ATHEIST definition changed
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2017, 03:30 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2017 03:33 AM by AB517.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(11-06-2017 09:06 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(11-06-2017 07:59 AM)AB517 Wrote:  I don't think "skepticism" should be the bar. That means doubt everything and a literal person will just butcher it all to hell like they do with everything else...

No. The very basis of atheism is a necessary skepticism. It's the theists who take too many things—such as their holy books—literally. Beliefs in supernatural gods, miracles, creationism, resurrection, an afterlife, heaven and hell, a 6,000-year-old earth etc.

Quote:The problem with literal skeptics/atheist conflation is that they ignore, dismiss, or flat out hide reasonable conclusions that don't further their "lack of belief" bias.

There are no "reasonable conclusions" that contradict atheism. You misunderstand both skepticism and atheism in attempting to conflate them. There's no imperative connection between the two. I've known atheists who are undoubting in their belief that there's no evidence for anthropomorphic global warming. And I've also known Christian theists who disbelieve in the existence of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. So we have a gullible atheist and a skeptical theist.

You're tending to overthink atheism: it's nothing more than a position statement, or a singular state of mind—like saying you like chocolate or you hate baseball. There's no inherent philosophy involved.

Quote:A great example is how some atheists can't separate a spiritual claim of oneness to a science claim of connectedness.

I'm not even sure what this means? What the fuck is "a spiritual claim of oneness"? In an atheist world, there's no such thing. So whatever you're talking about is not "a great example".

Quote:The bias runs so deep that some people conflate ideas to match a personal need that may or may not match reality as we can describe it.

Which is precisely what most theists do in their misguide attempts to satisfy some personal metaphysical "need".

atheism doesn't have a basis. Its a result of observation. i don't base anything on my atheism or any other god claim.

some Spiritual people claim "oness to everything around them.". I do not study that claim based on my no-god belief. "atheism doesn't use that term" is meaningless to me.

I cross check the claim base it on what i know. the claim is true, or not true, based on a science and engineering. The claim is more true than the reverse claim. That's all I can claim. The woo part isn't my area. "doesn't fit atheism" seems a lot like a religious person talking.

People are people. yes, misguided atheist and misguided atheist do the exact same thing. Misguided atheist cross check conclusions with atheism, not commonsense.

But you are right, omni dude conflation is more wide spread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2017, 03:55 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(12-06-2017 03:30 AM)AB517 Wrote:  atheism doesn't have a basis. Its a result of observation. i don't base anything on my atheism or any other god claim.

some Spiritual people claim "oness to everything around them.". I do not study that claim based on my no-god belief. "atheism doesn't use that term" is meaningless to me.

I cross check the claim base it on what i know. the claim is true, or not true, based on a science and engineering. The claim is more true than the reverse claim. That's all I can claim. The woo part isn't my area. "doesn't fit atheism" seems a lot like a religious person talking.

People are people. yes, misguided atheist and misguided atheist do the exact same thing. Misguided atheist cross check conclusions with atheism, not commonsense.

But you are right, omni dude conflation is more wide spread.

I feel like I'm losing a lot here in translation. Is English not your first language? Or is your grammar just really sloppy?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-06-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
I have AB517 on ignore, but noticed in a quoted message his use of the term "omni dude" and this triggered a memory. Went back on C-D and did a search and sure enough, user Arach Angle reflexively uses the same phrase and also has a rep for word salad posts combined with bad grammar. I had him on ignore there too. Small world.

He did make sense every 10th or 12th post, but it was too much of a slog for me ...

If this isn't the same guy then he's a brother from another mother.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 01:32 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
Is it really implicit that we need to advocate FOR atheism? If I come to that conclusion myself, but never once try to win converts to atheism or represent it in a specific way to the wider world, am I not still an atheist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 06:27 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(13-06-2017 11:21 AM)mordant Wrote:  I have AB517 on ignore, but noticed in a quoted message his use of the term "omni dude" and this triggered a memory. Went back on C-D and did a search and sure enough, user Arach Angle reflexively uses the same phrase and also has a rep for word salad posts combined with bad grammar. I had him on ignore there too. Small world.

He did make sense every 10th or 12th post, but it was too much of a slog for me ...

If this isn't the same guy then he's a brother from another mother.

I used to think atheism was just about honestly describing what the universe is doing. You told me that is not the primary goal. You say I shouldn't talk about some science, although valid, that gives theist information and makes your job harder.

I didn't bite on that nonsense. That is exactly how people prey on others. They fool them into thinking the end justify the means. theists style.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 06:45 PM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(13-06-2017 01:32 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Is it really implicit that we need to advocate FOR atheism? If I come to that conclusion myself, but never once try to win converts to atheism or represent it in a specific way to the wider world, am I not still an atheist?

for me, its the intentions and methods. Interpret the science in a reasonable, logical manner using common sense and measurements.

There is no type of god as described in the bible. There are many mean spirited people around that use the bible as a weapon. There are many mean spirited people that don't use a bible but browbeat a belief statement based on fluff just the same.

atheism is just not being a theist. It doesn't mean 'lack belief in anything" or worse, 'deny belief in anything to further "my" belief statement." to me the latter sounds just like a theist.

No we are changing a definition to suit a need or separate ourselves into sects. Hmmm, that sounds just like a theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 12:12 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(13-06-2017 01:32 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Is it really implicit that we need to advocate FOR atheism? If I come to that conclusion myself, but never once try to win converts to atheism or represent it in a specific way to the wider world, am I not still an atheist?

By any sensible definition, you are indeed an atheist.

It's a description of a state of mind. It doesn't even matter what you call yourself, that doesn't affect whether you actually are or aren't an atheist. This is in contrast to religion, where all that is required to "join" a religion is to say you're part of that religion (or undergo whatever membership procedures are required). Religion is a club, atheism is not. Theism in general is also not a club, and is just a description of a state of mind.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
14-06-2017, 04:09 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(14-06-2017 12:12 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 01:32 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Is it really implicit that we need to advocate FOR atheism? If I come to that conclusion myself, but never once try to win converts to atheism or represent it in a specific way to the wider world, am I not still an atheist?

By any sensible definition, you are indeed an atheist.

It's a description of a state of mind. It doesn't even matter what you call yourself, that doesn't affect whether you actually are or aren't an atheist. This is in contrast to religion, where all that is required to "join" a religion is to say you're part of that religion (or undergo whatever membership procedures are required). Religion is a club, atheism is not. Theism in general is also not a club, and is just a description of a state of mind.

I wish all atheist looked at it this way.

However, I don't think 'atheism" is a state of mind as much as being labeled one based on a belief. But we do have in our ranks 'sortagodders" that feel if you don't describe reality based on their belief system you are not part of them. So with this in mind, the term sects comes into play.

The state of mind is seen, understood, or exposed, in the expression of how one forms a belief, expresses said belief, and how one interacts with the system around them.

I have yet seen religion be the primary cause irrational behavior. Basically, if we remove religion, people will still be irrational. As irrational as they are right now. that's why I am not anti-religion.

I am anti-stupid beliefs, but religion is just a social expression of like minded people being, well, social. No group should force a belief on others. weather its anti gay or anti group prayer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 11:18 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2017 11:31 PM by Robvalue.)
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
Well yes, an atheist is a label for a person who has a certain state of mind: not having an active belief in deities. I could suddenly announce I'm not an atheist, but that doesn't stop me being one, if I still actually don't believe. If we wanted to get around this, we'd have to define an atheist as, "A person who claims they lack belief in Gods". That seems rather clunky.

(What a deity actually is, is far from clear. I can rarely get people to give me a coherent definition, hence my ignosticism. If they described it in terms that made sense, maybe it would turn out I do believe in it. So my atheism is really a pre-emptive position based on all the attempts at definitions I've heard so far. I also couldn't care less whether any of these things exist.)

Of course, we generally have to take what people say at face value because we can't analyse their brains. Cases where people are lying may or may not become apparent. I'm sure a lot of it goes on in fiercely religious countries where you can't afford for people to know you're an atheist. I doubt many people would pretend to be an atheist if they weren't, but who knows. People do weird stuff. It may well happen due to embarrassment I suppose, if they live in an area with mostly atheists.

I'm anti-harm. So whatever harm religion causes, I'm against that. I'm not against religion as a whole, although I do think it's a load of nonsense. I'd never dream of trying to stop people believing in it or practicing it, as long as it doesn't involve forcing it on others. Who is "anti-group prayer"? Stopping people forcing group prayer onto others, say in a school, is not being anti-group prayer. It's protecting the rights of all. And religion is indeed just one manifestation of irrational behavior; I've never heard anyone claim it's the only one or the root cause of all.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2017, 01:13 AM
RE: ATHEIST definition changed
(14-06-2017 04:09 AM)AB517 Wrote:  I am anti-stupid beliefs, but religion is just a social expression of like minded people being, well, social. No group should force a belief on others. weather its anti gay or anti group prayer.

Too bad religions are stupid beliefs passed down from parents to children.

Every religion has at it's core, a foundation in the supernatural. So I fail to see how someone can be 'anti-stupid' but not also 'anti-religion', as they're all founded on unfounded supernatural (i.e. stupid) claims.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: