Is there an "atheist perspective"?

[Sun Countess]

It is a double-blinded test. So I would use atheists, but they don't know it. So the emotional component is eliminated.

How would you decide who the real atheists are, though? Several people here classify themselves as atheists, but aren't atheists by your narrow definition.

My spidey senses are telling me that you're only going to pick the most radically cynical, god-rejecting atheists you can find, and then come to the conclusion that atheists are cynical and contrarian compared to the average population. (Ignoring the fact that those particular people are cynical and contrarian compared to the average run-of-the-mill atheists.)

By who's authority Sledge? Tell me please? Who is imposing this definition?

Actual atheists. Not theists, and not unnamed people who write definitions for dictionaries and wikipedia.

 

[Sledge]

Tomorrow, Christian convinces himself black is white and gets run over on a zebra crossing.

 

[Christian]

No, I don't suppose you do

What is it with this intellectual elitism. Do you really believe what you write is so way up there? I think you do. I think you actually believe that it is about comprehension.

 

[ideogram]

What is it with this intellectual elitism. Do you really believe what you write is so way up there? I think you do. I think you actually believe that it is about comprehension.

Christian, do you believe the category that you have in mind is the same category I think of when I hear the word "atheist"?

 

[Christian]

How would you decide who the real atheists are, though? Several people here classify themselves as atheists, but aren't atheists by your narrow definition.

Actually they fit the definition perfectly.

My spidey senses are telling me that you're only going to pick the most radically cynical, god-rejecting atheists you can find, and then come to the conclusion that atheists are cynical and contrarian compared to the average population. (Ignoring the fact that those particular people are cynical and contrarian compared to the average run-of-the-mill atheists.)

If you read the methodoly I presented, you would know this is not so. But, you don't seem to be interested in the arguments or discussion.

Actual atheists. Not theists, and not unnamed people who write definitions for dictionaries and wikipedia.

This does not make you the authority on the definition and does not disqualify the definitions in dictionaries.

 

[Dani]

Words are informative, useful, communicative, but what's important is the concepts the words refer to.

The word "atheist" is no longer informative, useful or communicative within the context of this conversation. The concept it refers to isn't clear.

You want to exchange information? I suggest a different strategy.

 

[Christian]

It is what the word means, Christian.

From OED

Atheist : 1. one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of a god

Atheism: Without god, denying god. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of god

Strong and weak, you see?

Do you see that denying requires a mental process, an evaluation? To discard an idea, one must evaluate it. You have, and make a decision. That satisfies my definition of an atheist.

 

[Sun Countess]

What is it with this intellectual elitism. Do you really believe what you write is so way up there? I think you do. I think you actually believe that it is about comprehension.

It's because you're not listening to what people are saying about their personal experiences. You're placing your own worldview on top of whatever it is that they've experienced.

Here's an example from a page back:

I get that you are making a judgment, an evaluation. You have structured a pros and cons analysis and come to the inequivocal conclusion that "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about". That is a profound philosophical statement. You too fit my defintion of an atheist, and very well.

I would agree that "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about" but that's not a profound philosophical statement. Quick: Who do you think would win in a battle, Superman or Voldemort? If you say that it's not worth your time to worry about, that's not a profound philosophical statement. It's saying that there are more important things in life to worry about than what somebody else's imaginary friends are doing, or what happens to fictional characters after the book ends. Honestly, if I could have any such question answered, I'd like to know if Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy ever had children.

 

[Christian]

Words are informative, useful, communicative, but what's important is the concepts the words refer to.

The word "atheist" is no longer informative, useful or communicative within the context of this conversation. The concept it refers to isn't clear.

You want to exchange information? I suggest a different strategy.

Many poster here are not interested in discourse. If I were to change or adjust or change the subject, eventually the same thing will occur. So, if that is the way it going to be, then I will be as forceful as they are.

 

[Fiona]

What is it with this intellectual elitism. Do you really believe what you write is so way up there? I think you do. I think you actually believe that it is about comprehension.

I do think it is about comprehension, but not in the way you imply. I think you are so wedded to your position that you are unable to hear and understand anything which challenges it. It is not about intellect. It is a blind spot for you, I think. We all have blind spots. You believe you know about atheism and you are eager to have your view accepted so you can get to what you see as the substantive point: since your conception of atheism is wrong we cannot get to the substantive point and that is what these many pages have been about. You have identified a category which does not exist and you wish to use that category as a basis for investigating something else: that can never fly. People have tried to show you why that is and you refuse it: and so we go round and round.

I am quite sure it is the water you swim in and you cannot tell that it is wet: I am happy to accept that it is not wilfull and to acknowledge that there are areas where I would be in your position through lack of experience of other ways of thinking than those I grew up with.

But whatever is causing it you are right: I think it is a matter of comprehension

 

[Sledge]

Do you see that denying requires a mental process, an evaluation? To discard an idea, one must evaluate it. You have, and make a decision. That satisfies my definition of an atheist.

Do you see that disbelief does not require denying?

 

[Fiona]

Do you see that denying requires a mental process, an evaluation? To discard an idea, one must evaluate it. You have, and make a decision. That satisfies my definition of an atheist.

And again you cherry pick: it says denies or disbelieves. You conflate these and I am perfectly prepared to accept that you think they are the same thing: they are not

 

[Sun Countess]

Actually they fit the definition perfectly.

No. But you don't know that because you're not listening. I didn't go through any of the processes you imagine that I did. I didn't reject gods, and I didn't go through any profound thought processes to accept what my parents presented to me as fact: God stories are funny fictions, invented by people to explain things they couldn't explain otherwise. That made sense to me, just as it made sense to me that parents were the ones who bought the presents at christmastime.

By your definition, the only people who would qualify as "asantists" are the ones who gave the matter some thought, and decided on their own that Santa didn't really exist.

So, no, I don't qualify under your definition of atheist.

This does not make you the authority on the definition and does not disqualify the definitions in dictionaries.

Funny though, how you get different definitions from atheists than theists. See, some theists have these notions that atheists reject gods. This could be because they're angry at him, or they don't want to submit to his authority, or because they just like sinning so darn much. They don't like listening to what actual atheists have to say about the whole "not believing in deities" viewpoint because it's so opposite to their own beliefs. I had one...discussion with a friend at university, and she could never get past the point of, "How can you not believe in god? No, really, how is that even possible?" I just can't imagine you don't believe when it's just so obvious. Everybody believes because it's true!!!!!"

 

[Christian]

It's because you're not listening to what people are saying about their personal experiences. You're placing your own worldview on top of whatever it is that they've experienced.

Here's an example from a page back:

I would agree that "all this god stuff is not worth my time worrying about" but that's not a profound philosophical statement. Quick: Who do you think would win in a battle, Superman or Voldemort? If you say that it's not worth your time to worry about, that's not a profound philosophical statement. It's saying that there are more important things in life to worry about than what somebody else's imaginary friends are doing, or what happens to fictional characters after the book ends. Honestly, if I could have any such question answered, I'd like to know if Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy ever had children.

I get that completely. But please follow me. Do you really believe that Superman and Voldemort are in the same category "not believing in any deities". Coming to the understand that there are no gods where religions have (have had) a profound impact on human history and it is extremely relevant today is in the same realm as Superman an Voldemort? Deities and the understanding of how people who believe in deities act is very important? You want to minize this, I don't buy it. Religious extremism can affect anyone, anywhere around the world. It is not something you just dismiss. I can cite example over example why the analysis is profound. The best evidence is that I find this poster here in a website and forum that has as one of its goals to promote rational thinking and denounce quacks and the like.

 

[Fiona]

I get that completely. But please follow me. Do you really believe that Superman and Voldemort are in the same category "not believing in any deities". Coming to the understand that there are no gods where religions have (have had) a profound impact on human history and it is extremely relevant today is in the same realm as Superman an Voldemort? Deities and the understanding of how people who believe in deities act is very important? You want to minize this, I don't buy it. Religious extremism can affect anyone, anywhere around the world. It is not something you just dismiss. I can cite example over example why the analysis is profound. The best evidence is that I find this poster here in a website and forum that has as one of its goals to promote rational thinking and denounce quacks and the like.

Speaking for myself, yes: I think they are exactly the same.


Certainly the fact that people will do terrible things in the name of religion is interesting and important. But that does not mean that deities are important. They will do terrible things in the name of almost any big word, from time to time.

 

[Christian]

No. But you don't know that because you're not listening. I didn't go through any of the processes you imagine that I did. I didn't reject gods, and I didn't go through any profound thought processes to accept what my parents presented to me as fact: God stories are funny fictions, invented by people to explain things they couldn't explain otherwise. That made sense to me, just as it made sense to me that parents were the ones who bought the presents at christmastime.

By your definition, the only people who would qualify as "asantists" are the ones who gave the matter some thought, and decided on their own that Santa didn't really exist.

So, no, I don't qualify under your definition of atheist.

Funny though, how you get different definitions from atheists than theists. See, some theists have these notions that atheists reject gods. This could be because they're angry at him, or they don't want to submit to his authority, or because they just like sinning so darn much. They don't like listening to what actual atheists have to say about the whole "not believing in deities" viewpoint because it's so opposite to their own beliefs. I had one...discussion with a friend at university, and she could never get past the point of, "How can you not believe in god? No, really, how is that even possible?" I just can't imagine you don't believe when it's just so obvious. Everybody believes because it's true!!!!!"

Good anecdote. Do you see that it is not something without importance. A friend of yours confronts you with this idea, and you don't meditate about, affirm you conclusions convictions? There are no thought processes involved? You are relating a story that shows thinking about it, processing information, coming to a conclusion. You can't escape your brain.

You assign straw men to my position. I never have, never will say you are angry at gods. That is ridicuous. You confronted an idea, a very clear idea and decide on it. It is as simple as that. It is a logical conclusion based on how humans process any information. We can't process information unless we evaluate it. What is so hard to get abou this?

 

[GeeMack]

And I will do it again. You are wrong. You see. I'm not attacking you. I'm simply stating that what you are saying is wrong. That's not rude or dishonet. That is my assessment of what you are saying. And that is proper protocol in a discussion. Then I tell you why you are wrong or show you evidence why you are wrong. If you read the whole thread you will see that some posters understand exactly what I want to convey and I have acknowledge that. Most posters have not agreed with me but have understood my position.

I have made my point, not once but many times, please read the thread.

And that's why you're still complaining about various atheists' understanding of their own position instead of advancing the discussion.

 

[Christian]

Speaking for myself, yes: I think they are exactly the same.


Certainly the fact that people will do terrible things in the name of religion is interesting and important. But that does not mean that deities are important. They will do terrible things in the name of almost any big word, from time to time.

Deties are totally irrelevant to you, they are imaginary. What is important is the idea that other humans hold beliefs in deities and you don't. Important enough to evaluate and determine that there are no deities. All you need to satisfy my criteria is that you decided, evaluated, processed and took, affirmed, etc. a stance.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Both the definitions you have used thus far treat atheism as something active, a deliberate choice, and based on the active rejection of belief. Neither of the definitions include me, and I am an atheist. I think your definition is too narrow, and given that several posters have said it doesn't fit with their experience, I wonder why you are choosing these definitions rather than the simple one put forward a number of times in this thread: "Atheism is the lack of belief in gods".

I wonder how this definition would do with regard to people like me, who didn't suddenly stand up one day and shout, "I deny you, God!" but just went on with their lives and finally realized that they didn't believe in the religious stuff any more. I guess there might have been some process that went on, but if there was, for me it was mostly subconscious.

What you are saying is that someone can be an atheist without knowing they are an atheist.

Why not? Back in the discussion about China, you said that people might say they were atheists when they really weren't, and hinted that they might be theists without knowing that they were.

 

[Christian]

And that's why you're still complaining about various atheists' understanding of their own position instead of advancing the discussion.

No, I just got tired of the condescension.