Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The problem with the word "atheism"

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 11:57:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a video of Sam Harris arguing that atheists shouldn't call themselves "atheist". I've outlined his main arguments for taking this position for those who can't watch the video or don't want to (although it's a very good talk and would be well worth your time).

So, would the atheists here consider refraining from labeling yourselves "atheist" for philosophical and/or rhetorical purpose or do you consider the word an indispensable part of your vocabulary? I'm also interested in any input from religionist on this topic.

Summary of Sam's arguments

- There are philosophical and strategic concerns with the use of the word "atheism" for atheists.

- We don't need the word "atheism" in the same way we don't need a word like non-astrologer" or "non-racist".

- Atheism is not a "thing"; it's not a "philosophy" or "world-view" though it is regularly construed and attack as such. People who don't buy into the superstitious beliefs of religion "collaborate in this misunderstanding" by calling themselves atheists.

- By accepting the label, atheists consent to be thought of as a "marginal subgroup".

- We should accept no label (atheist, freethinker, etc). Rather, we should concern ourselves with the destruction of "bad idea" wherever we find them - whether they are of a religious nature or not.

- The label of atheism prevents us from making common cause with some religious people in criticizing other religious people. We can make common cause with Christians in criticizing the religious beliefs of Mormon presidential candidates, for example.

- Certain apologetic cliches (such as "Atheists can't prove there is no God", "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist", "The greatest crimes of the 20th century were committed by atheists (Stalin, Hitler, etc.)") can only be made against those who advocate "atheism" as opposed to people who simply express skepticism and incredulity regarding religious claims.

- As atheists, we have to be opposed to (or, at least, we appear to be opposed to) the notion that it is possible to transcend normal states of consciousness and have real "spiritual", "mystical" experiences.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 12:09:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Like any label, it has problems, but anyone who attacks "atheists" so shallowly is probably not worth engaging, and those that don't can be reasoned with that atheism is not a worldview, and so on.

It seems to me that the real aim of Harris is to sneak atheism as the default position, which theists understandably will try to resist.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 1:54:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 12:09:25 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Like any label, it has problems, but anyone who attacks "atheists" so shallowly is probably not worth engaging,

The problem is that nearly all religious people attacts atheists shallowly.

and those that don't can be reasoned with that atheism is not a worldview, and so on.

I've never been able to convince a theist that atheism isn't a belief system. And even if I did, I would have to convence the very next theist I talked with that atheism doesn't mean what they think it means. They depend on it being a philosophy for their strawmen.


It seems to me that the real aim of Harris is to sneak atheism as the default position, which theists understandably will try to resist.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 7:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 1:54:22 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2012 12:09:25 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Like any label, it has problems, but anyone who attacks "atheists" so shallowly is probably not worth engaging,

The problem is that nearly all religious people attacts atheists shallowly.

Ironically, the best debaters in this area on DDO are almost all Christian. Popculturepooka for one has read more atheist books than any atheist here (probably).

and those that don't can be reasoned with that atheism is not a worldview, and so on.

I've never been able to convince a theist that atheism isn't a belief system. And even if I did, I would have to convence the very next theist I talked with that atheism doesn't mean what they think it means. They depend on it being a philosophy for their strawmen.

I agree that atheism isn't a worldview, but it has to be conceded that it tends to be strongly associated with particular worldviews, such as metaphysical naturalism. As for the meaning of atheism, again it seems to be difficult to define, even among those under the label. If one takes it to be simply a denial or lack of affirmation of theism, even then it's a claim which has to be defended.


It seems to me that the real aim of Harris is to sneak atheism as the default position, which theists understandably will try to resist.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:22:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 11:57:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:

This is a video of Sam Harris arguing that atheists shouldn't call themselves "atheist". I've outlined his main arguments for taking this position for those who can't watch the video or don't want to (although it's a very good talk and would be well worth your time).

So, would the atheists here consider refraining from labeling yourselves "atheist" for philosophical and/or rhetorical purpose or do you consider the word an indispensable part of your vocabulary? I'm also interested in any input from religionist on this topic.

Summary of Sam's arguments

- There are philosophical and strategic concerns with the use of the word "atheism" for atheists.

The only concerns are, if we are to be intellectually honest and consistent, we can't use the term as if it represents everything about us. This problem isn't resolved by eliminating atheism, we still have to represent ourselves somehow.


- We don't need the word "atheism" in the same way we don't need a word like non-astrologer" or "non-racist".

This is completely false. If there was no need or use for the term, it wouldn't have been coined or adopted.


- Atheism is not a "thing"; it's not a "philosophy" or "world-view" though it is regularly construed and attack as such. People who don't buy into the superstitious beliefs of religion "collaborate in this misunderstanding" by calling themselves atheists.

To abandon the term on this premise is to legitimize the attacks against atheism as a world view. I don't agree with making such a concession. If someone takes my atheism and attempts to construe it as being more than what it is, I'm going to take them to task for that, not abandon using the term. I define who I am, not other people.


- By accepting the label, atheists consent to be thought of as a "marginal subgroup".

By rejecting the label, we're being dishonest with what we really are: atheists.


- We should accept no label (atheist, freethinker, etc). Rather, we should concern ourselves with the destruction of "bad idea" wherever we find them - whether they are of a religious nature or not.

I don't see why the two (accepting a label; destroying bad ideas) are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, by what right does he have to say I shouldn't accept a label? That's my choice.


- The label of atheism prevents us from making common cause with some religious people in criticizing other religious people. We can make common cause with Christians in criticizing the religious beliefs of Mormon presidential candidates, for example.

Why would I want to do that?


- Certain apologetic cliches (such as "Atheists can't prove there is no God", "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist", "The greatest crimes of the 20th century were committed by atheists (Stalin, Hitler, etc.)") can only be made against those who advocate "atheism" as opposed to people who simply express skepticism and incredulity regarding religious claims.

So instead of addressing the flaws in such claims we should be evasive?


- As atheists, we have to be opposed to (or, at least, we appear to be opposed to) the notion that it is possible to transcend normal states of consciousness and have real "spiritual", "mystical" experiences.

As an atheist, no I don't.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 8:52:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I shy away from the word. I consider it to be a slur.
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
1/5/2012 8:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:52:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I shy away from the word. I consider it to be a slur.

What makes a word a "slur?"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2012 9:00:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What about the word "n1gger" makes it a slur?
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
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 12:40:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 8:52:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I shy away from the word. I consider it to be a slur.

It began in ancient Greece as a slur. Around the 1500's, it took on it's current meaning. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

It's very similar in etymology to the word infidel (one without faith). Perhaps if the word "atheist" never existed we would be calling ourselves a "infidels" instead.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 6:52:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/5/2012 9:00:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What about the word "n1gger" makes it a slur?

The intent behind it. Now, are you going to answer my question?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 9:27:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
While some of you gang bangin' thug arse atheists wear that particular word as a badge of pride, you must realize that it was never meant to have anything other than negative connotations.

Telling a theist that you are an atheist is like telling anyone else that you are a infected with the plague. The word is used as an insult.

Trying to correct people's understanding by being upfront and direct about that particular thing is counterproductive. Be more subtle and subversive.

The people around me are constantly picking stuff off of me. I see it in my life, and I even see how it has effected the way people communicate here. The understanding may be different, but at least people are looking at it from different angles.

I don't like calling myself an atheist. I am what I am, and labels have far too much baggage. Just look at how many times I've corrected someone for implying that all atheists believe in science. That is the problem with the word atheists"
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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 9:28:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is also the problem with the word "god".
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
1/6/2012 10:08:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 9:27:04 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
While some of you gang bangin' thug arse atheists wear that particular word as a badge of pride, you must realize that it was never meant to have anything other than negative connotations.

Telling a theist that you are an atheist is like telling anyone else that you are a infected with the plague. The word is used as an insult.

Trying to correct people's understanding by being upfront and direct about that particular thing is counterproductive. Be more subtle and subversive.

The people around me are constantly picking stuff off of me. I see it in my life, and I even see how it has effected the way people communicate here. The understanding may be different, but at least people are looking at it from different angles.

