RE: What is Atheism?
March 10, 2017 at 2:29 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2017 at 2:33 pm by Whateverist.)
(March 10, 2017 at 10:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 9:22 am)AceBoogie Wrote: So what is atheism to you RR?
Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism). However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist. I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.
The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).
Much better. I agree with the part I bolded.
As for your point that strong atheism is as legitimate an interpretation as the weaker form, I agree based on common usage. Both work. But when you really analyze it, you find that strong atheism is a special subset of atheists. Anyone who would insist that the properties of this subset define the entire class, just looks like a person insisting that all rectangles have four sides of equal length. Like strong atheism, squares are a special case within the class.
(March 10, 2017 at 11:10 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 10:40 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: D'aw, Chad, you sweet talker.
Point taken, I'm in a pissy mood this morning.
(March 10, 2017 at 11:15 am)AceBoogie Wrote:(March 10, 2017 at 10:37 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"
It's not up to atheists to provide an alternative explanation because most of us don't claim to have an explanation for everything.
The ball is still in your court. It is still up to the theists to convince us of this god nonsense. It's okay to admit you don't know, which i think is exactly what most atheists do.
You people have been shouting and screaming about fairies at the bottom of the garden for the past god knows how many years... Then telling us that we have the burden of proving you wrong. Goddam, you're like little petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot DISPROVE god's existence!"
If this turns into a pissing contest try to remember: never cross the streams.