Fundamentalist Atheists equivalent to Fundamentalist Theists

[JoeMonocle]

Diogenes the Cynic, I am handicapped by the fact that the “quote” and “multi quote” functions in my browser for some reason aren’t working right now. Perhaps Smurf is displeased.

So, hacking in the undergrowth (as I swore not to)…

DTC > I am both agnostic and atheist.

As I have characterized you, so we are agreed on this point. I suggested that the costume is ill fitting, on the grounds aforesad.

You say that agnosticism commonly gets mixed up with weak atheism. You are right, and I am pleased to be in the company of those who understand this.

DTC > Theism belongs to no epistemological category at all. It’s just an assertion.

It probably felt good to say this, and if Smurf willed it, you could get a pass. The plain fact is, theism belongs to the epistemological category of matters that cannot possibly be resolved through resort to anything knowable within this universe, which is to say, less dramatically, cannot be determined empirically. This is not only an epistemic category, it is the epistemic criterion.

DTC > Smurfs created the universe. Now how is that assertion different from saying a sky god did it?

I don’t know, and it’s not my business to have an opinoin. As previously stated, I am not a theist. I will say, though, that theists need not answer to that staw man. Whereas anti-Judaic, andi-Christian, anti-Muslim critics might agree with each other that ridiculing “sky fairies” is a right minded and worthy thing to do, theism, properly understood, is agnostic as regards to flavour. The g*d needn’t be a fairy at all, and if it is a fairy, it can be somewhere less suggestive of Stone Age primitivism than the sky fair image suggests. Like behind the curtain.

DTC >You don’t actually think First Cause is a persuasive argument anyway, do you?

Not in its Medieval, Christian formulations, no. I’m not interested in Christian theological arguments, and I’m not a consumer of theistic arguments.

[Inner_Stickler]

@JoeMonocle

There’s a reason why “theism” appears in “atheism” – atheism is a theistic belief.

This is the statement I am objecting to. I see no other way to read it other than implying that atheists are engaging in some sort of self denial and that they must believe in a god in order to not believe in a god. Which is, I believe not the meaning ascribed to atheism by most people.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@JoeMonocle

I don’t know, and it’s not my business to have an opinoin. As previously stated, I am not a theist. I will say, though, that theists need not answer to that staw man. Whereas anti-Judaic, andi-Christian, anti-Muslim critics might agree with each other that ridiculing “sky fairies” is a right minded and worthy thing to do, theism, properly understood, is agnostic as regards to flavour. The g*d needn’t be a fairy at all, and if it is a fairy, it can be somewhere less suggestive of Stone Age primitivism than the sky fair image suggests. Like behind the curtain.

If you’re arguing for some theistic stand point, you’re not doing very well. You want to define theism as the opposite of atheism. Don’t. Theists are not Deists. Theists have actual beliefs about the properties of their deities. Theism does not equal “there is a first cause”. Theism implies - at least - more or less continuous intentional interaction with the universe, specifically the people in it, by the deity and they DO have to explain what makes their particular god different from a smurf. Deists don’t have to.

[CurtC]

@JoeMonocle

Claiming that “atheism” means something other than what it means because of a quirk about its prefix is just not interesting.

Wasn’t it you - yes it was! - who said:

@JoeMonocle

There’s a reason why “theism” appears in “atheism” – atheism is a theistic belief.

So you posted something that you don’t want to support, so instead of retracting it, you’re hoping everyone forgets it was you, and you’re saying that the topic is uninteresting. Hmmm.

I, for one, find discussions about definitions uninteresting. What we should be talking about is the set of beliefs actually held by people who refer to themselves as “atheists.” And if that’s the subject, I’ve never met one who makes the positive claim that there is no god.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@CurtC

Wasn’t it you - yes it was! - who said:
So you posted something that you don’t want to support, so instead of retracting it, you’re hoping everyone forgets it was you, and you’re saying that the topic is uninteresting. Hmmm.

I, for one, find discussions about definitions uninteresting. What we should be talking about is the set of beliefs actually held by people who refer to themselves as “atheists.” And if that’s the subject, I’ve never met one who makes the positive claim that there is no god.

There is no such set of beliefs. I’m an atheist; so is Der Trihs; so is Dio. But apart from the fact that none of us believe the universe was created by a sovereign, transcendent, tripartite being, we disagree in many different ways, some trivial, some fundamental.

[Farmer_Jane]

No one here can seem to agree on the definition of anything. Dio has said on this board that anyone who believes in ghosts, magic, or the supernatural is religious. Well, that pretty much disqualifies 99 per cent of children from being atheist.

But he also thinks dogs are atheists, as well as pigs, plants, trees, and possibly his shoe.

If you are going to rant on anyone who believes in something less than what you think is intellectually ideal, then do it right. Don’t make vague generalizations about what you do not know. Dher This forgets that you can be Jewish, follow a certain philosophy in Judaism, and be atheist. Most people have self-defined personal philosophy systems. There is a reason why many religions, if not all, have a degree of similarity.

Being religious does not mean you believe in god. Theism does not exclude deism. You can say, “The xyz belief in pdq is incorrect because…” or “the xyz belief in pdq s wrong <judgment>” but blanket statements are ridiculous.

“Judaism doesn’t exist” is like me saying “atheism doesn’t exist”.

You can rail on me about how you think religion is not natural and religion has no no place in science, but don’t jump on people who use theism and deism as interchangeably as you do (and take a broad POV, kind of like some of the posters and ‘atheism’) and don’t make personal attacks on people based on what you think they believe.

I don’t believe in god and I don’t care. But I won’t deny that religion is natural. the OP asked a question. Instead of getting on a high horse and claiming that all people who didn’t agree with the OP were just morons, I actually tried to answer it. :rolleyes:

Continue as you were.

[CurtC]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

There is no such set of beliefs.

What I meant was that each atheist has a set of beliefs. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

@CitizenPained

“Judaism doesn’t exist” is like me saying “atheism doesn’t exist”.

Yes, either would be a silly thing to say. I’m glad no one here has said anything like that.

[Farmer_Jane]

A catch all statement like Judaism isn’t true or republicanism isn’t trueseems silly.

Kind of like when creationists say “Evolution isn’t true” when they do believe in evolution - they just put limits on the origin of everything.

I’m okay with defining certain terms as x y z or whatever – you can call a concept *oopionimogie *if you want - as long as people who want to argue (or whatever this is) don’t take a very literal and broad definition of one thing and then a very narrow and possibly wrong definition of another without clarifying purpose.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@CitizenPained

No one here can seem to agree on the definition of anything. Dio has said on this board that anyone who believes in ghosts, magic, or the supernatural is religious. Well, that pretty much disqualifies 99 per cent of children from being atheist.

Cite? Atheism does not mean disbelief in the supernatural. It means disbelief in “god”. Religion is not necessarily connected to a belief in god(s), though it does tend to have an important supernatural component.

But he also thinks dogs are atheists, as well as pigs, plants, trees, and possibly his shoe.

Probably, he’s correct.

If you are going to rant on anyone who believes in something less than what you think is intellectually ideal, then do it right. Don’t make vague generalizations about what you do not know.

Erm… What?

Dher This forgets that you can be Jewish, follow a certain philosophy in Judaism, and be atheist.

I highly doubt that he did. I’m very certain he knows that Jewishness has “ethnic/cultural” as well as “religious” connotations and that they don’t necessarily overlap.

Most people have self-defined personal philosophy systems.

Yes. Or at least, self-modified adaptions of the generally accepted system(s) around them.

There is a reason why many religions, if not all, have a degree of similarity.

What reason? I can think of a few, but I’m actually curious about your ideas, especially since this is at least the second time you hinted at this.

Being religious does not mean you believe in god.

Yes.

Theism does not exclude deism.

Yes it does. By definition.

You can say, “The xyz belief in pdq is incorrect because…” or “the xyz belief in pdq s wrong <judgment>” but blanket statements are ridiculous.

If your claim is that religious people have such different views about gods that it’s impossible to even say things like “gods don’t exist”, then yes, that’s technically correct. The reason is, there are probably a few people who call the sea god, and the sea most definitely does exist (or pick any similar concept if you think the sea is ridiculous). Gods, as generally defined and understood by the people on this messageboard, however, are somewhere between extremely unlikely to impossible, and in my personal opinion, far too ridiculous to take seriously.

“Judaism doesn’t exist” is like me saying “atheism doesn’t exist”.

