16
   

Religious and Atheist.

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 03:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
What would they think if you told them you are almost certain a God does not exist?


Quote:
By the way...in case you are asking if they would be bothered if I were an atheist (which may be what you are almost asking)...I doubt very, very seriously if my friends or family would give a damn one way or another.

Is that what you were trying to ask?


Is this your definition of an atheist? "Someone who is almost certain a God does not exist"?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 04:19 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
What would they think if you told them you are almost certain a God does not exist?


Quote:
By the way...in case you are asking if they would be bothered if I were an atheist (which may be what you are almost asking)...I doubt very, very seriously if my friends or family would give a damn one way or another.

Is that what you were trying to ask?


Is this your definition of an atheist? "Someone who is almost certain a God does not exist"?


I do not have a definition, but I think most atheists are convinced there are NO GODS. Many Internet weak atheists say they are atheists just on the basis of not "believing" in any gods around...but the atheists I know in non-cyber life all seem to be like Edgar Blythe...just about certain there are no gods.

So...what are you trying to say...or do you just enjoy asking me questions?
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 05:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
So...what are you trying to say...or do you just enjoy asking me questions?


I just enjoy seeing you go in circles trying to define what an atheist is.


Quote:
I do not have a definition
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 07:10 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
So...what are you trying to say...or do you just enjoy asking me questions?


I just enjoy seeing you go in circles trying to define what an atheist is.


Quote:
I do not have a definition



I am not trying to define it...you are. If anyone is going in circles...you are.

What is going on here, RL?

Is this an insult fest? Have you joined that faction of A2K?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 07:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
RL is a merry go round of questions, Frank.
Very little in the way of logical exegesis
Not even much illogical exegesis to grab hold of.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 07:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Is this an insult fest? Have you joined that faction of A2K?


No I just ask questions, you seem to be one who joined that faction of A2K when you talk to spendius
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 07:22 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Is this an insult fest? Have you joined that faction of A2K?


No I just ask questions, you seem to be one who joined that faction of A2K when you talk to spendius


Spendius has been insulting me...and aching for a fight. I'm just accomodating him.

Why are you doing what you are doing?
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Aug, 2013 07:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Why are you doing what you are doing?


I am just hear studying points of views.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 03:37 am
@IRFRANK,
Yeah, it's as simple as that. There are those who will assert (with no good reason) that the word is a modern construction, and then attempt to imply that the idea is a modern construction. That's simply not true. From the Wiktionary entry on :atheos

Alternative forms
atheus
Etymology
From Ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos, “godless, without a god”).
Noun
atheos (genitive atheī); m, second declension
an atheist, term applied to those who thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.

This was already pointed out in this thread. The idea goes back at least thousands of years. That's all that atheist means, without god. Those who have an agenda, usually to discredit atheists and "atheism" will make other claims, but the historical record is against them.

Your definition, which suggests that atheists are those who deny that there is or can be a god, plays into the hands of the silly, militant agnostics who wish to assert their intellectual and moral superiority (we had a long-running thread in which agnostics, notably Frank, made just that claim) need for atheist to mean someone who denies that there are any gods. Theists prefer that definition as well, because they want to create an antagonistic dichotomy. Those of us who have been atheists all of our adult lives, however, know that most atheists simply don't believe and usually don't care. These are the implicit atheists, the skeptical atheists, the so-called "weak" atheists.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 03:43 am
Click here for one of several threads asserting the superiority of agnostics started by a member who has not posted in years, Portal Star. Religion and atheists and agnostics seemed to obsess him.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 03:51 am
@IRFRANK,
Frank...

...as you can see, Setanta is going through one of his hysteria phases and not thinking too clearly.

If the word atheist means "without god(s)"...then it really means without gods. One cannot be "without gods" unless one denies that there are gods.

Atheist, classically referred to those who denied there are gods. It was a pro-active position.

At some point, atheists realized the danger (and absurdity) of having to defend a pro-active position of “there are no gods”…and since most do not have the guts to use the word “agnostic” to portray their position…they started with this “weak atheism” nonsense.

It is worth a laugh…but little else.

The notion that one is either a theist or an atheist is absurd. And the notion that atheists who claim they do not proselytize nor do they “give a damn”…but who insist that anyone who does not believe in any god IS OF NECESSITY an atheist…is even more laughable.
igm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 04:39 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

One cannot be "without gods" unless one denies that there are gods.

Believing this assertion is true is one or your many problems with this topic... also your idea of refuting someone is just to tell them they're wrong without giving a reason.

It's lucky you've still got your unshakable pride (unwarranted of course) ... that always believes Frank is right... you'll deny that but ironically that is another example of you always wanting to be right.



igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 07:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

a-theism: Literally "Without belief in gods"


No it doesn't.


That is the literal meaning, so why do you say it doesn't literally mean that?

Frank Apisa wrote:

If I have to be categorized...I am an agnostic.


Is that category to do with knowledge/lack of knowledge about gods or belief/ lack of belief in gods, both or neither?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am willing to accept...non-theist.


How is your term non-theist different from the term atheist?
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 07:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
I don't agree with that at all Frank. Set's explanation is quite clear. Igm is saying the same thing. Simple is good and in this case I think accurate. You just don't want to identify with the term. That doesn't mean you can redefine it.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 07:44 am
Sam Harris doesn't like the term Atheist at all. He says it shouldn't exist any more than names for non-astrologers or non-voodoists should exist (which they don't).

One example he gave is that accepting the label of Atheist allows theists to pigeon-hole you as though you drew a chalk outline of a dead man on the ground and then lay down in it.

See clip below... (this segment was taped at an "Atheist Convention" in which Sam Harris essentially tells the audience that there shouldn't be an atheist convention at all. Pretty funny actually). Smile

reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 08:14 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
He says it shouldn't exist any more than names for non-astrologers or non-voodoists should exist (which they don't).


If the population consisted of close to 90% astrologers and voodooists you might find people labeled non

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 09:16 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
If the population consisted of close to 90% astrologers and voodooists you might find people labeled non

That may be the case. But I think the point he's trying to make is something a bit more functional that that.

He's saying that the term Atheism isn't really an accurate reflection of what most "atheists" are really thinking (or in this case, "not" thinking) about, which is theism. Sam believes that most atheists begin simply with a reasoning process which only secondarily comes into conflict with theological thought by happenstance, not by intention. And that by allowing theologists to label us as "anti-theologists" rather than as people who are simply interested in reasonable rational conclusions, that we are being used as straw men for an argument which they (the theists) want to construct.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 09:31 am
@rosborne979,
I'm not an atheist because I set out to oppose theism. Atheism for me is merely an artifact of what happens when I evaluate the world critically and rationally and it only becomes exposed when rational observations are coincident to theology.

I'm not as much interested in what another person ends up believing (their religion) as I am in how they arrived at their conclusion (through a thoughtful reasoning process rather than blind faith).

When someone arrives at a world view through a reasonable evaluation I'm much more interested in learning about what they think than when someone just believes something because they want to believe it or have been told to believe it.

Of course, I believe there is another secondary effect which comes from getting people to think critically... Smile
http://imageshack.us/a/img580/2673/rjdz.jpg
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 09:51 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

One cannot be "without gods" unless one denies that there are gods.

Believing this assertion is true is one or your many problems with this topic... also your idea of refuting someone is just to tell them they're wrong without giving a reason.

It's lucky you've still got your unshakable pride (unwarranted of course) ... that always believes Frank is right... you'll deny that but ironically that is another example of you always wanting to be right.


I do not do "believing", igm.

I would love for you to explain how one can be "without gods" and not deny that gods exist.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Aug, 2013 09:52 am
@igm,
Quote:
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

a-theism: Literally "Without belief in gods"


No it doesn't.


That is the literal meaning, so why do you say it doesn't literally mean that?


That simply is not the literal meaning...so why are you asserting that it is?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:39:30