If I were an Atheist

[Dystopia]

If atheism is true I agree, we are the accidental by product of mindless forces that never intended our existence. This explains why atheist nations typically have an abysmal human rights record.

There are no atheist nations in the world excluding a few self-proclaimed socialist states. Curiously the concept of "human rights" is still widely discussed and some might say it's scientifically inaccurate to claim there are universal rights worldwide. What do you mean by Human Rights?

[coldwx]

No shame at all. I think by calling themselves atheists they water down the traditional position of atheists which is the belief or opinion that God(s) doesn't exist. If you asked people on the street if they knew atheism can mean someone who doesn't deny God exists they would be shocked. After all I don't deny God exists either.

Out of curiosity, do you deny the possibility the your god does not exist?

[JesusHChrist]

This explains why atheist nations typically have an abysmal human rights record.

Bullshit.

Meaning, the facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim:





Denmark, Estonia and Sweden have the highest proportions of atheists and are at the top in the HDI.

Religious shitholes such as Niger, Pakistan and Syria are at the bottom.

[Ravenshire]

Hey, Drew. Care to comment on this? Or will you just keep ignoring it?

I'm very familiar with the distinction. What I'm arguing in this thread is the distinction does more harm than good.

First it redefines atheism in such a way you might as well drop the A. Theism means God the A in atheism mean not or without God. Weak atheists share more in common with a theist than an atheist who actually claims not or without God. A theist doesn't deny God exists either does the weak atheist! There is no point in debating the existence of God between a weak atheist and a theist since the weak atheist doesn't deny (even as a mere opinion) that God exists. Whats to argue? Lastly if the atheists who subscribe to the A in atheist can't convince weak atheists God doesn't exist then there case must be pathetic.

Ok, I see the problem now. You're confused about the meaning of the word.

This should clear that up:
theism
[thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

You could also add:
3. the belief in any god(s)

Theism does not mean gawd, but the belief in one (or more). If you want to continue making up your own definitions for words, there's absolutely no sense in conversing with you since we won't be using the same language.

[Simon Moon]

Ok, I see the problem now. You're confused about the meaning of the word.

This should clear that up:
theism
[thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

You could also add:
3. the belief in any god(s)

Theism does not mean gawd, but the belief in one (or more). If you want to continue making up your own definitions for words, there's absolutely no sense in conversing with you since we won't be using the same language.

I can never quite understand why so many people have a problem with this.

Theism is the belief in at least one god.

Add the 'a' prefix, which means 'without', and you get 'without the belief in a god'.

I guess most people use the colloquial definitions for the words 'agnostic' and 'atheism', not the formal definitions.

Drew_2013 is entering in depth conversations using colloquial definitions, when he should be using the formal ones, then wondering why he is unable to communicate coherently.

[Ravenshire]

Drew_2013 is entering in depth conversations using colloquial definitions, when he should be using the formal ones, then wondering why he is unable to communicate coherently.

He's going beyond that to make up his own definition that theism means gawd.

[Dystopia]

This explains why atheist nations typically have an abysmal human rights record.

Bullshit.

Meaning, the facts are exactly the opposite of what you claim:





Denmark, Estonia and Sweden have the highest proportions of atheists and are at the top in the HDI.

Religious shitholes such as Niger, Pakistan and Syria are at the bottom.

I'm not denying that's true but you should take into account that while in Sweden or Iceland there are more atheists the majority of the population isn't atheist but simply non religious or secularist. I think what causes more development is not atheism but free thinking, critical thinking and overall cultural mentalities the people in those countries have (i.e. Common good, working hard for the community, being compassionate with others, etc.) - Truth be told, a few religious ideas can help the economy

In the book, Weber wrote that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence[2] of modern capitalism. This idea is also known as the "Protestant Ethic thesis."[3]

In 1998 the International Sociological Association listed this work as the fourth most important sociological book of the 20th century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protest...Capitalism

I'm not saying nations need religion, but in some historical contexts it has helped. I think work ethics, regardless of the source is much more important than being atheistic or not

Also, some countries there like Japan are not that atheist, many Japanese are not religious but superstitious and adhere to traditions like Buddhism, a significant part believes we are all connected and that there is reincarnation

[Angrboda]

Dystopia

Humans are not special.

If atheism is true I agree, we are the accidental by product of mindless forces that never intended our existence. This explains why atheist nations typically have an abysmal human rights record.

