Religion Becomes Extinct in Several Countires

It's the absence of religiousity as stated in another thread.
The things you say above have nothing to do with atheism.
 
YoYoPapaya said:
It's the absence of religiousity as stated in another thread.
The things you say above have nothing to do with atheism.
Click to expand...
If you are doing this :

First, by bringing forward good reasons for disbelieving religious claims; second, by offering naturalistic explanations of religion.

... you certainly don't have anything near an absence of region.
 
lightgigantic said:
An ideology is much more than being vocal. Its a code by which one leads at least part of one's life or a world view. IOW if one has a world view that expressly avoids any involvement of another group of people or entertaining what they hold as pivotal or valid (for a host of derivative reasons), one has an ideology.

Talking about a type of imagined atheism where one doesn't have the knowledge base to lodge some sort of critique of religion is a category that certainly doesn't involve you or any other atheist poster on these boards
Click to expand...

Please don't berate me. I already answered. Atheism is absence of religious beliefs. People here on this forum do not speak for every atheist in the world. They are individuals. It's not an atheist "value" to speak in a derogatrory manner about religious people. True that some atheists will do this. But just like not all christians burn the Quran to offend the moslem world, not all atheists post anti theist material on science forums. There are no atheist code, values or ideology. It's just the absence of religiousity. That's it.
 
YoYoPapaya said:
Please don't berate me. I already answered. Atheism is absence of religious beliefs. People here on this forum do not speak for every atheist in the world. They are individuals. It's not an atheist "value" to speak in a derogatrory manner about religious people.
Click to expand...
As already explained, if the opinions are derivative (IOW if all the individuals making the points are drawing upon the same essential points) and fall back on a critique of standard (arguably sub-standard) religiosity, you have an ideology.

If you want to talk about persons who don't make these points (even to themselves) then you are talking about persons outside of the knowledge base, which effectively rules them out of even the possibility of offering a critique,.
True that some atheists will do this. But just like not all christians burn the Quran to offend the moslem world, not all atheists post anti theist material on science forums.
Click to expand...
Hence some persons are more ideological active (even if in a radical sense) than others.
As mentioned before, ideology is so much more than merely wearing it on your t-shirt or whatever.

There is no atheist code, values or ideology. It's just the absence of religiousity. That's it.
Click to expand...
nonsense

here are two key points of it

First, by bringing forward good reasons for disbelieving religious claims; second, by offering naturalistic explanations of religion.
 
a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Use atheism in a Sentence
See images of atheism
Search atheism on the Web

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

—Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ism, adjective, noun
pro·a·the·ism, noun
Click to expand...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
 
YoYoPapaya said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Click to expand...
fits in quite snuggly with ...

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).
Click to expand...

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

hence
Atheists may be said to defend their position in two broad ways. First, by bringing forward good reasons for disbelieving religious claims; second, by offering naturalistic explanations of religion.
Click to expand...

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/arguments.html
 
It's funny how religious people are very busy telling atheists that atheism is a religion/ideology/faith or other things that it's not. I wonder why this is. Would you find it offensive (assuming you're a christian) if i told you that christianity is really satanism?
 
YoYoPapaya said:
It's funny how religious people are very busy telling atheists that atheism is a religion/ideology/faith or other things that it's not.
Click to expand...

Its even more funny how atheists can launch into page after page of religious critiques while simultaneously advocating that they don't have an ideology on the strength of a person theoretically growing up in an environment where they are totally oblivious to any pending religious issues.

I wonder why this is. Would you find it offensive (assuming you're a christian) if i told you that christianity is really satanism?
Click to expand...
If you want to say that atheism is bereft of ideology, you could even say that one is a christian atheist
:shrug:
 
YoYoPapaya said:
Does your religion dictate that you should offend atheists?
Click to expand...
No, but much like other ideologies it does have the necessary frame work to contextualize the claims of atheists ... much like atheists have the necessary framework to contextualize the claims of theists

:shrug:
 
YoYoPapaya said:
I think you confuse atheism and antitheism.
Click to expand...
lol

If you think you can be a so-called atheist (one who has no belief in god etc) without being a so-called ant-theist (one who has a range of ideas for how atheism is a reasonable position) you are simply off on some wild tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with contemporary society (or its history for the past few thousand recorded years)
:eek:
 
Sorry... You're wrong.

An antitheist will always be atheist but not the other way around.
I have lots of atheist friends that aren't anti-theist. They just don't believe.
 
YoYoPapaya said:
Sorry... You're wrong.

An antitheist will always be atheist but not the other way around.
I have lots of atheist friends that aren't anti-theist. They just don't believe.
Click to expand...
You have lots of atheist friends that are totally bereft of any ideological frame work to contextualize the claims of theists?

:eek:
 
Question:
What's the difference between atheism and anti-theism? Aren't all atheists also anti-theists?



Answer:
Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all.

When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn't quite compatible with anti-theism. People who are indifferent to the existence of alleged gods are atheists because they don't believe in the existence of any gods, but at the same time this indifference prevents them from being anti-theists as well. To a degree, this describes many if not most atheists because there are plenty of alleged gods they simply don't care about and, therefore, also don't care enough to attack belief in such gods. Atheistic indifference towards not only theism but also religion is relatively common and would probably be standard if religious theists weren't so active in proselytizing and expecting privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their institutions.

When defined narrowly as denying the existence of gods, the compatibility between atheism and anti-theism may appear more likely. If a person cares enough to deny that gods exist, then perhaps they care enough to attack belief in gods as well — but not always. Lots of people will deny that elves or fairies exist, but how many of these same people also attack belief in such creatures? If we want to limit ourselves to just religious contexts, we can say the same about angels: there are far more people who reject angels than who reject gods, but how many nonbelievers in angels attack the belief in angels? How many a-angel-ists are also anti-angel-ists? Of course, we also don't have people proselytizing on behalf of elves, fairies, or angels very much and we certainly don't have believers arguing that they and their beliefs should be privileged very much. It's thus only to be expected that most of those who deny the existence of such beings are also relatively indifferent towards those who do believe.

Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.

It's worth noting here that, however, unlikely it may be in practice, it's possible in theory for a theist to be an anti-theist. This may sound bizarre at first, but remember that some people have argued in favor of promoting false beliefs if they are socially useful. Religious theism itself has been just such a belief, with some people arguing that because religious theism promotes morality and order it should be encouraged regardless whether it is true or not. Utility is placed above truth-value.

It also happens occasionally that people make the same argument in reverse: that even though something is true, believing it is harmful or dangerous and should be discouraged. The government does this all the time with things it would rather people not know about. In theory, it's possible for someone to believe (or even know) that a god exists, but also believe that theism is harmful in some manner — for example, by causing people to fail to take responsibility for their own actions or by encouraging immoral behavior. In such a situation, the theist would also be an anti-theist.

Although such a situation is incredibly unlikely to occur, it serves the purpose of underscoring the difference between atheism and anti-theism. Disbelief in gods doesn't automatically lead to opposition to theism any more than opposition to theism needs to be based on disbelief in gods. This also helps tell us why differentiating between them is important: rational atheism cannot be based on anti-theism and rational anti-theism cannot be based on atheism. If a person wishes to be a rational atheist, they must do so on the basis of something other than simply thinking theism is harmful; if a person wishes to be a rational anti-theist, they must find a basis other than simply not believing that theism if true or reasonable.

Rational atheism may be based on many things: lack of evidence from theists, arguments which prove that god-concepts are self contradictory, the existence of evil in the world, etc. Rational atheism cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is harmful because even something that's harmful may be true. Not everything that's true about the universe is good for us, though. Rational anti-theism may be based on a belief in one of many possible harms which theism could do; it cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is false. Not all false beliefs are necessarily harmful and even those that are aren't necessarily worth fighting.
Click to expand...

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm
 
the text describes the difference between an atheist and an antitheist. What text did you read?
 
YoYoPapaya said:
the text describes the difference between an atheist and an antitheist. What text did you read?
Click to expand...
the text says nothing about how atheists are bereft of the framework to contextualize the claims of theists ... he does talk however about a lack of political support for such ideologies ... hence my suggestion he is more about pursuing political agendas as opposed to explaining the world views that frame them.

If you think I am wrong, please cite the reference where he talks about atheism being totally bereft of the framework to contextualize the claims of theists.
 
Atheism is absence of religious faith by definition sir. Whatever else tendencies atheists might have are individual. Many (as the text says) will be anti theists, naturalists and what not. Whether or not an atheist "bereft of the framework to contextualize the claims of theists" is purely individual. I would guess in most cases no, but i can easily imagine an atheist who is not able to make this contextualization. I am talking about the words definition not sociology.

I do also know for a fact that there are atheists that aren't antitheistic. In fact one of my closest atheist friends said: "People are totally entitled to their beliefs as long as they don't harm any other people or proselytize". He doesn't agree with my antitheistic ways at all and thinks that i should keep my mouth shut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top