Options

Anti-theist murders three Muslim students in North Carolina

1246712

Posts

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    And that's bad right?

    I mean, I think it's bad. I don't think anyone is responsible for things they don't believe even if they agree with on other stuff.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    So, by virtue of the fact that no one has convinced me that god exists, I am therefore automatically in a community with everyone else who has also not been convinced? Like, the only way for me to not be associated with anyone who claims Atheism told him to murder people is to pick a religion and pay lip service to it?

    That's really weird.

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    There is not an atheist community at large. There are small pockets of atheist groups, but there is no larger community.

  • Options
    ShandoShando Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    the atheist community at large

    My major problem with your line of argument is that I think you are dramatically over-estimating the existence of an "atheist community." While there may be some percentage of atheists who interface with each other in a way that could be considered to be forming a community based around their atheistic stance, I don't believe they are anywhere close to a significant portion of the atheist population, nor do I think they have much influence on the lives or beliefs of the majority of atheists.

    The vast majority of atheists are only part of that community in that they also don't believe in god/s. Any amount of misogyny in those pockets of "modern atheism" (whatever that is) neither influence nor are influenced by the bulk of atheists.

    your troll just berserked on us.
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    It's just a really bizarre comparison because while even distinct sects of a religion have shared beliefs and practices that show a common origin, the lack of belief in God has nothing shared (aside from that single thing) and no common origin at all.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Can we ascribe aspects of behavior to people who don't play video games? Like, if a non-gamer murders someone, everyone who doesn't play video games needs to speak up about their disapproval, and admit that there are elements in the non-gaming community that the non-gamers need to acknowledge and minimalize?

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Shando wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    the atheist community at large

    My major problem with your line of argument is that I think you are dramatically over-estimating the existence of an "atheist community." While there may be some percentage of atheists who interface with each other in a way that could be considered to be forming a community based around their atheistic stance, I don't believe they are anywhere close to a significant portion of the atheist population, nor do I think they have much influence on the lives or beliefs of the majority of atheists.

    The vast majority of atheists are only part of that community in that they also don't believe in god/s. Any amount of misogyny in those pockets of "modern atheism" (whatever that is) neither influence nor are influenced by the bulk of atheists.

    Well, what part of atheism informs or imparts mysogyny? If there is an aspect of atheist teachings that can be interpreted as mysogynistic, I will happily remove that part of atheism from my belief structure.

  • Options
    Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    First up to clear up some confusion, and no, this is not a "No true Scotsman fallacy", but there exists a significant subset of Christians who are what I would call "Ethnic Christians". They grew up in a Christian household, and self identify as Christian, but when you ask them what they believe, you will get something that is more of a general Deism and Agnostic. I am about as non-denominational as they come, but there are still a few basic core tenants that you must believe to be a Christian. Saying, "I am an Atheist who believes in God" is an illogical statement. So is "I am a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ". In short, just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.

    As a Christian, if I see another Christian acting badly, I have a common set of ideals that I at least attempt to use to show them that what they are doing isn't "What Jesus would do". Unfortunately, those of you who say that Atheists has little or no common ground are correct, and that is exactly the problem. Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.

    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    err

    and reasonable people agree that this grouping by religious identity of people who clearly do not share socio/ideological beliefs is sophistic, no?

    or are we now adopting the fox news method of argumentation

    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    There are belief structures that inform a person's morality, but atheism does not describe that. Atheism just means a person does not believe in any god. Moral philosphies like Nihilism or Humanism or whatever (I'm totally out of my league there) are their own thing, and can be paired with atheism, but do not have any kind of intrinsic relationship with atheism.

  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    So, by virtue of the fact that no one has convinced me that god exists, I am therefore automatically in a community with everyone else who has also not been convinced? Like, the only way for me to not be associated with anyone who claims Atheism told him to murder people is to pick a religion and pay lip service to it?

    That's really weird.

    Just FYI I have some really bad gas right now and the wife will be calling you shortly to demand an explanation.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    So, by virtue of the fact that no one has convinced me that god exists, I am therefore automatically in a community with everyone else who has also not been convinced? Like, the only way for me to not be associated with anyone who claims Atheism told him to murder people is to pick a religion and pay lip service to it?

    That's really weird.

    The point would more seem to be not whether you an atheist but whether you associate with specific atheist philosophies and organizations. That would seem to define whether you are a part of that community or not.

    When people make comments that "atheists have issues with sexism" they are talking about specific movements within a loosely organized community of atheists that exists and not every single person who doesn't believe in God(s).

    shryke on
  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    First up to clear up some confusion, and no, this is not a "No true Scotsman fallacy", but there exists a significant subset of Christians who are what I would call "Ethnic Christians". They grew up in a Christian household, and self identify as Christian, but when you ask them what they believe, you will get something that is more of a general Deism and Agnostic. I am about as non-denominational as they come, but there are still a few basic core tenants that you must believe to be a Christian. Saying, "I am an Atheist who believes in God" is an illogical statement. So is "I am a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ". In short, just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.

    As a Christian, if I see another Christian acting badly, I have a common set of ideals that I at least attempt to use to show them that what they are doing isn't "What Jesus would do". Unfortunately, those of you who say that Atheists has little or no common ground are correct, and that is exactly the problem. Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.

    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    So all Christians share morals now?

    Last I checked Christians managed yell at each other about slavery for 100s of years without it coming to a conclusion about "what Jesus would do".

  • Options
    MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    There is not an atheist community at large. There are small pockets of atheist groups, but there is no larger community.

    Other than an atheist community in an extremely religious area (so basically a support group), what would a group like that even talk about?

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    There is not an atheist community at large. There are small pockets of atheist groups, but there is no larger community.

    Other than an atheist community in an extremely religious area (so basically a support group), what would a group like that even talk about?

    No clue, but they find something:
    http://atheists.org/convention2015

    Atheism is like Theism. As a whole it's a group that doesn't mean much beyond it's exact description. But within the group of people who are one or the other, there exist groups of various degrees of organization.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any unifying atheist communities.

    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    And yet many people willingly define themselves by it.

    I think I've figured out what is bothering me with this whole argument. It really comes across as a variation on No True Scotsman, where any groups or individuals within the atheist community that act in a problematic manner can just be dismissed because there is no linkage because "you can't define someone by what they are not". So even though the New Atheism community has become a major player in the atheist community at large, their issues with sexism and racism can just be swept under the rug.

    Meanwhile, when the same argument is made about extremist sects of major religions, they get quickly hung around the necks of more moderate members.

    There is not an atheist community at large. There are small pockets of atheist groups, but there is no larger community.

    Other than an atheist community in an extremely religious area (so basically a support group), what would a group like that even talk about?

    No clue, but they find something:
    http://atheists.org/convention2015

    Atheism is like Theism. As a whole it's a group that doesn't mean much beyond it's exact description. But within the group of people who are one or the other, there exist groups of various degrees of organization.

    I will agree with this. I don't think Theism has any intrinsic structure other than the belief that there is some kind of higher power. Atheism would be the opposite. Anything more complex than that requires other philosophies or structures.

  • Options
    _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    A further problem is that defining one's self as an atheist reinforces the notion that religious belief is something humans are supposed to have.

    Analogy Example:
    tailless-cat-966318-m.jpg

    There is a breed of cat we colloquially refer to as "tailless cats". That designation is useful since "lacking a tail" is a deviation from the standard cat. The designation of "beakless cat" is not useful, as cats are not 'supposed to' have beaks.

    If we start with the assumption that humans are 'supposed to' have religious belief, then atheist is a meaningful description. If we start with the assumption that religious belief is the deviation from the norm, then "atheist" is insignificant, since lack of religious belief would be the standard.

    Defining one's self as "atheist" is ideologically self-defeating.

  • Options
    Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    There are belief structures that inform a person's morality, but atheism does not describe that. Atheism just means a person does not believe in any god. Moral philosphies like Nihilism or Humanism or whatever (I'm totally out of my league there) are their own thing, and can be paired with atheism, but do not have any kind of intrinsic relationship with atheism.

