Your view on Atheists

[Nancy Allen``]

And that's something we want to never happen. Now I've seen Atheists who take a more extreme outlook on theists, they also believe that they do not have to abide by what other people abide by. What if they go further? And to prempt the arguement the same applies to people against abortion, who's to say some religious nut job won't ignore what is written to act on some stupid plan to smite sinners?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You make it sound like abortion clinic bombings and murdering abortion doctors isn't already happening.

 

But as was said, there's no reason to think anti-theism in the West will grow violent, more than there's a reason to think environmentalism, socialism, conservationism or any other peaceful ideology will.

[Nancy Allen``]

Ah but there is violence over all those things. You have some nut job go out and kill for Atheism and how is that going to look? As bad as religion.

[John Galt]

You make it sound like abortion clinic bombings and murdering abortion doctors isn't already happening.

 

But as was said, there's no reason to think anti-theism in the West will grow violent, more than there's a reason to think environmentalism, socialism, conservationism or any other peaceful ideology will.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

[Totenkopf]

Unlike organized religion, atheism is a natural state.

 

Perhaps you should define your terms here. Seems atheism is as learned a response to the question of who are we and how did we get here as is theism. Religion/spirituality seems no less a natural state vis-a-vis this existential question than is atheism.

[Achilles]

By that I mean you harp on about religion killing, it's brought up even when others don't want to discuss it.

Then I would have to wonder what said individuals are doing posting in a religion-related thread. Am I supposed to feel guilty because someone voluntarily joined a conversation and then heard something they didn't want to hear? Free speech is free speech last time I checked. I don't question your right to say or believe whatever it is that you wish to say or believe, but so long as we are in a discussion forum, I will question what it is that you say and/or what it is that you believe. Feel free to reciprocate if you so choose. I don't mind.

 

Well what if Atheists were to grow so intolerant of theists they seek to kill them?

Then we'd be on the first step to catching up with our theistic brothers and sisters. I'm not sure I take your point. What if all the left-handed people decided to raise up and begin killing all the right-handed oppressors that make it so hard for them to buy a good mouse?

 

Your hypothetical situation does make for an interesting sociological exercise, however I just don't see what such concerns are founded on. Atheistic fear of theism is pretty well founded considering that theists claim devotion to a book in which their god tell the faithful to kill non-believers and have a track record of following such orders out to their fullest. Is there any atheistic "holy" book that you've found that parrots such a sentiment?

 

Then how will Atheism look? As bad as religion I would wager, as intolerant and hypocritical as they make religion out to be.

One more reason why it's highly unlikely that such a thing would ever occur.

 

Converse Accident, it's your say so that it's fiction and therefore taking your belief as gospal.

Strawman. The "fictional" is not the anchor of my previous argument. You can certainly feel free to change it to non-fictional if it makes you feel better, however you have no evidence to show that such a claim is true.

 

Another fallacy, poisoning the well. Throw in Special Pleading as Atheism is dressed up to make it look like the way it labels religion doesn't apply to them.

Kudos for your effort. Unfortunately, there appears to be a little confusion on how these fallacies work.

 

Poisoning the well does not apply because I am not making any attempt (in this argument) to persuade others that what religion might say later is false. The topic is theocide. You want to make an argument that atheistic protests should be censored because it might lead to theocide. My counter-argument is that while this is possible, it's certainly more likely that theists will (have/are now) engag(e) (ed/ing) in such actions against non-believers, because they have already shown a willingness to do so and adopt a doctrine which promotes such action.

 

Similarly, special pleading would only apply if I were to make the claim that atheist-driven theocide was somehow "different" than theist-driven theocide. Which I have not.

 

Begging the question. The thing is Atheists don't have such standereds and therefore can make up in their own mind that murder of theists is legitimate.

Again, kudos for trying. Begging the question fallacy is when circular reasoning is used (the conclusion is true because the premise is based upon the conclusion being true). Since I am not making a claim (rather I am asking you to support yours), I can't be guilty of using that fallacy here.

 

Since you are admitting that "atheists don't have such standards" (a reference, I am assuming, to a 'holy' text), then we've been able to determine via process of elimination that you are either generalizing or hypothesizing.

 

Of course they are all guilty of it.

Ok, then we can all stop trying to make this out to be about atheists.

 

EDIT: oh, I see you added more to your response. I'll address it later.

[TK-8252]

Perhaps you should define your terms here. Seems atheism is as learned a response to the question of who are we and how did we get here as is theism. Religion/spirituality seems no less a natural state vis-a-vis this existential question than is atheism.

 

You don't see cows worshipping crosses do you?

 

Until a person is introduced to the concept of god/religion, said person is essentially an atheist. Meaning that they lack a belief in theism.

 

Your misconception is that atheism is some kind of belief. It's a lack thereof.

[Web Rider]

This is mostly correct. I would add that it is not only my claim nor can I be credited with being the first one to put all the pieces together. Additionally, I don't believe I ever stated that Bush was the sole figure, only that it was he, along with his administration, that was paving the way for his constituency's imaginative vision.

 

I know, I heard it long before I even came to Lucas-Forums. I was doing my best to sum it up in context with the discussion and the question. Apologies if I did so incorrectly at any point.

 

But which group of Atheists? It's been said that organizing Atheists is like herding cats. Atheism is not a philosophy, nor is it a world-view in and of itself. Atheism is simply saying "no" to the supernatural. There are a lot more atheists in the US than one would suspect, especially among intellectuals, and none of them, to my knowledge, have advocated killing ANYONE on the basis of religion or lack thereof.

 

That's not entirely correct, again, because as you state, there are many kinds of atheists. There are atheists who say "no" to everything that cannot be outright explained by science. Which is a narrow view in and of itself since science has yet to explain everything. While I would argue that the majority of atheists say "no" to the classical definition of an omnipotent/omnipresent singular god, and to dogmatic religions. That's not to say that many don't take part in dogmatic viewpoints themselves, but that's their problem to deal with.

 

To address the argument of which stance a person takes before they're indoctrinated to one view or the other, or before they truly form their own, I would put forth that they are agnostic. They don't outright say "there is no god" because that's impossible, since that would require them to acknowledge the existence of the argument that there IS a god. And they don't outright say "there is a god" because of course, somebody would have had to present the idea to them, even just as basic as "something more than us out there somewhere."

 

They're defacto neutral. They can't say "yes" without either formulating the idea themselves or having it given to them. And they can't say "no" without doing the same.

 

You don't see cows worshipping crosses do you?

 

Until a person is introduced to the concept of god/religion, said person is essentially an atheist. Meaning that they lack a belief in theism.

 

Your misconception is that atheism is some kind of belief. It's a lack thereof.

 

Atheism is not a lack of belief, since they, like theists do not have all the facts, yet believe a certain POV is the truth. They do however, lack the dogmatic core belief system that unites the millions of theists around the world.

 

Not to sound annoying, but, proof plz sounds accurate. We don't know what cows worship if indeed cows posses the ability to worship things, or if they posses the ability to think on such an abstract level. Cows religious symbols may be crop circles, or perhaps patterns of grass movement caused by the wind. Or cows may simply be dumb animals.

 

And I still put forth that a person can formulate their own ideas about higher powers, and that until they do, or are given some, they are essentially neutral. If they were naturally atheist, they would be saying "no" and thus already formulated an opinion/belief on the subject.

 

Which would make one question if a "default" state is even possible and anything more than just the varied opinions of debaters.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Here's my view: Can you believe in something you've never been introduced to and don't even know about? Nope. This goes for gods, too. And the term to describe people who do not believe in gods is 'atheist'. Babies have no concept of God, and as such cannot believe in him or find themselves agnostic. They are atheists, until they're introduced to mythology.

 

Atheism is the default state. Just like a baby is born apolitical as it has no knowledge of politics.

