definition of atheist (comment on 'definition' sticky)

[NMSquirrel]

and to be fair...
from OP definitions:

Atheism, As defined here it is a considered reaction. This excludes many from being labelled as atheists, e.g. infants, those who have not considered the issue, those who don't care, etc. While one could argue these should be included, in practical terms since they do not take part in the debate or offer any material then labelling them is entirely irrelevant and serves no purpose. Perhaps if they did give the matter thought, or grew to when they could then we might find they would choose theism, what then would our early label of atheism have meant? It is not worth debate.

What then of those who are apathetic towards theism and choose to ignore the issues as reaction, or perhaps those who consider the term "god" as inadequately defined, and find no comment is meaningful? I would consider them atheists if when asked they answered with anything that resembled a disbelief in the claims of theists.

but again, not all atheist are anti-theists,

and not all atheist are out to 'cure' the theist..
(no that wasn't in the quote)

 

[Balerion]

Theist? Typical. You're going to insult YOUR perception of my intelligence when you think I'm a theist and that I was actually claiming the existence of unicorns?

If that's what you think I said, then your intelligence is as non-existant as the unicorn you seem think has just as much chance of existing as God.

Can I just shoot myself in the face for every stupid thing that you said? I guess I'll look like swiss cheese afterwards but..

I'll make it plain, since you've given me plenty of reason to believe you don't take much care when reading my posts: You aren't important enough for me to be offended by your words.

I see the world as possibilities. I see that it's a possibility that some form of deity could have existed or does exist and had had a hand in the creation of, well everything. I see that it's a possibility that matter just popped into existence for the sole purpose of self destructing itself to create, well everything.

Yet you can't understand that atheism doesn't adress these possibilities? What are we supposed to make of that? Why should we take you seriously?

I understand at least fairly, haven't gone too depth in it which is my bad but quantum mechanics.

I sincerely doubt you're capable of speaking about QM in-depth.

But when that's brought up, it basically just creates a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" OR you have to reason that energy has just ALWAYS existed. But at that point, why is it any more "reasonable" to believe energy just ALWAYS existed than some deity being?

Because there's plenty of reason to believe the former, and not only no reason to believe the latter, but plenty of reason to believe the latter isn't true. Because you're too busy proclaiming what you believe to actually learn anything about these subjects, you erroneously believe it's a 50/50 proposition. Get an education to rectify this.

By no means, is my intelligence any more "limited" than your own.

Comparing atheists to Hitler and the KKK suggests it is. Not to mention the ridiculously stupid reasons you seem to think these are fitting comparisons. (Hint: "Closed-minded" isn't the first thing anyone would say about Hitler...or the KKK, for that matter)

I just see and accept the world differently than you and I don't blind myself to the hypocrisy of either side, theists or atheists. As I said before, I merely accept a label of strictly agnostic but for the most, I reject labels. Hence my username.

You have a skewed image of both sides, so your worldview is skewed. Which would be none of my concern, if you weren't so loud about how everyone else is to blame for your misery.

If I were to ask you if you thought theists believing that some form of deity existing was the ONLY possibility, the only truth.. I am fairly certain that you would answer that that is just the theist being closed minded. What makes it any different when it's the atheists believing that some form of deity existing being absolutely impossible is the ONLY possibility, the only truth?

This isn't the belief of the vast majoriy of athiests, so I'd say get your broom and sweep up all the straw...

The fact of the matter is there's nothing different. You just rationalize your belief while criticizing theists for rationalizing their own belief.

To the contrary, this is precisely what you're doing. By disguising your theism in your misunderstood idea of agnosticism, and pretending that atheism is akin to Nazi Germany, you get to act superior and criticize everyone, thereby reconciling your own ignorance without having to do anything about it.

It's the coward's way. I'm sure your parents are proud.

Here, let me put it as simply as possible for you, Balerion. Do you disbelieve in the existence of any god/deity OR do you believe in the nonexistence of all gods/deities?

Both, obviously. Of course, your error is in assuming that this means I believe there is no possibility that I'm wrong. You should know better than that, but assuming moderate integrity or intelligence gets me nowhere in this forum, so...

 

[Balerion]

but again, not all atheist are anti-theists,

What if they were? What's wrong, exactly, with being an anti-theist?

and not all atheist are out to 'cure' the theist..
(no that wasn't in the quote)

The only thing atheists are out to cure is ignorance. Since knowledge tends to snuff out religious belief, irreligion is more a welcome side-effect than a goal.

 

[NMSquirrel]

really Balerion?
why you trying so hard to start a fight?

Labels: leave him alone, he is trying to goad us.

 

[Balerion]

really Balerion?
why you trying so hard to start a fight?

Labels: leave him alone, he is trying to goad us.

Case in point. Rather than address anything I've said, you're going to try to dismiss me. Why are you even here? If you can't support any of your claims, why make them?

I asked you a question. Answer it, or retract your statement. Don't take the coward's way out.

 

[Write4U]

really? how long have you been at sciforums?

and its not to be a national precedent, its just a term to use in discussion, to differentiate levels of atheism as they do for believers.

I was not aware of levels of Atheism. However all religious persons are atheists in that they reject all gods except their own, both mentally and militarily.

I have posted this before but it bears repeating.

Typical example of religious piety: http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm

Historical background[edit]

Before 1100, the Catholic Church had already suppressed what they believed to be heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but without using torture[2] and seldom resorting to executions.[9][10] Such punishments had a number of ecclesiastical opponents, although some countries punished heresy with the death penalty.[11] [12]

In the 12th century, to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics became more frequent. The Church charged councils composed of bishops and archbishops with establishing inquisitions (see Episcopal Inquisition). The first Inquisition was temporarily established in Languedoc (south of France) in 1184. The murder in 1208 of Pope Innocent's papal legate Pierre de Castelnau sparked the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229). The Inquisition was permanently established in 1229. It was centered under the Dominicans[13] in Rome and later at Carcassonne in Languedoc

and even scarier:

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Cite me one atheist book which advocates the eradication of religious people. I can cite dozens of religious books advocating violence against "unbelievers".

 

[NMSquirrel]

Case in point. Rather than address anything I've said, you're going to try to dismiss me. Why are you even here? If you can't support any of your claims, why make them?

I asked you a question. Answer it, or retract your statement. Don't take the coward's way out.

your questions are not designed for understanding, they are designed to create a fight, you will not listen nor respect others opinions, so are not worth listening to or answering your questions.
you have been reported for harassment, rudeness, insults and trying to start a fight.
(you have just confirmed my statements of atheist causing the problems, well done.)

 

[NMSquirrel]

Cite me one atheist book which advocates the eradication of religious people. I can cite dozens of religious books advocating violence against "unbelievers".

all this is history, I know you could find more relevant and modern examples.. but, this thread isn't about which is better or worse, the only point you make(for this thread) is that the term 'Militant' does not apply to the terms being discussed. acknowledged.

how would you describe Balerion?
(in this context)

 

[Balerion]

your questions are not designed for understanding, they are designed to create a fight, you will not listen nor respect others opinions, so are not worth listening to or answering your questions.

That's not why you're ducking the question. You're ducking the question because you don't have an answer. Your disapproval of whatever you think an anti-theist is is irrational, and now that you've been put to the question, you are well aware that you can't support your hatred, so you try to divert the attention away from yourself. Shift blame, run, hide.

you have been reported for harassment, rudeness, insults and trying to start a fight.

Another blatant attempt to avoid answering questions you can't handle.

Do you feel lighter, now that you've forgone any semblance of integrity?

(you have just confirmed my statements of atheist causing the problems, well done.)

Really, Squirrel? Who made this personal? Who started with the rudeness? For the answer, look in a mirror.

