New Crusade

New Atheism has really peaked my interest, i think this may actually lead us to a realization... its gonna be weird to agree w/ a majority belief...

 

What is a New Atheism? A new kind of Non-Religion? There is enough of them.
They just put the cart before the horse.

 

It was an interesting read, but a disappointing ending to say the least. I wonder why the author even bothered in the first place. Warning, spoilers coming up..... if you haven't read the article yet, you might want to stop here....










OK, here is the end....



"The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong."

I say that the end was disappointing because unfortunately I agree with it. It makes no sense to fight one form of extremeism with another. To me atheism is nothing more than lack of belief in god(s). When we start attaching extreme ideologies to it, it no longer represents what atheism is to me.

I've always liked Dawkins arguments for atheism and his style of debate. I was a little disapointed to learn that he supports the Brights. Not that the Brights are a bad group of people, I just think their name could use an overhaul... it sounds like fairies in the woods or something like that, its hard for me to take them seriously. I think that when atheism starts combining ideologies, it starts to loose its credibility as an identifier. I've always liked the idea that atheism by itself is nothing more than "lack of belief" and that each individual athiest can and does have his/her own ideologies about the rest of existence.

 

Athiesm is rationaly false [ and logically too.. ]

Occam

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), how can this be rationally false? How is it logically false? Atheism is the default position. It's only when ideologies get attached does it become clouded.

 

Isdarts

Soz..

Agnosticism is the default position.
To logically prove atheist position.. One must inspect reality [to find god or gods]
Humans are not capable of doing so. Thus humans cannot logically prove non
existance of god or gods.
As reason is based on logic [mostly] then this rational position as well

To hold atheist position. One must 'want to'.... desire
Same as theist position

Occam

 

Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. It can't be the default position. Atheism, in and of itself is merely a lack of belief. PERIOD. It is not the atheists position to prove a negative. You can't prove non-existence in most cases. Until the theist can prove there is a god, an atheist my just not care until such proof is available. You seem to think that we CAN NOT know (Strong agnosticism?), but I find this postion patently false. If there is no evidence for existence of X, it is reasonable to assume X is false. There is NO EVIDENCE for the existence of Invisable Pink Unicorns, the default position is that claims of IPU's are false, not that we don't or can't know.

 

Let's take that one step further; How can one "Crusade" for a lack of beliefs?

That would be like voting for an apolitical candidate.

Oxymorons abound.

 

When you are talking Dawkins and with most people, the term 'Atheist' has (like it or not) come to mean 'belief in a godless universe'.
I dont like it either but thats what the term has come to mean and communicate.
So when Occam says 'Atheist' he is using it in that sense.

In a freak occurance I actualy agree with Occam and he with Dawkins on this: At best you are 'Agnostic'.
Rationally.
But 'practically' Dawkins describes himself as an 'Atheist'.
In practice.

But yeah, what we are looking at here is Antitheism.
Dawkins for example is a rabid 'Antitheist'.
I was actually surprised, blindsided by the sudden 'out of nowhere' crash of antitheism on the scene in the last year or so.
Its like I suddenly went back in time to 1978 and half expected Dawkins, Amazing Randy and friggin Carl Sagan to appear on 'Thats Incredible' here.

Ahhhhhh...
But then I realised it all makes perfect sense and is happening as it should have been expected.
Just as Atheism is about to die, it lurches and spasms one last ferocious swing at the world.
A last ditch lunge.
Nothing to lose.

But here is the really funny part of this whole thing.
Just watching Dawkins propaganda film 'The Root of All Evil' and Ted Haggard is probably right on that - that in 10 or 20 years, due to scientific enlightenment the 'grandchildren' of Dawkins will look back and laugh at Atheism.

 

Lol
You are not the first to say that.

convergence of thought/understanding?