[Web Rider]

Atheism is the default state. Just like a baby is born apolitical as it has no knowledge of politics.

 

A lack of knowledge does not atheism make. Atheists say: "from all I know, the answer is "NO"." But since people who don't know ANYTHING about it, who are a blank slate, are unable to say yes, or no, because if they did, it would imply that they know something about it.

 

Children lack a knowledge of politics, and therefore do not make decisions regarding it. Children lack a knowledge of higher powers, and therefore do not make decisions regarding it.

 

there is a fine difference between "lack of belief" and "disbelief".

[TK-8252]

Atheism is not a lack of belief [...]

 

Let's break down the structure of the word, shall we?

 

The "theism" part refers to believing in the supernatural, no matter if it's one god, a million gods, or believing that my cat controls the universe.

 

"A" means that there is a lack of something (in this case, theism). The word "amoral" for example, means a lack of morality. Atheism means that there is a lack in the belief of the supernatural. It's as simple as that.

 

[...] since they, like theists do not have all the facts, yet believe a certain POV is the truth.

 

Do you believe that there is a piece of cheese orbiting the sun? You can't disprove that there isn't, but wouldn't believing there is, just because you don't have the facts about it, be silly? You don't believe there is cheese around the sun, just as I don't believe there is a god. It's not the other way around (I believe there is no cheese around the sun / I believe there is no god).

 

there is a fine difference between "lack of belief" and "disbelief".

 

Depending on your definition of disbelief, not really. Some definitions of disbelief say "the refusal to believe in something," others say "the state of not believing." The second definition could easily translate to a lack of belief. The first definition implies that one is aware of a belief but actively refuses to believe it. Either way, atheism is not a belief in any way, shape, or form.

[Web Rider]

Let's break down the structure of the word, shall we?

 

The "theism" part refers to believing in the supernatural, no matter if it's one god, a million gods, or believing that my cat controls the universe.

 

"A" means that there is a lack of something (in this case, theism). The word "amoral" for example, means a lack of morality. Atheism means that there is a lack in the belief of the supernatural. It's as simple as that.

 

no, according to the dictionary, which, to my knowledge is still the best source for the definition of words, "theism" only applies to a god, THE God or gods. Not ghosts, centaurs, vampires, and all other things supernatural.

 

To be more specific, the Dictionary says that "theism" is most correctly used when talking about"a belief in THE God, without rejection of revelation". hence differentiating it from "deism", the belief in a higher power without religious boundaries. So A-"theism" is a disbelief in a god, THE God, gods, and the religious dogmas that surround them. Or, at the very least, just a god, THE God, or gods.

 

Additionally, there are a wide varieties of "atheism", ranging from strong to weak atheism, based on how hardcore the believer is in the non-existance of God.

 

Do you believe that there is a piece of cheese orbiting the sun? You can't disprove that there isn't, but wouldn't believing there is, just because you don't have the facts about it, be silly? You don't believe there is cheese around the sun, just as I don't believe there is a god. It's not the other way around (I believe there is no cheese around the sun / I believe there is no god).

 

Do I believe it? No, but I don't deny the possibility. I know full well that everything I think is right, could indeed be wrong.

 

Depending on your definition of disbelief, not really. Some definitions of disbelief say "the refusal to believe in something," others say "the state of not believing." The second definition could easily translate to a lack of belief. The first definition implies that one is aware of a belief but actively refuses to believe it. Either way, atheism is not a belief in any way, shape, or form.

 

Again, I reference the dictionary, in which none of the definitions apply to a "lack of belief". They only apply to a refusal to believe in a certain thing that is professed as "true". And once again, according to the dictionary, "atheism" is: "the doctrine of belief that there is no god(following theism above, this includes THE God and multiple gods)"

[TK-8252]

no, according to the dictionary, which, to my knowledge is still the best source for the definition of words, "theism" only applies to a god, THE God or gods. Not ghosts, centaurs, vampires, and all other things supernatural.

