It seems to me that the sort of atheist cliques, that many in this thread are talking about when referring to atheists in general, are more or less endemic to the US. I'd imagine it's a holdover from the sort of upbringing many people in the US get with religion, and upon leaving said religion they carry on the same style of organization, rhetoric etc.
Are you asserting that religion-like athiestic meme/people groupings do not exist in Europe?
I wonder if that explains football clubs and/or Eurovision.
It seems to me that the sort of atheist cliques, that many in this thread are talking about when referring to atheists in general, are more or less endemic to the US. I'd imagine it's a holdover from the sort of upbringing many people in the US get with religion, and upon leaving said religion they carry on the same style of organization, rhetoric etc.
Are you asserting that religion-like athiestic meme/people groupings do not exist in Europe?
I wonder if that explains football clubs and/or Eurovision.
I don't imply that they don't exist. I mean that the approach taken isn't quite as, for the lack of a better word, evangelical.
It's a thing in the US for more than just religion, every kind of cause seems to be "sold" to the masses a lot more vigorously.
Idunno, I remember reading about an Egyptian atheist making similar arguments about Islam's problems as Dawkins and Harris. The valence of it was different of course (not least because atheism is a crime in Egypt), but in terms of the position and the arguments being made, it's definitely not a US/Western thing.
Not currently and not historically, either—there were atheists (or at least anti-religious skeptics) during the Abassid golden age of Islam, including ibn al-Rawandi and Abul Ala al-Ma'arri. And my favorite piece of religious literature of all time is the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda, a creation myth that ends with an embrace of agnosticism:
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
(Some will say I am conflating atheism with agnosticism and deism, which is fair. Though I personally consider myself an agnostic as well as an atheist, and I don't see how a clockmaker god ultimately differs functionally from the uncaring materialist universe I believe in.)
Qingu on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Idunno, I remember reading about an Egyptian atheist making similar arguments about Islam's problems as Dawkins and Harris. The valence of it was different of course (not least because atheism is a crime in Egypt), but in terms of the position and the arguments being made, it's definitely not a US/Western thing.
Not currently and not historically, either—there were atheists (or at least anti-religious skeptics) during the Abassid golden age of Islam, including ibn al-Rawandi and Abul Ala al-Ma'arri. And my favorite piece of religious literature of all time is the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda, a creation myth that ends with an embrace of agnosticism:
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.
(Some will say I am conflating atheism with agnosticism and deism, which is fair. Though I personally consider myself an agnostic as well as an atheist, and I don't see how a clockmaker god ultimately differs functionally from the uncaring materialist universe I believe in.)
You need to be careful of what you mean by atheist in non modern times. The technical crime against the state that Christians committed that caused them to be executed by the Romans was Atheism.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It seems to me that the sort of atheist cliques, that many in this thread are talking about when referring to atheists in general, are more or less endemic to the US. I'd imagine it's a holdover from the sort of upbringing many people in the US get with religion, and upon leaving said religion they carry on the same style of organization, rhetoric etc.
Are you asserting that religion-like athiestic meme/people groupings do not exist in Europe?
I wonder if that explains football clubs and/or Eurovision.
I don't imply that they don't exist. I mean that the approach taken isn't quite as, for the lack of a better word, evangelical.
It's a thing in the US for more than just religion, every kind of cause seems to be "sold" to the masses a lot more vigorously.
Arguably atheists in the US have a worse position though so there is more reason to forms groups like that.
It seems to me that the sort of atheist cliques, that many in this thread are talking about when referring to atheists in general, are more or less endemic to the US. I'd imagine it's a holdover from the sort of upbringing many people in the US get with religion, and upon leaving said religion they carry on the same style of organization, rhetoric etc.
Are you asserting that religion-like athiestic meme/people groupings do not exist in Europe?
I wonder if that explains football clubs and/or Eurovision.
I don't imply that they don't exist. I mean that the approach taken isn't quite as, for the lack of a better word, evangelical.
It's a thing in the US for more than just religion, every kind of cause seems to be "sold" to the masses a lot more vigorously.
Arguably atheists in the US have a worse position though so there is more reason to forms groups like that.
I could see the point of such groups being widely spread in the US about all sorts of topics though.
