Isnt it funnny.... as an atheist, I could care less how the different types of theists define themselves. But these guys sure like to pump their chests up and force their particular definition of atheism on all atheists. Pretty funny to watch. Why the HELL do they even care? Good question spec. peace axeman
But Spect8or, Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart How the music can free her whenever it starts And it's magi-ic, if the music is groovy It makes you feel lovely like an old-time movie I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul But it's like tryin' to tell a stranger 'bout rock and ro-o-oll If you believe in magic don't bother to choose If it's jug band music or rhythm and blues Just go and listen it'll start with a smile It won't wipe off your face no matter how hard you try Your feet start a-tappin' and you can't seem to find How you got there, so just blow your mind If you believe in magic, come along with me We'll dance until mornin', 'til there's just you and me And maybe, if the music is right I'll meet you tomorrow, sort of late at night And we'll go dancin', baby, then you'll see How the magic's in the music and the music's in me Yeah - do you believe in magic Yeah - believe in the magic of a young girl's soul Believe in the magic of rock and roll Believe in the magic that can set you free-ee Woh-oh, talkin' 'bout magic Do you believe in magic Do you believe in me-ee Do you believe in ma-a-a-agic Believe in me Do you believe in ma-a-agic Do you believe in me-ee Do you believe in ma-a-agic
WHO CARES about the freaking definition of an atheist. Some atheists seem to. Man you theists are CLUTCHING AT STRAWS! Theists clutch God, not straws. FACT: Theists believe in a magical being that resides in a magical realm that created the world with magical means. Most of the larger religions condemn the use of magic. I DO NOT. Why do you need to capitalize your comments? Call me whatever you want and it will not change the fact that theists believe in a magical being that resides in a magical realm that created the world with magical means whilst I DO NOT. I think most people can hear you from your soapbox quite clearly as you state your belief systems. Get it? What is not to get? It doesn't matter what you call me, I don't believe in this magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world using magical means. Theists do. Most theists reject magic in favor of faith in God. And I don't believe in this magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world with magical means because, despite the very best efforts of theists, I have yet to come across one good reason to believe in a magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world with magical means and dozens of excellent, outstanding reasons NOT to believe in a magical being who resides in a magical realm and created the world with magical means. A man transported from 1000 years ago to today would view many things, things we take as natural and for granted as magic.
A man states his belief systems, in small and LARGE CAPS. Why try to argue with a man who is stating his belief systems? I didn't see an argument, just an exposition of emotion. We are all free to believe what we want.
Quote from ARogueTrader:[/i] A man transported from 1000 years ago to today would view many things, things we take as natural and for granted as magic. And some men, transported BACK 1000 years, would still believe in the mythical gods created by man 1000's of years ago. peace axeman
Like many English words, "atheist" is partially derived from Latin. "A" in Latin is used to mean "without". "Theism" is "religious belief". So "a-theism" means "without religious belief". Some examples - "a-moral" means without morality, it does not mean evil (that would be "im-moral"). "A-typical" means lacking in typical qualities - it does not mean the opposite of typical qualities. "A-sexual" means lacking in sexual behaviour or interest, it does not mean being anti-sexuality. Thus atheism does not mean that you are sure god does not exist. In fact, since it is impossible for us to prove that a logically possibile entity does not exist, no rational person would say "God definitely does not exist". There are two main forms of atheism, which we could call strong and weak. Both forms think that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of god. Weak atheism is the view that religious people are rational, but simply misjudge the credibility of the evidence - thus theists are rational but mistaken in their assessment of evidence. Strong atheists, such as myself, think that no objective and rational person could possibly form religious belief if they treated the evidence for god's existence in the same way that they would treat evidence for the existence of a non-religious being (for example the Loch Ness Monster, Little Green Men etc). I believe that most religious people are "stupid-irrational" i.e. simply lack logical reasoning skills, are gullible, or have insufficient knowledge or critical faculty to interpret evidence for reglion, or simply have not thought critically about their religious belief. "Stupid-irrational" people are either the type to believe in astrology, lucky charms, con tricks and other frauds, or the type who accept ingrained social norms without really questioning their truth. Strong atheists identify a second category of believer, "smart-irrational". These people have strong reasoning skills, are generally not gullible, often question entrenched beliefs, are very knowledgeable, and so on. In most respects apart from religion, they are quite similar to atheists. The strong atheist believes that such people have religious belief due to emotional and/or psychological need for "meaning" i.e. a need for explanation of important life questions such as morality, the origins of the universe etc. Whilst the atheist is also interested in such questions, he thinks that the smart-irrational believer has simply made one jump too far, unsupported by evidence. The smart-irrational person then, having made this jump, uses all his powers of debating, critical reasoning, knowledge and so on to try to rationalise this leap of faith. Remember, there are virtually no religious people who say "well, I can't be sure, but on balance I think God probably exists". They all claim *absolute certainty* that god exists. The atheist does not think it is irrational to say "you know, the universe is such that I think it's quite possible it was created by an intelligent being". What is irrational is to claim certainty in the face of such paucity of supporting evidence. It is a very common pattern in human belief systems for very intelligent people to belief things that are totally wrong. Then, when confronted by this fact, rather than change this belief they use all their powers to try to rationalise it - contrary evidence is challenged using every method possible, supporting evidence is rendered more persuasive, cunning debating tricks are used to mask evidence and paper over holes in logical reasoning, and so on. In almost all cases the smart-irrational person does not even think they are doing this, so strong is the emotional capital invested in their dogged belief. One way you can detect rationalisation (defined as "trying to come up with reasons to defend a particular belief, rather than impartially assessing evidence in order to establish the truth") is by seeing a person's reaction when some of their arguments are discredited. If someone makes a point in favour of a position, and it is then established that this point does not apply, then a rational and open-minded person would then start to question their original position. A rationaliser, however, will simply find another rationalisation of their position, and will not question their original position or alter it at all. They are a bit like a bad trader with superb analytical skills. The intelligent analysts are always the ones who lose the most, as they can always come up with reasons why they are right and the market is wrong. Equally, the intelligent believers are the ones who are most likely to cling onto religious belief, as they can deflect most common objections, and on the rare occasion that someone relentlessly calls them on the irrationality, they can usually fudge the argument sufficiently to allow them to continue holding the belief, often using a few mild ad hominem reasons (which they sincerely believe) as the final crutch of support. What is strange is that they would find it laughable if someone else employed identical tactics to defend a belief widely mocked, such as belief in a flat-earth, little green men, astrology and so on. The fact that they mock such beliefs whilst not subjecting their own religious belief to the same stringency is rather puzzling. I have attempted to find out from ARogueTrader and others why they appear to have this dual standard, but I have not seen an honest reply to this question. If anyone is aware of a theist explaining why they have certainty in their religious belief whilst not accepting other people's certainty of belief in Little Green Men, Satanism, Loch Ness Monster etc, then I would be interested hear it.
I've just read some of the other posts about the definition of "atheists". I would just add that it is not really relevant what the definition is, as long as the people debating the religion vs non-religion issue agree on the terms. As an anology, in America the term "liberal" means a left-winger or socialist. In the rest of the word, "liberal" means someone committed to individual rights, and many "liberals" are right-wing small government types - something quite different to the America definition of the term. If a thread started in which the topic of debate was small-government individual rights beliefs versus big-government collective rights beliefs, it would not be productive to spend 20 pages debating whether "liberal" meant the US definition or the rest of the world definition. Rather one would hope that people would quickly agree to use a clarifying term such as "US-liberal" or "left-leaning liberal" to define one term, and "Classical liberal" or "small-government liberal" to define the other. There would then be no confusion and people could debate issues rather than semantics. The same logic applies here - atheists clearly view the term as implying lack of belief, citing the latinate derivation and other words such as "atypical" as evidence. Other people may have accepted a differing definition for whatever reason. However, as long as we define our terms, it is completely irrelevant which definition you use. I define atheism as lack of belief in god, so anyone reading my posts knows exactly what I am referring to when I use the word. If someone else defines atheism as "categorically denying the existence of god", then that's fine by me, but no one is debating that particular definition of atheism, because it is a logically indefensible position. The fact remains that we are debating the rationality of belief versus lack of belief. Call that what you will, but ultimately the debate will be settled by issues, not semantics.
If the Loch Ness Monster, Little Green Men From Mars, The Easter Bunny, Unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. have the quality of being: Infinite, Eternal, The Supreme Being, Causeless, Absolutely Gracious, Omniscient, Absolutely Blissful, Omnipresent, Self Complacent, and existing without any opposite value then I believe in them too. However, only God is defined as having all those qualities I listed. "They all claim *absolute certainty* that god exists." Faith is not a claim of certainty. That is why they call it faith in God. Where certainty exists, there is no need for faith. "I believe that most religious people are "stupid-irrational" i.e. simply lack logical reasoning skills, are gullible, or have insufficient knowledge or critical faculty to interpret evidence for reglion, or simply have not thought critically about their religious belief. "Stupid-irrational" people are either the type to believe in astrology, lucky charms, con tricks and other frauds, or the type who accept ingrained social norms without really questioning their truth." You are entitled to your belief systems. I have argued before, unchallenged in the argument, that it is not possible to have a conception in the mind without a corresponding belief about the reality of that concept. Once someone understands the concept of God, by virtue of their concept of what is "real" they immediately compare the concept of God to what they "believe" is real. Most atheists have a concept of reality as only that which can be measured by physical senses and understood within an intellectual framework of relativistic logic. Theists have a concept of reality that includes God which exists beyond the physical senses and relativistic logic. The atheist uses physical senses and relativistic logic as the foundation of proof of their belief, yet has no objective check on the tools he is using to arrive at his conclusions. His conclusions are circular in nature, as he is using a tool to verify itself, which in science using a tool to calibrate itself with no external verification of calibration is not accepted as valid. There must be an objective check according to a scientific approach, yet there is this underlying assumption by atheists that our instrumentation (senses and intellect) are in proper calibration, when in fact they may not be! This is why the atheist cannot prove the faithful wrong in their beliefs, as they can never know with mathematical certainty that the faithful don't experience God. If you did deep enough within any man, you will find all their concepts rest on some belief system. You have your belief systems without external absolutely calibrated instrumentation providing a proof, and the theists have theirs.