"Do atheists hate the God...?"

Originally posted by Suzianne
Tell this to googlefudge.

He's repeatedly said, and I paraphrase here, that "atheist is atheist is atheist is atheist is atheist". Sure, he accedes that atheism can be strong or weak, but he never does "water down" the word atheist. To him, it means what it means and it will never mean anything else. In fact, I'm almost sure he would take exception to what you're saying here.

Your paraphrasing bears no relation to what I actually say.

Twhitehead is correct in saying that there are [multiple] meanings people have when they use the
words atheist and agnostic.

My argument is that some/many of them are wrong. Often because of sustained long term propaganda
from theists [Christians] who deliberately promote definitions that create straw-man positions that they
find easier to shoot down.

There are a large number of atheists, who simply lack a belief in the existence of gods.
These atheists call themselves atheists, and are recognised as being such by atheist organisations, and
match some/many/most dictionary definitions of being an atheist.

Thus any person who claims that atheists believe in the non-existence of gods are simply wrong.

The fact that some people use the word to mean that does not mean that that meaning is correct.

As that meaning is largely the result of religious propaganda and straw-man arguments I strongly promote the
more accurate and [yes] correct definition.

So, no, your caricature of my position is not correct.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your paraphrasing bears no relation to what I actually say.

Twhitehead is correct in saying that there are [multiple] meanings people have when they use the
words atheist and agnostic.

My argument is that some/many of them are wrong. Often because of sustained long term propaganda
from theists [Christians] who deliberately promote definitions t ...[text shortened]... accurate and [yes] correct definition.

So, no, your caricature of my position is not correct.

I took a look in the Oxford online dictionary. It gives the following definition:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:
he is a committed atheist

So far this seems to agree with your definition of atheist. However, two of their example sentences are:

Most agnostics are closer in beliefs to atheists than to theists.
Most of my college professors and intellectual mentors were devout atheists.
For years we had people utter a religious oath, even when many of them were atheists or agnostics.

The first and last ones have agnosticism as a distinct category from both atheism and theism. So the Oxford dictionary's definition may agree with you, but their usage examples seem not to.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The first and last ones have agnosticism as a distinct category from both atheism and theism. So the Oxford dictionary's definition may agree with you, but their usage examples seem not to.

Technically, agnostic refers to the belief that the question of Gods existence cannot be known. However it has most commonly been used by people wishing to express their belief that they do not know if God exists. I suspect that many such people do not believe God exists but do not wish to say so because being atheist is highly unpopular in some societies and saying 'I don't know' is considered much more acceptable.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, well, and yet...

(And I think you weren't here yet when this happened...)

And yet when I started a thread entitled "Why do Atheists Reject God?" only one atheist could bring himself to explain exactly WHY he had rejected God. I got a chorus of "How can I reject something I do not believe in?" (which is pure twaddle, because yes, I DO reject the ...[text shortened]... r, that.

You just have to choose the correct action verb here. And no, hate isn't it.

There is nothing wrong with that position. In your case ...

You don't reject the flying spaghetti monster,
You haven't decided to go your own way in order to spite the flying spaghetti monster,
You don't hate the flying spaghetti monster,
You don't wake up with a burning conviction to carry on your fight against the flying spaghetti monster,
You don't care about the consequences of rebelling against the flying spaghetti monster,
You don't even recognise that you *have* rebelled against the flying spaghetti monster.

Simply, you reject only the idea of the flying spaghetti monster. To your mind there exists no real manifestation of this thing, you cannot reject something you believe does not exist - you can only reject the idea.

Ditto for us when considering your notion of "God".

Originally posted by Green Paladin
I hate God in the same way I think Hamlet's a Dane.

It's your prerogative to do so.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I hate God the same way I hate Nurse Ratched. Or Jar Jar Binks.

Why?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Why?

Is your question sincere?

Originally posted by twhitehead
In this case, that there is not God. More generally, I want all people to relieve a good general education and learn about all aspects of reality.

Note: In my view, if one is taught, then both evolution and creationism should be taught in [public] schools; private schools set their own curriculums.[/b]
Firstly creationism should never ever be taught in s ...[text shortened]... Mohammed is the prophet of God or is it only your religion that you support being taught in school?

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I do not think private schools should be able to set their own curriculum beyond certain boundaries."
______________

On the basis of some particular premise or rationale?

Originally posted by twhitehead
"What do you think should be taught here in SA where there are equal numbers of Muslims and Christians? Should they teach the children that Mohammed is the prophet of God or is it only your religion that you support being taught in school?"
____________________________

Whether in "SA" or any other country, in my view local community governments should decide creation and/or evolution curriculums based on the will of the citizens as opposed to top down federal government intervention. All faith based teaching should be done by parents with their sons and daughters in the privacy of their homes.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Which Creationist story should be taught?
Surely all of them if one?

How about Atheism on the basis of scientific discoveries and Creation based on the Word of God?;

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
They are both taught in schools in the UK. One in science, one in whatever they call RE nowadays.

And do you approve?
__________

Note: Will continue replies to comments and questions on page three next Tuesday.
My thanks to each of you for your interest and thoughtful posts.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... and Creation based on the Word of God?;

Which word and which god?
Do you think Maori Creation stories should be taught in NZ schools?
Do any schools in US teach Native American Creation stories?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
On the basis of some particular premise or rationale?

Yes. I believe everyone has the right to a good eduction.

Whether in "SA" or any other country, in my view local community governments should decide creation and/or evolution curriculums based on the will of the citizens as opposed to top down federal government intervention. All faith based teaching should be done by parents with their sons and daughters in the privacy of their homes.
You just contradicted yourself there. creationism is faith based teaching.
Leaving an uneducated populace to decide what is to be taught in schools is likely to lead to a rather poor quality education surely? How would you ever progress if the children only learn what the parents know?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
How about Atheism on the basis of scientific discoveries and Creation based on the Word of God?;

I find it interesting that you think scientific discoveries lead to atheism. Please tell us more.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Technically, agnostic refers to the belief that the question of Gods existence cannot be known. However it has most commonly been used by people wishing to express their belief that they do not know if God exists. I suspect that many such people do not believe God exists but do not wish to say so because being atheist is highly unpopular in some societies and saying 'I don't know' is considered much more acceptable.

Exactly.

The word atheist has long been, and still is, stigmatised by the religious.

The many people feel uncomfortable using it, and see 'agnostic' as a safer alternative.

This doesn't mean that that position is logically defensible, it's an emotional decision
and not a rational one.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
And do you approve?
__________

Note: Will continue replies to comments and questions on page three next Tuesday.
My thanks to each of you for your interest and thoughtful posts.

I don't disapprove.