 

[Write4U]

all this is history, I know you could find more relevant and modern examples.. but, this thread isn't about which is better or worse, the only point you make(for this thread) is that the term 'Militant' does not apply to the terms being discussed. acknowledged.

how would you describe Balerion?
(in this context)

I refer you back to the red underlined portion of post 46. You ask me about "militant" in the face of such "EVIL" concept.

I have no clue as to Balerions religion or lack thereof, as it should be. I respect and value his considered thoughts on any subject and I have never heard him say "punishment (for atheism, witchcraft, devil worship, possession) does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[8]

OTOH, I can pick up a bible and learn how to become EVIL on almost every page....http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Read it and learn what religion teaches your subconscious mind.

I am from Europe and have seen the instruments of torture employed by the very people charged with preserving "morality". Have you already forgottent he Catholic scandals, or did the offenders just got cured? Perhaps a day on the rack might be more effective than a transfer to a small town where the people bow to the ground when the pastor passes by. Disgusting in its deviancy.

NMSquirrel, yes. all this IS history and NOTHING has changed. Theists scare me and for good reason. Being beaten by a gang of thugs for proposing that living things are made from atoms, does not give me comfort in the "arms of the lord".

As to the Middle East, I say send everybody everybody a weapon and let them fight it out to the death so we can get rid of this ridiculous notion that you can hurt another person on the grounds that God is on your side? Let's put it to the test, I say. Does that make me militant? You bet I shall always be militant against EVIL DOERS regardless if they act on Divine Command.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I refer you back to the red underlined portion of post 46. You ask me about "militant" in the face of such "EVIL" concept.

I have no clue as to Balerions religion or lack thereof, as it should be. I respect and value his considered thoughts on any subject and I have never heard him say "punishment (for atheism, witchcraft, devil worship, possession) does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[8]

yet he attempts to publicly humiliate and goad us into some sort of fight, if I were to succumb to such bait then that would give him permission to publicly verbally 'punish' me to set an example to the public that it is ok to terrorize,condemn, humiliate, ridicule or otherwise ignore any rules of civil discourse, just because someone says 'I believe in God'. regardless of whether those beliefs line up with mainstream or not, his (or for that matter all anti-theist and theists) opinions of my beliefs are wrong from the start, since he has never asked me what I believe. he assumes.

OTOH, I can pick up a bible and learn how to become EVIL on almost every page....http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Read it and learn what religion teaches your subconscious mind.

you get out of the bible what you get..
it has been agree'd that the bible can be misinterpreted many different ways, even by Christians, to take a verse out of the bible and blindly follow it is irresponsible of the reader.
there has been many traditions in the bible that has been lost to history and thereby lost interpretations (context lost to history)
to utilize the bible as an unerring, infallible text, IMO is wrong, the bible taught me to think for myself, to test all things, to not rely on just one persons take of what it means. I read it as gods attempt to show us how to think for ourselves.. unfortunately there are way too many ppl in this world who do not want to think for themselves, they would rather have someone to tell them what to do, that way they do not have to take responsibility for their actions (IE 'because the bible says so', is not a conclusion) ( aren't these types described as 'fundamental?)

and I also think this applies to the atheists who tends to rehash the same arguments over and over again then resort to ridicule when they don't have the intelligence to complete their argument(which usually tells me they are just repeating what they have heard) without insulting.(a big clue as to the intelligent level of the speaker)

both these paragraphs apply to both theist and atheist, cept there is no 'fundamental' description for the atheist,

I am from Europe and have seen the instruments of torture employed by the very people charged with preserving "morality". Have you already forgottent he Catholic scandals, or did the offenders just got cured? Perhaps a day on the rack might be more effective than a transfer to a small town where the people bow to the ground when the pastor passes by. Disgusting in its deviancy.

see thats how my take differs, I would vilify a pastor that accepted that kind of treatment, they are supposed to be teachers, not leaders. somewhere in the bible it warns to not put the pastor on a pedestal.