 

You're right. I poorly worded my post when I used "supernatural" to refer to god or gods. I can't think of a single word that would include god or gods, and supernatural is too broad. But that's what I meant to say - god or gods.

 

To be more specific, the Dictionary says that "theism" is most correctly used when talking about"a belief in THE God, without rejection of revelation".

 

Well, the god would imply that there is one god, as in monotheism. I use the word "theism" to include both monotheism and polytheism.

 

Do I believe it? No, but I don't deny the possibility. I know full well that everything I think is right, could indeed be wrong.

 

That's probably what most atheists have on the stance of theism. Atheists don't deny the possibility... just as you don't deny the possibility of the cheese.

 

Again, I reference the dictionary, in which none of the definitions apply to a "lack of belief". They only apply to a refusal to believe in a certain thing that is professed as "true".

 

Depends on what dictionary you're citing. Dictionary.com had a number of different definitions of disbelief, one being "the state of not believing."

[Jae Onasi]

That Atheists would stoop to the level theists have and feel that laws don't apply to them. Now do you want that? Are you prepared for that?

Would? Try have. The atheists Stalin and Mao decided to be laws unto themselves, just like any other 'theistic killer', and massacred millions, many of them Christian in the case of Soviet Russia. In fact, they killed more people in under 50 years than all the religious wars combined throughout the centuries. Christians are still getting beaten today in China for something as simple as telling another person about Christ, and Christians have to hide to worship if they can't get a state sponsorship for their church. I'd call that atheist terrorism, and we're lucky we don't have that experience here in the US.

[Web Rider]

You're right. I poorly worded my post when I used "supernatural" to refer to god or gods. I can't think of a single word that would include god or gods, and supernatural is too broad. But that's what I meant to say - god or gods.

 

fair enough.

 

Well, the god would imply that there is one god, as in monotheism. I use the word "theism" to include both monotheism and polytheism.

 

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a monotheistic religion that isn't using the Judeo-Christian-Islamic singular God. But to be safe, I included a non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic, capital "G" god to be safe. It's also how it was written in the dictionary. And I'm aware that you used "theism" to apply to both, I was just attempting to be more specific.

 

 

That's probably what most atheists have on the stance of theism. Atheists don't deny the possibility... just as you don't deny the possibility of the cheese.

 

Right, they may not deny the possibility they are incorrect, but similarly they may still believe they are right. As many people of many beliefs likely do as well.

 

EDIT: denominations is incorrect word.

 

Depends on what dictionary you're citing. Dictionary.com had a number of different definitions of disbelief, one being "the state of not believing."

 

This is where I took a little opinion, it says, as you rightly point out "a state of not believing." I ignored this one because I felt it was too vague. What IS a "state of not believing"? Don't, in order to not believe in something, you have to know about it? Either by being given the idea or coming up with it yourself, to "not believe", you must consciously think "I don't believe in that." If you don't know that Belgium exists, never heard of it, absolutely completely ignorant to it's existance, can you honestly profess that you "don't believe" in it until you've been confronted with evidence of it's possible existance?

 

In short, in order to "not believe" in something, don't you first have to have some kind of inkling of that hypothetical "something" to not believe in it? You can be ignorant of it's existance, but you can't truly "not believe" in something that you've never even heard of or thought of.

[SilentScope001]

Am I the only person who cares about the original topic: "Your view on Atheists"?

 

Let be honest. This thread taught me that most Theists hate Atheists and most Atheists hate Theists. The only thing we CAN agree on is "We won't kill each other. For now."

[Totenkopf]

@TK--the only real natural state is one of wondering (at some point) where we come from. Atheism is an expressed belief (like it or not) that we don't come from any single God or gods, based on a lack of sufficient physical evidence to reach said conclusion. It's not the same as amoral or apolitical, despite the prefix.

 

@SS--that may be somewhat extreme. I don't believe that all theists and atheists hate one another, though their belief systems are mutually exclusive. There's a lot more in life going on than just the question of God/gods.

[Jae Onasi]

Let be honest. This thread taught me that most Theists hate Atheists and most Atheists hate Theists. The only thing we CAN agree on is "We won't kill each other. For now."

 

I can dislike the idea of atheism as a (non) belief system, but that doesn't mean I hate the people who are atheists--there's a huge difference. I have several dear friends who are atheist or agnostic, and even if our discussions of God get very boisterous when we're together, we're still friends at the end of the night.

[Prime]

I can dislike the idea of atheism as a (non) belief system, but that doesn't mean I hate the people who are atheists--there's a huge difference.

That, in the end, is what this guy puts forward. Basically, you can respect someone's right to have a belief, but you don't have to respect the belief itself.

 

 

NOTE: This clip is quite anti-religion, so for those sensitive to such things, please be mindful of that if you decide to view it.

[SilentScope001]

I can dislike the idea of atheism as a (non) belief system, but that doesn't mean I hate the people who are atheists--there's a huge difference. I have several dear friends who are atheist or agnostic, and even if our discussions of God get very boisterous when we're together, we're still friends at the end of the night.

 

Oh, er. That may be true, but you are attacking an intergral part of the person (their religion or belief), you know. Claiming I like you, but I dislike a key part of what you are as a person, seems likey that the first statement is not that true, at least to me.

 

It is probraly a bit too extreme a viewpoint however. Never mind then.

[Totenkopf]

That, in the end, is what this guy puts forward. Basically, you can respect someone's right to have a belief, but you don't have to respect the belief itself.

 

 

NOTE: This clip is quite anti-religion, so for those sensitive to such things, please be mindful of that if you decide to view it.

 

Actually, I think he goes a little beyond that. I don't believe respect comes into the picture at all. Other than that, I thought it was funny, if somewhat morbidly so. He seems more hung up on his right to make fun of people than anything else (don't criticize me for mocking you....you're crazy, don't ya know muhahahaha ).

[Web Rider]

Oh, er. That may be true, but you are attacking an intergral part of the person (their religion or belief), you know. Claiming I like you, but I dislike a key part of what you are as a person, seems likey that the first statement is not that true, at least to me.

 

It is probraly a bit too extreme a viewpoint however. Never mind then.

 

Attacking and disliking really aren't the same. I can dislike your dog, but that doesn't mean I'll kick it when it's in range. But alot of that has to do with how sensitive a person is, if they're rather sure in their belief, they're not gonna care if you don't like it. And if the person who dislikes it is pretty sure in their belief, they're not gonna care that they don't get a rise out of the other person.

[Achilles]

@ Nancy re: the rest of post #97:

 

Your argument that the bible tells followers to adhere to the law of the land does little to address any of the points that I have raised.

 

First, the bible emphatically states that "the next life" is the one that matters and in order to remain in god's good graces you must adhere to his edicts. If you have found a contradictory verse that states otherwise, then we can certainly add it to the mountain of biblical contradictions. However, such a verse does not address the points I have raised and makes for an exceedingly weak argument on your part. Until you actually address these points, I don't see how we can proceed with our dialog.

 

Moving on...

 

I know, I heard it long before I even came to Lucas-Forums. I was doing my best to sum it up in context with the discussion and the question. Apologies if I did so incorrectly at any point.

No offense was taken. My arguments are frequently misconstrued and I only wanted to clear the record before a strawman could be constructed and burned in effigy.

 

There are atheists who say "no" to everything that cannot be outright explained by science.

I cannot speak for all atheists, but I can say that is a misrepresentation of some atheists. I think it would be more accurate to say, "There are some atheists who say 'no verifiable answer has been provided' to everything that cannot be outright explained by science".

 

Science-minded atheists don't denounce the existence of god, they simply denounce the claims of those the choose to believe because there is no evidience to support such claims.

 

It might seem like splitting hairs, but I consider it to be a pretty significant difference.

 

Which is a narrow view in and of itself since science has yet to explain everything.

I'm not sure I follow. Is this to say that scientists should accept any hypothesis that they are exposed until they can offer another explanation which is (dis)proveable?

 

While I would argue that the majority of atheists say "no" to the classical definition of an omnipotent/omnipresent singular god, and to dogmatic religions. That's not to say that many don't take part in dogmatic viewpoints themselves, but that's their problem to deal with.

True science renounces dogma. People that claim to be scientists but adopt dogmatic views would appear to be hypocritical.

 

To address the argument of which stance a person takes before they're indoctrinated to one view or the other, or before they truly form their own, I would put forth that they are agnostic.

In order to be agnostic, they would first have to have knowledge of theism. This presents a difficult problem for your argument.

 

They don't outright say "there is no god" because that's impossible, since that would require them to acknowledge the existence of the argument that there IS a god. And they don't outright say "there is a god" because of course, somebody would have had to present the idea to them, even just as basic as "something more than us out there somewhere."

Correct. I think everyone involved is pretty close to saying the same thing, but in slightly different ways.

 

They're defacto neutral. They can't say "yes" without either formulating the idea themselves or having it given to them. And they can't say "no" without doing the same.

In order to be neutral, atheism would have to be accepted as anti-theism, with theism at the other end of the spectrum and agnosticism at the fulcrum. This representation would appear to misrepresent atheism, which is a lack of theism, not an antithesis to theism.

 

If we have a scale starting at 0 and going to 100, atheism would be 0 and theism would be anything other than 0 (I'll present my case for why negative numbers support this argument/model, but only if someone asks )

 

Atheism is not a lack of belief, since they, like theists do not have all the facts, yet believe a certain POV is the truth. They do however, lack the dogmatic core belief system that unites the millions of theists around the world.

Again, I'm not sure I follow here. Atheists do not have to have all the facts to acknowledge that they don't have all the facts. ("True") Atheism makes no positive claim about the existence of god or the non-existence of god. Atheism makes the claim that no one can know because there is insufficient evidence. That POV is true and the only rational one to adopt...until some evidence, one way or the other, can be provided.

 

And I still put forth that a person can formulate their own ideas about higher powers, and that until they do, or are given some, they are essentially neutral. If they were naturally atheist, they would be saying "no" and thus already formulated an opinion/belief on the subject.

This argument would appear to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is, which I hopefully helped to clarify earlier. Please let me know if I can clarify further.

 

Which would make one question if a "default" state is even possible and anything more than just the varied opinions of debaters.

I don't think such a question is unanswerable, let alone difficult to answer. We have no problem considering rocks to be amoral. It's no different to acknowledge that humans are atheistic until enculturated into the religion of their parents/providers.

 

Additionally, there are a wide varieties of "atheism", ranging from strong to weak atheism, based on how hardcore the believer is in the non-existance of God.

I've seen this argument before and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. To me you're either theistic or atheistic. I would tend to think of the concept of "degrees of atheism" as an attempt to describe the various "flavors" of atheists that one might encounter. I think Dawkins has a 1-7 scale where a 7 would be someone who emphatically beliefs that god definitely does not exist. I would simply categorize such a person as a nutjob with an agenda against religion and probably couldn't correctly explain what it is to be an atheist if his or her life on the line. Similarly, a 4 or a 5 are either hedging their bets or consider the "truthiness" of atheism to be a little too big and scary. Of course, those are my 2 cents, but hey...

 

Would? Try have. The atheists Stalin and Mao decided to be laws unto themselves, just like any other 'theistic killer', and massacred millions, many of them Christian in the case of Soviet Russia.

As I have pointed out before, Stalin and Mao were dictators first and atheists second. If atheism were the key ingredient, then their policies and practices would look radically different than all the other multitudes of theist dictators. In other words, the "killer" in both of these examples was "malevolent dictatorship" not "atheism".

