Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Pick A Name Please

Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:23:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm asking this to hear from all you "Atheists!" Atheism is to be without a belief in Theism....yippy...So now if you apply this to a worldview are you calling it Atheism, Asserting Atheism, or Warrior Atheist? If you hold that there is absolutely no supernatural in reality then are you calling yourself a Naturalist? When somebody puts down their religion as Atheism as many do on this site on their profile, but then hold that it is not a religion bugs. If you are a Naturalist then put it, an Agnostic then put it, a Polytheist then put it....but if you want Atheism to be it's own religion then I'm offering you in this thread to make a new name for it so everybody on this site doesn't have to argue about it anymore. Go for it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:25:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I also want bald to be a hair style.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:25:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I also want bald to be a hair style.

Thanks for completely missing the intent of the thread...stop mashing your spam button and give some real input...thanks.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:33:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:25:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I also want bald to be a hair style.

When you understand why this sentence doesn't make sense, then you will understand why making "atheism" a religion makes no sense.

Did I also mention a hobby of mine is not collecting stamps ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:40:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If someone put the word 'none' next to their religion on a census form would you then imagine they are of the Nonnist faith or understand that it meant they had no religious affiliation? Atheism is a bit like that.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:42:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:23:57 PM, Crede wrote:
I'm asking this to hear from all you "Atheists!" Atheism is to be without a belief in Theism....yippy...So now if you apply this to a worldview are you calling it Atheism, Asserting Atheism, or Warrior Atheist? If you hold that there is absolutely no supernatural in reality then are you calling yourself a Naturalist?

There are plenty of worldviews and philosophies that are atheistic in nature. Nihilism and Secular Humanism are two that I know about. I can understand your problem. Atheism itself isn't a complete package when it comes to worldviews generally held by people like religions are. When someone says they're a Christian, that can convey a lot of information.

But also consider that atheism isn't analogous to religions. Atheism is analogous to theism. If you just told someone that you're a theist, that wouldn't convey much information. This isn't a problem as almost every specific implementation of theism has with it some corresponding religion and, therefore, a rich history, dogmatic principles, and tenents. You can convey a lot with a word.

Atheism is not in the same situation. Atheists pretty much have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis unless they subscribe to some atheistic philosophy as described.

But the real question is: so what? Ok, so you don't have the luxury of grouping atheists under a single heading under which you can infer everything about them. That just means you have to do more investigative work (you know, ask questions) if you want to understand them. I'm sorry if atheists don't fit a predetermined mold, but that's the way it is.

When somebody puts down their religion as Atheism as many do on this site on their profile, but then hold that it is not a religion bugs. If you are a Naturalist then put it, an Agnostic then put it, a Polytheist then put it....but if you want Atheism to be it's own religion then I'm offering you in this thread to make a new name for it so everybody on this site doesn't have to argue about it anymore. Go for it.

That governments recognize atheism as a religion, or that web sites or other organizations list it as a religion, is merely a convention. It does not, in fact, confer the status of religion on atheism. I can't control that a web site groups atheism with other religions. The government established that a tomato is not a fruit. Guess what? It's still a fruit. But for purposes outside of recognizing what a tomato is, botanically, it was useful to determine that it wasn't a fruit. The government can be weird like that.

I don't believe in any gods. Therefore I'm an atheist. Whether or not I want it to be a religion is irrelevant; it isn't one. If you want to know more about me outside of my lack of belief in gods, you're just going to have to ask.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:47:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Atheism just describes a stance towards the existence of God. It says nothing about an individual's philosophical worldview, politics, spiritual practices, views toward religion, etc. etc.

Beyond the sort of (in my opinion) silly analogy of "bald is not a hairstyle" (also, Ive always thought bald was a hairstyle? People do go to the barbers and request it...), it just doesnt make sense to call atheism a religion because the position isnt homogeneous enough. It would be like if you had two people who only agree that God exists- e.g. a Christian and a theistic Hindu. It wouldnt make sense to say they are part of the same religion because there is more different about their belief systems than there is the same.

Saying "atheism is a religion" erases the diversity of beliefs held by atheists.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:48:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol Drafterman and I make the exact same point w/in 5 min. of each other. I think he put it more eloquently though.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:50:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:48:59 PM, Raisor wrote:
lol Drafterman and I make the exact same point w/in 5 min. of each other. I think he put it more eloquently though.

Not that there's nothing to be said for succinctness. "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Not that I'm saying I'm witless, but my wit doesn't have a soul. It's an atheistic wit.

And I'm rambling.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:52:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:47:27 PM, Raisor wrote:
Atheism just describes a stance towards the existence of God. It says nothing about an individual's philosophical worldview, politics, spiritual practices, views toward religion, etc. etc.

Beyond the sort of (in my opinion) silly analogy of "bald is not a hairstyle" (also, Ive always thought bald was a hairstyle? People do go to the barbers and request it...), it just doesnt make sense to call atheism a religion because the position isnt homogeneous enough. It would be like if you had two people who only agree that God exists- e.g. a Christian and a theistic Hindu. It wouldnt make sense to say they are part of the same religion because there is more different about their belief systems than there is the same.

Saying "atheism is a religion" erases the diversity of beliefs held by atheists.

Bald isn't a hair style as one needs hair in order to style it in the first place. Bald is a lack of hair just like atheism is a lack of...........you get the idea.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:54:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:40:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If someone put the word 'none' next to their religion on a census form would you then imagine they are of the Nonnist faith or understand that it meant they had no religious affiliation? Atheism is a bit like that.

I think this works actually...But why put Atheism and single out Theism...just to make a statement without claiming a religion?
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:59:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:42:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:23:57 PM, Crede wrote:
I'm asking this to hear from all you "Atheists!" Atheism is to be without a belief in Theism....yippy...So now if you apply this to a worldview are you calling it Atheism, Asserting Atheism, or Warrior Atheist? If you hold that there is absolutely no supernatural in reality then are you calling yourself a Naturalist?

There are plenty of worldviews and philosophies that are atheistic in nature. Nihilism and Secular Humanism are two that I know about. I can understand your problem. Atheism itself isn't a complete package when it comes to worldviews generally held by people like religions are. When someone says they're a Christian, that can convey a lot of information.

But also consider that atheism isn't analogous to religions. Atheism is analogous to theism. If you just told someone that you're a theist, that wouldn't convey much information. This isn't a problem as almost every specific implementation of theism has with it some corresponding religion and, therefore, a rich history, dogmatic principles, and tenents. You can convey a lot with a word.

Atheism is not in the same situation. Atheists pretty much have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis unless they subscribe to some atheistic philosophy as described.

But the real question is: so what? Ok, so you don't have the luxury of grouping atheists under a single heading under which you can infer everything about them. That just means you have to do more investigative work (you know, ask questions) if you want to understand them. I'm sorry if atheists don't fit a predetermined mold, but that's the way it is.

When somebody puts down their religion as Atheism as many do on this site on their profile, but then hold that it is not a religion bugs. If you are a Naturalist then put it, an Agnostic then put it, a Polytheist then put it....but if you want Atheism to be it's own religion then I'm offering you in this thread to make a new name for it so everybody on this site doesn't have to argue about it anymore. Go for it.

That governments recognize atheism as a religion, or that web sites or other organizations list it as a religion, is merely a convention. It does not, in fact, confer the status of religion on atheism. I can't control that a web site groups atheism with other religions. The government established that a tomato is not a fruit. Guess what? It's still a fruit. But for purposes outside of recognizing what a tomato is, botanically, it was useful to determine that it wasn't a fruit. The government can be weird like that.

I don't believe in any gods. Therefore I'm an atheist. Whether or not I want it to be a religion is irrelevant; it isn't one. If you want to know more about me outside of my lack of belief in gods, you're just going to have to ask.

I understand what the word Atheism means...but it seems in modern culture that it has taken a new meaning on. One that does not believe in Theism and is the religion of countering Theism...hence the name and not another that fits under the category of Atheism. Just curious if Atheists feel this way about claiming Atheism when the could be claiming what their actual world view is.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:01:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:52:20 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:47:27 PM, Raisor wrote:
Atheism just describes a stance towards the existence of God. It says nothing about an individual's philosophical worldview, politics, spiritual practices, views toward religion, etc. etc.

Beyond the sort of (in my opinion) silly analogy of "bald is not a hairstyle" (also, Ive always thought bald was a hairstyle? People do go to the barbers and request it...), it just doesnt make sense to call atheism a religion because the position isnt homogeneous enough. It would be like if you had two people who only agree that God exists- e.g. a Christian and a theistic Hindu. It wouldnt make sense to say they are part of the same religion because there is more different about their belief systems than there is the same.

Saying "atheism is a religion" erases the diversity of beliefs held by atheists.

Bald isn't a hair style as one needs hair in order to style it in the first place. Bald is a lack of hair just like atheism is a lack of...........you get the idea.

I think the saying is superficial and doesnt serve the atheist community well at all. The community should be emphasizing what it has to offer as positive movement rather than getting caught up in defining itself in opposition to religion. If someone says "atheism is a religion" I think it is more productive to explain what atheism is and how it is different than religious movements than to whip out cute and dismissive sayings.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:05:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:59:14 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:42:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:23:57 PM, Crede wrote:
I'm asking this to hear from all you "Atheists!" Atheism is to be without a belief in Theism....yippy...So now if you apply this to a worldview are you calling it Atheism, Asserting Atheism, or Warrior Atheist? If you hold that there is absolutely no supernatural in reality then are you calling yourself a Naturalist?

There are plenty of worldviews and philosophies that are atheistic in nature. Nihilism and Secular Humanism are two that I know about. I can understand your problem. Atheism itself isn't a complete package when it comes to worldviews generally held by people like religions are. When someone says they're a Christian, that can convey a lot of information.

But also consider that atheism isn't analogous to religions. Atheism is analogous to theism. If you just told someone that you're a theist, that wouldn't convey much information. This isn't a problem as almost every specific implementation of theism has with it some corresponding religion and, therefore, a rich history, dogmatic principles, and tenents. You can convey a lot with a word.

Atheism is not in the same situation. Atheists pretty much have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis unless they subscribe to some atheistic philosophy as described.

But the real question is: so what? Ok, so you don't have the luxury of grouping atheists under a single heading under which you can infer everything about them. That just means you have to do more investigative work (you know, ask questions) if you want to understand them. I'm sorry if atheists don't fit a predetermined mold, but that's the way it is.

When somebody puts down their religion as Atheism as many do on this site on their profile, but then hold that it is not a religion bugs. If you are a Naturalist then put it, an Agnostic then put it, a Polytheist then put it....but if you want Atheism to be it's own religion then I'm offering you in this thread to make a new name for it so everybody on this site doesn't have to argue about it anymore. Go for it.

That governments recognize atheism as a religion, or that web sites or other organizations list it as a religion, is merely a convention. It does not, in fact, confer the status of religion on atheism. I can't control that a web site groups atheism with other religions. The government established that a tomato is not a fruit. Guess what? It's still a fruit. But for purposes outside of recognizing what a tomato is, botanically, it was useful to determine that it wasn't a fruit. The government can be weird like that.

I don't believe in any gods. Therefore I'm an atheist. Whether or not I want it to be a religion is irrelevant; it isn't one. If you want to know more about me outside of my lack of belief in gods, you're just going to have to ask.

I understand what the word Atheism means...but it seems in modern culture that it has taken a new meaning on. One that does not believe in Theism and is the religion of countering Theism...hence the name and not another that fits under the category of Atheism. Just curious if Atheists feel this way about claiming Atheism when the could be claiming what their actual world view is.

In a way I agree with you. If I was going to label myself I almost certainly would not pick "atheist" as my primary descriptor. At the same time, there are a lot of political reasons why it is advantageous to put up a unified front of people who do not believe in God. Its nice to say "I am a logical positivist first and foremost" but that doesnt really help when your family starts to exclude you from events because you dont believe in God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:06:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:59:14 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:42:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:23:57 PM, Crede wrote:
I'm asking this to hear from all you "Atheists!" Atheism is to be without a belief in Theism....yippy...So now if you apply this to a worldview are you calling it Atheism, Asserting Atheism, or Warrior Atheist? If you hold that there is absolutely no supernatural in reality then are you calling yourself a Naturalist?

There are plenty of worldviews and philosophies that are atheistic in nature. Nihilism and Secular Humanism are two that I know about. I can understand your problem. Atheism itself isn't a complete package when it comes to worldviews generally held by people like religions are. When someone says they're a Christian, that can convey a lot of information.

But also consider that atheism isn't analogous to religions. Atheism is analogous to theism. If you just told someone that you're a theist, that wouldn't convey much information. This isn't a problem as almost every specific implementation of theism has with it some corresponding religion and, therefore, a rich history, dogmatic principles, and tenents. You can convey a lot with a word.

Atheism is not in the same situation. Atheists pretty much have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis unless they subscribe to some atheistic philosophy as described.

But the real question is: so what? Ok, so you don't have the luxury of grouping atheists under a single heading under which you can infer everything about them. That just means you have to do more investigative work (you know, ask questions) if you want to understand them. I'm sorry if atheists don't fit a predetermined mold, but that's the way it is.

When somebody puts down their religion as Atheism as many do on this site on their profile, but then hold that it is not a religion bugs. If you are a Naturalist then put it, an Agnostic then put it, a Polytheist then put it....but if you want Atheism to be it's own religion then I'm offering you in this thread to make a new name for it so everybody on this site doesn't have to argue about it anymore. Go for it.

That governments recognize atheism as a religion, or that web sites or other organizations list it as a religion, is merely a convention. It does not, in fact, confer the status of religion on atheism. I can't control that a web site groups atheism with other religions. The government established that a tomato is not a fruit. Guess what? It's still a fruit. But for purposes outside of recognizing what a tomato is, botanically, it was useful to determine that it wasn't a fruit. The government can be weird like that.

I don't believe in any gods. Therefore I'm an atheist. Whether or not I want it to be a religion is irrelevant; it isn't one. If you want to know more about me outside of my lack of belief in gods, you're just going to have to ask.

I understand what the word Atheism means...but it seems in modern culture that it has taken a new meaning on. One that does not believe in Theism and is the religion of countering Theism...hence the name and not another that fits under the category of Atheism. Just curious if Atheists feel this way about claiming Atheism when the could be claiming what their actual world view is.

I don't know what you mean by "the religion of countering Theism" though I suspect it's another attempt to label atheism as a religion (it isn't). In any event, you seem to be talking about people like Dawkins who take a deliberate and publicly antagonistic stance towards theism and religion. There have been several labels coined to describe these people: New Atheists, Militant Atheists, Anti-theists.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. There are already a bunch of labels to distinguish among different kinds of athests, implicit/explicit, weak/strong, positive/negative, etc. But relying on a label only gets you so far. Even if you tell me that you're a 1988 Reformed United Universal Bapital-Methodist Witness of the Church of the Holy Crucifiction, that only tells me so much about you. If I wanted to debate or discuss specific issues with you, I'd still have to ascertain your position on this issues.

So using labels is good for brief little snippets or quotable sentences, if you want to have any sort of constructive conversation or discussion, you're going to have to leave the safe bastion of labels and - gasp - actually talk with someone. When dealing with atheists you just have to leave that bastion all the more sooner.

If you're not interested in any sort of constructive conversation or discussion, then I can't help you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:13:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:54:44 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/24/2011 12:40:23 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If someone put the word 'none' next to their religion on a census form would you then imagine they are of the Nonnist faith or understand that it meant they had no religious affiliation? Atheism is a bit like that.

I think this works actually...But why put Atheism and single out Theism...just to make a statement without claiming a religion?

Atheist is A-Theist, Adeist, Apolytheist...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:32:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I prefer not to go by the label "atheist", in our culture it is considered a derogatory word. Some people hear the word, and immediately their prejudices come out.

Intelligent atheists throughout history have rarely if ever called themselves "atheists". That sort of thing would get you killed. Instead, they got people to look at God in a way that was more rational.

My goal is not to erase the concept of God from people's minds. My goal is to shy people away from the theistic conception of God(Which might as well be Satan himself), and lead them to The God That Exists As Actuality.

The God That Exists As Actuality is the conception of God that all who truly understand admit can not be non-existent, and to which all men of science attempt to gain a deeper understanding of.

Truly, the only way the statement, "Only a fool says in their heart, 'There is no God'"
can even make sense is if we are talking about "I am".

The God I speak of is the real God, the original God, and the God of the theists is a perversion of this God created by the false understandings of fallible men. It is an abomination and an idol of the mind.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:41:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know what you mean by "the religion of countering Theism" though I suspect it's another attempt to label atheism as a religion (it isn't). In any event, you seem to be talking about people like Dawkins who take a deliberate and publicly antagonistic stance towards theism and religion. There have been several labels coined to describe these people: New Atheists, Militant Atheists, Anti-theists.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. There are already a bunch of labels to distinguish among different kinds of athests, implicit/explicit, weak/strong, positive/negative, etc. But relying on a label only gets you so far. Even if you tell me that you're a 1988 Reformed United Universal Bapital-Methodist Witness of the Church of the Holy Crucifiction, that only tells me so much about you. If I wanted to debate or discuss specific issues with you, I'd still have to ascertain your position on this issues.

So using labels is good for brief little snippets or quotable sentences, if you want to have any sort of constructive conversation or discussion, you're going to have to leave the safe bastion of labels and - gasp - actually talk with someone. When dealing with atheists you just have to leave that bastion all the more sooner.

If you're not interested in any sort of constructive conversation or discussion, then I can't help you.

