Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think, it is much deeper than that. I studied activities of human societies.
I am a Gnostic, heretic, mainstream Christians would rather deal with atheism than Gnostic heresy.
Despite that, many Gnostics would see mainstream Christianity as allies (which I tend to agree with).
I think, it is much deeper than that. I studied activities of human societies.
I am a Gnostic, heretic, mainstream Christians would rather deal with atheism than Gnostic heresy.
Despite that, many Gnostics would see mainstream Christianity as allies (which I tend to agree with).
What is the reason you think that mainstream Christians would rather deal with atheists than Gnostics? I think very few Christians, or people in general, are familiar with Gnostics beliefs.
What is the reason you think that mainstream Christians would rather deal with atheists than Gnostics? I think very few Christians, or people in general, are familiar with Gnostics beliefs.
basically most atheist think things through. Believe it or not, I think most "theist" are more atheist than deity believers.
at least that has been my experience. "I believe in "god" but I hate some of the things my religion does kind of thing.
what he means, and I could be wrong, he would rather side with people that focus on work hard, earn your keep, and help when one can before people that are defined by a statement of belief about god.
"defined by" means they evaluate claims on how things work based on their deity or anti-deity. People that are not weighted down by them tend to be more realistic.
That's it. That says it all. If a person says that they reject the existence of deities then they have an absence of belief in deities and they satisfy the definition of an atheist. A person who claims to be neutral on the subject of the existence of a deity or deities, but is absent any particular belief in a deity satisfies the definition of an atheist.
The word "atheist" still has a negative connection in western culture, although that is dissipating as non belief slowly moves towards becoming a majority position. As a result many who have no established belief in a deity or deities eschew the term atheist, and simply reply that they have no religious beliefs when asked. Because many devout believers still associate atheism with evil, or even Satanism. And this is simply the tenancy of believers to superimpose their view of reality on those who do not share their beliefs.
So there it is. To be an atheist is to be absent a belief in the existence of a deity, or deities. So, for you believers, try to understand that atheists don't subscribe to a belief in God in EXACTLY the same way that believers and non believers alike don't subscribe to a belief in Zeus, Santa Claus, or the Easter bunny.
Typically when believers cite Wikipedia as authority for anything, they are met with hoots and hisses. Sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are peer-reviewed and far more authoritative. Entries on atheism in such sources make clear that the proper definition of atheism is far more complex and nuanced than is suggested by the above.
Internet forum atheists, and the New Atheist movement in general, are attempting to redefine (or at least dumb down) the term atheist in order to make it more palatable and more broadly applicable and to give themselves certain pseudo-advantages in arguing with believers. It is not unlike homosexuals declaring they are gay, the gambling industry declaring it's really the gaming industry, and the abortion movement declaring it's really the pro-choice movement.
By the above definition, every agnostic is an atheist. Many thumb-sucking toddlers are atheists. Many people who have never give any thought to the existence of a deity are atheists.
In reality, and philosophically, an atheist is someone who has, at least at some level, given consideration to the possible existence of a deity and reached at least some level of conviction no deity exists. Atheism is not a mere "absence of belief." Absence of belief is agnosticism - or simply uninformed neutrality, if the individual has never considered the matter at all.
I can turn the above statements around and say I believe in God in EXACTLY the same way an atheist doesn't believe in God. I have an "absence of belief" in atheism. I have considered the evidence and arguments of all types and reached some level of conviction God exists (enough that I choose to live my life as though he does exist). A genuine atheist has done the same and reached some level of conviction no God exists. I can't prove God exists; the atheist can't prove God doesn't exist.
I don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny in EXACTLY the same way the atheist doesn't, and for the same reasons: I have considered the evidence and arguments and reached a conviction. When I reached an "absence of belief" in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, I reached a corresponding positive belief that my parents were responsible for the presents and colored eggs.
The atheist doesn't hold his or her "absence of belief" in a vacuum. An absence of belief that we are God-created beings in a God-created reality, participating in a God-ordained plan, has ramifications for every aspect of the atheist's life. Atheism is a fundamentally different way of viewing oneself, one's fellow humans and other creatures, and the reality in which we exist. This fact can't be avoided by word games.
If the ostensible atheist isn't willing to live as though atheism were true, then he or she is simply an agnostic. Do genuine agnostics haunt internet forums, spewing venom at believers?
Belief or non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny has no similar ramifications. Absence of belief in the Easter Bunny can pretty much be held in a vacuum. Belief in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not have the same evidentiary, theological or philosophical foundation as does (for example) belief in the Christian God, as is evidenced by the fact that billions of sane and intelligent people, including scientists and academics, don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The fact that atheists keep playing this word game, and using fallacious "stamp collecting" and "Easter Bunny" analogies, should be embarrassing to them. If someone insists on calling atheism a "non-belief system" rather than a belief system, I'll accept this as legitimate - but the reality is that any position that warrants the label atheism carries with it ramifications that are closely analogous to a believer's religion.
Typically when believers cite Wikipedia as authority for anything, they are met with hoots and hisses.
Usually because theists use the less credible sections of Wikipedia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are peer-reviewed and far more authoritative. Entries on atheism in such sources make clear that the proper definition of atheism is far more complex and nuanced than is suggested by the above.
Yes, but you pretend they support your argument by playing silly games such as pretending soft atheists are hard atheists
Assertions snipped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
In reality, and philosophically, an atheist is someone who has, at least at some level, given consideration to the possible existence of a deity and reached at least some level of conviction no deity exists. Atheism is not a mere "absence of belief."
Have they given consideration? We can consider only 40 pieces of information pro second. Our subconscious processes 11 million pieces of information, and quicker. Have you really considered your lack of belief in my ability to levitate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Absence of belief is agnosticism - or simply uninformed neutrality, if the individual has never considered the matter at all.
Absence of belief is also true for atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
If the ostensible atheist isn't willing to live as though atheism were true, then he or she is simply an agnostic. Do genuine agnostics haunt internet forums, spewing venom at believers?
Once again, it is not about what atheists believe or do not believe, it is about what theists believe, and how some of them drive trucks into Christmas markets.
And should you be spewing venom about 'spewing venom'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Belief or non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny has no similar ramifications. Absence of belief in the Easter Bunny can pretty much be held in a vacuum. Belief in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not have the same evidentiary, theological or philosophical foundation as does (for example) belief in the Christian God, as is evidenced by the fact that billions of sane and intelligent people, including scientists and academics, don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Easter Bunnyists do not behave like religious fundamentalists, or start making silly arguments we can venomously* refute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The fact that atheists keep playing this word game, and using fallacious "stamp collecting" and "Easter Bunny" analogies, should be embarrassing to them. If someone insists on calling atheism a "non-belief system" rather than a belief system, I'll accept this as legitimate - but the reality is that any position that warrants the label atheism carries with it ramifications that are closely analogous to a believer's religion.
That you pretend to have rational arguments while playing word games is embarrassing.
Typically when believers cite Wikipedia as authority for anything, they are met with hoots and hisses. Sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are peer-reviewed and far more authoritative. Entries on atheism in such sources make clear that the proper definition of atheism is far more complex and nuanced than is suggested by the above.
Internet forum atheists, and the New Atheist movement in general, are attempting to redefine (or at least dumb down) the term atheist in order to make it more palatable and more broadly applicable and to give themselves certain pseudo-advantages in arguing with believers. It is not unlike homosexuals declaring they are gay, the gambling industry declaring it's really the gaming industry, and the abortion movement declaring it's really the pro-choice movement.
By the above definition, every agnostic is an atheist. Many thumb-sucking toddlers are atheists. Many people who have never give any thought to the existence of a deity are atheists.
In reality, and philosophically, an atheist is someone who has, at least at some level, given consideration to the possible existence of a deity and reached at least some level of conviction no deity exists. Atheism is not a mere "absence of belief." Absence of belief is agnosticism - or simply uninformed neutrality, if the individual has never considered the matter at all.
I can turn the above statements around and say I believe in God in EXACTLY the same way an atheist doesn't believe in God. I have an "absence of belief" in atheism. I have considered the evidence and arguments of all types and reached some level of conviction God exists (enough that I choose to live my life as though he does exist). A genuine atheist has done the same and reached some level of conviction no God exists. I can't prove God exists; the atheist can't prove God doesn't exist.
I don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny in EXACTLY the same way the atheist doesn't, and for the same reasons: I have considered the evidence and arguments and reached a conviction. When I reached an "absence of belief" in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, I reached a corresponding positive belief that my parents were responsible for the presents and colored eggs.
