(January 24, 2013 at 2:24 pm)Aardverk Wrote:

(January 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: It depends on the atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of...robability


Only strong atheists have no doubt that there are no gods.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Ninth edition): "ATHEISM - the theory or belief that god does not exist" It would be a brave Englishman to challenge that dictionary. If you are not English ............ I understand your problem.

Your wikipedia link and quote is not a definition of atheism it is about theistic probability. If Richard Dawkins and/or Jack Smart write a world-class dictionary and define atheism that way, then you can reasonably cite them for definitions. It may be worth pointing out however that the very well educated Oxford Professor, Richard Dawkins, describes himself as an agnostic - so I don't think he is at all confused about the English language.

Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic AND as an atheist. You're the one who thinks one dictionary says it all, and that the terms are mutually exclusive.

From Collins:

atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm )
Definitions
noun
rejection of belief in God or gods

---

(January 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm)Golbez Wrote: What do you guys think? What are the other reasons for rejecting its use?

I don't reject it's use and I don't think that particular reason is a good reason to reject its use. If I weren't interested in politics and didn't identify with a political party, I don't see why I shouldn't call myself apolitical.

However, I do think there's a reason to work toward minimizing its use: it is low information. We wouldn't be satisfied with someone 'just being a theist', we'd want to know what kind of theist they are. We should be using terms that are more informative, like humanist, rational skeptic, existentialist, and so forth. The main reason I identify as atheist is to rehabilitate the word: there are so many unfair stereotypes and misconceptions about atheists that I feel a duty to stand up and be counted as an atheist.

(January 24, 2013 at 3:43 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You're the one who thinks one dictionary says it all, and that the terms are mutually exclusive.

From Collins:

atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm )
Definitions
noun
rejection of belief in God or gods

I was replying to what Aardverk said in Post 82 of this topic.

Aardverk Wrote:The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Ninth edition): "ATHEISM - the theory or belief that god does not exist"

I'm more of a Collins Dictionary definition atheist - I don't believe in God or gods because there's no concrete scientific proof that God or gods exist. I'm not a Concise Oxford Dictionary definition atheist because I have no theory or belief that God or gods don't exist because there's no concrete scientific proof of their non existence.

Which really goes back to what I said in my earlier post - You're going to get different answers depending on whether the atheist concerned is going by the dictionary definition, the scale of theistic probability or how some philosopher defines atheism. The dictionary definition could cover whichever dictionary an atheist chooses to go by.

As for Richard Dawkins, his self description could be interpreted as agnostic atheist so he'd probably get annoyed if someone insisted he was a common or garden agnostic -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism...gnosticism

Quote:Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[20]

I suppose I could class myself as an agnostic atheist but then, I could also be a bit of a spiritual agnostic.

Quote:Spiritual agnosticism
The view that universal ethics and love can guide actions more effectively than questioning the existence of deities. A spiritual agnostic might say "It doesn't matter which religion you might follow, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe."[23]

Some scientists take the view that universal ethics have a biological basis and are arguing over whether or not it has anything to do with mirror neurons.

Following the link to spiritual agnosticism ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_agnosticism

Quote:Spiritual agnostics are different than theist agnostics in that they do not necessarily lean towards a belief in God, but may or may not have faith, or hope that God exists.[3] In either case, the spiritual agnostic sees the question as largely academic. The spiritual agnostic is unconcerned with the question of whether when they pray they are communicating with God or accessing a Jungian archetype

I use Jungian psychology to explore the archetypal world but I don't pray to anything.

I think there's plenty of evidence that humans can have subjective experiences which they interpret as contacts with God or gods. Some neuroscientists are investigating what happens in people's brains when they have this kind of experience. I've had some odd, subjective experiences which many people would interpret as seeing ghosts and nature spirits etc. although I interpret them as the result of my brain having a hiccup. Does this make me something of an ignostic?

Quote:Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed.

I think I'll just stick to calling myself an atheist and be very careful when wording posts so I don't give the impression I know for a fact that deities don't exist. It will make life a lot simpler.

I think being rational is using reason, science and logic to come to good sound conclusions. They are irrational because they rely on "faith". They (theists) believe for the sake of believing. What is your position Blossom?

More about Richard Dawkins. In his own article he's objecting to things like this -

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richar...tic-70243/

Quote:When Richard Dawkins, the world-famous evolutionary biologist, and Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, took the stage at the United Kingdom's University of Oxford for a discussion over the origins of nature on Thursday, almost everyone thought the university had pitted an atheist against a Christian. Almost everyone was wrong.
Dawkins revealed that he is in fact not an atheist as he is not 100 percent sure God doesn't exist.

Then there's the description to this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_rGbiT_3c

Quote:Richard Dawkins, formerly the world's most famous believer in atheist Dogma™, has officially converted to agnosticism. Make no mistake, fan bois -- he clearly states that he is NOT an atheist.

Because there is no evidence at all for atheist Dogma™, he has finally come to terms with the fact that it is illogical and irrational to posit the silly claim that God could somehow not exist.

Actually, I have gained a lot of respect for the man, because this kind of honesty is truly a virtue. I wonder how many of his mindless followers (if any) will begin to develop some intellectual honesty on this philosophical point now, as he has done -- honesty that has been glaringly absent thus far.

If any of them do, that would be refreshing.

God bless you, Mr. Dawkins!

Richard Dawkins hasn't converted to agnosticism or revealed that he's really an agnostic when he claimed to be an atheist. He's always been a De facto atheist which looks like another way of saying agnostic atheist.

(January 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: Only strong atheists have no doubt that there are no gods.

I don't have any doubt that there are no gods, but it isn't because of atheism at all: it's because I couldn't care less if they aren't explicitly making themselves known to me by fucking me over a slowly-turning spit.

This is oft-referred to as 'getting screwed'. Getting nailed is so 20th century

getting spit roasted sounds more like it from how you described it

(January 24, 2013 at 6:05 pm)TromboneAtheist Wrote: I think being rational is using reason, science and logic to come to good sound conclusions.

Why these things specifically, and why must the conclusion always be 'good/sound' for it to be rational?

I'd also note that many a theist uses reason as the foundation of their conclusion, and you'll notice every time you ask someone why they believe *anything*: they will respond with reasons. Or by flipping you off, some people are just assholes

Quote:They are irrational because they rely on "faith". They (theists) believe for the sake of believing. What is your position Blossom?

If a theist is irrational for relying upon their faith, then a "rationalist" is also irrational for relying upon their faith. Faith is confidence, confidence is trust, trust is belief, and belief is the foundation of all that is 'true'. Without faith in the scientific method, without an absence of significant doubt in the truth of that which we have reason to believe, without an utter confidence in determinism: we would never have moved beyond the first scientific experiment, as it would be endlessly retested due to the absence of faith in the system... and today there would be no computers, no toilets, no manmade lightning.

For theists, their faith is in a different system... and there are so many theists and so many systems, the only thing in common being 'gods'. One theist cannot speak for all others, as one atheist also cannot speak for all others... and every single one of all of them is wrong about everything...

... maybe!

---

(January 25, 2013 at 12:04 am)paulpablo Wrote: getting spit roasted sounds more like it from how you described it

Well, to be more accurate, it would be "getting screwed while baked"... but really: who's sober enough to notice the omission?

Maybe people are getting smarter... usually people don't notice when I do shit like that in an already comical post.

Or perhaps it's because they are becoming dense enough to miss the humor in the first place?

Edit: I bet he doesn't even understand 5 of the 7 double entendres I made in that post



Sherlock Holmes: Look at you lot, you're all so vacant. Is it nice not being me? It must be so relaxing.

i wasnt literally correcting you there i was just making a joke, spit roasting is a sexual possition, in the uk a lot of footballers get in trouble for doing it, and it gets written about in newspapers as a scandal

(January 25, 2013 at 12:22 am)paulpablo Wrote: i wasnt literally correcting you there i was just making a joke, spit roasting is a sexual possition, in the uk a lot of footballers get in trouble for doing it, and it gets written about in newspapers as a scandal

THE UK HAS SEX SCANDALS?! hock:

... And there was me, thinking it was normal for all you blighters to walk around naked shagging your sheep. Guess it's just the Welsh

I don't subscribe to the isms and skisms.