What's your religion?

[PapaG]

it's ironic because it's a devil and you're talking about god not existing.

Yes, I know this. Hence my reply.

 

[crowTrobot]

Then they aren't traditional atheists.



http://www.atheists.org/atheism/history_of_atheism

Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not speak for the tradition of atheist philosophers, and certainly does not speak for the practical working defintion of atheism among today's atheists.

 

[crowTrobot]

Or, you've been misrepresenting atheism, which seems more likely the case based on your post.

atheism has never explicitely been taken to mean belief that a god of any kind is impossble, except by theists.

 

[PapaG]

atheism has never explicitely been taken to mean belief that a god of any kind is impossble, except by theists.

Except it has, by definition. Are you a neo-atheist?

 

[crowTrobot]

I didn't say it was. A lack of belief in God, however, certainly correlates to a lack of acceptance of any moral absolutes that are found in the Bible, Koran, or other religious sources...which of course leads to moral relativism and the assumption that we can all decide what is "right" for ourselves. Pretty tough to keep that world view out of your politics.

obviously there are no moral absolutes that are consistent among religious sources. the bible itself is internally contradictory.

modern morality comes from collective human common sense and experience of what is good for society, and it has virtually nothing to do with belief or lack of belief in god.

 

[Eastoff]

That's not relativism, but rather a lack of understanding on your part of what that commandment means:

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html

so you mean, you know better what the exact sentence "thou shalt not kill" means better than I do? Did you read the original bible in it's first language? There could easily be some re-telling changes after how many years and you want to argue it about "murder" vs "kill" ? Are you going to tell me "steal" really means "tax"?

 

[crowTrobot]

Except it has, by definition.

you mean by the definition used by theists.

 

[PapaG]

you mean by the definition used by theists.

theist/atheist

Think about it.

 

[crowTrobot]

theist/atheist

Think about it.

by your definition everyone is agnostic and atheists don't exist. kind of pointless semantics.

 

[PapaG]

by your definition everyone is agnostic and atheists don't exist. kind of pointless semantics.

That's not at all true. There is a distinction between being agnostic and being an atheist. It's been pointed out to you by another poster as well. You seem to be confused on the difference. I'm just pointing out facts. Perhaps you aren't an atheist, yet you call yourself one?

 

[e_blazer]

so you mean, you know better what the exact sentence "thou shalt not kill" means better than I do? Did you read the original bible in it's first language? There could easily be some re-telling changes after how many years and you want to argue it about "murder" vs "kill" ? Are you going to tell me "steal" really means "tax"?

You're diverting this thread, but to answer your question, the interpretation listed in the link I gave you is based upon not only biblical scholars best efforts to translate the text correctly, but upon looking at what God does and does not allow throughout other sections of the Old Testament.

 

[crowTrobot]

That's not at all true.

it's certainly true that people who claim that it's impossible a god of any kind exists represent an extremely small minority of people that call themselves atheists.

There is a distinction between being agnostic and being an atheist.

there's a distinction between "strong" atheist and agnosticism. the vast majority of atheists are "weak" however, and whatever distinction exists between weak atheism and agnosticsm is purely semantics.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

As crowTrobot has said, most theists define atheism as claiming there is no god, and that may very well be the documented definition in many places, but that is not how me, and most atheists I know, define the word.

I could say I'm an atheist or an agnostic, but I choose to say I'm an atheist because I believe agnosticism is too light. People I have talked to generally hear agnostic and think that the agnostic person thinks there is an equal chance of there being a God and there not being a God.


How about "Atheistic agnosticism"? I just say I am an atheist and I will continue to do so for practical reasons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
—Richard Dawkins

 

[BlazerWookee]

I'm the fuckign curve breaker. Of course, I'm kind of a slacker Catholic....just kind of doing the motions. The history of the church is fantastic though...the cathedrals of the world are fantastic!

When someone asked my father whether he was still a practicing Catholic, his response was always, "heck no, I don't need any more practice..."

 

[BlazerWookee]

Did you hear about the Jehovah's Witness who converted to Unitarianism? He went around knocking on doors for no particular reason...

 

[PapaG]

As crowTrobot has said, most theists define atheism as claiming there is no god, and that may very well be the documented definition in many places, but that is not how me, and most atheists I know, define the word.

I could say I'm an atheist or an agnostic, but I choose to say I'm an atheist because I believe agnosticism is too light. People I have talked to generally hear agnostic and think that the agnostic person thinks there is an equal chance of there being a God and there not being a God.


How about "Atheistic agnosticism"? I just say I am an atheist and I will continue to do so for practical reasons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
—Richard Dawkins

I define atheists as atheism.org defines atheism. That you made up your own definition is neither factual nor compelling. Call it neo-atheism, as I previously called it. I also find a certain irony in those so anti-theity strictly having their own set of beliefs, and identifying themselves as a member of a group with somewhat similar beliefs. It's kind of a quasi-religious social stratum.

 

[Denny Crane]

fixed

Not fixed.

