On the contrary, that’s usually how converts are made.
So if someone is fired for being an atheist, it’s not a civil rights issue?
And yes; atheists have only dared speak up at all recently, whether you like it or not.
If you comprehended anything I’ve said, you would know two things 1) I’m not looking to “convert” anybody. 2) I know how it works, though.
And it ain’t through insults.
Did you mean to say that it’s not a civil right that’s under attack, or something like that? Because saying that atheism isn’t a matter of civil rights, then noting that it’s protected by the First Amendment, is rather condradictory.
Well, would you rather we tried to do it the tried and true religionist method-lies, threats and massive violence? Frankly, the most vehement atheists out there look like over-tranquilized flower children in comparison to the religious extremism going on around the world…but it’s rather obvious that you have no intention of looking at both sides of the equation.
Of course it fucking is.
I give up. I ask direct questions. They’re dodged or conveniently snipped from quotes. People demand cites rather than criticize my interpretation of the cite I quoted. Just enough. So, this is my last post in this thread. Yeah, I’ll read the responses and people can get some zingers in. I hope they’re funny.
But I will ask one more question to Der Trihs. Do you think the Dalai Lama is offended by the existence of atheists?
And equally pertinent follow-up question: What do you think the Dalai Lama’s favorite sandwich is?
I’m sure the poster can speak for himself but I think I know what he means, or at least I interpret it as similar to my own thinking. Which is that I don’t accept any of the naively simplistic concepts of “God” that are put forward in the dogma of any classical established religions that I know of, but I do accept a more spiritual and philosophical concept that is centered around the intrinsic limitations of science.
And this gets back to a point about atheism that it seems to me some have been rather pointlessly arguing about. Some may argue that atheism is simply a lack of belief in any God rather than a denial of existence of such, and they’re not entirely wrong because that is indeed part of the definition, but there’s also a bigger picture. There are such things as activist, crusading atheists, and I’ve pointed out the ample evidence for it. This dichotomy is explained by the simple fact that the term “atheist” is inherently ambiguous. It means, literally, “not a theist”. That has a wide spectrum of interpretable meaning, including the meaning that the person definitively rejects the existence of any God, and is willing to engage in public activism to “convert” others to his particular belief. Those are the sorts that I object to on the same basis that I object to evangelical fundies. It’s also why I think the prof cited in the OP should chill out a little and stick to teaching biology instead of religious commentary. What is perfectly fine and funny on Real Time with Bill Maher takes on a distinctly different tone in a university classroom.
Them is the US populace: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/2/211.abstract
Thinking that you’ve shown anything by holding up a single religious guy in a toga is goofy.
That’s a sort of person that exists, sure, it’s just not what it means to be an atheist.
This is a position I see from time to time and never grok, so I’ll ask about it here: What’s so awful about trying to persuade others as to the merits of one’s ideas, whatever they may be? Obviously there’s a proper time and place for this sort of thing, but a free society is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. That’s how societies grow and change, through the development and distribution of ideas amongst the populace. Further, if it’s verboten to try and persuade others to come to your way of thinking, the result isn’t a society of independent freethinkers, but rather a society where everyone just believes what they were taught as a child.
I don’t know that his intent to was persuade people away from religious belief, but certainly, in a public-school setting, entanglement with religion should be avoided where possible, and in this case it was very possible.
Atheism is an absence of belief in God. If you say, “I believe in God” there is no way that you are in a neutral position regarding atheism.
Again, atheism is not a belief system. There is only the one thing, and if you are at odds with that one thing, that’s the end of the story. You can no longer claim to be neutral on the subject.
You must be thinking of the Deli Lama.
Are you saying my question wasn’t kosher?
Halal if I know what’s kosher or not.
Nothing wrong with discussion and persuasion – I’m certainly not trying to stifle free speech – but, as per my last couple of sentences and your response…
I don’t know that his intent to was persuade people away from religious belief, but certainly, in a public-school setting, entanglement with religion should be avoided where possible, and in this case it was very possible.
… I think we’re in agreement that the key here is that there’s a time and a place for it, and moreover, depending on the time and place, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it.
If this particular prof had evidence that one of his students had done some really stupid things and was apparently an idiot, would it be appropriate for him to put up a slide about it in front of the whole class, regardless of whether or not it was true? This is actually not altogether different. I would venture to guess that at least some if not most students who were offended by the slide would be like one of the protestors quoted, who said that he was perfectly onside with the depiction of biological evolution but was offended by the depiction of creationism. Maybe some people invoke a kind of cognitive dissonance, or perhaps believe that the Bible’s depiction of creation is an allegory that, while not to be taken literally, carries an important message and a profound abstract meaning. The professor’s crude mockery seemed designed to offend as broad a spectrum of belief as possible while actually enlightening no one at all, and also implying – falsely – that science is capable of a complete explanation of how we and the universe have come to be here, down to the elemental root causes.
No, it doesn’t and it’s not ambiguous. If one’s not a theist, he’s an atheist, as you just said. There’s nothing ambiguous about that and it doesn’t include “a wide spectrum of interpretable meaning.”
That’s the same as what you just said. Not sure what you think “definitively” adds to it or how “rejects” makes it any different. It’s being without belief in the existence of any gods.