The atheist doesn't hold his or her "absence of belief" in a vacuum. An absence of belief that we are God-created beings in a God-created reality, participating in a God-ordained plan, has ramifications for every aspect of the atheist's life. Atheism is a fundamentally different way of viewing oneself, one's fellow humans and other creatures, and the reality in which we exist. This fact can't be avoided by word games.
If the ostensible atheist isn't willing to live as though atheism were true, then he or she is simply an agnostic. Do genuine agnostics haunt internet forums, spewing venom at believers?
Belief or non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny has no similar ramifications. Absence of belief in the Easter Bunny can pretty much be held in a vacuum. Belief in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not have the same evidentiary, theological or philosophical foundation as does (for example) belief in the Christian God, as is evidenced by the fact that billions of sane and intelligent people, including scientists and academics, don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The fact that atheists keep playing this word game, and using fallacious "stamp collecting" and "Easter Bunny" analogies, should be embarrassing to them. If someone insists on calling atheism a "non-belief system" rather than a belief system, I'll accept this as legitimate - but the reality is that any position that warrants the label atheism carries with it ramifications that are closely analogous to a believer's religion.
I guess it really gets down to ... like theism. atheism is one thing how some ashiest behave is another.
Like we atheist lump you guys under one umbrella you guys lump us under one umbrella.
and, usually, the umbrella has some real merit. We really need to defining the umbrellas and avoid the notions of that umbrella.
Typically when believers cite Wikipedia as authority for anything, they are met with hoots and hisses. Sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are peer-reviewed and far more authoritative. Entries on atheism in such sources make clear that the proper definition of atheism is far more complex and nuanced than is suggested by the above.
Internet forum atheists, and the New Atheist movement in general, are attempting to redefine (or at least dumb down) the term atheist in order to make it more palatable and more broadly applicable and to give themselves certain pseudo-advantages in arguing with believers. It is not unlike homosexuals declaring they are gay, the gambling industry declaring it's really the gaming industry, and the abortion movement declaring it's really the pro-choice movement.
By the above definition, every agnostic is an atheist. Many thumb-sucking toddlers are atheists. Many people who have never give any thought to the existence of a deity are atheists.
In reality, and philosophically, an atheist is someone who has, at least at some level, given consideration to the possible existence of a deity and reached at least some level of conviction no deity exists. Atheism is not a mere "absence of belief." Absence of belief is agnosticism - or simply uninformed neutrality, if the individual has never considered the matter at all.
I can turn the above statements around and say I believe in God in EXACTLY the same way an atheist doesn't believe in God. I have an "absence of belief" in atheism. I have considered the evidence and arguments of all types and reached some level of conviction God exists (enough that I choose to live my life as though he does exist). A genuine atheist has done the same and reached some level of conviction no God exists. I can't prove God exists; the atheist can't prove God doesn't exist.
I don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny in EXACTLY the same way the atheist doesn't, and for the same reasons: I have considered the evidence and arguments and reached a conviction. When I reached an "absence of belief" in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, I reached a corresponding positive belief that my parents were responsible for the presents and colored eggs.
The atheist doesn't hold his or her "absence of belief" in a vacuum. An absence of belief that we are God-created beings in a God-created reality, participating in a God-ordained plan, has ramifications for every aspect of the atheist's life. Atheism is a fundamentally different way of viewing oneself, one's fellow humans and other creatures, and the reality in which we exist. This fact can't be avoided by word games.
If the ostensible atheist isn't willing to live as though atheism were true, then he or she is simply an agnostic. Do genuine agnostics haunt internet forums, spewing venom at believers?
Belief or non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny has no similar ramifications. Absence of belief in the Easter Bunny can pretty much be held in a vacuum. Belief in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not have the same evidentiary, theological or philosophical foundation as does (for example) belief in the Christian God, as is evidenced by the fact that billions of sane and intelligent people, including scientists and academics, don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The fact that atheists keep playing this word game, and using fallacious "stamp collecting" and "Easter Bunny" analogies, should be embarrassing to them. If someone insists on calling atheism a "non-belief system" rather than a belief system, I'll accept this as legitimate - but the reality is that any position that warrants the label atheism carries with it ramifications that are closely analogous to a believer's religion.
First, in regard to Wikipedia, you're right. There are more authoritative sources on almost any topic. But most of us are not looking for the equivalence of a dissertation on topics we look up on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on atheism includes 271 footnotes, 28 references, 39 suggestions for further reading, and ten external links. There are very few people on this forum who want or need more than that. We're not preparing for a formal debate at a university. We're chatting on an internet forum.
But I'll tell you something else that I've been thinking about, and it's sort of related to that. The people who are believers believe just because they do. Reading the bible, or limited parts of the bible isn't why many or perhaps even most of them believe. Your average christian hasn't read the whole bible. Most typically they believe what they believe because of what they've heard since they were little kids. Most atheists don't believe what they believe because of wading through numerous books about atheism. Most are atheists because they simply don't believe in what the christians believe. That faith didn't work for them. And it's the same for most Buddhists, and probably the same for most Hindus, etc.
Atheists make one big mistake in their basic position -- that everything can be proven or disproven. That's not what christianity and/or a belief in god is about. Even science isn't about absolute truth. Christians make two big mistakes -- first that the bible should be proof enough for anyone, and second that their arguments are often based on "facts" that aren't actually facts. And as a result of the poor thinking of both sides, we actually talk past each other.
Now you can rely on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy all you wish. That doesn't make you "right" on whatever your belief is. When I get to thinking too strongly that I'm right about something, I try to remember that in my life I've known a couple of people who were brilliant fools.
Typically when believers cite Wikipedia as authority for anything, they are met with hoots and hisses. Sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are peer-reviewed and far more authoritative. Entries on atheism in such sources make clear that the proper definition of atheism is far more complex and nuanced than is suggested by the above.
Internet forum atheists, and the New Atheist movement in general, are attempting to redefine (or at least dumb down) the term atheist in order to make it more palatable and more broadly applicable and to give themselves certain pseudo-advantages in arguing with believers.<snipped >
By the above definition, every agnostic is an atheist. Many thumb-sucking toddlers are atheists. Many people who have never give any thought to the existence of a deity are atheists.
Sadly, they have convinced this forum of their disingenuous definition giving them the pseudo advantage they desire regarding the nature of our Reality.
Quote:
In reality, and philosophically, an atheist is someone who has, at least at some level, given consideration to the possible existence of a deity and reached at least some level of conviction no deity exists. Atheism is not a mere "absence of belief." Absence of belief is agnosticism - or simply uninformed neutrality, if the individual has never considered the matter at all.
I can turn the above statements around and say I believe in God in EXACTLY the same way an atheist doesn't believe in God. I have an "absence of belief" in atheism. I have considered the evidence and arguments of all types and reached some level of conviction God exists (enough that I choose to live my life as though he does exist). A genuine atheist has done the same and reached some level of conviction no God exists. I can't prove God exists; the atheist can't prove God doesn't exist.
I don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny in EXACTLY the same way the atheist doesn't, and for the same reasons: I have considered the evidence and arguments and reached a conviction. When I reached an "absence of belief" in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, I reached a corresponding positive belief that my parents were responsible for the presents and colored eggs.
The atheist doesn't hold his or her "absence of belief" in a vacuum. An absence of belief that we are God-created beings in a God-created reality, participating in a God-ordained plan, has ramifications for every aspect of the atheist's life. Atheism is a fundamentally different way of viewing oneself, one's fellow humans and other creatures, and the reality in which we exist. This fact can't be avoided by word games.
Except here, it apparently has succeeded with those who matter.
Quote:
If the ostensible atheist isn't willing to live as though atheism were true, then he or she is simply an agnostic. Do genuine agnostics haunt internet forums, spewing venom at believers?
Belief or non-belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny has no similar ramifications. Absence of belief in the Easter Bunny can pretty much be held in a vacuum. Belief in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not have the same evidentiary, theological or philosophical foundation as does (for example) belief in the Christian God, as is evidenced by the fact that billions of sane and intelligent people, including scientists and academics, don't believe in Zeus, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
The fact that atheists keep playing this word game, and using fallacious "stamp collecting" and "Easter Bunny" analogies, should be embarrassing to them. If someone insists on calling atheism a "non-belief system" rather than a belief system, I'll accept this as legitimate - but the reality is that any position that warrants the label atheism carries with it ramifications that are closely analogous to a believer's religion.
Well said. The existence of dangerous and deleterious societal effects from some fanatic believers in God seems to be the impetus for the militant atheism promoted here. It is hard not to support such concerns about fanaticism, but such concerns are NOT limited to religious fanatics. I realize that the large numbers of people in religions tend to color the level of concern, but the fanatics remain a minority within the religions.
Seems to me that I see that premise in a lot of posts. YMMV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
