definition of atheist (comment on 'definition' sticky)

no he did not. he said "having someone attempt to label me as an atheist is no different than someone trying to compare me to Hitler or the KKK. ", it is because of your twist of his words to change it into a meaning you can attack, that I will only listen to you a little.

you are not contributing to the converstation. this is not a thread to validate your beliefs. you do not need to put down ppl who don't agree with you.
but I see that may be asking too much..

those books are the goto arguments some atheist use to validate their non-beliefs, just as the Christian does with the bible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And herein lies the crux, all organized religions are EXCLUSIVE in their very NATURE and worship rituals. You deviate and you are branded.

But if an atheists protests against such vile insinuations, he/she becomes a "militant". You bet your ass I become militant if you start using ad hominems to label a group of people (to which I belong) with no particular belief whatever!!!!

And you know, I am more scared of religious zealots under Biblical Commandments than you need be of this Atheist under secular Constitutional law).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stop and think for a second. In order for the label of "atheist" to be "no different" than being compared to Hitler or the KKK, one must first equate atheists with Hitler or the KKK. So, yes, he was saying that atheists are like Hitler or the KKK. That's exactly what he was saying.

You're trying to draw blood here, but I don't value your opinion enough to be offended by it. Sorry.

No. They may feature "go-to" arguments in certain situations, but that's because a lot of what's in any of those books is factual. Dawkins books, for example, are science books, and highly regarded as such by many people regardless of their beliefs.

The Bible--any scripture, really--is just a collection of myths, laws, and injunctions. There are obviously some philosophical truths to be found in the nooks here and there, and phrases that make for good bumper stickers (but not much else), but mostly the Bible is used for reassurance, not knowledge. Anything written by Dawkins, Hitchens, even Harris, is going to make you better for reading it, and especially in the case of Hitchens and Harris, the world would be better if we followed their lead. So, no, it certainly isn't atheist doctrine.

 

It's important not to let people get away with the "militant" label. It's nothing less than an attempt to ostracize and silence atheists, and should be rebuked whenever it is presented.

 

Balerion, claiming you did NOT twist my words is dishonest. I did NOT say atheists are like Hitler or the KKK but that how insulting it is and how insulted I personally would be if/when someone attempts to label me as an "atheist" (which quite a handful of people have because I denied being Christian but being open minded to the POSSIBILITY of the existence of some deist while still remaining skeptical at the same time, as if they're somehow polar opposites and the only two options?) is/would be the same if someone tried comparing me to Hitler or the KKK. By no how was I comparing atheists to Hitler or the KKK. That's where you twisted my words.

"I am NOT closed minded, especially towards other beliefs. I do NOT attempt to speak on the behalf of Science based on limited knowledge of our universe and our relatively limited technology." - me
"Is this supposed to be your summary of atheism?" - Balerion
When people who identify as "atheists" refuse to accept the possibility of a certain religion or a certain belief have some validity, believing/claiming that there is no deity (Have I recently used "deist" when meaning "deity"? I feel like I have and my apologies if I have.), that there is no possibility of a deity existing. That the existence of any deity being completely false is the absolute truth of the universe. Yes, I would say that is being very much closed minded. And yes, when atheists make claims about the absolute truth of the universe or at least speaking in absolutes, they are attempting to speak on the behalf of science based on limited knowledge of the universe(s) and with our limited technology.

Hell, ask almost anyone specifically an atheist about the existence of unicorns. While the most likely possibility is that it's nothing more than a fairy tale, most people would respond that unicorns don't exist and have never existed. Have these people looked on every star, every planet in every galaxy? Do these people know the complete history of all these places in the entire universe? Have these people discovered evidence proving it'd be IMPOSSIBLE for what is defined as a unicorn to exist? Or are these people merely making comments based on limited knowledge and with our limited technology?

Look at it like this.. Before we have microscopes, did atoms not exist simply because we couldn't see them? No. Or at least that not being a very likely possibility. Well, what if we just haven't discovered the technology to detect any such evidence that may or may not exist? WELL.. we'll just adapt if that time comes, right? WHY? Why put ourselves in an opportunity to have our backs to the wall, no matter how unlikely? So instead of answering with a blanket statement that "Unicorns just don't exist", reply with something at least along these lines as "Based on current technology, there has been no evidence discovered on planet Earth (Mars, Moon, whatever) suggesting the existence of such and such."

Long story short, yeah atheists aren't the only ones attempt to speak on the behalf of science, on the absolute truth of the universe based on limited knowledge and our limited technology. Yes, some Christians will assert that God existing is an absolute fact but many will acknowledge that it's just their belief and it's FAITH.

My experience with atheists over many years has nothing to do with how it feels as insulting to be labeled as an atheist as it would to be labeled as Hitler or the KKK. As I don't just enter with "Hey atheist, you're acting like Hitler." No... I merely enter situations where atheists are demanding theists provide evidence that a deity existed and throws it in their face if/when they don't but they'll turn right around and make a claim that no deity exists so when I come in and ask them to provide evidence proving that no deity exists.. the atheists turn to attacking me, claiming that I'm a "stupid theist", that I must be a Christian, that I must be a theist, that I must be uneducated, that my parents must have failed me or that my education failed me or that I'm closed minded or that I don't understand Science. All of this from nothing but asking atheists to provide existence for THEIR counter claims, that there being no deity existence.

When atheists talk about there being no deity, there being no god. That god existing is impossible, it believing that a deity existence is illogical or irrational or whatever, that is in fact atheists asserting to know the absolute truth of the universe. Same thing with theists who assert that god or a deity existing is an absolute fact.

 

for the record Hitler was Christian..so were most members of the KKK..

anyway, can we get back to discussing whether to add the term anti-theist?

 

Present, not past tense - the organization still exists.

 

No words were twisted. Saying that being called an atheist is the same as being called Hitler, you are saying that atheists and Hitler are equally bad. That's a comparison. Now, I understand that maybe you aren't smart enough to grasp this, but I'm tired of explaining this to you.

You're wrong on multiple counts. First and foremost, not believing in a god is not the same thing as being closed-minded. If I don't believe in something, it's because there is no evidence for its existence, and/or evidence against its existence. If evidence is presented to me that a god exists, then I'll have to adjust my opinion accordingly.

I don't need to look under every rock to know that unicorns don't exist. Their non-existence is evident in more than their absence. Myth is recognizable. It has meaning and purpose.

The existence of atoms and the existence of unicorns are not the same thing. I'm fairly sure the atom was predicted before the telescope existed, or at least before it was powerful enough to see one. This is true of many phenomena; no one, however, is predicting the existence of a unicorn. That's because intelligent, educated people know the difference between myth and reality.

The only thing limited here is your knowledge. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about, so you just talk at great length and bombastically in the hope that no one will notice.

Get an education, and you'll avoid making yourself look foolish in the future.

At this point, I think it's fair to say you're a theist who simply wants to take the piss out of atheists. It's either that, or you really don't know who Hitler was, or what the KKK is.

Do you realize that none of this describes Hitler or the KKK?

Wrong. People who say this are merely weighing the evidence and reaching a conclusion. They aren't making claims of absolute knowledge. That's something you've invented as a coping mechanism to deal with the fact that you don't have the wherewithal to reconcile your beliefs with the truth-bombs atheists drop on you. In other words, you're in over your head, and panicking.

 

Call me what you like, as long as you don't call me late for dinner!


Actually in my lifetime, I've been a Good Catholic, an Altar boy, an Agnostic, a cheer leader, and an Atheist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

IMO, that term has no application in reality. As long as I don't see Atheists standing on the corners with bells and whistles, proclaiming "THERE IS NO GOD", I would not worry too much about the pervasion of anti-theism.

IMO, any militancy or raw honesty about an atheist's personal feelings are always "in response" to a theist attack.

 

really? how long have you been at sciforums?

and its not to be a national precedent, its just a term to use in discussion, to differentiate levels of atheism as they do for believers.

 

He's absolutely right. At sciforums, theist usually begin with some sort of nasty comment, or some outlandishly stupid comment, and when an atheist responds, they are immediately called hostile, when in reality they're just responding to something hostile, or aggressively stupid.

But atheism and theism aren't comparable in that fashion. Theism is a belief, and within theism are various schools of belief related to it. The same really isn't true for atheism. Which is why none of the terms stick; they aren't accurate. There is no atheist equivalent to a militant Christian. There is no atheist equivalent to an ultra-conservative Muslim. Sure, there may be atheists who are militant about other things, and atheists who are ultra-conservative--but neither their militancy or their conservative nature is related to their atheism.

 

theist begin with stating a claim, then the atheist go on the attack calling their claims stupid, and wrong and then start to ridicule their beliefs.
it usually does not take much to set the atheist off, one has to only mention God or a piece of their belief for an atheist to grab it and derail the topic.
so to say theist are the problem is wrong. its the reaction from atheist that create the problems.

and you just said it, 'when a theist says something outlandishly stupid', that statement says that the atheist goes on the attack first.

with exceptions, most of the theist/atheist debates here are atheist attacking theist beliefs not the other way around.

 

I agree, but of course the "rebuke" itself will be considered militant, if not blasphemic.

 

Well, you're wrong, and your post is a perfect example of how theists insist on making debates a mudslinging match. Grow up, squirrel.

 

don't understand how you see that, except to ridicule my opinion because it doesn't line up with yours..

 

Theist? Typical. You're going to insult YOUR perception of my intelligence when you think I'm a theist and that I was actually claiming the existence of unicorns? Can I just shoot myself in the face for every stupid thing that you said? I guess I'll look like swiss cheese afterwards but..

I see the world as possibilities. I see that it's a possibility that some form of deity could have existed or does exist and had had a hand in the creation of, well everything. I see that it's a possibility that matter just popped into existence for the sole purpose of self destructing itself to create, well everything.
I understand at least fairly, haven't gone too depth in it which is my bad but quantum mechanics. But when that's brought up, it basically just creates a "what came first, the chicken or the egg" OR you have to reason that energy has just ALWAYS existed. But at that point, why is it any more "reasonable" to believe energy just ALWAYS existed than some deity being?

By no means, is my intelligence any more "limited" than your own. I just see and accept the world differently than you and I don't blind myself to the hypocrisy of either side, theists or atheists. As I said before, I merely accept a label of strictly agnostic but for the most, I reject labels. Hence my username.

If I were to ask you if you thought theists believing that some form of deity existing was the ONLY possibility, the only truth.. I am fairly certain that you would answer that that is just the theist being closed minded. What makes it any different when it's the atheists believing that some form of deity existing being absolutely impossible is the ONLY possibility, the only truth? The fact of the matter is there's nothing different. You just rationalize your belief while criticizing theists for rationalizing their own belief.

Here, let me put it as simply as possible for you, Balerion. Do you disbelieve in the existence of any god/deity OR do you believe in the nonexistence of all gods/deities?

 

see to me, this isn't quite right , to just say ' the atheist' includes ALL atheist, and that isn't true, I know of a lot of atheist that will not 'attack' my beliefs..
I need a qualifier for it. so it reads more true. the term anti-theist fits better

which to me is more true than what I wrote before..

see why I ask?