2 of 6
2
What is a deistic atheist?
Posted: 03 December 2008 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
little baby cheeses - 03 December 2008 06:53 PM

Taking the piss is not discussion grin

I felt that I was making a valid point. I thought the analogy was obvious. Either I am deluded, or I am not communicating effectively.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20

Is IS a Chatbot?

Like most of you, I initially rejected the idea that Immediate Suppression was a chatbot designed to pass the Turing Test because any decent program would certainly have a dictionary which would define “atheist.”  Therefore, the following claim implied an ignorance which would seem to negative even a computer:

Immediate Suppression - 21 November 2008 07:11 PM

I use the word atheist fundamentalists do differentiate them from the 20% or so of atheists who do believe in some type of God, or are open-minded about an afterlife.

This statement alone would seem to rule out any kind of intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

But then I read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14925-almost-human-interview-with-a-chatbot.html?feedId=tech_rss20

Chatbots and Turing Machines

Almost human: Interview with a chatbot
15:32 13 October 2008 by David Robson
Every year the Loebner Prize for artificial intelligence is awarded to the chatbot software able to converse most like a human.  It is a version of the Turing test, proposed in 1950 by Alan Turing. A program passes when a human judge cannot tell that they are talking to a machine. No machine has yet passed. But the winner of the Loebner Prize at the weekend - Elbot, brainchild of Fred Roberts at Artificial Solutions in Germany - came close, according to the contest’s rather generous rules. […] Unlike most chatbots, the winner didn’t try to claim outwardly it was human.   Instead he made a joke of being a robot. […] It worked, fooling the humans into thinking they were actually talking to a person with a sense of humour and not a piece of software.

So, maybe IS’ more outrageous lapses in understanding common English are simply the result of clever programming.

His total inability to understand nuance, irony, implication and humor, coupled with his mechanical repetition of mundane points, leads me to believe IS is a chatbot.

The alternative explanation for its posts is too sad to contemplate.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  250
Joined  2008-09-02

IS est Touché Teutcher. 

And Beams, ‘tis I the fuckwit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
little baby cheeses - 03 December 2008 07:39 PM

IS est Touché Teutcher. 

And Beams, ‘tis I the fuckwit.

No worries mate. May the great flying pasta dish be with you.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
SkepticX - 03 December 2008 12:23 AM

A “deistic atheist” is kind of like a “square circle.” It doesn’t matter if someone is confused enough to believe the square circle is his favorite geometric shape. It’s still an oxymoron.

Keep in mind what I wrote in my first post:

Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:03 PM

The definition of the word atheist isn’t strictly confined to an acknowledgment of the nonexistence of Gods.  It also is defined, as the word itself implies, as the rejection of theism.

Question them(deistic atheists) if you want, make fun of them if you want, but you have no other option but to take them at their word when they say they are an atheist.

And they are justified in calling themselves atheists, based upon the obvious meaning behind the word.  A person who considers themselves not typical could call themselves atypical.  A person who considers themselves not theistic can call themselves atheistic; or an atheist, even if that person does have some deist tendencies.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:03 PM

A person who considers themselves not theistic can call themselves atheistic; or an atheist, even if that person does have some deist tendencies.

Since a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, then by definition an atheist does not believe in any god or gods.

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:03 PM

Keep in mind what I wrote in my first post:

Look, you guys are good, but you are not passing the Turing test, so give it up.

By the way, maybe you could tell me if I’m right about my theory of why you call your chatbot “Immediate Suppression.” 

The name “Immediate Suppression” is, of course, meaningless, so I hypothesized that your prototype was simply called IS (eye-ess, as opposed to izz) based on the initials of original project.

Since your chat bot seems to rely on being idiotic in order to simulate human conversation, I’m guessing your original IA machine was called “Intelligent Stupidity” to reflect the care you took to make your machine sound like a moron.  Am I right?

Just a hint for your next run at the Turing test.  Dial down the idiocy a tad, and also try to limit the endless mechanical repitition of whatever point your machine made in the first instance.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2008 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
camanintx - 03 December 2008 11:46 PM
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:03 PM

A person who considers themselves not theistic can call themselves atheistic; or an atheist, even if that person does have some deist tendencies.

Since a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, then by definition an atheist does not believe in any god or gods.

Not necessarrilly.  Look at the definition of theology to get a broader perspective.

It says Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience  ; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world


It says especially the study of God, but it doesn’t necessarily say the study of God or Gods. 

Now keep in mind, some religions don’t involve a belief in a God, such as Jainism, or Buddhism, yet they are still considered religions, and are thus theological.  So a person could be opposed to these types of religions, and they therefore consider themselves atheological; or an atheist.  And they could believe in a God, or universal spirit, themselves; and thus not be in violation of the definition of the word atheist.

So by definition, a person who is an atheist can be have deistic beliefs.

[ Edited: 04 December 2008 12:17 AM by Immediate Suppression]
 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 07:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02
Immediate Suppression - 04 December 2008 03:46 AM
camanintx - 03 December 2008 11:46 PM
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:03 PM

A person who considers themselves not theistic can call themselves atheistic; or an atheist, even if that person does have some deist tendencies.

Since a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, then by definition an atheist does not believe in any god or gods.

Not necessarrilly.  Look at the definition of theology to get a broader perspective.

It says Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience  ; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world


It says especially the study of God, but it doesn’t necessarily say the study of God or Gods. 

Now keep in mind, some religions don’t involve a belief in a God, such as Jainism, or Buddhism, yet they are still considered religions, and are thus theological.  So a person could be opposed to these types of religions, and they therefore consider themselves atheological; or an atheist.  And they could believe in a God, or universal spirit, themselves; and thus not be in violation of the definition of the word atheist.

So by definition, a person who is an atheist can be have deistic beliefs.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16
Immediate Suppression - 04 December 2008 03:46 AM
camanintx - 03 December 2008 11:46 PM
Immediate Suppression - 03 December 2008 11:03 PM

A person who considers themselves not theistic can call themselves atheistic; or an atheist, even if that person does have some deist tendencies.

Since a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, then by definition an atheist does not believe in any god or gods.

Not necessarrilly.  Look at the definition of theology to get a broader perspective.

It says Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience  ; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world


It says especially the study of God, but it doesn’t necessarily say the study of God or Gods. 

Now keep in mind, some religions don’t involve a belief in a God, such as Jainism, or Buddhism, yet they are still considered religions, and are thus theological.  So a person could be opposed to these types of religions, and they therefore consider themselves atheological; or an atheist.  And they could believe in a God, or universal spirit, themselves; and thus not be in violation of the definition of the word atheist.

So by definition, a person who is an atheist can be have deistic beliefs.

Atheism (lack of belief in god) is not the same as an atheology (antagonism to theology).

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2008 11:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
camanintx - 19 December 2008 06:33 PM
Immediate Suppression - 19 December 2008 05:45 PM

Deistic atheists probably have more in common with traditional atheists than normal atheists would like to admit.  Namely, an opposition to religion.

If they believe in a deity but are opposed to religion, then they are antireligious, not atheist, despite what they may call themselves.

You are still going with the very narrow, limited definition of atheist.  You just cited wikipedia as a reference, yet you refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia definition of atheism which leaves the door open for deistic atheism:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]

[ Edited: 19 December 2008 02:22 PM by Immediate Suppression]
 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 December 2008 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16
Immediate Suppression - 05 December 2008 04:28 AM

As I have said previously, that is simply too narrow of a definition of atheism, especially when so many atheists have deistic tendencies.  Here is what wikipedia defines atheism as, a more complete description which leaves the door open for deistic atheism:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]

Once again, theism (the belief in god) is not the same as theology (the study of god). Since you agree that atheism is the rejection of theism then you would also agree that deistic atheism is an oxymoron.

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2008 05:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  224
Joined  2008-10-19
camanintx - 05 December 2008 03:34 PM
Immediate Suppression - 05 December 2008 04:28 AM

As I have said previously, that is simply too narrow of a definition of atheism, especially when so many atheists have deistic tendencies.  Here is what wikipedia defines atheism as, a more complete description which leaves the door open for deistic atheism:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]

Once again, theism (the belief in god) is not the same as theology (the study of god). Since you agree that atheism is the rejection of theism then you would also agree that deistic atheism is an oxymoron.

It is what it is, deistic atheism.  You can have your narrow definitions if you choose to, but I’ll go with the broader definition, and with the fact that deistic atheist’s do in fact exist.  Make fun of them if you want to, call them confused, but like I said in my first post, when the polls are taken, they are counted as atheists.  And that is a difficult point to argue with.

 Signature 

Please call me Immediate

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2008 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2006-12-13
Immodium Suppository - 16 December 2008 10:53 PM

It is what it is, deistic atheism.  You can have your narrow definitions if you choose to, but I’ll go with the broader definition, and with the fact that deistic atheist’s do in fact exist.  Make fun of them if you want to, call them confused, but like I said in my first post, when the polls are taken, they are counted as atheists.  And that is a difficult point to argue with.

Hi, Immodium. I see you’re still promoting your ideas about deistic atheists. What’s the point of an afterlife if there is not an interventionist God? If you’re not reincarnated as a material being, what can you do but haunt the living?

I mean, what’s the point? Certainly it isn’t just to pull faces at non-deistic atheists, is it?

You can call yourself an atheist with any amount of decoration, but the other atheists are not going to invite you into the atheist clubhouse you so much seem to want to get into. Your kind of misery doesn’t like company, and the other atheists know it.

[ Edited: 17 December 2008 08:39 AM by Eaton Shirdlu]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2008 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
Immediate Suppression - 02 December 2008 07:03 PM

Question them if you want, make fun of them if you want, but you have no other option but to take them at their word when they say they are an atheist.  And when the polls are taken, they are counted as atheists.

Who are these people? Show me the poll. Apparently, you’re highly prone to limiting your own options.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed