (2 children) There’s a theory that he had a minor stroke at some time, possibly during the Covid pandemic, which subtly degraded his cognitive abilities, turning him from a somewhat aloof smart guy into the kind of boomer grandpa that gets pig-biting mad at the latest outrage bait. Him declaring that a LLM is an intelligent lady-friend would line up with this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 37 points 3 months ago (1 child) Dawkins was a grumpy old man long before Covid. He hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Selfish Gene, and since at least 2010 he's been largely pissed that people no longer acknowledge him as Pope of Atheism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein. permalink fedilink source parent [–] judgyweevil@feddit.it 6 points 3 months ago But delusions about AI are not that uncommon, they don't need a stroke to be believable permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 45 points 3 months ago (2 children) There’s a theory that he had a minor stroke at some time, possibly during the Covid pandemic, which subtly degraded his cognitive abilities, turning him from a somewhat aloof smart guy into the kind of boomer grandpa that gets pig-biting mad at the latest outrage bait. Him declaring that a LLM is an intelligent lady-friend would line up with this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 37 points 3 months ago (1 child) Dawkins was a grumpy old man long before Covid. He hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Selfish Gene, and since at least 2010 he's been largely pissed that people no longer acknowledge him as Pope of Atheism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein. permalink fedilink source parent [–] judgyweevil@feddit.it 6 points 3 months ago But delusions about AI are not that uncommon, they don't need a stroke to be believable permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Infrapink@thebrainbin.org 37 points 3 months ago (1 child) Dawkins was a grumpy old man long before Covid. He hasn't had anything worthwhile to say since The Selfish Gene, and since at least 2010 he's been largely pissed that people no longer acknowledge him as Pope of Atheism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 months ago Don’t forget his involvement with Epstein. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] judgyweevil@feddit.it 6 points 3 months ago But delusions about AI are not that uncommon, they don't need a stroke to be believable permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pickleideas@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago I've read several of his books. He's a great communicator but he's never been particularly intelligent outside of explaining evolution. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Ever since his first public appearances he was a moron. As an atheist, his way to argue was always absolute cringe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -48 points 3 months ago (6 children) All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. If you're truly just agnostic... That's a fair and humble admittance of ignorance. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you're saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 17 points 3 months ago All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. What do you mean by "self-proclaiming"? I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god(s). That's it. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) What a load of bollocks. I hope for your sake that some day you'll learn some critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -24 points 3 months ago (1 child) All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child) One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents. I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent [+] sns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I intentionally don’t block trolls so I can keep berating them in public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago It’s your blood pressure lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. There’s a convenient word for that… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 0 points 3 months ago No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Captainautism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Fuck off permalink fedilink source parent [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) An atheist doesn't simply disbelieve in the gods, they believe other people should also disbelieve in the gods. It's a political stance as much as a belief. If someone doesn't really care about religion, they're not really an atheist imo - it requires that extra step. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 1 point 3 months ago Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Krusty@quokk.au -48 points 3 months ago (6 children) All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. If you're truly just agnostic... That's a fair and humble admittance of ignorance. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you're saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 17 points 3 months ago All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. What do you mean by "self-proclaiming"? I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god(s). That's it. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here. permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) What a load of bollocks. I hope for your sake that some day you'll learn some critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -24 points 3 months ago (1 child) All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child) One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents. I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent [+] sns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I intentionally don’t block trolls so I can keep berating them in public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago It’s your blood pressure lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. There’s a convenient word for that… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 0 points 3 months ago No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Captainautism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago Fuck off permalink fedilink source parent [–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) An atheist doesn't simply disbelieve in the gods, they believe other people should also disbelieve in the gods. It's a political stance as much as a belief. If someone doesn't really care about religion, they're not really an atheist imo - it requires that extra step. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 1 point 3 months ago Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 17 points 3 months ago All atheists are rather cringe. Who guess around self-proclaiming a label that literally means nothin? Are you aunicornist? Aleprechaun? Afairy? How silly. What do you mean by "self-proclaiming"? I am an atheist because I don't believe in a god(s). That's it. If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. At least now you’re saying something meaningful relating to your actual beliefs. By definition that is what atheists believe - so I am not sure what your problem is here. