Fundamentalist Atheists

[Bunyip]

Qui numquam fuerunt, Quod ita sit, qui numquam fuerunt

The irony is hilarious - you were talking about the importance of defining terms to establish common ground - and instantly resort to posting in a language dead for centuries.

LOL

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Now tell me how one can understand the position of another unless you know their language?

 

[Bunyip]

Now tell me how one can understand the position of another unless you know their language?

How is that relevant? We are discussing labels, not language.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How is that relevant? We are discussing labels, not language.

The units of language are what?

 

[Bunyip]

The units of language are what?

Words Cynthia, they are called words - words have different meanings.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Words Cynthia, they are called words - words have different meanings.

Words are signs i.e identifiers i.e labels.

 

[Bunyip]

Words are signs i.e identifiers i.e labels.

Correct Cynthia, well done.

And the point is that labels are insufficient to describe or define people's philosopnical views.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Correct Cynthia, well done.

And the point is that labels are insufficient to describe or define people's philosopnical views.

And how do you suppose we describe without words i.e signs i.e identifiers i.e labels?

 

[Bunyip]

And how do you suppose we describe without words i.e signs i.e identifiers i.e labels?

LOL No.

I propose that you ascertain your opponants specific position by asking him/her what it is.

As opposed to having a definition of 'materialist' (for example) and pretending that they must therefore fit into it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

LOL No.

I propose that you ascertain your opponants specific position by asking him/her what it is.

As opposed to having a definition of 'materialist' (for example) and pretending that they must therefore fit into it.

See you weren't being clear. What you mean by "label" is more correctly identified by the term "prejudice" or "bias", of course we should not define another persons position by our own prejudice.

 

[Bunyip]

See you weren't being clear. What you mean by "label" is more correctly identified by the term "prejudice" or "bias", of course we should not define another persons position by our own prejudice.

I know what the term 'label' means Cynthia, as opposed to 'predjudice' or 'bias'.

How we should best define another person's position is by asking them what their position is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, you are correct and maybe calling everything god is redundant or maybe we should drop the word universe and replace it with god but that is a matter of opinion and taste. But anyways, as to whether pantheism = monotheism...no. "There is one god" =/= "God is all", one is saying that there is one entity that is divinity and the other holds that all entities are divine.

If a person believes in exactly one god, then they're a monotheist, regardless of whether they believe "God is all" or not.

 

[Thief]

I know what the term 'label' means Cynthia, as opposed to 'predjudice' or 'bias'.

How we should best define another person's position is by asking them what their position is.

So a declaration IS required?

And babies don't have one to make.....they can't
And the apathetic don't care....and won't
And even if you know what a god is....without declaration you are not an atheist?

 

[steeltoes]

Meanwhile, I remain skeptical of any god claims. Does that make me an atheist?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Meanwhile, I remain skeptical of any god claims. Does that make me an atheist?

I'm sorry but you are required to either believe in god(s) or else disbelieve in god(s). How else can I know whether you are a theist or atheist? And I must know that if I'm to understand you.

Adam named the plants and animals so he could make sense of life.

 

[Thief]

Meanwhile, I remain skeptical of any god claims. Does that make me an atheist?

Ah!...does simple doubt make you an atheist?

Well, I might have to say, yeah.....but....
Doubt would be 'difficult' as we stand before heaven.

We seem to have that luxury as we breath.
Do you think we shall be able such denial after we stop breathing?

I believe what goes on in mind and heart has consequence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah!...does simple doubt make you an atheist?

Well, I might have to say, yeah.....but....
Doubt would be 'difficult' as we stand before heaven.

We seem to have that luxury as we breath.
Do you think we shall be able such denial after we stop breathing?

I believe what goes on in mind and heart has consequence.

The doubters will breeze past the line and into Heaven like Paris Hilton into a hot nightclub.

 

[Thief]

ooooh...you're just saying that!

 

[Willamena]

How we should best define another person's position is by asking them what their position is.

But that doesn't work for many atheists who want to regard atheism as the negation of a philosophical position, rather than a negated philosophical position.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

So much to do about nothing and it's not as if the whole world will follow suit with all the arguments on what each title means being presented in this thread.

Either one believes in deities or they don't. :yes:
After that is established, it becomes personal and things begin to vary all over the board, depending on the person.

Can't we at least agree on that?

Since when is Dawkins a theologian or religious studies scholar?

Man has always appointed himself as experts, and given we have google now, it makes it much more easy to "know" everything, notice I didn't say "learn".

As for Dawkins, it's ironic that he is assumed to be a "spokes person" for Atheism, but in all reality, all he did was help set the path for (anti)Theism.
Almost every Atheist I met on the web dislike him and remove themselves from his speaking for them, if you will.

I cant speak for the rest of the world, but in the USA, (anti)Theism is a dead cause.
We have a constitutional right to Religion. :yes: