|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 18, 2009 6:00:00 GMT -5
Atheism, in it's broadest sense, is a lack of belief in deities. What's usually understood as strong atheism is the belief that deities don't or can't exist. I've yet to see any example of a radical atheist, but it is indeed a possibility. Surely there are some atheists who are insufficiently versed in apologetics to explain their beliefs. And surely some of them are needlessly invective. I think a visit to Encyclopedia Dramatica could give an example. That type is VERY rare from what I've seen. Virtually every atheist I've ever known is more well versed in "holy writ" than the adherents of the various religions they don't follow, hence their atheism. There are no terrorist organizations using atheism as their founding precept, for example. When I am "witnessed" by some religious person, who may or may not be fundy, I will witness right back, from an atheist perspective. It is my duty to dispell harmful religious dogma, when it interferes with day to day living. Again, by definition, atheism is a non belief. Non-belief is just that, not belief. I don't "believe" in atheism, I just don't believe in any gods, therefore it is in no way a belief, simply non belief. |
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 18, 2009 7:13:16 GMT -5
There are still fundy atheists. Like who? In fact, you can hold a radical belief in just about anything. So mental illness or irational thought isn't to blame, it is the subject that the sufferer latches on to that is to be held accountable?
So, "radical astronauts" are an issue in the world today because some irrational fuck goes nuts about space travel? The guy who used to call me at my old phone answering job and tell me the same thing every night about how it's important to eat lots of vegetables every day was really a radical vegitarian or miltant health nut, despite he has had brain problems since birth and a stroke just a year ago?
There's nothing to be radical about unless you feel over-explaining how santa isn't real is fundie too. I don't believe that atheism is an exception.
If religions would stay out of atheists' business, you'd see a smile on every atheists face.
If someone tries to convince me that our American president is a muslim, or that whales are really fish, or that gods are real and they don't have any more proof than repeating those words, yeah... I'm gonna get pissed off because it's ridiculous and unfounded and only a moron would believe that kind of bullshit without a good fucking reason for it.
Idiocy and rude and pushy assholes DO make me pissed off. That sure as hell doesn't make me a radical/militant/fundie though. I just am not convinced at what the religionist thinks is obvious and true simply because someone told HIM it was obvious and true.
To believe that based on zero evidence, in any other field or subject in the world would make a person appear to be a fool. In religion, the opposite of reality, it is a virtue. oooh, how manichaean of you. Atheism would still exist if theism didn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by nausea on Mar 18, 2009 17:59:51 GMT -5
The difference between claiming there is no God and claiming that I don't believe in God always seemed a bit too semantic for my taste.
I'll say simply this: the set of propositions I accept about the universe are such that I have no need of a God-claim to render them coherent and explained. (Only a philosophy student would consider that sentence simple.) It's up to a theist to object to my views on the grounds that they require a God-claim to properly cohere.
Agreed - but where would be the fun in that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 18, 2009 20:38:28 GMT -5
Atheism would still exist, but we probably wouldn't bother to give it a name because there'd be nothing from which it could be distinguished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 19, 2009 1:36:05 GMT -5
Death said:
oooh, how manichaean of you.
Atheism would still exist if theism didn't exist.
A-Bigfoot-ism exists too, only there wasn't a need to come up with a name for it until someone first claimed there actually was a bigfoot.
So you're right, but atheism would be the natural order and in the absence of religion would be a moot point which is what I was trying to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 19, 2009 1:53:26 GMT -5
The difference between claiming there is no God and claiming that I don't believe in God always seemed a bit too semantic for my taste. I disagree only because the religionists push forth the former as what most atheist really believe. the distinction is this. Claiming "There is no god" is really jumping to a conclusion intsead of basing it on facts, but on the other hand, the evidence doesn't show the claim to be more than superstitious nonsense. But can I definately say that there definately isn't a teapot in space? No. To be perfectly honest, no, no one can prove that teapots don't exist in space or that they disappear as we look at them so that there are forever hidden from us even when we go looking for them. But that's not bloody fucking likely so far as I can tell. But either way, who fucking cares? If disappearing teapots exist and they do not affect my life and they cannot be proven, then who really cares?
But I am TOLD that I make a definitive claim about the existence of god. I don't. I'm pretty sure at this point that I'm right, but who fucking knows? I never thought bush would be a two term president. Not on your life did I see that coming. But some invisible, mysterious, unseen but all powerful god? Just as likely as the teapot... actaully, I've really seen teapots so it is probably more likely the teapot exists.
But taht's where I think the distinction is important, in the explanation to others especially religionists. THEY claim that they KNOW that god x exists. They KNOW it, but can't prove it. I can't prove my statement either, but since there isn't anything to make me think that god exist to begin with, and there is absolutely no proof, I am pretty confident that they do not. Religionists would rather make my decision for me, and claim that I'm doing what they do by forcing my concrete stance on others. I don't do that. I don't preach or go door to door with some "definite" statement that I don't have proof for, nor by it's nature, EVER have proof for. Just like I can't prove that fairydust isn't real. Yet a christian for example will often tell me that Santa Clause most definitely is NOT real...I'll say simply this: the set of propositions I accept about the universe are such that I have no need of a God-claim to render them coherent and explained. (Only a philosophy student would consider that sentence simple.) It's up to a theist to object to my views on the grounds that they require a God-claim to properly cohere. I think that we have a good grasp on the subjects and what they mean, but it is the religionists that twist our words or statements. It is they who call a vocal atheist "militant". It is they who call atheism a "belief" or a "religion". It is they who call followers of the ToE "worshippers of Darwin". They make concrete statements based on faith and they consider themselves above the average man. They think blind obedience to something that is unprovable by its very definition is a virtue but being skeptical is "evil".
Anyway, that was long and I agree, but I think it is important to make the distinction in order to start on even ground with religious people. It's easy for them to slant an argument when they start from a false premise or use terms that don't apply.Agreed - but where would be the fun in that?  |
|
