Why only twats confuse antitheism with atheism
Chzwmn
Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Only the impudent and foolish would suggest
that this amounts to a belief system. As an atheist I rarely think about the
issue, so much so that even calling me an atheist is inapproprite as it
provides the concept of gods with an undue credibility. It will not be long, I
hope, before the god idea is so out moded and irelevant as to enter the human
race into a post-god phase of existence.
Antitheism is perhaps a belief system. Those that are antitheists have
considered the god question deeply and concluded that the whole idea is very
damaging to the progress of humanity. This is made especially clear by the
strange cultural virus that bids people to destroy their own lives and others
in the name of god. (eg suicide bombers and GW Bush).
Antitheism recognises this aggression and concludes that it is not good for us.
I, for one, am becoming increasingly drawn to this way of thinking. Whether it
counts as a believe system I am not sure. I feel that the arguments are so
persuasive that saying a belief in god is a destructive influence on humans is
simply factual. I know religion is a dangerous and ignorant response to basic
human fear. I know it is childish to have an imaginary friend by your side. I
know it is time for us to grow up and face our mortality. I do not require
faith for these assertions, therefore antitheism is no more a believe system
than atheism is..
Richard
Do you also express your worries in the Santa Claus forums, or is it that
you are a little worried by the fact that unlike good old Father Christmas,
believing in God does actually make a difference?
"Chzwmn" <chz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041103135847...@mb-m22.aol.com...
theBeaver
Chzwmn wrote:
> Why only twats confuse antitheism with atheism.
>
> Atheism is a lack of belief in god. Only the impudent and foolish would suggest
> that this amounts to a belief system. As an atheist I rarely think about the
> issue, so much so that even calling me an atheist is inapproprite as it
> provides the concept of gods with an undue credibility. It will not be long, I
> hope, before the god idea is so out moded and irelevant as to enter the human
> race into a post-god phase of existence.
>
> Antitheism is perhaps a belief system. Those that are antitheists have
> considered the god question deeply and concluded that the whole idea is very
> damaging to the progress of humanity. This is made especially clear by the
> strange cultural virus that bids people to destroy their own lives and others
> in the name of god. (eg suicide bombers and GW Bush).
> Antitheism recognises this aggression and concludes that it is not good for us.
So you're saying that antitheists are opposed to the exercise of
religion, that they have made their decision based on "damage to
humanity". By this definition, it is therefore possible to believe in
God and still be an antitheist. What is the label, then, that you give
to people who have concluded that there is absolutely no personal God,
but who concede that the exercise of religion is of some use given the
current makeup of the population? And it seems you need a label to
distinguish that other distinguished group, like myself, who have
concluded that there is no personal God AND that it should be opposed
because it causes damage to humanity. Consider the various categories:
BELIEVE IN GOD OPPOSED TO RELIGION
YES NO : ? (most theists)
YES YES : ?
NO NO : ?
NO YES : ? (me and most non-theists)
I think your definition of "antitheism" causes some real confusion.
Chzwmn
This is only so , if you misquote me. You must be desperate for an argument. I
say that " {antitheists have} considered the god question deeply and concluded
that the whole idea isvery damaging to the progress of humanity." This is not a
statement of definition and does not include the word religion. Furthermore,
though implied, it was not sated that an antitheist is a sub catagory of
atheist. An antitheist is an atheist. An atheist is not necessarily an
antitheist.
What is the label, then, that you give
>to people who have concluded that there is absolutely no personal God,
>but who concede that the exercise of religion is of some use given the
>current makeup of the population?
Why insert the adjective "personal"? Is this relevant? What is the "current
make up" of which you speak?
And it seems you need a label to
>distinguish that other distinguished group, like myself, who have
>concluded that there is no personal God AND that it should be opposed
>because it causes damage to humanity.
If this is a separate category you will have to state it more clearly. You use
the word "it" twice ambiguously.
Consider the various categories:
>
>BELIEVE IN GOD OPPOSED TO RELIGION
> YES NO : ? (most theists)
> YES YES : ?
> NO NO : ?
> NO YES : ? (me and most non-theists)
>
>I think your definition of "antitheism" causes some real confusion.
Only in your mind. I was not defining it. But an antitheist is an atheist who
is actively opposed to the idea of god.
theBeaver
>>Chzwmn wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>us.
>>
>>So you're saying that antitheists are opposed to the exercise of
>>religion, that they have made their decision based on "damage to
>>humanity". By this definition, it is therefore possible to believe in
>>God and still be an antitheist.
>
>
> This is only so , if you misquote me. You must be desperate for an argument. I
> say that " {antitheists have} considered the god question deeply and concluded
> that the whole idea isvery damaging to the progress of humanity." This is not a
> statement of definition and does not include the word religion. Furthermore,
> though implied, it was not sated that an antitheist is a sub catagory of
> atheist. An antitheist is an atheist. An atheist is not necessarily an
> antitheist.
>
Heck, I'm ALWAYS desperate for an argument! By your definition of
atheist, newborn babes are atheists, so you have a very broad
definition. You include as atheists even those people who have never
considered the question, even if they might say God surely DOES exist if
they bothered to consider it. I regard this as too broad a definition,
one that will NEVER be accepted as common usage because no theist will
tolerate dubbing her infants "atheists". All agnostics, by your
definition, are atheists, too.
You do this to set up a strawman: Atheism, being the ABSENCE of an
idea, cannot constitute a belief system. Well, yeah, since newborn
babes are atheists by your definition and clearly have no identifiable
belief system, you're right.
However, the set of atheists also includes people who positively deny
the existence of any personal god. For these people, atheism is an
integral part of their belief system, which is a very substantial thing.
Atheism is a natural consequence of the belief that the universe is
ruled by physical law, which is the core of a "belief system".
So I believe it is inaccurate to say that atheism is not a belief
system, since you define atheism so broadly. Think of the idea of
physical law as sole ruler of this universe as one brand of atheism, and
you get my gist. And if that kind of atheism is a belief system, then
it is incorrect to say atheism is not a belief system.
> What is the label, then, that you give
>>to people who have concluded that there is absolutely no personal God,
>>but who concede that the exercise of religion is of some use given the
>>current makeup of the population?
>
>
> Why insert the adjective "personal"? Is this relevant? What is the "current
> make up" of which you speak?
>
A personal God is all that theists really are interested in. Some might
call the creator of the universe "God" even though to he created it and
then walked away, but that is nowhere near the kind of god that anyone
bothers imagining. Heck, even I could admit that kind of "God" is
possible, so long as we did not attribute to him supernatural powers.
Einstein explicitly repudiated a "personal" God for the simple reason
that he allowed the possibility, like Hawking, that the Universe might
possibly have been designed. This kind of general design is not
incompatible with a scientific viewpoint, though of course not very likely.
>
>>I think your definition of "antitheism" causes some real confusion.
>
>
> Only in your mind. I was not defining it. But an antitheist is an atheist who
> is actively opposed to the idea of god.
>
So you give no name to my brand of atheism? What about those of us who
absolutely deny the existence of a personal God, and in fact KNOW that a
good, omnipotent, and omniscient God cannot exist by the Existence of
Evil argument? Many people who actively oppose the idea of God do NOT
feel certainty that God does not exist. Have you no name for those who
KNOW that God does not exist, or do you not think anyone can know such a
thing? This is a category that surely deserves distinction. I feel
wronged if you lump me in with "antitheists" who oppose the idea of god
but feel less than certain about the non-existence of God. They may be
opposing it for the simple reason that they don't like it, or that they
think it causes damage, but have no solid rebuttal to the God idea, itself.
--
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human
Side , edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman,
and published by Princeton University Press.
Chzwmn
>Heck, I'm ALWAYS desperate for an argument! By your definition of
>atheist, newborn babes are atheists, so you have a very broad
>definition. You include as atheists even those people who have never
>considered the question, even if they might say God surely DOES exist if
>they bothered to consider it. I regard this as too broad a definition,
>one that will NEVER be accepted as common usage because no theist will
>tolerate dubbing her infants "atheists". All agnostics, by your
>definition, are atheists, too.
Bringing new born babies into it is ridiculous. THey are a-everything. They are
no more atheists then they are theist, nazis, republicans, or anything else.
>
>You do this to set up a strawman: Atheism, being the ABSENCE of an
>idea, cannot constitute a belief system. Well, yeah, since newborn
>babes are atheists by your definition and clearly have no identifiable
>belief system, you're right.
Your problem is that you do not understand the realtionship between knowledge
and belief. Belief is based on faith, knowledge upon evidence. People like you
try to traduce atheists by saying that they have a belief system. I disagree.
Not having sufficient evidence for a deity is not a belief system. You might
has well call me an a-unicornist, or an a-demonist etc..etc... The fact is that
all those things I reject everyday from LACK of belief is all about
credibility.
>
>However, the set of atheists also includes people who positively deny
>the existence of any personal god. For these people, atheism is an
>integral part of their belief system, which is a very substantial thing.
Yes and this set are called anti-theists: just like I say..
> Atheism is a natural consequence of the belief that the universe is
>ruled by physical law, which is the core of a "belief system".
Not at all. I do beleif that the universe is "ruled by physical law", but I am
an atheist.
>
>So I believe it is inaccurate to say that atheism is not a belief
>system, since you define atheism so broadly.
Then you have concluded incorrectly as I deny your assertion that atheism has
to be a natural consquence of something.
Even if i did believe that the universe was "ruled by natural law" that would
not mean that atheism was a belief system.
I don't believe in pink fairies either - do I have to have a special name for
that too??? Idiotic. I would have to make a list every day to include all those
things I had rejected. It's just stupid.
Think of the idea of
>physical law as sole ruler of this universe as one brand of atheism, and
>you get my gist. And if that kind of atheism is a belief system, then
>it is incorrect to say atheism is not a belief system.
You are like a religious prurient. You are assuming that, as all things come
from god, you must privalege god even in his rejection. You are
misunderstanding the word utterly. My understanding does not have to have
anything to do with god at all.
