COLUMBINE

[Canuckistani]

Why are we still misdefining atheism this way on the forum. Atheism is not a belief that God doesn't exist. It quite literally means "without belief".

You want to keep parsing atheist and agnostic, feel free. In common usage atheist is the belief there is no God, agnostic is no strong belief either way. If you want to use the term atheist for how people usually use agnostic, then you'll have to invent a new one for people who believe there is no God.

[cybercoma]

If people believe there is no god, then they don't very well believe in god, just like all the agnostics and everyone else that just lives life without giving god a second thought. It's all the same stuff. Except one claim is about beliefs, the other is about knowledge. They're separate things. Saying atheists have a belief one way or another is, as I said, quite literally a contradiction of the definition of atheist, which means without belief.

Edited February 10, 2013 by cybercoma

[Canuckistani]

I'll go with these guys:

Definition of ATHEISM

1

archaic

:

ungodliness

,

wickedness

2

a

:

a disbelief in the existence of deity

b

:

the doctrine that there is no deity

See atheism defined for kids »

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greekatheos godless, from a- + theos god

First Known Use: 1546

atheism

noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike

agnosticism

, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheism

Edited February 10, 2013 by Canuckistani

[cybercoma]

First, Merriam-Websters is garbage. And second, these dictionary definitions have already been covered in the atheism defined thread. Someone even responded with a very useful article from Cambridge (I think it was actually American Woman), explaining the problems with these definitions and why the dictionaries are wrong.

[Sleipnir]

Yes. Thus, no god.

How can you worship the absence of the very thing you don't believe in?

Shiva.....that's Hindu.

I apologize, that is my mistake.

Cite.

Is from what I've heard, I have no definite proof that Xenu is the scientology's version of God. But I've come across a some documents online relating to scientology that seems to revolved around that particular entity.

For one, high level of scientologists termed it as "Lord Xenu' - which is similar to Catholics calling Jesus, Lord Jesus or Hinduist calling Shiva, Lord Shiva.

Edit: Are we're gonna get warning points for going off topic?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Mighty AC]

Did you read your quoted section?

That does not read "all Germans".

All Germans could buy long guns without a permit. All Germans could buy hand guns with a permit. Many Germans could buy hand guns without one. A far cry from simply Nazis being able to own guns.

[Guest Derek L]

All Germans could buy long guns without a permit. All Germans could buy hand guns with a permit. Many Germans could buy hand guns without one. A far cry from simply Nazis being able to own guns.

From your own source:

The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted. The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18. The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.

And of course:

Of course, in typical Hitler style, Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.

Jewish Germans couldn't own guns.......

But:

[Mighty AC]

You want to keep parsing atheist and agnostic, feel free. In common usage atheist is the belief there is no God, agnostic is no strong belief either way. If you want to use the term atheist for how people usually use agnostic, then you'll have to invent a new one for people who believe there is no God.

Do we really have to do this in every thread? Why would the a prefix work differently with the root theist than other words like atypical, abiotic, asocial, asexual, etc.? atheist/theist - deals in belief, agnostic/gnostic deals in knowledge. There is a dedicated thread for this and the video is always worth re-watching. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21938

[Canuckistani]

Up to you if we do this every thread. Common usage of atheist is one who does not believe in God. So when people make the argument that atheism is a religion that's what they mean - it's a belief that there is no God. You trying to change the definition of atheist doesn't address the argument. Here's OED:

Definition of atheism

noun

[mass noun]

• 
  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
  

This is what people are talking about. Just going round and round about your parsing of the term doesn't do anything. There are people who believe that no God exists. That's what people mean when they say atheist. You think a different term should be used, feel free, but nobody will understand you.

[Wayward Son]

So when people make the argument that atheism is a religion that's what they mean - it's a belief that there is no God.

When people make the argument that atheism is a religion they just show that they are thoroughly ignorant about both religion and atheism.

As you are so fond of dictionary meanings here is the definition of religion according to Oxford: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I personally believe* that many people only try to claim that atheism is a religion as they are a little embarrassed of their own irrational thinking and therefore try to bring others down to their own level.

*believing that does not mean I hold a religion that people who claim atheism is a religion because of their own embarrassment at their irrational thinking. That because such a positive belief is simply not a religion. And that is for positive beliefs, not lack of beliefs. For most atheists, their views are a lack of belief and simply does not qualify as a religion in any way.