NMSquirrel, yes. all this IS history and NOTHING has changed. Theists scare me and for good reason. Being beaten by a gang of thugs for proposing that living things are made from atoms, does not give me comfort in the "arms of the lord".

and this is why I have an attitude against religion and the religious, the bible teaches different, I hate that religion has given God a bad reputation.

As to the Middle East, I say send everybody everybody a weapon and let them fight it out to the death so we can get rid of this ridiculous notion that you can hurt another person on the grounds that God is on your side? Let's put it to the test, I say. Does that make me militant? You bet I shall always be militant against EVIL DOERS regardless if they act on Divine Command.

the 1040 window (look it up) some Christian guy noticed that most of the world conflicts occur within this long/lat box.. while I was learning about it, I thought the same thing, put everyone who wants to fight within this area, let god sort it out..

Divine Command, the excuse of millions to force the opinions of their leaders, not Gods. (how does this differ from legislation?)

but I digress.. back to topic
for it to hold true then it must apply to believers as well..
anti-theist
anti-atheist

so what would an anti-atheist be?
I would think it would be any believer that seeks to 'convert' the atheist to be a believer.
anyone vocally against anyone who communicates a lack of belief.



granted I have been using the term anti-theist as one that also includes hostility, but im not sure if that applies to believers, (note that I didn't say 'to the religious')(believers follow God, the religious follow their religion and do not seek Gods approval, they seek approval by their pastor/elders), but guess I am also trying to include 'hate' into the description of anti-theist, and for the most part the christens I have met do not try to include hate and hostility towards the atheist, yes history is replete with these types, but not in my experience..
so I guess for the term to work properly it has to line up with history also, so maybe anti-atheist would work to mean the hostile/hate filled Christian (usually non violent, but very verbal)

 

[Write4U]

Balerion,
You should know better than that, but assuming moderate integrity or intelligence gets me nowhere in this forum, so...

Without taking credit for any special mental powers, I for one read you posts with great interest and reflection, and i find myself "gaining valuable knowledge"

 

[spidergoat]

...When atheists talk about there being no deity, there being no god. That god existing is impossible, it believing that a deity existence is illogical or irrational or whatever, that is in fact atheists asserting to know the absolute truth of the universe. Same thing with theists who assert that god or a deity existing is an absolute fact.

That isn't a common atheist position, except to the extent that some might say the idea of God is nonsensical or self contradictory in the first place, or simply undefined. You will find, especially among popular atheist authors, that they recognize the place of proper scientific doubt, and that even if a God is possible, the atheist label is about belief, not what is possible. In other words, your complaints about particular atheists are legitimate, but in the context of movement atheism, it's generally a straw man.

 

[Write4U]

all this is history, I know you could find more relevant and modern examples.. but, this thread isn't about which is better or worse, the only point you make(for this thread) is that the term 'Militant' does not apply to the terms being discussed. acknowledged.

Thus we are in agreement that the term "militant atheist" is incorrect? If so, then we agree. on that point. But it certainly applies to many "millitant theists". The proof in that is self evident and well documented in history.

how would you describe Balerion (in this context)

I would not presume to label Balerion, nor should you. But as i indicated elsewhere Balerion has more knowledge than I do and if he takes the time to write lengthy explanations, I read and consider his posts seriously.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Thus we are in agreement that the term "militant atheist" is incorrect? If so, then we agree. on that point. But it certainly applies to many "millitant theists". The proof in that is self evident and well documented in history.

yes the term 'militant' does not apply.

I would not presume to label Balerion, nor should you. But as i indicated elsewhere Balerion has more knowledge than I do and if he takes the time to write lengthy explanations, I read and consider his posts seriously.

If he spoke with intelligence(no insults or demeaning comments) and something that hasn't been rehashed over and over and over again here on sciforums, as you have, I may listen to him, but either way, it doesn't belong in this thread.

this thread is about a definition,
not a theist/atheist debate.

in order for any definition to work it has to apply to each respectively, would you agree?
what would you define the terms anti-theist, anti-atheist to mean?


an·ti
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Anti-theist
anyone against theists,
Anti-atheist
anyone against atheists.

 

[Write4U]

yes the term 'militant' does not apply.

If he spoke with intelligence(no insults or demeaning comments) and something that hasn't been rehashed over and over and over again here on sciforums, as you have, I may listen to him, but either way, it doesn't belong in this thread.

this thread is about a definition, not a theist/atheist debate.

Before you can debate anything it is usually a good thing if the terms are well defined. Which, in this case, inevitably leads us to theism and atheism.

in order for any definition to work it has to apply to each respectively, would you agree?

Not if the definition is not applicable or even coherent. IMO

what would you define the terms anti-theist, anti-atheist to mean?

a) does not compute, at best it is redundant to the term atheist. It is impossible to be actively opposed to something which does not exist in the mind of the atheist to begin with. It is not a belief system.
In fact a declared anti-theist may well be in jeopardy of his life.

b) a person who is actively opposed to atheism AND atheists. History books are full with examples of anti-atheist persecution and murder.
In fact a anti-atheist may well place your life in jeopardy. As an atheist I would not want to live in a theocracy.

This is strictly a One Way street and it always leads to the church (mosque)

 

[NMSquirrel]

a) does not compute, at best it is redundant to the term atheist. It is impossible to be actively opposed to something which does not exist in the mind of the atheist to begin with. It is not a belief system.
In fact a declared anti-theist may well be in jeopardy of his life.

the term is anti-theist not anti-theism, a theist is a person who has a belief in God, the term by definition is against the person who believes, (non violent, violent would be militant, so concern for a persons life would be militant)

b) a person who is actively opposed to atheism AND atheists. History books are full with examples of anti-atheist persecution and murder.
In fact a anti-atheist may well place your life in jeopardy. As an atheist I would not want to live in a theocracy.

and we have decided it wasn't a militant association, murder is definatly militant.
so this statement confuses the militant theist (one who would physically harm an atheist) with anti-atheist (one who is against the atheist not with violence but just with words)

thought we agree'd it was not a militant term.

 

[Balerion]

If he spoke with intelligence(no insults or demeaning comments) and something that hasn't been rehashed over and over and over again here on sciforums, as you have, I may listen to him, but either way, it doesn't belong in this thread.

One can speak intelligently and insultingly. And do I need to quote all of the posts in which you're insulting and demeaning, you hypocrit? Because if you press this matter, I absolutely can do that.

this thread is about a definition,
not a theist/atheist debate.

I don't know what "theist/atheist debate" is supposed to mean, but the disagreements within this thread have all centered around (at least for the most part) the definitions of terms. Why do you feel the need to complain about this?

in order for any definition to work it has to apply to each respectively, would you agree?

What? Please, if you're going to post, take the time to write clearly. This clunky nonsense won't do.

Anti-theist
anyone against theists,
Anti-atheist
anyone against atheists.

Incorrect. One is not anti-theist, they are an anti-theist. Instead of twisting the term to suggest something nefarious, use it as it is intended--as a substitute for atheist.

"John is an atheist."

"John is an anti-theist."

The word means to be against theism, not against theists. Again, this is simple if you'd simply pay attention instead of running off at the mouth.

 

[NMSquirrel]

And do I need to quote all of the posts in which you're insulting and demeaning,

show me where it is a clear insult and not just something you twisted into an insult.

I don't know what "theist/atheist debate" is supposed to mean,

which is why you are clueless (see I can play that way too)

What? Please, if you're going to post, take the time to write clearly. This clunky nonsense won't do.

practice what you preach, IE:

but the disagreements within this thread have all centered around (at least for the most part) the definitions of terms. Why do you feel the need to complain about this?

and at no point have you commented on the definition of the words, you have only twisted what was said into an insult.
and my complaints have been to the distractions and the attempts to corrupt this thread.

Incorrect. One is not anti-theist, they are an anti-theist. Instead of twisting the term to suggest something nefarious, use it as it is intended--as a substitute for atheist.

"John is an atheist."

"John is an anti-theist."

The word means to be against theism, not against theists. Again, this is simple if you'd simply pay attention instead of running off at the mouth.

this just shows you can't read. nor understand simple English (see how this type of comments affects what you are trying to communicate?)
really there should be no discussion as the words used are perfectly acceptable English.

Anti-theist is not the same as anti-theism
same with anti-atheist is not the same as anti-atheism.

john is an atheist
john is an anti-theist
both can be true, the difference being, one just doesn't believe in any God or Gods, the other is against theists
(not to be confused with anti-deity, anyone against God)

John is Anti-theism , means he is against the religion and not the individual. (think this is where you are seeing the difference with "An")

john is an Anti-theist
john is Anti-theist
both can be true but with different meanings...
one is a person, the other a philosopy

so using that logic, it would be less insulting to say 'john is anti-theist' rather than as you say 'John is an anti-theist', but both can still be true.

----
so I want to dissect your comment:

Incorrect. One is not anti-theist, they are an anti-theist. Instead of twisting the term to suggest something nefarious, use it as it is intended--as a substitute for atheist.

"Incorrect"
well that's a lot better than starting with "wrong", but still assumes absolute knowledge, which in this case turns out to be incorrect.

"One is not anti-theist, they are an anti-theist"
see comments above, not quite true.. but this statement points to your point which I think I am beginning to see.

"Instead of twisting the term to suggest something nefarious"
I was just starting to see your point and then you say this, now my attention is on this statement and not your point.
and for the record it was you that is twisting the meaning of things, IE you say that the term Anti-theist is the same as the term anti-theism.

"use it as it is intended--"
as intended? how do you mean? how you intended or how I intended, how did I intend it?, well I think I have communicated that, maybe not..:shrug:
"as a substitute for atheist"
well yes, that's how I use it, thought I was clear on this.

so why are you so defensive about it??

it is you that have taken what I said and turned it into something it is not, instead of understanding what I have said, you have been so busy hearing it in your own context that you have not been hearing the context that was intended.

now, whenever I have talked to science type ppl (teachers) they tend to scrutinize their own thoughts of a subject before committing to any opinions, IOW they ask questions to be sure that what they thought they heard is truly what they heard( much more figuring out if the speaker is using the terms correctly), they tend not to react to what others say, as you do.

when it comes to matters of God/no God, there is no absolute proof one way or the other, which means no matter how hard you try otherwise, your opinions of no God are just that, opinion, not fact.(same as me, I understand my belief in God is based on my own opinions of who/what he is, in fact I would argue to force others to believe as I do is wrong and against what God wants)
I can counter any argument you have(as you could I) and still neither one of us will change our opinion, I am fine with you believing there is no god, can you be fine with my opinion that there is?

 

[Write4U]

the term is anti-theist not anti-theism, a theist is a person who has a belief in God, the term by definition is against the person who believes, (non violent, violent would be militant, so concern for a persons life would be militant) and we have decided it wasn't a militant association, murder is definatly militant.

There is no such things as a militant anti-theist. Nothing to be militant about.

so this statement confuses the militant theist (one who would physically harm an atheist) with anti-atheist (one who is against the atheist not with violence but just with words) thought we agree'd it was not a militant term.

Right, the term only applies to militant anti-atheists and there is (or should be) a term anti-atheism (as represented by the Inquisition). All religions are anti-atheists. Some are more militant than others.

The problem is that "militant anti-atheists" who will misunderstand anything if it does not agree with their belief and take action to "cleanse" the world from the inherently evil Atheists.
History!