A****** is a bad word?

[Frud11]

How about something that doesn't fit the usual "definition" of G or religion/mysticism?
i.e. something beyond any conception -even of something all-powerful or everywhere, or any concept whatsoever -utterly beyond any ideas?
Is there no such thing because we're unable to conceive of it, or invoke any kind of concepts about it than the above? Why is that the case?
(think about current cosmological notions and quantum chaos, e.g.)

 

[greenberg]

How about something that doesn't fit the usual "definition" of G or religion/mysticism?
i.e. something beyond any conception -even of something all-powerful or everywhere, or any concept whatsoever -utterly beyond any ideas?
Is there no such thing because we're unable to conceive of it, or invoke any kind of concepts about it than the above? Why is that the case?
(think about current cosmological notions and quantum chaos, e.g.)

I suppose such could be possible. But then one would have to refrain from discussion altogether.

 

[Sarkus]

when I was an atheist it would never cross my mind to even begin discussing anything (anti-) theological

Possibly because you were never interested in why some people are rational and some appear not to be, or why some believe and others don't.

what business do you think a non-theist has on rallying to their cause or participating in a discussion of theistic values/practices?

Not sure what you mean by "rallying to their cause" - but why should being interested in why people believe, and trying to understand it, especially when that belief permeates the whole of society, be the sole domain of those who do believe? :shrug:

So only people who play golf can discuss golf?
Only politicians can vote and discuss politics?

Most atheists on this site are here to understand what it is that drives someone to believe and, in their view, irrational.
We obviously wouldn't participate in theistic discussions where needing to believe is a pre-requisite, but otherwise it is a matter of interest.

Or can only theists be interested in various aspects of theism - the same way only dinosaurs can be paleontologists? :shrug:


You need to differentiate between what someone is (as defined by their actions and/or beliefs or lack thereof) and any intellectual interest they might have.
You are not blind to this difference, are you?

 

[Frud11]

I suppose such could be possible. But then one would have to refrain from discussion altogether.

Hmm. I feel I should pursue this a bit.
Why do you suppose it's possible, or could be?
Also, why would it mean refraining from discussion? If you were "aware" of something that was "beyond conceiving", what sort of "meaning" could it possibly have?

Why would being aware of it (if that were possible, or if it wasn't a logical paradox), mean disconnection from opinion or thinking?
Why can't it be the case, say, that it exists (like a quantum state with an undefined value, or "infinite" uncertainty), but you can think as well as "experience" it (but not via an intellectual apprehension)?

We cannot conceive of an infinite value, but we use a mathematical "infinity" constantly, though it's something we can never "reach" -instead we "approach" it, or get "close enough". Countable and uncountable sets, the integers and reals, are like this, and Cantor describes an actually infinite set (of numbers) as one in which all numbers are already present, we can't conceive of a number outside the set to add to it, because any such number is already in the set. This is paradoxical, because adding a number to a set or by counting without limit, or "up to" a limit, is how we "approach" infinity,

(sorry about all the question marks)

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Then they're irrational. But their belief or lack of belief in a god isn't the cause. Lack of god belief is a symptom of rational thought. I'm sure there are other ways people arrive at a lack of belief or disbelief in gods.

I would guess most arrive out of emotional reasons. It doesn't feel right to them. Then they examine the issue from a rational perspective.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
when I was an atheist it would never cross my mind to even begin discussing anything (anti-) theological
”
Possibly because you were never interested in why some people are rational and some appear not to be, or why some believe and others don't.

frankly, at the time, it seemed more like an issue for theists and ex-atheists to mull over

“
what business do you think a non-theist has on rallying to their cause or participating in a discussion of theistic values/practices?
”
Not sure what you mean by "rallying to their cause"

try googling "atheist" and "rally"

- but why should being interested in why people believe, and trying to understand it, especially when that belief permeates the whole of society, be the sole domain of those who do believe?

if a person simply wasn't interested in anything remotely religious, there would be little impetus

So only people who play golf can discuss golf?

moreso than persons who have absolutely no interest in golf - BTW I don't think I have ever had a serious discussion on golf before either ......

Only politicians can vote and discuss politics?

politicians aren't the only one's interested in politics - needless to say, a person not interested in politics doesn't have much to say on the matter

Most atheists on this site are here to understand what it is that drives someone to believe and, in their view, irrational.

so if its already understood, what is there left to discuss (apart from unresolved anger issues)?

We obviously wouldn't participate in theistic discussions where needing to believe is a pre-requisite, but otherwise it is a matter of interest.

Or can only theists be interested in various aspects of theism - the same way only dinosaurs can be paleontologists?

if I had no interest in dinosaurs, it would seem kind of pointless to venture into the topic
much like unless I am an ex-theist or theist, theistic discussions wouldn't have a hold on me

You need to differentiate between what someone is (as defined by their actions and/or beliefs or lack thereof) and any intellectual interest they might have.
You are not blind to this difference, are you?

all I can do is talk of my experience as an atheist
I didn't find society that I existed in particularly stifling (our family never went to church, although I did have an aunt who was a jehovah's witness and a friend who was a catholic) in terms of my atheism.
on occasions when Mormons and JW's turned up on my door I would treat with condescending respect and move them on asap
Sometimes I cracked a few religious jokes......but otherwise to spend any serious amount of energy into penetrating theistic topics seemed a non-issue, simply because I didn't have any issues with it - perhaps if I had been over come with some sort of atheistic evangelical aspirations things would have been different

However as things stood at the time, much like a person who has no issues/interests with golf is not likely to have any great intellectual reserves for it, the whole issue of investing any intellectual reserves into theism (either for it or against it) seemed like a complete waste of time - I was firmly fixed in my outlook and had more productive engagements

 

[lightgigantic]

I would guess most arrive out of emotional reasons. It doesn't feel right to them. Then they examine the issue from a rational perspective.

who?
the atheists or the theists?
or both of them?