I don't like calling myself an atheist. I am what I am, and labels have far too much baggage. Just look at how many times I've corrected someone for implying that all atheists believe in science. That is the problem with the word atheists"

So... you don't believe in the process of pejoration or amelioration?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 10:26:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course I do, but I'm not going to make my life harder by stubbornly insisting on using that word. Let the other wannabe martyrs worry about that. I don't consider my lack of belief in certain types of bullshyt to be a defining characteristic of myself.

I think atheism is lazy. The word "god" can be useful.
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
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:05:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well truth be told the modern Atheist is all about the title. They have to let everyone know what they believe in, much like a street preacher, only the internet is their turf. Go to any secular website and post something about how much you love jesus, and watch you be just hammered with insults. So yes you're going to have a problem convincing me that Athiest isnt a religion or a belief system. You have your church, the internet. In fact I remember someone posting a video here about how athiest own the internet, so there you go. You have you're preachers Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens, pretty much anyone British. And that includes your Messiah, Richard Dawkins. Holy books? Take your pick. What's the bible but a book written by men that reflect the ideologies of the followers? I say you guys cop to it and get that tax break.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:08:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:05:00 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well truth be told the modern Atheist is all about the title. They have to let everyone know what they believe in, much like a street preacher, only the internet is their turf. Go to any secular website and post something about how much you love jesus, and watch you be just hammered with insults. So yes you're going to have a problem convincing me that Athiest isnt a religion or a belief system. You have your church, the internet. In fact I remember someone posting a video here about how athiest own the internet, so there you go. You have you're preachers Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens, pretty much anyone British. And that includes your Messiah, Richard Dawkins. Holy books? Take your pick. What's the bible but a book written by men that reflect the ideologies of the followers? I say you guys cop to it and get that tax break.

Uhm... why would you go to a secular website and preach about how much you love jesus?
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:23:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not? Secular just means non religious. Examples include this site, Reddit, 4chan, youtube, etc etc. And its not really preaching. It could just be a call to other theist so they can talk about the glory of God or whatever.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:24:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:23:21 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Why not? Secular just means non religious. Examples include this site, Reddit, 4chan, youtube, etc etc. And its not really preaching. It could just be a call to other theist so they can talk about the glory of God or whatever.

Ah, so you just believe only Christians can preach their beliefs, and with impunity?
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:32:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:24:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:23:21 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Why not? Secular just means non religious. Examples include this site, Reddit, 4chan, youtube, etc etc. And its not really preaching. It could just be a call to other theist so they can talk about the glory of God or whatever.

Ah, so you just believe only Christians can preach their beliefs, and with impunity?

Nope. Never said that. My point is that Atheist is as much as a belief system as Christianity. Case in point, you accusing me of saying that atheist can't preach their beliefs, when there shouldn't be any belief for you to preach.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:35:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:05:00 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well truth be told the modern Atheist is all about the title. They have to let everyone know what they believe in, much like a street preacher, only the internet is their turf. Go to any secular website and post something about how much you love jesus, and watch you be just hammered with insults. So yes you're going to have a problem convincing me that Athiest isnt a religion or a belief system. You have your church, the internet. In fact I remember someone posting a video here about how athiest own the internet, so there you go. You have you're preachers Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens, pretty much anyone British. And that includes your Messiah, Richard Dawkins. Holy books? Take your pick. What's the bible but a book written by men that reflect the ideologies of the followers? I say you guys cop to it and get that tax break.

There is nothing dogmatic about atheism. You require beliefS in order to be religious, and Atheism has only one disbelief, which is the disbelief of the claim that a God exists. A single belief does not make a religion, let alone a disbelief, and, as you put it, a single disbelief is not a belief SYSTEM. If there is, then tell me, what other beliefs are there within atheism that is accepted by all atheists?

The internet is not the atheist church. I dont believe that a Christian website is a church, either. A church requires a building, and a religion, which Atheism nor the internet, applies to.

Holy books, take your pick? Can i say the same about Christianity? Can i choose Quran as the christian holy book? Of course not. And no, the bible, to chrsitians, is more than a simple book written by men to reflect their beliefs. Most christians came after the book, not before.

