Fundamentalist Atheists

[IHaveTheGift]

Yes, perhaps, but some wear their faith or non faith like a badge of honour when posting.

I know, I been trying my best here, failing horribly

Some have no clue that we are pretty much all alike, to a degree.
We all want a better world for the children, I think that is the most important thing.

 

[Falvlun]

And this is worrisome why?

Because I think people are being dishonest with themselves.

I also think that it was a shift based on the ability to more easily win debates.

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.

I only clarified because the only other response to the question was one which claimed that prejudice against atheists was at root.

You can claim that it is a "natural" understanding, but I don't find it so. It's a new spin on the word.

 

[Falvlun]

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

It's not difficult to understand that "atheism" is also commonly understood as a positive position. This too is a simple concept.

The problem is not the difficulty of understanding, Luis. It's a philosophical disagreement.

 

[Bunyip]

Because I think people are being dishonest with themselves.

I also think that it was a shift based on the ability to more easily win debates.


I only clarified because the only other response to the question was one which claimed that prejudice against atheists was at root.

You can claim that it is a "natural" understanding, but I don't find it so. It's a new spin on the word.

I think that is exactly the point - by attempting to define atheism as a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non existence of all conceptions of god, apologists make atheism a logically untenable position and hence it is easier to debate.

It is a simple device - you oblige your opponant to accept a definition that renders their position to be untenable.

It is simply shifting a burden of proof that theism iteself can not bear.

 

[steeltoes]

I know, I been trying my best here, failing horribly

Some have no clue that we are pretty much all alike, to a degree.
We all want a better world for the children, I think that is the most important thing.

We are all the same, well, the staff might be different but otherwise we are all the same, and we should write a song along those lines.

 

[Falvlun]

Have we decided on what atheists are and where they come from?

Never!!

 

[Falvlun]

I think that is exactly the point - by attempting to define atheism as a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non existence of all conceptions of god, apologists make atheism a logically untenable position and hence it is easier to debate.

It is a simple device - you oblige your opponant to accept a definition that renders their position to be untenable.

It is simply shifting a burden of proof that theism iteself can not bear.

I really don't think we should be defining things based upon what makes it easier to win online debates.

 

[Bunyip]

I really don't think we should be defining things based upon what makes it easier to win online debates.

Precisely my point, thankyou.

 

[steeltoes]

But I am here to win online debates and if I ever do win one...

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree. IMHO, to be an atheist, one must actually understand what the concept of a deity is to begin with, and then willingly reject the that a deity exists.

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

Why should they have a label?

Why should anything have a label?

Labels can be useful to quickly identify something about something.

Why do you think that it would be useful (or needful, or preferable) to have a label to identify that specific feature in people?

Since we have labels for a lot of things, why not that one?
Did there have to be a philosophical debate explaining the justification behind using labels before we started doing so?

I think you are shooting in the foot any sort of point you were trying to make.

How so? Please, explain it.

Your point seemed to be to demonstrate the insufficiency of the definition given by Triumphant Loser, by pointing out how it leaves "people who have never heard of a god concept" label-less.

But, as you have argued in the following posts, if labels are pretty much arbitrary and need no reason, then the fact that a particular group does or does not have a label isn't a big deal, and thus, can't be an issue with the definition provided by T_L.

 

[ScottySatan]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Never met one. I have a suspicion that these folks are up there with those outspoken judgemental vegetarians: mostly made up.

 

[Koldo]

Your point seemed to be to demonstrate the insufficiency of the definition given by Triumphant Loser, by pointing out how it leaves "people who have never heard of a god concept" label-less.

Hmm... No. Just no.
It has nothing to do with insufficiency.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Thief,

You can be empty....if you want to be.

Please show the way? to be empty.

Love & rgds

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Never met one. I have a suspicion that these folks are up there with those outspoken judgemental vegetarians: mostly made up.

Well said.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your point seemed to be to demonstrate the insufficiency of the definition given by Triumphant Loser, by pointing out how it leaves "people who have never heard of a god concept" label-less.

But, as you have argued in the following posts, if labels are pretty much arbitrary and need no reason, then the fact that a particular group does or does not have a label isn't a big deal, and thus, can't be an issue with the definition provided by T_L.

The big deal which makes the label needed does exist, though. It is necessary to challenge the assumption that people are "believers unless proven otherwise".

 

[LuisDantas]

Because I think people are being dishonest with themselves.

I also think that it was a shift based on the ability to more easily win debates.

Try the perception that we should not really put up with things that we used to.

In some ways it is a bit like feminism. People used to assume that women should not bother to vote, either.

I only clarified because the only other response to the question was one which claimed that prejudice against atheists was at root.

It is a claim which makes sense to me.

You can claim that it is a "natural" understanding, but I don't find it so. It's a new spin on the word.

Nope.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not difficult to understand that "atheism" is also commonly understood as a positive position. This too is a simple concept.

I all honesty, my gut reflex is to feel that you must be kidding. The only evidence otherwise is the sheer insistence of you folks in these threads.

The problem is not the difficulty of understanding, Luis. It's a philosophical disagreement.

Yep. A weird one that should not even exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that is exactly the point - by attempting to define atheism as a claim of absolute knowledge regarding the non existence of all conceptions of god, apologists make atheism a logically untenable position and hence it is easier to debate.

It is a simple device - you oblige your opponant to accept a definition that renders their position to be untenable.

It is simply shifting a burden of proof that theism iteself can not bear.

Pre-ci-se-ly.. Thanks.

 

[LuisDantas]

I really don't think we should be defining things based upon what makes it easier to win online debates.

Our point exactly, Falvlun. Where do you think the notion that atheism must be justified comes from, if not the desire to more easily deal with those pesky atheists?

 

[LuisDantas]

Have we decided on what atheists are and where they come from?

The actual sticking point is whether they have to justify their existence and their self-identification as such, it seems.

But to answer your question, there is still an impasse, artificial as it is.

To me the answer is fairly self-evident: atheists are those who do not make a point of using or claiming to use the concept of deity in their personal convictions and beliefs. And they come from the existence of societies which value that concept and to some degree or another (it varies considerably) expect people to define themselves in relation to that belief.

It is a completely artificial classification, in no small measure because it relies on the absence of belief in the most vague of concepts (deity). But it is also often important to create boundaries and goals for social and political dynamics, something that human psychology very much craves.