Fundamentalist Atheists

[Quagmire]

In the spirit of steeltoes' suggestion:



I think this is an astute observation. At the end of the day, we're only human. Our Us vs Them mentality tends to blind us to mistakes on our side, and magnify those on the other. So, we end up doing the same things that we revile in others; we just can't see it.

It's difficult to see problems when you are on "the Inside". I realized this in my deconversion from Christianity. Many things that made sense as a Christian fell apart upon scrutiny from a further distance-- on the Outside.

I think the real problem is that people are confused about what the sides actually are.

 

[SoulDaemon]

Well, i don't know, it's sometimes good to have conversations with someone who doesn't budge.

It's like the joke about a boy who was going to school, and his mother told him to wait crossing the street until the cars have passed by. In the evening a man walked by the crying boy and asked what's wrong, the boy replied: not a single car has passed by.

Well, let flowers grow.

 

[Willamena]

From Fox News Dictionary: Atheist - Those persons who hate God or refuse to believe in him for reasons other than hate.

So, like, people who hate God ... or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I gave you evidence in the form of all those dictionary entries, Luis. Defining atheism as a position, and not merely the lack of one, is the usual understanding of the word.... except upon internet forums.

Why don't you think that the disagreement should even exist?

Because it is crystal clear to me that atheism deserves more respect than that.

 

[LuisDantas]

My favorite term for people in the more advanced stages of emotion based anti-theism is "Religiophobe".

For what it is worth, I wonder how or if that could apply to me at all.

I have considerable aversion to belief in god. But religion is something else entirely. It should be seen with care and discernment. I wouldn't say I am opposed to it.

 

[Willamena]

Because it is crystal clear to me that atheism deserves more respect than that.

By making it meaningless?

 

[LuisDantas]

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 really don't see what is so nasty about people assuming that an atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of god.

Nothing at all. It is proper and accurate. Not all-encompassing, but certainly not wrong either.

What irritates me is the assumption that beings who are not even capable of belief in God should somehow be "protected" from the qualifier of atheism.

I mean, this really sounds like some serious self-loathing going on.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing about your own stance.

In my case, I get that impression because you seem so set on restricting the definition of atheism. It feels odd, worrisome even.

It is a claim which makes sense to me.

For those following, the claim being referenced is that the "atheist definition" debate is fueled by prejudice against atheists.

Indeed. I can't really think of any other reason.

I noted that I oppose the "lack of" definition due to various lingual, psychological, and philosophical reasons, and not out of prejudice against atheists.

I believe you are sincere, but nevertheless you have failed to convince me.

I never said that prejudice couldn't be a factor in the interest other people display for this debate. I was simply noting that it is not the only factor, and for me personally, it is not a factor in my disagreement at all.

I fear I just don't believe in that.

 

[LuisDantas]

By making it meaningless?

It is a "negative", you know... you really want to believe it is somehow a redefinition of the concept, don't you?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why so, when, for at least a good portion of atheists, the words do mean something different?

You of all people know that people disagree on the meaning of words for many different reasons, Willamena.

Am I expected to be aware of someone else's? Or do you want me to try and guess?

The one guess I have it the one I just stated: some degree of mistrust or even shame of atheism leading to a perceived need of restricting the concept to those "who can choose" and "defend themselves".

Maybe there is some other reason. I can't think of any, though.

 

[LuisDantas]

You could also simply try educating people: "Hey, Mr. Theist. Not everyone believes in the existence of gods. Some people don't believe they exist because that is the conclusion they have arrived through careful consideration of the available information and evidence. Some people don't believe that gods exist because they have never considered the question at all. Some people don't believe that gods exist because they have never heard of gods. And some people haven't yet made up their minds as to whether gods exist or not."

Yeah, it might take a little more time and energy than simply re-defining a word, but I think it would be more fruitful in the long run.

Would you please stop taking as a premise that we are attempting to redefine the word? You are usually more respectful than that, a quality which I greatly appreciate.

Also, why on Earth is insisting on proper use of terminology not part of educating people?

 

[Uberpod]

All those with an IQ below 70 are most certainly atheists.

 

[steeltoes]

All those with an IQ below 70 are most certainly atheists.

Finally, back on topic.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I really don't understand why the definition of 'atheist' seems so important to people as well. I can't be bothered to define "atheist" anymore than I can be bothered to define "God." Let theists define God and let whoever wants to define "atheist." This thread started out by bashing atheists and now it's getting bogged down with what is an atheist. If we could just go back to bashing atheists so as to keep this thread on topic we could then maybe have something worthwhile to discuss.

You're always so sensible. Yes, all atheists are just little people who hate the God they don't believe in, mostly because they secretly fear Him, in the same way as primitive folk would curse the cave bear out of repressed terror.

Plus atheists just smell bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're always so sensible. Yes, all atheists are just little people who hate the God they don't believe in, mostly because they secretly fear Him, in the same way as primitive folk would curse the cave bear out of repressed terror.

Plus atheists just smell bad.

How can I hate your god? If he exists, he favors me with good fortune!
And if you'd try sniff'n me in a different place, ya might find me more fragrant.

 

[Thief]

You could also simply try educating people: "Hey, Mr. Theist. Not everyone believes in the existence of gods. Some people don't believe they exist because that is the conclusion they have arrived through careful consideration of the available information and evidence. Some people don't believe that gods exist because they have never considered the question at all. Some people don't believe that gods exist because they have never heard of gods. And some people haven't yet made up their minds as to whether gods exist or not."

Yeah, it might take a little more time and energy than simply re-defining a word, but I think it would be more fruitful in the long run.

So...should we lump all and any who lack belief under the banner of atheist?

I have the view....an atheist HAS considered....and has made declaration.

 

[Falvlun]

So...should we lump all and any who lack belief under the banner of atheist?

I have the view....an atheist HAS considered....and has made declaration.

Are you serious?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Why, exactly, has this thread turned into an atheist-bashing circle jerk?

 

[Thief]

Are you serious?

Well...at some 'point'.....

In the list you made, you include persons not actively seeking a decision.

That would not be an atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

Would you please stop taking as a premise that we are attempting to redefine the word? You are usually more respectful than that, a quality which I greatly appreciate.

Also, why on Earth is insisting on proper use of terminology not part of educating people?

And yet you continually categorize the definition I prefer as redefining.

Note also in how you word this: You assume that your position represents the "proper use of the terminology". I simply do not know how you-- and not just you, but most everyone who supports your position-- can claim this.

That's the whole point of this debate: There is no "proper terminology". The definition is currently in flux.

And that is being generous. As noted, according to dictionaries, there really isn't any debate: your definition isn't well represented.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For me, it's not about the definition itself, but the effects it seems to be having upon the atheist community. A generation of atheists are growing up believing that they somehow haven't a position, but merely a lack of one, and therefore, no need (or knowledge of how) to defend it.

Really I doubt anyone becomes an atheist by reading these threads and being convinced, or by listening to any guidance from others. In my experiece with atheists -- which is extensive and real-worldish -- people who care enough to call themselves atheists are freethinkers. Sure there are teenagers and temporarily-God-hating Christians who call themselves atheists, but I don't take them too seriously. On the other hand, I don't care. If they want to be atheists, fine. Who cares. It's not like there's any money or power or free sex that comes with being an atheist. So let anyone call himself an atheist who pleases to do so. Just as with Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any other -ism which doesn't come with an official certificate from an accredited licensing body.

And that's a whole new philosophy all together. I think it has merits, but it's not in my nature to take it that far. At the end of the day, I like a few lines in the sand.

In my view, word meaning is illusion. I've loved them all my life but I don't take them too seriously -- not when they're standing there alone. Their meaning only comes out when we have them dance together. They only make sense in a crowd.