Your arguments systematically fail.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 11:52:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:35:34 AM, tkubok wrote:

There is nothing dogmatic about atheism. You require beliefS in order to be religious, and Atheism has only one disbelief, which is the disbelief of the claim that a God exists. A single belief does not make a religion, let alone a disbelief, and, as you put it, a single disbelief is not a belief SYSTEM.

But hasn't that single disbelief brought you people together? Are you not a group? And aren't you willing to fight for what you don't believe in?

If there is, then tell me, what other beliefs are there within atheism that is accepted by all atheists?
So I have to meet every athiest and find out there beliefs? I'll do the same when you find every thiest. I'll stick to generalization. And another very popluar belief is that if there is a God he is evil. That's more than one now and its not a disbelief. Another common belief is that we're holding back science somehow.

The internet is not the atheist church. I dont believe that a Christian website is a church, either. A church requires a building, and a religion, which Atheism nor the internet, applies to.
Since when? Both moses and jesus gave sermons on mountains. A church is what you make of it

Holy books, take your pick? Can i say the same about Christianity? Can i choose Quran as the christian holy book? Of course not. And no, the bible, to chrsitians, is more than a simple book written by men to reflect their beliefs. Most christians came after the book, not before.
No but you can say that the Quran is a holy book. And no sir, there were Jews when the old testament was written and there were Christians when the new testament was written. The book reflects the followers.

Your arguments systematically fail.

Probably. But you're not nearly intelligent enough to prove why.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 12:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:52:19 AM, MarquisX wrote:
But hasn't that single disbelief brought you people together?

You seem to have a problem reading.

A

SINGLE

DISBELIEF

DOES

NOT

MAKE

A

SYSTEM

OF

BELIEFS.

Are you not a group?

Yes, we are in a group. But, as i said above, this is utterly irrelevant to what we would consider as a system of beliefs constituting a religion.

And aren't you willing to fight for what you don't believe in?

No. That makes no sense. You cannot go from a disbelief, to any action, good or bad.

It would be the same as saying "I dont believe in Zues, therefore im going to become a christian." Its a non-sequitor. Your actions are always based on a belief, not a disbelief.

So I have to meet every athiest and find out there beliefs? I'll do the same when you find every thiest. I'll stick to generalization.

No. Theism by itself, is not a religion either. Under the branch of Theism, you find Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many other religions. but theism ITSELF is not a religion.

There are atheist religions. Buddhism. Taoism. But atheism? No.

And another very popluar belief is that if there is a God he is evil. That's more than one now and its not a disbelief. Another common belief is that we're holding back science somehow.

Its popular, yes. But not generally accepted by all, no. Case and point, me. If a God did exist, i wouldnt think he is evil, just uncaring, amoral, more like a diety of pantheism or deism. If you are talking about specific Gods of specific religions, depending on how you describe them, yes, i would say that some are evil and some are not. But, for example, some atheists would consider ALL forms of God, evil.

Same with Theism. The only core belief required to be a theist is the belief that a God exists. Hindus are theists. Christians are theists. All theists accept this belief. But it doesnt make Theism, a religion.

Since when? Both moses and jesus gave sermons on mountains. A church is what you make of it

Since the english language was established.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

The way that you are using the word, yes, it requires a building, and a religion.

No but you can say that the Quran is a holy book.

Yes, the Quran is a holy book, but it means little to chrsitians. Why? Because its not a CHRISTIAN holy book.

And no sir, there were Jews when the old testament was written and there were Christians when the new testament was written. The book reflects the followers.

Again, you have a hard time reading my comments.

I said MOST christians. MOST. I am aware that the believers must have come first, but today, yes, ALL christians living TODAY, and even throughout history, MOST christians came AFTER the book. 99% of all believers of christianity came after the book. That, in my mind, would constitute as MOST.

Probably. But you're not nearly intelligent enough to prove why.

I just did.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 12:23:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 11:32:26 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:24:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:23:21 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Why not? Secular just means non religious. Examples include this site, Reddit, 4chan, youtube, etc etc. And its not really preaching. It could just be a call to other theist so they can talk about the glory of God or whatever.

Ah, so you just believe only Christians can preach their beliefs, and with impunity?

Nope. Never said that.

Well. If you had, then I would know you believe that and I wouldn't need to ask that, would I?

My point is that Atheist is as much as a belief system as Christianity.