Particularly now that internet, it seems like you can find a group of like minded outspoken people for any sort of thing.
I am surprised this is not true everywhere though.
So if religion were wiped off the planet, nobody would be atheists?
That seems quite intuitive. If there is no concept of X, there would be no need for terms to describe proponents of X, and deniers of X. The reason for 'theism' and 'atheism' is that our species has the concept of a 'deus'.
The alternative is that you currently participate in an infinite number of 'a___ism' groups by reason of your not believing in an infinite number of unconceived entities.
It seems odd to overload one's categorical participation in that way, simply so you can get a bunch of three year olds in the 'atheist' club.
I think categorical participation is way overloaded as is, due to the pages of semantic argument that pop up every time we talk about this. I don't understand why labels are so important in a belief system with no theological stakes.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
1) Nothing without sufficient proof should be believed.
2) There is not sufficient proof for the thing that gods.
3) Therefore the thing that gods should not be believed.
Premise 1 will give you some problems when you apply it to itself. What is the sufficient proof that nothing without sufficient proof should be believed? It is quite similar to A.J. Ayer's Criterion of Verifiability:
The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false.
The problem, of course, is how you verify the criterion of verifiability.
You will also run into the problems of positivism. What constitutes "sufficient proof" that your partner loves you? What is "sufficient proof" that a game is fun, a painting beautiful?
For our discussion, what is "sufficient proof" that murdering people is wrong? What counts as evidence of wrongness? How does one verify wrong?
1) Nothing without sufficient proof should be believed.
2) There is not sufficient proof for the thing that gods.
3) Therefore the thing that gods should not be believed.
Premise 1 will give you some problems when you apply it to itself. What is the sufficient proof that nothing without sufficient proof should be believed? It is quite similar to A.J. Ayer's Criterion of Verifiability:
The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false.
The problem, of course, is how you verify the criterion of verifiability.
You will also run into the problems of positivism. What constitutes "sufficient proof" that your partner loves you? What is "sufficient proof" that a game is fun, a painting beautiful?
For our discussion, what is "sufficient proof" that murdering people is wrong? What counts as evidence of wrongness? How does one verify wrong?
2nd first, I would say that individuals define their own standards of proof the same way they define their owns standards of beauty and fun and love and whatnot. Which is why people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. We can argue but I cant reach in there and change your mind.
As to the first, if we define evidence (I should have used that, I think) as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid then things with evidence would be more likely to be true than things that aren't. We should believe to be true things that are more likely to be true.
No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship," Obama said in a statement, offering his condolences to the victims' families.
No shit. But this type of statement only fuels speculation for motive, when in fact there seems to be no proof at the moment that this atrocity was religiously motivated.
I voted twice for the guy, but sometimes I wish he would STFU.
No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship," Obama said in a statement, offering his condolences to the victims' families.
No shit. But this type of statement only fuels speculation for motive, when in fact there seems to be no proof at the moment that this atrocity was religiously motivated.
I voted twice for the guy, but sometimes I wish he would STFU.
Obama has come under pressure from a lot of people for not speaking out against this. The president of Turkey called him out, for goodness' sake. He had to make a statement.
No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship," Obama said in a statement, offering his condolences to the victims' families.
No shit. But this type of statement only fuels speculation for motive, when in fact there seems to be no proof at the moment that this atrocity was religiously motivated.
I voted twice for the guy, but sometimes I wish he would STFU.
Obama has come under pressure from a lot of people for not speaking out against this. The president of Turkey called him out, for goodness' sake. He had to make a statement.
I hope that's sarcasm. Forgive me if I'm not cow towing to the folks that won't even cop to genocide.
I don't see the problem in Obama saying that. He didn't say it was the motive, he just said it shouldn't be a motive in general. Regardless of whether these people were targeted for their religion, Muslims are certainly within reason to *feel* targeted in America, and it's important to acknowledge those fears and signal that the government has their backs. I feel that people would speculate about motive without evidence regardless of whether or not Obama said anything.
Actually, the problem with Obama saying that is that by virtue of Obama saying it, some morons will reflexively conclude the opposite.
+20
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship," Obama said in a statement, offering his condolences to the victims' families.
No shit. But this type of statement only fuels speculation for motive, when in fact there seems to be no proof at the moment that this atrocity was religiously motivated.