[Wayward Son]

There are people who believe that no God exists. That's what people mean when they say atheist. You think a different term should be used, feel free, but nobody will understand you.

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

The OED definition you quote does not match the definition you are trying to impose on atheists. There is a difference in between a disbelief or lack of belief, both of which are negative, and a positive belief which is what you are attempting to impose on atheists. I assume you can tell the difference between:

A belief that no God or gods exist. and

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[Canuckistani]

I get it. But see that last part of my previous post. To throw your definition of atheism at someone who says atheism is a religion, how does that help? They're talking about hard atheists who deny the existence of God and who are very zealous about it. Just parsing the term they are using doesn't really seem very useful.

[Wayward Son]

I get it. But see that last part of my previous post. To throw your definition of atheism at someone who says atheism is a religion, how does that help? They're talking about hard atheists who deny the existence of God and who are very zealous about it. Just parsing the term they are using doesn't really seem very useful.

Psychological studies have shown that it is extremely unlikely that you will change the mind of someone, and in fact such studies have shown that some people, when shown the view they hold is wrong, will hold that view more strongly (backfire effect), therefore I do not worry about if it helps the person I am countering, as I think such a concern is a waste of time. When I counter claims someone has made either in real life or on the internet, I am not attempting to change their mind, but attempting to give bystanders another perspective (I am aiming, therefore, at the people who are uninformed, instead of those who are misinformed. If someone who is misinformed happens to be open-minded that is just an unexpected bonus).

As to hard, zealous, atheists - I think it is difficult to classify people. On a personal level, I lack a belief in a god or gods. At the same time I do hold positive beliefs that certain god and religious claims are false. If claims are self-contradictory, or if claims are inconsistent with established scientific knowledge I feel that a positive belief that the claim is wrong or false is justified. So I would not say that I lack a belief in a young-earth creationist claim that the universe is 6000 - 10,000 years old - I believe the claim is false. And if a god, or a version of a god, requires such a claim to true then I deny the existence of that god, or version of that god.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Wayward Son

[Canuckistani]

It's not about changing anybody's mind, but addressing their argument if you want to get into it with them.

There's no God I can think of that requires a 6000 year old earth, only some humans. I also seriously doubt there could be any God that requires the following of a particular religion with practitioners of other religions being less favored, but that of course can't be proven.

[betsy]

Do we really have to do this in every thread? Why would the a prefix work differently with the root theist than other words like atypical, abiotic, asocial, asexual, etc.? atheist/theist - deals in belief, agnostic/gnostic deals in knowledge. There is a dedicated thread for this and the video is always worth re-watching. http://www.mapleleaf...showtopic=21938

However you want to re-define the meaning of atheist - the real definition is still the same. The very term, "a-theist" ascertains that.

Redefining it to fix the uncertainty some claiming to be atheist feel about their stance does not change what you are - it only makes you think that. This is like political correctness made-up cutesy-tootsie feel-good labels:

Waste Manager = Garbage Man. Bottom line is still the same.

If you define yourself as an atheist-agnostic, those who know the true meaning will still label you, agnostic.

Edited February 12, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

A belief that no God or gods exist. and

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Care to explain the difference between the two?

[betsy]

When people make the argument that atheism is a religion they just show that they are thoroughly ignorant about both religion and atheism.

On the contrary, those who keep maintaining that atheism - I'm specifying NEW Atheism - is not a religion, are the ones ignorant about it. They fail to see that this new kind of atheism had crossed the line and had adapted to become a religion itself.

The Church of the Non-Believers

http://www.wired.com...11/atheism.html

My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism. The sensible" – and here he pauses to indicate that sensible should be in quotes – "the 'sensible' religious people are really on the side of the fundamentalists, because they believe in supernaturalism. That puts me on the other side."

This autumn, Harris has a new book out, Letter to a Christian Nation. In it, he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. "Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you," he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, "dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God."

We discuss what it might look like, this world without God. "There would be a religion of reason," Harris says. "We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness. We may all agree that we want to have a Sabbath that we take really seriously – a lot more seriously than most religious people take it. But it would be a rational decision, and it would not be just because it's in the Bible. We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bullshit."

I do call it prayer. Here is the atheist prayer: that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.

I have become a connoisseur of atheist groups – there are scores of them, mostly local, linked into a few larger networks. There are some tensions, as is normal in the claustrophobia of powerless subcultures, but relations among the different branches of the movement are mostly friendly. Typical atheists are hardly the rabble-rousing evangelists that Dawkins or Harris might like. They are an older, peaceable, quietly frustrated lot, who meet partly out of idealism and partly out of loneliness. Here in Los Angeles, every fourth Sunday at 11 am, there is a meeting of Atheists United. More than 50 people have shown up today, which is a very good turnout for atheism. Many are approaching retirement age.

Dawkins love to "adopt" words - as the article implied. To use as a "safety net" when he debates with believers. Especially when he tends to put his foot in his mouth...sounding to be agnostic, instead of an atheist!

If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is a......RELIGION! And that goes with so-called atheists-agnostics, who're actually plain and simple, AGNOSTICS! They even have a name for their church: Atheist United. They should get tips from Christians how to gain more congregation members.

The new church is founded by his holy mackerel Dawkins (the self-proclaimed Pope), Hichens and Harris (called the Horsemen - derived from the Bible), but I prefer my fave name for them: The LOST AMIGOS.

Edited February 11, 2013 by betsy

[Wayward Son]

Care to explain the difference between the two?

Most people realize that it is possible to not have a belief about a something. The reality is that is the case for most things.

When a jury is selected they are looking for people who lack a belief about whether the accused is innocent or guilty...you know people who are waiting for the evidence before forming a belief. Crazy concept.

[betsy]

Most people realize that it is possible to not have a belief about a something. The reality is that is the case for most things.

??? That's quite a statement you made there. I'd say you'd be hard to find someone who does not have a belief about something!

When a jury is selected they are looking for people who lack a belief about whether the accused is innocent or guilty...you know people who are waiting for the evidence before forming a belief. Crazy concept.

You mean, they're looking for someone who hasn't yet formed his own opinion or judgement about the accused.

[betsy]

Btw, here's Scientology:

The Church of Scientology claims, based on it's original study of cases and continuous affirmation from ongoing subjects, that a human is an immortal, spiritual being (termed a thetan), that is trapped in a physical body. The thetan has had innumerable past lives and it is observed in advanced Scientology texts that lives preceding the thetan's arrival on Earth lived in extraterrestrial cultures.

Based on case studies at advanced levels, it is predicted that any Scientologists undergoing auditing procedure will eventually come across and recount a common series of events, or incidents, which occurred before life on earth.^[4] Hubbard described these recurrent recallings in a "space opera" cosmogony.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia....s_and_practices

Could Dawkins be referring to the Thetans as the aliens who started life on earth?

Based on that info above, could it be the religion of New Atheism is an off-shoot from Scientology? Or Dawkins ripped off his ideas from Scientology?

Edited February 12, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Everyone with a true relationship with God understands that He created the heavens and that we are all a part of that.

[Mighty AC]

Could Dawkins be referring to the Thetans as the aliens who started life on earth?

So Dawkins claimed aliens started life on earth did he? You watched the movie (and posted the link to this forum) so I know you are aware of the context of the conversation and that you are repeating statements you know to be false. I would have thought you, in particular, would not want to bear false witness. tsk, tsk.

[betsy]

So Dawkins claimed aliens started life on earth did he? You watched the movie (and posted the link to this forum) so I know you are aware of the context of the conversation and that you are repeating statements you know to be false. I would have thought you, in particular, would not want to bear false witness. tsk, tsk.

You're repeating the same lame response by those who either don't understand what "out of context" is, or are just in denial! Tsk. Tsk.

Here, you better read the transcript carefully.

Transcript of the Interview of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein in the Film Expelled

This is a partial text of the interview of Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein in the film Expelled. This is the key section in which Richard Dawkins acknowledges that it is possible to find evidence of design in biology, and that it could have been seeded here by a "higher intelligence" from elsewhere in the universe.

**********

BEN STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.

. . .

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

. . .

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

http://darwinianfund...of-richard.html

And here's the clip:

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Whoa.

Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn't exist yet when asked if he would be willing to put a number on it....why did he seem so uncertain?

Why would he feel uncomfortable in putting a number on it if he's so confident about it?

Agnostic! Agnostic!

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

So never mind the "out-of-context" desperate rebutt.

He believes in the possibility of Star Trek! Except the other way around....that it's the aliens who came trekking here on earth, not Captain Kirk!

Therefore I asked: Is it possible that he could be referring to the Scientologist's, alien Thetans?

Could it be he is a.....Scientologist now? Or leaning that way?

Edited February 13, 2013 by betsy