Uhm, no. That atheists HAVE belief systems like everyone else doesn't mean atheism IS a belief system. It's just all the beliefs atheists hold individually can't be shoehorned into a single word.

Case in point, you accusing me of saying that atheist can't preach their beliefs, when there shouldn't be any belief for you to preach.

First, I didn't accuse you of saying that. So this is a lie.
Second, you should realize and understand that atheists have beliefs above and beyond their atheism. This is a really simple concept to understand. Not sure why people have difficulty grasping it.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 12:30:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The principle of political correctness is that by controlling language society can be shaped as one wishes. For example, insisting on gender neutral job description is supposed to promote equality between the sexes. We re are not supposed to say "waiter" or "waitress" but rather "server" or, my favorite, "waitperson." The idea with replacing "atheist" is to change the thinking of society.

Does enforcing newspeak work? I think it does, to some degree at least. Maybe "non-believer" would be more descriptive. Actually, most religious people reject 9,999 gods vehemently, while accepting one or some, so they are "mostly non-believers."

My concern is whether attempting to change language is the best way to spend one's time. I suppose the counter to that is that it doesn't really take much effort, but it raises more semantic issues. Should we distinguish Buddhists who believe god questions are not worth considering from logical positivists who believe that many religious questions have no meaning from strong atheists who believe gods disproved from weak atheists who believe gods unproved? It would be more accurate to make all these distinctions but ...
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 12:46:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 12:20:47 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:52:19 AM, MarquisX wrote:
But hasn't that single disbelief brought you people together?

You seem to have a problem reading.

A

SINGLE

DISBELIEF

DOES

NOT

MAKE

A

SYSTEM

OF

BELIEFS.
Not my question you moronic jackass.

Are you not a group?

Yes, we are in a group. But, as i said above, this is utterly irrelevant to what we would consider as a system of beliefs constituting a religion.
But its a start.

And aren't you willing to fight for what you don't believe in?

No. That makes no sense. You cannot go from a disbelief, to any action, good or bad.
Why not?

It would be the same as saying "I dont believe in Zues, therefore im going to become a christian." Its a non-sequitor. Your actions are always based on a belief, not a disbelief.
Its nothing like that. Come to think of it, isn't disbelief a belief in itself? Because we have no evidence. So we believe there is no God.

So I have to meet every athiest and find out there beliefs? I'll do the same when you find every thiest. I'll stick to generalization.

No. Theism by itself, is not a religion either. Under the branch of Theism, you find Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many other religions. but theism ITSELF is not a religion.
True. It is a group of religions.

There are atheist religions. Buddhism. Taoism. But atheism?
Ah OK. I see now. Its not a religion. But its still a belief system.

And another very popluar belief is that if there is a God he is evil. That's more than one now and its not a disbelief. Another common belief is that we're holding back science somehow.

Its popular, yes. But not generally accepted by all, no. Case and point, me. If a God did exist, i wouldnt think he is evil, just uncaring, amoral, more like a diety of pantheism or deism. If you are talking about specific Gods of specific religions, depending on how you describe them, yes, i would say that some are evil and some are not. But, for example, some atheists would consider ALL forms of God, evil.

Same with Theism. The only core belief required to be a theist is the belief that a God exists. Hindus are theists. Christians are theists. All theists accept this belief. But it doesnt make Theism, a religion.


Since when? Both moses and jesus gave sermons on mountains. A church is what you make of it

Since the english language was established.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

The way that you are using the word, yes, it requires a building, and a religion.
You're right. Maybe not church. I didn't know church was only to be used when speaking of Christianity. I will call the internet.....a place of worship for theist and athiest. Who are the athiest worshipping? Hell if i know.


No but you can say that the Quran is a holy book.

Yes, the Quran is a holy book, but it means little to chrsitians. Why? Because its not a CHRISTIAN holy book.
OK. What i meant by athiest Holy Book is the ones written by athiest for athiest.

And no sir, there were Jews when the old testament was written and there were Christians when the new testament was written. The book reflects the followers.

Again, you have a hard time reading my comments.

