Do atheists actually exist?

[Desert Snake]

Spin all you wish, you made a mistake - you said that you are unreligious, but identify as a monotheist. You can not be an unreligious monotheist.

You said that atheists cannot be religious. WRONG. In fact, it's better for your argument to use my less broad definitions, but whatever.

 

[Bunyip]

Disciple and Hay 85

Dudes, monotheism is about as anthropocentric a position as it is possible to hold. It posits a god upon whom humanity were modelled - and a universe that revolves entirely and exclusively around humanity, and in fact was created specifically FOR humanity. Believers imagine that they have a personal relationship with god - who listens to them and cares for them.

You would be hard pressed to think of a more anthropocentric position that theism.

 

[Sir Doom]

No, that's inaccurate. Atheism can very easily be 'religious', it often is, even. You aren't thinking through the contexts actually.

You are about to demonstrate that you mean 'religious' exactly as I described.

You're using different words, just a heads up.


religion=/=religious.
They aren't really the same meaning. Religion tends to be a set of doctrine, rules, traditions. 'Religious' just means doing something in strict sense, like religiously watching soccer(football), or religiously attending church, etc. It's a pretty broad word in meaning.

See? Told ya. I'm spot on.

 

[Bunyip]

You said that atheists cannot be religious. WRONG. In fact, it's better for your argument to use my less broad definitions, but whatever.

You made a mistake, just admit it.

I did not say that atheists can not be religious, I said that atheism is not religious. As I said, you are trying to propose a definition of religion that includes atheism, but excludes monotheism - which is laughable.

 

[Estro Felino]

Disciple and Hay 85

Dudes, monotheism is about as anthropocentric a position as it is possible to hold. It posits a god upon whom humanity were modelled - and a universe that revolves entirely and exclusively around humanity, and in fact was created specifically FOR humanity. Believers imagine that they have a personal relationship with god - who listens to them and cares for them.

You would be hard pressed to think of a more anthropocentric position that theism.

Precisely. That's what I mean when I say that the attitude towards life of an Atheist could be very similar to the attitude of a Christian.

 

[Sir Doom]

Precisely. That's what I mean when I say that the attitude towards life of an Atheist could be very similar to the attitude of a Christian.

Careful, you'll get a cramp backpedaling that fast.

 

[Bunyip]

Precisely. That's what I mean when I say that the attitude towards life of an Atheist could be very similar to the attitude of a Christian.

Only if you assume atheism to be anthropocentric, which I would not accept. Monotheism is essentially anthropocentric, and the various monotheistic religions are all essentially and categorically anthropocentric. Atheism is not meaningfully related to anthropocentricism, in fact it tends to be a rejection of the anthropocentricism of the major religions.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are about to demonstrate that you mean 'religious' exactly as I described.



See? Told ya. I'm spot on.

Yeah? What's your point? So atheism can be religious, you are agreeing with me.

 

[Estro Felino]

Speaking as an atheist, I do not subscribe to anthropocentricism, nor do I believe it to have anything to do with atheism. I agree that I see no place for god, but only because the gaps in our knowledge that god was traditionally squeezed into are becoming more and more understood. I would happily believe in god if I saw any good reason to do so.

Forgive me, I did not make myself clear. When I said there is no place for God, I meant that even if God exists (which is absolutely improbable for an Atheist), he plays no role in humans' lives. So his presence is useless and unnecessary.

 

[Bunyip]

Forgive me, I did not make myself clear. When I said there is no place for God, I meant that even if God exists (which is absolutely improbable for an Atheist), he plays no role in human's lives. So his presence is useless and unnecessary.

I think either way that is the case. God has no measurable or detectable effect on the physical universe, so his presence or absencd makes no difference.

 

[Sir Doom]

Yeah? What's your point? So atheism can be religious, you are agreeing with me.

My point is that you are either A: using subterfuge to start an argument (TROLLING) or B: completely ignorant of context.

You've demonstrated that it isn't B.

That's my point.

 

[Desert Snake]

My point is that you are either A: using subterfuge to start an argument (TROLLING) or B: completely ignorant of context.

You've demonstrated that it isn't B.

That's my point.

Hm this is a doozie. You are saying that 'religious' is being implied towards religion in a non-trolling context, but monotheism technically isn't a religion. I'm actually not trolling, but the argument led into the very broad definitions of religion & religious, which I actually opposed earlier as making definitions too vague. It seems you are agreeing with me yet again, without realizing it.

I can accept the broad definitions for discussion, but then we can't pick and choose where to apply broad and narrow definitions.

 

[Bunyip]

You mean anthropomorphic. He's talking about man-centric (non-theistic), if I'm not mistaken.

No, I meant anthropocentric. If I meant anthropomorphic, I would have used that word instead. Theism is essentially anthropocentric, atheism is not.


As to the use of broad definitions, you are trying to use a definition of religious that includes atheism, but not monotheism - and while doing so are accusing others stretching definitions.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, I meant anthropocentric. If I meant anthropomorphic, I would have used that word instead. Theism is essentially anthropocentric, atheism is not.

Often or usually is. I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion, just read the forums.

 

[Bunyip]

Often or usually is. I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion, just read the forums.

Mate this is just hilarious, you make failing to grasp simple points into an art form.

Monotheism is essentially religious. To be a monotheist is to be religious.
Atheism is not essentially religious, it is the absence of an essentially religious position.

Atheism is not religious, monotheism is religious.

 

[s2a]

................

In the context of religion(s). is there any definition relational there.

Atheists do exist (just like Santa!)...and no defined relationship whatsoever.

 

[Estro Felino]

Theism is essentially anthropocentric, atheism is not.

Well, I think that Atheistic philosophers have a tendentiously anthropocentric vision. If I right understood, by saying that Atheism is not anthropocentric, you mean that for an Atheist, the sense (or purpose) of life is not man's welfare. There is no sense of life. Right?

 

[Bunyip]

Well, I think that Atheistic philosopher have a tendentiously anthropocentric vision. If I right understood, by saying that Atheism is not anthropocentric, you mean that for an Atheist the sense (or purpose) of life is not man. There is no sense of life. Right?

Which atheistic philosopher? And what would his/her anthropocentric vision have to do with their atheism?

By saying that atheism is not anthropocentric I mean that unlike Christianity (for example) it does not argue for a universe created entirely for the benefit of humanity. Nor for a deity who has a personal relationship with a specific species.

I have no idea how you are linking meaning and purpose here, or what you mean by the sense or purpose of life being man, or what you mean by a sense of life.
For myself and for many atheists my atheism has nothing much to do with my sense of meaning or purpose.

 

[Desert Snake]

Atheists do exist (just like Santa!)...and no defined relationship whatsoever.

Right, just like Santa. If we put atheism into a math set, with the presumption that Deity/Deities don't exist, it would look like this. (a)0+(theism)0=0

Hmm that is like Santa huh!

 

[s2a]

Right, just like Santa. If we put atheism into a math set, with the presumption that Deity/Deities don't exist, it would look like this. (a)0+(theism)0=0

Hmm that is like Santa huh!

From your math to God's* Ear.