Deny God and win a free DVD

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dogooder
Well, yes, I'm sure there are such people. However, I don't think I've seen any in this thread. Was it only that quote "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime," or were there others? Can you give me an example of an evangelical or extremist atheist, by your definition?

Sam Harris, one of the darlings of outspoken atheism, says that science must destroy religion. Whether you agree with him or not you cannot deny that there is a segment of atheists who believe that religion must be eliminated.

 

[IAteYourMother]

I always took atheism to be a worldview in which the supernatural/God does not exist

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Kev
Do you believe in Santa Claus?

If not, should you consider yourself a member of the religion of not believing in santa claus?

Can you see the flaw in your argument?

If you preach at people telling them to also not believe in Santa Claus, then yes, you are religious about your non-belief in Santa Claus.

Can you not see the flaw in YOUR argument?

So now preaching = religion?

Did you just pull that out of your ass or what?

Read the definition I posted fool. You are a prime example of a religious atheist. You fear and attack anything which questions your fragile belief system.

For the last time, lack of belief in something != belief system. It's not that complicated.

Lack of belief in god is agnosticism, it's passive. Atheism is active denial of the existence of god.

a·the·ism
?noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

See that word? Belief.

I don't personally believe in god. Nor do I believe in the lack of god. More importantly I don't care whether god exists or not, and don't care what other people believe. It's annoying to be thumped repeatedly on the head by people who fall on either side of the god debate being told that I need to actively choose their particular belief system. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and try to convert me. I've also been told by atheists that as an agnostic I'm an idiot for sitting on the fence and that I need to choose a side. They're both religious zealots.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Lack of belief in god is agnosticism, it's passive. Atheism is active denial of the existence of god.

Wrong. Lack of belief is agnostic atheism. Active denial is gnostic atheism. See my post above for an explanation.

a·the·ism
?noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

See that word? Belief.

Argumentum ad Dictionarium is a fallacy. Dictionaries do not define words, they record word usage -- even sloppy usage. Definitions are not "true" or "false" whether or not they appear in a dictionary.

I don't personally believe in god. Nor do I believe in the lack of god.

If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. Atheism and theism form a perfect dichotomy. What type of atheist you are will depend on other things.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Garth
If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. Atheism and theism form a perfect dichotomy. What type of atheist you are will depend on other things.

Agreed, and while some will knock it, the wikipedia on atheism is rather detailed on these 'types'.

 

[kinev]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: kinev
Ummm, that's not right. "Atheism by definition is the skepticism of religious beliefs". That's agnosticism. You are missing a key distinction.

Atheists say there is no God.
a·the·ism Pronunciation (th-zm) n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Agnostics say there is no proof of God, so I don't know.
ag·nos·tic Pronunciation (g-nstk) n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

1.) Atheism is a belief system like baldness is a hair color.
2.) A subset of atheists can make the claim that no god exists, but this is not atheism proper.
3.) Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They are orthogonal dichotomies -- meaning we can coherently discuss agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and gnostic atheists.

Come on! If you're going to use "by definition" at least get it right.

Physician, heal thyself!

Atheism takes just as much faith (which they seem to look down upon) as Theism does.

You think that only because you are ignoring the real intricacies of atheism vis a vis theism.

Hmmmm. Not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, atheism is a belief system. I'm not clear on why it isn't. I just put some definitions on there. If you don't agree with how atheism is defined, sorry. It's not my definition.

What are the real intricacies of atheism vis a vis (pretentious test = +) theism? What exactly is atheism proper? Lots of disagreeing and posturing, but not much substance.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Garth

a·the·ism
?noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

See that word? Belief.

Argumentum ad Dictionarium is a fallacy. Dictionaries do not define words, they record word usage -- even sloppy usage. Definitions are not "true" or "false" whether or not they appear in a dictionary.

Yet several people in this thread are making the argument that atheism cannot be a religion because atheists by definition do not believe in god while religion by definition requires a belief in god. Fallacy indeed.

I'd argue about consensus as a valid basis for language, but that's a separate thread.

I don't personally believe in god. Nor do I believe in the lack of god.

If you are not a theist, you are an atheist. Atheism and theism form a perfect dichotomy. What type of atheist you are will depend on other things.

