Atheism - what it means - a proposed forum standard

[Cris]

sam,

Your current position re: all deities is that they do not exist [natural birth or not].

That is still incorrect. I have no idea whether gods exist or not, have existed, or might one day exist. There is no evidence either way and hence no basis on which to form a rational belief. I do not hold any beliefs in the matter. Continuing to insist that I hold a belief because I am not convinced by current arguments is entirely futile and quite false.

 

[John99]

...

i dont know, thje whole idea of joining a group that labels me creeps me out.

look at it like this chris, if there is a parking lot full of red cars then we can say 'this is the red car owners club'

if the lot is empty we would not say 'this is the non-red car owners club'

why cant Atheists just call themselves Agnostics? that is what they really are anyway.

just so i am clear: i am neither theist nor atheist.

 

[scifes]

in sciforums:

atheists are those who say they don't believe god exists.

many of them believe god does not exist, but i think that's beside the point.

definition reached, thread closed.

 

[John99]

but 'believe' is kind of irrelevant. if i say 'i believe it will rain tomorrow' what does that mean in the larger scheme of things?

 

[iceaura]

why cant Atheists just call themselves Agnostics? that is what they really are anyway.

The confusion would be the same, and the level of integrity would be lower - the implication of significant uncertainty or suspension of judgment is not accurate.

Which scientist are you referring to? Who is the creative atheist without any religious influence?

This is the claim, please read carefully:

And yet the most imaginative among us seem to also be the more likely atheistic
- - - - -
Scientists, for example. Famously. And disproportionately artists, musicians, novelists, explorers, etc, less obviously.

 

[John99]

the implication of significant uncertainty or suspension of judgment is not accurate.

that is why i said Agnostic. your answer resemble fundamentalism.

 

[iceaura]

that is why i said Agnostic. your answer resemble fundamentalism.

? You lost me there.

Why do you prefer the less accurate term?

 

[S.A.M.]

This is the claim, please read carefully:

Names gimme names. Which atheists with no religious background in the above?

 

[iceaura]

This is the claim, please read carefully:
”
Names gimme names. Which atheists with no religious background in the above?

No, SAM, no deflections today: the claim is repeated for you there, it is reasonably clear and uncomplicated, and I will not be responding to irrelevancies presented under its auspices.

 

[S.A.M.]

The claim is that atheists are more creative. All I have to do is look at states that are atheistic, see the zombie style of populace they come up with and your claim makes no sense.

 

[iceaura]

The claim is that atheists are more creative.

Careful: The claim was that creative people are more likely to be atheistic.

All I have to do is look at states that are atheistic, see the zombie style of populace they come up with and your claim makes no sense.

My claim was not about states.

 

[S.A.M.]

The most dominant form of creativity lasting across civilisations is the building of houses of worship. Are these atheistic endeavours?

 

[iceaura]

The most dominant form of creativity lasting across civilisations is the building of houses of worship. Are these atheistic endeavours?

The assertion is false (music and dance and poetry and adornments and clothing and weaponry are far more dominant than houses of worship), and the question is again off track - please to read the claim itself, once again: it is not about "endeavors".

 

[S.A.M.]

Even if we were to consider music, dance and poetry, one can find in every civilisation that these were introduced or disseminated as an adjunct to religious teaching.

 

[Cris]

Posts about who is more creative is off-topic. Please take that discussion to another thread if you want to contiue.

 

[iceaura]

Even if we were to consider music, dance and poetry, one can find in every civilisation that these were introduced or disseminated as an adjunct to religious teaching.

Not "introduced". Religion of course coopts the ambient culture - borrows the festivals and celebrations, monopolizes and adjusts for its benefit marriage and other societal controls on sexual privileges, etc - but it hardly "introduces" such features. The sources of the creativity in my own culture are certainly not any of the major religions - they outsource that stuff.

And that may be as true of atheistic religion as theistic, btw. A property of institutionalization rather than intellectual factors.

But enough of that tangent - the claim remains unconsidered, overlooked perhaps?

Posts about who is more creative is off-topic. Please take that discussion to another thread if you want to contiue.

OK, I'm out.

But I don't think the OP topic has much stretch left, without such tangents. One way to approach a definition of "atheist" is to establish who you want it to cover, after all - if Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci and Chaucer and Christopher Wren are all theist by the forum definition, that changes things.

 

[S.A.M.]

Since Cris has requested we shut it, this is just by way of closure.

The sources of the creativity in my own culture are certainly not any of the major religion

I would oppose that sentiment. I see all creative endeavours in your society as coming from those who were exposed to religious influences either parental or scholastic. I see some endeavours from "pure" atheists but not what I would call creative, more what I would consider as technical.

 

[quadraphonics]

I see all creative endeavours in your society as coming from those who were exposed to religious influences either parental or scholastic.

Everyone in our society is "exposed to religious influences either parental or scholastic." That's not the same thing as being religious, and it doesn't even speak to the question of the "source" of creativity.

 

[Sarkus]

i dont know, thje whole idea of joining a group that labels me creeps me out.

There's no group to join. It is merely a label that people can apply to a single aspect of another person, whether that person wants to be labelled as such or not.

look at it like this chris, if there is a parking lot full of red cars then we can say 'this is the red car owners club'

And that would be a logical fallacy: converse accident.

why cant Atheists just call themselves Agnostics? that is what they really are anyway.

Because some agnostics are theists, and some atheists don't consider themselves agnostic.
Theism and atheism are about a single matter - whether you have belief in the existence of god (theism) or you don't (atheism).
Agnosticism is an epistemological stance that means either the person has no knowledge / evidence of god or that the very metaphysical issue of god is fundamentally unknowable.
Note how agnosticism says nothing about belief (or not) in the (non-) existence of god.

just so i am clear: i am neither theist nor atheist.

Do you have a belief in the existence of god? If yes - you are theist. If no - you are atheist, whether you wish to label yourself as such or not. With you it is even a considered position - i.e. not one you are utterly ignorant of (such as with inanimate objects, newborn babies etc).

So just to be clear, I would say you are atheist, on grounds that you do not claim to be theist.
I'm assuming you are also agnostic (I might be wrong, so apologies) - which generally leads to someone also being atheist - but not always.

 

[Pete]

My "entrenched position" is more reflective of reality. Show me an atheist who believes deities may exist. If you can find one.

[thread=71199]Old poll[/thread]. Even Dawkins allows the possibility that God exists.