Very pleased to see a post from u without personal attacks and
namecalling. You smart guy.. We would both benefit from a mutual
exchange of ideas.
But call me a turkey again and the deal is off
However.. you can call me a genius or a savant

Occam

 

Isdarts

Will be back to you on that,, with new thread,,,but have to sleep 1st

 

Then it is up to the atheist to set them straight when they are using the overall term incorrectly. Theists often like to say atheism is "belief in a godless universe" so that somehow they can categorizes us and their position as being intelectually equal. While this MAY be the case for the Strong atheist, it is not the case for the broken down definition of "A-thiesm" in general, which means NON-theism, where theism is a "belief in a personal god and creator of the universe". Or more simply put, NON-belief in a personal god and creator of the universe". Lacking belief in the absense of a god is NOT the same as belief in the absense of a god. I don't say I "believe" there is no tooth fairy, I say I "lack belief" of a tooth fairy. I may lack belief for a number of reasons, but primarily it is because of a lack of evidence. The Strong atheist may "believe there is no god" and it would be up to them to defend this position. Not many atheist can do this, but even so, the theist still hasn't come up with the evidence for the positive claim. The strong atheist only has to show the lack of evidence and stick to that argument until there IS evidence for the theists claim, then and only then can the theist claim intelectual superiority.

One does not need to be atheist to be antitheist. Technically any religion that holds there is more than one god and creator of the universe could be considered antitheist, where Theism is meant to be "Belief in a personal god and creator of the universe. One can be religious and still be atheist as some buddhism is technically atheistic in nature (no belief in a PGaC). Antitheism is essentially, nothing more than "Against Theism" and A-theism is "Non-theism or Lack of theism". Personally, I'm not against theism, some people are more stable with it than they might be without it, if that works for them, more power to em. I don't deny that the "good book" has some social value. What scares me are the people who say (or think) atheism would result in chaos and it is their personal god that causes order. This tells me that these people might actually think it's ok to run around robbing, killing, causing general chaos without their god.... To these people, I say PLEASE keep your god, I'll deal with him in the end LOL.

 

This is the best bit -

But the article seems written by a pro-religious sympathiser - at least yeah the conclusions are about Dennets brand not Dawkins generally

I think this sums it up

Actually its not true - I changed my mind after re-reading that post about babies being agnostic - actually I agree with the position wikipedia gives that they are atheists - so the default position is atheism since if one has not heard of god - then one cannot have a belief that god might exist
A child who doesnt know about god assumes no god exists and is therefore athiest - the default is atheism

zoomie said

but they dont - atheism is a belief system that has is not like agnosticism where there is no belief system but a general - I dont know in its place

 

No, its up to you to work with the popular and common usage of the words and terms.
Especially when you know full well someone intends to be using the term 'atheist' in this way.

I happen to agree with you that the word has been misused but there you go. Its too late now.
Dawkins himself uses the word in the popular sense of the word.
So do most people.
I suppose you can get into a whole english debate about whether or not it does, in fact, mean 'belief in a godless universe' even if used 'properly'.
but,
You have to use words to convey meaning and for now we are stuck with that.

but yeah, practically, Dawkins is an antitheist.
So are alot of 16-24 year old males on the internet... at least by the 'atheist character' they go by.
Really, I see the internet as having contributed to the revival of antitheism.
You have armies of youth from white suburban neighbourhoods who were raised as... well nothing really.
Probably in communities that have a strong evangelical influence.
They themselves are not really accepted in that society, fully.
Unwittingly, they think they will be 'totally fucking with fundies' from behind their computer.
Maybe 'lashing out' or you get the idea here.

But realistically, I can barely meet an atheist anywhere.
If I was to go by the internet.. Id swear that half the population was lol!

