Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

DublinWriter · 31-12-2012 8:07pm

dd972 wrote: »

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

I'm a Buddhist, so therefore I am an Atheist.

I'm a Buddhist, so therefore I believe in Empirical Method as the only way to understand the physical configuration of the universe.

Agnosticism to me, is the most cowardly expression of Pascal's Wager.

Michael Nugent · 31-12-2012 8:42pm

King Mob wrote: »

Sure and you can also add "lack of belief by a being that has the capacity to have a belief and exists in our universe and experiences time in a liner fashion". Or which ever other conditions that are clearly implicit to make my position seem more ridiculous.

I'm not trying to make your position seem ridiculous. These are philosophical questions that have been discussed for generations, and will continue to be discussed, most likely without resolution, for generations after both of us are gone.

I'll address all of your points, though I might not get around to all of them tonight. But firstly, I want to address a meta-point, because almost everything else we are discussing hinges on this.

The first point of divergence in our discussion is not actually about the meaning of the word atheism. It is about whether or not the word atheism can have more than one meaning.

In my opinion, not only can it have more than one meaning, but in reality it demonstrably does have more than one meaning.

Do you agree with that? Whether or not you agree that it should be the case, do you agree that it is the case, in reality, that the word has more than one meaning?

King Mob · 31-12-2012 8:47pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not trying to make your position seem ridiculous. These are philosophical questions that have been discussed for generations, and will continue to be discussed, most likely without resolution, for generations after both of us are gone.

I'll address all of your points, though I might not get around to all of them tonight. But firstly, I want to address a meta-point, because almost everything else we are discussing hinges on this.

The first point of divergence in our discussion is not actually about the meaning of the word atheism. It is about whether or not the word atheism can have more than one meaning.

In my opinion, not only can it have more than one meaning, but in reality it demonstrably does have more than one meaning.

Do you agree with that? Whether or not you agree that it should be the case, do you agree that it is the case, in reality, that the word has more than one meaning?

Yes and no.
I believe it can refer to several different things that have a common element, just as theism can be used to describe beliefs as varied as the ancient Egyptian religion to modern Islam.
The best definition of atheism (and therefore theism) is that common element, which is a lack of a belief in a good. This is true for all versions of atheism, though various versions add to this common factor, just as theists do from basic theism.

Using atheism to mean two or more different things incompatible things at the same time does not make sense.

Would you describe Catholics as theists? How about Protestants? How about Muslims? Zoroastrians?
Does theism describe all of their various beliefs? Can you use theism as a general term by which you can use to describe common traits other than the belief in god?

This is a very simple point, can you please provide a yes or no answer to it?

Michael Nugent · 31-12-2012 9:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes and no.

It's either yes or no.

Do you agree that it is the case, in reality, that the word has more than one meaning?

King Mob wrote: »

I believe it can refer to several different things that have a common element, just as theism can be used to describe beliefs as varied as the ancient Egyptian religion to modern Islam.

Does that mean that you agree that it is the case, in reality, that the word has more than one meaning?

It seems like you agree, but since you started with 'yes and no' I'm not sure whether you do agree.

King Mob wrote: »

The best definition of atheism (and therefore theism) is that common element, which is a lack of a belief in a good. This is true for all versions of atheism, though various versions add to this common factor, just as theists do from basic theism.

Again, this seems like you agree that the word has more than one meaning. So I am puzzled at the 'yes and no' at the start.

So you seem to be saying (please correct me if I am wrong) that the word atheism does have more than one meaning, and - in your opinion - the best of these different meanings is to be found by identifying a common factor that all atheists have?

King Mob wrote: »

Using atheism to mean two or more different things incompatible things at the same time does not make sense.

It doesn't make sense for the same person to use a word to mean two incompatible things at the same time. It does make sense to recognise that different people can use the same word to mean different things, some of which may be incompatible with others.

King Mob wrote: »

Would you describe Catholics as theists? How about Protestants? How about Muslims? Zoroastrians?
Does theism describe all of their various beliefs? Can you use theism as a general term by which you can use to describe common traits other than the belief in god?
This is a very simple point, can you please provide a yes or no answer to it?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, no, and what type of common traits do you mean?

Dades · 31-12-2012 10:22pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

In my opinion, you have to be aware of the idea of gods and [reject it/not accept it] to be an atheist.

I agree with this, and have actually argued the same here on a couple of occasions. I believe a baby is just a baby, and is not an atheist until they first have knowledge of the concepts they reject.

I completely disagree with your re-defining of the term atheist, however. For years I've seen is misrepresented here - always by people with an agenda. Usually religious folk who find it easier to assume we're all pro-choice, or hate the church, or consider science a religion, or whatever.

That people have their own opinion on what it means matters not. It doesn't change what it means. As long as someone can be termed an atheist by simply lacking a belief in gods, then we owe it to them to not have it deemed to mean something else by people who would wish it so for their own reasons.

King Mob · 31-12-2012 10:30pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It's either yes or no.

Do you agree that it is the case, in reality, that the word has more than one meaning?

