No God More Suicide - US Suicide Rate Increases 24% (moral, proof, against)
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.
LuminousTruth, you're on form today! Could only rep you once though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scgraham
God made everything, including the ability to choose. God made a swamp full of alligators, but you have enough sense to choose not to go swimming don't you? Your choice. Life or death -- but don't blame God for your decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Literally that would be illegal in our civil society. You can't go around making swamps full of alligators and expecting others to fend for themselves and not blame you.
I was planning on responding to this one similarly. In fact, I was going to say "You're bloody well right, I will blame God for creating such hazards!"
Literally that would be illegal in our civil society. You can't go around making swamps full of alligators and expecting others to fend for themselves and not blame you.
More than that. God also made Malaria, polio and the Black Death. What choice did we have with that? If someone poisons the water -supply, blankets a city with poison gas or infects tins of baby -food, how would the excuse that it is our choice to drink supermarket water, another brand of tin or live somewhere else stand up in court? And I reckon a claim that it was done to make us think and develop us should add 20 years to the sentence. Why should God get away with it? I sentence him to Death by non -existence.
I don't like the atheist label either. To me it signifies that theism is the default position
Exactly. The label assumes a default to which I do not agree. I think Sam Harris put it best.... when he was ALSO talking about the uselessness of the term atheist..... when he said that the majority of us never feel the need to go around calling ourselves "aracist".
The point being that racism is such an untenable and unsubstantiated position.... on everything from a genetic level up to a social level......... that it is simply ludicrous to define yourself against it.
And GIVEN that the amount of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer that the universe was created and/or is maintained by a non-human intentional intelligent agency is EXACTLY zero...... I treat the term "atheist" in a similar level of contempt as I do the term "aracist".
That said however I am not blind to the need for atheists to form ranks under a flag and fight the good fight against the insidious and evil memetic virus that is religion. So while I do not use the term "atheist" for myself I have nothing against the term itself or people who use it. I am, after all, a founding member of Atheist Ireland and a large part of the reason they became a fully card carrying member of Atheist Alliance international.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scgraham
I know. What an obsession these people have toward a fantasy... Fact is, they have hatred toward God and thus hate themselves and their children -- and all of humanity too.
Have you used the search function lately? This agenda driven spin narrative of yours has been entirely debunked and rubbished many.... many.... times before for the empty and fetid canard that it is.
Yeah, this is the siren song of ignorance. Just accept God, bury yourself in some ancient religion and pretend that all of the answers are there.
Forget about trying to figure out how the world works, don't ask questions, and for heaven's sake, do not - I repeat - do not question authority.
It's time to shut down those 200 billion or so neurons in your brain and leave on just a handful that will allow you to perform the basic functions like going to work, cooking dinner, running to the store because you're out of toilet paper, and feeding the dog.
Gotta crush those critical thinking skills, that skepticism, that curiosity ...
Exactly. The label assumes a default to which I do not agree. I think Sam Harris put it best.... when he was ALSO talking about the uselessness of the term atheist..... when he said that the majority of us never feel the need to go around calling ourselves "aracist".
Sort of. Yes and no. Nozz does not like the atheist label because he regards his lack of belief in deities as an outgrowth of the fact that he does not believe unsubstantiated nonsense -- that is what he regards as his core identity. Atheism itself, he rightly opines, is far too narrow a basis for it to reflect much of anything on its own.
So although he disavows the label, for very clear reasons, he is still an atheist in the technical, definitional sense that he does not believe in any deities whatsoever. It's just that he sees that as a consequence of his evidential standards rather than as a thing-in-itself.
I have to say, that in meatspace I do not label myself atheist either, because it generates heat rather than light. I have only been asked exactly twice in my entire life if I was an atheist and in both cases after making sure the questioner understood what "atheist" means, I accepted the label. But I do not find myself identifying as atheist in any significant way because of the simple fact I prefer to be known as a thoughtful, intelligent person with well-considered opinions. And when, once in a blue moon, someone wants to know my opinion of God generally or Christianity specifically and I think their interest is genuine I will inform the of it, and based on the inherent definition of what an atheist is, I would have to admit to being one. But like Nozz i would prefer to be known as a person with a good BS filter and decent evidential standards who, as a result of that, happens to be, among other things, an atheist.
In truth, that drives many believers to far greater heights of distraction anyway, because if I am just someone they can superimpose their stereotype of godless / hateful / bitter / angry / rude / unhappy / Nihilistic / suicidal / subversive / whatever Atheist, it is far more comfortable for them than to realize that I simply see zero reason to believe their asserted dogma of choice or to give it any credence. That is far harder for them to take. And also, it's harder for them to realize that rather than hating their deity -- which is just a form of disappointed love and carries with it the seed of hope that I might be reconciled somehow -- I am INDIFFERENT to their imaginary friend. That is the true opposite of love: indifference. Much harder to dismiss :-)
Well, that's absolutely right. not believing Unsubstantiated Nonsense is effectively rationality. And rationality applied to the 'narrow basis' as you say of the single subject of the God -question is to not believe it, as it is unsubstantiated, and pretty much nonsense. That's is what atheism is.
So the cap fits. It is just a question of not liking to call it a cap. Because it attracts 'heat' as you say.
There are not a few atheists (in act) who prefer to find another title because of the antipathy it generates. I understand this tactic, but I do not like it. It is too much like being ashamed of what we actually are.
I have heard all the arguments, such as it not being semantically accurate or correct (as though that really mattered) or the tactical or P/R one, which I can reject, since I live in a country where it really doesn't matter that much if you are an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Exactly. The label assumes a default to which I do not agree. I think Sam Harris put it best.... when he was ALSO talking about the uselessness of the term atheist..... when he said that the majority of us never feel the need to go around calling ourselves "aracist"....
I'm afraid I can't agree with Sam Harris. The term is not "a -racist" it s "anti -racist" and it is the near -exact equivalent, other than atheists don't go as far as calling themselves "anti -theist". Atheist is not only less combative (not that it gets us any credit from the theists) but but is more accurate, since we are not fighting theism as such but Organized religion specifically because of its influence on society.
Sam Harris' argument doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny and I am convinced that it just a pretext for trying to make a tactical change to a label that would generate less heat. I reject this ploy, but, if it gains a following, I may have to accept it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-04-2016 at 12:50 AM..
So the cap fits. It is just a question of not liking to call it a cap. Because it attracts 'heat' as you say.
For me it's not about attracting heat. It's about it being the 'second option' as though theism is the first and normal position. It's like calling a European a non-Jew or calling a Jew a non-European. That's my dislike of the word. But until we can come up with a better term, I'll call myself an Atheist. How about 'Enlightened'?
For me it's not about attracting heat. It's about it being the 'second option' as though theism is the first and normal position. It's like calling a European a non-Jew or calling a Jew a non-European. That's my dislike of the word. But until we can come up with a better term, I'll call myself an Atheist. How about 'Enlightened'?
Like 'Brights' I wriggle because it is like trying to say 'Become atheist and you will be a smart guy'. In a way that's true, but I think 'subset of rationalism' is enough. I'm not going to beef much if some other name is adopted, but I sorta like 'atheist' myself, and the reasons not to use it don't stack up and seem to be pretext for avoiding a label that attracts flak.
Cliff Walker ("Positive Atheism") mentioned Luke Sissyfag... No, really...who went out deliberately to attract Flak as part of the gay rights campaign. And that worked. Mind, changing the name to "Gay" seems to have worked as well
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Like 'Brights' I wriggle because it is like trying to say 'Become atheist and you will be a smart guy'. In a way that's true, but I think 'subset of rationalism' is enough. I'm not going to beef much if some other name is adopted, but I sorta like 'atheist' myself, and the reasons not to use it don't stack up and seem to be pretext for avoiding a label that attracts flak.
Cliff Walker ("Positive Atheism") mentioned Luke Sissyfag... No, really...who went out deliberately to attract Flak as part of the gay rights campaign. And that worked. Mind, changing the name to "Gay" seems to have worked as well
Personally, I thought Dawkin's idea of "Brights" was asinine, presumptuous , and elitist. I'm an atheist, or even an anti-theist which was Hitchen's preferred term. That doesn't make me smarter than religious believers, it just makes me more curious about the world and skeptical about assertions that don't have any evidence to back them up.
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.
Could only rep you once though. 
He is SPOT ON!
That's my dislike of the word. But until we can come up with a better term, I'll call myself an Atheist. How about 'Enlightened'? 
