definition of atheist (comment on 'definition' sticky)

Balerion, I CANNOT take you seriously because I did NOT compare atheists to Hitler or the KKK. I compared the level of insulting and offense of being called an atheist as I would if I was called/compared to Hitler or the KKK.

Yeah, atheism doesn't address those issues because if they had, they'd actually have to be doing their "job". It's just easy to use absolutes to say "God doesn't exist" without explaining to people that your stance holds the same chance of probability as your opponent's.

There's plenty of reason to believe energy has just magically always existed.. but there no reason to believe some form of deity, some "creator" of some sort has always existed? Any "reason" you might come up with is just you trying to justify your own radical BELIEF while attacking others for their own.

And spidergoat, yes it is a VERY common atheist position.

*Sorry it's been a couple days. Been out of the house except for sleeping the last few days.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

from another thread:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, as an atheist I find the concept of "pure raw energy" much more reasonable than the assumption of an "uncaused, sentient, omniscient, omnipotent, emotional, supernatural being".

It's just a matter of the "chaotic simplicity" of pure energy with dynamic properties, versus "motivated action" by an infinitely complex living god.
Theism rests on "irreducible complexity", science rests on "emergent complexity". Irreducible complexity has been debunked. What's left is the chaotic simplicity, unless you can offer a third option.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

semi-Conclusion:
my concern for the definition of the word Anti-theist is irrelevant as the word is clear as to what it means.

being able to include it in the definition list, I don't know,
would including it in the definition list classify it as a non-insult?

why should we include this term in the definitions list thread?

my thoughts are to make it an official term, so it is treated as a description and not an insult.
or maybe to include it as a negative in the rules as "Anti-theist and Anti-atheist, beware, this is not the place for you, any verbal attacks and insults will qualify for Moderator actions"(something like it)
(technically, I am anti-anti-theist)

 

Listing a definition is neither an insult or not. The insult is in how the word is used.

If it provides clarity to those who use it, why not include it. But are we even sure that the current definitions given in that thread are agreed upon / used / adhered to?

The insult is often in the manner and context of the labelling, and the intention, not the word itself.

Why should the warning against "verbal attacks and insults" only be applicable to anti-theists and anti-atheists?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My point is that it is an unnecessary qualification to such a warning, which is simply that verbal attacks and insults will not be tolerated etc. Why mention anti- anythings?

 

true

I would argue, but then we get into the realm of other words that are often misused, and the definitions list is not a comprehensive list, it only has three terms in it.

very true.

 

If I may break in to the discussion without having read the tedium prior to this (I tried, but I couldn't): I thought of the phrase 'the fool who says there is no God'. I then googled it to find the reference and original English wording and I found this: click here please. I will not reprint it here lest it strike some as preachy. And it is rather, but it raises the excellent point that atheism is not an intellectual position but a moral (or possibly an amoral one). I know this is not true of all atheists, or even most, but it is a point worthy of consideration given the discussion at hand. God bless us everyone!

 

Thank you for that expression of 'good will". May you live long and prosper (to steal a phrase)

But where on earth did you come up with the notion that atheists have no natural sense of morality? History proves that more people have been killed in religious conflict than from any other cause except perhaps automobile acccidents.

Here are some comparative references:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

and

http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

and last , but not least:

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

which seems to disagree with the following statistic

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

So, where is the proof that religious zealots have exclusive "intellectual" knowledge of morality, other than "God commanded it". Moreover, unless we cherry pick OT scripture for "secular" intellectual moral concepts, it is filled with death and suffering. (see skeptics annotated bible above)

 

It is not all that worthy of discussion, in my view. Your link is to a religious website extolling the virtues of theism with a biased (and incorrect) view of atheism. And it is a tired and fallacious argument: "Morality comes from God, and if you don't believe in God then you must believe there is no morality." The false dichotomy presented in that link is obvious, not to mention the question begging nature of it, nor the unsupported premise upon which it is built. In its favour, though... there are no obvious misspellings. :shrug:

In making this comment I have now given that website and that link far more worth than it deserves.

