- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettwho are you calling muddleheaded ??? 😉 😛
Strong atheism is a minority subset of atheism. An atheist could be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. The fact that some muddleheaded atheists will define themselves as strong atheists does not mean atheism is synonymous with strong atheism. Quite the opposite. As a vast majority of knowledgable atheists would define themselves as weak atheists, that defi ...[text shortened]... an atheist, it should be assumed they're a weak atheist unless specifically stated otherwise.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdYes because everyone and everything should pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered! and put in the apropriate pigeon hole.
Well, we have in the past seen debates on here about who is (and what defines) a “True Christian” (TM)—often to the confusion of non-Christians. So I suppose a debate over who is (and what defines) a “True Atheist” (TM) is overdue.
Since I think rwingett’s definition of an atheist is the most appropriate (as well as the majority) one, I suggest that we r ...[text shortened]... dox Churches who recognize the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and only those seven councils...
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammer(Takes one last look at the romper-room before leaving, and just can’t resist&mdash😉
I would think that the term "anti-theist" would be inappropriate because that would have to imply something like "against God" (e.g. a real Satan-worshipper, for instance).
Also, the word '[Eastern] Orthodox' (as a proper noun or referent) already refers to what you want, so there's no need to limit the adjective "orthodox" (which has a broader scope, including in non-religious domains).
I would think that the term "anti-theist" would be inappropriate because that would have to imply something like "against God" (e.g. a real Satan-worshipper, for instance).
Why should such erroneous inference render the term “inappropriate?”
Also, the word '[Eastern] Orthodox' (as a proper noun or referent) already refers to what you want, so there's no need to limit the adjective "orthodox" (which has a broader scope, including in non-religious domains).
Clearly wrong—I once bought a book called Orthodoxy by some guy named Chesterton...
(Hurries through the door with a slam, so as not to be tempted by any more responses...)
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdIt would be inappropriate because we would now have a fight on our hands between the Anti-Theists(TM) and The-Rogue-Faction-Formerly-Known-As-Strong-Atheists.
(Takes one last look at the romper-room before leaving, and just can’t resist&mdash😉
[b]I would think that the term "anti-theist" would be inappropriate because that would have to imply something like "against God" (e.g. a real Satan-worshipper, for instance).
Why should such erroneous inference render the term “inappropriate?”
Also, the word '[E ...[text shortened]... Hurries through the door with a slam, so as not to be tempted by any more responses...)[/b]
As to GKC's book, it's such a pity that there is no way to distinguish a priori between beginning-of-sentence capitalization and proper noun capitalization...
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by NordlysA weak atheist would say that the evidence is insufficient to believe that a God exists. Therefore, a weak atheist would say that he does not believe that a God exists.
In your opinion / using your set of definitions, what's the difference between (weak) atheism and agnosticism?
An agnostic does not commit to any opinion, except maybe that the answer is unknowable (not all agnostic do so, however).
If they do not, I believe that such (weak) agnosticism is inherently hypocrite and a mere form of political correctness.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdA satan worshiper is a theist, they believe in religion, just because it doesn't have 'god' as the head doesn't stop it being theocratic (don't know if thats a word but it should be).
(Takes one last look at the romper-room before leaving, and just can’t resist&mdash😉
[b]I would think that the term "anti-theist" would be inappropriate because that would have to imply something like "against God" (e.g. a real Satan-worshipper, for instance).
Why should such erroneous inference render the term “inappropriate?”
Also, the word '[E ...[text shortened]... Hurries through the door with a slam, so as not to be tempted by any more responses...)
Anti-theism and athiesm are seperate, thus automaticaly labeling someone who is an athiest an antitheist would be wrong.
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI might not have been clear in what I said about Satan worshippers. Let me try again.
A satan worshiper is a theist, they believe in religion, just because it doesn't have 'god' as the head doesn't stop it being theocratic (don't know if thats a word but it should be).
Anti-theism and athiesm are seperate, thus automaticaly labeling someone who is an athiest an antitheist would be wrong.
If one takes the classical Judeo-Christian notions of God and Satan then, by Satan-worshipper, I mean someone who acknowledges God as creator, all-good, all-powerful etc. but nevertheless chooses to worship Satan. Would you say that the term "anti-theist" is inappropriate for such a person?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat if it shouldn't be respected? (In hypothetical 'devils advocate' mode here)
For me, an anti-theist is simply an atheist that does not respect the freedom of religious choice.
What if religion could be shown to be damaging to society?
If a person’s choice of religion has an adverse effect on someone then they are entitled to object, their freedom not to be unduly effected by someone else overrides their 'right' to follow the religion that is causing the adverse effect.
Now what if you could show that a majority (or all) religions had an adverse effect, should in that case those religions, and hence theocracy, be respected
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammeryes
I might not have been clear in what I said about Satan worshippers. Let me try again.
If one takes the classical Judeo-Christian notions of God and Satan then, by Satan-worshipper, I mean someone who acknowledges God as creator, all-good, all-powerful etc. but nevertheless chooses to worship Satan. Would you say that the term "anti-theist" is inappropriate for such a person?
EDIT: and you were clear the first time. I apologise if I wasn't
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat if religion could be shown to be damaging to society?
What if it shouldn't be respected? (In hypothetical 'devils advocate' mode here)
What if religion could be shown to be damaging to society?
If a person’s choice of religion has an adverse effect on someone then they are entitled to object, their freedom not to be unduly effected by someone else overrides their 'right' to follow the religion that is ...[text shortened]... d an adverse effect, should in that case those religions, and hence theocracy, be respected
Then anti-theism would be the way to go.
I don't rate religious freedom higher than other human rights. In fact, I rate it lower than many of those rights (life, speech, etc).
Edit - Note that I define anti-theism as opposition to theism and not, as I think LH in a way believes, opposition to God.
05 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAtheism, properly speaking, is a lack of belief.
Some do, but atheism itself entails no such supposed belief. Atheism, properly speaking, is a lack of belief.
I think some confusion in this thread is caused by this statement which I think is incorrect. This is more correct:
Atheism, properly speaking, is a lack of belief in god(s). A-theism = without god(s). One is not required to lack belief in anything in order to be an atheist. Such a person would be an abeliefist.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by googlefudgePrecisely!
Yes because everyone and everything should pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, and numbered! and put in the apropriate pigeon hole.
I was going to offer the term “no-theism” (now that I recognize the contention generated by the ambiguity of “anti-theist” ), but I now realize that such word-labels are not sufficiently efficient. So I suggest an alpha-numeric code scheme.
You are a 957US; lucifershammer is a 724gSC. Only Nordlys gets the high-ranking designation of 334N1, I’m afraid.
The manual of definitions for the codes can only be accessed on-site at Control HQ—but none of you has security clearance for access (and some of you should probably not risk a visit to CHQ: you might not be permitted to leave). By the way, 957US, you arebeing watched...