21 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge"If belief in a deity wasn't such a big thing there would be no need nor point to have a label for those that don't have this delusion.
It is true atheism does not make sense without theism.
If belief in a deity wasn't such a big thing there would be no need nor point to have a label for those that don't have this delusion.
Just as there is no term for people who don't believe in bigfoot, or Father Christmas.
However belief in god/s is a big deal and thus a label is required for t is included in atheism and thus atheism is the default position. (on this topic)
Just as there is no term for people who don't believe in bigfoot, or Father Christmas."
Yes there has to be a label for it, we are discussing what the label should be, I am not convinced by your proposition that Atheism is the starting point, and then you just need to fit the subject into a selection of sub categories.
I cannot in all honesty feel comfortable with my role as a weak version of something else, it feels like a patch job until a better designation can be agreed upon. Of course I have to entertain the possibility that my resistance to this label is not the result of a stubborn ego, who is just not happy with the word 'weak'.
I do not know if you have read the post concerning my embrace of Apatheist as a description, which I feel, based on the definition, is a much more 'Kevcvs57' encompassing label, than weak atheist.
For now, and for some reason I cannot see a big enough gap between asserting that God does exist, and the counter claim that God does not exist, in terms of presumption based on faith, and presumption based on rationality, respectively.
That is not to say I give equal credence, or lack of it, to the two presumptions. And when a theist claims that this or that particular God exists I think that I am as certain as you are about the fact that they are wrong.
"If you are going the complete agnostic and say we can't know anything either way about gods existence (you can but that's a different debate)
then "ok, fine, but that's irrelevant". You (based on what you are saying) DON'T have a firm conviction that a god really does exist. "
I have taken that stance, but some one, possibly your good self, pointed out that that was a in itself a statement of belief concerning the nature of the entity I purport not know anything about.
That is why I recognise in the Apatheist stance as one that is rational and realistic enough for me to accept as a label without feeling like some one else's jacket/stance has had to be altered/ diluted in order to fit me.
21 Oct 12
Originally posted by Suzianneso, by your silence, am i to assume that you concede that your biblegod and his plan to send his son with an army to subjugate and conquer all the human nations qualifies him as an advanced human-like civilization?
The assumption there is that we would have somehow triumphed over our quite human nature to subjugate and conquer any civilization that is technologically inferior to our own. I'm not so sure.
22 Oct 12
Originally posted by vivifySome religions are stubborn. In the case of Christianity and the bible, it's only "stubborn" if it's wrong. Is it also "stubborn," then, if someone claims the sky is blue and refuses to back down from it?
That's actually a great thing. That's just science becoming more accurate with each new discovery. Imagine if science was stubborn like religion... blah blah
As far as the rest of your post, it was filled with ad hominem attacks and a strawman claim, so I have no interest in responding. Get back to me when/if you decide to keep things sensible and civil.