 

There was something else in your post that bothered me. It is a dishonest way of arguing a point.
Let me edit it for you,

But what? The seed of suspicion has been sown and we must find the truth ..give me a break.. you are going to "put me to the test" like the Inquisition used to do?

In that excerpt drop the "A" from atheism and you'll understand what I am saying. I find it is a disguised ad hominem.

 

1 Stalin (to name one)

2 Stalin (to name one)

jan.

 

Sarkus,

Why is it incorrect?

Out of curiosity why don't people believe in God?

Phew! Glad the spelling was up to your standard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is the''false dichotomy''?

jan.

 

You should have posted it in my opinion, there is nothing preachy about it at all.

Regarding ''the fool has said in his heart there is no God'', the writer automatically assumed that such a person was an ''atheist''. An atheist claim's that there is no evidence for God, and as such can believe that God does not exist. But this is not from the heart, it is from the intellect.

A theist claims that they believe in God, because of various reason's, but again, that claim is not from the heart.
I believe that the terms ''atheist'' and ''theist'' are realistically meaningless, and only serve to give an impression of one's spiritual position.

Belief or lack of belief in God can only, really, take place in the heart.

Because a person wants to drink and have sex, does not mean that person does not believe in God.

A person may outwardly act hateful of his/her parents for a long. Their action may seem to evidence this emotion. But it is not uncommon that at some point in their life, they will cease their actions and face the reality that they don't actually hate them, and their hateful actions merely served to convince themselves.
IOW, their actions were their claims, but it was not reality.

jan.

 

Because God is not necessary for the universe to exist. A God may be necessary for the people to co-exist, but that experiment seems to be failing.

How about fair and appropriate secular Constitutional Law to control the complexities of people sharing the same resources?

 

Because it attempts to define atheists not merely as someone who rejects belief in God but someone who does so because they have a "lack of righteousness" and because it is "due to a desire to live free of the moral constraints God requires..." etc. whereas atheism is not so defined.

For most who have thought of the question, it is due to lack of evidence.

Well, I had to find something positive to say about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The false dichotomy is in the argument presented (words to the effect) that either you are a theist and behave morally, or you are an atheist and do not. The false dichotomy is in omitting the middle such as being an atheist who behaves morally.

 

So you don't believe in God because it is not necessary?
I don't think that is possible.

jan.

 

That is a gross misquote! I said:

According to Ockham's razor the Universe did not start as an "irreducible complexity" but as a chaos from which the universe evolved following a few universal constants and physical laws. Nothing special, all very natural, nothing spooky!

 

Sarkus,

Lack of evidence cannot be a reason for not believing in God. Your current position is 'you do not believe in God', and you have chosen the reason to be 'lack of evidence'. From your current position there is nothing pertaining to the outside world (empirical evidence) that can conclusively show that God exists, and as such you will never believe in God unless you accept that God exists.
So the question remains; Why don't you/atheists believe in God?

I think it's quite a positive essay if we use the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' to their extremes.

I agree with you on this. I think if theism = 10 (max) and atheism = -10 (min), then everything in between is basically on a scale.
I think the mistake that is made all the time, in these discussions, are the generalizations that are made. They are too unrealistic IMO.

jan.

 

.

None of this matters.
Whether or not you think God is not necessary for the universe to exist, does not explain why you do or don't believe in God. You have decided that you don't believe in God, and the question is why.

Ockham doesn't know whether or not God exists, you know he doesn't know, and therefore no matter what he remarks on the matter cannot be the reason why you don't believe in God. He (probably among st other things) is the reason you use (unless you can show otherwise).

jan.

 

Jan: do you believe God can utilize a person whether they believe or not?

I do.
and I believe it is not our responsibility to make sure they believe, sure we can introduce the concept, but this is 2014, I personally do not think anyone alive has not heard of Christianity's version of who/what god is.

I believe when The atheist is ready, then God will speak to him and reveal himself. till then all we are left with is answering questions from the atheist.
they are not supposed to believe because they are afraid of consequences, they are supposed to believe because they choose to.

so to ask 'why do you not believe?' is the same as 'why do you believe?' you will get the same subjective answers, (After showing their excuses are just that, excuses.)