Okay, sorry. I get what you’re saying now.
That’s humanism or anti-organized religionism or something.
Nice job: we don’t necessarily need a model of consciousness (though it would help).
I see some problems though.
-
Pantheism would involve physical structures with presumably some sort of consciousness. Whether stars et al process information - or whether information processing is indeed an actual requirement of consciousness, is less clear.
-
Consciousness that we are aware of certainly involves physical structures. Whether there may be other kinds of support can’t be definitely determined absent a better understanding of consciousness.
-
There are Matrix-type models and other speculations discussed by Der Trihs et al. The conscious entity could be far removed from this particular world.
-
From what I can tell materialism is not universally accepted among philosophers. But there may a narrower POV that does reflect a rough consensus.
Now we can speculate that all forms of consciousness come about either through design (future computers, possibly) or evolution (certain mammals). But I’d feel a lot more comfortable dismissing pantheism and the like if I had a firmer grasp of what consciousness was.
Nonetheless, Voyager’s point remains: it’s plausible that we could apply sufficient scrutiny to 1-4 without a comprehensive model of consciousness.
No, opposing belief in God is antitheism. I don’t know what word if any means someone who doesn’t believe in God but would oppose him if he did. I just go with “enemy of God” myself.
Works for me.
“Atheism” works well enough for me. But I’ll use “Misotheist” if it helps clarify things for others, although I can see myself having to explain what it means a lot. And at heart, I’ll always prefer the classic ἄθεος
Antitheist means being in opposition to belief in God (which I am, too), and “enemy of God” carries an active confrontational element that doesn’t really reflect my views, IMO. While I’d be happy to see the end of religious belief, I’m not actually going to sling any priests from lamp-posts to facilitate it.
Yeah, but “enemy of God” would imply that you’d be inclined to kill God, not priests. What I’ve jokingly called pro-active atheism a few times.
Er, that’s not atheism (though, presuming you also don’t believe in a god, you’re also an atheist). Atheism is about belief, not what you’d do to God if it existed and you managed to get your hands on it. If you happened to believe in God and hate him, then you’re a theist. A disgruntled theist…but still a theist; what you think of the guy or whether you’d worship him has nothing to do with your belief in him.
And I think the best term for somebody who would refuse to worship the Christian God and actively set themselves in opposition to that god… is “a moral person”. 
Yes, it is. One definition of atheism. Really. Look it up. Then drop it.
Here are a few definitions of atheism. If yours is the “Classic” defintion, why isn’t it there?
But you go on ahead using the word however you want, Humpty. It’s not like you’d be singlehandledly destroying the language after all; it seems like half the planet has their own definitions for the words “atheist” and “agnositic”, not just you.
I think his definition might be used by some who refuse to accept that some people honestly think no gods exist, and thus refusal to worship must be denial. I’ve seen definitions that use denial in a way that it could be interpreted to mean this, the use of denial in the definition list you linked to doesn’t have this problem.
Because you’re not using the right letters, Sparky.
“Not” or “no” don’t mean the same thing as “against”.
Baah, it’s no use arguing with prescriptivists. Never mind that the Greeks had a very good idea of what they meant when they used their own term, or that usage evolved over time. Just what do people thing “disdain” means?
Never mind my position on God – I take a very firm position on the proper use of to/too/two…especially when accusing others of sloppy thinking.