I guess I really don't understand why "Atheism" is such a big term then. Why don't people just say what their worldview is? I don't run around saying I'm an Apolytheist, rather I say I am a Christian (Theist). Why even have the term unless specifically to hold a stance against Theism in a debate. Even then it seems shady in that they don't want to have any burden of proof for their worldview, but just want to tackle ours. Thats why I almost want Atheist to take on a new meaning, maybe the term "New Atheism" already has. It'd be the worldview of Naturalism with the intent of eradicating Theism. The religion that Theism is actually the sin of the world and must me combated.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:47:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Any sufficiently intelligent person will understand the futility of pigeonholing themselves into a specific worldview. For example, you say you are a Christian, and immediately people have an idea of what they think you believe, with varying degrees of accuracy.

But wait Fonzy, you have your religion listed as "Discordian!".

To which I say, that is my way of endorsing it as a legitimate philosophy. This does not mean that I don't eat hotdog buns, or go by the Erisian calendar. Plus, I find it to be more humorous and less pretentious than claiming to be a Taoist or Buddhist, whether or not it is less pretentious or not.

I am what I am. Same with anyone. Lick my decals off, baby.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 1:52:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 1:41:43 PM, Crede wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "the religion of countering Theism" though I suspect it's another attempt to label atheism as a religion (it isn't). In any event, you seem to be talking about people like Dawkins who take a deliberate and publicly antagonistic stance towards theism and religion. There have been several labels coined to describe these people: New Atheists, Militant Atheists, Anti-theists.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. There are already a bunch of labels to distinguish among different kinds of athests, implicit/explicit, weak/strong, positive/negative, etc. But relying on a label only gets you so far. Even if you tell me that you're a 1988 Reformed United Universal Bapital-Methodist Witness of the Church of the Holy Crucifiction, that only tells me so much about you. If I wanted to debate or discuss specific issues with you, I'd still have to ascertain your position on this issues.

So using labels is good for brief little snippets or quotable sentences, if you want to have any sort of constructive conversation or discussion, you're going to have to leave the safe bastion of labels and - gasp - actually talk with someone. When dealing with atheists you just have to leave that bastion all the more sooner.

If you're not interested in any sort of constructive conversation or discussion, then I can't help you.

I guess I really don't understand why "Atheism" is such a big term then. Why don't people just say what their worldview is?

When asked, I do. However, more often than not, my time is spend disabusing theists of the false notions of what atheism entails. Oh, I'm an atheist, therefore I worship science and think it is infallible. Oh, I'm an atheist, therefore I don't have a moral system. Stuff like that. When it comes down to it, many theists I deal with really aren't interested in what my worldview actually is unless it conforms (or they can distort it to make it seem like it conforms) to what they presumed it to be before even talking to me.

I don't run around saying I'm an Apolytheist, rather I say I am a Christian (Theist). Why even have the term unless specifically to hold a stance against Theism in a debate.

Well, I didn't create the term, so I can't answer that. Nevertheless, it exists. It exists with the definition that it has. I fullfill the definition, therefore I am an atheist. The definition doesn't include statements about other things outside a lack of belief in god, therefore it is not appropriate to assume my stances on those things simply because I'm an atheist.

Even then it seems shady in that they don't want to have any burden of proof for their worldview, but just want to tackle ours.

I'd say that's part of it. But phrased in a different way: Acknowleding the burden of proof that theism already has that commonly gets inappopriately assigned to atheists because many theists think if they can get their beliefs accepted for thousands of years without meeting a burden of proof then they win, as if the burden has a statute of limitations on it.

Now, if an atheist makes a claim, then they do inherit a burden. But the existence or lack thereof, of the burden on an atheist doesn't have any connection to the burden on theists.

Thats why I almost want Atheist to take on a new meaning, maybe the term "New Atheism" already has. It'd be the worldview of Naturalism with the intent of eradicating Theism. The religion that Theism is actually the sin of the world and must me combated.

Then you're not proposing any sort of change. "New Atheists" and "Anti-theists" already exist as labels being applied to people. I think your best bet would be to find atheist organizations, find out what their common set of prinicples are, and then find people that belong to them.

It's not really an issue of there not being sufficient labels, but that atheist groups are not as well known as theist groups. I know what Christianity is through exposure. I don't have to research it. The same can't be said for atheist organizations. It just means you have to do some foot work if you want to debate an atheist on these things.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 5:48:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think IllegalCombatant put it the best. When you can say that "not collecting stamps" or "not watching football" is a hobby, only then can you say that "Atheism" is a religion.