I voted twice for the guy, but sometimes I wish he would STFU.
I think he did have to make a statement.
He's made one for every other news worthy shooting, so for him to not make one in this case will also send a message.
It seems to me that the sort of atheist cliques, that many in this thread are talking about when referring to atheists in general, are more or less endemic to the US. I'd imagine it's a holdover from the sort of upbringing many people in the US get with religion, and upon leaving said religion they carry on the same style of organization, rhetoric etc.
Are you asserting that religion-like athiestic meme/people groupings do not exist in Europe?
I wonder if that explains football clubs and/or Eurovision.
I don't imply that they don't exist. I mean that the approach taken isn't quite as, for the lack of a better word, evangelical.
It's a thing in the US for more than just religion, every kind of cause seems to be "sold" to the masses a lot more vigorously.
They do exist in Europe too. I once went to a meeting of a local group that had spun off from a University secular society, and they really don't take anything seriously.
There was a lecture/presentation about doing some charitable work, what sort of things the group wanted from a new website, Q&A session, then we all went off to find a restaurant to enjoy a nice meal, and not really talk about belief or non-belief at all. It's really about enjoying other peoples company, filling in the social gap that organized religion with it's places of shared worship used to provide, as many fall into disrepair or are converted into housing/offices/nightclubs.
Yeah, I'm aware. Those kinds of organizations seem to be mostly joined by people who leave a religion, so they still have the sort of community feel they're used to.
There's also all kinds of free thinking clubs and such, but they're mostly about discussing various philosophical issues and such. Atheism may or may not be a facet of that, but never the central purpose, since there isn't much to discuss about a single idea without tacking on a lot of other things from other sources.
I guess my problem isn't that he made a statement, but rather that it implies motive.
It's a possible motive, it's not like America is a country free of racists who commit hate crimes.
And if he'd even had added some caveat to say "we don't know if that's the case but..." I literally wouldn't have an issue with it (or at least so much less that I wouldn't have felt compelled to comment).
I guess my problem isn't that he made a statement, but rather that it implies motive.
It's a possible motive, it's not like America is a country free of racists who commit hate crimes.
And if he'd even had added some caveat to say "we don't know if that's the case but..." I literally wouldn't have an issue with it (or at least so much less that I wouldn't have felt compelled to comment).
The President is never going to appear wishy-washy.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
Questions?
Er, yes it does, at least from your own perspective.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
Questions?
Er, yes it does, at least from your own perspective.
1) Nothing without sufficient proof should be believed.
2) There is not sufficient proof for the thing that gods.
3) Therefore the thing that gods should not be believed.
Premise 1 will give you some problems when you apply it to itself. What is the sufficient proof that nothing without sufficient proof should be believed?
I'm curious if there's a good answer for this question, because to me I look at it and think, "Well, that's a dumb question. If someone doesn't believe in proof, what proof could you bring to convince them?" And the answer to that question is no proof, because the person doesn't believe in proof.
But then I thought about it some more and wonder if there really is a problem there. Should I just give up and believe whatever random things I want, because I can't use evidence to prove a belief system where evidence is really important?
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Am I getting confused?
Strong atheism and weak atheism.
That didn't answer my question, really
Sorry.
Weak atheism is basically is "I do not believe there are gods" while strong atheism is more "there are not gods." It's the closest thing to watch you mention that I am aware of.
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Am I getting confused?
Strong atheism and weak atheism.
That didn't answer my question, really
Sorry.
Weak atheism is basically is "I do not believe there are gods" while strong atheism is more "there are not gods." It's the closest thing to watch you mention that I am aware of.
Atheism is binary. You're describing agnosticism.
I didn't invent the terms. These are used in academia.
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
Questions?
Er, yes it does, at least from your own perspective.
Speak for yourself, bucko.
I honestly can't work out how to respond to this. Explain how disagreeing with someone is not the same as believing they are wrong, please. Respecting someone's opinion is not the same as believing it is incorrect.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
Questions?
Er, yes it does, at least from your own perspective.
Speak for yourself, bucko.
uh yeah like uncertainty is a thing and there's a pretty big difference between "everyone who doesn't believe this is wrong" and "everyone who doesn't believe this is possibly/probably wrong"
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Am I getting confused?