Does that mean that you agree that it is the case, in reality, that the word has more than one meaning?

It seems like you agree, but since you started with 'yes and no' I'm not sure whether you do agree.

Again, this seems like you agree that the word has more than one meaning. So I am puzzled at the 'yes and no' at the start.

So you seem to be saying (please correct me if I am wrong) that the word atheism does have more than one meaning, and - in your opinion - the best of these different meanings is to be found by identifying a common factor that all atheists have?

No as in I do not agree with your position. But yes, it can be taken to mean different things, but doing so is inaccurate.

It is a complex question for which you cannot reasonable expect me to get a simple answer to. I explained my answer in detail and you seem more interested in trying to get it to fit into a simple answer than actually reading it.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It doesn't make sense for the same person to use a word to mean two incompatible things at the same time. It does make sense to recognise that different people can use the same word to mean different things, some of which may be incompatible with others.

Then if this is the case, the word is meaningless.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Yes, yes, yes, yes, no,

How can theism describe all of those religion when then mean such different things? How can theism describe all of them, yet not their different traits?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

and what type of common traits do you mean?

The fact they all believe in a god of some kind.
You know, the definition of theism and the common factor that allows them all to be described as a form of theism, despite having many differences.

And since this applies to theism, why does it not apply to atheism?
It can describe the full variety of different forms of atheism by defining the single common factor between them all: the lack of a belief in god.

Do you not agree that all forms of atheism share at least this common factor?
If not, what else defines an atheist that still has an inclusive, accurate and concise meaning?

Michael Nugent · 31-12-2012 10:41pm

Dades wrote: »

I completely disagree with your re-defining of the term atheist, however.

I'm not redefining the word. I'm recognising that the word has different meanings. Ironically, it is the 'lack of belief, no more, no less' that represents an attempt to redefine the word. And it won't work, because it is trying to apply dogma to reality.

Dades wrote: »

For years I've seen is misrepresented here - always by people with an agenda. Usually religious folk who find it easier to assume we're all pro-choice, or hate the church, or consider science a religion, or whatever.

Whether or not they have an agenda is a separate question as to whether or not they accurate in what they are saying. That said, if they are insisting that atheism is (for example) only rejecting god, and nothing else, then they are as inaccurate as those who say it is only lack of belief in gods, and nothing else.

Dades wrote: »

That people have their own opinion on what it means matters not. It doesn't change what it means.

Of course it does. That is how the meaning has already changed, over generations, from meaning immoral people who reject the established gods of society, to today's more neutral meanings that include believing there are no gods and not believing there are gods.

Dades wrote: »

As long as someone can be termed an atheist by simply lacking a belief in gods, then we owe it to them to not have it deemed to mean something else by people who would wish it so for their own reasons.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. You've already rejected the idea that a baby can be termed an atheist by simply lacking a belief in gods. So who is 'we' in this? And why would the reasons of this 'we' be more important than the reasons of people who want to recognise the reality that there are different meanings?

Michael Nugent · 31-12-2012 10:45pm

King Mob,

I'll come back to your points tomorrow.

Much as I enjoy the discussions on boards, I don't want to ring in the new year on the internet.

Happy New Year!

Dades · 31-12-2012 10:54pm

What I mean is as long as someone who simply doesn't believe in god(s) is an atheist, then it's incorrect to say there is more to it. Otherwise people accurately defined as atheist will end up having people assuming more about their beliefs.

Regarding the baby thing, it's simply a rational approach. It's as ridiculous to apply labels such as "atheist" to animate (or indeed inanimate) objects that cannot conceptualise what it is they are supposed to lack belief in, as it it would be apply terms like "vegetarian".

sham64 · 31-12-2012 11:46pm

absolute fairies all of u be happy in ur own skin best religion of the lot no wars/conflict

Dades · 01-01-2013 10:00am

Far out, man.

Zombrex · 01-01-2013 12:14pm

Given that no one owns words it is difficult to argue that there is a correct or incorrect meaning of a word. Language is a negotiation between two people in an attempt convey meaning.

So instead of asking what does atheist mean I personally think that a far more important and relevant question is what do we want atheist to mean, what concept are we attempting to communicate when we say "atheist".

Michael Nugent · 01-01-2013 12:32pm

There are two different types of question being discussed here, and I think it would be useful to distinguish them.

There are questions about which ideas about gods are accurate, or which ideas about gods we would like to see believed or rejected.
Then there are questions about how we discuss those ideas, and what the words that we use mean when we are discussing those ideas.

I am only referring in this comment to the second of these questions: what the words that we use mean, and specifically whether the word atheism is restricted to one meaning.

I am making the descriptive, not prescriptive, observation that a word can have more than one meaning, and that the word atheism has more than one meaning.

The meaning of a word is determined by usage, and can change over time. Here is how the Websters website describes this phenomenon:

Websters wrote:

Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact. By relying on citational evidence, we hope to keep our publications grounded in the details of current usage so they can calmly and dispassionately offer information about modern English. That way, our references can speak with authority without being authoritarian.

The same word can have more than one meaning. Ball can mean a round object, or a dance. case can mean an occurrence, or a box. Club can mean a stick, or a group of people, or a place. date can mean a time, or a fruit. Object can mean a thing, or to disapprove. Peer can mean someone of your own status, or a titled person, or to look. race can mean a group of people, or a running competition.

The same word can even have contradictory meanings: Consult can mean to offer advice, or to obtain it. Custom can mean a common practice, or a special treatment. Go can mean to proceed or succeed, or to weaken or fail. Left can mean remained, or departed. Overlook can mean to supervise, or to neglect. Skin can mean to cover, or to remove. Strike can mean to hit, or to miss.

With regard to the specific word atheism, it is indisputable - as an observation, not as a prescription - that the word atheism has more than one meaning, and that those meanings have changed over time. It used to mean immoral people who rejected the established gods of their societies, and it now mostly has more neutral meanings, that include believing there are no gods and not believing there are gods.

This is an observation, not a prescription. It is an observation of reality. This observation of reality certainly has implications for discussions of atheism, some of which may be inconvenient for either atheists or religious people, but it remains an observation of reality. Wanting it to be different does not make it different.

Insisting that the word atheism has only one meaning is not only inaccurate, it is futile. It is trying to apply dogma to reality. You can certainly promote your personally preferred meaning, and try to get more people to use it, so that it gradually has more influence in discourse, but you cannot insist that your preferred meaning is “the” meaning “no more, no less.”

Michael Nugent · 01-01-2013 12:40pm

Dades wrote: »

What I mean is as long as someone who simply doesn't believe in god(s) is an atheist, then it's incorrect to say there is more to it. Otherwise people accurately defined as atheist will end up having people assuming more about their beliefs.

Apart from the "then it's incorrect to say there is more to it", this is an accurate observation. However, that is simply how life and language work. You have to add context to anything to get extra information.

The observation above could just as fairly be reversed to say:

reversal of Dades quote wrote:

What I mean is as long as someone who positively believes there are no gods is an atheist, then it's incorrect to say there is less to it. Otherwise people accurately defined as atheist will end up having people assuming less about their beliefs.

(As an aside, I think the distinction between 'lacking belief' and 'believing not' is more illusory than it seems, and that it is more about how people express their beliefs than the content of their beliefs, but that is a discussion for another day.)

Dades wrote: »

Regarding the baby thing, it's simply a rational approach. It's as ridiculous to apply labels such as "atheist" to animate (or indeed inanimate) objects that cannot conceptualise what it is they are supposed to lack belief in, as it it would be apply terms like "vegetarian".

I completely agree with this. However, we have to convince people of its correctness by rational argument. We cannot simply define our way to victory in the discussion.

King Mob · 01-01-2013 12:50pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Insisting that the word atheism has only one meaning is not only inaccurate, it is futile. It is trying to apply dogma to reality. You can certainly promote your personally preferred meaning, and try to get more people to use it, so that it gradually has more influence in discourse, but you cannot insist that your preferred meaning is “the” meaning “no more, no less.”

But you disregard all of your above arguments in respect to theism, which only means a belief in a god, thus can be used to describe a common factor of all religious people.
If this is not the cause, how could both Catholics and Muslims and ancient eygptians all be theists?

Atheism is the same and you have not explained why it is different while ignoring entirely the points I have made to show that it is the same.
The only accurate way to use the atheism that keeps it an inclusive, descriptive and concise definition, is to use to to describe the common factor for all those who are atheists, which is a lack of a positive belief in a god.

There is no other common factor between atheists and if you don't believe it is, then there is no reason to group different things together.

Do you believe that it is not a common factor between atheists?
If it's not that, what is it?

Michael Nugent · 01-01-2013 1:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

But you disregard all of your above arguments in respect to theism, which only means a belief in a god, thus can be used to describe a common factor of all religious people.
If this is not the cause, how could both Catholics and Muslims and ancient eygptians all be theists?

Atheism is the same and you have not explained why it is different while ignoring entirely the points I have made to show that it is the same.

Again, you are ignoring reality. The word atheism has more than one meaning. That’s not an opinion of mine, it is an observation of reality.

Even if I was being inconsistent in discussing atheism and theism (which I do not believe I am) that still would not change the reality that the word atheism has more than one meaning.

The word theism also has more than one meaning.

It can mean generally belief in any god.
It can mean belief in a specific kind of god, but not in others.
It can mean belief in gods like Yahweh and Allah, but not in gods like the Greek or Norse gods.
It can mean belief in only one god, but not in others.

Ralph Cudworth, who is ascribed as first using it said that they are "strictly and properly called Theists, who affirm, that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things"

Today, different people attach different meanings to the word theism (as well as Cudworth’s one). As with the word atheism, it all depends on context. There is no one meaning that is “the” “correct” meaning of the word theism.

King Mob wrote: »

The only accurate way to use the atheism that keeps it an inclusive, descriptive and concise definition, is to use to to describe the common factor for all those who are atheists, which is a lack of a positive belief in a god.