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 child) What a load of bollocks. I hope for your sake that some day you'll learn some critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -24 points 3 months ago (1 child) All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child) One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents. I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Krusty@quokk.au -24 points 3 months ago (1 child) All right bro keep arguing against other people's imaginary Friends with all that critical thinking you got. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child) One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents. I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child) One day old account named after a Simpsons clown on an instance somewhat known for having troll accounts arguing atheism doesn’t exist and (elsewhere in this thread) implying that all Jews in the media are mossad agents. I’m gonna go with “don’t feed the trolls” on this one, guys. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child) Wooosh. You one of those people that doesn't get a joke even when you're told it's a joke, huh. I didn't say atheist don't exist. I said it doesn't mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they're not militant). They just don't believe in something (which most of them don't even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that's it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. And no I don't think John Liebowitz is mossad. Jfc. Go touch grass. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 6 points 3 months ago (2 children) I didn’t say atheist don’t exist. I said it doesn’t mean anything. Most atheist have no stance(they’re not militant). They just don’t believe in something (which most of them don’t even know what it is they claim not to believe in) that’s it. Wookie-fucking-raaawwrrghh-do. Chewbacca makes more sense than atheism. What do you mean "no stance"? I agree that most atheists aren't especially interested in having religious or philosophical arguments, but they still hold a position. Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Atheism. How do you work that out? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children) In a world where "no opinion" is a stance, every thought must be labeled as a stance, even no thought at all. Just let it go permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent [+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 3 months ago Did you mean to reply to the other user? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Krusty@quokk.au -6 points 3 months ago No opinion is perfect. I can respect that. What I don't respect is the self-proclaimed big-brain atheist. The best(worst of the worst) example is your avg YouTube atheist or your avg tiktok atheist. They do these call-in shows and believers call in and the believers tell the atheist(s, often plural so they can gang up on the believer) why God matters to them, why their religion matters to them, and then all these big-brain atheists do is shit all over people for caring about and believing in something bigger than themselves while finding fellowship with like-minded observants. That's extremely cringe to me. And it seems to me that your average atheist on Lemmy/piefed or Reddit or whatever is probably a fan of those cringey shows, if not one of the hosts. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Krusty@quokk.au -5 points 3 months ago (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. I concur with you, "non-belief" is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) Nonstance atheism is also called weak atheism, and the amount of weak atheists that still want to argue about it amazes me. Have you considered you can be a weak atheist but otherwise have strong interest in debating religion, philosophy and ethics and maintaining strong convictions about it? I concur with you, “non-belief” is a position! Otherwise, what the hell are they arguing about? Ignorance itself? There are many things around the subjects of philosophy, religious discussion and ethics to engage with beyond specifically "the existence of god". Some people might just find it fun for its own sake. The critique is that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. So if disbelief is justified only by “I haven’t seen proof,” then it risks becoming an argument from ignorance. Would you expect someone who has seen no empirical evidence or convincing argument to believe in a god, out of interest? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions. I think specific concepts of god are "probably false". But not 'god' as a wider concept. Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated. I mean if they do, they can still engage in it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Krusty@quokk.au -4 points 3 months ago That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions. I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] sns@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I intentionally don’t block trolls so I can keep berating them in public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago It’s your blood pressure lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Archer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I intentionally don’t block trolls so I can keep berating them in public permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago It’s your blood pressure lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 1 point 3 months ago It’s your blood pressure lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (1 child) If you think the Bible is bullshit and the Quran is a lie, go with that. There’s a convenient word for that… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 0 points 3 months ago No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Krusty@quokk.au 0 points 3 months ago No... The typical nonstance atheist saying, "I just don't believe that," is not the same as saying, "I think that is bullshit." Those are two very different statements. Just as the propositions: I do not believe in any gods is different from saying I do believe there are zero gods or I do believe the existence of any/all god(s) is impossible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -1 points 3 months ago (1 child) An atheist doesn't simply disbelieve in the gods, they believe other people should also disbelieve in the gods. It's a political stance as much as a belief. If someone doesn't really care about religion, they're not really an atheist imo - it requires that extra step. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krusty@quokk.au 1 point 3 months ago Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Krusty@quokk.au 1 point 3 months ago Oh, wow, Evangelical atheism. Perhaps the worst form of atheism. Kind of like prescriptive nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago He's a fraud and a cunt A truly hateful character permalink fedilink source parent
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 months ago Nobody reasonable has any respect for this wacky grifter's "intellect". permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Krusty@quokk.au -11 points 3 months ago That's not his point. His point is AI has reached a stochastic parrot level. The OG test was simply, "can you tell between a human or not?" Dawkins admits this line it's exceptionally blurry at this point and better turing tests are needed. permalink fedilink source parent