Where do you get this stuff?

You can rail on me about how you think religion is not natural and religion has no no place in science, but don’t jump on people who use theism and deism as interchangeably as you do (and take a broad POV, kind of like some of the posters and ‘atheism’) and don’t make personal attacks on people based on what you think they believe.

Who are you talking to?

I don’t believe in god and I don’t care.

Good for you.

But I won’t deny that religion is natural.

Neither do I. Nor do I think religion is good for people, useful, or that it has any bearing on the the supernatural.

the OP asked a question. Instead of getting on a high horse and claiming that all people who didn’t agree with the OP were just morons, I actually tried to answer it. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but this is Great Debates. People will disagree with just about anything anyone says.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Sorry, but this is Great Debates. People will disagree with just about anything anyone says.

No, they won’t!

[JoeMonocle]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

If you’re arguing for some theistic stand point, you’re not doing very well. You want to define theism as the opposite of atheism. Don’t. Theists are not Deists. Theists have actual beliefs about the properties of their deities. Theism does not equal “there is a first cause”. Theism implies - at least - more or less continuous intentional interaction with the universe, specifically the people in it, by the deity and they DO have to explain what makes their particular god different from a smurf. Deists don’t have to.

I agree. As I’m not arguing for some theistic standpoint, however, the statement is only vacuously true. I don’t define theism as opposite to atheism at all, rather 180% the opposite. I maintain that atheism is a flavour of theism.

I quite agree with you that Theists are not Deists, although I would put it: Theists needn’t be Deists. However, I’ll take your statement as having been given in the heat of converation…

On the bright side, Smurf seems to have blessed me with quoting ability once again…

[JoeMonocle]

@CurtC

Wasn’t it you - yes it was! - who said:
So you posted something that you don’t want to support, so instead of retracting it, you’re hoping everyone forgets it was you, and you’re saying that the topic is uninteresting. Hmmm.

I, for one, find discussions about definitions uninteresting. What we should be talking about is the set of beliefs actually held by people who refer to themselves as “atheists.” And if that’s the subject, I’ve never met one who makes the positive claim that there is no god.

So do I. I use “interesting” and “not interesting” in the technical sense, meaning approximately “controversial” or “non-controversial”. On the level of conversation, I assure you that I am personally interested in this discussion. I have already learned one ore two new things…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

No one here can seem to agree on the definition of anything. Dio has said on this board that anyone who believes in ghosts, magic, or the supernatural is religious. Well, that pretty much disqualifies 99 per cent of children from being atheist.

“religious” is not synonomous with “theistic.” Theism is only one kind of religious belief.

But he also thinks dogs are atheists, as well as pigs, plants, trees, and possibly his shoe.

They are. They all lack theistic belief. They’re all apolitical too.

[JoeMonocle]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I am both agnostic and atheist. They are not opposed. People commonly confuse agnosticism with weak atheism.

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of theistic belief. It is not a assertion of the negative, it’s a lack of assertion of the positive.

I am intrigued by the flavour of atheism you root for. If I understand correctly, then your kind of atheism would be more fertile grounds for theistic subversion than agnosticism. For agnostics maintain that the question of whether or not gd exists cannot be rationally determined, whereas your kind of atheist would maintain only that no compelling case has yet been presented for the existence of gd.

This would make agnosticism a stronger version of skepticism than atheism, which would be different from my prior understanding.

Who would you cite as an examplar of this flavour of atheism?

[tomndebb]

@JoeMonocle

I maintain that atheism is a flavour of theism.

I see no reason to accept this claim. There are, certainly, a few atheists who express the affirmative statement “There is no god,” but the majority of my acquaintance merely say “While I have an intellectual understanding of a concept of a deity, I have no belief in such a thing and no interest it it.”

One may twist oneself into a pretzel getting some sort of “religious belief” out of that expression, but the reality is that the number of atheists who “believe” in “no god” is vanishingly small, (although several of them are very loud about their disbelief), and the general principle behind broad spectrum atheism is simply a lack of belief, not a negative belief.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@JoeMonocle

I don’t define theism as opposite to atheism at all, rather 180% the opposite. I maintain that atheism is a flavour of theism.

Ok fine. I’m not even sure I can disagree with that because I have no idea what it means.