I said MOST christians. MOST. I am aware that the believers must have come first, but today, yes, ALL christians living TODAY, and even throughout history, MOST christians came AFTER the book. 99% of all believers of christianity came after the book. That, in my mind, would constitute as MOST.
Holy crap! You mean to tell me all Christians alive today weren't alive thousands of years ago when the books were written? Mind= officially blown.
Doesn't change the fact that the books reflect the followers.

Probably. But you're not nearly intelligent enough to prove why.

I just did.
No. You didn't. You're welcome to try again though.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 12:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 12:23:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:32:26 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:24:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:23:21 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Why not? Secular just means non religious. Examples include this site, Reddit, 4chan, youtube, etc etc. And its not really preaching. It could just be a call to other theist so they can talk about the glory of God or whatever.

Ah, so you just believe only Christians can preach their beliefs, and with impunity?

Nope. Never said that.

Well. If you had, then I would know you believe that and I wouldn't need to ask that, would I?
Then why did you ask? I didn't even imply that either.

My point is that Atheist is as much as a belief system as Christianity.

Uhm, no. That atheists HAVE belief systems like everyone else doesn't mean atheism IS a belief system. It's just all the beliefs atheists hold individually can't be shoehorned into a single word.
Sure you can. Isn't athiesm already split in two with Strong Atheism and Weak Athiesm?

Case in point, you accusing me of saying that atheist can't preach their beliefs, when there shouldn't be any belief for you to preach.

First, I didn't accuse you of saying that. So this is a lie.
OK. My apologies.
Second, you should realize and understand that atheists have beliefs above and beyond their atheism. This is a really simple concept to understand. Not sure why people have difficulty grasping it.

I'm a simple man. Care to elaborate more on this?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 1:02:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/6/2012 12:51:37 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/6/2012 12:23:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:32:26 AM, MarquisX wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:24:55 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/6/2012 11:23:21 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Why not? Secular just means non religious. Examples include this site, Reddit, 4chan, youtube, etc etc. And its not really preaching. It could just be a call to other theist so they can talk about the glory of God or whatever.

Ah, so you just believe only Christians can preach their beliefs, and with impunity?

Nope. Never said that.

Well. If you had, then I would know you believe that and I wouldn't need to ask that, would I?
Then why did you ask? I didn't even imply that either.

I asked the question because I wanted to know the answer. That's what questions are for.


My point is that Atheist is as much as a belief system as Christianity.

Uhm, no. That atheists HAVE belief systems like everyone else doesn't mean atheism IS a belief system. It's just all the beliefs atheists hold individually can't be shoehorned into a single word.
Sure you can. Isn't athiesm already split in two with Strong Atheism and Weak Athiesm?

Which has nothing to do with adding more beliefs. Strong and Weak atheism is still atheism and still only pertains to a belief in god. It has nothing do with any other kinds of beliefs.


Case in point, you accusing me of saying that atheist can't preach their beliefs, when there shouldn't be any belief for you to preach.

First, I didn't accuse you of saying that. So this is a lie.
OK. My apologies.
Second, you should realize and understand that atheists have beliefs above and beyond their atheism. This is a really simple concept to understand. Not sure why people have difficulty grasping it.

I'm a simple man. Care to elaborate more on this?

Yes. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. So when I refer to myself as an atheist, the only information that conveys is that I don't believe in god.

I have other beliefs. Many, in fact. Many of which have anything to do with my atheism. Me being an atheist mean I can't or shouldn't have other beliefs.

For example, I believe I will be leaving work around 3pm and catching the 3:30 train. That has nothing to do with me being an atheist nor does me being an atheist mean I can't have that belief. I'm not sure why you would imply such a connection. It boggles my mind.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 1:05:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheism is not a "belief system." It's a simple belief. The set of people who do not believe in unicorns do no comprise a non-unicorn "belief system." Someone once said, "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Not much follows from not believing in unicorns. Non-unicorn-believers will not worry about problem of unicorn neglect, but that's not life-defining. Similarly, not much follows from being an atheist.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2012 1:09:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find it depressing that so much time and effort is spent debating this semantical issue rather than actually considering reasons for and against belief in God and coming to an informed conclusion. I myself do not believe in God, but I couldn't care less if someone calls me an atheist or an agnostic. It is an utterly unimportant issue.