 

Nonsense. On most of the debate forums where the forums aren't devided as well as this site, where "Religion and Philosophy" is the forum that isn't devided into christians, muslims jews etc..., I don't assume that all theists are christian even though most are. If I do assume that I'm debating christian theist, it is up to him to clarify he isn't a christian and say he's a jew or muslim, or to make it clear that he's not a christian. Otherwise what is the point in debating a muslim about christianity? Likewise, what is the point of debating from the strong atheists point of view with someone who only lacks belief? When someone says to me that atheism is a belief system, I immediately tell them that I'm a weak atheist and I don't debate from that point of view. If he insists that I do, then respectfully decline as this is NOT my position. American Herritage Dictionary has a good all around definition of Atheism, "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." Since I'm not in denial in the existence of god(s) that leaves me with disbelief, the antithesis of belief. Just because the majority of christians like to think they have the common usage of the term as a belief, does this give us the right to assume that the common usage of the term christian should include Mormonism even though they don't follow the doctrine of the trinity? How much you wanna bet there would be hell to pay for that misconception by many "christian" denominations? If you're going to debate atheism, make it clear from what point of view you hold, its not difficult and if they disagree, fine, debate over.

Is not!

Dawkins IS a strong atheist and can cover his ass from that stand point quite well. I can't so I take the weak atheist point of view. Who cares what "most people" think.... most christians don't consider Mormons true christians, are they right?

You keep saying we are stuck... we are not. I'm a weak atheist, I "LACK BELIEF in the existence of god(s). tell me I'm wrong and that I believe god doesn't exist and the debate is over. Here is a good link the next time someone trys to tell you what you are.

"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism." Source


Why should we let "christians" define who we are?

Visit the "Top Ten signs you might be a retarded atheist" thread I started in the Atheism forum, its a lesson on how NOT to be an atheist.

Most atheist I know personally, I've found by accident. Most just don't talk about it in public, its not an easy thing to do when you are surrounded by christians. Very few people at work know I am athiest, they are christian by identity, but never force it upon me or others. My family knows and even some agree with me, but can't defend themselves as well and would typically say agnostic to anyone who would ask. The internet has certainly taught me how to defend my stance with the wealth of information that is out there. Information is key. It's also easier to be atheist online just for the simple fact that the people you talk to can't affect your real life. Some people may fear the loss of jobs, friends and/or family if they came out in the real world. Bigotry exists, there is no denying that.

 

Putting aside your wacky theory about Christians 'making this' and 'pressuring this' and somehow being to blame for the misuse of the term.....

What can I say but Im sure glad you are 'clearing things up' with your fun 'Weak Atheist' and 'Strong Atheist' terms.
Yea.. thats really going to make it much easier.

But yeah, dont even bother trying to sell me some hilarious notion about poor atheists (weak, of course) who are sssscared of being 'surrounded by Christians' and losing jobs, friends, family.
Oh fuck off LMAO!
That was SO stupid dude... just stop that right now lol!

 

Feel free to argue the points I made... but if "Oh F*** Off and "just stop it" is the best you can do, my arguments stand.:toetap:

 

I dont need to 'argue your points' because I already pointed out where you have created a problem for yourself and others.

Calling BS on the ridiculous attempt at victim status was the 'least I could do' and a sort of bonus observation for you.

Otherwise,
Try using the word AS you expect it will be understood by the listener.
This is pretty much 'communication step #1' and is a rule that helps YOU as well as the others.
Otherwise, you will continue becoming totally frustrated and in an argument with yourself on this.

 

I have countered your arguments and made valid points as to why it is important to clarify your position. But hey, if you can't counter my counter aruguments, fine. Call BS is not a counter argument. It is nothing more than saying "nut uh"... You need to show me how and why I should "accept" a theists definition of what *I* am. Claiming "accepted" terms" is not an valid point, as I showed in my above posts. It's like saying if I call you gay, we should all accept the common usage that you like members of the same sex, when I really meant you are a happy person.

 

See, this is exactly why you are a nutter... if you had actually stopped swinging wildly at imaginary foes for a second,
You would have realised,
You never had any 'argument' from me and you dont have anything to 'counter' when it comes to anything Im telling you.

But no, you just went into some bizarre deal about how people need to know what meaning you intend to pour into words.

Hey,
How about 'MacroAtheism' and 'MicroAthiesm'?
That will work to screw things up even faster than your goofy 'weak/strong atheism'.

Seriously though, try reading posts before replying to them.
Thx