I'm not arguing the binary nature of theism/atheism. What I'm arguing against is the assertion that atheists "by definition" cannot treat their disbelief in god as a religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: kinev

Hmmmm. Not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, atheism is a belief system.

Just like baldness is a color of hair, right?

I'm not clear on why it isn't. I just put some definitions on there. If you don't agree with how atheism is defined, sorry. It's not my definition.

I didn't say it was your definition, but I am saying that it is an unuseful definition because it ignores the relevant details.

What are the real intricacies of atheism vis a vis (pretentious test = +) theism? What exactly is atheism proper?

Theism requires a belief: "A god or gods exist." Atheism does not require a belief: "I do not believe a god or gods exist." "I do not believe..." does not a belief system make. That is the minimally necessary and sufficient condition for atheism. Certainly, a subset of atheists can take it further and positively assert a belief that God does not exist, but that is only a subset of atheists.

 

[ultimatebob]

Nah... If I'm going to spend an eternity in hell, I should at least get a good movie out of it 🙂

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dogooder
Well, yes, I'm sure there are such people. However, I don't think I've seen any in this thread. Was it only that quote "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime," or were there others? Can you give me an example of an evangelical or extremist atheist, by your definition?

Sam Harris, one of the darlings of outspoken atheism, says that science must destroy religion. Whether you agree with him or not you cannot deny that there is a segment of atheists who believe that religion must be eliminated.

Keep in mind that the media has a tendency to be sensational. Thus the title may not tell the whole story. Here is part of what Harris concludes:

To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity ? birth, marriage, death, etc. ? without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

It seems like he is explicitly trying to save meaning and morality, while wanting only to destroy the beliefs that lack evidence--this is what he means by religion in that article. Do you not agree?

 

[DVK916]

The theist in this thread is so nasty.

FYI Atheism isn't a faith, or a religion. It is the realization that god is a delusion you theist created. A delusion that has done more damage to society than any other disease.

Look at WW2, Hitler killed millions in the name of god, look at the middle east people fighting over religion again, and again millions have died since WW2 over religion in the middle east, Congo, and the Balkans. People will continue to do because of religion, until we finally purge our self of it. The only good thing to come from these religious wars is they move us one step closer to ridding the world of this disease, because as each theist dies, we become more enlightened as a race

 

[BoberFett]

I just read the Wiki article, and it is pretty good. It doesn't really disprove my point though. The article points out the different schools of thought: strong atheism and weak atheism. I guess I qualify as a weak atheist if you want to use their definitions. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins qualify as strong atheists and their diatribes are, to me the listener, no different than hearing a Baptist preacher screeching about fire and brimstone.

 

[DVK916]

Richard Dawkins is nothing like a Baptist preacher, he is trying to educate people on the disease that theist have, the Baptist preacher are spreading this disease.

 

[DVK916]

double post by mistake.

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: johngute
too bad i already traded my soul for a dozen donuts

Wait, that actually works? Where do I do it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Tell that to Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot.

:roll:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dogooder

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dogooder
Well, yes, I'm sure there are such people. However, I don't think I've seen any in this thread. Was it only that quote "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime," or were there others? Can you give me an example of an evangelical or extremist atheist, by your definition?

Sam Harris, one of the darlings of outspoken atheism, says that science must destroy religion. Whether you agree with him or not you cannot deny that there is a segment of atheists who believe that religion must be eliminated.

Keep in mind that the media has a tendency to be sensational. Thus the title may not tell the whole story. Here is part of what Harris concludes:

To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity ? birth, marriage, death, etc. ? without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

It seems like he is explicitly trying to save meaning and morality, while wanting only to destroy the beliefs that lack evidence--this is what he means by religion in that article. Do you not agree?

What do you mean "the media" is sensational? That was not an article about Sam Harris. That was a blog. Posted by Sam Harris. In his words.

Regardless of his message, his delivery is meant to provoke. There are Christians out there who lead with headlines like "You're going to hell!" when their message is be good to your neighbor. If atheists want their message to be heard, being preachy about it just comes off in the same way a religious wing nut does and turns people off. That is why people consider some atheists to be religious in their methods.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Except, maybe Hitler, Stalin, and Zedong.

They didn't kill people in the name of atheism.

Yes, they did. Communism is the religion of the state.


Extremists are not dangerous because they're extremists per se, extremists are dangerous because their extreme beliefs are always based on ignorance and prejudice, and the refusal to tolerate the beliefs of others.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: DVK916
The theist in this thread is so nasty.

FYI Atheism isn't a faith, or a religion. It is the realization that god is a delusion you theist created. A delusion that has done more damage to society than any other disease.

Look at WW2, Hitler killed millions in the name of god, look at the middle east people fighting over religion again, and again millions have died since WW2 over religion in the middle east, Congo, and the Balkans. People will continue to do because of religion, until we finally purge our self of it. The only good thing to come from these religious wars is they move us one step closer to ridding the world of this disease, because as each theist dies, we become more enlightened as a race

jesus christ, who keeps telling you that hitler killed for religious reasons

 

[BoberFett]

DVK916

Aren't you the nutcase that makes up fairy tales to get people to believe your opinion on the US health care system? You're one to talk when it comes to fact vs. fiction. :roll: What a tool.

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Tell that to Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot.

:roll:

Stalin had the right idea, but the wrong way of going about it. If he plan had worked, we would all be better for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DVK916
Richard Dawkins is nothing like a Baptist preacher, he is trying to educate people on the disease that theist have, the Baptist preacher are spreading this disease.

You're an idiot. The only "disease" in this regard is believing that you have the right to dictate to and force others what they should believe. If a theist and an atheist share that in common, then they are equally diseased in the mind.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Lonyo
That's just as bad as religious fanatics.
The second or third person on the videos (girl) was a damned freak. "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime" or some such bullcrap.
Which is exactly what extremists want to do.

The difference is, atheists aren't murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We are posting youtube videos. Big difference.

Tell that to Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot.

:roll:

Stalin had the right idea, but the wrong way of going about it. If he plan had worked, we would all be better for it.

Oh really? And (although I'm probably going to regret feeding the troll here), what would have been the "right way" to go about murdering tens of millions of people?

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dogooder

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dogooder
Well, yes, I'm sure there are such people. However, I don't think I've seen any in this thread. Was it only that quote "I want to rid the world of religion, and I hope I see it in my lifetime," or were there others? Can you give me an example of an evangelical or extremist atheist, by your definition?

Sam Harris, one of the darlings of outspoken atheism, says that science must destroy religion. Whether you agree with him or not you cannot deny that there is a segment of atheists who believe that religion must be eliminated.

Keep in mind that the media has a tendency to be sensational. Thus the title may not tell the whole story. Here is part of what Harris concludes:

To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience. The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity ? birth, marriage, death, etc. ? without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

It seems like he is explicitly trying to save meaning and morality, while wanting only to destroy the beliefs that lack evidence--this is what he means by religion in that article. Do you not agree?

What do you mean "the media" is sensational? That was not an article about Sam Harris. That was a blog. Posted by Sam Harris. In his words.

Regardless of his message, his delivery is meant to provoke. There are Christians out there who lead with headlines like "You're going to hell!" when their message is be good to your neighbor. If atheists want their message to be heard, being preachy about it just comes off in the same way a religious wing nut does and turns people off. That is why people consider some atheists to be religious in their methods.

Yes, I shouldn't have said "the media" in this case, although it does apply to many of the headlines and book titles you come across.

But now, what are you arguing against? Is it his message or his "delivery"? Because I thought we were discussing the message. If you are now changing the subject, that is fine, but I have yet to see an example of an evangelical or extremist atheist.

Now, about the delivery. You certainly have a point. Headlines are meant to be attention-grabbers. They often are meant to provoke. They often overstate the author's position. So? It may not always be the best strategy, but it is one strategy. It will turn some people off, but will engage others. (Have you seen the response to the Blasphemy Challenge?) My personal opinion is that there's no one best way to deliver a message, and that a variety of approaches is needed.

If your only complaint is about their delivery (titles of books, blogs and articles), then please say so.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Kev
You can't prove a negative. How are you supposed to find evidence that something doesn't exist, if it doesn't exist?

Don't look at me, you're the one who made the hypothesis that "There is no god."

You fail at science.

You fail at science and common sense and totally missed Kev's point. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, but on the theist. Atheist's don't believe a god exists because there is no evidence that one does. If I claimed the moon is not made out of cheese and presented no evidence you would probably still agree with my statement. Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest that the moon IS made out of cheese.