- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergHow about conscientious atheist?
Your definition does nothing to set me apart from someone who has given the matter no thought whatsoever, it lacks any nuance or qualifiers other than a lack of belief; for that reason I can rightfully say that a zebra is also an atheist (you may not like this, but if you're set upon such an inclusive definition of the word then I can play the same game)
As poor clarification on my part since I don't affirm that no possible god or gods can exist.
You want atheism to be a badge of honour, I think it's just a label.
Because I want to be special and only associated with the cool people is not a good reason to justify the definition
of atheism to something that makes you look cooler.
Many theists haven't given their belief in god any real though either, this doesn't mean they are not theists.
It doesn't mean a zebra because it only applies to things that can answer the question "do you believe in god".
And why should the label need any qualifiers? are you claiming yourself to be better than someone who doesn't
believe in god who hasn't thought about it as much as you have?
What level of thought would qualify you to be considered an atheist by your standards?
Theism/theist means someone who believes in a god or gods.
What the hell is wrong with atheism simply meaning the negative, someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods?
13 Nov 11
5 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn no place have I mentioned that I want atheism to be a badge of honour, or correspondent with "coolness" I merely want it to represent a selection of people who have made a conscious decision that for them, the idea of some god or god existing is, at the least, not feasible. As for theists who give their god no thought, you're throwing away information here; they have at least consciously acknowledged that as far as they're concerned, some sort of god exists. In the same vein, you can have atheists who have formally acknowledged their disbelief but can think of no justification for that position other than they can't see some god or other.
How about conscientious atheist?
You want atheism to be a badge of honour, I think it's just a label.
Because I want to be special and only associated with the cool people is not a good reason to justify the definition
of atheism to something that makes you look cooler.
Many theists have given their belief in god any real though either, this does g with atheism simply meaning the negative, someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods?
As for your contention with zebras, again, since I don't see the feasibility of having such a wide umbrella on your part, I am permitted to play the same game and widen that umbrella at least as much as to guarantee you dislike my own revised version. Neither of us are abusing the sole constraint that to qualify for atheism one must not believe some god exists (in the case of zebras or ashtrays it is vacuously true they don't believe!) so what is your problem here? Moreover, if they have to be able to answer any question about their belief then that surely means we should disqualify anyone who can't answer it (such as agnostics)!
I don't claim myself to be better than someone who doesn't believe in god - I claim to be different (with respect to my stance on theism) to someone who hasn't made their mind up either way. The wrong, as I've previously mentioned with your usage, is that it is so inclusive as to trivialise it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Nov 11
Originally posted by AgergI know you didn't say you wanted a badge of honour, I said that's what you wanted,
In no place have I mentioned that I want atheism to be a badge of honour, or correspondent with "coolness" I merely want it to represent a selection of people who have made a conscious decision that for them, the idea of some god or god existing is, at the least, not feasible. As for theists who give their god no thought, you're throwing away information here; ...[text shortened]... usly mentioned with your usage is that it is so inclusive as to trivialise the label.
it's what you are implicitly asking for.
By specifying that you 'want' atheist to mean someone who has thought long and hard and can justify
their lack of belief to some arbitrary high standard of yours is inherently selfish and self aggrandising.
You want a special club of people who's standards of intellectual rigour in dismissing theism meet your own.
A label is only trivial if it applies to everything or nothing.
The label atheist by the definition I am using applies to those people who answer the question
"do you believe in a god or gods" with "no".
Zebras can't do that, and so don't qualify, neither do ashtrays.
Even if they did, who cares, nobody sensible is going to try to apply the label to an ashtray, and they would
be mocked if they did.
Talking about the beliefs of something that has no mind let alone sentience is meaningless and ridiculous.
If you want a special label for your special club of people who have met your criteria for having thought
about this issue hard enough then fine, go make one up.
Atheist and atheism are taken, their meanings mapped out by the majority of atheists and secular organisations.
Who frankly want to be inclusive, the more secular people the better, who cares how hard they thought about it.
If you can come to the sensible conclusion of not believing in god without effort or struggle then all the better for you.
This is tough in places where theism is everywhere, but despite going to a C of E junior school where I grew up the
level of theism is so low I did reject the idea of god and religion as ludicrous without really thinking about it.
I had no struggle with the concept.
I have intellectually analysed the ideas later, when I was much older, but for most of my life I have had no need to.
Which is great, more people should have that, doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as atheists.
So again, what level of thought is needed to meet your criteria of atheist? What IQ do you need to achieve it?
13 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI have unequivocally stated that I am a theist on this forum dozens of times. You contributed to a long thread where it was explicitly discussed. This "aversion" you mention with reference to the last couple of pages of this thread was, in fact, me being in bed, asleep, in a completely different time zone from you.
I still await FMF's response. For some reason I am suppose to know that FMF believes in God yet he seems to have an aversion to talking about it?
13 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThere's black, white, and grey. Your view is quite narrow-minded. And I can appreciate that because I have a narrow-minded view when it comes to truth... being that it is absolute and not relative.
Nope, read my bio and my last post in the "tone of meaning" thread.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=143226&page=4
Theism and atheism are complete and exclusive. you are one or the other.
They are defined as being not-the other one.
Anyway, your bio is insignificant inasmuch as the subject of agnosticism goes. The Agnostic does not believe based on current data, but also believes there is a 50/50 chance that he's wrong. The Atheist is more than 50% sure he is right in his disbelief.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidHave you ever heard of set theory?
There's black, white, and grey. Your view is quite narrow-minded. And I can appreciate that because I have a narrow-minded view when it comes to truth... being that it is absolute and not relative.
Anyway, your bio is insignificant inasmuch as the subject of agnosticism goes. The Agnostic does not believe based on current data, but also believes ther ...[text shortened]... 50/50 chance that he's wrong. The Atheist is more than 50% sure he is right in his disbelief.
And being an agnostic does not imply believing in a 50/50 chance that there is a god.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFSigh, ok noted.
Oh, that? I didn't bother to go to the link. I almost never do. Certainly not a youtube link. And anyway. I was just being ironic.
For reference for everyone else for whom link clicking is an anathema,
the link led to a clip of the last line in "Some like it Hot".
13 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeOriginally posted by googlefudge
I know you didn't say you wanted a badge of honour, [b]I said that's what you wanted,
it's what you are implicitly asking for.
By specifying that you 'want' atheist to mean someone who has thought long and hard and can justify
their lack of belief to some arbitrary high standard of yours is inherently selfish and self aggrandising.
You want ght is needed to meet your criteria of atheist? What IQ do you need to achieve it?[/b]
I know you didn't say you wanted a badge of honour, I said that's what you wanted,
it's what you are implicitly asking for.
Your supposition here is wrong then.
By specifying that you 'want' atheist to mean someone who has thought long and hard and can justify their lack of belief to some arbitrary high standard of yours is inherently selfish and self aggrandising.
You want a special club of people who's standards of intellectual rigour in dismissing theism meet your own.
Please point out where I've said that people should have thought long and hard about it. I'm sure I've gone only as far as saying they've consciously acknowledged that to them, the proposition some god exists isn't reasonable. One can get this far with little thought at all.
A label is only trivial if it applies to everything or nothing.
The label atheist by the definition I am using applies to those [b]people who answer the question
"do you believe in a god or gods" with "no".
Zebras can't do that, and so don't qualify, neither do ashtrays.[/b]
I'd argue the same is true for someone who hasn't made their mind up - indeed they no more fail to believe there isn't a god as they fail to believe there is a god. You trivialise the word by throwing away any semblance of nuance.
Even if they did, who cares, nobody sensible is going to try to apply the label to an ashtray, and they would be mocked if they did.
Talking about the beliefs of something that has no mind let alone sentience is meaningless and ridiculous.
As far as I'm concerned, taking such a binary definition of this word is ridiculous also.
If you want a special label for your special club of people who have met your criteria for having thought about this issue hard enough then fine, go make one up.
You can try to rile me all you want but it doesn't undermine my position here. I have specified no such condition that a person should give the matter deep thought.
Atheist and atheism are taken, their meanings mapped out by the majority of atheists and secular organisations.
Who frankly want to be inclusive, the more secular people the better, who cares how hard they thought about it.
Your usage of atheism is redundant, you can accomplish the same with non-theist (just as easy to say either because both have 3 syllables btw). Again I make no statement that one should think long and hard about anything - it is you who is projecting that upon me in an attempt to bully through your argument.
If you can come to the sensible conclusion of not believing in god without effort or struggle then all the better for you.
This is tough in places where theism is everywhere, but despite going to a C of E junior school where I grew up the level of theism is so low I did reject the idea of god and religion as ludicrous without really thinking about it.
I had no struggle with the concept.
I have intellectually analysed the ideas later, when I was much older, but for most of my life I have had no need to.
Which is great, more people should have that, doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted as atheists.
The argumentative part of this block still assumes I expect rigorous anlysis. I expect no such thing, merely the assignment of some greater weight to the non-belief side of the theism scale.
So again, what level of thought is needed to meet your criteria of atheist? What IQ do you need to achieve it?
See the response directly above, and please refrain from trying to undermine my character here. Perhaps you really really really want to win this argument but it's still a cheap strategy.