Just Say No to Atheism

S.A.M. said:
Who's we? Why pretend you represent a world view? You're not an atheist, remember? And I don't see anyone here who agrees with you :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So what? You yourself argued against consensus, yet here you are using it as an argument. As well, you yourself stated that you don't respond to posts if you agree with them.
 
(Q) said:
The term "Atheism" should no longer be used. If theists wish their beliefs to be known as theism, that's fine.

Naturalism or Humanism would be more appropriate terms to use for those who do not begin from the position that gods exist, but instead begin from the position of nature or humans, which apparently do exist.

Theists themselves admit to faith as the primary driver of their beliefs, hence their views should be classified as "Ahuman" or "Anatural" since those views elevate the supernatural up onto a pedestal while degrading mankind to that which is scraped off a boot.

If theist's are to hold their contrasting and negative views of reality as firm beliefs, theirs should be categorized as opposing, and not the other way round.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
The thread represents a key issue that many people have tried to address.

The choice is really quite clear -

1. A view where supernatural forces are the dominant factors in the universe and lives of people.

2. A view where natural forces are the only factors.

(1) Includes all religions and many related superstitions as well as countless imaginative mystical speculations.

(2) Has been adopted by many as a key idea in support of the Brights network. This is a serious attempt to move away from the array of confusing labels, such as atheism, humanism, skepticism, etc. All of which largely side with the positive naturalistic worldview concept.

The choice of the term "Bright" remains controversial and may indeed prevent many from accepting that label. In principle the basis is a sound idea and allows people to adopt a positive position on the big questions that religions also attempt to answer, but with equal weight, as opposed to the negative connotations that arise from disbelief or believing in a negative that come from atheism from example.

Here is a the link to the Brights network -

http://www.the-brights.net/

Quote -

What is a bright?
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
 
Cris said:
The choice of the term "Bright" remains controversial and may indeed prevent many from accepting that label.
Click to expand...

That is what I found as well, the term is somewhat confusing in that it does not even relate in any way to the definitions it proposes. It also gives the impression of arrogance, that "Brights" are intellectually superior.

"What is a bright?
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview"

Considering that the only real difference is that theists were indoctrinated into their religions, they had no choice in the matter and through no fault of their own have been deprived of the ability to reason through their beliefs. They do still have the capacity to reason, if they could shake off the effects of indoctrination.
 
Q,

It also gives the impression of arrogance, that "Brights" are intellectually superior.
Click to expand...
Yup that's the problem. And no matter how much explanation that that was never the intent just doesn't help very much.

But I still think the idea behind the label is good and that is really my worldview - I just can't take the label.
 
mynameisDan said:
"We need to move beyond kowtowing to theists ideologies as they are little more than fantasies, which theists themselves are even unable to agree."

No, keep kowtowing. Atheists are beneath theists and should always kowtow when in our presence. Theists do agree. Judaism, Christianity and Islam make up a the dominate religions of the world and all three agree in a transcendant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying it's somehow not possible for large numbers of people to be delusional??
 
mynameisDan said:
"We need to move beyond kowtowing to theists ideologies as they are little more than fantasies, which theists themselves are even unable to agree."

No, keep kowtowing. Atheists are beneath theists and should always kowtow when in our presence. Theists do agree. Judaism, Christianity and Islam make up a the dominate religions of the world and all three agree in a transcendant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Click to expand...

Your superiority complex has been noted. You provide us ample evidence to the dangers of your cult making the assertion that we are "beneath" you. However, if that is the case, and if it is people like you who are "above" me, then I'm damn glad not to be at your level, wherever it may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top