 

[S.A.M.]

Many people who identify themselves as "atheists" and talk a lot about theism, atheism and related issues, are actually ex-theists.

An ex-theist's worldview and sense of self are still built around theism, albeit in the manner of opposing theism, but in structure and function still quite the same as theism.

To go from ex-theist to non-theist requires a complete overhaul of the person's worldview and sense of self. Which is no easy task.

That seems reasonable to me.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Let us return to those good ol' days of yesteryear when the Catholic

Inquisition was torturing, imprisoning, maiming, banishing and best of all

killing all those who were heretics!

 

[SnakeLord]

I guess one of the last places you would expect to encounter a person who doesn't play golf is on a forum discussing golf

Indeed and also one of the last places you would expect to encounter a person that isn't a formula 1 driver would be on a forum discussing formula 1. :bugeye:

You are so naive lg, it's just not funny. Needless to say, many people have an interest in these things, golf included, without actually believing in or partaking in the event. I've never hit a golf ball in my life but I do discuss golf with friends. I am not a footballer but I do discuss football with friends. And yes, I also discuss Star Trek with friends even though I don't believe Klingons exist.

Please, desist with your foolishness.

 

[Enmos]

What is the politically correct term for those who do not believe in God?

By language?

It would be best not to have term for it at all. And if do want to have one for communications sake I suggest you come up with one that is very broadly defined or don't make a fuss about what the word exactly means.

I am sick and tired of people that want to put 'those that don't believe in any God' into a very narrow definition.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

The correct term is atheist. The prefix (a) means without, thus, atheist, without theism or a deity.

Since not all atheist are rational rationalist is not the correct term.

 

[SkinWalker]

I think you'll note that I agreed with that in at least one, perhaps two posts above. Good to see we're in agreement.

 

[Sarkus]

frankly, at the time, it seemed more like an issue for theists and ex-atheists to mull over

Or someone interested in what causes people to be irrational (or to "suspend rationality") in some areas of their life and not others.

if a person simply wasn't interested in anything remotely religious, there would be little impetus

One can merely just be interested in rational / irrationality - and religion seems to be where the latter is most evidently lacking (if that's not an oxymoron).

moreso than persons who have absolutely no interest in golf

Sure - but then does the atheist discuss the religion or the rational / irrational nature of belief in general - something in which those who do post have an interest.

politicians aren't the only one's interested in politics

So you admit that having an interest in something does not mean you are that thing? So a person interested in religion doesn't have to be a theist?

all I can do is talk of my experience as an atheist

And generalise so massively based on that? Come on, you're better than that, aren't you?

 

[spidergoat]

What is the politically correct term for those who do not believe in God?

By language?

Superstitionally challenged.

 

[Cris]

sam,

What is the politically correct term for those who do not believe in God?

Skeptic.

taken from Webster -

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

In essence - anything exceptionally unusual that is presented without due dilligence to factual support should be treated with significant skepticsm. The proposition that there is a god fits well within this approach. It shouldn't need another special term.

The reason to be a skeptic could be based on a rational approach or simply that their intuition finds the notion incredulous, or variations.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

Skeptic.

taken from Webster -

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

In essence - anything exceptionally unusual that is presented without due dilligence to factual support should be treated with significant skepticsm.

so an atheist does not believe in anything?

 

[Cris]

sam,

so an atheist does not believe in anything?

Depends how you choose to define atheism. The term has been so mangled by theists and atheists, mainly theists, that the term is becoming largely useless as a means of portraying clear meaning. I do not apply it to myself since there is no guarantee that the recipient will come close to what I want to communicate.

The term "skeptic" is much cleaner and unambiguous and represents my position pretty well.

 

[S.A.M.]

The term "skeptic" is much cleaner and unambiguous and represents my position pretty well.

Aren't you the one who believes minds can be downloaded into computers for putative immortality?

 

[iceaura]

what business do you think a non-theist has on rallying to their cause or participating in a discussion of theistic values/practices?

To take the golf example, a good many atheistic folks begin to take an interest in the labels and such when they find out that there are consequences for not doing so: and things can go beyond the continual confrontations and personal inconveniences of living among religious theists - one of my local parks was converted into a golf course on one end, and sold to a large church complex on the other, with the best swimming hole for miles closed down in between. The decision was made by about a half dozen religiously theistic golfers, who got together when none of the rest of us were paying attention - and none of us atheistic non-golfers were organized, anyway.

It's self defense, in some cases. Religious theists can be very dangerous neighbors, and one would like to deflect some of their loonier proposals at the level of theory and hypothetical discussion, before being put into the position of stopping an already contracted bulldozer.

That way, the labeling ("atheist" is an odd label, since it makes an entity of people who have essentially nothing in common. This is a characteristic of pejoratives directed at collective "enemies", of course) and so forth can be handled at some leisure, rather than in the heat of the moment.

Theists' personal, community, and political justifications and behaviors (and theistic "values", whatever that refers to) are often important in human affairs. No one living among religious theists can afford to ignore their beliefs and practices.