There is no other common factor between atheists and if you don't believe it is, then there is no reason to group different things together.

Do you believe that it is not a common factor between atheists?
If it's not that, what is it?

That’s not how language works. Usage determines meaning, not common factors. There is no “only” accurate way to use the word.

If you want to use the standard of “inclusive, descriptive and concise” I suggest something like “atheism can be described as either believing there are no gods, or not believing there are gods” would be a more reasonable starting point than "lack of belief in gods, no more, no less".

King Mob · 01-01-2013 1:27pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The word theism also has more than one meaning.
It can mean generally belief in any god.

It can mean belief in a specific kind of god, but not in others.

It can mean belief in gods like Yahweh and Allah, but not in gods like the Greek or Norse gods.

It can mean belief in only one god, but not in others.

Or to put it more concisely, theism is a positive belief in at least one god.
Which is a common factor in all of those options.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you want to use the standard of “inclusive, descriptive and concise” I suggest something like “atheism can be described as either believing there are no gods, or not believing there are gods” would be a more reasonable starting point than "lack of belief in gods, no more, no less".

But that definition isn't inclusive by you own admission. Firstly it excludes other versions of atheism besides those two, such as those who have never been exposed to the concept of a god. And secondly you have stated that that you believe those two positions are the same thing.
You are the one declaring that there is only one true type of atheism, and it's not the type of atheism I ascribe to.

However mine is more concise and descriptive and allows for other forms of atheism, just as theism includes so many religions.

Does a person who positively believes that there are no gods lack a positive belief that gods exist? Yes or no?
Does a person who has never been exposed to the concept of a god lack a positive belief that gods exist? Yes or no?
Does a person who lack a positive belief in God lack a lack a positive belief in God? Yes or no?

Michael Nugent · 01-01-2013 1:46pm

King Mob wrote: »

Or to put it more concisely, theism is a positive belief in at least one god.
Which is a common factor in all of those options.

Look, we're just going round in circles now.

The word atheism has more than one meaning. That's an observation of reality.

You can talk about common factors all you want, but that is not what determines the meaning of a word.

King Mob wrote: »

But that definition isn't inclusive by you own admission. Firstly it excludes other versions of atheism besides those two, such as those who have never been exposed to the concept of a god. And secondly you have stated that that you believe those two positions are the same thing.
You are the one declaring that there is only one true type of atheism, and it's not the type of atheism I ascribe to.

However mine is more concise and descriptive and allows for other forms of atheism, just as theism includes so many religions.

You're right, it isn't perfect. I said it was a better starting point for a personal preference of a definition, based on the criteria you put forward.

It is clearly more inclusive and descriptive to say "either, or" than it is to say "this, only".

Either version is concise enough to be functionally concise.

King Mob wrote: »

Does a person who positively believes that there are no gods lack a positive belief that gods exist? Yes or no?
Does a person who has never been exposed to the concept of a god lack a positive belief that gods exist? Yes or no?
Does a person who lack a positive belief in God lack a lack a positive belief in God? Yes or no?

Assuming you are talking about personally preferred meanings of the word, I wouldn't use those criteria. I would use criteria that are more inclusive and descriptive, and that try to capture the extent of the nature and scope of the way people use the word.

King Mob · 01-01-2013 1:55pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The word atheism has more than one meaning. That's an observation of reality.

And meanings can be wrong and inaccurate. There being other inaccurate definitions does not exclude that there is an accurate one.

If I defined atheist as those people who never ate ducks, would that be an accurate description?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You can talk about common factors all you want, but that is not what defines the meaning of a word.

It's how the define groups. It's also how we define theism.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You're right, it isn't perfect. I said it was a better starting point for a personal preference of a definition, based on the criteria you put forward.

It is clearly more inclusive and descriptive to say "either, or" than it is to say "this, only".

Either version is concise enough to be functionally concise.

But it only includes one form of atheism and actively excludes others.
I guess there must be many definitions of the word inclusive as well.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Assuming you are talking about personally preferred meanings of the word, I wouldn't use those criteria. I would use criteria that are more inclusive and descriptive, and that try to capture the extent of the nature and scope of the way people use the word.

They were yes or no questions, why are you dodging them?

The answer to all of them is yes, the lack of a belief in a god is common to all of those different beliefs.
Just as theism can describe belief in a specific kind of god, but not in others or belief in gods like Yahweh and Allah, but not in gods like the Greek or Norse gods as theism is the belief in at least one god.

The only thing you can say about all of the atheists who post on this thread is that they *at least* lack a belief in god.

I honest don't understand your objection to this fact, or this definition, or why you need to dodge and avoid questions.

Michael Nugent · 01-01-2013 2:02pm

At this stage, any answer I give would be essentially repeating the previous comments I have made, which I already know you don't agree with.

I'm going to give it a break, and I might come back to it later.

King Mob · 01-01-2013 2:09pm

Michael Nugent wrote: »

At this stage, any answer I give would be essentially repeating the previous comments I have made, which I already know you don't agree with.

