This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

C/D some people are religiously Atheistic

#61AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 9:39:09 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Yeah don't bother getting into a language debate TRJ. I just went through this with him in another topic. Language debates are pointless endeavors.

You don't need to get in hardcore logical debates over LANGUAGE. language is a social construction and words mean what we want them to mean. Obviously the word dog can't mean cat in the English language as this would cause severe confusion, but words have flexibility. You might think poodle when I say dog, I might mean golden retriever. You might think housecat when I say cat, I might mean tiger. As long as your word usage is somewhat similar to the actual definition to the point that its a commonly accepted definition, I really dont know why we need to get into language debates. Not only that, but having to apply "logic" as if this were a debate over theism, or public policy is kind of laughable IMO.



This was a great post until you said "actual definition"
#62Far421Posted 2/27/2013 10:19:16 PM
I suppose my example was somewhat wanting, but my point was that, for instance, putting an extremely high emphasis on scientific thinking is a trait of many atheists, but not an atheistic trait any more than being a Republican is a Christian trait. (In fact, since atheism says nothing about science and Republicans and Christians agree on some points, the former is less valid than the latter.)
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#63AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 11:06:13 PM
Far421 posted...
I suppose my example was somewhat wanting, but my point was that, for instance, putting an extremely high emphasis on scientific thinking is a trait of many atheists, but not an atheistic trait any more than being a Republican is a Christian trait. (In fact, since atheism says nothing about science and Republicans and Christians agree on some points, the former is less valid than the latter.)


The argument I'd make is that as much as we'd like to create discrete categories to place things in, there are always exceptions. Trying to place every concept you can think of in discrete categories is futile. When you think of a term like "christian" or "atheist" you should pay more attention to what your first impressions indicate, rather than trying to clinically diagnose what makes a person x or y.
#64fudrickPosted 2/27/2013 11:24:42 PM
ARS, if you can propose a new or simply better term for a person who just "lacks belief in god" that allows for greater classification than the system of weak/strong agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist, I'll gladly use your system.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#65AynRandySavagePosted 2/27/2013 11:36:25 PM(edited)
fudrick posted...
ARS, if you can propose a new or simply better term for a person who just "lacks belief in god" that allows for greater classification than the system of weak/strong agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist, I'll gladly use your system.


As far as "lacking belief in god" goes, the term I'd propose we use is "non-theist" just as we'd use "non-racist" to classify anyone who's not a racist, or "non-golfer" to describe anyone who's not a golfer.

I think you're getting at larger point here. When I debate people on this issue, they argue that their system is more descriptive because it separates people who "know" from people who "don't." So what the hell does "knowing" mean exactly? Every time I ask that question, I get a different answer. Some people think "knowing" means believing they're certain about something. Other's believe it means believing something really strongly. I personally consider it to mean believe something and being justified in believing it(so long as the justification is valid)


I definitely respect your effort, but I think that the Martin/Flew system just confuses things more than it simplifies them.

When it boils down to it "There is at least one god" is a proposition that you can only have three positions on. You can think god exists, you can think god doesn't exist, and you can have no opinion. Instead of dividing people into people who think god exists, and people who don't, it seems more logical to me that we separate people into the three possible categories that exist(and weak/stong atheist don't count there).
#66fudrickPosted 2/27/2013 11:59:31 PM
So under your proposed system, "non-theist" would describe any person who does not currently actively hold a belief in any deity, and "atheist" would be a subset of "non-theists" all of whom currently actively hold a belief that no deity exists? I guess that could work
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#67GegengegengegenPosted 2/28/2013 12:08:03 AM
fudrick posted...
So under your proposed system, "non-theist" would describe any person who does not currently actively hold a belief in any deity, and "atheist" would be a subset of "non-theists" all of whom currently actively hold a belief that no deity exists? I guess that could work


Well, I think it works very well, but your mileage may vary. If you feel comfortable calling yourself an atheist, then call yourself an atheist. My reason for not calling myself an atheist can be summed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism_and_atheism
#68AynRandySavagePosted 2/28/2013 12:12:03 AM
Gegengegengegen posted...
fudrick posted...
So under your proposed system, "non-theist" would describe any person who does not currently actively hold a belief in any deity, and "atheist" would be a subset of "non-theists" all of whom currently actively hold a belief that no deity exists? I guess that could work


Well, I think it works very well, but your mileage may vary. If you feel comfortable calling yourself an atheist, then call yourself an atheist. My reason for not calling myself an atheist can be summed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism_and_atheism


I don't think Einstein neeeded to equate "atheism" with certainty of the non-existence of god. But yeah, I agree.
#69gamesrgreatPosted 3/1/2013 5:37:32 PM
I would just comment on the enlightenment thing to say that most people use that imagery when describing a change in their worldview/belief
---
D-Jesus, Christ Bosh, King James 3:16
The Miami Heat 2012 Champs- Miller Time
#70TheRealJiraiya(Topic Creator)Posted 3/1/2013 5:52:40 PM
gamesrgreat posted...
I would just comment on the enlightenment thing to say that most people use that imagery when describing a change in their worldview/belief


Thats true
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt