Atheism is a faith.

CapelDodger said:
My goat is still got when some Philosopher (and joobz is one, I'm not going to hide behind innuendo) claims to have me in its sophistic net. I will not have it. I will not have my recognition of obvious fiction classified with the ravings of those who don't recognise it. I will not wade through some Philosopher's lexical swamp or leap through its smoke-rings. I will call it smug and solipsistic and challenge it to prove different.
Click to expand...

CD, Just relax, have a Victory Gin and remember:

* WAR IS PEACE
* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
* ATHEISM IS FAITH
 
GrnMtSkeptic said:
CD, Just relax, have a Victory Gin and remember:

* WAR IS PEACE
* FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
* IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
* ATHEISM IS FAITH
Click to expand...
Hi, don't think we've met, can't be sure, I never log-on sober. Beer and a glass of Oban to hand, one to slurp and one to sip. Relaxed as all get-out. (Not overly keen on "CD", I do have a proper handle, a pronouncable one at that.) I relish the fight while I'm winning. I've been at this "atheism is belief/faith/yadda-yadda" since schooldays and never has a glove been laid on me. Why woud I not love it? :)

I offended joobz with my use of "adolescent" (10 or 12, maybe more, pages back) but I first heard his gist as an adolescent, from other adolescents. All the sophisticated efforts I've subsequently encountered can be readily reduced to that adolescent model. I will not declare defeat by the Philosophers.

It wasn't me, the atheist, who started this thread. It was an assault on me.
 
Region Rat said:
13 pages, and I've got to ask:
What difference does it make to a theist if an atheist has faith or atheism is a belief of some sort?
Click to expand...
do you really think only theists argue that the consistent use of language might aid communication?

it seems like a view many sceptics might hold to me. common definitions were given back in post #70 (and often elsewhere). why not just allow those?

more interestingly: why does such a minor question of terminology produce such zealous counter-attacks by (some) sceptics?

13 pages...
Region Rat said:
I've come up with a new definition:
Click to expand...
now there is a constructive approach. better than complaining that normal usage (dictionary definitions) need not constrain us.

what is the real information content of these 13 pages?
 
Jimbo07 said:
I love it!

Just goes to show that there are people around here who are cleverererer than me! :)
Click to expand...
So is that a "No" to the card-game, or a "Yes, it's worth paying to watch a master at work"? drkitten might be there, perhaps M le Marquis, RandFan's "maybe" is surely a yes; there's no certainty I'll win. There's even a chance you wouldn't lose - unless you wanted to be invited again, of course. :cool:
 
lenny said:
more interestingly: why does such a minor question of terminology produce such zealous counter-attacks by (some) sceptics?
Click to expand...
"Zealous"? Any opposition is because the claim is disingenuous. Theism tends to view the world in a dogmatic way and elevates blind faith. Science hold positions provisionally and seeks proof of those positions in a decidedly non dogmatic fashion.

As a former believer who used to accuse atheists of having their own religion I understand now why that is wrong.
 
RandFan said:
"Zealous"? Any opposition is because the claim is disingenuous. Theism tends to view the world in a dogmatic way and elevates blind faith. Science hold positions provisionally and seeks proof of those positions in a decidedly non dogmatic fashion.

As a former believer who used to accuse atheists of having their own religion I understand now why that is wrong.
Click to expand...
I ask this question, because it is a point I'm still puzzled by.
It seems like in much of these arguements, skepticism can be used instead of skepticism.

Does someone need to be atheist for skeptical reasons? And if not, is this line of reasoning applicable.
 
CapelDodger said:
Not apathetic enough not to tell us so, I see. :)

Is this a JREF legend in the making? Everybody's dropping in, even if only to say they're not coming. Hey RandFan, lookin' good - M le Marquis, always a pleasure - thaiboxerken, still kickin'? - yo zaayrdragon, been too long y'old reptile you - Tricky, no party's complete, man ... I could schmooze all night.
Click to expand...
Ah, and you probably thought, thank christ, The Atheist isn't here to really ruin the party!

Well, I don't know how I missed this thread, but I'm going to read each and every post before I come back and make a comment. 13 pages of it!
 
