I see this as the crux of the issue Hyro has with other debaters.
He cannot conceive that someone can be pro-gun rights, but willing to call for gun control. For him it is an either/or dilemma. He is making a false dichotomy and reaches for spurious quotes and reasoning in order to back up this false dichotomy.
His remarks have shown this to be a perfectly valid assessment. He is making a false dichotomy. Show through a valid argument he isn't.
BS Your posts have shown that you are a christianist troll.
Also, a valid assessment. I am not the only one to think so.
You obviously don't think.
Yes assholish, but attempting to show the stupidity of his arguments.
CS, You have had problems with me in the past. the problem as I see it is that you do not like my arguments. I argue strongly. If you think I am an asshole, so be it. I don't resort to name calling and refuse to let others call me names without responding. If you feel the need to resort to attacks maybe you should not respond to me. I have no need, desire or inclination to ignore self-righteousness or arguments I disagree with or think are fallacious. To you I might be an asshole, but lets keep the conversation civil.
I truly don't care what you think of me, but care what I am called in a post.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities Source Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". in Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
quote:Nielsen, Kai (2010). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism. Retrieved 2010-02-01. "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.... Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived)...".
quote:Edwards, Paul (2005) . "Atheism". in Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 0028657802. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion.". (page 175 in 1967 edition)
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
I hardly see how atheism could at all, anywhere, anyhow, be considered a religion.
"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu
I understand it may be difficult for a theist to comprehend but there is no such thing as a “commitment” to atheism. There is nothing to “commit” to in being an atheist.
As a theist you must positively avow to a specific creed and must give allegiance to the dictates of your priests. You must commit yourself heart and soul to a specific set of theistic beliefs. Atheists lack the above. There is no creed, no priests, no allegiance to which an atheist can commit in this religious sense.
Other than theistic ones, all other philosophies, political, social, moral, etc. are as open to an atheist as they are to anyone else.
And I submit that as an atheist I am more enabled to follow the evidence wherever it may lead rather than as a theist who draws the conclusion first then tries to twist and shoehorn the evidence into some justification.
Useless semantic nitpicking. You know full well that the colloquial usage of the word (including the usage of Atheists themselves) is inclusive of both active disbelief and passive lack of belief. When one identifies oneself as "Atheist," it can mean either of those two, regardless of the strict dictionary definition or the word's Greek roots.
Or sense you said anwhere, anyhow, I offer you The Cult of Reason during the French Revolution
quote:The Cult of Reason was a creed based on atheism devised during the French Revolution by Jacques Hébert, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette and their supporters and intended as a replacement for Christianity. It was stopped by Maximilien Robespierre, a Deist, who instituted the Cult of the Supreme Being. Both cults were part of the campaign of de-Christianization of French society during the Revolution and part of the Reign of Terror.
The culte de la Raison developed during the uncertain period 1792-94 (Years I and III of the Revolution), following the September Massacres, when Revolutionary France was ripe with fears of internal and foreign enemies. Several Parisian churches were transformed into Temples of Reason, notably the Church of Saint-Paul Saint-Louis in the Marais. The churches were closed in May 1793 and more securely, 24 November 1793, when the Catholic Mass was forbidden.
The Cult of Reason was celebrated in a carnival atmosphere of parades, ransacking of churches, ceremonious iconoclasm, in which religious and royal images were defaced, and ceremonies which substituted the "martyrs of the Revolution" for Christian martyrs. The earliest public demonstrations took place en province, outside Paris, notably by Hébertists in Lyon, but took a further radical turn with the Fête de la Liberté ("Festival of Liberty") at Notre Dame de Paris, 10 November (20 Brumaire) 1793, in ceremonies devised and organised by Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette. The Cult of Reason centered upon a young woman designated the Goddess of Reason.
quote:A man dies and ends up in Hell. As the Devil is giving him his orientation, he's shown rooms with different torments being performed and it's explained that each group is tormented in the manner that they had all agreed upon in their group's teachings. Then they came to a room where everybody was standing around drinking coffee and chatting. The man asks what group that is and the Devil gets this really disgusted look on his face: "Those are the Unitarians. They can't agree on anything!"
I think we'll find that there are almost as many detailed definitions of atheism as there are atheists. Especially since traditionally when one became an atheist he'd pretty much be all on his own. For example, when I heard Dan Barker speak at an Atheists United meeting in Los Angeles circa 1985 (broadcast on their old weekly 15-minute radio program) about his deconversion from being a life-long fundamentalist and fundamentalist minister in Southern California and how he had to move all the way to Michigan before he was able to meet another atheist: "Where were you guys when I needed you?" So most atheists have had to define the term for themselves. Fortunately, that's changing with the Internet, but still we pretty much define for ourselves what atheism is and what it means to be an atheist.
Because you're using small subsets of Atheists to qualify the entire group as a religion.
All B are A, but not all A are B, CS.
Religions are typically identified as having a set of shared beliefs, traditions, philosophies, etc. Atheism as a whole shares none of these.
Atheists on the whole cannot even agree whether god(s) are impossible or possible, or whether arguments for the existence of god(s) are simply not convincing. They are tied by a lack of belief, not by a shared belief. This is rather like identifying "non-Christians" as a religion, simply because all of thsoe in that subset would share a "disbelief" in Jesus. It's a non-starter, it's absurd, and it's stupid.
Atheists don;t have any shared holidays. There is no "Yay, there are no gods" day.
There is no shared philosophy. There are no moral dictates that come from not believing in deities. There are no shared religious texts, no preachers, no hymns, nothing.
That a single subset has decided to group together and adopt some of the rituals, traditions and terminology of religion for Atheism does not in any way qualify Atheism in general as a religion.
Besides - we already knew that religious Atheists existed, even without your Church of Atheism. Buddhists believe in no deities. Animists believe in no deities. Ancestor worshipers believe in no deities. Your arguments is simply absurd.
Getting bogged down in definitions is, as ever, a bit of a waste of time. Here are the key points as I see them;
The only idea that unites all atheists is a lack of belief in deities. Within that group, a range of opinion exists. Some simply lack belief, others actively believe that no gods exist, still others (although very few) are completely certain that no gods could possibly exist. Some are hostile to the idea of gods, others might wish it were true. Some might hate religion, others might think religion a good thing, even if if it mistaken in some respects. And so on...
All these people might self-identify as atheists, but the only idea that could be said to unite them all is a lack of belief in deities. That is why many of us see it as being the only central tenet of atheism.
Whether atheism is a belief, a lack of belief or whatever else you want to call it doesn't really concern me much. It's all semantics. It's an idea, an opinion about the universe. Whatever you like.
The main problem with Den's silly argument is that what he describes is not atheism but closer to nihilism. Now you could say that nihilism is a subset of atheism, since, by definition, a nihilist could not believe in gods, but that doesn't make atheism equivalent to nihilism any more than Christianity is equivalent to Arianism.
It's just a silly argument, seemingly designed to get up people's noses. You shouldn't be surprised to find atheist hackles very much in the "up" position in this thread. The OP is just so bad...
I agree that a simple lack of belief in something could not be considered a religion.
I'm talking about the positive disbelief atheists, and also the anti-religious, or even militant, types as well.
Next you will tell us that you don't have enough faith not to believe in God.
Your definition includes:
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly;
C'mon now. An argument from conflation is below you. If I religiously watch football on Sundays is that the same as the religion practiced at the cathedral down the street? Do you really think those are the same thing?
Where particular set of beliefs = gods do not exist
So not believing in Santa Claus is now a religion? Really? We are quickly heading into the "not collecting stamps is a hobby" territory.
That'd be easy to throw together and I think somebody already has: