You are, of course, correct. I have been using the term “atheist” when I should have used “rationalist”, “materialist”, or perhaps even “skeptic”. The fact that I happen to be a rationalistic, materialistic, skeptical atheist says nothing about atheism in general. There are many atheists who, although they do not believe in God, believe in many other equally illogical and unprovable things. In fact, I was just perusing a web site devoted to explaining atheism, and was a bit taken aback at the number of ads there for astrology services. Go figure.
My comments, misguided though they were, were an attempt to counter the statement that atheists “believe blindly based on evidence taught them through some form of science.” I chose to argue that an atheists beliefs are not “blind”. A better argument, however, is simply to point out that atheists do not need to affirmatively believe in anything; they simply do not accept that there is any valid reason to believe in the existence of God and therefore don’t.
I’ll rescind my statement that atheists believe blindly because upon thinking about it further I realize that the only argument to support such a claim, that unless one is proving the science themselves then believing in it is blind belief, is pretty thin and more suitable to a first year philosophy student or long time pot-smoker than a serious, intelligent discussion of religion.
Aaaaaah, fessie, I think I´ve stumbled about you a pair of months ago in one of such debates about God (or was it about religion?). In my case I must say that I like to argue such things, I´m interested in people´s beleifs even if I usually don´t share them.
Debates about God have been held for centuries and seems that they haven´t come to an end yet.
I take these things as a way to improve my arguing skills… all right it´just funny, OK?
Anyway, if somebody starts a thread titled “does God exists?”, and being (us, dopers) very likely to stick our noses in everything, I find it usual to atheist dopers to post in those threads.
I think debates about God will last a long after we´re all dead.
There’s a difference between no belief in God and a belief in no God. I’m not sure what they’re called in common parlance, if anything, but formally the former is a negative doxastic assertion and the latter is a positive doxastic assertion. They’re effectively opposites.
For anyone interested, here is proof that they are opposites.
Yes, sickboy51, I remember your name - I think we ran into each other in the thread about the soul. I really just about fell out of my chair when everyone started writing that they didn’t believe they had a soul (I still find it strange, but have accepted that it’s how many of you see things). The soul is something I just take as a given. YMMV - clearly it does.
Anyway, I’m sure your points are correct.
And (going back to an earlier post) I also think it’s a good thing, in fact an excellent thing for college kids to leave home & question their parents’ beliefs.
OTOH, I don’t want to rile people, but I’m really not sure it’s fair to assume that religious people are by nature intolerant, ignorant and irrational. It comes up over and over again on SDMB. I realize that the nasty ones make so much noise and do so much damage that they have to be shouted down, but does their insanity have to be endemic to religion? I get yelled at for asserting that science is generally flawed because it’s often practiced poorly…(big can o’ worms, I’ll just let my simple assertion linger alone)…yet I think the same generalization is made of religious people because of those who practice religion poorly - and it’s made by people here at SDMB, who pride themselves on combatting stereotypes. I dunno…I just wonder if you’re being fair. Perhaps someone will argue convincingly that intolerance and irrationality are endemic to religion itself, rather than just a symptom of its poor practice (by people who, in my opinion, would be idiots anyway). I just don’t think it always is, or has to be.
Hey fessie, I don’t know you, but my estimation of whomever you are just went down a little.
Your broad characterization sweeps up all sorts of different threads, all of which encompass a range of different interests in different philosophical issues, and lumps them all under a couple of cheap categories that are relevant only to your original faulty assumption. There are clearly some atheists/agnostics who have a huge chip on their shoulder, and they are ironically parading it around in this very thread. But most of us don’t just jump into threads just because we’re itching to debate the existence of God. Almost always there are very specific arguments and claims which are relevant to much broader philosophical issues that DO interest us.
I think that definition actually fits “non-cognitivism” better
Non-theist is Michael Shermer’s (among others) suggestion on a word that most atheists should replace the word “atheist” with. It has fewer negative connotations, history of conflicting usage, and is a little clearer. But it is a synonym for what SOME people mean by “atheist” at least.
Apos from previous conversations I wasn’t sure it was possible for you to think less of me than you already did. Since this thread is up to quite a few posts I don’t know which “broad characterization” you’re referring to. If you’re talking about the OP, well, I posted that a couple of days ago in an invitation to have it disputed, which has been done successfully. Was I supposed to issue "ding-ding"s every time someone made a strong challenge to my assumptions that caused me to re-think them? I think it’s pretty clear from subsequent posts that that’s happened, but perhaps you didn’t have time to read the whole thread.
At any rate, I did say right off the bat that I could understand the clear need to combat stupidity on specific topics, such as creationism. I was trying to get at the root causes for some of the anger I perceive, which does reappear in thread after thread (I always figured atheists were just indifferent to God-belief). And it’s clear that many atheists/non-theists do approach religious topics without rancor. Sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish intent when several people are trying to achieve the same result for different reasons - which is, I imagine, why it’s often been assumed in various threads that I’m a Christian when I am in fact not.
Try this fessie: Take science out and insert any other word. Cars are flawed because they are often driven poorly. Religion is flawed because it is practiced poorly. Now just try a few of your own examples.
Science or anything else isn’t flawed because it is practiced poorly (assuming a priori here), PEOPLE are flawed because they practice things poorly.
I agree with you on intolerant and ignorant and I’m not sure I would be as all-inclusive as “by nature,” but religion is inherently irrational at worst and arational at best.
Urgh, I haven´t practiced my english for a couple of months, I guess it´s getting dull or something.
[bows down seven times] Did I write good enough this time, oh Almighty Goddess of the The True and Only One Church of The Autentic and Perfect English? [/bows down seven times]
Talking about incorrect assumptions, I originally assumed that you were talking about the Bush frequently referred to as “Dubya”, not Bush Senior indulging in a bit of free asociation in 1987. Link Here
Didn’t december (now banned) do something similar with a bunch of Clinton quotes recently?