Strong atheism and weak atheism.
That didn't answer my question, really
Sorry.
Weak atheism is basically is "I do not believe there are gods" while strong atheism is more "there are not gods." It's the closest thing to watch you mention that I am aware of.
Atheism is binary. You're describing agnosticism.
no, agnosticism is a separate assertion, which varies depending on who is using the word but usually doesn't stray far from "it cannot be known whether a god exists or not"
+6
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
I think it's a bit more complicated. Atheism isn't an empty set; it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. And it's not hard to see how this position dovetails with a "sheeple" mentality.
I really don't think its as complicated as you're making it out to be.
You're framing of what constitutes atheism is the problem here. Atheism is an empty set. It is very simply the lack of belief in theistic claims and naught more. I find the wording rather disingenuous, especially given it could be applied to any group.
Christianity, it is the position that X group of people are wrong about something important. Where X = (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc). Repeat ad nauseam for every other ideology under the sun.
It can be applied to every group. Trying to peddle this sentiment off as if it applies only to atheists and not every group with a differing world view is a disingenuous attempt to atheists as "enlightened know it all types." Granted, some egoists do buy into the line. But I've seen plenty of theists who act like pious, enlightened, know-it-alls as well.
No, it's not. The fundamental definition of what it is to be Christian (insofar as such a definition can even be nailed down) has nothing to do with what other groups believe, only with what the individual Christian believes. As a result, there are plenty of "many-paths-to-God" Christians who believe that other religions are also right about the same important things, and this belief is not fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
And frankly, I find it ironic that in a single post you argue with Qingu over the finer shades of grey of atheism beliefs (or lack thereof) and at the same time paint not just all Christians but all >6 Billion followers of all religions and ideologies under the sun as sharing a single overly-simplistic black-and-white belief.
He's right. The majority of Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, and pretty much no one else does. It's a good thing that a lot of modern religious people aren't super worried about what religion other people are, but what you are doing is the sort of disingenuous "atheists are the odd man out," that is often used as a form of bigotry and attack, and pretends that there aren't radical theological differences between various religions.
1. "I believe in X" =\= "Everyone who does not believe in X is wrong"
Questions?
Er, yes it does, at least from your own perspective.
Speak for yourself, bucko.
I honestly can't work out how to respond to this. Explain how disagreeing with someone is not the same as believing they are wrong, please. Respecting someone's opinion is not the same as believing it is incorrect.
I have my personal religious beliefs. I also hold to mind that others who don't carry my beliefs may not be wrong.
I agree that not everyone is as easygoing on the God Front, but it's certainly not binary. It's not too dissimilar to Pascal's Wager.
1) Nothing without sufficient proof should be believed.
2) There is not sufficient proof for the thing that gods.
3) Therefore the thing that gods should not be believed.
Premise 1 will give you some problems when you apply it to itself. What is the sufficient proof that nothing without sufficient proof should be believed? It is quite similar to A.J. Ayer's Criterion of Verifiability:
The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express—that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true, or reject it as being false.
The problem, of course, is how you verify the criterion of verifiability.
You will also run into the problems of positivism. What constitutes "sufficient proof" that your partner loves you? What is "sufficient proof" that a game is fun, a painting beautiful?
For our discussion, what is "sufficient proof" that murdering people is wrong? What counts as evidence of wrongness? How does one verify wrong?
You're getting too technical about this. With religion this isn't about figurative results, its about literal results. It's easier to prove a deity exists if they do, but I don't see anyone claiming to be Zeus and shooting lightning from their finger tips. From that we can start to get somewhere with sufficient proof.
Myers turned me off from atheism. Not his fault, specifically, but his site showed me how incredibly shitty and similar organized atheism was to the organized religion I had recently left, and it was definitely the wake up call that changed me from angry teen atheist to apathetic adult.
How can you be "turned off" from Atheism? He doesn't represent you. That's like being "turned off" from the concept that you have two feet. A fundamental belief is not the same as a movement.
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Am I getting confused?
Strong atheism and weak atheism.
That didn't answer my question, really
Sorry.
Weak atheism is basically is "I do not believe there are gods" while strong atheism is more "there are not gods." It's the closest thing to watch you mention that I am aware of.