 

In fact, they killed more people in under 50 years than all the religious wars combined throughout the centuries.

Source please?

 

Christians are still getting beaten today in China for something as simple as telling another person about Christ, and Christians have to hide to worship if they can't get a state sponsorship for their church. I'd call that atheist terrorism, and we're lucky we don't have that experience here in the US.

That's called "religious persecution" and it happens in religious regimes as well, Jae. This whole interlude is a strawman.

 

Thanks to everyone for reading.

[Web Rider]

I cannot speak for all atheists, but I can say that is a misrepresentation of some atheists. I think it would be more accurate to say, "There are some atheists who say 'no verifiable answer has been provided' to everything that cannot be outright explained by science".

 

I never said it was all atheists. So we're still saying the same thing.

 

Science-minded atheists don't denounce the existence of god, they simply denounce the claims of those the choose to believe because there is no evidence to support such claims.

 

you're generalizing here, science-minded atheists hold a wide variety of viewpoints, some outright say "god doesn't exist." some are more agnostic in their views.

 

It might seem like splitting hairs, but I consider it to be a pretty significant difference.

 

your simply producing another flavor of atheist.

 

I'm not sure I follow. Is this to say that scientists should accept any hypothesis that they are exposed until they can offer another explanation which is (dis)proveable?

 

yes, all hypothesis should be accepted as a possibility until proven otherwise. And should always be retained as a "well, in case I'm wrong."

 

True science renounces dogma. People that claim to be scientists but adopt dogmatic views would appear to be hypocritical.

 

thats what I said....

 

In order to be agnostic, they would first have to have knowledge of theism. This presents a difficult problem for your argument.

 

yes, I realize that agnosticims falls into the same holes of needing the knowledge of something to not-not believe in.

 

In order to be neutral, atheism would have to be accepted as anti-theism, with theism at the other end of the spectrum and agnosticism at the fulcrum. This representation would appear to misrepresent atheism, which is a lack of theism, not an antithesis to theism.

 

that's a matter of opinion and perspective. Can there be an "anti-theism", I don't really think so. So how you set it up is all up to how you want to use it.

 

If we have a scale starting at 0 and going to 100, atheism would be 0 and theism would be anything other than 0 (I'll present my case for why negative numbers support this argument/model, but only if someone asks )

 

ok, what's the anti-theism?

 

Again, I'm not sure I follow here. Atheists do not have to have all the facts to acknowledge that they don't have all the facts. ("True") Atheism makes no positive claim about the existence of god or the non-existence of god. Atheism makes the claim that no one can know because there is insufficient evidence. That POV is true and the only rational one to adopt...until some evidence, one way or the other, can be provided.

 

that's not atheism. You can't be atheist by simply saying: your claims of god are wrong and we don't know if there is a god. That's bordering on a weird cross between agnosticisms and atheism. Remember, Atheism is a resounding "NO", Agnosticism is a big "MAYBE", Deism is a "YES" and Theism is a dogmatic "YES".

 

This argument would appear to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is, which I hopefully helped to clarify earlier. Please let me know if I can clarify further.

 

Personally I think your definition of atheism only muddied the waters.

 

I don't think such a question is unanswerable, let alone difficult to answer. We have no problem considering rocks to be amoral. It's no different to acknowledge that humans are atheistic until enculturated into the religion of their parents/providers.

 

rocks can't be devoid of morals because they lack the ability to have morals in the first place. People devoid of knowledge of the possibility of a "god" cannot be unbelievers. Furthermore, they can still invent the idea themselves. Somebody had to come up with it right? Was that person atheistic until their own concept was introduced to them? I don't think so.

 

I've seen this argument before and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. To me you're either theistic or atheistic. I would tend to think of the concept of "degrees of atheism" as an attempt to describe the various "flavors" of atheists that one might encounter. I think Dawkins has a 1-7 scale where a 7 would be someone who emphatically beliefs that god definitely does not exist. I would simply categorize such a person as a nutjob with an agenda against religion and probably couldn't correctly explain what it is to be an atheist if his or her life on the line. Similarly, a 4 or a 5 are either hedging their bets or consider the "truthiness" of atheism to be a little too big and scary. Of course, those are my 2 cents, but hey...

 

The world can't be black and white, it just doesn't work that way. And those "nutjobs" that say "there is no God!" make up the definite majority of athiests. So unless you're redefining atheism to fit your argument, and thus cutting out the centeral "disbelief" in god, the B+W view doesn't work.

[Nancy Allen``]

Then I would have to wonder what said individuals are doing posting in a religion-related thread.

 

That would depend on whether you mean theists who don't want to be offended or Atheists who use every chance they get to attack religion.

 

Am I supposed to feel guilty because someone voluntarily joined a conversation and then heard something they didn't want to hear?

 

What say you? How do you feel about the idea of people saying that Atheists want to restrict freedom of speech to ban discussion of religion, that they want to make following such beliefs illegal? What you should do is be able to handle the consequences of what you say, good or bad. If you don't like others getting up in arms over what you say then...

 

Then we'd be on the first step to catching up with our theistic brothers and sisters.

 

But as Jae rigfully pointed out that has already happened, so condemning religion because it creates violence is a moot point with blood on your hands.

 

Your hypothetical situation does make for an interesting sociological exercise, however I just don't see what such concerns are founded on. Atheistic fear of theism is pretty well founded considering that theists claim devotion to a book in which their god tell the faithful to kill non-believers and have a track record of following such orders out to their fullest. Is there any atheistic "holy" book that you've found that parrots such a sentiment?

 

Some Atheists, not all I stress, some, believe they are a law onto themselves, as evidenced by their unwillingness to abide by the same bindings as everyone else. For example those who attack religion, not just debate it but seek to draw out negative reactions, deny any wrongdoing or claim they are entitled to act this way even when they're not.

 

Strawman. The "fictional" is not the anchor of my previous argument. You can certainly feel free to change it to non-fictional if it makes you feel better, however you have no evidence to show that such a claim is true.

 

Non sequiter, you cannot prove that it isn't.

 

Poisoning the well does not apply because I am not making any attempt (in this argument) to persuade others that what religion might say later is false.

 

You lay claim that theists are mass murderers, which is actually a moot point considering. I'd say it applies.

 

You want to make an argument that atheistic protests should be censored because it might lead to theocide.

 

The same could be said for Atheists wanting to ban religion out of fear that they would be killed for being nonbelievers.

 

Since you are admitting that "atheists don't have such standards" (a reference, I am assuming, to a 'holy' text), then we've been able to determine via process of elimination that you are either generalizing or hypothesizing.

 

I an generalizing, because just as there are bad Christians, Jews and Muslims there are bad Atheists, and just as you hold religion accountable for wrongdoings so must Atheism be held accountable for the wrong it has done.

 

Would? Try have.

 

Ah yes. I remember that. It would seem that Atheists have a lot to answer for seeing that they like to drag up the atrocities religion has caused. Thank you Jae, you've just made my day.

 

Let be honest. This thread taught me that most Theists hate Atheists and most Atheists hate Theists. The only thing we CAN agree on is "We won't kill each other. For now."

 

I would like to think that people are not that bad. Yet in my experiance when people take a harder line on something than normal that is usually the first step to them slipping into doing something...unfortunate.

 

Your argument that the bible tells followers to adhere to the law of the land does little to address any of the points that I have raised.

 

You seem to be under the impression that people who follow religion should be killing those who do not follow them, making sacrifices to their god. Quite simply that's not how they work.

 

That's called "religious persecution" and it happens in religious regimes as well, Jae. This whole interlude is a strawman.

 

As a strawman is a type of red herring I would say bringing up the banning of religion in the Soviet Union and China is a most relevent point to bring up. Unless of course it isn't as you claim and is actually an aspect of Atheism that you find uncomfortable.