RandFan said:
As a former believer who used to accuse atheists of having their own religion I understand now why that is wrong.
Click to expand...
We have very different backgrounds. I never believed, I was exposed to all the mythoses(?) at about the same time with no specific stress being applied to any of them. Rather than not believe in most of them I never believed in any of them. I was, after all, not expected to believe in all of them. Not even a Philosopher would suggest that.

From your post, and I'm not surprised, you didn't shift from belief to the barren shadow-land of Philosophy as an easy option. I don't see that as your way. When belief goes, what's left is non-belief. I've accused you of dogmatism in other contexts, but in this context it's a virtue :) .
 
joobz said:
It seems like in much of these arguements, skepticism can be used instead of skepticism.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the question.

Does someone need to be atheist for skeptical reasons? And if not, is this line of reasoning applicable.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how to respond until I understand your question above.
 
CapelDodger said:
We have very different backgrounds. I never believed, I was exposed to all the mythoses(?) at about the same time with no specific stress being applied to any of them. Rather than not believe in most of them I never believed in any of them. I was, after all, not expected to believe in all of them. Not even a Philosopher would suggest that.

From your post, and I'm not surprised, you didn't shift from belief to the barren shadow-land of Philosophy as an easy option. I don't see that as your way. When belief goes, what's left is non-belief. I've accused you of dogmatism in other contexts, but in this context it's a virtue :) .
Click to expand...
Thanks. I can assure you that while I defend my positions vigorously I am not at all dogmatic. If you make a reasoned argument that is better than mine I will change my mind. It might take awhile but I will.

When I came to this forum I was an ID proponent. I was against gay marriage. I was a dualist and rather conservative. I'm now socially liberal, atheist and have changed my mind on gay marriage, socialism, communism, anthropogenic global warming, and a great many other things. I'm the least dogmatic person on this forum that I know of.

I haven't met too many people who have changed their minds about anything.
 
The Atheist said:
Ah, and you probably thought, thank christ, The Atheist isn't here to really ruin the party!

Well, I don't know how I missed this thread, but I'm going to read each and every post before I come back and make a comment. 13 pages of it!
Click to expand...
When old JREF hands gather above the flood-waters decades down the line, over warm beer and meds, to discuss the old days would any be so bold as to admit they didn't hit this party? If only tangentially?

As far as I know, I'm the guy that called Armageddon on this thread. Page 3-ish.
 
RandFan said:
I don't understand the question.

I'm not sure how to respond until I understand your question above.
Click to expand...
Sorry, It was a fast post in a hectic time.
You and most here use science, logic, skepticism as a basis for your atheism. You have rejected the supernatural because it doesn't fit in the logical world. But is this the only way to be an atheist?
 
Joobz said:
You and most here use science, logic, skepticism as a basis for your atheism. You have rejected the supernatural because it doesn't fit in the logical world. But is this the only way to be an atheist?
Click to expand...
That's not why I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I don't see any evidence for god. (Heck, I'm not even sure what the definition of god is.) I'm an a-elephant-in-my-living-room for the same reason. I don't think it's a matter of faith.

Now, if you'll check out my first sig line, you might contend that it is wrong. Perhaps we should not say something does not exist when there is no difference between its existence and its nonexistence.

~~ Paul
 
CapelDodger said:
Quality TV. I rather doubt Hunster has much time for such plebeian pursuits. You'll have twigged the "Higgs" allusion, of course. With Hunster I stick to spooky-interaction-at-a-distance, lest I gain inertia and lose the will to live. He's tricksy though;
Click to expand...
I thought that you were refering to the notion that his presumed mass (or meaning) continues to dwindle as we increase our abilities of detection. Although, I think your explantion makes more sense.
 
joobz said:
Sorry, It was a fast post in a hectic time.
You and most here use science, logic, skepticism as a basis for your atheism. You have rejected the supernatural because it doesn't fit in the logical world. But is this the only way to be an atheist?
Click to expand...

No, at least I don't think so. One could be an atheist for non-rational reasons I suppose. But I think it's more common to encounter someone who adopts atheism for the usual rational reasons but makes the irrational statement that he/she is 100% certain that there are no gods. All I can rationally say is that there is no evidence of the existence of any gods outside of human imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom