Religion

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Warborn

We've been over this. Atheism has nothing to do with physicalism, naturalism, rationalism, or any other "ism". A loony person who believes they are psychic and can predict the future and also believes in ghosts and fairies can still be an atheist. Atheists can believe in alien abductions, that the President is a lizard-person from Mars, or believe in werewolves, vampires, unicorns, detest science, hate rational inquiry, but because they don't think there's a god, pow, atheist.

You are clearly not a man of logic,nor do you seem to understand the basic concept of it. All real atheists agree that there is no imaginary man in the sky,but any real atheist wouldnt believe in other imaginary creatures for which there is no proof like werewolves. Any idiot that claims to follow both train of thoughts, believes in neither for their contradicting nature. Detest science and hate rational inquiry? What actual atheist do you know that detests the big bang(the theory,not the TV show. And yes, so far you haven't shown the capacity for actual thoughts so this needed to be added). They can't detest and hate the basis and foundation of Atheism is science and rational thought. Without rational thought we might starting thinking theres an invisible man in the sky and we were created in his image....oh wait.

So if you label yourself an athiest and claim the things you do, you're not a real atheist. Maybe rebelling from mommy and daddy? Must be a teenage angst thing.
If you're a theist, well that explains your close minded attempt to straw man an atheist.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by therandomone

You are clearly not a man of logic,nor do you seem to understand the basic concept of it. All real atheists agree that there is no imaginary man in the sky,but any real atheist wouldnt believe in other imaginary creatures for which there is no proof like werewolves. Any idiot that claims to follow both train of thoughts, believes in neither for their contradicting nature. Detest science and hate rational inquiry? What actual atheist do you know that detests the big bang(the theory,not the TV show. And yes, so far you haven't shown the capacity for actual thoughts so this needed to be added). They can't detest and hate the basis and foundation of Atheism is science and rational thought. Without rational thought we might starting thinking theres an invisible man in the sky and we were created in his image....oh wait.

So if you label yourself an athiest and claim the things you do, you're not a real atheist. Maybe rebelling from mommy and daddy? Must be a teenage angst thing.
If you're a theist, well that explains your close minded attempt to straw man an atheist.

As far as I know he is a sarcastic atheist.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Vecha

As far as I know he is a sarcastic atheist.

Thats terribly unfortunate. Hes insulting himself and atheism by acting so simple mindedly.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by therandomone

Thats terribly unfortunate. Hes insulting himself and atheism by acting so simple mindedly.

"mindely" ?

If you are going to not only insult theists, but also your fellow atheists, I'd watch your spelling.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Vecha

"mindely" ?

If you are going to not only insult theists, but also your fellow atheists, I'd watch your spelling.

Sorry meant to write absent mindedly not simple, and therefore it isnt a spelling mistake. Dont believe me? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1341093904

I understand I still made a mistake, just not a spelling one.

Besides, im only remarking on the the lack of an argument and showing why mine is the most logical.
The little quip I made at the end might be taken as insulting,but it isnt inaccurate. Here's why:
He isn't an atheist for reasons stated in my previous argument, and the second part I was merely just asking if he was rebelling from his parents because they are religious and in if that is the case the most logical conclusion is "teenage angst".

In the second part calling him close minded is merely a reflection of himself through his ideals, his ideals which included straw man-ing what an atheist is.

I try to only remark on things I know I can prove, this is one of those.

[cBselfmonkey]

Originally Posted by therandomone

You are clearly not a man of logic,nor do you seem to understand the basic concept of it. All real atheists agree that there is no imaginary man in the sky,but any real atheist wouldnt believe in other imaginary creatures for which there is no proof like werewolves. Any idiot that claims to follow both train of thoughts, believes in neither for their contradicting nature. Detest science and hate rational inquiry? What actual atheist do you know that detests the big bang(the theory,not the TV show. And yes, so far you haven't shown the capacity for actual thoughts so this needed to be added). They can't detest and hate the basis and foundation of Atheism is science and rational thought. Without rational thought we might starting thinking theres an invisible man in the sky and we were created in his image....oh wait.

So if you label yourself an athiest and claim the things you do, you're not a real atheist. Maybe rebelling from mommy and daddy? Must be a teenage angst thing.
If you're a theist, well that explains your close minded attempt to straw man an atheist.

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God (or Gods) do not exist.

Thats it. Many atheists also don't believe in other supernatural phenomenon and/or have a healthy respect for science and rational though but these things are all in addition to being an atheist. They are not requirements of however and you can believe in the former and dislike the latter but still be an atheist if you disbelieve in a God or gods. Believe it or not there are people out there who don't put faith in any god but will still claim to believe in intelligent design. As odd as that sounds.

Secondly, cut that 'real atheist' crap out.

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

Its just a bad, arrogant argument.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by cBselfmonkey

a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun:
The theory or belief that God (or Gods) do not exist.

Thats it. Many atheists also don't believe in other supernatural phenomenon and/or have a healthy respect for science and rational though but these things are all in addition to being an atheist. They are not requirements of however and you can believe in the former and dislike the latter but still be an atheist if you disbelieve in a God or gods. Believe it or not there are people out there who don't put faith in any god but will still claim to believe in intelligent design. As odd as that sounds.

Secondly, cut that 'real atheist' crap out.

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

Its just a bad, arrogant argument.

Am I arrogant? Yes. Is my argument arrogant? No.

I admire the attempt you're making here, in fact A for effort, but thats as far as that will get you.

So an atheist ONLY believes there is no god, and a christian for instance ONLY believes in a god, and a muslim ONLY believes in a god. Huh, by that logic muslims=christians. See the problem in that? Christians believe jesus is the son of god,muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet. There are other differences and things to consider when differentiating and classifying systems of belief.

"Believe it or not there are people out there who don't put faith in any god but will still claim to believe in intelligent design".... I really like that line, because it only goes to prove the point about the "real" atheists that you really dont seem to like. The irony makes me giggle. People who believe in things like this only prove that they clearly don't understand the premises of either. So sure, you can claim to have both those beliefs but you clearly know nothing.
Like I said you only further proved my point that there is a difference in atheists and people who claim to be atheist.

So, as odd as that sounds, the only crap that needs to be cut out are the shitty arguments.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by therandomone

You are clearly not a man of logic,nor do you seem to understand the basic concept of it. All real atheists agree that there is no imaginary man in the sky,but any real atheist wouldnt believe in other imaginary creatures for which there is no proof like werewolves. Any idiot that claims to follow both train of thoughts, believes in neither for their contradicting nature. Detest science and hate rational inquiry? What actual atheist do you know that detests the big bang(the theory,not the TV show. And yes, so far you haven't shown the capacity for actual thoughts so this needed to be added). They can't detest and hate the basis and foundation of Atheism is science and rational thought. Without rational thought we might starting thinking theres an invisible man in the sky and we were created in his image....oh wait.

So if you label yourself an athiest and claim the things you do, you're not a real atheist. Maybe rebelling from mommy and daddy? Must be a teenage angst thing.
If you're a theist, well that explains your close minded attempt to straw man an atheist.

Oh, do I need to turn in my Atheist Club Card? Is my membership revoked?

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe there is a god (or gods). Period. That's it. It says nothing about what other beliefs a person has. There would be nothing incorrect about someone referring to themselves as an atheist but believing in an afterlife of some sort. It would be perfectly acceptable for an atheist to believe in something like karma, where if you do good things, good things happen to you due to some kind of supernatural magic. How about an atheist who thinks the Mayans really could predict the end of the world, and it's happening this December?

None of these things are at odds with being an atheist. What you're describing -- deference to logic and appreciation of science while not believing in god(s) -- is an atheist, plus a bunch of other shit. But to describe a plain, simple atheist as someone who is logical and rational is completely incorrect. Not believing of god says absolutely nothing about one's position on being logical or rational. A small child too immature to grasp the concept of deities, for example, is an atheist, and yet they probably don't get excited when people start talking about physics or logic, do they?

And this isn't sarcastic or anything. Honestly, this shit's about as straightforward as it gets. Just look up any decent definition of the term and stand agape at how improperly you've interpreted it. Incidentally, this is also why I think we should abandon the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" altogether. Silly people impress their own definitions onto them much too readily.

[cBselfmonkey]

Originally Posted by therandomone

Am I arrogant? Yes. Is my argument arrogant? No.

I admire the attempt you're making here, in fact A for effort, but thats as far as that will get you.

So an atheist ONLY believes there is no god, and a christian for instance ONLY believes in a god, and a muslim ONLY believes in a god. Huh, by that logic muslims=christians. See the problem in that?

Yeah. The problem mainly that you don't actually seem to think your points through. Namely that being a Christen or a Muslim is not just about a belief in a higher power. There are completely different religious infrastructures that you have to be part of to be considered a member of those faiths. If these infrastructures didn't exist then all religious people would just be deists. No holy laws/books/scripture, no prophets or saviors, nothing except the belief in a higher power.

Atheism has no such infrastructure. There is no universal 'League of Atheists' that have created anything like the systems and laws found in organized religion that must be abided to be a part of that religion in addition to the belief in God or gods. As such the only thing that is required to be an atheist is exactly what the word means. A lack a belief in any God or Gods.

Christians believe jesus is the son of god,muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet. There are other differences and things to consider when differentiating and classifying systems of belief.

And atheism has nothing like this. There are no further requirement to be an atheist. You don't have to like science or disbelieve in werewolves in order to be an atheist. There is a difference between things like a disbelieve in supernatural entities, liking science and atheism being found in many atheists and these things being hard requirements in order to call yourself an atheist similar to having to believe in Jesus Christ as a savior in order to be Christan.

"Believe it or not there are people out there who don't put faith in any god but will still claim to believe in intelligent design".... I really like that line, because it only goes to prove the point about the "real" atheists that you really dont seem to like. The irony makes me giggle. People who believe in things like this only prove that they clearly don't understand the premises of either. So sure, you can claim to have both those beliefs but you clearly know nothing.
Like I said you only further proved my point that there is a difference in atheists and people who claim to be atheist.

There is only one hard requirement to be an atheist. Even if you believe in intelligent design if you didn't believe in a God or gods you would be an atheist. Not a very good one by my standards but you would be one. Not a 'lesser' or 'not really' atheist because there is only one requirement and they'd meet it.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by cBselfmonkey

Yeah. The problem mainly that you don't actually seem to think your points through. Namely that being a Christen or a Muslim is not just about a belief in a higher power. There are completely different religious infrastructures that you have to be part of to be considered a member of those faiths. If these infrastructures didn't exist then all religious people would just be deists. No holy laws/books/scripture, no prophets or saviors, nothing except the belief in a higher power.

Atheism has no such infrastructure. There is no universal 'League of Atheists' that have created anything like the systems and laws found in organized religion that must be abided to be a part of that religion in addition to the belief in God or gods. As such the only thing that is required to be an atheist is exactly what the word means. A lack a belief in any God or Gods.



And atheism has nothing like this. There are no further requirement to be an atheist. You don't have to like science or disbelieve in werewolves in order to be an atheist. There is a difference between things like a disbelieve in supernatural entities, liking science and atheism being found in many atheists and these things being hard requirements in order to call yourself an atheist similar to having to believe in Jesus Christ as a savior in order to be Christan.



There is only one hard requirement to be an atheist. Even if you believe in intelligent design if you didn't believe in a God or gods you would be an atheist. Not a very good one by my standards but you would be one. Not a 'lesser' or 'not really' atheist because there is only one requirement and they'd meet it.

What you don't seem to realize is that by accepting the claim "there is no god" its not as if as if the non-belief in God did not entail many other beliefs about reality. When you accept that claim, you must accept the premises that constitute that claim. For instance, you cannot believe in Intelligent Design as it would breach the premise of a controlling entity. You cannot believe in other worldly entities if you do not believe in a God, its inconsistent. Like I said originally its all just logic and basic reasoning.

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by therandomone

When you accept that claim, you must accept the premises that constitute that claim. For instance, you cannot believe in Intelligent Design as it would breach the premise of a controlling entity.

Not necessarily.

You can believe in something that created, but not someone who controls.

Very different things.

[cBselfmonkey]

Originally Posted by therandomone

What you don't seem to realize is that by accepting the claim "there is no god" its not as if as if the non-belief in God did not entail many other beliefs about reality. When you accept that claim, you must accept the premises that constitute that claim. For instance, you cannot believe in Intelligent Design as it would breach the premise of a controlling entity. You cannot believe in other worldly entities if you do not believe in a God, its inconsistent. Like I said originally its all just logic and basic reasoning.

Actually as I believe the guy above me pointed out believing in Intelligent Design just requires you to believe that life on Earth was made/designed/created by another intelligence. It doesn't technically need to be a divine creator in order to be considered Intelligent Design.

As for not believing in other entities if you're an atheist that would only come into effect if these beings and a God or gods were tied closely together so that rejecting one would have to mean you reject the others. I reject the existence of the Christan god to name one. That means I also couldn't believe in angels, demons, Satan etc... because their existence is too closely tied to that of the Christan God. Can't really believe in one without the others.

Conversely I could believe in Big Foot, or the Lock Ness Monster, or dragons without ceasing to be an atheist because a belief in those things is not based on a belief in any God or gods. Atheism only concerns itself with a lack of belief in divine entities, any other belief in literally anything else is outside what the term actually means and as such has no barring on it or the 'atheistness' of a person.

I agree it would be very weird to meet an atheist who believes in Big Foot but they would still be 100% atheist.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Vecha

Not necessarily.

You can believe in something that created, but not someone who controls.

Very different things.

Sure....but thats not what I'm talking about so thats pretty pointless.
Here's what I mean:
1. All telephone poles are elephants. 2. Sally is a telephone pole. 3. Therefore, Sally is an elephant.

1 and 2 are premises and 3 is the claim. If you don't accept 1 or 2 you cant claim/believe 3. Very same idea here applies to atheism as it does with any claim someone tries to make.

[Figment]

Therandomone, you confuse your personal associations and concepts of what atheism is with what it actually is. I would even say your entire own set of personal convictions, including your skepticism. In fact, the issue might be especially that you confuse skepticism with atheism. Meaning you compound and expand the term atheism with a lot of extra's that have - as others indicated - nothing to do with atheism.

Read this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Atheism is skepticism applied to a random God concept and concluding it's not real. Meaning you can be atheist and agnostic to one, some, or all gods at once.

Each and every other of those things you mentioned are partial philsophies or stances at life on their own.

For one, you added naturalism to the definition of atheism (note how you write it with a capital and we explicitly do not!). Naturalism is often a quality of an atheist, but not always. There is no single set of believes that constitute atheism.

You might also be one of those people that confuses various forms of humanism with atheism. Both theists and atheists tend to do that, as there is often (note: often, not always!) significant overlap in the sets an individual has within these groups.

You saying 'real' atheist is indeed a 'true scotsman' argument. It's like Republicans declaring their own definition of patriotism as The Definition. You do the exact same thing.

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Figment

Therandomone, you confuse your personal associations and concepts of what atheism is with what it actually is. I would even say your entire own set of personal convictions, including your skepticism. In fact, the issue might be especially that you confuse skepticism with atheism. Meaning you compound and expand the term atheism with a lot of extra's that have - as others indicated - nothing to do with atheism.

Read this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Atheism is skepticism applied to a random God concept and concluding it's not real. Meaning you can be atheist and agnostic to one, some, or all gods at once.

Each and every other of those things you mentioned are partial philsophies or stances at life on their own.

For one, you added naturalism to the definition of atheism (note how you write it with a capital and we explicitly do not!). Naturalism is often a quality of an atheist, but not always. There is no single set of believes that constitute atheism.

You might also be one of those people that confuses various forms of humanism with atheism. Both theists and atheists tend to do that, as there is often (note: often, not always!) significant overlap in the sets an individual has within these groups.

You saying 'real' atheist is indeed a 'true scotsman' argument. It's like Republicans declaring their own definition of patriotism as The Definition. You do the exact same thing.

Did you really just try to define atheism to me? Not only that, but you're trying to tell me you can be agnostic to some gods and atheist to others. I'm actually insulted you think I'd believe something with such logical inaccuracies.
Logically (key word) you cannot be an atheist to the "christian god" and agnostic to the "muslim god" (not just because theyre the same god) but because being a "real atheist" means you cannot believe in a higher power. Now that aside, on to the rest of your post.

None of you seem to have taken even a basic philosophy or logic course. The phrase "there is no god(s)" is a claim but you cant have a claim by itself. The claim is based off of premises.Like I said in an earlier post...Here's what I mean:
1. All telephone poles are elephants. 2. Sally is a telephone pole. 3. Therefore, Sally is an elephant.

1 and 2 are premises and 3 is the claim. If you don't accept 1 or 2 you cant claim/believe 3. Very same idea here applies to atheism as it does with any claim someone tries to make.

Now when you say you're an atheist yet you believe in say the tooth fairy then you're not a real atheist because you violate one of the premises of the Atheists' claim. You cant legitimately be an atheist who doesnt believe in other worldly things like a god, but believe in ghosts. Its a logical hypocrisy, simply put.