I'm going to give it a break, and I might come back to it later.

Just a thought, you could try answering questions and addressing the points I am making instead of talking past me.

Are all meanings held by people accurate?

How exactly do we define groups of things if not by common factors, as you already do with theism?

How can you say your quicky definition of atheism is inclusive when it only includes one form of atheism and expressly excludes others?

Is a lack of a positive belief a common factor to the forms of atheism listed? Yes or no?

Can you provide any other factors that are common to all atheists?

martingriff · 01-01-2013 6:54pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Indeed, Stalin's extremism would have as much to do with his religious beliefs as his preference or lack thereof for meat. Unlike the Ugandan laws being brought in to have people killed for their sexuality which is steeped in the same religious book you follow. There might be extremism in both camps but where extreme atheism might go as far as suggesting people shouldn't teach their religious beliefs as true to their children it is not anything like the extremism we see from religious groups so it's a bit underhanded to simply write off extremism as unaffected by religious belief. It also still doesn't solve the problem your ideology that we shouldn't debate each others beliefs leaves us with in the face of extremists.

Christianity want people to kill people due to there sexuality where?

martingriff · 01-01-2013 6:58pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't think it is possible to publicly disagree with someone, or say that they are wrong, without demeaning them?

I do think that you can have a conversation with someone about beliefs without demeaning them of course we have been doing it right in this thread. Its the actions and the what is been said is the point. I say that for all sides

Bannasidhe · 01-01-2013 7:32pm

martingriff wrote: »

Christianity want people to kill people due to there sexuality where?

Uganda.

martingriff · 01-01-2013 8:50pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Uganda.

That be the country not Christianity. There wrapped version of it

Bannasidhe · 01-01-2013 9:18pm

martingriff wrote: »

That be the country not Christianity. There wrapped version of it

Why don't you do a spot of research then get back to us on the motivation behind the 'Kill the Gays Bill.'?

Sarky · 01-01-2013 9:59pm

Ah, the Ugandans just aren't TRUE Christians. Christianity isn't actually on the rise.

martingriff · 01-01-2013 11:59pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why don't you do a spot of research then get back to us on the motivation behind the 'Kill the Gays Bill.'?

I know why they say they are doing it and it is a extremists view they hold which I and many many Christians do not follow. By the way here in "my book" as you called it does it say to kill homosexuals

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 12:08am

martingriff wrote: »

I know why they say they are doing it and it is a extremists view they hold which I and many many Christians do not follow. By the way here in "my book" as you called it does it say to kill homosexuals

Given the wide range of views espoused by those who insist they are 'Christians' it is hard for an outsider to be aware of exactly what a particular poster means by the term - particularly since you are all reading from the same hymn book as it were.

Who are you to decide what constitutes a 'Christian'? Surely those 'extremists' as you call them are as entitled as you to claim the title of 'Christian'? Indeed, they would most likely say it is you who are incorrect...

Perhaps before debating whether or not Atheists have closed minds Christianity and Christians would be better employed in putting their own house in order and agreeing what you all mean when you say you are Christian.

As Don Quixote so beautifully put it

A further counsel bear in mind:
If that thy roof be made of glass,
It shows small wit to pick up stones
To pelt the people as they pass.

martingriff · 02-01-2013 8:52am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given the wide range of views espoused by those who insist they are 'Christians' it is hard for an outsider to be aware of exactly what a particular poster means by the term - particularly since you are all reading from the same hymn book as it were.

Who are you to decide what constitutes a 'Christian'? Surely those 'extremists' as you call them are as entitled as you to claim the title of 'Christian'? Indeed, they would most likely say it is you who are incorrect...

Perhaps before debating whether or not Atheists have closed minds Christianity and Christians would be better employed in putting their own house in order and agreeing what you all mean when you say you are Christian.

As Don Quixote so beautifully put it

If you do not know what a Christian is well there is a great thing called Google you might have heard about it.
Secondly They can call themselves christian all they want in there views they are.

Thirdly and you can check this up and would had read it if you read the whole thread. I said the atheism is as closed minded as much as any belief system is as we all have our beliefs and we stick to them.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 11:28am

martingriff wrote: »

If you do not know what a Christian is well there is a great thing called Google you might have heard about it.
Secondly They can call themselves christian all they want in there views they are.

Thirdly and you can check this up and would had read it if you read the whole thread. I said the atheism is as closed minded as much as any belief system is as we all have our beliefs and we stick to them.

How very passive aggressive and utterly fails to acknowledge that there is not - and never was - a unified and mutually agreed definition of what it means to be Christian bar belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Here is a handy illustration of the major branches:

Yes, they can call themselves Christian and have as much right to do so as you do and the term is as valid for them as it is for you. The fact that you do not like their interpretation is beside the point.

The fact is that Christians are advocating the execution of people because of their sexual orientation. You may not like that, you may not agree with it - but they are your coreligionists.

I have read the whole thread. I always do.

If your interpretation of the term 'closed minded' is when people insist on verifiable evidence and demonstrable proof before deciding what to believe to be true then it seems to me that it is not only the term 'Christian' that has widely varying and often conflicting meaning in the religious mindset.

Dades · 02-01-2013 11:49am

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Again, you are ignoring reality. The word atheism has more than one meaning. That’s not an opinion of mine, it is an observation of reality.

King Mob wrote: »

And meanings can be wrong and inaccurate. There being other inaccurate definitions does not exclude that there is an accurate one.

I think this is a key point.

That people hold to different interpretations of a word doesn't mean they are valid. Especially when often these interpretations are formed - consciously or not - in pursuit of an agenda.

Michael, where we differ is that you seem content to allow, or perhaps even embrace a change in people's perception of what "atheist" means, whereas many of us on this forum have for years exhaustively tried to correct people's misuse of the term. Why? Because their misuse of the term is consistently wielded as a weapon, used to generalise and suggest shared views amongst posters; to imply a hivemind where none exists.

Lastly, it's not lost on me that you head up an organisation whose name has been talked about at length here, specifically with regard to how it *may* cause people to attribute to atheists worldviews (or policy stances) that they do not subscribe to. There's a correlation here that can't be ignored.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you want to use the standard of “inclusive, descriptive and concise” I suggest something like “atheism can be described as either believing there are no gods, or not believing there are gods” would be a more reasonable starting point than "lack of belief in gods, no more, no less".

Agreed! I see this as a good starting (and end point) of a defintion.

I've always maintained that distinction was unnecessary,

HHobo · 02-01-2013 11:49am

I don't know if other responders have already explained this, if they have please feel free to ignore.

Gnostic/Agnostic. Knowing/not knowing.

Theist/Atheist. Believing/not believing.

I would contend that it is impossible to choose to believe. Even if I wanted to, I can't make my self believe something I just don't believe. I don't see any jumping the gun in that. Claiming absolute certainty is not a reasonable position but then that is true of almost any claim.

On the jumping the gun issue: Why would you think this is even something that bears consideration? What makes the God hypothesis so plausible that we should be so cautious about dismissing it. We don't extend that courtesy to any other unevidenced claim.

Given also that every God ever invented, and there have been many, are casually dismissed by you and everyone else (for most theist, the list of dismissed Gods include all the contemporary Gods of other cultures); why is the most recent reincarnation of this idea worthy?
Based on the evidence, Zeus and Athene are actually more plausible Gods than the Christian one as the character of these former is consistant with what we see in the world, not so the latter.

HHobo · 02-01-2013 11:52am

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The word atheism has more than one meaning.

Can you provide examples of what you think can be described as "Atheism" that isn't just a lack of theism?

McG · 02-01-2013 12:10pm

martingriff wrote: »

I know why they say they are doing it and it is a extremists view they hold which I and many many Christians do not follow. By the way here in "my book" as you called it does it say to kill homosexuals

Yes, it does as many interpret it:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

Ignorant nonsense of course but that's what many "Christians" believe.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 12:14pm

Dades wrote: »

I think this is a key point.

That people hold to different interpretations of a word doesn't mean they are valid. Especially when often these interpretations are formed - consciously or not - in pursuit of an agenda.

Michael, where we differ is that you seem content to allow, or perhaps even embrace a change in people's perception of what "atheist" means, whereas many of us on this forum have for years exhaustively tried to correct people's misuse of the term. Why? Because their misuse of the term is consistently wielded as a weapon, used to generalise and suggest shared views amongst posters; to imply a hivemind where none exists.

Lastly, it's not lost on me that you head up an organisation whose name has been talked about at length here, specifically with regard to how it *may* cause people to attribute to atheists worldviews (or policy stances) that they do not subscribe to. There's a correlation here that can't be ignored.

Agreed! I see this as a good starting (and end point) of a defintion.

I agree with you Dades.

I cannot help but notice in light of my discussion with martingriff re: meaning of term 'Christianity' a similarity with what Michael seems to be suggesting - that 'atheist' is a broad term encompassing a wide variety of meanings. I profoundly disagree with that interpretation.

For me, when I say I am an Atheist I mean I do not believe in the existence of a God/Gods (perhaps I should say Gnostic Atheist

). That is it - nothing more, nothing less.
It does not mean I subscribe to any particular political/social ideology or that I share any other point of view with my fellow non-believers.

I also happen to be a Socialist - but I know there are Atheists posting here who are Libertarian, Right Wing etc etc. I am not a socialist because I am an Atheist or vice versa. Both have been informed by my life experiences but I could equally be one without being the other.

As a lesbian I naturally hold certain views on social inclusion and equality - yet, there are Atheist posters here who are against, for example, gay couples being allowed to adopt. As a mother one can imagine how I view pronouncements about Man + Woman in a marriage being so vital to proper child rearing that all other forms of the family unit should be legally discouraged. It makes no difference to me if the person spouting what I view as narrow - minded bigoted nonsense believes in a God or not. I will still take them to task.

The thread on gun control is a perfect example of the diversity of opinion among us atheists and any attempt to broaden that term to attempt to make it some blanket 'if you tick all of these boxes you are...' I find disturbing.

To me, Atheism means one ticked one specific box out of a choice of two - there is only one relevant question:
Do you believe in the existence of God/Gods - tick 'Yes' = Theist. Tick 'No' = Atheist.
Everything beyond that is down to individual choice.

I do hate being shoehorned into a pigeonhole to suit other people's agenda and I resent any attempt to impose any form of atheist 'party whip'. :mad:

McG · 02-01-2013 12:21pm

On the whole definition of atheism, I think it would benefit discussion to try stick to the most widely used (and attempt to correct other definitions). For me that's: The lack of belief in any god(s). If I'm wrong on that I'm happy to be corrected but having/using multiple definitions doesn't help.

The word agnostic should also be corrected when incorrectly used.

It only harms understanding to have people using words with their own made up definitions.

HHobo · 02-01-2013 12:23pm

Well said. I find all this talk about Atheism being more than just a lack of belief in Gods is mostly by people who are essentially bored with talking about this form of atheism and are trying to pin too much of their identity to this particular aspect of themselves.

I am willing to listen to an argument to the contrary but any I have so far heard on this idea so far have been dramatically poor.

martingriff · 02-01-2013 1:40pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree with you Dades.

I cannot help but notice in light of my discussion with martingriff re: meaning of term 'Christianity' a similarity with what Michael seems to be suggesting - that 'atheist' is a broad term encompassing a wide variety of meanings. I profoundly disagree with that interpretation.

For me, when I say I am an Atheist I mean I do not believe in the existence of a God/Gods (perhaps I should say Gnostic Atheist ). That is it - nothing more, nothing less.
It does not mean I subscribe to any particular political/social ideology or that I share any other point of view with my fellow non-believers.

I also happen to be a Socialist - but I know there are Atheists posting here who are Libertarian, Right Wing etc etc. I am not a socialist because I am an Atheist or vice versa. Both have been informed by my life experiences but I could equally be one without being the other.

As a lesbian I naturally hold certain views on social inclusion and equality - yet, there are Atheist posters here who are against, for example, gay couples being allowed to adopt. As a mother one can imagine how I view pronouncements about Man + Woman in a marriage being so vital to proper child rearing that all other forms of the family unit should be legally discouraged. It makes no difference to me if the person spouting what I view as narrow - minded bigoted nonsense believes in a God or not. I will still take them to task.

The thread on gun control is a perfect example of the diversity of opinion among us atheists and any attempt to broaden that term to attempt to make it some blanket 'if you tick all of these boxes you are...' I find disturbing.

To me, Atheism means one ticked one specific box out of a choice of two - there is only one relevant question:
Do you believe in the existence of God/Gods - tick 'Yes' = Theist. Tick 'No' = Atheist.
Everything beyond that is down to individual choice.

I do hate being shoehorned into a pigeonhole to suit other people's agenda and I resent any attempt to impose any form of atheist 'party whip'. :mad:

Thats fair enough and I think when we were talking I may have misinterped your definition to mean what it was not which I now would like to correct

martingriff · 02-01-2013 1:44pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How very passive aggressive and utterly fails to acknowledge that there is not - and never was - a unified and mutually agreed definition of what it means to be Christian bar belief in Jesus as the Messiah.

Here is a handy illustration of the major branches:

Yes, they can call themselves Christian and have as much right to do so as you do and the term is as valid for them as it is for you. The fact that you do not like their interpretation is beside the point.

The fact is that Christians are advocating the execution of people because of their sexual orientation. You may not like that, you may not agree with it - but they are your coreligionists.

I have read the whole thread. I always do.

If your interpretation of the term 'closed minded' is when people insist on verifiable evidence and demonstrable proof before deciding what to believe to be true then it seems to me that it is not only the term 'Christian' that has widely varying and often conflicting meaning in the religious mindset.

Never said they could not if I did please point it out so I may correct it. I call it extrimist from my point of view and also in the views of a lot of other people who call them christians.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 1:49pm

martingriff wrote: »

Thats fair enough and I think when we were talking I may have misinterped your definition to mean what it was not which I now would like to correct

I thank you for that.

Perhaps it would be easier if Christians defined what they mean when they call themselves a Christian - I am a Roman Catholic/ Calvinist/ Evangelical/ Mormon/Methodist/Orthodox etc - it would help us outsiders to know which general range of interpretations of doctrine were are dealing with as at the moment statements which state 'as a Christian I believe..'/'all Christians believe...' tend to suggest that everyone who believes in Jesus is their Saviour agree on everything and we all know that simply isn't true.

Just as all Atheists do not agree on everything despite the attempts by some to suggest we do.

martingriff · 02-01-2013 1:59pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I thank you for that.

Perhaps it would be easier if Christians defined what they mean when they call themselves a Christian - I am a Roman Catholic/ Calvinist/ Evangelical/ Mormon/Methodist/Orthodox etc - it would help us outsiders to know which general range of interpretations of doctrine were are dealing with as at the moment statements which state 'as a Christian I believe..'/'all Christians believe...' tend to suggest that everyone who believes in Jesus is their Saviour agree on everything and we all know that simply isn't true.

Just as all Atheists do not agree on everything despite the attempts by some to suggest we do.

Its down to interpetations of the bible and what people take out of it Take the Old Testament some may say that was mostly metaphoric and all rules were rules of land for people who were unlearned and the New Testament was what God really wanted people to live. While there are other who say unless Jesus specifically says about laws in the Old Testament then they still stand eg. why people have different views to homosexuality etc.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 2:25pm

martingriff wrote: »

Its down to interpetations of the bible and what people take out of it Take the Old Testament some may say that was mostly metaphoric and all rules were rules of land for people who were unlearned and the New Testament was what God really wanted people to live. While there are other who say unless Jesus specifically says about laws in the Old Testament then they still stand eg. why people have different views to homosexuality etc.

Oh I understand that.

Due to my line of work I am much more conversant with the differences between the various Christian denominations than most people.

This is why I find it frustrating when someone states with absolute certainty that all Christians believe x/y/z when the reality is that the only unifying factor is belief in the divinity of Jesus - even the Bible is viewed in different ways by different denominations, indeed many Roman Catholics have never read it and do not even own a copy .

When you say you are a Christian - how do we know if you are a Fred Phelps type of Christian or a Frances of Assisi type of Christian or a John Calvin Type of Christian or an Archbishop Oscar Ramirez type of Christian or a Desmond Tutu type of Christian or a Rebecca Kadaga type of Christian?

You all call yourselves Christian - and some of you are advocating the execution of people just because they are homosexual. Therefore it is factually correct to say that Christians are working towards a situation where people could be killed for being Gay. I never said all Christian were...

robindch · 02-01-2013 3:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

[...] the reality is that the only unifying factor is belief in the divinity of Jesus [...]

And even on that lonely point, not all christians were/are able to agree. I seem to remember that at least one of the gnostic gospels -- was it Thomas' one? -- claimed that Jesus wasn't a god.

I think it would be fairer to say that one of the major unifying themes in the four gospels that were chosen as canonical in the early fourth century, is that Jesus was a god.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 4:38pm

robindch wrote: »

And even on that lonely point, not all christians were/are able to agree. I seem to remember that at least one of the gnostic gospels -- was it Thomas' one? -- claimed that Jesus wasn't a god.

I think it would be fairer to say that one of the major unifying themes in the four gospels that were chosen as canonical in the early fourth century, is that Jesus was a god.

This is true.

I was trying to simplify it - I shall not be so sloppy again

.

Shall we be very naughty and discuss the Cather view of Jesus as God?

robindch · 02-01-2013 4:50pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Shall we be very naughty and discuss the Cather view of Jesus as God?

Ladies first!

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 5:12pm

robindch wrote: »

Ladies first!

Surprisingly this article, written from a Catholic perspective, isn't too biased
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm

But, what it fails to explore in it's discussion of Dualism and the belief that the 'good' God existed only in the spiritual realm while the 'bad' God was responsible for the creation of the material/physical realm which (to simplify it -my bad) meant that the soul was enticed into the 'evil' physical world and needed to surpass the physical to attain spiritual perfection -not dissimilar to some aspects of Buddhism and the quest for Nirvana.

The 'Good' spiritual God did not interfere in the physical world in any way, it was the sole domain of the 'Bad' material God. Once a soul was 'trapped' in the material it had to find it's own path to spiritual by purifying itself of physical needs and desires.

This brings us to Jesus and his physicality.

Unsurprisingly, many Cathar theologians questioned whether Jesus was indeed a representative of the 'good' God as that aspect of the Duality was purely spiritual and existed completely outside the material so Jesus' physical manifestation meant he owed his origins to the 'bad' God.
By being a physical presence Jesus was therefore as aspect of the 'Bad' God - not the 'Good' God...

Over to you Sir Robin...

mickrock · 02-01-2013 8:31pm

Yes, atheism is a close minded standpoint.

Most atheists seem to reject the idea of a creative intelligence because they find the notion unpalatable (often because of the influence of organised religion).

Rejecting an idea because it's unpalatable and conflicts with the wordview you feel comfortable with would indicate close mindedness.

Bannasidhe · 02-01-2013 8:34pm

mickrock wrote: »

Yes, atheism is a close minded standpoint.

Most atheists seem to reject the idea of a creative intelligence because they find the notion unpalatable (often because of the influence of organised religion).

Rejecting an idea because it's unpalatable and conflicts with the wordview you feel comfortable with would indicate close mindedness.

As opposed to believing something for which there is not a shred of evidence because it makes one feel less alone in the big bad universe?
One assumes these Minds are so open that all ability for critical analysis had poured out.

mickrock · 02-01-2013 8:45pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As opposed to believing something for which there is not a shred of evidence

Do you believe in abiogenesis?

There isn't a shred of evidence for it.

Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

Comments