But even if you think it is different, it’s not “a meaning.” It would just be an extension of what else he does besides be without belief. The minimum requirement is to be without belief in the existence of any gods. Whatever he does after that is irrelevant and it doesn’t make “atheism” have a “a wide spectrum of interpretable meaning” or make the word “ambiguous.”
Or collects stamps, rides a bicycle on the weekends…
I don’t know about his sandwich, but he when he orders pizza he says “Make me one with everything.”
Well, yes it does, since I just provided the range of meanings, which happen to be consistent with those given by the Oxford Dictionary and the Wikipedia article. Indeed the AHS – the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies in the UK – clarifies this further by distinguishing weak atheism, defined as “to fail to believe there is a God”, from strong atheism, defined as “to believe there is no God”. Whether you acknowledge it or not, there is a big difference between the two Oxford definitions “disbelieves” and the alternative “lacks belief in”, which are the strong (denial) and weak forms, respectively.
This is getting tiring. You obviously prefer to think of atheism in terms of weak atheism, as defined above. Many atheist organizations certainly endorse that view. There is also strong atheism, as also defined above, whether or not you’re willing to acknowledge it. And there are many individuals – I named a few – who explicitly and rather vehemently deny the existence of any god or gods, and they do so – and have written books about it – under the label “atheist”. They have not, however, written any missives about collecting stamps or riding a bicycle under the label “atheist”, so I think you point there is wrong, too.
Another thing I found interesting, just to mention incidentally and in passing, is that the American Atheist society website, which endorses the “weak atheism” position, has a whole section on “atheist activism”. Personally I find it perplexing that the mere condition of “lacking belief” can whip up activist frenzy, but apparently it can. Which just goes to show that both strong and weak atheism attracts activists for whatever reason, and though I grant that many or most atheists are probably not activists, I say again that this sort of proselytizing is what I object to. I myself lack belief in many things, including the likelihood that my dog will come into the room and start speaking to me in perfect Shakespearean English, but you won’t find me turning into an activist agitator over it. 
And I can’t help but note that the American Atheist society has as their organizational logo a stylized picture of an atom. What is it about an atom that represents “lack of belief in deities”? Wouldn’t something like a huge question mark be better? Or is it possible that there is a subliminal message there about the supremacy of science, the other part of that belief system that I was alluding to earlier? So all in all, what with the activism and the science worship – Lawrence Krauss is the poster boy for that – I suspect that there is a bit of a disingenuous aspect to some atheists’ official positions.
Groooan!! No Nirvana for you!!
Their symbol is a black dot. (Black hole)
I have pair. They are quite comfortable.
(Not a paid spokesman)
No, they weren’t, and I went over your cherry-picked definitions that you seem to think are prescriptive earlier and you didn’t reply.
Good for them. Did you know that “stainless steel” has a different definition than “steel”? We’re talking about the words “atheist” and “atheism”, not “weak atheism” and “strong atheism.” Those are classifications of “atheism”, which is just being without theism, which you already conceded to.
You’re wrong. Here’s the definition from your preferred dictionary again:
disbelief:
Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:
I see nothing of strong denial (and “strong” denial wan’t your claim. You’ve moved the goal post again). If I’m unable to accept something or refuse to, then I lack belief in it.
From Merriam-Webster:
dis·be·lieve
verb -ˈlēv\
: to not believe (someone or something)
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
Just as you posted earlier:
atheist: A person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
and then more recently:
- It means, literally, “not a theist”.*
The two you named were Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. You were called out on this by another poster and never responded. Dawkins does not “rather vehemently deny the existence of any god or gods” and like the other poster, I doubt that Krauss does either. Want to back that statement up?
Unbelievably silly! That two people of your choosing didn’t write books regarding those topics doesn’t make me wrong about anything. What does it mean to write a book “under the label ‘atheist’”?
I know you’re not this clueless. You don’t think a society that has “atheist” in their name can’t want to do more than sit around “lacking belief” without that meaning that atheism must mean more than lacking belief? Are you joking? Must the definition for “atheism” include the mission statement of the American Atheists?
So, most are not activists according to you, and your point about the American Atheist society is what?
You object to societies such as American Atheists “proselytizing” to help defend the separation of religion from government? Why?
I hope the big grin means you’re joking and is an admittance of you being ingenuous, as you’ve been told many times the difference. There are billions of people believing fairy tales based on faith that have the power to vote. If the same were true of people believing dogs will start speaking perfect Shakespearean English and will enact legislation over silly beliefs that go along with it, having activists willing to educate and fight for legislation of their own and the separation of speaking dog belief and government would be a good thing.
Straw man question.
How would a huge question mark represent “lack of belief in deities”?
Subliminal, no. You have still failed to show that atheism is a belief system. One can have a belief system that includes believing in the supremacy in science and rationality that would lead one to atheism, however. And some may want to start societies with “atheism” in their name to promote that, especially when it’s religious beliefs they find causing so much harm. But none of that helps your arguments regarding atheism being a belief system.
How about responding to my questions and statements in posts 139 and 177 which you totally ignored?
When you were discussing atheism, you said, “I’m more or less an agnostic myself” and later said “I would consider myself distinctly an agnostic in the formal sense of believing that the existence of god is not knowable.”
I explained that both some theists and atheists feel the same way as it says nothing of one’s belief in the existence of gods. No response.
Who cares what you suspect? How about showing why it seems disingenuous to you? Why do you call it “science worship”?