Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.
I think this is a key point.And meanings can be wrong and inaccurate. There being other inaccurate definitions does not exclude that there is an accurate one.
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.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".
I've always maintained that distinction was unnecessary, 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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:0 -
-
-
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 correct0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
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? 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
James Marrow can suck my c**k
there are no athiests in foxholes
If his agruement was true , when not say " there are no motor mechanic's in foxholes"
He is talking hen
I've no idea if you're being serious or not, but this site shows the saying for the bunk it isIf you can read this, you're too close!
0
Advertisement