Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism

Who's entertaining anything? Of course not.And if the credence is 'due', as you describe it, what would be wrong if we were giving it?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Oft thought, ne'er so well expressed.

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Atheism means "the absence of theism".Seriously, you have never heared of "weak atheism" and "strong atheism".Strong atheism is what includes the claim that no gods exist.
It's essentially the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism."I don't believe in" vs "there's no such thing".Again: you need to actively believe certain claims to be a theist. If you do not have that positive belief, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.I can't say it in a simpler way.

Its not that I don't understand your position, its that I know that your position is wrong.The word "atheism" comes from the greek root the(os) - which means godless - + ism.The dictionary defines it as:

quote:

---

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

---

So this claim of yours: is simply false.Now, I realize that today people do use the word "atheism" to mean "not theism", but as I said, this is pulling back from the strength of the claim - thus the "weak atheism" that, yes, I have heard of. Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as god. That's one of the reasons that the neo-atheists of today have pulled back a bit.

Really?Despite the fact that disbelief in at least some gods is a position held by all human beings?Just because we take something and apply the label "god" to it, doesn't remove our capacity to arrive at sensible conclusions about it. Those conclusions might even be related to whether or not it exists.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as leprechauns.

​

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as unicorns.

​

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as Zeus.

​

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as His Noodley Holiness (praise be his pasta).

​

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as Ra.

​

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as Spiderman (hell, he has movies so we BETTER believe).

---

Remind me, what makes your particular deity so special?In the event you meant god in the general sense (pretty sure you didn't, though): I personally think that believing in invisible all-powerful beings to be the irrational belief.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

So very true. So very true.On a side note: Have any of the last couple pages of discussion been related to the topic? Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Yes. How is discussing atheism not related to a topic that is criticizing atheism?

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

No, I did.I'm not saying the disbelief *must be* irrational, but that it easily *can be* and when it is its obvious. There's context here, and I's borrowing phraseology... Sure, it can be and usually is.

But the "evangelical atheists" (as you call them) such as Dawkins don't claim proof or certainty. Dawkins specifically cites a form of tentative improbability. I am not sure what proof has to do with anything here? It's a demonstrably reliable method of investigation that can lead to high confidence albeit tentative conclusions. I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here. Can you elaborate? Did Dawkins do that? I think Dawkins is not so much translating "agnostic" into atheist-lite so much as dismissing the notion that atheism refers to some sort of absolute philosophical certainty rather than evidence based tentativity. Well as you haven't I will - Russel writes:

quote:

---

"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

---

The discussion seems to be centering on distinctions between atheism, agnosticism, and non-theism. But this could never be on topic, since the OP clearly lays out extreme atheism/anti-theism as the relevant group.Fence riders just don't fall into this category.Why is there so much discussion going into them?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Since there is no clear cut line as to what being an atheist is, it seems. Kinda hard to discuss extreme atheism when you can't pinpoint what an atheist is or is not.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

But can we not agree on what an extreme atheist/anti-theist is?I'd think this would be a rather clear classification, it being too far from the fence to warrant uncertainty.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Yes, am off topic despite the ironic humor relative to the OP I have found in those who state they are the self-appointed emperor of the English language.Therefore I am out of here. Should anyone choose to debate whether or not one should be allowed to use the term agnostic because it is not politically correct, I am easy to contact, my new email address is in my profile.Later Jon, good luck.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Last I checked, these categories include, respectively, anyone who has ever said anything in favor of atheism and anyone who has ever said anything critical of religion (unless the religion is Islam in which case they're just being patriotic).This pretty much narrows it down to those atheists who now possess or formerly possessed the power of speech.