This definition below fits me pretty good. You might say I'm something of a deist, too. I do believe in natural rights and that sort of thing, and those are endowed by The Creator. But as far as I am concerned, The Creator is something akin to the invisible hand.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1]It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]

 

[andalusian]

it's ironic because it's a devil and you're talking about god not existing.

If a god does not exist, does it mean that the devil does not as well?

I am pretty sure that I have heard, from non-religious people, that the devil is in the details.

 

[PapaG]

The neo-atheist seems to concentrate more on talking negatively about organized religion. Instead of atheism, it's more anti-theism under the atheism label. At least that's what I gather from reading this thread.

 

[Eastoff]

If a god does not exist, does it mean that the devil does not as well?

I am pretty sure that I have heard, from non-religious people, that the devil is in the details.

If the devil went down to Georgia, will the Hawks win a championship?

 

[crowTrobot]

Not fixed.

This definition below fits me pretty good. You might say I'm something of a deist, too. I do believe in natural rights and that sort of thing, and those are endowed by The Creator. But as far as I am concerned, The Creator is something akin to the invisible hand.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.[1]It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.[2]

well thanks for clarifying, but the implication of your original quote - you don't believe because there is no evidence, is atheistic, not agnostic.

 

[Eastoff]

well thanks for clarifying, but the implication of your original quote - you don't believe because there is no evidence, is atheistic, not agnostic.

there is a difference between, "I don't believe" and "I believe there is not." That difference is small though.

 

[PapaG]

there is a difference between, "I don't believe" and "I believe there is not." That difference is small though.

There is a more distinct difference between "I don't believe" and "I don't know".

 

[andalusian]

If the devil went down to Georgia, will the Hawks win a championship?

Since Joe Johny plays for the hawks - that would be the logical conclusion. Yes.

 

[crowTrobot]

I define atheists as atheism.org defines atheism.

good for you. among atheists you'd be in a very small minority.

That you made up your own definition is neither factual nor compelling.

you're the one making stuff up here and being pointlessly stubborn about semantics. you should research the origin and history of the word beyond that MMO quote. the defintion of atheism has always been used fluidly by philosophers, and almost every modern reference lists simple lack of belief as a valid definition. in fact if you want to base things on tradition, by lumping everyone who isn't 100% certain the existence of any god is impossible into agnosticism you're using a much too loose defintion.

I also find a certain irony in those so anti-theity strictly having their own set of beliefs, and identifying themselves as a member of a group with somewhat similar beliefs. It's kind of a quasi-religious social stratum.

you're confused. atheism isn't a set of beliefs. it's lack of belief.

 

[crowTrobot]

There is a more distinct difference between "I don't believe" and "I don't know".

there's a distinct difference between 100% certain and 50/50, but in between there is a continuously variable range of level of certainty and most non-believers are in the middle somewhere and can't be categorized so easily.

 

[Eastoff]

good for you. among atheists you'd be in a very small minority.



you're the one making stuff up here and being pointlessly stubborn about semantics. you should research the origin and history of the word beyond that MMO quote. the defintion of atheism has always been used fluidly by philosophers, and almost every modern reference lists simple lack of belief as a valid definition. in fact if you want to base things on tradition, by lumping everyone who isn't 100% certain the existence of any god is impossible into agnosticism you're using a much too loose defintion.



you're confused. atheism isn't a set of beliefs. it's lack of belief.

I want to preface this by saying, I tend to dislike how PapaG argues. In this case he's done exactly what you're asking for. He is analyzing the root of both words. He is going to resources that are not his, and I also put in some quotes which I assume he referred to as "another poster." I think you might need to let this one go friend.

 

[crowTrobot]

I want to preface this by saying, I tend to dislike how PapaG argues. In this case he's done exactly what you're asking for. He is analyzing the root of both words.

obviously he hasn't since he's restricting atheism to only the least used and most impractical of multiple definitions, and applying an essentually incorrect defintion of agnosticism.

He is going to resources that are not his, and I also put in some quotes which I assume he referred to as "another poster."

you mean the post where you quoted wikipedia on atheism - "In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities"

I think you might need to let this one go friend.

telling me i need to let it go doesn't strengthen your argument : )

 

[Denny Crane]

I would classify myself as a freethinker, too.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/freethinker.php

What Is A Freethinker?

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.

How do freethinkers know what is true?
Clarence Darrow once noted, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Freethinkers are naturalistic. Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is limited to that which is directly perceivable through our natural senses or indirectly ascertained through the proper use of reason.

Reason is a tool of critical thought that limits the truth of a statement according to the strict tests of the scientific method. For a statement to be considered true it must be testable (what evidence or repeatable experiments confirm it?), falsifiable (what, in theory, would disconfirm it, and have all attempts to disprove it failed?), parsimonious (is it the simplest explanation, requiring the fewest assumptions?), and logical (is it free of contradictions, non sequiturs, or irrelevant ad hominem character attacks?).