TO understand atheism you have to dissociate the concept of god.
>
>> What is the label, then, that you give
>>>to people who have concluded that there is absolutely no personal God,
>>>but who concede that the exercise of religion is of some use given the
>>>current makeup of the population?
>>
>>
>> Why insert the adjective "personal"? Is this relevant? What is the "current
>> make up" of which you speak?
>>
>
>A personal God is all that theists really are interested in.
If this is the case then they are atheists too, as they reject other
gods?!?!?!?
Some might
>call the creator of the universe "God" even though to he created it and
>then walked away, but that is nowhere near the kind of god that anyone
>bothers imagining.
The word for that is Deist. Look it up!
Heck, even I could admit that kind of "God" is
>possible, so long as we did not attribute to him supernatural powers.
The what the hell kind of god is that?
>Einstein explicitly repudiated a "personal" God for the simple reason
>that he allowed the possibility, like Hawking, that the Universe might
>possibly have been designed.
Einstien had no letting god in by the back door at all. His atheism was quite
explicit. Hawking is not an intellectual heavy weight.
This kind of general design is not
>incompatible with a scientific viewpoint, though of course not very likely.
>
>>
>>>I think your definition of "antitheism" causes some real confusion.
>>
>>
>> Only in your mind. I was not defining it. But an antitheist is an atheist
>who
>> is actively opposed to the idea of god.
>>
>
>So you give no name to my brand of atheism? What about those of us who
>absolutely deny the existence of a personal God, and in fact KNOW that a
>good, omnipotent, and omniscient God cannot exist by the Existence of
>Evil argument?
There is far more to it thatn that my friend. Einstein, in particular rejects
this idea of god for reasons of determinism. Such a god would know who would
die as sinners before they were evern born: leaving no room for free will.
Many people who actively oppose the idea of God do NOT
>feel certainty that God does not exist. Have you no name for those who
>KNOW that God does not exist, or do you not think anyone can know such a
>thing? This is a category that surely deserves distinction. I feel
>wronged if you lump me in with "antitheists" who oppose the idea of god
>but feel less than certain about the non-existence of God. They may be
>opposing it for the simple reason that they don't like it, or that they
>think it causes damage, but have no solid rebuttal to the God idea, itself.
I suppose it might be possble that a person can be an antitheist but not an
atheist. Such a person would be a very confused and sad puppy.
>
>--
>
>"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
>a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
>personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
>If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
>unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
>science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human
>Side , edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman,
>and published by Princeton University Press.
This is a contradiction to your assetion above that Einstein allowed the
possiblity of a designer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Prime Element
news:vo5jd.357$jC5.213@trnddc07...
You should probably differentiate between "opposed to religion" and "opposed
to belief in God" since religion and belief in God are not the same thing.
Some religious people are atheists, Buddha for example.
Prime Element
news:qbkjd.2217$bH2.756@trnddc09...
No it isn't; deism, pantheism. A theist can certainly believe in physical
laws.
> which is the core of a "belief system".
>
> So I believe it is inaccurate to say that atheism is not a belief system,
> since you define atheism so broadly. Think of the idea of physical law as
> sole ruler of this universe as one brand of atheism, and you get my gist.
Are Taoists and Stoics atheists? Certainly not in the modern western sense
anyway but you could put them both in the "physical law as sole ruler of
this universe" bucket easily. Deists maybe too if you define it right
(depends on what you mean by sole).
> And if that kind of atheism is a belief system, then it is incorrect to
> say atheism is not a belief system.
>
>> What is the label, then, that you give
>>>to people who have concluded that there is absolutely no personal God,
>>>but who concede that the exercise of religion is of some use given the
>>>current makeup of the population?
>>
>>
>> Why insert the adjective "personal"? Is this relevant? What is the
>> "current
>> make up" of which you speak?
>>
>
> A personal God is all that theists really are interested in. Some might
> call the creator of the universe "God" even though to he created it and
> then walked away, but that is nowhere near the kind of god that anyone
> bothers imagining.
There have been many deists, many were important thinkers.
> Heck, even I could admit that kind of "God" is possible, so long as we
> did not attribute to him supernatural powers.
Define supernatural. Or alternatively just define natural. I find it hard to
make a distinction. What's the difference between something which happens by
the decree of a physical law we don't understand yet and something which is
supernatural? To me supernatural is a self contradiction. If it exists it is
part of nature IMO. To me supernatural is as meaningless as saying "beyond
existence" and saying the supernatural does not exist is as pointless as
saying "that which is beyond existence does not exist".
Chzwmn
>anyway but you could put them both in the "physical law as sole ruler of
>this universe" bucket easily. Deists maybe too if you define it right
>(depends on what you mean by sole).
Well a Sole is a fish.. Unlike the soul it is a tangible and palpable object.
It can be fried and dressed with lemon. The soul on the other hand is a concept
that is asserted by an act of faith and does not necessarily exist at all....
Prime Element
Of course I meant sole = only. A Deist may believe in a totally "clockwork
universe" but still believe in the existence of a God. That's what I was
getting at.