@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. All bigotry is true to the people who believe it.

Didn't you tell me just a few months ago that you're just a moral relativist, not an epistemic relativist, and that my characterization of you as a relativist (without adjective) was unfair? If so, then you must be aware of the distinction between something being true and it seeming true to someone.

Consider, for example, the statements "I hate Jews because they sacrifice babies in their rituals" and "I hate murderers because they kill people". The former is bigoted and hate speech, the latter is neither. The difference is that the implied factual premise is false in the first case (Jews don't sacrifice babies) and true in the second (murderers do kill people). It does not matter that the former premise may seem as true to the antisemite as the latter does to opponents of murder.

Now where on this spectrum should we place the statement, "I hate the Catholic Church because it has systematically treated child-molesting priests better than the children they molested"? I would place it in the second category, because the factual premise is true, whether it offends the church to hear it or not.

maxdancona wrote:

2. I suspect you did this on purpose, I am not quite sure. I did find it funny. "Love the Sinner, hate the sin" is a common rational for homophobic rhetoric. I don't find either version very consistent or compelling.

Yes, I did that on purpose. And if the factual premises of the homophobic rhetoric were true, it would be a perfectly consistent position. For example, "hate the cancer, love the patient" is perfectly fine. But of course, the premises of anti-gay rhetoric are not true. That's the problem with the rhetoric, not the distinction between a group and its members.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Self-serving or not, Frank, I respectfully decline to have this discussion with you again. After numerous exchanges of this kind, I know where the discussion would go if I picked up the gauntlet you just threw down. I'm not interested in going there again.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

First, I only intended to say that SOME people can make it an ideology, or make and ideology of it. Not that it is inherently one.

Fair enough, but that is true of almost anything.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Self-serving or not, Frank, I respectfully decline to have this discussion with you again. After numerous exchanges of this kind, I know where the discussion would go if I picked up the gauntlet you just threw down. I'm not interested in going there again.

No problem, Thomas.

And with every bit as much respect (because you know I love ya)...I want you to know that I understand how uncomfortable it is for you to have your assertions on this issue challenged. It is made more understandable considering that most atheists seem to be just as uncomfortable as you to have their positions challenged.

They remind me of theists in that.

0 Replies

Frank assumes a great many of us are lying and really believe there are no gods.
Actually, most of us aren't interested enough to work up belief of some sort.
This is all semantic junk.

Olivier claims we are wrong in our self definitions, although non-hard atheism is understood by many, including some dictionaries. You are free to self define, Olivier, go to it. That is what kolyo asked.

Meantime, I'll say with humor that I don't care what any of you read in philosophy 1o1 or the dictionary: I'm a long time user of medical latin. Just about as long as I've thought myself to be an atheist; that is, nearly 50 years.
Well, re the med latin, more than fifty, as I started writing up my own medical dictionary back in high school, after school, when I was taking mini xrays and the doctor's dictation on reading them, thus wanting to know what he had just said.

A at the front of words, aka, the prefix: no, not, without.
http://www.globalrph.com/medterm.htm

I hope you can all manage that I/we don't just switch on your say so. Or say sos.
Ragman is right. This is silly argumentation.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Well, Thomas' last sentence was aggressive and uncalled for,

It also happens to be true. Nobody does care if you (or I) disagree with what words mean in the English language. They mean what they mean, whether we approve or not.

Olivier5 wrote:

and his whole argument contradictory. He starts with telling us that dictionaries get to define Atheism (and then that they don't...), and follows with a definition that actually vindicates me and proves you wrong: the denial of the existence of God or gods refers to a belief that there is no god(s).

While it's true that many atheists believe there are no gods, this is not a necessary condition for them being atheists. Notice: "Disbelief in OR denial of the existence of God or gods." (You conveniently ommitted the first part.) Some atheists are blond, some aren't. Some atheists collect stamps, some don't. Some atheists have mustaches, some don't. Some atheists actively believe in the nonexistence of any gods, some don't. The only thing we all have in common is that we lack any active belief in the existence of any deities. That makes the lack of such a belief our defining trait --- our only defining trait --- as atheists.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I love you dearly, but having been through this "debate" with you on Abuzz, I don't think you realize how over top you get on this topic. You may not cuss anyone out but you certainly do insult people a little too enthusiastically. Its the one topic I avoid with you.

You don't share my witness on this and I am all right with it. Mozzletof!

EDIT: Yes I read Edgar's f-bomb to you and while I don't condone it (you aren't carpfart, oralliar, BillRM, nononono, gooeyjohn after all) I do understand his frustration with the juggernaut of a full court press you put on once you get going in what we walked into thinking was going to be conversation. You're just way too ready on this topic.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Frank assumes a great many of us are lying and really believe there are no gods.
Actually, most of us aren't interested enough to work up belief of some sort.
This is all semantic junk.

Olivier claims we are wrong in our self definitions, although non-hard atheism is understood by many. You are free to self define, Olivier, go to it.

Meantime, I'll say with humor that I don't care what any of you read in philosophy 1A or the dictionary: I'm a long time user of medical latin. Just about as long as I've thought myself to be an atheist; that is, nearly 50 years.
Well, re the med latin, more than fifty, as I started writing up my own medical dictionary back in high school, when I was taking mini xrays and the doctor's dictation on reading them, thus wanting to know what he had just said.

A at the front of words, aka, prefix: no, not, without.
http://www.globalrph.com/medterm.htm

I hope you can all manage that I/we don't just switch on your say so. Or say sos.
Ragman is right. This is silly argumentation.

Whether it is lying or just kidding yourselves...A GREAT MANY of you do indeed believe (the way you folk use "believe"...there are no gods.

Many of the atheists here in A2K who claim to be weak atheists...and who claim they are atheists just by virtue of not having a belief in gods...

...actually do "believe" there are no gods.

You can hear it in what they post.

The thing I do not understand, Ossobuco, is why there are so many atheists in this forum who seem to resent anyone suggesting that they believe there are no gods.

Strange group of atheists to resent that...if you ask me.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Frank, I love you dearly, but having been through this "debate" with you on Abuzz, I don't think you realize how over top you get on this topic. You may not cuss anyone out but you certainly do insult people a little too enthusiastically. Its the one topic I avoid with you.

So you are suggesting that I am INSULTING atheists by suggesting many of them believe there are no gods?????

Bobsal...where does that come from.

And how on Earth can you call that "over the top?"

Quote:

You don't share my witness on this and I am all right with it. Mozzletof!

I didn't understand that except for the attempt at mazel tov.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It gets wearying the 10,000th time.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I care about the title to self identify

So do I. Which is why I tend to resent people who try to arbitrarily restrict what an atheist can and cannot do, or be. We don't need an Atheist inquisition judging atheists for heresy because they dared to say that Atheism was something...

(Ti recordi la statua nera de Giordano Bruno sul Campo de Fiori?)

Quote:

I haven't been interested for decades about theology et al, but I do care about what some religious people in my country expect to make laws about

Indeed, that's what is really important and what should concern us all: the way we live together, the laws, the protection of religious freedom, the separation of church and state, etc. That is forward looking, pragmatic and potentially useful. Harping on what Atheism IS is just a waste of time. It's a form of atheist theology, a type of essentialism...

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

The only thing we all have in common is that we lack any active belief in the existence of any deities. That makes the lack of such a belief our defining trait --- our only defining trait --- as atheists.

One can have a lack of any active (or inactive) "belief" in the existence of any deities...and still not be an atheist.

I have no "belief" in any deity...and I am not an atheist. Many non-atheists have no "belief" in any deity or deities.

It is not a defining trait of atheism.

Almost the only "defining trait of atheism" that I can see...is that you folk want to be identified as atheists.

Nothing wrong with that.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

It gets wearying the 10,000th time.

The only time I bring it up...is when someone else starts the discussion. I don't start it...or them.

If someone came to the forum and wanted to discuss football...I would do it for as long as it interested me.

This still interests me...and I will probably do it the 10,000 time if someone else brings it up.

I am not trying to make you weary, Ossobuco...but this is important and interesting to me...and I will continue to discuss it.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Si!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no "belief" in any deity...and I am not an atheist.

You keep telling yourself that. The American Heritage Dictionary, however, disagrees.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm not an atheist, Frank. I'm a christian.

In the interest of getting it all out in the open, I am also not 6-3" nor 260#, either. More 5-11" and 230#

I still respect you and read your stuff and vote you up whether I agree with you or not.

When you called me up short for my treatment of George B, I took it to heart. Because as usual, you were right. My opinion is that you spike the ball too much when discussing atheism and Christianity. That's all.

Read my edit on my last post.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

It also happens to be true. Nobody does care if you (or I) disagree with what words mean in the English language. They mean what they mean, whether we approve or not.

If you don't care what I think, let me kindly suggest that you put me on ignore. Don't mind little me. I have personally zero interest in the old platitudes you tend to dish out, present casuistry included.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

So we agree harping on this is dumb. Some of us have taken it that you're the one who is imposing 'who we are'; I mean, besides Frank. I don't think you're imposing, just not getting some of us telling about ourselves, the point of the thread.

I could go on about anti clericalism, but why - I like some clerics, more than usual after a major slough of despond going on in that regard - but even then I didn't think that was all of them, even if institutional. That's just perspicacity, not hate.

On the campo, you might understand that is a sort of - almost - kind of - like a religious place to me. I'd probably cry if I could see it again, in a good way.
Also for the vegetables.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Bruno's statue scares the **** out of me... So stern and tragic! But I love the Campo, almost took an apartment there but it was to small for the money.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I have no "belief" in any deity...and I am not an atheist.

You keep telling yourself that. The American Heritage Dictionary, however, disagrees.

No it doesn't...and even if it incorrectly suggested I am, that would not make me one. But it doesn't...and I am not one.

Many dictionaries also say that an atheist is someone who believes there are no gods, but we both know that is nonsense.

1 Reply

@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know