Here are the options, pick one:

1. I believe that there is at least one thing that is commonly (in the context of this thread, and generally agreed upon) called god, and that at least one of those things exists.
2. I do not believe 1.
3. I do not believe 1 and I do not believe 2.

[JoeMonocle]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Ok fine. I’m not even sure I can disagree with that because I have no idea what it means.

Here are the options, pick one:

1. I believe that there is at least one thing that is commonly (in the context of this thread, and generally agreed upon) called god, and that at least one of those things exists.
2. I do not believe 1.
3. I do not believe 1 and I do not believe 2.

Cute, but nonsense. For starters, no I will not have my thinking circumscribed by an ascerbic comment and a list. Those are not my choices.

Also, giving you satisfaction, either through thinking or speaking in a way that you find congenial or palatable has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It’s not about you, unless you are Smurf in disguise, in which case, please return my capacity to edit my posts. I don’t mind “fighting with one hand tied behind my back”, but I hardly think the other thread participants need the handicap.

I understand that friction produces heat, so, to be clear: atheists as I understand them, atheists (not including, apparently Diogenes The Cynic), positively believe, despite the impossibility of empirical determination, that g*d does not exist. Quibbling about this not very interesting point would get you laughed at in places where people draw a salary for talking about this stuff.

I’m far more interested in the pedigree of Diogenes The Cynic’s version of atheism. I’m hoping that DTC will provide a bibliographical sampler on this point.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@JoeMonocle

Cute, but nonsense. For starters, no I will not have my thinking circumscribed by an ascerbic comment and a list. Those are not my choices.

I’m just trying to figure out what you think atheist actually are. Of course, you’re free to ignore the list.

I understand that friction produces heat, so, to be clear: atheists as I understand them (not including, apparently Diogenes The Cynic), positively believe, despite the impossibility of empirical determination, that g*d does not exist. Quibbling about this not very interesting point would get you laughed at in places where people draw a salary for talking about this stuff.

There’s some point of discussion about whether A) “I believe (not X)” and B) “I don’t believe X” is exactly equivalent when X is “this or that exists”. Personally, in the case of god/atheism, I couldn’t give a damn about that when we’re talking about adult humans who actually have heard about gods, but both interpretations are valid definitions of atheism.

I’m far more interested in the pedigree of Diogenes The Cynic’s version of atheism. I’m hoping that DTC will provide a bibliographical sampler on this point.

He’s not the only one who holds strictly to B.

I want to note that neither A nor B imply 100% certainty. In case you haven’t noticed, it’s almost impossible to get 100% certainty about anything at all.

[JoeMonocle]

I wanted to edit my previous post, but I was barred by a “five minutes to edit” barrier. Does that limit apply to everyone, or am I being hobbled? If so, thanks for the compliment…

My edit runs as follows:

Cute, but nonsense. For starters, no I will not have my thinking circumscribed by an ascerbic comment and a list. Those are not my choices.

Also, giving you satisfaction, either through thinking or speaking in a way that you find congenial or palatable has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It’s not about you, unless you are Smurf in disguise, in which case, please return my capacity to edit my posts. I don’t mind “fighting with one hand tied behind my back”, but I hardly think the other thread participants need the handicap.

I understand that friction produces heat, so, to be clear: atheists as I understand them, atheists (not including, apparently Diogenes The Cynic), positively believe, despite the impossibility of empirical determination, that g*d does not exist, just as theists, despite the impossibility of empirical determination, believe the opposite. It’s not what they believe that I’m describing as being on a par, rather it’s the strength of the claims they make beyond the realm of empirical determination that is on a par.

This is a non-controversial point. It is possibly precisely because of this uninterestingness that Diogenes The Cynic espouses a flavour of atheism that does not take a position but rather asserts only that no compelling case has been made for theism. The “old flavour” of atheism is fraudulent, precisely to the extent that its passionate advocates know better. The “new” version has more potential. I’d like to know more about the new version.

I’m far more interested in the pedigree of Diogenes The Cynic’s version of atheism than I am in quibbling. I’m hoping that DTC will provide a bibliographical sampler on this point.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@JoeMonocle

It’s not what they believe that I’m describing as being on a par, rather it’s the strength of the claims they make beyond the realm of empirical determination that is on a par.

You’re right. That is uninteresting.