Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that, in order to qualify as an atheist, you only have to have a lack of belief in god or gods. There is nothing more to it.
Religion Becomes Extinct in Several Countires
- Thread starter Arkonos
- Start date
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that, in order to qualify as an atheist, you only have to have a lack of belief in god or gods. There is nothing more to it.
People are trying to shove their mythology into the science classes of the schools that my taxes pay for. I don't want that to happen. So I am trying to understand what drives seemingly rational humans to do that.
You're the only one making the term political. Everyone else seem to understand it quite well.
If its not political feel free to cite which parts clarify it as distinct.
then what is the default atheist response to "god is real"?
"yes that is a truth I don't have a problem with"
well no
one is contextualizing a claim about god's existence (ie magic thinking, etc) and the other doesn't have a knowledge base to even begin discussing it, much less contextualizing the subject.
I don't have to prove that two different words with different meanings have different meanings... It would be redundant.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
There is no default atheist response.then what is the default atheist response to "god is real"?
"yes that is a truth I don't have a problem with"
Well yes
Both have a lack of belief in God.
Its ironic that an atheist will spend hours of their time extolling the glories of their ideology and then clamp down when one highlights the point.I think you are rather secretive.
You'll need to tell us more, either in a personalized way (ie. telling about your thoughts, feelings and experiences) or in an abstract way (ie. providing a detailed philosophical account of your stance).
Personally I think its because part of the atheist critique involves the criticism of religious institutions - and in this way atheism is artificially played as some sort of maverick and winning the upper the hand being "beyond institutions" (or doctrine or ideology or value).
You're using it wrongly again. It's like saying "I find it ironic that christians will work all day at a weapon factory creating bombs that kill people"
You're using a small sample of atheists who happens to also be vocal antitheists on this forum and then generalising their behavior to extend to each and every atheist in the world. I don't know if you're only trolling or you are actually serious. It gets more and more difficult to believe the latter.
You're using a small sample of atheists who happens to also be vocal antitheists on this forum and then generalising their behavior to extend to each and every atheist in the world. I don't know if you're only trolling or you are actually serious. It gets more and more difficult to believe the latter.
You are down playing the ideology which empowers "anti-theism" yet unites it with "atheism" by demanding that the definitions rest purely in political terms.
IOW if you think ideology is simply about being vocal, you simply don't understand the term.
Atheism is not ideology. It's defined as the lack of religiousity. If you deny that the term anti-theist is a real or non politicised word then feel free to create another one. I don't really understand why you want to deny something factual. Every dictionary will tell you that atheism means non religious, nothing else.
As far as I can understand, the only way an atheist can respond to the effect that "god is real" is if they corrupt the term ("yes elvis is real, the god of rock n roll") or if they contextualize the statement ("yes god is real ... in the lives of people who have subscribed to mythical belief systems due to a lack of proper understanding in the naturalistic systems which govern our universe") ... both of which require ideologies BTW
One operates out of an ideological framework and the other doesn't.
Kind of like saying all 6 year olds display a higher degree parental responsibility than 26 year olds because they don't beget unwanted progeny
:shrug:
How about: "I'll believe him when i see him"?
or *shrug*
Every atheist (aside from the imaginary scenario of an orphan being raised by a herd of buffalo in remote Africa or whatever) will provide, even if only to themselves, the means to refuse, refute, disbelieve or otherwise contextualize theistic ideology.
That's because the only way that one can confront, agree, critique or otherwise deal with an ideology is with an ideology. Trying to lump low end political advocates of an ideology with persons who are totally bereft of a knowledge base in the field is simply absurd
... although granted that the variations within an ideology are often categorized in regards to the political hue of the advocate.
I am not denying that anti-theism is a real term. What I am suggesting however is that you are wrong to suggest that only an anti-theist partakes of an ideological stance ..... much like it is wrong to suggest that it was only persons who took an active political stance to oust the British from Ireland (by joining the IRA for example) that partook of the ideology of Irish independence ... or that those who didn't express such a level of political involvement are ideologically on par with new born babies in china (since new born babies in china also have a politically neutral attitude to British involvement in Irish politics)
you are probably heading down the road of agnosticism with that one, since atheism, by necessity, has a requirement to contextualize the claims of persons who experience god.
IOW atheism places a need on the advocate to discredit or somehow contextualize the claim "I believe god because I have seen him" (or words to that effect)
my point is that you only distinguish the two in terms by degree of political involvement and that such a distinction fails to make one distinctly an ideological stance and the other distinctly not an ideological stance.
The reason is because weak and strong political views both stem from an ideology.
Ok this is the most reasonable post you have made so far in this debate, so i will provide a reasonable answer.
If the whole world was atheist the term would make no sense. You wouldn't define yourself as an atheist because there are no religious with various invisible deities to contrast your non belief. The term only exists because people still believe in gods. Otherwise it would be obsolete.
Antitheism is the belief that religion is harmful to mankind and actively seek to combat it at every given opportunity. There are some like Cristopher Hitchens that are really extreme about their antitheism and i would think that it would offend religious people. It's far from every atheist that backs up on this battle. Most atheists I know say that he's too much. That you shouldn't tell people how to think or make fun of religion the way he does. I don't think i can be clearer than that. There is a huge difference between atheism and antitheism. Just the fact that you can believe in God and be an antitheist (but not an atheist) should prove this to you.
Cristopher Hitchens is not a spokesperson for atheists. He's a spokesperson for anti theism. A good example to explain my stance in this debate.
I'm totally behind Hitchens in this battle. He speaks for atheism and anti-theism. And he doesn't have to refute theism with an ideology of his own, theism is bad enough on it's face.
Heh Spider. You're the radical here. Thank for making me look moderate
Usually Americans jump down MY throat haha
Usually Americans jump down MY throat haha