Fundamentalist Atheists

[steeltoes]

Well because the existence and proliferation of atheism is challenging to people of faith. Although atheism is not new, the freedom to be openly atheist is.

Atheists demonstrate that all of the social attributes previously deeigned to have a divine origin, such as values, ethics, morality, meaning and purpose can all be found and explored without reference to a god. A world in which the divine is redundant.

Society is changing, change is scary and fascinating.

You rock!

 

[Falvlun]

People actually care whether atheists lack a belief in invisible gods or deny their existence, what is it about atheists that fascinates everyone so much?

Speaking for myself, the "definition of an atheist" debate fascinates me because I think it displays a worrying trend within atheism-- the desire to frame their position as not a position at all, but as some sort of "blank slate" state.

I say this as an atheist-- I don't have prejudice against those who don't believe in the existence of god.

 

[Bunyip]

Speaking for myself, the "definition of an atheist" debate fascinates me because I think it displays a worrying trend within atheism-- the desire to frame their position as not a position at all, but as some sort of "blank slate" state.

I say this as an atheist-- I don't have prejudice against those who don't believe in the existence of god.

I think that is essentially the truth though - atheism IS just a sort of 'blank slate' position, it is the natural default to theism.

There is no claim of knowledge, no set of idealogies, no dogma - itis just the state of not-being-a-theist.

All of the ideas about 'new-atheists', 'militant atheists', 'hard atheists' etc etc etc are just an attempt to shift the burden of proof by magically transfering it to atheists as a 'burden of disproof', pretending that implicit within atheism is the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god. Well there's no such thing as a burden of disproof.

 

[Sunstone]

All of the ideas about 'new-atheists', 'militant atheists', 'hard atheists' etc etc etc are just an attempt to shift the burden of proof by magically transfering it to atheists as a 'burden of disproof', pretending that implicit within atheism is the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god. Well there's no such thing as a burden of disproof.

That's one reason I like Dawkins' scale of 1 to 7, where 1 represents absolute belief and 7 represents absolute disbelief. Dawkins considers himself a 6.9 on that scale because he believes there's always a chance -- however remote -- that there is a deity. At any rate, the scale more or less solves the problem of being mistaken for one who claims absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god.

 

[McBell]

You can backpedal all you like. You claimed that babies are atheists. I replied that it depends upon which definition you are using-- which is 100% correct.

You can claim that the other definitions are irrelevant, but that would be untrue. You can continue claiming untrue things if you like, but it's not a particularly good way to go about things.

Except I am not making untrue claims.

I have already flat out asked you to support your claims, but alas, you seem to not be interested in anything other than your strawman.

 

[McBell]

Well who would have thought that certain groups of people would actually attempt to change the meaning of a word to suit their agenda...I mean who would have thought of that...besides...George Orwell.

Now we can magically turn anything we want into an atheist...ants, rocks, toilet seats...anything...the sky is now the limit.

Your avoidance is rather comical...

Do they fit into one of the many definitions of atheist?

What evidence is there that babies believe in a god?

How many children have you had that makes you think your opinion on the matter carries so much weight?​

 

[McBell]

I wish a baby would come on this forum and settle the whole matter once and for all. I would ask mine but she has better things to do.

What, like blatantly avoiding questions?

 

[IHaveTheGift]

You can backpedal all you like. You claimed that babies are atheists. I replied that it depends upon which definition you are using-- which is 100% correct.

You can claim that the other definitions are irrelevant, but that would be untrue. You can continue claiming untrue things if you like, but it's not a particularly good way to go about things.

Except I am not making untrue claims.

I have already flat out asked you to support your claims, but alas, you seem to not be interested in anything other than your strawman.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Kind of a hard position for a baby to take, no?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What label do we use then for people who have never come across the concept of gods?

Ignorant. That is the word that is generally used when you lack knowledge of something...you are ignorant of it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How many children have you had that makes you think your opinion on the matter carries so much weight?[/INDENT]

Two. One is adopted and one of them actually came out of my birth canal as if by magic! Can you imagine that?

Probably not.

 

[McBell]

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Kind of a hard position for a baby to take, no?

Not interested in this lack of discussion for a second time.

This has already been covered.

In fact, another member refuses to do anything other than chew on the definition bone.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well because the existence and proliferation of atheism is challenging to people of faith. Although atheism is not new, the freedom to be openly atheist is.

Atheists demonstrate that all of the social attributes previously deeigned to have a divine origin, such as values, ethics, morality, meaning and purpose can all be found and explored without reference to a god. A world in which the divine is redundant.

Society is changing, change is scary and fascinating.

This.

 

[McBell]

Two. One is adopted and one of them actually came out of my birth canal as if by magic! Can you imagine that?

Probably not.

Ah, so the fact that I have four who are all biologically mine with two being a set of twins makes my opinion weightier than yours, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Speaking for myself, the "definition of an atheist" debate fascinates me because I think it displays a worrying trend within atheism-- the desire to frame their position as not a position at all, but as some sort of "blank slate" state.

And this is worrisome why?

I say this as an atheist-- I don't have prejudice against those who don't believe in the existence of god.

That you find it necessary to say what should be expected is revealing IMO.

I can't really figure why so much commotion with such a natural understanding of what atheism is, Falvlun.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that is essentially the truth though - atheism IS just a sort of 'blank slate' position, it is the natural default to theism.

There is no claim of knowledge, no set of idealogies, no dogma - itis just the state of not-being-a-theist.

All of the ideas about 'new-atheists', 'militant atheists', 'hard atheists' etc etc etc are just an attempt to shift the burden of proof by magically transfering it to atheists as a 'burden of disproof', pretending that implicit within atheism is the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god. Well there's no such thing as a burden of disproof.

It certainly seems to be the case.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Kind of a hard position for a baby to take, no?

Good thing he does not need to, because it "comes ready-made".

 

[Thief]

Well because the existence and proliferation of atheism is challenging to people of faith. Although atheism is not new, the freedom to be openly atheist is.

Atheists demonstrate that all of the social attributes previously deeigned to have a divine origin, such as values, ethics, morality, meaning and purpose can all be found and explored without reference to a god. A world in which the divine is redundant.

Society is changing, change is scary and fascinating.

If you think it's scary in this life......wait til you get into the next!!!!!

 

[IHaveTheGift]

Good thing he does not need to, because it "comes ready-made".

I cant pick one, so I will use two

 

[Sunstone]

If you think it's scary in this life......wait til you get into the next!!!!!

As an atheist, I can only assume you mean by "next life" my next marriage. And I agree with you -- that will indeed by scary.

 

[LuisDantas]

I cant pick one, so I will use two

It is not really a difficult thing to understand. Why so darned much resistance to such a simple concept?