quote:

Originally posted by Lira Well, it's just that I'd like a theoretical background to work on. Naturally, we could start it all up from scratch, and giving each label a name would make it a lot easier to debate... even if we base our definition on what's written on the dictionary (which I hate to do), here's what we find: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html In my case, I do not believe there is a God, but I wouldn't go as far to deny there is a God for semantic and humanist reasons. Am I not an atheist, then?

Atheism is the antithesis to theism (that's what the whole "a" prefix indicates). If theism is the positive position that there is a god(s) then the antithesis of that can only be a positive position that there is no god. Stating you do not believe in a god(s) is a negative position not a positive; therefore, not atheism. To be an atheist you need to assert that there is no god(s). Not believing in the existence of god(s) is not the same thing as asserting that there is no god(s). I don't see how this is a difficult concept to grasp... unless you are willing to make the assertion I don't think you can really be called an atheist.

If you must have a label then let's go with non-believer.... or maybe heathen

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Atheism is the antithesis to theism (that's what the whole "a" prefix indicates).

Not really: "a-" means "without" or "not" (e.g. an "a-tom" is "not-cuttable", not "against being cut"). So an atheist would literally be a nontheist, rather than an antitheist, which would fit your definition more accurately (if you consider atheism to be the anti-thesis of theism, being theism the thesis).

I like "heathen", though

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Not believing in the existence of god(s) is not the same thing as asserting that there is no god(s).

they're not mutually exclusive either. in most circumstances other than ones where the disbelief in god(s) is partly sourced in having no knowledge of the possibility of god(s) whatsoever, expressing your disbelief would require such an assertion.
in most circumstances, asserting there is no god(s) requires disbelief.
not believing is passive, asserting that belief is active, and there lays the only difference between the two - a highly superficial one to be used as a yardstick.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't think we'll ever reach an agreement on this point;

i think you're right!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard however, by definition atheism is the belief that there is no god. This is an absolute position; therefore, if you entertain the possibility that there is a god(s) then you don't fit the criteria to be deemed an atheist. I know that I'm often peevish in my application of diction but what you are is not atheist by definition. I suppose we should just leave this at that since we won't get anywhere with this.

you make it sound like atheists walk around all day 100% sure of themselves (and must be so in order to be atheists). i dont see how a logical and even humble amount of doubt would change the nature of the general position. i dont believe in god, i think there's no god, BUT i know that this tiny little brain of mine in a tiny piece of earth in this vast universe might not have all the answers.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard What are your thoughts on people who chose their faith as adults?

they are slightly more credible, especially if they reference some sort of spiritual emergence or awakening that helps them live a better life and they dont get evangelical on your ass.

so its decided? antitheism is the religion, where as atheism is not? since there are degrees of atheism allow for many de-facto atheists, even if the had never heard of the concept of the almighty.

Atheism is not a religion. There are paralells between atheists and theists behavior (from altruism to sheep like behavior. You can see altruism in guys like Einstein, and MLK, and sheep like behavior from goths, emos, counter culture d-bags and old people), and i think that's what people should be saying instead of "atheism is a religion."

Anyways atheists need someone who isn't very abrasive. They need an MLK. If you want to blame the problems atheists have in the USA, I say blame book publishers and the media.

"The God Dellusion" is a title that will turn heads.
"Im an Atheist Who's Nice" isn't going to turn heads.

Dawkins is often called "Darwin's Pitbull." What atheists need is someone more like "Darwin's Chiuhauha"

Darwin's Chiuahuah (or however you spell chee wa wa)isn't going to sell books.

If you're all wondering I'm a practicing Catholic.

quote:

Originally posted by -FSP- Atheism is not a religion. There are paralells between atheists and theists behavior (from altruism to sheep like behavior. You can see altruism in guys like Einstein, and MLK, and sheep like behavior from goths, emos, counter culture d-bags and old people), and i think that's what people should be saying instead of "atheism is a religion." Anyways atheists need someone who isn't very abrasive. They need an MLK. If you want to blame the problems atheists have in the USA, I say blame book publishers and the media. "The God Dellusion" is a title that will turn heads. "Im an Atheist Who's Nice" isn't going to turn heads. Dawkins is often called "Darwin's Pitbull." What atheists need is someone more like "Darwin's Chiuhauha" Darwin's Chiuahuah (or however you spell chee wa wa)isn't going to sell books. If you're all wondering I'm a practicing Catholic.

+1

The reason atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins get so much media time is because of the outrageous importance they've put on scientism.

IE: Dawkins asserts that science has all the answers, he believes all truths can be proved by science which is in itself a self-defeating claim because there is no way with science you'd ever be able to prove that claim.

I still find it funny that Darwinian thought has lead to this form of militant atheism, especially since Darwin's REAL pitbull, Huxley, was himself not an atheist but an agnostic.

I guess my point here was that the militant wing of atheists has succeeded in turning heads by making the controversial claims of scientism and one of Dawkins' better ones: "Religion is child abuse" and other such things. Whether Dawkins believes that, I don't know, given he was raised in the Anglican Church, I wonder if he ever accused his parents or his priest of abuse.

Hitchens is actually the smartest (in my opinion) of the 4 horsemen so to speak (the 4 being Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris). Harris and Dennett have both made asses of themselves in debates and in my opinion Dawkins is far too inconsistent when he debates or speaks publicly, I'd like him more if he had the same consistency as Hitchens who I have to admit is quite funny.

Whenever Hitchens and Dinesh Desousa duke it out I'm glued to the screen, and the Lennox v Hitchens debate was pretty awesome too. But really the rivalry is between Desousa and Hitchens, they really get into it and they both admit they are each others worst nightmares in a debate setting. My only problem with Hitchens is his insistence on making little comments in bad taste about religion without actually substantiating them with anything but a joke. Oh well, I still think he's brilliant though.

Last edited by Alex on Jan-23-2009 at 03:00

quote:

Originally posted by Alex IE: Dawkins asserts that science has all the answers, he believes all truths can be proved by science which is in itself a self-defeating claim because there is no way with science you'd ever be able to prove that claim.

that's bollocks. he doesn't claim science can know all, he claims that science will be able to explain everything within the bounds of nature. he doesn't think science can answer every pointless and meaningless question that people might throw at it.

___________________

Ah so he disregards all questions that aren't scientific as meaningless?

Alright, I agree with him now for sure.

P.S.

That claim, if it really is his actual position (he changes it so often) is still self-defeating.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Ah so he disregards all questions that aren't scientific as meaningless? Alright, I agree with him now for sure. P.S. That claim, if it really is his actual position (he changes it so often) is still self-defeating.

look, you might really enjoy the pedantic word-play in these situations, but i don't. i find it extremely annoying. dawkins thinks that we will be able to, say, ascertain the exact properties of a black hole as science progresses, but not necessarily why pkc likes to dance naked each night covered in tomato sauce.

other answers to the world's questions come from other areas outside science. and no, we get no answers from religion.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and no, we get no answers from religion.

So we're reduced to baseless opinions again?

If you're allowed to dismiss religion then I'm allowed to "word-play" all I want and point out that Dawkins does not use scientific evidence in his statements, he uses a poor philosophical analysis of science that wouldn't pass a philosophy 101 class to rationalize his heinous belief that science can answer all of the questions in life HE DEEMS are worthy of answering.