Yep. And along those lines I suppose twickster was right to move this thread from MPSIMS to GD. Although I didn’t realize it when I composed the OP, this thread is indeed an oblique form of witnessing for atheism.
And I don’t have the slightest objection to that characterization. I am proud to be emotionally driven to speak up for reason and the casting off of superstitions. Count me as a wholly “evangelical” atheist.
Seriously, raindog, why do you (seem to) feel that this is a liability for me? How does my strong desire to help liberate others from the yoke of mythology–to in fact proselytize–in any way undermine my position? I always find it rather ironic that folks who are defensive of religion tend to use religious terminology as a way to impugn atheists and their motivations. Very telling, I think, about their own hidden analyses of religiosity. :dubious:
I recently penned a rather lengthy FaceBook note (which is actually where I do most of my “blogging” and atheistic “proselytizing”) called, Why I respect the act of proselytizing. If you want to read it, look me up and friend me (I go by the same screen name on FB).
Credit where credit is due: Penn Jillette was the first one to convince me of the value of and justification for proselytizing. He has a short video in which he discusses this. Worth watching.
ETA: I’m proud to be considered an “evangelical” atheist only as long as we understand the terms “evangelize” or “proselytize” to mean only:
a) to strongly believe in the truth of an idea
b) to believe in the value and importance of that truth, and
c) to believe that other humans need and deserve to hear that truth.
Actual religiosity, in its clinical meaning, is utterly absent here. Atheism is not–nor for me will ever be–any kind of actual religion.
Well, you’re certainly acting like it is. :rolleyes:
How is your desire to save people from “mythology” any different from their desire to save people from “hell”? Both of you are absolutely convinced you’re right. Oh, but you actually KNOW. So it’s okay when you do it.
My opposition is to religious doctrines, not the practice of religious proselytizing. You’re just jumping to the conclusion that my anti-theism entails the latter. It does not.
No, it’s OK when BOTH of us do it.
When did I ever say otherwise? My description of my past religious evangelism is harsh only in that my holier-than-thou attitude was snotty; I don’t regret for a second ever boldly sharing what I thought at the time was the truth.
Atheism is not a belief system and trying to get people to think critically is not trying to talk them into a belief system. It’s the difference between encouraging people to think for themselves or swallow fantastic beliefs with no evidence. It’s the difference between telling them to turn their brains on or off.
Lack of belief is akin to belief, or at least the flipside thereof.
No, atheism is the assumption that there’s no higher intelligence beyond human intelligence, a self-delusion enabled by ignoring the evidence of higher intelligence.
How so? I didn’t read all the words, but I did read the “headlines”—the ten list items—and I didn’t find anything wrong with them. Which one(s) do you disagree with?
I tend to agree with this. I’m not troubled by its implications, because it has no implications that are in any way threatening to my own atheist worldview.
C’mon, man. This debate’s been raging since humanity developed language & abstract thoughts, and we’re no closer to the global truth today – even though we’re no longer sitting 'round the campfire pounding our hairy chests & picking nits from our harem of wives. :rolleyes:
But let’s at least agree on common terms (which Diogenes loves to obfuscate):
(1) Atheism = Lack of belief, as defined by hypothesis, not observable facts.
(2) Agnosticism = Refusal to commit to any belief system (including atheism) irrespective of the known facts.
(3) Believers = Those who have chosen a system of faith (aka religion) which may or may not involve a Supreme Being, either based on blind faith or observable evidence. (WAY too many variants to list individually…)
Look around, with open eyes and open mind – eventually, you’ll discover the path.
Atheism is an absence of belief in theistic entities (i.e. “Gods”). It does not involve any hypotheses, and I have no idea what “observable facts” you’re talking about.
Agnosticism is a position that we do not have sufficient data to determine whether gods do or do not exist (though the term can be expanded to any other hypotheses as well…it’s possible to say, for instance, that one might be “agnostic” regarding the existence of extraterrestrials).
Observation: The process of filtering sensory data via the six physical senses (or scientific instrumentation) which is further analyzed through rational thought to reach an individual (albeit tentative) conclusion. ALL scientific knowledge, including how gravity works, is derived from a collection of approximations – ergo, we can’t even measure the length of our penises with absolute precision, so the only rational conclusion for just about anything falls between “I know nothing” or “close enough for government work.”
Therefore, the atheist declarative of “no higher intelligence exists” is entirely based on faith, not science, and is by nature a type of religion. QED.
Always the best position to take, absent any absolute truths.
(Oh, and FTR, I don’t believe that extraterrestrials exist. At least, I’ve seen no reliable evidence that they’ve made direct contact with our species…yet.)
Oh, I’ve got something all right…but that’s my path, not yours. Which path have you been following, Dio?
