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.
Apparently not. So let me answer for him if I may.
"It's not OK for you to make the rules and move the goal posts to suite your agenda but when I do it it's different". Am I right, gabfest? The truth gabby old mate, is that phet is not making the rules or moving the goal posts.
yeah ... thats it 3030. We see activism atheist don't move the post, they remove them and say you didn't get the ball threw so we are right.
Apparently not. So let me answer for him if I may.
"It's not OK for you to make the rules and move the goal posts to suite your agenda but when I do it it's different". Am I right, gabfest? The truth gabby old mate, is that phet is not making the rules or moving the goal posts.
Thank you. What I was ultimately trying to get at is this: every once in a while a christian on the forum will pine about the mistreatment that christians experience in certain countries that could reasonably be called "not christian" in terms of the dominant culture, and that is a direct result of living in a country where non-christians "make the rules" and "set the boundary lines". And yet, christians living in a predominantly christian country have no problem with the concept in reverse...they think it's fine for their group to "make the rules" and "set the boundary lines". In other words, for them it has NOTHING to do with a principle. (Of course, I am not speaking of all christians).
Thank you. What I was ultimately trying to get at is this: every once in a while a christian on the forum will pine about the mistreatment that christians experience in certain countries that could reasonably be called "not christian" in terms of the dominant culture, and that is a direct result of living in a country where non-christians "make the rules" and "set the boundary lines". And yet, christians living in a predominantly christian country have no problem with the concept in reverse...they think it's fine for their group to "make the rules" and "set the boundary lines". In other words, for them it has NOTHING to do with a principle. (Of course, I am not speaking of all christians).
Thank you. What I was ultimately trying to get at is this: every once in a while a christian on the forum will pine about the mistreatment that christians experience in certain countries that could reasonably be called "not christian" in terms of the dominant culture, and that is a direct result of living in a country where non-christians "make the rules" and "set the boundary lines". And yet, christians living in a predominantly christian country have no problem with the concept in reverse...they think it's fine for their group to "make the rules" and "set the boundary lines". In other words, for them it has NOTHING to do with a principle. (Of course, I am not speaking of all christians).
thast why I always look at country of origin. Is that how one wants to run. minorities say and do the same things. Majority says and does the same thing. when the roles are reverse the attitudes don't change. Minorites say and do and majority say and do.
You are right ... I saw " ... My minor was geology my major was physical geography ..." I saw physical geology". My bad. But it still is enough that you have some training. I will expect better answer from you to tell ya truth.
I am only interested in how the universe works. The way we look at things is do you have a mechanism and does that mechanism make repeatable predictions. You should understand that when "asking for proof". this "It has no meaning to me" just a crap copout answer, you really should know better.
What theist are really saying is how they see some atheist behaving. basically they are saying "you activist look like activist and do not look just like lack of belief types." they are partly correct, but then again I am not here for team unity so partly right is partly right.
This isn't a thread, or even a forum, about how the universe works. This is a thread about "Defining Atheism" in a forum about Religion and Spirituality.
And the most important point that Trans made there is that "The only difference is now we have a Voice".
And that's what I find so interesting -- and not unusual in our time. People that essentially had no voice in the past, now have a voice. Social media. And it scares the hell out of christians.
Why? Why such a knee jerk reaction...even if all a thread is about is defining the term. Why all the angst? You christians keep reminding us about how few of us there are. Yet, even in just defining the word you circle the wagons as if it you are about to be decimated. Don't you think it's a bit of an overreaction?
Even your list above. Don't you think that's over-thinking the issue?
Is your christianity so frail that it cannon withstand Trans and Phet and a handful of others. Is your faith that shaky?
How do you define your own atheism?
It’s definitely not the same atheism of someone like Harry Diogenes, who I would classify as a hard/scientific atheist, since he’s a strict philosophical Naturalist.
Harry doesn’t consider you to be a true atheist because you are willing to entertain the possibility of something beyond the physical world. The fact that you believe a deistic god is possible excludes you from the category of atheist, in his opinion (and in mine, too).
You’re not really an atheist about ALL gods, after all, since you believe a deistic god is possible. It seems like you’re only atheistic toward the God of the Bible (Abrahamic God).
Are there any other gods you rule out as possibilities?
How do you define your own atheism?
It’s definitely not the same atheism of someone like Harry Diogenes, who I would classify as a hard/scientific atheist, since he’s a strict philosophical Naturalist.
Harry doesn’t consider you to be a true atheist because you are willing to entertain the possibility of something beyond the physical world. The fact that you believe a deistic god is possible excludes you from the category of atheist, in his opinion (and in mine, too).
You’re not really an atheist about ALL gods, after all, since you believe a deistic god is possible. It seems like you’re only atheistic toward the God of the Bible (Abrahamic God).
Are there any other gods you rule out as possibilities?
This is what you almost always do. Someone asks you a question. You ignore it and ask your own question. I find that to be dishonest.
But unlike you, I'll go ahead and answer.
So atheists have to be the same, but there can be thousands of christian denominations. What an odd way of thinking.
You see the "different types" of atheists as being significant. I don't. In my school we had math teachers, science teachers, English, history, art, music, shop, special ed, physical education, and more types of teachers. Yet together we were a school with a common sense of purpose and, to a large extent a common set of strategies that we all used to teach kids. Our teachers were organized into teams and departments. Teachers didn't say, "Oh I can't sit down and work with Henry cause he teaches differently than me". No, departments worked together, met together weekly or more. Teams met together three times a week. Sort of like E pluribus unum. From many one.
As you describe me above, you keep using -- but seemingly ignoring -- the word possibility. "the possibility of something beyond the physical world", "you believe a deistic god is possible". If I said it was entirely impossible for there to be any other force or god, then you'd say I was hardheaded.
It's clear that when it comes right down to it, you don't like the idea of open mindedness. You're a black and white, either/or thinker.
I certainly am atheistic about the Old Testament. It's not as bad as "Mein Kampf", but I think it is a despicable book of almost pure fiction. A lot in the NT is pretty good and worth cherry picking.
I rule out most Hindu gods and goddesses, BUT I admittedly know only superficial knowledge about them. I'm just not big on elephant gods and the like. Some of the philosophy in Hinduism, however, is pretty interesting.
In defining atheism it’s important to recognize the many variations of atheism. It’s not a one-size-fits-all term. The motivation and reasoning for each variation of atheism indicates different levels of belief.
Some variations of atheism::
Hard/soft, strong/weak atheism
New-atheism, activist-atheism, militant-atheism
Moderate, dispassionate atheism
Agnostic/gnostic atheism
Positive/Negative atheism
Scientific atheism
“New Atheists” are very common on this forum so let’s start with that variation...
Post#4 - “[New Atheism] is essentially just the same as old atheism - a disbelief in any god - claim. Which it always was. The only difference is now we have a Voice. We had voices in the past. Russell was a notable atheist speaker- he had a voice that others didn't because he had exposure.
It was I think the Internet that made the difference. for the first time ordinary people started talking and atheists - who had been isolated because people kept quiet about it - realised that Others were out there. There were a lot of Christian websites started and the Fundamentalist/ creationists were right there. They were evangelists after all. So the reaction was atheist websites popping up. Farrell Till and Cliff Walker were the ones I used while i was doing 'Atheist apprentice-ship' in the 80's.
I don't need to rehearse how high profile atheist spokesbods gained attention - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett.”
Post#15 - “Yes. i have to confess that i was rather explaining what New Atheism actually was. I didn't get onto the irreligion campaign which isn't actually New atheism but is something that came out of it. "ok We now know that we are a lot more than we thought. We have some questions. What should we do? What are our aims?" This has actually firmed up rather recently when the idea of an atheism with voting clout was seen as the best way of getting something done. You can imagine that the 'rise of the Nones' was very good news. But I was talking of an 'Atheist avalanche' long before that.
The campaign sounds more fearsome than it is- it isn't so much to eradicate religion, but to let it 'wither on the vine'. Not that it will do that all the time there are people to preach it. It's more to push it out of a position of social influence, remove it's privileges and remove the influence on politics, threat to education and the ongoing glowering at science.”
TRANS quotes explaining his own motivation:
Does this sound like merely a “lack of belief”?
No. But that is not the definition, rationale or logical basis of atheism. It is about what people who are atheists decide to do about it.
You have carefully compiled an impressive array of my quotes but you don't seem to have read or (more importantly) understood, any of them. Or
P. s. Or maybe you did and simply posted them as an explanation (fine) but failed to make the distinction between atheism per se and what atheists may do about it or may not - which is not atheism 'per se', or the definition of it. If so, now you know better.
Have you thought of compiling my essays on the gospels? I may get the book published after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
And the most important point that Trans made there is that "The only difference is now we have a Voice".
And that's what I find so interesting -- and not unusual in our time. People that essentially had no voice in the past, now have a voice. Social media. And it scares the hell out of christians.
Why? Why such a knee jerk reaction...even if all a thread is about is defining the term. Why all the angst? You christians keep reminding us about how few of us there are. Yet, even in just defining the word you circle the wagons as if it you are about to be decimated. Don't you think it's a bit of an overreaction?
Even your list above. Don't you think that's over-thinking the issue?
Is your christianity so frail that it cannon withstand Trans and Phet and a handful of others. Is your faith that shaky?
Yes. I think it's close enough to topic to say that the emergence of the atheist voice on the internet is a fascinating subject and something I remember very well. I recall a stark realisation on the part of the internet atheists that there was no support for the new (deconverted) atheist - so they said. They felt quite alone. That has improved a lot with places to go and talk and know that there are a lot of others.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-04-2020 at 01:10 AM..
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.
But that is not the definition, rationale or logical basis of atheism. It is about what people who are atheists decide to do about it.