Rather than show why I believe the concept is flawed, I want to stay on target with my original post.
Am I an atheist?
I think someone could argue that I am not an agnostic because I don’t believe in any concept of God.
I think an agnostic at least could believe that perhaps some concept of God could work. That’s the key… An agnostic still believes in the concept of God, but believes we will never find out.
Perhaps the self proclaimed agnostics can correct me.
It is extremely important to note the difference between 1 and 2. It is possible to simply “lack a belief in the divine.” For example, say you have grown up your entire life not even having the word “god” in your vocabulary because no one has ever told you. Then one day some one asks you “do you believe in god?” You would say “no” because you lack the belief they are asking about. Hence it is up to them to show you and prove to you that “god” is real. Whether you choose to believe them is dependent upon your level of critical thinking and skepticism.
The other side of the spectrum is the blatant assertion that there is no god. This is a little dangerous because you cant prove a negative.
Given the choice between the two, it makes the most logical sense to go with the first one, because you would also lack the belief in every other deity out there, and this would just be one more that you do not have a belief in.
Now, agnosticism is the road to take if you are incapable in deciding the probability of a particular god’s existence. Atheists are on the side of less than 50% probability for existence, and theists are on the greater than 50% probability. Atheism is NOT NECESSARILY saying “0% chance there is a god”.
Where stand is up to you.
Bane, where do you think you fall on the probability scale? 0-100% chance of god.
The video sources the stats on each slide. I thought the prison stat was incredible, I hadn’t heard that one before (according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1997, 75% of the counrty is Christian, and 75% of the prison population is as well, while 10% of the country is atheist, and just .2% of the prison population).
As for what to call youself, I think you are an atheist, but I don’t think you should let it define you. Atheism is a negative doctorine, and it’s not saying much about yourself to live by what you aren’t. Sure, you’re not X Y or Z. But what are you?
The fact that living by what you arent is negative does not make it necessary to live according to something that probably does not exist.
If you have a problem with saying what you arent… then try living by what you are. Humanism is a good one. Scientific Naturalism. Those are positive life affirmations. Theyre also non theistic
I would say as a strict definition, you cannot be agnostic.
I am in the same boat as you, I have no desire to be lumped in with the idiocy of atheism, even though I have no reasonable knowledge, a priori or a posteriori of any form of deity, divinity or omnipotent spirit.
a-gnostic, being without knowledge of. Rather seems to mean a fence sitter, which is even less envious than atheism.
It seems you still aren’t comprehending that “atheism” really can’t be idiotic, in much the same way “not collecting stamps” can’t be an idiotic hobby. I’m not sure how to make it simpler…
Any belief system that has a dogmatic doctrine can be idiotic. In the case of atheism, it is the idiocy of a negative agenda towards self adulation, adoration, and delusion predicated upon the impossibility of destroying other belief systems. Basically, “I am an atheist because I hate what you believe”. Nothing could be more idiotic.
Agreed, but judging from this statement, you aren’t clear on the definition of dogmatic. You see, I could make a list of several things that would make me a theist; however, could a theist generate a list that would change their mind about their belief in God?
Essentially, falsifiability. If evidence was brought forth that suggested a deity, I would be forced to rethink my position. What evidence could be brought forth that would force a theist to do the same?
I don’t think atheism is as you describe it, nor does simply stating it make it so. Perhaps if your arguments involved factual data, examples, etc., then I would better understand and accept your arguments.
I absolutely agree. Anybody who is an atheist simply because they hate what another believes is an idiot. One shouldn’t be an atheist simply because they hate another’s beliefs: rather, they should be atheist because of strong reasons, facts, and evidence, and after carefully considering both sides of the argument, making a conclusion based on which makes the most sense.
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church or other institution
Due to the fact that hominid knowledge is not all encompassing and complete, there are uncertainties. Ergo, it meets with the definition of dogma.
Atheists, much like yourself, spend the majority of their time railing against religions and God. Just like your “Atheist Rap” thread, which was nothing more than a person angry with the church and God, and suffering obvious existential angst.
If atheism/atheists had any cerebral maturity, they would find more edifying and ameloriating exercises than only seeming to have time to say, “You believe in God, what an idiot” and “The church sucks” …
If atheists had any credibility, they would spend their time with quietly educating, exploring, and engaging active citizenship, and let those with opposing beliefs, have their beliefs, and do what it is that they do.
Atheism can never destroy deism, theism, Christianity, Islam or whatever else is out there. All it can do is rail it self silly, for the whole world to see.
That’s why I side comfortably with Bane. Atheism is not the right place to be, unless zealots and irrational loons is your preferred flavor.
Atheism, is a dogma, is a doctrine, is a belief system ~ is a complete immature waste of 10^14 synaptic processing power @ 30Hz.
For all of those people who wish the atheists would shut the hell up about their beliefs, i have a solution:
Shut the hell up about YOUR beliefs and stop trying to weasel them into government using them as societal leverage. Atheists do not have a problem with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, or any other ism at all. What they do have a problem with is any of those things being forced into their lives, and the government granting them a free ride. Have your beliefs, I don’t give i flying fuck if you have beliefs. But when you one way or another try to get me to accept your beliefs, then you better come up with something better than “just do it because its right”. Secularism people… SECULARISM!!!
When you make claims about something that someone else does not agree with, you better damn well expect a retort of some kind. You say that magic man done it, I say prove it. Don’t go saying that I’m trying to convince you otherwise just because I don’t agree. It’s not my fault your claims do not hold water. Keep your shit to yourself if you dont want others to challenge it.
Again, we are in agreement. Even as an atheist I feel comfortable stating that there is a possibility that God exists. I’d even go as far as stating that for every different kind of God people believe in, there is a possibility of that God’s existence.
If you equate “railing” with “discussing,” then you are correct. A majority of my time on these forums, to be more accurate.
He didn’t seem angry in the video. I enjoy rap, and I’m atheist, which is why I posted the video for other atheists, and theists if they so choose, to enjoy.
And if the majority of your time is apparently spent dealing ad hominem attacks to such “atheists,” where does that place you on the scales of cerebral maturity?
Perhaps. I suppose there is a sense of urgency considering the recent resurgence of fundamentalism in U.S. government, as well as the breeding ground of terrorism known as the Middle East. And we’re not just talking about Iraq, or Afghanistan. If only we were that lucky.
Combine that with how quickly knowledge can now spread via means such as the internet, as well as how obtainable technology has become, and one can easily recognize the groundwork for a cocktail of disaster. Sneaking an atomic bomb into a crowded city to become a “mega-martyr” isn’t as far off a possibility as most would like to imagine.
Perhaps, instead of atheist destroying said religions, Islam will destroy all infidels. We’re nearing a time period in mankind’s history where it’s very plausible.
I have yet to see an atheist who constantly spews such ad hominem attacks towards religion. I wonder if admins care for such distractions from what could be fruitful discussion. I personally don’t.
Instead of memorizing large words in an attempt to impress, perhaps you should put some effort into the much finer art of reason and polite discussion.
It appears that your main interest has nothing to do with discussing philosophy, or perhaps more specifically religion. What, then, are you doing spending your time here?
Anyways, I’ve spent enough time trying to coax interesting and meaningful conversation out of you. All one can do is try.
Mas, I’m guessing that when you say “Due to the fact that hominid knowledge is not all encompassing and complete, there are uncertainties. Ergo, it meets with the definition of dogma,” you mean that atheism meets the part of the definition of dogma that says “a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.” But then all knowledge is dogma. One could make a convincing argument that all belief is, as well. There is something that distinguishes the belief “there is a computer at my fingertips” from the belief “there is an omniscient deity watching me.” I don’t think it’s practical to nitpick the definition of dogma to try to spin atheism and theism as the same type of belief. They clearly aren’t: one is positive, one is negative.
Also, as long as atheists perceive religion as a threat to their survival, they have a right to speak their minds (even unprovoked). And in so far as that threat is perceived to extend to the well being of the planet/species (as Dorky clearly perceives it to extend), the argument can be made that they have the duty to draw people away from religious beliefs. You haven’t made a great case as to why they should simply let religion be.
Actually my perception was based upon the wording in the rap, and it seemed more interested in pointing out “religious” flaws, than dealing with principled understanding from an atheist perspective … I’ve been wrong before, but that is the manner with which it came across.
I’ll forgive that error, because I bear some responsibility for lack of disclosure. You can visit American Atheists website, and see for yourself how the self-approbating founder, Ellen Johnson, makes every atheist look bad with her fanaticism.
Then there is the FFRF, who fashion themselves as atheist/agnostic activists, who go into courts on matters of Constitutionality with some of the most moronic and illogical arguments I’ve ever seen.
My apologies if you feel slighted, I’ve been at this “atheism” for awhile, and the lack of critical thinking on the part of people within the realm, including zealots like Richard Dawkins, doesn’t do anything to make a movement like atheism … reputable. Then they whine about lack of credibility.
I would argue against it being ad hominem personam. It is a posteriori that the comments come forth.
Understandable, and the problem is that the people who style themselves atheists, do us no favors, as is apparent when reading through the failures of the FFRF in courts. They do not attack matters of unConstitutional behavior, they attack the behavior of churches and their practitioners. Which is ignorance, and futility.
Although it would be foolish to argue against that possibility, those types of lunatics come in every fashion under the Sun. Even Japan and China have some loons bent on destroying civilisation for the benefit of their own beliefs.
I have nothing against active citizenship, predicated on learned understanding, pragmatics and critical thinking. But history has shown that wars over beliefs are never won, they only mount up the statistical deaths. (Although I have no qualms whatsoever about turning the Middle East into nuclear, [Bushism pronunciation: nuquelar], glass)
Admins are most often the worst perpetrators, on the 50 +/- sites I’ve visited. Normally, the admin/s is/are the one/s who setup the site for that exact reason. But then, that is my experience.
Actually, my vocabularly is quite in check at this time, and memorisation comes from consistent usage. No apologies. I have no qualms with reason, but politeness is simply a sensation. In this medium, it is rather hard to discern.
Same as anyone else, including yourself, discussing topics. I accept criticism as well as I give it, don’t be short sighted or presumptuous.
I’ll digress here, I’ve traveled that road before … and I seem to be having quite a bit of deja vu` here today … hmmmmm. Maybe Xunzian is correct, the absence of barley, malt and hops in my diet may actually be having a negative effect on the rational agent …
I see no place of “knit picking” as you say. Strictly speaking, in the defintional usage, the beliefs of atheism and theism/deism are exactly the same. Considering the entire catalogue of hominid knowledge that is currently recorded, you have but one past nil. Therefore, it is an opinion asserted by authority, (empiricism, philosophy, CT).
Positivity or negativity of belief is nothing more than personal perception, and cannot be proven in either instance.
No such argument can be made for “duty”, that is entirely personal perspective, thereby any extensions are suppositionary at best.
History makes the case for not attacking belief systems.
It doesn’t work, all belief systems are still present, and although forms and modalities may change, and billions have died to ensure their defeat, they still persist.
Due to the enormous executive functions of the hominid mind, strapped over the instinctual reptilian mind, beliefs are unstoppable.
Better rational/critical arguments can be made based on Constitutionality, rather than on attacking belief.
Personally, I have never felt threatened by an individuals beliefs, a religions beliefs, or a social groups beliefs. The only real threat is stupidity and the violence that comes from being bereft of the desire for knowledge, or the inability to assimilate knowledge.
All hominids are a threat to all other hominids and most certainly the sustainability of the global ecosystem, it’s called genetic domination. Belief is secondary as a threat, possibly even nominal.
Atheists have a duty to be rational, practical, pragmatic and educated. Zealotry makes only fools and corpses, all of recorded history sides with that argument.
Poor me… 