Atheism is binary. You're describing agnosticism.
no, agnosticism is a separate assertion, which varies depending on who is using the word but usually doesn't stray far from "it cannot be known whether a god exists or not"
No, it isn't. Agnosticism is "maybe" there's a God. Atheism is "I'm certain there is no God". There is no such thing as weak atheism apart from in philosophical discussions, unless agnosticism is now a redundant term. You either believe in God or you don't. Even an absolutist view on anything can change, given enough evidence. If an atheist met God, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore. He just doesn't believe that will ever happen as much as he believes Donald Duck won't show up in his bedroom to say "What's up" tomorrow.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Can't a non-belief in deity be phrased in a way to be a positive assertion?
"I believe that gods do not exist" means the same things as "I don't believe in gods" but is now a positive assertion about reality instead of an affirmation of a negative
Am I getting confused?
Strong atheism and weak atheism.
That didn't answer my question, really
Sorry.
Weak atheism is basically is "I do not believe there are gods" while strong atheism is more "there are not gods." It's the closest thing to watch you mention that I am aware of.
Atheism is binary. You're describing agnosticism.
no, agnosticism is a separate assertion, which varies depending on who is using the word but usually doesn't stray far from "it cannot be known whether a god exists or not"
No, it isn't. Agnosticism is "maybe" there's a God. Atheism is "I'm certain there is no God". There is no such thing as weak atheism apart from in philosophical discussions, unless agnosticism is now a redundant term. You either believe in God or you don't. Even an absolutist view on anything can change, given enough evidence. If an atheist met God, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore. He just doesn't believe that will ever happen as much as he believes Donald Duck won't show up in his bedroom to say "What's up" tomorrow.
nah dude, the word literally means "without knowledge"
Posts
Are you asserting that religion-like athiestic meme/people groupings do not exist in Europe?
I wonder if that explains football clubs and/or Eurovision.
I don't imply that they don't exist. I mean that the approach taken isn't quite as, for the lack of a better word, evangelical.
It's a thing in the US for more than just religion, every kind of cause seems to be "sold" to the masses a lot more vigorously.
Not currently and not historically, either—there were atheists (or at least anti-religious skeptics) during the Abassid golden age of Islam, including ibn al-Rawandi and Abul Ala al-Ma'arri. And my favorite piece of religious literature of all time is the Nasadiya hymn of the Rig Veda, a creation myth that ends with an embrace of agnosticism:
(Some will say I am conflating atheism with agnosticism and deism, which is fair. Though I personally consider myself an agnostic as well as an atheist, and I don't see how a clockmaker god ultimately differs functionally from the uncaring materialist universe I believe in.)
You need to be careful of what you mean by atheist in non modern times. The technical crime against the state that Christians committed that caused them to be executed by the Romans was Atheism.
Arguably atheists in the US have a worse position though so there is more reason to forms groups like that.
I could see the point of such groups being widely spread in the US about all sorts of topics though.
Particularly now that internet, it seems like you can find a group of like minded outspoken people for any sort of thing.
I am surprised this is not true everywhere though.
I think categorical participation is way overloaded as is, due to the pages of semantic argument that pop up every time we talk about this. I don't understand why labels are so important in a belief system with no theological stakes.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Premise 1 will give you some problems when you apply it to itself. What is the sufficient proof that nothing without sufficient proof should be believed? It is quite similar to A.J. Ayer's Criterion of Verifiability:
The problem, of course, is how you verify the criterion of verifiability.
You will also run into the problems of positivism. What constitutes "sufficient proof" that your partner loves you? What is "sufficient proof" that a game is fun, a painting beautiful?
For our discussion, what is "sufficient proof" that murdering people is wrong? What counts as evidence of wrongness? How does one verify wrong?
2nd first, I would say that individuals define their own standards of proof the same way they define their owns standards of beauty and fun and love and whatnot. Which is why people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. We can argue but I cant reach in there and change your mind.
As to the first, if we define evidence (I should have used that, I think) as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid then things with evidence would be more likely to be true than things that aren't. We should believe to be true things that are more likely to be true.