    Just to be clear, by Humanist, I mean Secular Humanism, which is a moral system rooted in Atheism.

    Further, I have to disagree. It would be very illogical to become an Atheist, then turn around an embrace the moral teaching of Islam(which derive from a claimed revelation from God). Choosing to become an Atheist by will logically cut you off from any moral system that rests on "This is right/wrong because God said so". Further, moral systems like Nihilism do not generally pair well with theistic religions, because the underlying premises do not agree, thus to be a Christian Nihilist is an incoherent concept. Atheism does have moral implications in that it closes the doors on some moral systems, and opens the doors on others.

  • Options
    Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    First up to clear up some confusion, and no, this is not a "No true Scotsman fallacy", but there exists a significant subset of Christians who are what I would call "Ethnic Christians". They grew up in a Christian household, and self identify as Christian, but when you ask them what they believe, you will get something that is more of a general Deism and Agnostic. I am about as non-denominational as they come, but there are still a few basic core tenants that you must believe to be a Christian. Saying, "I am an Atheist who believes in God" is an illogical statement. So is "I am a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ". In short, just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.

    As a Christian, if I see another Christian acting badly, I have a common set of ideals that I at least attempt to use to show them that what they are doing isn't "What Jesus would do". Unfortunately, those of you who say that Atheists has little or no common ground are correct, and that is exactly the problem. Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.

    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    So all Christians share morals now?

    Last I checked Christians managed yell at each other about slavery for 100s of years without it coming to a conclusion about "what Jesus would do".

    Notice the use the word attempt, but you actually prove my point. If I was an atheistic slave owner, how would use your knowledge of my Atheism to show me that slavery is wrong?

  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    :/

    Now you see, if atheism were an actual organized religion you could kick him out for heresy!

    Well... Or you could at least define things and take positions other than 'gods don't exist'

    Which isn't a bad thing to be able to do.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    There are belief structures that inform a person's morality, but atheism does not describe that. Atheism just means a person does not believe in any god. Moral philosphies like Nihilism or Humanism or whatever (I'm totally out of my league there) are their own thing, and can be paired with atheism, but do not have any kind of intrinsic relationship with atheism.

    Just to be clear, by Humanist, I mean Secular Humanism, which is a moral system rooted in Atheism.

    Further, I have to disagree. It would be very illogical to become an Atheist, then turn around an embrace the moral teaching of Islam(which derive from a claimed revelation from God). Choosing to become an Atheist by will logically cut you off from any moral system that rests on "This is right/wrong because God said so". Further, moral systems like Nihilism do not generally pair well with theistic religions, because the underlying premises do not agree, thus to be a Christian Nihilist is an incoherent concept. Atheism does have moral implications in that it closes the doors on some moral systems, and opens the doors on others.

    Not sure how that contradicts anything I said.

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Atheists generally still rely on the cultural norms set down by religious communities around them.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    It's hard to define people by what they are not. Being an athiest doesn't describe anything that is, like Christianity or Islam does. Being a Christian is like joining a club. Not joining a club doesn't then mean you have the same philosophy or morals as anyone else who doesn't join that club. You can't define someone's belief structure by the things they don't believe.

    Athiesm doesn't define anyone. It can't.

    A further problem is that defining one's self as an atheist reinforces the notion that religious belief is something humans are supposed to have.

    Analogy Example:
    tailless-cat-966318-m.jpg

    There is a breed of cat we colloquially refer to as "tailless cats". That designation is useful since "lacking a tail" is a deviation from the standard cat. The designation of "beakless cat" is not useful, as cats are not 'supposed to' have beaks.

    If we start with the assumption that humans are 'supposed to' have religious belief, then atheist is a meaningful description. If we start with the assumption that religious belief is the deviation from the norm, then "atheist" is insignificant, since lack of religious belief would be the standard.

    Defining one's self as "atheist" is ideologically self-defeating.

    This ignores the fact that the vast majority of the world's population believe in some higher power.

    I mean, when people ask me what I believe, I say I don't believe in any god, I don't say I'm an atheist, but as a shorthand it works. I don't want to have to say "I don't believe in any god," every time I want to refer to the fact that I don't, so saying I'm atheist is easier.

    Maybe I'm being naive.

  • Options
    rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    First up to clear up some confusion, and no, this is not a "No true Scotsman fallacy", but there exists a significant subset of Christians who are what I would call "Ethnic Christians". They grew up in a Christian household, and self identify as Christian, but when you ask them what they believe, you will get something that is more of a general Deism and Agnostic. I am about as non-denominational as they come, but there are still a few basic core tenants that you must believe to be a Christian. Saying, "I am an Atheist who believes in God" is an illogical statement. So is "I am a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ". In short, just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.

    As a Christian, if I see another Christian acting badly, I have a common set of ideals that I at least attempt to use to show them that what they are doing isn't "What Jesus would do". Unfortunately, those of you who say that Atheists has little or no common ground are correct, and that is exactly the problem. Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.

    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    So all Christians share morals now?

    Last I checked Christians managed yell at each other about slavery for 100s of years without it coming to a conclusion about "what Jesus would do".

    Notice the use the word attempt, but you actually prove my point. If I was an atheistic slave owner, how would use your knowledge of my Atheism to show me that slavery is wrong?

    The point being "what I think you should do" and "what I think Jesus thinks you should do" have equal weight since everyone is deciding what they think anyway.

  • Options
    Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheists generally still rely on the cultural norms set down by religious communities around them.

    I can also take the parts of religious teachings that I think work, or are good ideas, without any obligation to the bad parts as well. Atheism doesn't mean a rejection of everything anyone who believes in anything ever says.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    :/

    Now you see, if atheism were an actual organized religion you could kick him out for heresy!

    Well... Or you could at least define things and take positions other than 'gods don't exist'

    Which isn't a bad thing to be able to do.

    Yes but it's entirely outside the scope of atheism (which has an incredibly narrow scope, to the point where it actually one single idea).

    Even trying to make sense of or categorize the ramifications of that one single idea falls outside the scope, and necessitates some other system or philosophy!

    Atheism is "There's no god". "Ok so there's no God, what now?" is actually beyond atheism.

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    If we start with the assumption that humans are 'supposed to' have religious belief, then atheist is a meaningful description. If we start with the assumption that religious belief is the deviation from the norm, then "atheist" is insignificant, since lack of religious belief would be the standard.

    Defining one's self as "atheist" is ideologically self-defeating.

    Being an atheist does not mean one is areligious.
    It does not mean that one cannot believe in some kind of afterlife and/or souls.
    It only means that they don't believe that a deity or deities is a part of that.

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Also worth noting that you can be a theist and consider gods to be bad things.

  • Options
    Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    There are belief structures that inform a person's morality, but atheism does not describe that. Atheism just means a person does not believe in any god. Moral philosphies like Nihilism or Humanism or whatever (I'm totally out of my league there) are their own thing, and can be paired with atheism, but do not have any kind of intrinsic relationship with atheism.

    Just to be clear, by Humanist, I mean Secular Humanism, which is a moral system rooted in Atheism.

    Further, I have to disagree. It would be very illogical to become an Atheist, then turn around an embrace the moral teaching of Islam(which derive from a claimed revelation from God). Choosing to become an Atheist by will logically cut you off from any moral system that rests on "This is right/wrong because God said so". Further, moral systems like Nihilism do not generally pair well with theistic religions, because the underlying premises do not agree, thus to be a Christian Nihilist is an incoherent concept. Atheism does have moral implications in that it closes the doors on some moral systems, and opens the doors on others.

    Not sure how that contradicts anything I said.

    You said "Moral philosphies like Nihilism or Humanism or whatever (I'm totally out of my league there) are their own thing", and I pointed out how some moral philosophies and Atheism are intertwined. Assuming the person is being logical, the choice to be Atheist affects the options for moral philosophy.

    Lets assume you have the following choices for moral philosophy {C1..Cx, I1..Ix, N, SH}. Where C1..Cx is the various branches of Christion moral philosophy, I1..Ix are the various branches of Islam, N is Nihilism, SH is Secular Humanism. Yes, there are a lot more options, but that is beside the point. The moment you choose to be a Christian, your logical choices become {C1..Cx}. The moment you choose Atheism, your logical choices become {N, SH}. Saying that Atheism has no moral implications is simply not true.

    Alinius133 on
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    It really confuses me how people will say things like "there isn't a single, whole atheist community" when there are large Atheist conventions, things like the Richard Dawkins foundation (and their scarlet A logo), as well as humanist groups of various stripes that run charity events and Darwin Days

    Like, okay maybe you personally (anyone in the thread who is arguing on this line) isn't a part of the "larger atheist community"- you don't go to meetings (which exist!) you don't hang out with people and talk about reasons for your non belief (but this is a thing that happens in organized ways!) you personally may not identify with the larger atheist community.

    But that doesn't mean there aren't a significant amount of people who do identify with and associate themselves with this community.

    Now, the dude who murdered these women, is he part of the "atheist community"? I don't know! I doubt it, unless we can check member records or something.

    I mean I get the overall point- this guy probably wasn't a part of the "atheist community," he was just a crazy jackhole who went off the deep end (though I presume there are some other causal factors involved than just parking disputes, but that is speculation)

    Does this mean we should hold "atheists" responsible for these murders?

    No, not at all. Can we hold the atheist community responsible for being anti-religious (which many prominent participants in the community are) as well as strongly islamaphobic?

    Well, yeah. Do I think these sorts of ideas had an influence on the murders this week? It is hard to tell. My gut says "possible, but not more so than the general undertones of islamaphobia and racism already present in American society."

    In a similar way, and this is something the "atheist community" needs to also think about, you can't hold organized religion responsible for the actions of their radical extremes

    Arch on
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    There are also redhead conventions.

  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    There are also redhead conventions.

    Yes but it's widely understood that gingers are shifty and untrustworthy.

  • Options
    redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    :/

    Now you see, if atheism were an actual organized religion you could kick him out for heresy!

    Well... Or you could at least define things and take positions other than 'gods don't exist'

    Which isn't a bad thing to be able to do.

    Yes but it's entirely outside the scope of atheism (which has an incredibly narrow scope, to the point where it actually one single idea).

    Even trying to make sense of or categorize the ramifications of that one single idea falls outside the scope, and necessitates some other system or philosophy!

    Atheism is "There's no god". "Ok so there's no God, what now?" is actually beyond atheism.

    OK.

    So atheism has no real meaningful effects on... anything at all really.


    Do we have to start a new thread to talk about the greater culture(s) of people who are athiests and what is the term I should use so I don't have to see this argument?

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Just because something is defined as "the absence of something else," it doesn't logically follow that one couldn't be defined by their lack of faith. And by extension, it also doesn't follow that isn't some sort of community of atheists.

    I mean, it is certainly true that not everyone who professes to be an atheist would be defined by that and be a part of the community that exists

    But also that is kind of true of all belief (or non belief) systems.

    I'm certain (because I know them!) that there are people who are "Christians" and their only link to other Christians is that they believe Jesus died for their sins; they don't go to church or really interact in or participate with the community at large.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a christian community.

    Same with atheism. You may only be united with other atheists because you don't believe in any sort of theistic faith, but that doesn't mean there isn't a community of atheists. You just don't participate in that community by default.

    No one participates in a community by default!

  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    First up to clear up some confusion, and no, this is not a "No true Scotsman fallacy", but there exists a significant subset of Christians who are what I would call "Ethnic Christians". They grew up in a Christian household, and self identify as Christian, but when you ask them what they believe, you will get something that is more of a general Deism and Agnostic. I am about as non-denominational as they come, but there are still a few basic core tenants that you must believe to be a Christian. Saying, "I am an Atheist who believes in God" is an illogical statement. So is "I am a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ". In short, just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.

    As a Christian, if I see another Christian acting badly, I have a common set of ideals that I at least attempt to use to show them that what they are doing isn't "What Jesus would do". Unfortunately, those of you who say that Atheists has little or no common ground are correct, and that is exactly the problem. Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.

    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    So all Christians share morals now?

    Last I checked Christians managed yell at each other about slavery for 100s of years without it coming to a conclusion about "what Jesus would do".

    Yes they did. Seen any slaves recently? Banning slavery was the conclusion.

  • Options
    Alinius133Alinius133 Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Alinius133 wrote: »
    First up to clear up some confusion, and no, this is not a "No true Scotsman fallacy", but there exists a significant subset of Christians who are what I would call "Ethnic Christians". They grew up in a Christian household, and self identify as Christian, but when you ask them what they believe, you will get something that is more of a general Deism and Agnostic. I am about as non-denominational as they come, but there are still a few basic core tenants that you must believe to be a Christian. Saying, "I am an Atheist who believes in God" is an illogical statement. So is "I am a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ". In short, just because someone claims to be Christian doesn't make it so.

    As a Christian, if I see another Christian acting badly, I have a common set of ideals that I at least attempt to use to show them that what they are doing isn't "What Jesus would do". Unfortunately, those of you who say that Atheists has little or no common ground are correct, and that is exactly the problem. Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.

    That said, under the umbrella of Atheism, you have the New Atheists(Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc.) who treat anyone who holds any belief in the supernatural as sick, deluded individuals, and the Nihilists who have rejected the existence of most or all moral boundaries. That is somewhat like putting gunpowder and a lit match in proximity to each other.

    So all Christians share morals now?

    Last I checked Christians managed yell at each other about slavery for 100s of years without it coming to a conclusion about "what Jesus would do".

    Notice the use the word attempt, but you actually prove my point. If I was an atheistic slave owner, how would use your knowledge of my Atheism to show me that slavery is wrong?

    The point being "what I think you should do" and "what I think Jesus thinks you should do" have equal weight since everyone is deciding what they think anyway.
    Only if you don't have some external common reference point, like maybe a book filled with examples of what Jesus did....

    Alinius133 on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Atheism is not about the benevolence or the power level of an entity. It really is just any and all "gods" as a category like "dragons." It's really kind of a useless term! It's prominence is mainly because most of the world is looking at everything from the Abrahamic monotheistic point of view.

    Mine is not, sorry. "Gods" is a silly loaded term so I use "higher, intelligent, benevolent power" to more accurately describe my belief.

    :/

    Now you see, if atheism were an actual organized religion you could kick him out for heresy!

    Well... Or you could at least define things and take positions other than 'gods don't exist'

    Which isn't a bad thing to be able to do.

    Yes but it's entirely outside the scope of atheism (which has an incredibly narrow scope, to the point where it actually one single idea).

    Even trying to make sense of or categorize the ramifications of that one single idea falls outside the scope, and necessitates some other system or philosophy!

    Atheism is "There's no god". "Ok so there's no God, what now?" is actually beyond atheism.

    OK.

    So atheism has no real meaningful effects on... anything at all really.


    Do we have to start a new thread to talk about the greater culture(s) of people who are athiests and what is the term I should use so I don't have to see this argument?

    You don't have to start a new thread (are you being intentionally snarky, I can't tell) but if you want to talk about a group of atheists it would help if you actually say which group. You want to talk about Dawkins and his disciples? OK. You want to talk about secular humanists? OK.

    You want to lump it all together and talk about "atheists" and not receive this argument in response? No.

  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    There are also redhead conventions.

    Not all redheads are a member of the ginger community

    Some gingers actively pursue a better place for gingers in the world, and want to associate and share stories of being ginger with other gingers, and are a part of the community

    All gingers are untrustworthy scoundrels

  • Options
    ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
Sign In or Register to comment.