|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Atheism = No beliefs? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There's also Animism, the belief that everything is animated with a spirit, but not neccessarily that a god exists so it too can be atheistic.
Does Athiem = no beliefs? No, it doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Atheism is no belief in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. Not necessarily, it is capable of being more than that.
I find it hard to think of an animist as an atheist. I am not real familiar with the concept. Maybe others can better enlighten this thought. The point was that an animist can be an atheist, whilst still being an animist. And animist have beliefs, so being an atheist doesn't necessitate having no beliefs.
Oh, and sense we got moosed in the other thread, and you asked... its things like these that make you come off as an asshole: quote: Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just because a person that is atheist could have more beliefs, dos not make atheism more. Just because you are unwilling to accept that atheism can include more, doesn't mean that it cannot.
Atheism is the lack in the belief of a god. The positive belief that gods do not, or can not, exists is also accurately described as atheism, which could be considered a religion in itself. Too, it could be a way of life, so to speak.
If some atheist believe in something else, that does not affect what atheism is. Words are defined by the way they are used and the way they came about. Atheism came about as the belief that gods do not exist. It has morphed into today's version of lacking a belief in gods.
I'll am trying not to be an asshole. It is just that you argument is flawed. What argument? You're entire first post to me is this:
quote: You didn't even quote my whole "argument":
quote: Although, now my argument is that atheism can be more than "no belief in a god". Where's your support for that? ABE: reponse to other post that was uneccessary:
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. I don't think that assessment is valid at all. You guys both are over reacting to each other.
BS Your posts have shown that you are a christianist troll. Also, a valid assessment. I am not the only one to think so.
So if someone says they ain't christian, but you think they are, then you're confident enough in your mind reading abilities to validly assess them?
You have had problems with me in the past. the problem as I see it is that you do not like my arguments. far from it. You just remind me of the childish neo-atheist anti-religios douchebags I see all over facebook.
I don't resort to name calling and refuse to let others call me names without responding. Yes you do.
I truly don't care what you think of me, but care what I am called in a post.
I've carefully avoided saying that you actually are an asshole and instead have been explaining to you how you come off to other people. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There are definitions. You are not just allowed to make your own definition and expect others to agree to it. Of course not, but your definition is the absolute one so its going to be fairly easy to show you are wrong. In fact, your own sources show your wrong so I don't even have to hunt down my own. Your claim:
quote: You source explains:
quote: That is something more than "no belief in god", so there you have it. Even this one:
quote: Right at the start it has it as an active disbelief and it also can be a doctrine, so there you have it again. From a previous thread, Message 1:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I hardly see how atheism could at all, anywhere, anyhow, be considered a religion.
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. Your definition includes:
quote: Its not hard to imagine a person devoutedly following and believing that god doesn't exist. We also have:
quote: Where particular set of beliefs = gods do not exist
quote: That'd be easy to throw together and I think somebody already has: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ Or sense you said anwhere, anyhow, I offer you The Cult of Reason during the French Revolution
quote: So... Why can't I consider this stuff to be a religion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The claim was that atheism is no belief in a god and nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 41:
Why can't I consider this stuff to be a religion?
Because you're using small subsets of Atheists to qualify the entire group as a religion. Oh, I see. You've misunderstood. I'm not qualifing the entire group as a religion, just the subset. The rest of your post is defeating a strawman. I maintain the the group that holds the positive belief that gods do not, or can not, exist, especially the militant ones, could be considered religious. From Message 42:
The claim was that atheism is no belief in a god and nothing more.
Because that's all the word means without further qualifiers, CS. An Atheist can have more beliefs, but not necessarily so. Well I disagree that without further qualifiers that that is all the word means. With its greek origin being atheos, or godless, without further qualifiers it means the belief that gods do not exist. Modern users have backed off to a more palatable position of simply not believing in god, which is fine, but to say that atheism is no belief in god and nothing more is demonstrably false. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think we'll find that there are almost as many detailed definitions of atheism as there are atheists. Sure.