Obama condemns killing of 3 Muslim students https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-denounces-outrageous-murders-three-u-muslims-202836437.html
No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship," Obama said in a statement, offering his condolences to the victims' families.
No shit. But this type of statement only fuels speculation for motive, when in fact there seems to be no proof at the moment that this atrocity was religiously motivated.
I voted twice for the guy, but sometimes I wish he would STFU.
Same thing, opposite end of the spectrum.
But where I expect this from tabloid journalism, I hold my elected officials to a higher standard.
Obama has come under pressure from a lot of people for not speaking out against this. The president of Turkey called him out, for goodness' sake. He had to make a statement.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I hope that's sarcasm. Forgive me if I'm not cow towing to the folks that won't even cop to genocide.
Actually, the problem with Obama saying that is that by virtue of Obama saying it, some morons will reflexively conclude the opposite.
I think he did have to make a statement.
He's made one for every other news worthy shooting, so for him to not make one in this case will also send a message.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
It's a possible motive, it's not like America is a country free of racists who commit hate crimes.
There was a lecture/presentation about doing some charitable work, what sort of things the group wanted from a new website, Q&A session, then we all went off to find a restaurant to enjoy a nice meal, and not really talk about belief or non-belief at all. It's really about enjoying other peoples company, filling in the social gap that organized religion with it's places of shared worship used to provide, as many fall into disrepair or are converted into housing/offices/nightclubs.
There's also this organisation, which I only know of vicariously:
http://sundayassembly.com/
There's also all kinds of free thinking clubs and such, but they're mostly about discussing various philosophical issues and such. Atheism may or may not be a facet of that, but never the central purpose, since there isn't much to discuss about a single idea without tacking on a lot of other things from other sources.
And if he'd even had added some caveat to say "we don't know if that's the case but..." I literally wouldn't have an issue with it (or at least so much less that I wouldn't have felt compelled to comment).
The President is never going to appear wishy-washy.
Er, yes it does, at least from your own perspective.
Steam: adamjnet
Speak for yourself, bucko.
The irony is really, really painful. This guy sounds just as bad as Bill O'Reilly, just on a different side.
I'm curious if there's a good answer for this question, because to me I look at it and think, "Well, that's a dumb question. If someone doesn't believe in proof, what proof could you bring to convince them?" And the answer to that question is no proof, because the person doesn't believe in proof.
But then I thought about it some more and wonder if there really is a problem there. Should I just give up and believe whatever random things I want, because I can't use evidence to prove a belief system where evidence is really important?
Atheism is binary. You're describing agnosticism.
Steam: adamjnet
I didn't invent the terms. These are used in academia.
I honestly can't work out how to respond to this. Explain how disagreeing with someone is not the same as believing they are wrong, please. Respecting someone's opinion is not the same as believing it is incorrect.
Steam: adamjnet
uh yeah like uncertainty is a thing and there's a pretty big difference between "everyone who doesn't believe this is wrong" and "everyone who doesn't believe this is possibly/probably wrong"
no, agnosticism is a separate assertion, which varies depending on who is using the word but usually doesn't stray far from "it cannot be known whether a god exists or not"
I have my personal religious beliefs. I also hold to mind that others who don't carry my beliefs may not be wrong.
I agree that not everyone is as easygoing on the God Front, but it's certainly not binary. It's not too dissimilar to Pascal's Wager.
You're getting too technical about this. With religion this isn't about figurative results, its about literal results. It's easier to prove a deity exists if they do, but I don't see anyone claiming to be Zeus and shooting lightning from their finger tips. From that we can start to get somewhere with sufficient proof.
How can you be "turned off" from Atheism? He doesn't represent you. That's like being "turned off" from the concept that you have two feet. A fundamental belief is not the same as a movement.
Steam: adamjnet
No, it isn't. Agnosticism is "maybe" there's a God. Atheism is "I'm certain there is no God". There is no such thing as weak atheism apart from in philosophical discussions, unless agnosticism is now a redundant term. You either believe in God or you don't. Even an absolutist view on anything can change, given enough evidence. If an atheist met God, he wouldn't be an atheist anymore. He just doesn't believe that will ever happen as much as he believes Donald Duck won't show up in his bedroom to say "What's up" tomorrow.
Steam: adamjnet
nah dude, the word literally means "without knowledge"