The fact that many atheist nations are former communist bloc countries also enters into this. If you take them out of the mix, the picture looks a whole lot different.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be really blunt, regardless of whether or not the passive claim regarding "atheist nations" is true....I doubt that it would be explicable by reference to whatever "accidents" led to our being what we are - if you absolutely have to douche the conversation up even further, Drew.

Neither atheism nor atheists exist to satisfy your predilections. So you're shit out of luck on just about every count raised. They don't have to claim what you want them to, they don't have to stop reminding you how silly you are for believing in either god or santa, and they don't have to be nice about it. Your opinions on what atheists should claim- or what atheism should be, are a complete non-issue.

Everything clear now?

[Drew_2013]

Mr. Agenda

Theism is the opinion that at least one god or God is really real. It's not a philosophy.

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

Philosophical theism is the belief that deities exist (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in a personal God entirely without doctrine. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of a god's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

No such explanation [ alternate non-fairy tale explanation] is required. If we have no explanation at all, it does not add a single nano-gram of weight to the odds that your position is correct. And mere theism explains nothing. It's not the kind of thing that is an explanation for anything, it's a binary positon on the issue of whether or not at least one god or God is real.

The problem is we all know what the alternative explanation is. If the universe and humans weren't purposely caused to come into existence intentionally by a creator designer, then we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that unintentionally caused the universe with the characteristics to cause stars, planets, solar systems and life to exist. I can appreciate why most atheists don't care to defend or advance that alternate explanation and many atheists will attempt to argue its a false dichotomy. Its the former explanation that explains nothing. There is no rhyme or reason why mindless mechanistic things would happen to be as they are it just is.

Then there is the person who throws up their hands and decides a debate with someone who doesn't assert vigrously that there is no God is impossible.

If the debate is Theism and I hold the affirmative position it would be lame to debate with someone who doesn't deny God exists just lacks that belief. I don't deny God exists either.

Respecting the other's view is precisely where you're failing.

You only have a non-position.

If you want a formal debate, there's a place for that. The mods can set it up, and all you need is a volunteer to take 'the other side'. The holdup seems to be not only that you want the 'other side' to be 'God definitely does not exist' but that your own side isn't 'God definitely does exist'.

Not at all either side would be defending an opinion. If the debate were theism for or against the proposition I'd like the opposing view to opine theism is mistaken. Such a debate in this forum wouldn't be very interesting. Theists would come away theists, atheists atheists.

It depends on how they're defined. If everything they do is undetectable by science and they never leave verifiable evidence, then I merely lack belief in their existence. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be surprised if I found out either or both were real, as I regard them as more improbable than our sun going nova tomorrow (and our sun isn't the kind of star that ever goes nova).

If you regarding something as improbable as our star going nova why wouldn't you state at least as an opinion it doesn't exist? Why would you still give it some credibility by stating you lack belief? What does it take for you to stand up and say I don't believe such and such exists? After all its still an opinion when you state it a belief.

We don't believe God exists, but don't maintain that God necessarily does not exist.

That's inherent to any opinion or belief is the concession you might be mistaken. Wouldn't you think I was being disingenuous if I came to this board and just said I lack belief in God's non-existence? I'm not saying God does exist mind you...I just lack belief in God's non-existence.

Your issue is both a made-up problem (there is no sound reason to believe the universe comes from a personal creator in the first place).

I have in the past provided several lines of evidence (facts) that provide a sound reason to believe our existence is the result of a Creator but apparently you feel alternative explanations are just as unsound.

Jesus_wept

If you want people to believe your claims then you need to provide evidence, you can't just sit there and pretend your arguments are valid because I cant prove you wrong.

That's not true. I made a case citing 5 lines of evidence I argued favor the existence of a Creator. I can't prove I'm right anymore than you can prove I'm wrong. Theism is a belief not a fact.

Snake,

He's going beyond that to make up his own definition that theism means gawd

I don't know what gawd means...is it really a word?

Rhythm

Neither atheism nor atheists exist to satisfy your predilections. So you're shit out of luck on just about every count raised. They don't have to claim what you want them to, they don't have to stop reminding you how silly you are for believing in either god or santa, and they don't have to be nice about it. Your opinions on what atheists should claim- or what atheism should be, are a complete non-issue.

And 20 years from now they will still be an insignificant minority.