Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[Gustav]

Thats a matter of discipline, but no one is born without the potential for good.

hey wait a minute..

/scared

 

[Gustav]

......philosophy a matter of principle.

a principle in philosophy is about reaching conclusions through reasoned thought
ghazali may rant about self evident truths but how does he justify fitra?
thru logic and reason? introspection?




i guess not
allah informed him
ja
an appeal to authority

/spits

 

[S.A.M.]

Its a good thing then that no one believes in empiricism and self evident truths as a basis for rational reasoning simply because Ghazali got the concept from the Quran eh?

 

[Gustav]

thats moh
obviously the infant is muslim until corrupted by parents
it requires no instruction in islam as the knowledge is innate

explain how ghazali justified that premise
then you do the same
show me how you reason that i was born a muslim other than....."it is in the koran"

for that matter...convert me to islam
if you make sense, i will

 

[Cris]

sam,

So its better to think everyone is born evil and so you should go liberate them and re-educate them? Rather than believe everyone is born good and doesn't need liberation but education?

I pass no judgement only the observation of why we see Christianity tending to be passive and peaceful and Islam threatening and violent.

Neither belief is based on any known truth.

From science we can see that individual personalities tend to be dominated by genetic traits and that education and environment make additional adjustments. When education and environment are severely limited/controlled by authoritarian regimes or are overtly influenced by political influence, then we see various degrees of indoctrination. This is an extreme in Islamic countries and to a lesser degree in some western countries, e.g. the politics in the USA has an excess of Christian influence from powerful and rich pressure groups.

In a world free of these oppressive and indoctrinal influences how would poeple truly develop given an open and rational education system?

 

[S.A.M.]

Gustav:

Sorry I'm not in to dawa'h

Fitra is the innate state of a person. Ghazali went by the assumption that there is such a thing as an innate state. ie, something that is the self and that perception by the self, if it can be verified and replicated, is the only real means we have of getting closer to any form of truth.

sam,

I pass no judgement only the observation of why we see Christianity tending to be passive and peaceful and Islam threatening and violent.

Who is we? And where in the name of heaven do you see a peaceful Christianity? The Bible? The Crusades? The Dark Ages? World war one and two? The holocaust? The cold war? Korea? Phillipines? Hawaii? Native America? South America? Australia? Tasmania? The Gulf wars? the Cold war? The Iraq war? The Afgan war? The colonies of western nations? The creation of the third world? Structural adjustment policies? Where?

I think you don't see much of anything at all.

 

[Gustav]

Sorry I'm not in to dawa'h

Fitra is the innate state of a person. Ghazali went by the assumption that there is such a thing as an innate state. ie, something that is the self and that perception by the self, if it can be verified and replicated, is the only real means we have of getting closer to any form of truth.

kindly use the english equivalents of these arabic terms
i am neither native to that region nor a arab linguist
what is this? an insidious way of promulgating the faith?

how dare you wench

ok thats all well and good but what about the alleged correlation to frikking allah and islam. you do know that the concept has been expanded, ja?
how does one make a connection?

thru faith?
reason?

 

[S.A.M.]

kindly use the english equivalents of these arabic terms
i am neither native to that region nor a arab linguist
what is this? an insidious way of promulgating the faith?

how dare you wench

ok thats all well and good but what about the alleged correlation to frikking allah and islam. you do know that the concept has been expanded, ja?
how does one make a connection?

thru faith?
reason?

The English equivalent of fitra would be "the natural state". According to Islamic philosophers, since it is described in the Quran it is the state of all people [even non-Muslims]. It has a physical component, which is an appreciation of the natural state of the body and a spiritual component, which is an emphasis on the natural state of the soul, or mind.

Fitra then is the natural self and all human beings should look towards their own natural self for self realisation. That is the state of submission to the natural laws of God and is the state of Islam.


Dawa'h: invitation. In religious terms an invitation to Islam

 

[Gustav]

Fitra then is the natural self and all human beings should look towards their own natural self for self realisation.

good

That is the state of submission to the natural laws of God and is the state of Islam.

wholly unwarranted extrapolation due to the introduction of concepts that cannot withstand a reasoned scrutiny

natural laws?
god?
islam?

get those right before constructing a religion with at least a modicum of sense

 

[Cris]

sam,

Who is we? And where in the name of heaven do you see a peaceful Christianity? The Bible? The Crusades? The Dark Ages? World war one and two? The holocaust? The cold war? Korea? Phillipines? Hawaii? Native America? South America? Australia? Tasmania? The Gulf wars? the Cold war? The Iraq war? The Afgan war? The colonies of western nations? The creation of the third world? Structural adjustment policies? Where?

Don't be so silly. These are all fundamentally politically and ideologically motivated events. Although the bible is not an event.

Religion has always been used as a pawn in the great events of the past. Even the most apparently religious war, the crusades, was fundamentally about territory. In the majority of the past, rulers, kings, etc, have always used religion as a basis for their power, and conveniently for their own purposes ignored the vital peaceful tenets that all religions possess.

Surely you know this well enough.

 

[Gustav]

oh dearie dearie me

I, Gustav, the Most Distinguished and Preeminent Member Of the Atheist Advancement Association (AAA), Sciforums Chapter, Hereby Expel Chris for his Treasonous Activities as a Christian Apologetic on this Board

You All have Been Warned!​

mmhmm
thats right
mmhmmm
keep walking, biatch!

