User talk:Muthsera

Regarding your comment on atheism

Hey dude,

Regarding your comment here, I think we've found a number of sources now which essentially say that a person who says "Believing in deities is pointless as there is no evidence" (or something similar) is an atheist. A person who says something like that is not saying "God does not exist", they are simply "rejecting belief" in God. I too at first rejected to this wording, but after some consideration I think it is correct.

P.S. Is this a new account? If so, welcome! NickCT (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NickCT

Thank you, I appreciate that. It's an account I've had for several years but haven't been around writing anything with it yet.

On the rejection of theism bit. If you I could, would like to see those sources. I've read this discussion two times now, but can't seem to find them.

But as I explained in the discussion. This is essentially an extension of the debate of burden of proof. Does Theism or Atheism have the burden of proof. To often scholarly works take the historical view and use the definition of opposition. I reject to that. I means that I as an atheist is defined by the position of another. And it is a logical misstep. How can one disproof a negative? Ie, we haven't explored the hole universe so God might still be out there. So a default position have to be the logical step. If you make the assertion there is a god. Then you have the burden of proof. I don't have to reject your position to be a non-believer.

Have I made a clear argument or was it still a bit fussy?

Muthsera (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "If you I could, would like to see those sources" - Atheism#cite_note-1

Ah, right. I thought you all meant in the discussion. That being said though. Most of those entries are horrible, and I know for a fact that many of the atheist I've spoken to on the internet is strongly opposed to the Encyclopedia Britannica definition which many other dictionaries use as supreme authority. Including this one. They and I see it as a theist bias to my position and reject it. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re " Then you have the burden of proof. I don't have to reject your position to be a non-believer." - I think you are correct, and I think our lead acknowledges this by saying "absence of belief that any deities exist". It seems to me that that language covers people who neither accept nor reject existence. NickCT (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then you go on to say that it is also a rejection of theism. That is a contradiction. You cannot have it both way. Ie, you cannot on one hand say that the concept is passive disbelief where the theist are the positive claim and have burden of proof, and in the same sentence say that it's a rejection of theism, theism in that setting has the passive claim and atheism have the burden of proof. That is essentially what your doing when you include both understandings. It is a contradiction in terms by using all forms in the definition. -- Muthsera (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Atheism

Muthsera, I want to be clear in my comments to you. I agree with your proposal to change the first segment of the lead from rejection to absence. In fact, I intend to make my own case for it in a few days when I have enough time to defend myself. However, the way you are going about this is counter-productive. It is only resulting in the alienation of other contributers, which makes both your efforts and mine less likely to succeed. In an effort to make yourself understood, you're drawing the argument out longer than necessary, and repeating yourself where your points have already been addressed. This leads to unwillingness for other editors to read through and respond to your comments, and is about to result in other editors ignoring you entirely.

Again, I agree with you, but the way you've been attacking this problem is making it harder for me to defend the position. If you want the lead to be changed, this is what you have to do:

Read (and understand) JimWae's comments about squares and quadrilaterals. You need to respond that you understand this point, and why it pertains to your argument, as this shows a willingness (and ability) to absorb other's objections, which shows good faith.
Drop the references which have been opposed. This includes Neilsen, Edwards and Nagel. Repeating the same rejected sources is not helpful. In fact, it weakens your case.
Find new prominent sources which agree fully with your argument, and say so explicitly. That means, they specifically state "atheism is absence of belief" or "babies are atheists".

I can't stress enough that you need to show that other editors comments are being read and understood. Jess ^talk _cs 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. And I do agree that I'm rocking the boat here and it seems to be slightly unpopular. But I am somewhat annoyed by the continued inability to actually use quotation to support any arguments.

I've read Jim's argument about squares and quadrilaterals several times. And I've explained in the section why it's irrelevant. It's actually depends on the argument that Atheism is a belief, because thats the only way it can be completely applied. It certainly is not NPOV.

Have they been opposed? Objectively I cannot see how that is the case. Simply asserting that they object to that view doesn't make it so. Personally I would like some quotation from the source to illustrate why they object. Aside from that though. What your basically saying is that Jim's assertion that these sources object is more solidly founded than my quoted sources of what these sources actually say. I doubt that is your intentions.

If you read George Smith arguments in A case against god. He states quite clearly that babies are atheists. As does all the Four Horsemen. All of this I've supplied several times. It has been dismissed under the impression that it's NPOV. Personally I find that a double standard just by looking at the position rejection have attained.

I feel like I have to write kindergarten style arguments for anyone to understand the implications of my arguments. I cannot superimpose a basic understanding or knowledge of anything. It might just be that I'm unclear. Still though, that doesn't explain this complete unwillingness to entertain my arguments. -- Muthsera (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]