The religion of Atheism.

[platos_cave]

According to Wiktionary, there are two definions of Atheist. The first is the more common one, a person who lacks belief in gods. This is the definition of which we (unsuccesfuly) have been trying make Thumper aware.

The second one defines a person who believes that no deities exist. This second one would require faith. This second one would be a "religion" according to Thumper.

The following definitions have been extracted from Wiktionary:

atheist (plural atheists)

1. A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods.
2006, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 51:
-------Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.

2. A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods.

Paidion, thank you for that. I personally (due to the dynamic nature of words) include all forms of atheist in one singular category of atheist, because they all have one thing in common and that is not believing in God. Anything below that we label differently, such as affirmative or negative, non-theist, etc.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

There are two definitions of Atheist. The first is the more common one, a person who lacks belief in gods.

The second one defines a person who believes that no G-ds exist. This second one would require faith. This second one would be a "religion".

Can we come to a consensus and stick with these two definitions? Please?

 

[The Bible Thumper]

And sticking with the aforementioned definitions, let's logically attack the first definition of Atheism, which I contend is just a Trojan horse for agnosticism.
If Atheism is just a general apathy or lack of belief in G-d, wouldn't that just mean this kind of Atheist just needs a little impetus--regardless of how small--to become a theist? You'd think that such an Atheist ("A" capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) would become a theist at the slightest drop of a hat.
Anecdotal evidence, for example, is all that would be needed to convince him. Right? (The question is rhetorical. Atheists, you're not going to win this one.)

 

[Paidion]

Anecdotal evidence, for example, is all that would be needed to convince him. Right? (The question is rhetorical. Atheists, you're not going to win this one.)

I am not an atheist. But I think the atheists who post on this site, are not trying to "win" anything. They are simply trying to bring some reality into your thinking.

By the way, I saw Betrand Russell being interviewed on TV shortly before his death. He was in his 90s at the time. Russell claimed to be an agnostic. But he said He was over 99% certain that God did not exist. He was asked whether, he considered, then, that there was some possibility that God existed. "Yes," he answered, "about the same possibility as there is that Zeus, or any of the other Greek gods exist."

Do you think that a little "anecdotal evidence" is all that would have been needed to convince Russell that God exists?

 

[The Bible Thumper]

Anecdotal evidence, for example, is all that would be needed to convince him. Right? (The question is rhetorical. Atheists, you're not going to win this one.)

I am not an atheist. But I think the atheists who post on this site, are not trying to "win" anything. They are simply trying to bring some reality into your thinking.

By the way, I saw Betrand Russell being interviewed on TV shortly before his death. He was in his 90s at the time. Russell claimed to be an agnostic. But he said He was over 99% certain that God did not exist. He was asked whether, he considered, then, that there was some possibility that God existed. "Yes," he answered, "about the same possibility as there is that Zeus, or any of the other Greek gods exist."

Do you think that a little "anecdotal evidence" is all that would have been needed to convince Russell that God exists?

According to what you're saying, Bertrand Russel is a flat-out militant Atheist. He says he's "over 99% sure" G-d doesn't exist in much the same way that I'd say I'm over 99% sure I wouldn't win the Lotto. I have never once played the Lotto because I know I wouldn't win it; I am, therefore, a 'Lotto Atheist'.

Now if you caught Bertrand Russel espousing a G-d like Spinoza's G-d, for example, then we have true agnosticism, and would shed light on and suggest that Russel is lacking in Biblical knowledge.

 

[John]

Sorry to butt in here but why do you Bible thumper, always spell "God" or "Lord" like "G-d" and L-rd" ?

Just curious.

 

[Gabe]

Sorry to butt in here but why do you Bible thumper, always spell "God" or "Lord" like "G-d" and L-rd" ?

Just curious.

He does it out of respect, similar to the Jews.

 

[John]

Sorry to butt in here but why do you Bible thumper, always spell "God" or "Lord" like "G-d" and L-rd" ?

Just curious.

He does it out of respect, similar to the Jews.

Ah, Okay

 

[Gabe]

Not many people do it, so i'm not suprised you havn't seen that before.

 

[ProphetMark]

[quote="The Bible Thumper
According to what you're saying, Bertrand Russel is a flat-out militant Atheist. He says he's "over 99% sure" G-d doesn't exist in much the same way that I'd say I'm over 99% sure I wouldn't win the Lotto. I have never once played the Lotto because I know I wouldn't win it; I am, therefore, a 'Lotto Atheist'.
quote]

But do you have faith in the non-existence of your chances of winning it?
Even if atheists do claim to believe that God doesn't exist, they still don't have faith in his non-existence. If God doesn't exist, what is there to have faith in?

 

[platos_cave]

And sticking with the aforementioned definitions, let's logically attack the first definition of Atheism, which I contend is just a Trojan horse for agnosticism.

Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with anything but the claim of absolute certainty, Bible Thumper, so your objections are meaningless.

If Atheism is just a general apathy or lack of belief in G-d, wouldn't that just mean this kind of Atheist just needs a little impetus--regardless of how small--to become a theist? You'd think that such an Atheist ("A" capitalized out of respect for the Atheist religion) would become a theist at the slightest drop of a hat.
Anecdotal evidence, for example, is all that would be needed to convince him. Right? (The question is rhetorical. Atheists, you're not going to win this one.)

Why?

Oh, so it's a competition, eh? I see. Well if you're just trying to be obtuse in order to push people into a corner then I think I'll take my leave of discussion with you.

 

[platos_cave]

Anecdotal evidence, for example, is all that would be needed to convince him. Right? (The question is rhetorical. Atheists, you're not going to win this one.)

I am not an atheist. But I think the atheists who post on this site, are not trying to "win" anything. They are simply trying to bring some reality into your thinking.

That or attempt to shed the extreme amount of ignorance and misinformation being perpetrated by many on here.

Criticisms of the slippery definitions of a term is just as moot as criticizing theists for not having a common definition of God (Deist, Monotheism, Pantheism, Polytheism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism...etc).

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Thank you, Paidion, for your more reasoned approach to discussion.

 

[The Bible Thumper]

[

If I were to buy a Lotto ticket, and if I were glued to the TV at the time the numbers are announced, I would have a very high level of faith that my number would not be called.
If my number were called, I would react with amusement and happiness, since I did win it.

 

[Gabe]

[

If I were to buy a Lotto ticket, and if I were glued to the TV at the time the numbers are announced, I would have a very high level of faith that my number would not be called.
If my number were called, I would react with amusement and happiness, since I did win it.

Thats not faith, it's simple Maths.

 

[John]

My comment of atheist being a religion is this.

If an atheist can create a church of the FSM and get away with it i sure as heck can call atheism a religion.

 

[Paidion]

If an atheist can create a church of the FSM and get away with it i sure as heck can call atheism a religion.

John, are you sure that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by atheists?

If you are getting your informatation from the editorial in News-Reader, Springfield, Missouri, I suggest you also read the counter-editorial by a member of this "church". He wrote in part:

"First, let me emphasize that the FSM is not an atheist organization. We are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, humanists, deists, pagans and Wiccans. We are not against anyone’s god in any way. We are simply against hatred and dogmatism."

 

[John]

If an atheist can create a church of the FSM and get away with it i sure as heck can call atheism a religion.

John, are you sure that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by atheists?

If you are getting your informatation from the editorial in News-Reader, Springfield, Missouri, I suggest you also read the counter-editorial by a member of this "church". He wrote in part:

"First, let me emphasize that the FSM is not an atheist organization. We are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, humanists, deists, pagans and Wiccans. We are not against anyone’s god in any way. We are simply against hatred and dogmatism."

The whole deal with the FSM is anti God.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

If an atheist can create a church of the FSM and get away with it i sure as heck can call atheism a religion.

John, are you sure that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created by atheists?

If you are getting your informatation from the editorial in News-Reader, Springfield, Missouri, I suggest you also read the counter-editorial by a member of this "church". He wrote in part:

"First, let me emphasize that the FSM is not an atheist organization. We are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, humanists, deists, pagans and Wiccans. We are not against anyone’s god in any way. We are simply against hatred and dogmatism."

The whole deal with the FSM is anti God.

No, that is not the point of the FSM. Re-read the quote he gave you.

 

[John]

the FSM is anti God, if not then people like Mr. Dawkins are using it inappropriately, curious, was it not Dawkins that came up with the FSM?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

No, Dawkins did not come up with it. The FSM was designed to be a parody of ID during one of the trial in regards to teaching ID in school.

People use it to be anti-theistic, but that was no its original intent.