 

[Cris]

hehe.

Yes but sam always says the opposite of whatever I say, so soon she'll be a fundamentalist atheist.

 

[S.A.M.]

sam,

Don't be so silly. These are all fundamentally politically and ideologically motivated events. Although the bible is not an event.

Religion has always been used as a pawn in the great events of the past. Even the most apparently religious war, the crusades, was fundamentally about territory. In the majority of the past, rulers, kings, etc, have always used religion as a basis for their power, and conveniently for their own purposes ignored the vital peaceful tenets that all religions possess.

Surely you know this well enough.

I agree. So tell me again where you have seen this peaceful Christianity. I have seen many peaceful Christians, but even apostate Christianity has a blood trail that goes on for centuries/

 

[swarm]

No - I contend that anything that is not black is a different colour or shade than black. While we have the word "non-black" to describe all colours/shades that aren't black, we have the term "atheism" to describe all people who aren't theists.

Ah. So you are saying white and non black are synonyms. As I have pointed out there are many people who are non theists, the more general term, but not all non theists are atheists, a specific subset of non theists.

You cannot by fiat just declare all non theists to be atheists and this is especially so if you wish to claim the rational and moral high ground.

Again - this is nothing more than "Your definition is not correct because it is not the one I am using".

No, this is you studiously ignoring my examples of people who are neither theists nor atheists.

You have shown how people who are not theist might not be atheist only according to YOUR definition.

No, I have in several places indicated why they aren't atheists, which you have yet to counter. Your definition is faulty and unsupportable.
Mine describes the available data accurately and aligns with how people report themselves.

Again, this is nothing more than "You are wrong, I am right."

When you actually are wrong and I actually am right, you bet.

You have not shown why the initial definition is wrong or insufficient, merely state again and again that it is because it isn't the same as yours.

Ignoring it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I answered each one in turn. Go back and re-read.

No you dismissed them out of hand merely because they counter your "definition."

The definition provided is that an atheist does not hold to a belief in gods.

Unfortunately it is not the case that only atheists do not hold to a belief in gods. So it is ok to say an atheist does not hold to a belief in gods, but it is not ok to say any one who does not hold to a belief in gods is an atheist.

Are you a theist?

Me? I don't even know what a "god" is supposed to be. How should I know?

And you consider me to be irrational.

If you act irrationally shouldn't I?

It is irrelevant whether you use the label of atheist or not

I disagree. Since "god" is undefined and there are a number of positions possible all of which amount to a judgement call on belief, who you identify with is perhaps the most important aspect of it all.

Atheists, as proposed, do not have the belief in the existence of gods.
Do you? Yes or no? If Yes, you are theist. If not - atheist.

The old you are either with us or against us; or you aren't.

I choose not yes, not no.

But you are one. You just have chosen not to use the label.

Ah, but by that reasoning I'm equally a theist, but I choose not to use the lable.

Do you hold a belief in gods or not?

Is there a point to that question?
Tell me what a "god" is?
Then tell me why belief would be relevant?

I'm dead serious. If you can't tell me what a god is and why belief would be relavant, I can't answer your question. Does that really mean I'm an "atheist?"

 

[swarm]

You readlly shouldn't let SAM pwn your decussions like that.
You know she just wants to prevent any discourse and doesn't care.

 

[S.A.M.]

He already declared he had decided not to use the description he suggested. Now we're just working on tangents/

 

[Pete]

Yeah, 6.9 out of 7.0. Is there any deity he does not reject?

What's with the "6.9 out of 7.0"? What do you mean by "reject"?

That's only if the parents have brought them up as atheists.

No, not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I, for example, was brought up as a theist then consciously chose atheism.

If someone were never taught the concept of God and never thought of it themselves, then I think that they could not rightly be called an atheist.

I think that an atheist is someone who is aware of the idea of an omniscient omnipotent intelligence, but has not chosen to believe in its existence.

 

[Pete]

Actually, that's probably not quite strong enough. Atheism is a chosen position. The choice to live life and make decisions as if there is no God, perhaps. The opinion that there is no God.

I like that last one most, actually.

An atheist is someone who holds the opinion that no omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent entity (ie God) exists.

 

[S.A.M.]

What's with the "6.9 out of 7.0"? What do you mean by "reject"?

The 7.0 scale of belief has been proposed by Dawkins. With 7.0 as pure atheism, ie the position that no gos or God exist. He considers himself as 6.9, but I doubt that is because he does not reject some deity.

No, not at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I, for example, was brought up as a theist then consciously chose atheism.

If someone were never taught the concept of God and never thought of it themselves, then I think that they could not rightly be called an atheist.

I can agree with that, if they were not taught that gods/God do not exist

I think that an atheist is someone who is aware of the idea of an omniscient omnipotent intelligence, but has not chosen to believe in its existence.

You mean has chosen to reject its existence.

An atheist is someone who holds the opinions that no omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent entity (ie God) exists.

Agreed. but why the additional qualifiers? If you removed the "omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent ", would that change your position?

 

[Pete]

The qualifiers are there because some people (I won't mention names) tend to complain that atheists don't know what they don't believe in. They're redundant unless someone wants to quibble over the definition of "God".