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. Fine.
Can't we just agree to disagree and get along? Okay. But there's also these neo-atheists, who are quite anti-religious, and bigoted, and have a holier than thou attitude that anyone who is a theist is some deluded retard. They're just dickheads. I think its false that atheism can't be something more than a simple disbelief in gods. I've seen it. But if someone calls out the subset, the mob runs up claiming that there's nothing really uniting them and the dickheads fade away into the shadows. It is kinda funny how sensitive everyone is about considering that neo-atheist subset to be religious themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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... Yes, and I find that some of those sub-groups of atheism are quite religious, themselves. That is the point I'm making. Especially the 'rid-the-world-of-religion' ones, quite ironically. Look for atheist groups on myspace or facebook, and read their discussion and comments. Or take a look at the comments on religious or irreligious videos on something like youtube. Lots of dickheadery about, and a lot of it comes off as religious.
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. Any time a subset of the group is chastized the whole group comes in to smear away the distinction of the subset by removing all qualifiers of the groups. Well they're there, and they're atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think that you are obscuring your point through your choice of terminology. "Religious" is an odd way to describe those who virulently deny deities. It is an absurd way to describe those who have no orthodoxy of belief,no temples, no shared rituals, etc. If you want to criticise the more extreme elements of atheist thought, you would do better to use more precise terms. Try, "overconfident", "dogmatic", "religiose" even, but using the term "religious" is guaranteed to cause only dispute and confusion. Well I think you're right. Religion/religious is probably not the best word to describe them. But I do see parallels between them and their behavior and those of the extremely religious christians. Paticularly with the us vs them mentality of demonizing the others.
It's also a bit weird that the atheists who you consider to most resemble your own position, religiosity, are the most objectionable. Personally, I'm not very religious. And I too am opposed to the extremely religious christians who act the same way as these "religious" atheists that I'm describing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So we also, according to you, get to define christianity by Westboro Baptist, right? I'm not defining atheism by the subset. But yes, those baptists are christians. I'd be wrong to say they weren't and argue that christianity does not include them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Of course you do. Overzealousness for a cause (to the point of a polarized "Us vs. Them" tribalist mentality of conflict) has never been wholly monopolized by religion. You could say that the same parallels exist for certain environmentalists, or even the Tea Party nutjobs. I just might call them religious too! I've certainly seen some "religious" environmentalists out there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're going to have a hard time backing off this CS, I understand, but, you are conflating the irreligious passion of some atheists with religious zeal. It may seem justified in your mind right now but it is a false comparison. Religion has a well defined connotation in society. Atheist, like evolutionist or numismatist, no matter at what level of passion, does not fit Okay, fine. Its too conflated and it doesn't fit. It was just one word in the larger point that there can be more to atheism than just no belief in god and nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And yet the term doesn't usually apply. You're using the term "religious" to mean "any group that pursues a specific belief with extreme zeal." That definition is too broad, because it makes almost anything a religion if a subset of supporters are overly enthusiastic. In the context you're using, Republicanism could count as a religion. I certainly wouldn't say that's an accurate description. I'll agree that some Atheists (and Republicans, and environmentalists, and Nascar fans...) hold themselves to their beliefs or values or preferences with a zeal that is typically seen only in extremist religious followers. But I don't think that means it's appropriate to identify everything that you see characterized by an overabundance of enthusiasm and opposition for opposing views as "religious."
Well, you're right and that is how I'm using the word. I suppose its too loose and was a poor choice of words. It seems to fit to me and my tastes. Seriously though, would you really argue against some Nascar fans being called religious!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Based our current proven knowledge, perfection and imperfection can only be defined by the human mind, and it is based on a completely subjective decision. I don't think so. Perfection just mean complete or flawless. A droplet of water falling could still form a perfect sphere, objectively. A region of space completely void of light would still be perfectly black, objectively. So, there are things that exist that are not perfect. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024