Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Owlswing on July 09, 2020, 02:31:59 PM
-
Considering the number of people murdered, massacred, quietly disposed of, tortured, maimed in the name of Christianity, in all its forms, would it not take a miracle for anti-theism NOT to exist!
-
Considering the number of people murdered, massacred, quietly disposed of, tortured, maimed in the name of Christianity, in all its forms, would it not take a miracle for anti-theism NOT to exist!
Christianity is not theism, Your description of Christianity is a caricature. Other Gods are available but YOU KNOW THAT don't you.
-
Your description of Christianity is a caricature.
Is it? Has Christianity, at various points, not been used to justify the murder, massacre, disenfranchisement, torture and maiming of various people around the world, in large- and small-scale incidents, and the widespread lack of interest from various populations in the conducting of those acts? Various wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Holocaust, Jim Crow era lynchings... I will quite happily accept that these are not in any way representative of your take on what Christianity should be, but the problem is that there is no definitive 'Christianity', there's just the manifestation of the behaviour of those who claim to do what they do in the name of that god.
Other Gods are available but YOU KNOW THAT don't you.
Are they, though? Are they really? Other religions are certainly available, yes. Other gods? Or, indeed, any...
O.
-
Is it? Has Christianity, at various points, not been used to justify the murder, massacre, disenfranchisement, torture and maiming of various people around the world, in large- and small-scale incidents, and the widespread lack of interest from various populations in the conducting of those acts? Various wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Holocaust, Jim Crow era lynchings... I will quite happily accept that these are not in any way representative of your take on what Christianity should be, but the problem is that there is no definitive 'Christianity', there's just the manifestation of the behaviour of those who claim to do what they do in the name of that god.
I'm looking at these and asking myself could they have happened if Christianity had not existed and I'm getting a resounding yes, they could.
Was Christianity instrumental in moderating that system of official abuse that was Rome. Yes, it was....And yet we have a New Atheist A.Grayling bleating that the cultural achievements of the Glory that was Rome was destroyed by Christianity.
Such are the people you've allowed yourself to be whipped into a frenzy by.
You have a caricature view of Christianity too.
-
Was Christianity instrumental in moderating that system of official abuse that was Rome? Yes, it was...And yet we have a New Atheist A.Grayling bleating that the cultural achievements of the Glory that was Rome was destroyed by Christianity
You are surely joking! The Christian Church replaced the dictatorship of the Emperors of Rome with the dictatorship of the Popes!
OH, to start with, in the beginning, they were not called Popes but that is what the heads of the ROMAN Catholic church became, just as big a bunch of murderous bastards as the Caesars and ruling from the same city.
The crowned heads of Europe were subservient to the Popes for centuries, they did nothing without the Pope's approval or Orders.
-
You are surely joking! The Christian Church replaced the dictatorship of the Emperors of Rome with the dictatorship of the Popes!
OH, to start with, in the beginning, they were not called Popes but that is what the heads of the ROMAN Catholic church became, just as big a bunch of murderous bastards as the Caesars and ruling from the same city.
The crowned heads of Europe were subservient to the Popes for centuries,
I think an awful lot of dynastic history occurred irrespective of the popes. Religion was never very big in England except perhaps the Seventeenth century they did nothing without the Pope's approval or Orders.
Canterbury recently celebrated an important anniversary of the killing of Becket by Henry 2nd so what you say isn't true.
While Popes were often corrupt they never had the personal power of the Emperors also Abuse of men and women rife in Rome. I don't recall the Popes having Gladiators and the like.
-
I think an awful lot of dynastic history occurred irrespective of the popes. Religion was never very big in England except perhaps the Seventeenth century Canterbury recently celebrated an important anniversary of the killing of Becket by Henry 2nd so what you say isn't true.
While Popes were often corrupt they never had the personal power of the Emperors also Abuse of men and women rife in Rome. I don't recall the Popes having Gladiators and the like.
No, they had the torture chambers of the Inquisition!
-
No, they had the torture chambers of the Inquisition!
Indeed they did, It wasn't mass entertainment though.
-
Indeed they did, It wasn't mass entertainment though.
It was if you were an Inquisitor!
-
Vlad,
Indeed they did, It wasn't mass entertainment though.
So that's all right then...must have been so comforting for the brutally tortured to know they weren't part of a performance.
-
Considering the number of people murdered, massacred, quietly disposed of, tortured, maimed in the name of Christianity, in all its forms, would it not take a miracle for anti-theism NOT to exist!
Of course, officially atheistical countries, such as North Korea, are earthly paradises. All the things you mention are just human nature, and will happen anywhere, in the name of whatever the prevailing ideology is. Otoh, Christianity pretty much invented the nursing profession; modern representative democracy arose exclusively in Christian countries; Christian countries were the first to abolish slavery; until the secular welfare state arrived, the welfare state was the church; and there are, and have been for centuries, Christian charities doing a huge amount of good.
-
Vlad,
So that's all right then...must have been so comforting for the brutally tortured to know they weren't part of a performance.
No it isn't but torture and violent death as cultural adhesive is a sure sign of cultural depravity aka The glory that was Rome.
Christianity helped overturn that.
-
No it isn't but torture and violent death as cultural adhesive is a sure sign of cultural depravity aka The glory that was Rome.
Christianity helped overturn that.
So why were the wrong types of Christians being regularly burned at the stake by other Christians in the 16th century (and don't forget to watch out for the Spanish Inquisition, whom nobody expects)?
-
I'm looking at these and asking myself could they have happened if Christianity had not existed and I'm getting a resounding yes, they could.
Right. But did they happen there, then, because of Christianity? Yes.
Was Christianity instrumental in moderating that system of official abuse that was Rome.
And was it equally as instrumental in implementing the gross corruption that was the Papal authority of the 15th to 17th centuries? Was it equally as instrumental in the bloodletting of the Crusades? Was it equally as instrumental in the systematic attempts to subjugate and harass the Jewish people that culminated in the Holocaust?
And yet we have a New Atheist A.Grayling bleating that the cultural achievements of the Glory that was Rome was destroyed by Christianity.
Suggesting that, perhaps, the Christian era threw out the baby with the bathwater... Rome had undoubted failings from economic, cultural and ethical standpoints, but it was open in ways that the ensuing Christendom wasn't. You can bemoan what was lost and what was destroyed whilst accepting that there were valid reasons for it to occur and also whilst thinking that what replaced it wasn't that great either.
Such are the people you've allowed yourself to be whipped into a frenzy by.
No frenzy here - frenzied people do things like blow up buildings, like that incredibly long list of anti-theist suicide bombers...
You have a caricature view of Christianity too.
So you have said, yet you've not actually refuted what I've said, you've just agreed with me that it's not all bad.
O.
-
Of course, officially atheistical countries, such as North Korea, are earthly paradises.
That's sort of the point - totalitarian systems which tell you what you're supposed to think instead of inviting you to think are problematic. Whether it's legal - China up until recently, USSR, Malaysia - or cultural - US, the middle-East - systems which oblige you to conform to predetermined ways of thinking build internal pressure and that causes issues. That's why you can have countries which either don't take or don't enforce a stance - most of the Scandinavian countries, for instance - and they simply don't have these issues.
All the things you mention are just human nature, and will happen anywhere, in the name of whatever the prevailing ideology is.
Aren't religions, though, supposed to be moderating that human nature - and yet we see the countries that are best at rising above those baser instincts are typically the least religious.
Otoh, Christianity pretty much invented the nursing profession;
Nursing has emerged pretty much everywhere humanity has been - it existed before Christianity was a concept, it existed after the times of Jesus in place Christianity hadn't reached. The formal, professional western depiction is of Christian origin, yes, but that's because it emerged in an overwhelmingly Christian culture where Christian leadership laid claim to anything and everything - Nursing is much 'part of human nature' as the violence and bloodshed that you tried to liberate Christian philosophy from just a short paragraph ago.
modern representative democracy arose exclusively in Christian countries;
Yet democracy was a development that predated Christianity; Christianity implemented a misogynistic, racist, ableist democracy that post-Enlightenment rationalists have modified and updated. Modern western representative democracy emerged out of earlier, Christian systems which themselves emerged from earlier pagan systems.
Christian countries were the first to abolish slavery;
And also amongst the last. And amongst those the implemented it most severely, most widely, and on an industrial scale.
until the secular welfare state arrived, the welfare state was the church
Until the secular state arrived, the state was the church, and the wealth was the church, and the authority (and it was a jealous authority) was the church - there were no other options.
and there are, and have been for centuries, Christian charities doing a huge amount of good.
Undoubtedly. And there have been Christian organisations doing irreparable harm - the KKK. And there have been Christian organisations with a checkered track record - the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army. It's almost like 'Christianity' is no guarantee of anything except an attempt to accumulate power and authority and wealth and influence - when they are coupled with well-meaning people, that's fine, but when they fall into the hands of authoritarian racists, sexists, homophobes and the like it's an invitation for abuse, and the totalitarian nature of religion lends itself to that abuse spreading.
O.
-
Right. But did they happen there, then, because of Christianity? Yes.
And was it equally as instrumental in implementing the gross corruption that was the Papal authority of the 15th to 17th centuries? Was it equally as instrumental in the bloodletting of the Crusades? Was it equally as instrumental in the systematic attempts to subjugate and harass the Jewish people that culminated in the Holocaust?
Suggesting that, perhaps, the Christian era threw out the baby with the bathwater... Rome had undoubted failings from economic, cultural and ethical standpoints, but it was open in ways that the ensuing Christendom wasn't. You can bemoan what was lost and what was destroyed whilst accepting that there were valid reasons for it to occur and also whilst thinking that what replaced it wasn't that great either.
No frenzy here - frenzied people do things like blow up buildings, like that incredibly long list of anti-theist suicide bombers...
So you have said, yet you've not actually refuted what I've said, you've just agreed with me that it's not all bad.
O.
I would say they happened because of a lack of faith. Certainly a suspension of Jesus words "My kingdom is not of this world".
This is why theocracies never work.
But there is also dynastic ambition, National willy waving happening as well. Dont forget the Vatican did not have massive armies and people were moved by the will of a few kings and Lords.
This is why in the reformation the move was back to scripture and making that the benchmark. There are no armies of God in the NT merely the story of beleaguered Israelites and an early christianity existing precariously in a powerful and ruthless pagan empire. Out of this denominations sprang up religion becomes more personal. Work ethic then unfortunately a focus on material things both socially and philosophically.
-
I would say they happened because of a lack of faith.
Really? All those Catholic Germans lacked faith which made them take the purported enemies of their faith and attempt to exterminate them because they didn't believe hard enough?
Certainly a suspension of Jesus words "My kingdom is not of this world".
That's the part of the story that you consider important - they appear to have put their faith in other parts.
This is why theocracies never work.
Because there's nothing concrete or reliable in the stories on which to base your authoritarianism which leaves you at the mercy of whichever authoritarian makes it to the top... I'd agree, the coupling of inherent authoritarianism and a lack of any reliable information is a bad recipe.
But there is also dynastic ambition, National willy waving happening as well.
Humans have a tendency towards tribalism - religion feeds that, this is why so many nations have historically had official religions, the two go hand in hand.
Dont forget the Vatican did not have massive armies and people were moved by the will of a few kings and Lords.
The Vatican had money and political influence through the church to manipulate those kings and countries.
This is why in the reformation the move was back to scripture and making that the benchmark.
And from that we get the perfectly peacable and lovely protestant organisations like the KKK.
There are no armies of God in the NT merely the story of beleaguered Israelites and an early christianity existing precariously in a powerful and ruthless pagan empire.
They had to rewrite the Old Testament narrative because the armies they'd had were no longer - they adapted their tactics to suit their new situation, this wasn't a moral move to a more accurate depiction of god, it was a fading power starting theocratic guerilla-warfare philosophy because olden-times bombast had failed them.
Out of this denominations sprang up religion becomes more personal. Work ethic then unfortunately a focus on material things both socially and philosophically.
That it has failed to bring about a Utopia is not a killer blow, it's dealing with humanity; that it has been adopted and mingled into a culture where it promotes/has become associated with venality and material wealth may not be intrinsic but it suggests it's not robust enough to resist those influences.
However, the worst excesses of Christendom are not the protestant work ethic, nor the shift towards materialism that is arguably part of that feedback circle, it's the institutionalised dehumanising of the 'other', whether that other is (at different times and in different places) women, gays, Jews, other ethnicities... Religion is by its nature tribal and totalitarian, and that combination inevitably results in the persecution of others.
O.
-
That's sort of the point - totalitarian systems which tell you what you're supposed to think instead of inviting you to think are problematic. Whether it's legal - China up until recently, USSR, Malaysia - or cultural - US, the middle-East - systems which oblige you to conform to predetermined ways of thinking build internal pressure and that causes issues. That's why you can have countries which either don't take or don't enforce a stance - most of the Scandinavian countries, for instance - and they simply don't have these issues.
Aren't religions, though, supposed to be moderating that human nature - and yet we see the countries that are best at rising above those baser instincts are typically the least religious.
Nursing has emerged pretty much everywhere humanity has been - it existed before Christianity was a concept, it existed after the times of Jesus in place Christianity hadn't reached. The formal, professional western depiction is of Christian origin, yes, but that's because it emerged in an overwhelmingly Christian culture where Christian leadership laid claim to anything and everything - Nursing is much 'part of human nature' as the violence and bloodshed that you tried to liberate Christian philosophy from just a short paragraph ago.
Yet democracy was a development that predated Christianity; Christianity implemented a misogynistic, racist, ableist democracy that post-Enlightenment rationalists have modified and updated. Modern western representative democracy emerged out of earlier, Christian systems which themselves emerged from earlier pagan systems.
And also amongst the last. And amongst those the implemented it most severely, most widely, and on an industrial scale.
Until the secular state arrived, the state was the church, and the wealth was the church, and the authority (and it was a jealous authority) was the church - there were no other options.
Undoubtedly. And there have been Christian organisations doing irreparable harm - the KKK. And there have been Christian organisations with a checkered track record - the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army. It's almost like 'Christianity' is no guarantee of anything except an attempt to accumulate power and authority and wealth and influence - when they are coupled with well-meaning people, that's fine, but when they fall into the hands of authoritarian racists, sexists, homophobes and the like it's an invitation for abuse, and the totalitarian nature of religion lends itself to that abuse spreading.
O.
I get the feeling you are a type of person who conflated everything bad with Christianity.
I think McCawbers point is,all the vices you put down to christianity exist in humanity in there own right.
Secondly they have been lifted to a technological and industrial complex scale by what turn out to be atheistic regimes.
It reminds me when the atheists of Austin made a televised own goal not realising they'd got tied up in their own reason.
When challenged about the disparity between religious and atheist charity the atheist defence was that the church had been around longer and had clocked up more charity that way.
Well,they missed that night that the argument is a two edged sword. If atheists haven't had time to clock up the good things.....I think you know where I am going with this one.
-
I get the feeling you are a type of person who conflated everything bad with Christianity.
No, but I think believers have a tendency to put the good in Christians down to Christianity and the bad in Christians down to humanity, when their Christianity is as much a manifestation of their humanity as anything else. It's pitched as something to aspire to, but it just ends up being a validation of whatever they wanted in the first instance, but with the added problem of a totalitarian backing. When what they believe is peace and goodwill that's fine, but when what they believe is that the Jewish people must die it's a horror the likes of which we all hope never to see again.
I think McCawbers point is,all the vices you put down to christianity exist in humanity in there own right.
I quite accept that, but Christianity is touted as some sort of unique cure for this, and that's not proven to be the case at any point.
Secondly they have been lifted to a technological and industrial complex scale by what turn out to be atheistic regimes.
What have? Medicine? Food? Water? Nuclear weapons? Biocides? Deforestation?
It reminds me when the atheists of Austin made a televised own goal not realising they'd got tied up in their own reason.
When challenged about the disparity between religious and atheist charity the atheist defence was that the church had been around longer and had clocked up more charity that way.
Well,they missed that night that the argument is a two edged sword. If atheists haven't had time to clock up the good things.....I think you know where I am going with this one.
Atheism, though, doesn't pitch itself as somehow inuring humanity to the worst of humanity - Christianity does make the claim, and doesn't follow through with it. Atheism hasn't led to the worst of the acts of humanity - it hasn't stopped them either - but Christianity has been actively motivating in some horrors through history (and relatively recent history), Christianity continues to be a leading light in discrimination around the world, other religions have also played their part.
O.
-
No, but I think believers have a tendency to put the good in Christians down to Christianity and the bad in Christians down to humanity, when their Christianity is as much a manifestation of their humanity as anything else. It's pitched as something to aspire to, but it just ends up being a validation of whatever they wanted in the first instance, but with the added problem of a totalitarian backing. When what they believe is peace and goodwill that's fine, but when what they believe is that the Jewish people must die it's a horror the likes of which we all hope never to see again.
I quite accept that, but Christianity is touted as some sort of unique cure for this, and that's not proven to be the case at any point.
What have? Medicine? Food? Water? Nuclear weapons? Biocides? Deforestation?
Atheism, though, doesn't pitch itself as somehow inuring humanity to the worst of humanity - Christianity does make the claim, and doesn't follow through with it. Atheism hasn't led to the worst of the acts of humanity - it hasn't stopped them either - but Christianity has been actively motivating in some horrors through history (and relatively recent history), Christianity continues to be a leading light in discrimination around the world, other religions have also played their part.
O.
If as the Atheists of Austin are saying...is capable of charity. It is capable of everything else you are laying at religions door. No it hasn't yet flown planes into buildings but atheist regimes have carried out persecution torture and killing on a scale that makes Torquemada look like Santa.
-
If as the Atheists of Austin are saying...is capable of charity. It is capable of everything else you are laying at religions door. No it hasn't yet flown planes into buildings but atheist regimes have carried out persecution torture and killing on a scale that makes Torquemada look like Santa.
Russian regimes, but not BECAUSE they were Russian. Chinese regimes, but not BECAUSE they were Chinese. Atheist regimes...
Whereas, the Crusades were explicitly because the Crusaders were Christian, the Holocaust was specifically because the Christian Germans wanted to persecute the Jews...
Humans are capable of many things; atheism doesn't given them a warrant to do any of them. Religion not only gives them a warrant, it has an intrinsic tendency to extend that to a mandate, and then further to an obligation. Atheism can be discussed, there is no 'authority' intrinsic to atheism (to atheists perhaps, but that again is a facet of humanity rather than atheism), whereas there is an absolute authority at the root of Christianity. That totalitarian nature which is inherent to the Christian conceptualisation of god is what makes it so dangerous.
O.
-
If as the Atheists of Austin are saying...is capable of charity. It is capable of everything else you are laying at religions door. No, it hasn't yet flown planes into buildings but atheist regimes have carried out persecution torture and killing on a scale that makes Torquemada look like Santa.
So what you are saying is that because modern Islam is using torture and murder as a religious tool it was, and, presumably is, OK that Christianity could and did?
-
So what you are saying is that because modern Islam is using torture and murder as a religious tool it was, and, presumably is, OK that Christianity could and did?
No I'm saying that atheist regimes lifted torture persecution and killings to an industrial scale.
OK you can say Christianity is responsible for the same Islam was the same but by that interpretation we would have to say that previous to atheist regimes Pagan Rome perfected the art of torture killing and all manner of depravity to imperial levels.
-
Christianity is not theism, Your description of Christianity is a caricature. Other Gods are available but YOU KNOW THAT don't you.
Belief in Christianity has been responsible for many terrible crimes over the centuries. Even in this day and age Christian extremists have caused harm to other people. >:(
-
No I'm saying that atheist regimes lifted torture persecution and killings to an industrial scale.
Are you saying that they did it because they were atheist, though, because unless you are the 'atheist' bit is irrelevant.
O.
-
Are you saying that they did it because they were atheist, though, because unless you are the 'atheist' bit is irrelevant.
O.
I'm saying that if atheists think they can offer good things to humanity like charity,liberation, enlightenment, progressthe they can also inflict the bad stuff.
-
I'm saying that if atheists think they can offer good things to humanity like charity,liberation, enlightenment, progressthe they can also inflict the bad stuff.
And I'm not aware that anyone's saying that they can't or don't, but I am asking if you think any of that is comparably BECAUSE of atheism, as opposed to the situations I've described where people's actions were EXPLICITLY justified and motivated by their Christianity?
O.
-
And I'm not aware that anyone's saying that they can't or don't, but I am asking if you think any of that is comparably BECAUSE of atheism, as opposed to the situations I've described where people's actions were EXPLICITLY justified and motivated by their Christianity?
Explicit?, implicit? If atheists say that they can offer good things like charity, or that it is only when abrahamic faith is replaced by people becoming atheist that we can improve the lot of humanity then that is motivation by atheism. Ergo, if the Atheist community of Austin make an excuse that they haven't had time to chalk up as much giving as say the Catholics, then they haven't had the time to dish out the bad stuff.
-
Explicit?, implicit? If atheists say that they can offer good things like charity, or that it is only when abrahamic faith is replaced by people becoming atheist that we can improve the lot of humanity then that is motivation by atheism.
Do you have anyone making that claim? Of course atheists are capable of charity, everyone is capable of charity. I'd argue that it's as impossible to justify charity BECAUSE of atheism as it is to justify the systematic murder of millions of Soviet citizens BECAUSE of atheism.
By contrast, there's any number of people out their using their religion to justify charity, but also to justify homophobia and racism and sexism and nationalism and all sorts of other despicable issues.
So, again, atheists are exactly as capable of showing any behaviour you'd like to come up with as anyone else, but can you show why you think their atheism has anything to do with those behaviours?
Ergo, if the Atheist community of Austin make an excuse that they haven't had time to chalk up as much giving as say the Catholics, then they haven't had the time to dish out the bad stuff.
If you have issue with something someone else somewhere else has said take it up with them.
O.
-
Explicit?, implicit? If atheists say that they can offer good things like charity, or that it is only when Abrahamic faith is replaced by people becoming atheist that we can improve the lot of humanity then that is motivation by atheism. Ergo, if the Atheist Community of Austin make an excuse that they haven't had time to chalk up as much giving as say the Catholics, then they haven't had the time to dish out the bad stuff.
Considering that Christianity has had two thousand years to convince mankind that it is the best thing since long before sliced bread I would say that the fact that atheists and the adherents of all the non-Christian religions outnumber Christians by who-knows-how-many-to-one shows that they have been doing a pretty piss-poor job of it!
-
Considering that Christianity has had two thousand years to convince mankind that it is the best thing since long before sliced bread I would say that the fact that atheists and the adherents of all the non-Christian religions outnumber Christians by who-knows-how-many-to-one shows that they have been doing a pretty piss-poor job of it! Argumentum ad populum.
Do you have anyone making that claim?
Atheists of Austin defended atheist giving compared with Christian giving. Richard Dawkins foundation started or supported ''Atheist Giving'' Charity;
-
Atheists of Austin defended atheist giving compared with Christian giving.
Right. Were they alleging that atheists were giving because of their atheism?
Richard Dawkins foundation started or supported ''Atheist Giving'' Charity;
Yes, because they wanted to show that the claim 'atheists are uncharitable' was nonsense. Did they start or support charities BECAUSE of their atheism?
O.
-
Right. Were they alleging that atheists were giving because of their atheism?
Yes, That's what Atheist giving is. The Atheists of Austin were not only equating themselves with the Christians in terms of being a team involved in a competition, they even claimed it wasn't a level playing field.
-
Yes, That's what Atheist giving is.
No, it isn't. Atheist giving, if it's a thing at all, is people giving because they're charitable and pointing out to those who vilify them that being an atheist doesn't mean they're in any way prohibited or restricted from doing so. They don't give BECAUSE they're atheists, or DESPITE their atheism, they give because they're human - they sometime advertise that they've done it because of the way they're depicted by some believers.
When they set up explicitly atheist charities its' either for that purpose, or so that people have somewhere they can give where they know their donations won't clandestinely be used to support - even indirectly - religious movements that they don't agree with.
The Atheists of Austin were not only equating themselves with the Christians in terms of being a team involved in a competition, they even claimed it wasn't a level playing field.
Neither of which starts to suggest that their motivation for giving was their atheism - it doesn't even show that their motivation for advertising their charitable activity was atheism.
O.
-
No, it isn't. Atheist giving, if it's a thing at all, is people giving because they're charitable and pointing out to those who vilify them that being an atheist doesn't mean they're in any way prohibited or restricted from doing so.
eh? They don't give BECAUSE they're atheists, or DESPITE their atheism, they give because they're human
That'll be why it's atheist giving then - they sometime advertise that they've done it because of the way they're depicted by some believers.
So they want us to know this is atheist giving but that's purely the fault of Christians.......they made them do it.
O. Fucking Hell,
-
eh? That'll be why it's atheist giving then -
What is this 'atheist giving' that you've invented?
So they want us to know this is atheist giving but that's purely the fault of Christians.......they made them do it.
No, they did it because they're decent people. They advertise it because it turns out some religious people can be a bit judgy...
Still nothing on explaining how people might claim to be giving (or hurting or discriminating or indeed anything else) because of their atheism as a counter to how people do such things because of their religion?
O.
-
What is this 'atheist giving' that you've invented?
No, they did it because they're decent people. They advertise it because it turns out some religious people can be a bit judgy...
Still nothing on explaining how people might claim to be giving (or hurting or discriminating or indeed anything else) because of their atheism as a counter to how people do such things because of their religion?
O.
Atheist giving i believed changed their handle to something like non believers giving aid.
Had the Atheists of Austin started by saying there is no such thing as atheist giving it's humans giving. Then maybe you have a case but no they immediately made an excuse for why team atheism was behind the curve. Hey blame it on the christians after all the Atheists of Austin got flabby on a diet of Dumb Ass Fundamentalists.
I was just looking at a site which announced that the charity that collected the greatest amount in one year was an atheist charity.....whoopie....well done Atheists 1 Christians 0.
-
Atheist giving i believed changed their handle to something like non believers giving aid.
OK.
Had the Atheists of Austin started by saying there is no such thing as atheist giving it's humans giving. Then maybe you have a case but no they immediately made an excuse for why team atheism was behind the curve.
You've still not explained how you, or they if that's your thing - think that their charitable donations are a result of their atheism. Nor have you established that their advertising their charitable donations is a result of their atheism rather than a response to other people's view of their atheism.
Hey blame it on the christians after all the Atheists of Austin got flabby on a diet of Dumb Ass Fundamentalists.
Whether or not they had a point about who was giving and when is irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which is whether atheism is the motivator behind these behaviours in the same way that religion often is.
I was just looking at a site which announced that the charity that collected the greatest amount in one year was an atheist charity.....whoopie....well done Atheists 1 Christians 0.
Oooh, look, distraction Carnifex! http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/ (http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/)
O.
-
OK.
You've still not explained how you, or they if that's your thing - think that their charitable donations are a result of their atheism. Nor have you established that their advertising their charitable donations is a result of their atheism rather than a response to other people's view of their atheism.
Whether or not they had a point about who was giving and when is irrelevant to the point we were discussing, which is whether atheism is the motivator behind these behaviours in the same way that religion often is.
Oooh, look, distraction Carnifex! http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/ (http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/)
O.
Funny you mentioning atheists and charity.
My own searches just seem to be around 2010-2011. A description of what motivates atheist giving and how it isn't religious people giving is on Myers site Pharyngula for 2011.
Seems to me that the Golden age of atheist giving has long since passed and seems to coincide with the time New Atheism was ridin' high. I stand to be corrected of course.
-
Funny you mentioning atheists and charity.
My own searches just seem to be around 2010-2011. A description of what motivates atheist giving and how it isn't religious people giving is on Myers site Pharyngula for 2011.
Seems to me that the Golden age of atheist giving has long since passed and seems to coincide with the time New Atheism was ridin' high. I stand to be corrected of course.
If a prize was awarded to the person whose gibberish knew no bounds, you would win it fair and square. ;D
-
If
(z) a prize
(zz) was awarded
(zzz) to the person
(zzzz) whose gibberish
(zzzzz) knew no bounds,
(zzzzzz) you would win it fair and square. ;D
(zzzzzzzzzzzz)
-
(z) (zz) (zzz) (zzzz)(zzzzz)(zzzzzz)(zzzzzzzzzzzz)
I rest my case. ;D
-
I rest my case. ;D
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The normal reaction of everybody else on the entire Forum to the never-ending river of drivel and bull-shit of someone who cannot see that everyone else has been trying to tell him that he has, for ages, been talking complete and utter bollocks!
People far more knowledgable than I have explained in ways that even an incompetent debater like me can understand and he still writes acres of drivel.
I offer my thanks to Outrider for his erudition and my condolences for the way it has been dismissed in the usual cavalier Christian way with anything they don't like or choose not to believe.
-
The normal reaction of everybody else on the entire Forum to the never-ending river of drivel and bull-shit of someone who cannot see that everyone else has been trying to tell him that he has, for ages, been talking complete and utter bollocks!
Don't be too hard on yourself.
-
Don't be too hard on yourself.
Don't try and be something that you are not - a wit and comedian-
I say this knowing full well that it is going to be edited as a derail, something at which you are a true professional, but I shall be edited in the sure and certain knowledge that you started it because you consider yourself to be my intellectual superior,
You may well be, but on this thread and various others, you still talk bullshit and bollocks!
Arrogance will never take the place of intelligence and bullshit will never baffle brains - it might baffle me but there are at least four on here that leave you in their intellectual dust.
-
Funny you mentioning atheists and charity.
My own searches just seem to be around 2010-2011. A description of what motivates atheist giving and how it isn't religious people giving is on Myers site Pharyngula for 2011.
Seems to me that the Golden age of atheist giving has long since passed and seems to coincide with the time New Atheism was ridin' high. I stand to be corrected of course.
I don't see the bit in there which links the motivation of atheist givers to their atheism... still...
O.
-
I don't see the bit in there which links the motivation of atheist givers to their atheism... still...
O.
Tell me Outrider, was it atheism that motivated the atheist bus campaign or charity?....and if it was just a human act of charity, what anyone would do? how come atheism came into it?
Why label it as non believers giving?
-
Tell me Outrider, was it atheism that motivated the atheist bus campaign or charity?
Probably neither, but rather a sense of disquiet at the influence of the religious in the political sphere.
Why label it as non believers giving?
In response to assertions from certain religious people that, amongst other traits depicted as unwholesome, atheists were not generous or community minded.
O.
-
Considering the number of people murdered, massacred, quietly disposed of, tortured, maimed in the name of Christianity, in all its forms, would it not take a miracle for anti-theism NOT to exist!
Maybe. The same could be said of many things. Democracy, love, politics, money, land, power. Theism, including Christianity, is just another tool in the hands of mankind.
-
Maybe. The same could be said of many things. Democracy, love, politics, money, land, power. Theism, including Christianity, is just another tool in the hands of mankind.
However, it is the faithbeliefs which give any perpetrator of ill deeds something to blame- a God/pprophet/etc instead of us humans thus avoiding acknowledgement of where the responsibilities lie.
-
However, it is the faithbeliefs which give any perpetrator of ill deeds something to blame- a God/pprophet/etc instead of us humans thus avoiding acknowledgement of where the responsibilities lie.
Which does not make any difference to the dead.
-
Which does not make any difference to the dead.
Of course not and I do not think I implied that either.
-
Of course not and I do not think I implied that either.
It just seems that you pick out the actions of religious murderers as somehow different from those acting for other reasons.
-
It just seems that you pick out the actions of religious murderers as somehow different from those acting for other reasons.
No, murder is murder whoever is the murderer, but maybe some non-religious murderers realise that the responsibility for their actions is their own?
-
No, murder is murder whoever is the murderer, but maybe some non-religious murderers realise that the responsibility for their actions is their own?
I am sure lots of people who murder in the name of religion think the responsibility of their actions is their own, else why would some think that they will be rewarded for their actions.
-
However, it is the faithbeliefs which give any perpetrator of ill deeds something to blame- a God/pprophet/etc instead of us humans thus avoiding acknowledgement of where the responsibilities lie.
Which does not make any difference to the dead.
In as much as nothing makes any difference to the dead, sure, but if the blaming of the instigators was the motivation for the masses to do the killing it would certainly be possible that the dead wouldn't have died in vain.
-
It just seems that you pick out the actions of religious murderers as somehow different from those acting for other reasons.
Isn't it? Reason itself. You don't need a reason if God is on your side. Deus vult. If God wills it is a reason it certainly would be different than any other.
-
Isn't it? Reason itself. You don't need a reason if God is on your side. Deus vult. If God wills it is a reason it certainly would be different than any other.
Too much assumption in there for me. Define 'God' and demonstrate it. Without that your post is uninteresting .
-
In as much as nothing makes any difference to the dead, sure, but if the blaming of the instigators was the motivation for the masses to do the killing it would certainly be possible that the dead wouldn't have died in vain.
Sorry, not sure what you are trying to say here, could you expand?
-
I would say they happened because of a lack of faith. Certainly a suspension of Jesus words "My kingdom is not of this world".
This is why theocracies never work.
But there is also dynastic ambition, National willy waving happening as well. Dont forget the Vatican did not have massive armies and people were moved by the will of a few kings and Lords.
This is why in the reformation the move was back to scripture and making that the benchmark. There are no armies of God in the NT merely the story of beleaguered Israelites and an early christianity existing precariously in a powerful and ruthless pagan empire. Out of this denominations sprang up religion becomes more personal. Work ethic then unfortunately a focus on material things both socially and philosophically.
One thing for christianity is that people can say whatever they like about it and can draw cartoons etc without fear of retribution from any branch of the movement, so at least it can now continue being ignored, as it largely is in the UK, which provides the time needed to concentrate on dismantling its far to many privileges.
Have you managed to find any evidence that would support the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of your manual yet? (World fame and all that goes with it etc).
Have a good day Vlad, ippy.
-
Too much assumption in there for me. Define 'God' and demonstrate it. Without that your post is uninteresting .
A god is anyone or anything that is venerated. The Hebrew el and it's variations come from a root word meaning mighty. Eric Clapton is a god. The Bible refers to Moses, the judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz, Jesus, Jehovah, Satan, Molech, Baal, etc. as gods.
-
A god is anyone or anything that is venerated. The Hebrew el and it's variations come from a root word meaning mighty. Eric Clapton is a god. The Bible refers to Moses, the judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz, Jesus, Jehovah, Satan, Molech, Baal, etc. as gods.
i don't think that fits in with your use of Deus Vult. You seem to be using the term in different ways in different posts.
-
Sorry, not sure what you are trying to say here, could you expand?
Whether its dumping tea in the harbor dressed as Indians, 9/11 or 7/7 there is always an instigator who's motives for war are distorted to provoke the masses into doing their killing. So, Roosevelt wants to get into WWII, he arranges for the Japanese to attack. All American wars were false flag operations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw0-ASR4sr8
-
i don't think that fits in with your use of Deus Vult. You seem to be using the term in different ways in different posts.
Not really. Deus vult. God wills it. Rallying cry for the first crusade. God had nothing to do with it except for that he was used to justify the first crusade. The specific God in question isn't particularly relevant as long as the god being used is that of the people. The acronym for Gold or Guns, Oil and Drugs, for example. GOD. Typically GOD is what wars are fought for but you don't tell the soldiers that. You tell them something like "defend freedom and democracy!" or "God wills it!"
-
Whether its dumping tea in the harbor dressed as Indians, 9/11 or 7/7 there is always an instigator who's motives for war are distorted to provoke the masses into doing their killing. So, Roosevelt wants to get into WWII, he arranges for the Japanese to attack. All American wars were false flag operations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw0-ASR4sr8
I am still not seeing any clarity about what you are trying to say. And this just reads like a bunch of assertions.
ETA . Not really interested in random youtube videos which are not relevant to the thread.
-
I am still not seeing any clarity about what you are trying to say. And this just reads like a bunch of assertions.
Of course it's assertions. God is used to justify war rather than the actual cause of it.
-
Not really. Deus vult. God wills it. Rallying cry for the first crusade. God had nothing to do with it except for that he was used to justify the first crusade. The specific God in question isn't particularly relevant as long as the god being used is that of the people. The acronym for Gold or Guns, Oil and Drugs, for example. GOD. Typically GOD is what wars are fought for but you don't tell the soldiers that. You tell them something like "defend freedom and democracy!" or "God wills it!"
I think you then you are using the tern both as others understand it and then removing their understanding and submitting your own. If we are going to talk about the motivations of individuals then their definition cannot be just ignored.
-
Of course it's assertions. God is used to justify war rather than the actual cause of it.
I agree. But that has no relevance to your irrelevant remarks about false flags and US Wars. You are still making your original comment clear or relevant.
-
I think you then you are using the tern both as others understand it and then removing their understanding and submitting your own.
Okay. What, then, is the difference between the term as others would understand it and my own understanding?
If we are going to talk about the motivations of individuals then their definition cannot be just ignored.
They certainly can be and are ignored. The individual loses identity when becoming a part of the collective.
-
Okay. What, then, is the difference between the term as others would understand it and my own understanding?
They certainly can be and are ignored. The individual loses identity when becoming a part of the collective.
It would depend on the individuals.
And the Borg don't exist.
-
It would depend on the individuals.
And the Borg don't exist.
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that. The Borg is alive and well in the military industrial complex of your choice, and the loss of individuality doesn't depend upon the individual unless it's nipped in the bud. When you join any collective you lose your identity whether you have the sense to know it or not. Theism, atheism, nationalism, patriotism, et ceteraism.
-
I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that. The Borg is alive and well in the military industrial complex of your choice, and the loss of individuality doesn't depend upon the individual unless it's nipped in the bud. When you join any collective you lose your identity whether you have the sense to know it or not. Theism, atheism, nationalism, patriotism, et ceteraism.
You do like your assertions. And again this is irrelevant. Let's try to get it vaguely back on track. Is there anything you 'venerate'? If so what; and why?
-
You do like your assertions. And again this is irrelevant. Let's try to get it vaguely back on track. Is there anything you 'venerate'? If so what; and why?
I venerate Jehovah because he is sovereign.
-
I venerate Jehovah because he is sovereign.
So when you defined God as anything anyone venerates, you don't actually believe that. And what is 'Jehovah'
-
So when you defined God as anything anyone venerates, you don't actually believe that.
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?
And what is 'Jehovah'
What is Jehovah? Do you want me to say that Jehovah is a God of many gods? The same as the other gods I mentioned somewhere. In this thread or the other. They've blurred. Too fast. Too many mind.
-
Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?
What is Jehovah? Do you want me to say that Jehovah is a God of many gods? The same as the other gods I mentioned somewhere. In this thread or the other. They've blurred. Too fast. Too many mind.
The logic is you don't appear to 'venerate' Eric Clapton.
I don't want you to give any particular statement. I like the poetry of the rest of the post but it's not useful for any discussion.
-
The logic is you don't appear to 'venerate' Eric Clapton.
Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.
I don't want you to give any particular statement. I like the poetry of the rest of the post but it's not useful for any discussion.
It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. Well, what does that mean? If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.
Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.
So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.
-
Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.
It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. Well, what does that mean? If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.
Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.
So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.
Bored now
-
TS,
Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.
No, “Zeus” is (or was) a belief that he exists and is a god.
It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god.
That’s called the shifting the burden of proof - a fallacy. If theists want to claim as an objective fact “god” then it’s their job to tell us what they mean by it. Technically by the way the response to the failure to do so is ignosticism – ie, “I don't know what you’re talking about, and nor it seems do you”.
Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods.
They’re not the same thing – it’s a lack of belief (as a response to being given no good reason to think otherwise).
Well, what does that mean?
It means the atheist has been given no sound reason to think there to be god(s).
If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.
Now you’re hiding behind the ambiguity in the word “faith”. I explained this to you over in the other thread, but you seem to have ignored it. Again then: I have “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow – it’s a good make, it’s well-maintained, it’s always started in the past etc. This use of “faith” means, “reasoned confidence based on evidence and practical experience”.
“Faith” in the religious sense on the other hand is the magic dust you need to take you from guessing to assertion. It's what you need when the logic or evidence runs out. There’s no reasoning or evidence to justify it, it’s just – well – faith.
It gets worse. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow is only a statement of probability - I think it more likely than not to start, but for all I know something could fail so it won’t. “Faith” (religious sense) on the other hand deals in certainties, in immutable claims of objective fact: “There certainly is a (ie, my) god” etc.
Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural.
Because s/he has no reason to, yes.
Here's the definition of god.
“The” definition?...
A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.
Ooh you semantic trickster you. Again, you’re just hiding behind ambiguity in the term "god". “Eric Clapton is god” is just a (tongue in cheek by the way) way of saying he’s a terrific guitarist. The term in that context bears none of the weight or meaning it has when religious people use it – ie, as a supernatural “something” who intervenes at will in human affairs (provided he receives the right propitiations, sacrifices etc) able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc.
If instead though we do accept your open-ended definition of “something that’s venerated” then, provided you can find someone to venerate it, anything is a god. My pet rock is a god. And the problem this gives you is that you’ve thereby redefined the term from its religious sense of an objective fact to a description just of the way people subjectively feel about things. And that's game over for theism.
-
Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.
So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.
You're just playing silly word games now. If you make the definition of 'god' broad enough then of course they exist but in a completely uninteresting and trivial way. I could say the pebble on my desk is a god or that god means the same thing as "the universe" but what's the point?
-
Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.
It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. Well, what does that mean? If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.
Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.
So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.
All you're doing here is indulging in equivocation and hoping, wrongly as it turns out, that nobody notices. Wordy wibble does not an argument make.
-
Bored now
No, you're not bored, you're ideologically possessed. An ideologue who has been confronted with real facts. Fundamentalist militant atheist.
-
No, you're not bored, you're ideologically possessed. An ideologue who has been confronted with real facts. Fundamentalist militant atheist.
None of those, apart from the atheist but then you are misrepresenting what that is. You have a simplistic jejune approach and I find it boring. Willow was right.
ETA - I am an igtheist rather than atheist. Your contradictory definition of a god is both one I have see seen many times and one that is obviously a logically contradictory one since Eric Clapton is both god and not god in your approach.
-
TS,
No, you're not bored, you're ideologically possessed. An ideologue who has been confronted with real facts. Fundamentalist militant atheist.
Well, it didn't take much scratching for you to reveal you true colours did it.
For what it's worth:
1. He's not an ideologue (unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is ideological).
2. So far, you have haven't presented any facts - real or otherwise.
3. He's not a "fundamentalist" (again, unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is fundamentalism).
4. He isn't militant. People who attack or kill people are militant. He doesn't do either (so far as I know).
-
I am an igtheist rather than atheist. Your contradictory definition of a god is both one I have see seen many times and one that is obviously a logically contradictory one since Eric Clapton is both god and not god in your approach.
For an igtheist on a discussion forum you get bored with definition?
The relevant part of that announcement is the claim that Eric Clapton is both god and not god in my approach, which you've apparently mistaken while seeing many times because Eric Clapton is a god. The same as Jehovah is a god, and Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz, Moses, Satan.
God isn't a name. Goddamnit isn't using God's name in vain because it isn't a name. People use the term God to apply to their God being above or before all other gods. Similar to the term Allah, which means the god.
-
TS,
Well, it didn't take much scratching for you to reveal you true colours did it.
No scratching at all. My true colors are transparent.
For what it's worth:
1. He's not an ideologue (unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is ideological).
He got bored with preferring reason?
2. So far, you have haven't presented any facts - real or otherwise.
That you agree with. Like the dictionary (common use) of the term god in application to people, places and things which undoubtedly exist in the natural world and are well known.
3. He's not a "fundamentalist" (again, unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is fundamentalism).
Fundamentalist: a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
Reason has little to do with it.
4. He isn't militant. People who attack or kill people are militant. He doesn't do either (so far as I know).
Militant Atheism (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Militant%20Atheist)
-
TS,
No, “Zeus” is (or was) a belief that he exists and is a god.
No Zeus was a mythological god. His divinity doesn't depend upon his existence. Frodo Baggins was a god in the mid to late 1960s when Zeppelin were writing all of those songs about the Misty Mountain and Gullum sneaking away with the girl. He didn't exist literally but was a god nonetheless. Atheism subscribes to the nonsensical nonexistence of gods so how could any god possibly exist to an atheist?
That’s called the shifting the burden of proof - a fallacy. If theists want to claim as an objective fact “god” then it’s their job to tell us what they mean by it. Technically by the way the response to the failure to do so is ignosticism – ie, “I don't know what you’re talking about, and nor it seems do you”.
Is that all the fashion now? I, a theist, am telling you what the word god means in ancient Hebrew, common Greek, Latin, English and any other language as given clearly in the English dictionary and you are telling me I'm wrong? Okay. What does the word god mean? What is a god?
They’re not the same thing – it’s a lack of belief (as a response to being given no good reason to think otherwise).
Accepting good reason or being given good reason? How can the default position, the position at birth be atheist if no reason at all had been given to think either way?
It means the atheist has been given no sound reason to think there to be god(s).
Good is a subjective term. See above.
Now you’re hiding behind the ambiguity in the word “faith”. I explained this to you over in the other thread, but you seem to have ignored it. Again then: I have “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow – it’s a good make, it’s well-maintained, it’s always started in the past etc. This use of “faith” means, “reasoned confidence based on evidence and practical experience”.
Yeah . . . so? You and I don't know that Jehovah of the Bible exists. We have faith that he does or he doesn't.
“Faith” in the religious sense on the other hand is the magic dust you need to take you from guessing to assertion. It's what you need when the logic or evidence runs out. There’s no reasoning or evidence to justify it, it’s just – well – faith.
It has nothing to do with magic. If there's no reasoning or evidence to justify theism then there can't be any to justify atheism. Science, for example, can't test the supernatural. Science is a method of investigation not a belief system. Atheism is a belief system.
It gets worse. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow is only a statement of probability - I think it more likely than not to start, but for all I know something could fail so it won’t. “Faith” (religious sense) on the other hand deals in certainties, in immutable claims of objective fact: “There certainly is a (ie, my) god” etc.
1. Belief in Jehovah God of the Bible is faith based. No need to be defensive. 2. Religious faith pertains to a specific doctrine, i.e. Catholicism. Baptist. Faith is a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and b) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. So we have no real argument on faith.
“The” definition?...
Ooh you semantic trickster you. Again, you’re just hiding behind ambiguity in the term "god".
No, I'm exposing the atheistic inability to comprehend the simple definition of the word god as I've given from the English dictionary due to ideological possession.
Let me ask you this. No gods exist? Do lords exist?
“Eric Clapton is god” is just a (tongue in cheek by the way) way of saying he’s a terrific guitarist.
Ehhh ... sort of. Eric Clapton is considered a god because the definition of god includes an admired, skilled or influential person because god means anything or anyone venerated or attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it. If you look at the dictionary definition of god it will give several examples. The Christian god, supernatural gods, mortal men as gods. Again: the Bible calls Moses, the judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz and Jesus gods. All mortal men.
The term in that context bears none of the weight or meaning it has when religious people use it – ie, as a supernatural “something” who intervenes at will in human affairs (provided he receives the right propitiations, sacrifices etc) able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc.
[Laughs] That is only an example of one god. That isn't a prerequisite for divinity. For being a god.
If instead though we do accept your open-ended definition of “something that’s venerated” then, provided you can find someone to venerate it, anything is a god. My pet rock is a god. And the problem this gives you is that you’ve thereby redefined the term from its religious sense of an objective fact to a description just of the way people subjectively feel about things. And that's game over for theism.
Why are you ignoring everything I say? Your pet rock can be a god. I hate to do this because I'm sick of it, but let me give my illustration of a god.
A tired hungry man stumbles across the cold dark prairieland, wolves following close behind. There's no fuel for fire until he stumbles upon a dried clump of bullshit. Bovine excrement. Feeling around in the dark he finds more. Gathering them he eats the bugs crawling underneath them and builds a fire. He makes that shit his god. It is a god. It exists and is his god. No one, no atheist can take that away.
Another question; was Jehovah a god before he created anything?
-
You're just playing silly word games now. If you make the definition of 'god' broad enough then of course they exist but in a completely uninteresting and trivial way. I could say the pebble on my desk is a god or that god means the same thing as "the universe" but what's the point?
All you're doing here is indulging in equivocation and hoping, wrongly as it turns out, that nobody notices. Wordy wibble does not an argument make.
I know it seems like that to you but it isn't silly. The point, NTTS, in the case of the pebble and the universe is deification. God is in the eyes of the beholder. If I say the pebble and the universe are beautiful then, to me, they are beautiful. Beauty exists. If I say the pebble and the universe are my gods then they are gods. Gods exist.
The reason for the inability of atheists to comprehend the very simple term god is that they have been indoctrinated into thinking that God is limited to one example of a god. Do you think I make this stuff up?
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 - For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
Philippians 3:18-19 - For there are many, I used to mention them often but now I mention them also with weeping, who are walking as the enemies of the torture stake of the Christ, and their finish is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory consists in their shame, and they have their minds upon things on the earth. (Paul says a person's belly can be their god.)
Exodus 4:16 - And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.
Exodus 7:1 - Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. (Jehovah God makes Moses God.)
Psalm 82:1, 6 - God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; “I myself have said, ‘You are gods, I myself have said, ‘You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Jehovah calls the human judges of Israel gods.)
John 10:34-35 - Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods"'? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, (Jesus refers to the verses in Psalms above.)
Isaiah 9:6 - For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Jesus, a mortal man, was prophetically called a mighty god)
Ezekiel 8:14 - So he brought me to the entrance of the gate of the house of Jehovah, which is toward the north, and, look! there the women were sitting, weeping over the [god] Tammuz. (Tammuz was the Sumerian king Dumuzi. Also known as Nimrod in the Bible. The Sumerian practice was to deify kings upon their death.)
-
For an igtheist on a discussion forum you get bored with definition?
The relevant part of that announcement is the claim that Eric Clapton is both god and not god in my approach, which you've apparently mistaken while seeing many times because Eric Clapton is a god. The same as Jehovah is a god, and Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz, Moses, Satan.
God isn't a name. Goddamnit isn't using God's name in vain because it isn't a name. People use the term God to apply to their God being above or before all other gods. Similar to the term Allah, which means the god.
Do you venerate Eric Clapton? Do you regard Eric Clapton as the same as 'Jehovah'?
-
Do you venerate Eric Clapton? Do you regard Eric Clapton as the same as 'Jehovah'?
You don't have to venerate something or someone for it to be a god. Jehovah and Eric Clapton isn't your God but that don't mean they aren't gods. I see Eric Clapton and Jehovah as the same in the sense that they are both gods. That don't mean they are equal.
Jehovah is God to me. I like Clapton's music and know he loathes being called god but it isn't up to him or me.
A god doesn't have to be supernatural or immortal. A god doesn't have to be a creator. A god doesn't have to be anything but mightier than or venerated by the ones who He/she/it is god to. That's the only prerequisite for being a god.
I've asked repeatedly for definitions of the word god and have seen none. Tell me what a god is or tell me of a god that doesn't fit the requirement which I insist upon.
-
All you're doing here is indulging in equivocation and hoping, wrongly as it turns out, that nobody notices. Wordy wibble does not an argument make.
Which is why I wonder why so many posters of intelligence and intellect waste so much time and effort in bothering to answer Vlad and his ilk who post the same garbage over and over and over again just changing the wording to produce the same argument in so many different forms!
-
Which is why I wonder why so many posters of intelligence and intellect waste so much time and effort in bothering to answer Vlad and his ilk who post the same garbage over and over and over again just changing the wording to produce the same argument in so many different forms!
Who is this legendary Vlad so oft spoken of derogatorily and yet who's nomenclature is obstinately persisting in its absence?
As far as I can tell Appalled to the core of my being appears to answer to Vlad?
-
Maybe. The same could be said of many things. Democracy, love, politics, money, land, power. Theism, including Christianity, is just another tool in the hands of mankind.
I agree, BUT the Bible states - categorically, the Sixth Commandment, I think - "Thou shalt NOT kill"
-
Oooh, look, distraction Carnifex! http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/ (http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/)
O.
Note to Self - Must get out my Sisters of Battle and start painting again!"
)O(
-
I agree, BUT the Bible states - categorically, the Sixth Commandment, I think - "Thou shalt NOT kill"
Yes, but the law of Moses only applied to ancient Israelites until Pentecost 33 CE, for one thing. At Exodus 20:13 the Hebrew word ratsach is used, which means deliberate and unlawful killing. At Numbers 35:27 the avenger of blood is lawful. War sanctioned by God is another example. Though that too wouldn't apply to Christians, only to ancient Israelites.
-
You don't have to venerate something or someone for it to be a god. Jehovah and Eric Clapton isn't your God but that don't mean they aren't gods. I see Eric Clapton and Jehovah as the same in the sense that they are both gods. That don't mean they are equal.
Jehovah is God to me. I like Clapton's music and know he loathes being called god but it isn't up to him or me.
A god doesn't have to be supernatural or immortal. A god doesn't have to be a creator. A god doesn't have to be anything but mightier than or venerated by the ones who He/she/it is god to. That's the only prerequisite for being a god.
I've asked repeatedly for definitions of the word god and have seen none. Tell me what a god is or tell me of a god that doesn't fit the requirement which I insist upon.
But you make a difference (I checked by listening to characters) between God,* the supposed one God, and god* in general. Do you think that is a consistent approach?
*One a proper noun and one a common noun
-
I know it seems like that to you but it isn't silly. The point, NTTS, in the case of the pebble and the universe is deification. God is in the eyes of the beholder. If I say the pebble and the universe are beautiful then, to me, they are beautiful. Beauty exists. If I say the pebble and the universe are my gods then they are gods. Gods exist.
The reason for the inability of atheists to comprehend the very simple term god is that they have been indoctrinated into thinking that God is limited to one example of a god.
This is simply not true. There is a world of difference between anything anybody refers to as 'god', no matter how colloquially, is a god and thinking about just one example.
Jehovah is God to me. I like Clapton's music and know he loathes being called god but it isn't up to him or me.
A god doesn't have to be supernatural or immortal. A god doesn't have to be a creator. A god doesn't have to be anything but mightier than or venerated by the ones who He/she/it is god to. That's the only prerequisite for being a god.
You seem to be doing a motte-and-bailey fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy) here. You're trying to undermine atheism by using a very broad definition of 'god' (which really has nothing to do with atheism) and then introducing this idea of "Jehovah", which you haven't defined (unless I missed it), which (assuming it's defined in a broadly similar way to the way other people who use the same word) actually would be a supernatural creator.
As I said before, you're just playing word games - you are trying to conflate two different senses of the word god (https://www.lexico.com/definition/god) (senses 1 and 2, with sense 3). What's the point? It's just childish and silly. In order to have any sort of sensible discussion, we'd have then to come up with some other word for all the 'supernatural' beings people actually worship (or did historically worship) as part of their religions: godchecker (https://www.godchecker.com/).
In any case, you've said Jehovah is your god, so how do you define it and what reasons do you have to believe it?
-
But you make a difference (I checked by listening to characters) between God,* the supposed one God, and god* in general. Do you think that is a consistent approach?
*One a proper noun and one a common noun
Not consistent because they are not the same for the reason you give. One is proper and the other common. So Paul says there are many lords and many gods but to us only one Lord and One God. Now, god means mighty and venerated and lord means having authority, usually but not necessarily granted. So of all the lords Jehovah is Lord foremost because he has, as sovereign, all of the authority, but he has granted specific authority in relation to us only to Christ Jesus. In that sense Jesus is Lord and Jehovah is God of gods. But now Jehovah also appointed Moses as God, not god, to Pharaoh and Aaron.
The upper case only signifies, in these cases, a specific Lord or God of many lords or gods. You could say Jehovah is Lord and Jesus is Lord and you could say Jehovah and Jesus are lords in a general sense. There is an almost superstitious stylization that the upper case has some significant meaning of respect or whatever by using uppercase in many unnecessary manifestations like He. Jehovah is sovereign Lord and He is almighty God which I never incorporate because I think it's just silly and without reason.
You've probably noticed that my English grammar sucks, so I may not be the guy to ask and you might want to check that out for yourself. I was, uh, uninterested in grammar in school, preferring to sit in a corner and read Frank Herbert or Douglas Adams so . . . of all the crap they teach in school that is the only thing I regret not applying myself to any more than to get a passing grade.
-
TS,
No scratching at all. My true colors are transparent.
Maybe.
He got bored with preferring reason?
No, he got bored with condensing words with multiple meanings into one so as to hide religious meanings behind prosaic ones. Your taxonomy suggests that anything someone “venerates” is thereby made a god. “How’s your cheesecake Darling?” “Divine”. Bingo, another god is made – albeit (presumably) destroyed shortly afterwards.
If you insist on diluting terms like “god”, “spiritual”, “faith”, “divine” etc that far though there’s nothing left of the religious meanings of them. Any theology I know of doesn’t do this though – it thinks the objects of its truth claims are other than cheesecake: they’re “supernatural”, able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc. They stand in a different category from the material and naturalistic.
That you agree with. Like the dictionary (common use) of the term god in application to people, places and things which undoubtedly exist in the natural world and are well known.
That’s cheating. There are various dictionary definitions of “god” – the traditional religious ones as well as the colloquial ones. You’re trying to elide them into one.
Fundamentalist: a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
Which he clearly is not.
Reason has little to do with it.
No, he (and I) are only “fundamentalist” in the sense that we fundamentally think reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason.
Militant Atheism
I suppose if you rely on an online urban dictionary for your definitions you’re going to find things like this. More reputable sources though will tell you that “militant” means “favouring confrontational or violent methods”, “active, determined, and often willing to use force” etc.
This is the same trick you tried with religious terms: you’ve taken a word appropriate to describe, say, a Muslim beheading a French teacher for showing his pupils cartoons of Mohammed and diluted it to include academics who merely write books that falsify the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs. If you really want to use the term “militant” to describe the latter, what language have you left to describe the former? Or are you seriously suggesting an equivalence between them?
-
TS,
No Zeus was a mythological god. His divinity doesn't depend upon his existence. Frodo Baggins was a god in the mid to late 1960s when Zeppelin were writing all of those songs about the Misty Mountain and Gullum sneaking away with the girl. He didn't exist literally but was a god nonetheless.
Linguistic evasion won’t help you here. Either you think god(s) objectively exist, or they’re just subjective beliefs. Which is it?
Atheism subscribes to the nonsensical nonexistence of gods so how could any god possibly exist to an atheist?
Again, you need to sort out your misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism doesn’t make claims about the “nonexistence” of gods; what it actually does is to find the arguments attempted to justify the belief “god(s)” to be wrong. I don’t know whether there are gods. Or unicorns. Or tapdancing pixies on the dark side of the moon. What I do know though is that the arguments I know of to justify such beliefs are logically false. That’s why I’m an atheist.
Is that all the fashion now? I, a theist, am telling you what the word god means in ancient Hebrew, common Greek, Latin, English and any other language as given clearly in the English dictionary and you are telling me I'm wrong? Okay. What does the word god mean? What is a god?
No you’re not. What you’re actually doing is trying to elide the religious meaning (non-material, supernatural etc) with the prosaic, colloquial one (material, naturalistic etc).
Either your theism entails the former meaning (in which case, why not tell us what you think your god to be and why you believe it to exist?) or it’s the latter (in which case anything anyone feels like “venerating” thus becomes a god) and there’s nothing to talk about.
Accepting good reason or being given good reason? How can the default position, the position at birth be atheist if no reason at all had been given to think either way?
As someone else said, the position at birth example isn’t helpful because (presumably) babies don’t have opinions about anything. You may as well call a table atheist. Atheism though is just the position you arrive at when you’ve been given no sound reason to be a theist – whether you’ve falsified the arguments theists have attempted or don’t know what they are makes no difference to that.
Good is a subjective term. See above.
No it isn't. The advantage of logic and reason is that it's codified - an argument is either "good" according to its rules or it isn't. If you want to argue that logic itself is just subjective, then what is it you think you're using to make your case here?
Yeah . . . so? You and I don't know that Jehovah of the Bible exists. We have faith that he does or he doesn't.
So everything. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start is reasoned; “faith” (religious sense) in the existence of “Jehovah” isn’t – it’s just guessing.
It has nothing to do with magic. If there's no reasoning or evidence to justify theism then there can't be any to justify atheism. Science, for example, can't test the supernatural. Science is a method of investigation not a belief system. Atheism is a belief system.
There’s a lot of wrong there, so let’s unpack it:
It has nothing to do with magic.
Yes it has. When you assert a truth with no means of justifying it, what else would you call it?
If there's no reasoning or evidence to justify theism then there can't be any to justify atheism.
Nope. The reasoning or logic to justify atheism is the application of their methods to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be false.
Science, for example, can't test the supernatural.
It’s only claims about the supernatural, and no it can’t. The problem with the claim "supernatural" though is that neither can anything else.
Science is a method of investigation not a belief system. Atheism is a belief system.
No atheism isn’t – except the belief that reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason.
1. Belief in Jehovah God of the Bible is faith based. No need to be defensive.
But is also a claim of certainty (at least if the Bible is to be believed).
2. Religious faith pertains to a specific doctrine, i.e. Catholicism. Baptist. Faith is a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and b) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. So we have no real argument on faith.
Unless you accept that your “faith” is epistemically indistinguishable from just guessing, yes we have.
No, I'm exposing the atheistic inability to comprehend the simple definition of the word god as I've given from the English dictionary due to ideological possession.
Not even close. There is no “the” definition – there are many definitions, and broadly the religious ones are in a different category to the non-religious ones.
Let me ask you this. No gods exist?
I don’t know what you mean by “gods”, but in the religious sense I have no reason t think that they do.
Do lords exist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
Ehhh ... sort of. Eric Clapton is considered a god because the definition of god includes an admired, skilled or influential person because god means anything or anyone venerated or attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it. If you look at the dictionary definition of god it will give several examples. The Christian god, supernatural gods, mortal men as gods. Again: the Bible calls Moses, the judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz and Jesus gods. All mortal men.
This is getting wearisome now. The colloquial definitions of “god” are in a different category to the religious ones. You can’t just bundle them as if there’s no difference.
[Laughs] That is only an example of one god. That isn't a prerequisite for divinity. For being a god.
Yes it is. How many divinities settle for a material, naturalistic, subject to the universe’s laws and forces god?
Why are you ignoring everything I say? Your pet rock can be a god. I hate to do this because I'm sick of it, but let me give my illustration of a god.
A tired hungry man stumbles across the cold dark prairieland, wolves following close behind. There's no fuel for fire until he stumbles upon a dried clump of bullshit. Bovine excrement. Feeling around in the dark he finds more. Gathering them he eats the bugs crawling underneath them and builds a fire. He makes that shit his god. It is a god. It exists and is his god. No one, no atheist can take that away.
I’m not ignoring it – I’m falsifying it. If you want to dilute the term “god” to mean literally anything at all provided people feel about it a certain way then you have a theology that’s all your own, and moreover one that has nothing interesting to say. It’s an odd tactic though just to throw away standard theologies by reducing the term "god" to meaninglessness.
Another question; was Jehovah a god before he created anything?
I have no idea what you mean by “Jehovah”, not why you think he exists (existed?) other than as your subjective belief. I may as well ask you whether leprechauns were leprechauns before they started leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.
-
TS,
Maybe.
No, he got bored with condensing words with multiple meanings into one so as to hide religious meanings behind prosaic ones. Your taxonomy suggests that anything someone “venerates” is thereby made a god. “How’s your cheesecake Darling?” “Divine”. Bingo, another god is made – albeit (presumably) destroyed shortly afterwards.
If you insist on diluting terms like “god”, “spiritual”, “faith”, “divine” etc that far though there’s nothing left of the religious meanings of them. Any theology I know of doesn’t do this though – it thinks the objects of its truth claims are other than cheesecake: they’re “supernatural”, able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc. They stand in a different category from the material and naturalistic.
That’s cheating. There are various dictionary definitions of “god” – the traditional religious ones as well as the colloquial ones. You’re trying to elide them into one.
Which he clearly is not.
No, he (and I) are only “fundamentalist” in the sense that we fundamentally think reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason.
I suppose if you rely on an online urban dictionary for your definitions you’re going to find things like this. More reputable sources though will tell you that “militant” means “favouring confrontational or violent methods”, “active, determined, and often willing to use force” etc.
This is the same trick you tried with religious terms: you’ve taken a word appropriate to describe, say, a Muslim beheading a French teacher for showing his pupils cartoons of Mohammed and diluted it to include academics who merely write books that falsify the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs. If you really want to use the term “militant” to describe the latter, what language have you left to describe the former? Or are you seriously suggesting an equivalence between them?
BHS
Nice try. There are lots of definitions of militant. Being part of a forum you'll just have to get used to people disagreeing with your definitions. Are you seriously trying to suggest that militant is the only term available to describe a murderer or terrorist in the English language? Really? Really though? That's very disingenuous of you.
Militant Labour for example did not go around beheading people.
-
TS,
Linguistic evasion won’t help you here. Either you think god(s) objectively exist, or they’re just subjective beliefs. Which is it?
Again, you need to sort out your misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism doesn’t make claims about the “nonexistence” of gods; what it actually does is to find the arguments attempted to justify the belief “god(s)” to be wrong. I don’t know whether there are gods. Or unicorns. Or tapdancing pixies on the dark side of the moon. What I do know though is that the arguments I know of to justify such beliefs are logically false. That’s why I’m an atheist.
No you’re not. What you’re actually doing is trying to elide the religious meaning (non-material, supernatural etc) with the prosaic, colloquial one (material, naturalistic etc).
Either your theism entails the former meaning (in which case, why not tell us what you think your god to be and why you believe it to exist?) or it’s the latter (in which case anything anyone feels like “venerating” thus becomes a god) and there’s nothing to talk about.
As someone else said, the position at birth example isn’t helpful because (presumably) babies don’t have opinions about anything. You may as well call a table atheist. Atheism though is just the position you arrive at when you’ve been given no sound reason to be a theist – whether you’ve falsified the arguments theists have attempted or don’t know what they are makes no difference to that.
No it isn't. The advantage of logic and reason is that it's codified - an argument is either "good" according to its rules or it isn't. If you want to argue that logic itself is just subjective, then what is it you think you're using to make your case here?
So everything. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start is reasoned; “faith” (religious sense) in the existence of “Jehovah” isn’t – it’s just guessing.
There’s a lot of wrong there, so let’s unpack it:
Yes it has. When you assert a truth with no means of justifying it, what else would you call it?
Nope. The reasoning or logic to justify atheism is the application of their methods to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be false.
It’s only claims about the supernatural, and no it can’t. The problem with the claim "supernatural" though is that neither can anything else.
No atheism isn’t – except the belief that reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason.
But is also a claim of certainty (at least if the Bible is to be believed).
Unless you accept that your “faith” is epistemically indistinguishable from just guessing, yes we have.
Not even close. There is no “the” definition – there are many definitions, and broadly the religious ones are in a different category to the non-religious ones.
I don’t know what you mean by “gods”, but in the religious sense I have no reason t think that they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
This is getting wearisome now. The colloquial definitions of “god” are in a different category to the religious ones. You can’t just bundle them as if there’s no difference.
Yes it is. How many divinities settle for a material, naturalistic, subject to the universe’s laws and forces god?
I’m not ignoring it – I’m falsifying it. If you want to dilute the term “god” to mean literally anything at all provided people feel about it a certain way then you have a theology that’s all your own, and moreover one that has nothing interesting to say. It’s an odd tactic though just to throw away standard theologies by reducing the term "god" to meaninglessness.
I have no idea what you mean by “Jehovah”, not why you think he exists (existed?) other than as your subjective belief. I may as well ask you whether leprechauns were leprechauns before they started leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.
I would say theists believe a Creator interventionist god exists but as it is also believed to be supernatural there can be no method to test for its existence or to detect or measure its interventions. It then becomes an idea that has different meanings to different people. Much like "good" and "bad".
Merriem-Webster defined theists as believing in gods. Specifically a God that is the creator of the universe.
The Collins dictionary has 2 meanings - the One God Creator meaning and then a gods no Creator meaning.
The Britannia article by a Philosophy professor defines theism to be belief in the existence of an interventionist creator God that is separate from its creation.
So an atheist lacks belief in a creator interventionist god.
Belief in a creator interventionist god isn't based on arguments or objective evidence - I would say a large part of beliefs, morals and values is an emotional response to people's perceptions of their environments based on their interpretations of ideas that others have had throughout history.
-
This is simply not true. There is a world of difference between anything anybody refers to as 'god', no matter how colloquially, is a god and thinking about just one example.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "is a god and thinking about just one example."
Here is the definition of atheism: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
I object to the bold. It doesn't really matter to me if someone disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of gods, but to suggest that no gods exist in any way, shape or form isn't accurate. You can't pick and choose which gods are in question and which gods aren't. It plainly states or gods with no distinction.
You seem to be doing a motte-and-bailey fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy) here.
I'm not doing that.
You're trying to undermine atheism by using a very broad definition of 'god' (which really has nothing to do with atheism)
I'm not trying to do that.
and then introducing this idea of "Jehovah", which you haven't defined (unless I missed it), which (assuming it's defined in a broadly similar way to the way other people who use the same word) actually would be a supernatural creator.
Jehovah is a name which means He causes to become. Supernatural? Yes. Creator? Yes. That doesn't mean all gods are supernatural creators. If I say that man is a genius that doesn't mean all men are geniuses. It isn't a difficult concept.
As I said before, you're just playing word games - you are trying to conflate two different senses of the word god (https://www.lexico.com/definition/god) (senses 1 and 2, with sense 3). What's the point?
The point is all 3 are different senses of the same word. All are gods. Some are believed to exist, some there is no doubt of their existing. Believing that something doesn't exist when it does just because you don't believe another sense of the same thing exists is folly. Atheism isn't defined as a disbelief or lack of belief in God and some gods that haven't been proven to exist or have existed or may exist blah, blah, blah. It's just God or gods.
Theism: the belief in God or gods.
Atheism: the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.
It isn't a proposition from Wittgenstein. It isn't complicated.
It's just childish and silly. In order to have any sort of sensible discussion, we'd have then to come up with some other word for all the 'supernatural' beings people actually worship (or did historically worship) as part of their religions: godchecker (https://www.godchecker.com/).
Why? There is already a word for those. Gods.
In any case, you've said Jehovah is your god, so how do you define it and what reasons do you have to believe it?
What difference does that make? Jehovah is my God. How do I define Jehovah? That's an odd question, isn't it? Would you ask how I define my grandfather? Jehovah is the name of the supernatural creator of the heavens and earth. Names are translated so would vary according to language. He is Sovereign Lord. A highly intelligent sentient being. Existing without beginning or end. A spiritual being without gender though referred to in the masculine sense. He created male and female in his image, meaning with his characteristics, personality and qualities. The physical heavens, that is the material universe can not contain him so he doesn't exist in this universe. A spirit being in a spirit realm. Spirit means unseen by human eyes but producing visible results. Wind, breath, mental inclination, are examples of spiritual things. That doesn't mean that Jehovah is the wind, breath or mental inclination it just means that they are all examples of spiritual things as I've defined them.
God sends his representative, spokesperson or word to interact with mankind. So, when the Bible talks of Jehovah God doing that it is always through Michael, his firstborn only begotten son or some other angel. The word angel means "messenger." In these cases the spirit creature Michael will usually take human form so that we can see them. In this state they may be referred to as angels, men, God or Jehovah because they speak on his behalf.
The word holy or sacred means belonging to God. So God's holy spirit is his invisible active force, sometimes referred to in the figurative sense as his fingers or hand.
-
Gabriella,
BHS
Nice try. There are lots of definitions of militant. Being part of a forum you'll just have to get used to people disagreeing with your definitions.
They’re not my definitions. Rather I’m suggesting that the charge of militancy against various atheists is an attempt at false equivalence: “OK, religious fundamentalists blow people up, but atheists are militant too. Therefor they’re as bad as each other.”
Two problems with that:
1. It’s whataboutism – a wrong defence of anything.
2. It’s not true.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that militant is the only term available to describe a murderer or terrorist in the English language? Really? Really though? That's very disingenuous of you.
Not a disingenuous as you as telling me I suggest something I don’t suggest at all. Yes there probably are other words – “murdering” for example – but as statement of fact “militant” is the word generally used for such people. Using the same word to describe people who write books is called poisoning the well.
Militant Labour for example did not go around beheading people.
Bad example. Militant was a Trotskyist organisation, and Trotskyism calls for permanent revolution. Whether or not they actually stormed the houses of parliament is secondary issue – the ideology was front and centre nonetheless. What equivalence do you think there to be with academics who write books about the inadequacy of theological argument?
-
I object to the bold. It doesn't really matter to me if someone disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of gods, but to suggest that no gods exist in any way, shape or form isn't accurate. You can't pick and choose which gods are in question and which gods aren't. It plainly states or gods with no distinction.
Nope - if the arguments made for 'God(s)', all or them any of of them, are incoherent or fallacious then they can be dismissed as failed arguments.
Moreover your constant equivocation regarding the term 'God(s)' to cover anything from Eric Clapton to Minerva just renders the term meaningless, since not only do these 'God(s)' then become subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact, there is also a category error there: good guitar players and supernatural agents that can work miracles are not one and the same.
I suspect you have put far too much effort into compiling your bespoke personal narrative that you can no longer see the wood because all the trees are in your way.
btw atheism isn't a belief system.
-
Gabriella,
I would say theists believe a Creator interventionist god exists but as it is also believed to be supernatural there can be no method to test for its existence or to detect or measure its interventions. It then becomes an idea that has different meanings to different people. Much like "good" and "bad".
Well, fine if you like but what then are we to make of the intrusion into public life of the various theologies that each claim to have “the” truth? If you want to relegate “god” to a branch of aesthetics – a matter of taste and opinion rather than a claim of objective fact (and you’ll get no argument from me if you do by the way) – then that’s out of the window isn’t it?
Merriem-Webster defined theists as believing in gods. Specifically a God that is the creator of the universe.
The Collins dictionary has 2 meanings - the One God Creator meaning and then a gods no Creator meaning.
The Britannia article by a Philosophy professor defines theism to be belief in the existence of an interventionist creator God that is separate from its creation.
So an atheist lacks belief in a creator interventionist god.
Yes.
Belief in a creator interventionist god isn't based on arguments or objective evidence - I would say a large part of beliefs, morals and values is an emotional response to people's perceptions of their environments based on their interpretations of ideas that others have had throughout history.
Fine, provided such people don’t also claim (their) god to be an objective, “out there” fact of something existing in the world and thus insist that the rest of us take the claim seriously, have privileged positions in the legislature, special schools, open door access to the media etc.
-
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "is a god and thinking about just one example."
There probably should have been a comma. I meant that not distinguishing between gods the colloquial and gods in the religious sense sense and using only using one example, are not the only two options.
The point is all 3 are different senses of the same word.
And, like it or not, they refer to different categories of things. Again, this is nothing but a childish word game.
Theism: the belief in God or gods.
Atheism: the disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.
And how many people who think Eric Clapton is "a god" but have no other "gods", would call themselves a "theist", do you think?
Why? There is already a word for those. Gods.
A word that you keep on insisting refers to lots of other things too - so it would become useless for this purpose. Sorry, but this nonsense about the senses of the word 'god' just isn't a grown up conversation - it's just utterly foolish.
What difference does that make? Jehovah is my God. How do I define Jehovah? That's an odd question, isn't it?
Why?
Would you ask how I define my grandfather?
I know what grandfather means. On the other had, I've met multiple people (both in life and online) who have very different ideas about "Jehovah".
Jehovah is the name of the supernatural creator of the heavens and earth. Names are translated so would vary according to language. He is Sovereign Lord. A highly intelligent sentient being. Existing without beginning or end. A spiritual being without gender though referred to in the masculine sense. He created male and female in his image, meaning with his characteristics, personality and qualities. The physical heavens, that is the material universe can not contain him so he doesn't exist in this universe. A spirit being in a spirit realm. Spirit means unseen by human eyes but producing visible results. Wind, breath, mental inclination, are examples of spiritual things. That doesn't mean that Jehovah is the wind, breath or mental inclination it just means that they are all examples of spiritual things as I've defined them.
God sends his representative, spokesperson or word to interact with mankind. So, when the Bible talks of Jehovah God doing that it is always through Michael, his firstborn only begotten son or some other angel. The word angel means "messenger." In these cases the spirit creature Michael will usually take human form so that we can see them. In this state they may be referred to as angels, men, God or Jehovah because they speak on his behalf.
The word holy or sacred means belonging to God. So God's holy spirit is his invisible active force, sometimes referred to in the figurative sense as his fingers or hand.
OK, so why do you think such a being really exists?
-
TS,
Supernatural? Yes.
Hold that thought. So you believe there to be a “supernatural” god. Fine. A supernatural god is a different category of god from a natural one colloquially described as such (Clapton, cheesecake, whatever). Rather than lump them together and pretend they’re epistemically the same type of claim, why not instead just tells us what you mean by “supernatural” and by “god”, and then set out why you think such a thing objectively exists at all?
-
Note to Self - Must get out my Sisters of Battle and start painting again!"
)O(
3rd Edition combined Inquisition player at heart, waiting for the 9th edition ruleset to settle down so I can decide which mid-table force I'm going to favour now that Imperial Soup seems to have lost its appeal...
O.
-
Gabriella,
They’re not my definitions. Rather I’m suggesting that the charge of militancy against various atheists is an attempt at false equivalence: “OK, religious fundamentalists blow people up, but atheists are militant too. Therefor they’re as bad as each other.”
Two problems with that:
1. It’s whataboutism – a wrong defence of anything.
2. It’s not true.
BHS - you seem to be having a conversation with yourself and making generalisations in the process. The word militant has various meanings - it can mean violent or hostile or confrontational or all three. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers people and confrontational or hostile people having a debate about ideas. Do you have a link to show where someone on this forum has tried to draw such an equivalence?
Not a disingenuous as you as telling me I suggest something I don’t suggest at all. Yes there probably are other words – “murdering” for example – but as statement of fact “militant” is the word generally used for such people. Using the same word to describe people who write books is called poisoning the well.
Bad example. Militant was a Trotskyist organisation, and Trotskyism calls for permanent revolution. Whether or not they actually stormed the houses of parliament is secondary issue – the ideology was front and centre nonetheless. What equivalence do you think there to be with academics who write books about the inadequacy of theological argument?
Nope - disagree. If the organisation acted politically rather than violently then the meaning of the word is linked to confrontation but not necessarily violence.
There are atheists who live their lives without feeling the need to confront religious ideas in public arenas or write books that are hostile to religion . The atheists that do feel the need to do this could be described as militant. That you as an atheist don't like the term is fine but it's not really up to you is it as other people use the English language and words have multiple meanings. When I read the term militant atheist I did not link it to violent atheism.
-
Gabriella,
Well, fine if you like but what then are we to make of the intrusion into public life of the various theologies that each claim to have “the” truth? If you want to relegate “god” to a branch of aesthetics – a matter of taste and opinion rather than a claim of objective fact (and you’ll get no argument from me if you do by the way) – then that’s out of the window isn’t it?
Yes.
Fine, provided such people don’t also claim (their) god to be an objective, “out there” fact of something existing in the world and thus insist that the rest of us take the claim seriously, have privileged positions in the legislature, special schools, open door access to the media etc.
If people can intrude into public life trying to tell people about their ideas of what is good and bad and to try to get public and political support for these ideas and to pass legislation to privilege these ideas above other people's ideas of good and bad, I'm not really seeing the problem of the god idea.
The god idea caught on spectacularly for a while, and worked so well that people linked it to other ideas to try and leverage off the popularity of the god idea and that led to different factions fighting it out - bit like the different factions in politics or tribal warfare or civil war or international wars. But now a lot of people have lost interest because they prefer other ideas, and these ideas have gained traction and are used to captivate and manipulate. Anyone who has seen The Social Dilemma on Netflix will know what I am referring to.
-
Gabriella,
BHS - you seem to be having a conversation with yourself and making generalisations in the process. The word militant has various meanings - it can mean violent or hostile or confrontational or all three. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers people and confrontational or hostile people having a debate about ideas. Do you have a link to show where someone on this forum has tried to draw such an equivalence?
You've missed the point. Using the same terminology to describe murderous fundamentalists and academic authors with whom you happen to disagree is an attempt at equivalence. How successful it is at doing that is a secondary issue.
Nope - disagree. If the organisation acted politically rather than violently then the meaning of the word is linked to confrontation but not necessarily violence.
Of course you do. Either you think the word mean what the say or you don't. Trotskyism called for permanent revolution, but Militant never had the numbers to act on it. Academic authors writing about atheism on the other hand rarely call for revolution, permanent or otherwise.
There are atheists who live their lives without feeling the need to confront religious ideas in public arenas or write books that are hostile to religion .
Not all are "hostile" as such - they just explain where its proponents are wrong. You're thinking of anti-theism perhaps.
The atheists that do feel the need to do this could be described as militant. That you as an atheist don't like the term is fine but it's not really up to you is it as other people use the English language and words have multiple meanings. When I read the term militant atheist I did not link it to violent atheism.
Still not getting it. Yes they could just about be described as "militant" if you want to use one narrow sense of that term - as in "feels strongly" or similar. The identical term also though has much darker, more violent meanings so if you're not just engaged in poisoning the well and in an ad hom to boot then why not either use a more appropriate term or instead add the rider "militant atheists, by which of course I don't for one moment mean to imply any similarity with the more common usage of that term when applied in the context of violent people. Oh no guv'nor, wot me, never.." etc?
-
Gabriella,
If people can intrude into public life trying to tell people about their ideas of what is good and bad and to try to get public and political support for these ideas and to pass legislation to privilege these ideas above other people's ideas of good and bad, I'm not really seeing the problem of the god idea.
The HoL is unelected.
The god idea caught on spectacularly for a while, and worked so well that people linked it to other ideas to try and leverage off the popularity of the god idea and that led to different factions fighting it out - bit like the different factions in politics or tribal warfare or civil war or international wars. But now a lot of people have lost interest because they prefer other ideas, and these ideas have gained traction and are used to captivate and manipulate. Anyone who has seen The Social Dilemma on Netflix will know what I am referring to.
And yet religious thinking and institutions still enjoy a privileged position in various areas of public life.
-
I liked Prof D's point about 'muscular Christians' and 'militant atheists'. What a pity the adjectives are not swapped over.
-
I liked Prof D's point about 'muscular Christians' and 'militant atheists'. What a pity the adjectives are not swapped over.
Maybe they would be if they were both being coined by atheists, but both sets of terms are typically coined by christians about their 'own' (muscular, robust etc - pick a positive term) and about 'the enemy' (militant, aggressive - pick a negative term).
But it is bizarre as the people christians apply this term to 'people like Dawkins, Harris, Grayling' are largely about as militant as the next old-school academic. No more 'militant' than the Archbishop of Canterbury or David Attenborough.
-
3rd Edition combined Inquisition player at heart, waiting for the 9th edition ruleset to settle down so I can decide which mid-table force I'm going to favour now that Imperial Soup seems to have lost its appeal...
O.
I regret to say that I have not painted any of my army for far too long and my Rulebook is so out of date that it is written in hieroglyphics! My Nuns with Guns have taken a back-seat to Yugioh and are, at the present moment in storage with about 50% of my personal possessions and likely to stay that way for a while.
)O(
-
Maybe they would be if they were both being coined by atheists, but both sets of terms are typically coined by christians about their 'own' (muscular, robust etc - pick a positive term) and about 'the enemy' (militant, aggressive - pick a negative term).
But it is bizarre as the people christians apply this term to 'people like Dawkins, Harris, Grayling' are largely about as militant as the next old-school academic. No more 'militant' than the Archbishop of Canterbury or David Attenborough.
As far as I know Harris is gun lobby and I believe suggested preemptive nuclear attack on theocracies.
-
Hey Vladdo – welcome back,
As far as I know Harris is gun lobby and I believe suggested preemptive nuclear attack on theocracies.
Not sure about the gun lobby part but, as the risk of giving you a coronary, I agree. So far as I’m aware SH is the exception who has proposed at least pre-emptive action. Let’s hope we never have to find out whether he was right about that.
-
Gabriella,
You've missed the point. Using the same terminology to describe murderous fundamentalists and academic authors with whom you happen to disagree is an attempt at equivalence. How successful it is at doing that is a secondary issue.
Of course you do. Either you think the word mean what the say or you don't. Trotskyism called for permanent revolution, but Militant never had the numbers to act on it. Academic authors writing about atheism on the other hand rarely call for revolution, permanent or otherwise.
Not all are "hostile" as such - they just explain where its proponents are wrong. You're thinking of anti-theism perhaps.
Still not getting it. Yes they could just about be described as "militant" if you want to use one narrow sense of that term - as in "feels strongly" or similar. The identical term also though has much darker, more violent meanings so if you're not just engaged in poisoning the well and in an ad hom to boot then why not either use a more appropriate term or instead add the rider "militant atheists, by which of course I don't for one moment mean to imply any similarity with the more common usage of that term when applied in the context of violent people. Oh no guv'nor, wot me, never.." etc?
I did not say all books written by atheists are hostile - I'll leave the generalisations to you. Atheists are not a homogenous group so there is a need to be able to differentiate them in discussions.
Your perspective on why someone would use the term "militant" is just that - it's your perspective on people's motives and the meaning of the words. Other people use words differently and if you can't believe that they can have different motives from the ones you suspect them of having - I guess that's up to you. People can't choose their beliefs. Some people take a more literal meaning than others.
Militant Christianity http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/militant.htm
Are you tired of a dead church existence? Are you sick of the once a week, song and dance routine? Are you being told the TRUTH by those who call themselves "Men of God"? Why not get bold, why not get radical, why not go ALL THE WAY FOR JESUS!! We offer a wide range of newspapers, booklets, tracts and tapes to equip the Christian soldier in the war for souls. Write us today for more information about how you can join the SPIRIT REVOLUTION!
ETA: By the way your speculation that Militant Labour would have carried out violent revolution if they had more numbers isn't very convincing without some evidence to back it up. Especially given that you brought up a violent act carried out by an individual - a Muslim. How many numbers do you believe that Militant Labour needed to become violent - is there a magic number that leads to violent revolution?
-
Gabriella,
The HoL is unelected.
And yet religious thinking and institutions still enjoy a privileged position in various areas of public life.
Well, maybe enough people will get behind the idea that the voters can be trusted to make the right decision, or that it doesn't matter if they make crap decisions so long as unelected people are not part of the legislature. How about the judiciary - should they be elected too?
As I've said before, religious institutions can only enjoy privileges in this country while the majority of people allow them to. It's not as if religious institutions have an army that is holding a gun to anyone's head.
-
Gabriella,
I did not say all books written by atheists are hostile - I'll leave the generalisations to you. Atheists are not a homogenous group so there is a need to be able to differentiate them in discussions.
Your perspective on why someone would use the term "militant" is just that - it's your perspective on people's motives and the meaning of the words. Other people use words differently and if you can't believe that they can have different motives from the ones you suspect them of having - I guess that's up to you. People can't choose their beliefs. Some people take a more literal meaning than others.
Militant Christianity http://www.aggressivechristianity.net/articles/militant.htm
Are you tired of a dead church existence? Are you sick of the once a week, song and dance routine? Are you being told the TRUTH by those who call themselves "Men of God"? Why not get bold, why not get radical, why not go ALL THE WAY FOR JESUS!! We offer a wide range of newspapers, booklets, tracts and tapes to equip the Christian soldier in the war for souls. Write us today for more information about how you can join the SPIRIT REVOLUTION!
You’re still not getting it. You have children. Let’s say, just for fun, that at some time in a moment of exhausted, frazzled, long ago desperation you shouted at one or both of them. Some people would call shouting at children a form of violence. Should I henceforward therefore call you “violent Gabriella”? After all, the word “violent” has various meanings - it can mean one-time shouting or sustained physical attack or both. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers and parents shouting at children. So, you should have no problem with being called violent Gabriella right?
If not though, why not?
-
Gabriella,
You’re still not getting it. You have children. Let’s say, just for fun, that at some time in a moment of exhausted, frazzled, long ago desperation you shouted at one or both of them. Some people would call shouting at children a form of violence. Should I henceforward therefore call you “violent Gabriella”? After all, the word “violent” has various meanings - it can mean one-time shouting or sustained physical attack or both. And no there is no equivalence between violent murderers and parents shouting at children. So, you should have no problem with being called violent Gabriella right?
If not though, why not?
I seem to recall you, Susan and possibly PD writing a few posts a while back about how you thought my posts to you were ... I can't quite remember the exact words used...it could have been violent or menacing or threatening and I seem to recall you imagining me shaking a fist. Given we were on an online forum your impression of me was based on your interpretation of my posts. I had not used any offensive words or bad language but I had contradicted you in a manner you clearly did not seem to appreciate. If you want to think me violent - that's your perspective. Given my enjoyment of participating in martial arts, I quite like a bit of violence myself.
Why is it so surprising to you that different people could have different perspectives about the use of words? Some people clearly take a more literal meaning than others. Some people see being a militant Christian as a good thing - but clearly don't associate it with carrying out physical violence on their fellow humans. You've made your point that you personally don't like to be described as militant. Shall we move on from this point? Maybe discuss the OP's point about anti-theism?
I am not any more surprised that anti-theism exists than I am about theism existing.
-
Gabriella,
I seem to recall you, Susan and possibly PD writing a few posts a while back about how you thought my posts to you were ... I can't quite remember the exact words used...it could have been violent or menacing or threatening and I seem to recall you imagining me shaking a fist. Given we were on an online forum your impression of me was based on your interpretation of my posts. I had not used any offensive words or bad language but I had contradicted you in a manner you clearly did not seem to appreciate. If you want to think me violent - that's your perspective. Given my enjoyment of participating in martial arts, I quite like a bit of violence myself.
Why is it so surprising to you that different people could have different perspectives about the use of words? Some people clearly take a more literal meaning than others. Some people see being a militant Christian as a good thing - but clearly don't associate it with carrying out physical violence on their fellow humans. You've made your point that you personally don't like to be described as militant. Shall we move on from this point? Maybe discuss the OP's point about anti-theism?
I am not any more surprised that anti-theism exists than I am about theism existing.
So, you’re fine with “Violent Gabriella” then as your sobriquet – after all, “different people could have different perspectives about the use of words”.
The point you keep avoiding is that routinely attaching the lazy epithet “militant” before the word “atheists” badly devalues what that word means in the context of people who actually are militant. It’s just an attempt at false equivalence – atheists and people who put bombs on buses? Meh, they’re just the same – militant right?
PS I don’t remember calling you any of those things.
-
Gabriella,
So, you’re fine with “Violent Gabriella” then as your sobriquet – after all, “different people could have different perspectives about the use of words”.
It's an obscure online forum of anonymous posters. Of course I'm fine with it. I've actually been meaning to change my name on here to something a bit less boring.
The point you keep avoiding is that routinely attaching the lazy epithet “militant” before the word “atheists” badly devalues what that word means in the context of people who actually are militant. It’s just an attempt at false equivalence – atheists and people who put bombs on buses? Meh, they’re just the same – militant right?
No it doesn't badly devalue anything because there are lots of other words used to describe violent people, no one has drawn an equivalence on here and the word "militant" gets used in other ways apart from sometimes being used to describe terrorists. But yes you can interpret the use of the word that way if you like.
PS I don’t remember calling you any of those things.
Ok - it's not important.
-
TS,
Hold that thought. So you believe there to be a “supernatural” god. Fine. A supernatural god is a different category of god from a natural one colloquially described as such (Clapton, cheesecake, whatever). Rather than lump them together and pretend they’re epistemically the same type of claim, why not instead just tells us what you mean by “supernatural” and by “god”, and then set out why you think such a thing objectively exists at all?
Supernatural means (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
god means anything or anyone deified, that is attributed might that is greater than the one attributing it and / or venerated.
I think it possible for the supernatural to exist because I don't need science to tell me if something can exist or not. That doesn't mean that I subscribe to any supernatural claim. Some gods exist, some don't. Atheists and probably most theists confuse the concept of god as being exclusively applied to the Abrahamic gods. That's nonsense.
-
I seem to recall you, Susan and possibly PD writing a few posts a while back about how you thought my posts to you were ... I can't quite remember the exact words used...it could have been violent or menacing or threatening and I seem to recall you imagining me shaking a fist.
Really?!?
News to me - I certainly have no recollection of making any comment indicating that you were/are violent. I suggest you dig out the evidence or retract please.
-
There probably should have been a comma. I meant that not distinguishing between gods the colloquial and gods in the religious sense sense and using only using one example, are not the only two options.
There are millions of gods because a god is anything or anyone that is attributed might inasmuch as the might is greater than that of the one attributing it and or is venerated. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand this simple concept that has been accurate for thousands of years without repeating myself. A child could get it. The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case.
And, like it or not, they refer to different categories of things. Again, this is nothing but a childish word game.
It's not a word game, it's what the fucking word means.
And how many people who think Eric Clapton is "a god" but have no other "gods", would call themselves a "theist", do you think?
Irrelevant. Most people are idiots.
A word that you keep on insisting refers to lots of other things too - so it would become useless for this purpose. Sorry, but this nonsense about the senses of the word 'god' just isn't a grown up conversation - it's just utterly foolish.
There's no such thing as a meaningless word that I'm aware of. Look it up in your adult dictionary. Look at any example of any god ever known to mankind in any language. It's not a word game it's what the word god in any language has always and will always mean. If I'm wrong show me only one example ever of that not being the case. Read the dictionary listing of god, deity and deify and stop saying it isn't true. SHOW ME.
Be the first atheist I've ever presented with this challenge to tell me what it means to be a god. What it requires to be deified, what a god is. How the word is used. Stop dismissing me and present an argument.
I know what grandfather means. On the other had, I've met multiple people (both in life and online) who have very different ideas about "Jehovah".
Always involving him as being mighty and venerated.
OK, so why do you think such a being really exists?
The Bible.
-
Why is it so surprising to you that different people could have different perspectives about the use of words? Some people clearly take a more literal meaning than others. Some people see being a militant Christian as a good thing - but clearly don't associate it with carrying out physical violence on their fellow humans. You've made your point that you personally don't like to be described as militant. Shall we move on from this point? Maybe discuss the OP's point about anti-theism?
I think you are missing the point, which is about who is coining and attributing the term and for what reason.
An individual can choose to use any term about themselves and assuming they are comfortable about that term and do not find it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative (which if they've chosen to use it presumably they don't), then all well and good. Thats doesn't mean that someone else should use that term about a person who doesn't think the term is reasonable and considers it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative.
So as an example - imagine a person called Pat - used to be really overweight, but not anymore - choses to call herself Fat Pat as a light-hearted joke linked to her previous weight. No great problem.
Image on the other hand a person called Pat who is overweight and has significant anxiety over her body image - would be mortified if someone described her as Fat Pat and sees that term as demeaning, derogatory and pejorative. Would it be appropriate for other people to call her Fat Pat?
And of course we see this in the use of racially abusive language - it is considered OK for a black person to use the N-word about themselves, however it is not acceptable for a white person to use it about a black person, unless that black person has clearly indicated they are happy to be described in that manner by a white person (which is unusual).
So back to the matter in hand - look up 'Militant Christian' - there are very few hits in the first place but most are from christian organisations (or books about christian organisations) that appear to have coined that term and are happy about it. Look up 'Militant atheism' and there are huge numbers of hits, and in its modern context mostly from non atheists coining the term about atheism and using it in a pejorative manner and to try to undermine the arguments of those atheists by portraying the individuals as extreme and, let's face it, dangerous.
That's the difference.
-
Fine, provided such people don’t also claim (their) god to be an objective, “out there” fact of something existing in the world and thus insist that the rest of us take the claim seriously, have privileged positions in the legislature, special schools, open door access to the media etc.
I dispise organized religion. Like the "militant" or "radical" fundamentalist "new" atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and in the past Christopher Hitchens, I think we would be better off without organized religion. I would like to see it destroyed as the book of Revelation has it destroyed, represented as the whore of Babylon. I loath Christian Nationalists and think they are ignorant hypocrites. I despise their self appointed policing of the globe, although it is that which will lead to their destruction. I can't wait for it. Christ's true followers, according to Christ himself, will be no part of the world. That means voting, serving in the armed forces as hired murderers or influencing legislation.
However, having said that, I don't understand why atheists object to those hypocritical ignorant so called Christians doing just that.
I don't think in God we trust belongs on money or the 10 commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse. I don't want "teachers" who are nothing more than underpaid public propaganda peddlers, teaching the Bible. The clergy and false religion has done enough damage. Prayer doesn't belong in the school and no religious organization should get any financial incentive like tax relief.
However, being myself apolitical, and thinking Christendom founded on a river of blood nothing to do with Christ, why shouldn't they be able to play the political game as they seem terribly capable of doing? And why can't atheists organize themselves? They always say stupid shit like "we have nothing in common." Neither did the women, blacks, gays or other minorities who managed to organize themselves and influence the world into accepting their demands to the extent they have done so.
Are atheists just stupid and lazy or are there not as many of them as I think or is it like I think that they are so apathetic they aren't ever going to make that sort of move? I don't think they're stupid. I guess it must be the latter.
-
Nope - if the arguments made for 'God(s)', all or them any of of them, are incoherent or fallacious then they can be dismissed as failed arguments.
Moreover your constant equivocation regarding the term 'God(s)' to cover anything from Eric Clapton to Minerva just renders the term meaningless, since not only do these 'God(s)' then become subjective opinion as opposed to objective fact, there is also a category error there: good guitar players and supernatural agents that can work miracles are not one and the same.
I suspect you have put far too much effort into compiling your bespoke personal narrative that you can no longer see the wood because all the trees are in your way.
btw atheism isn't a belief system.
I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument. Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in laboring the subject. I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.
-
The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case.
This is total nonsense, I'm just making the distinction between "god" the colloquial sense and "god" in the religious sense, the difference between senses 1 and 2, and 3: God (https://www.lexico.com/definition/god).
It's not a word game, it's what the fucking word means.
...
There's no such thing as a meaningless word that I'm aware of. Look it up in your adult dictionary. Look at any example of any god ever known to mankind in any language. It's not a word game it's what the word god in any language has always and will always mean. If I'm wrong show me only one example ever of that not being the case. Read the dictionary listing of god, deity and deify and stop saying it isn't true. SHOW ME.
I already did reference a dictionary, and if you don't understand that a word can have different senses (that were clearly listed in said dictionary) and mean different things in different contexts, then you need to go back to primary school. When you said "it's what the fucking word means", did you think the word was literally engaged in sexual intercourse?
Honestly, this is the most dimwitted attempt to attack atheism I've ever come across in my life.
The Bible.
In what way does an incoherent, often contradictory collection of old books lead you to believe that the being you described exists?
-
I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument. Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in laboring the subject. I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.
I think you are mistaken in thinking that it is the responsibility of those who aren't proposing 'God(s)' to offer you a definition: the burden of proof is on those advocating the proposition. All that your interlocutors here can do is respond to what you propose and point out when what you propose contains issues, such as when you commit a category error (as I noted in the post you were replying to).
For my part, on the basis of how I've seen 'God(s)' argued for to date, such as your use of equivocation and category error, or the incoherent or fallacy-laden attempts that we've regularly encountered in this wee Forum (see 'Searching for God' for multiple examples), I'd say that the term 'God(s)' is just meaningless white noise that doesn't merit being taken seriously.
-
I dispise organized religion. Like the "militant" or "radical" fundamentalist "new" atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and in the past Christopher Hitchens, I think we would be better off without organized religion. I would like to see it destroyed as the book of Revelation has it destroyed, represented as the whore of Babylon. I loath Christian Nationalists and think they are ignorant hypocrites. I despise their self appointed policing of the globe, although it is that which will lead to their destruction. I can't wait for it. Christ's true followers, according to Christ himself, will be no part of the world. That means voting, serving in the armed forces as hired murderers or influencing legislation.
However, having said that, I don't understand why atheists object to those hypocritical ignorant so called Christians doing just that.
I don't think in God we trust belongs on money or the 10 commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse. I don't want "teachers" who are nothing more than underpaid public propaganda peddlers, teaching the Bible. The clergy and false religion has done enough damage. Prayer doesn't belong in the school and no religious organization should get any financial incentive like tax relief.
However, being myself apolitical, and thinking Christendom founded on a river of blood nothing to do with Christ, why shouldn't they be able to play the political game as they seem terribly capable of doing? And why can't atheists organize themselves? They always say stupid shit like "we have nothing in common." Neither did the women, blacks, gays or other minorities who managed to organize themselves and influence the world into accepting their demands to the extent they have done so.
Are atheists just stupid and lazy or are there not as many of them as I think or is it like I think that they are so apathetic they aren't ever going to make that sort of move? I don't think they're stupid. I guess it must be the latter.
I suspect your outlook is coloured by where you are in the world: my impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, is that where you are cultural religiosity is the norm and that is reflected in routinely social discourse, public policy and political exchanges - in essence organised religion is an overt phenomenon in America and that atheists there maybe aren't challenging this.
Here in Scotland, where I am, organised religion isn't similarly overt: for example, our politicians don't mention 'God' or suggest that it would be useful if we indulged in prayer (unless of course they wanted a career change). Here, for those not involved in it, organised religion can be ignored since it has no real clout either socially or politically, as we've seen with Same Sex Marriages legislation, so apathy is perfectly fine since there is nothing really to oppose, and since here religiosity is decline generally.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
-
TS,
Supernatural means (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
But they’re very different things. Thunder was once “beyond scientific understanding” but wasn’t beyond the laws of nature. Which meaning are you attempting here?
god means anything or anyone deified, that is attributed might that is greater than the one attributing it and / or venerated.
That’s nonsense. Like many other words, “god” has various – and qualitatively very different – meanings. The “supernatural” god is a claim about the existence of a non-material “something” outwith the laws and properties of nature. The colloquial “god” on the other hand is just a description of the way people feel about known, material entities. Simply lumping the two meanings together as if they were the epistemically the same is ludicrous.
I think it possible for the supernatural to exist because I don't need science to tell me if something can exist or not.
That’s called a non sequitur – another logical fallacy. What you happen to “need” science to tell you tells you nothing about the existence or otherwise of a “supernatural”.
That doesn't mean that I subscribe to any supernatural claim.
And yet only a few posts ago you said the opposite of that – that you do believe there to be a supernatural god. Which is it?
Some gods exist, some don't.
Oh dear. If by “gods” you mean the supernatural meaning, how do you know that? If though all you intend is the meaning of material phenomena some people think to be fab, so what?
Atheists and probably most theists confuse the concept of god as being exclusively applied to the Abrahamic gods. That's nonsense.
And untrue. There’s no such thing as “atheists” as a collective position, but in general atheism is the absence of belief any gods no matter the religious tradition.
-
The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case.
I disagree entirely.
I think atheists are just that, atheist, because they do not believe, not just in the christian god but all other purported gods currently considered to exist by some people (e.g. Vishnu) or once considered to exist by some people but largely no longer considered to exist (Thor, Odin etc etc). In fact one of the major arguments made by atheists to theists is literally that - effectively that atheists are consistent, on the basis that they apply the same standards to each god - they see no credible evidence that Thor exists, similarly no credible evidence that Vishnu exists, no credible evidence that the christian god exists etc etc and on that basis do not believe in the existence of any of them. By contrast it is often theists who seem fixated in their god alone - happily dismissing the existence of other gods yet choosing to believe in their god despite their being no greater evidence for the existence of their god than, say Thor.
And I think you may also be confusing atheism with secularism - the former is god 'agnostic' so to speak, it applies the same approach to each and every god. Secularism on the other had is largely about political and societal influence of religion, and not unreasonably in the UK (and I guess in the US too) secularism will focus its concerns on the religion with the most influence and special privileges which is likely to be the dominant religion in that country - in both examples I've use that is christianity.
For a secularist, on a fundamental basis, there is no difference between opposing special privileges for christianity than for buddhism or for Thor-ism. But the reality is that there are either no or fewer special privileges for buddhism or Thorism compared to christianity and/or their influence on society is minimal compared to the special privileges for christianity.
-
TS,
I dispise organized religion. Like the "militant" or "radical" fundamentalist "new" atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and in the past Christopher Hitchens, I think we would be better off without organized religion.
RD & CH are/were none of these things. SH’s militancy is debatable.
I would like to see it destroyed as the book of Revelation has it destroyed, represented as the whore of Babylon. I loath Christian Nationalists and think they are ignorant hypocrites. I despise their self appointed policing of the globe, although it is that which will lead to their destruction. I can't wait for it. Christ's true followers, according to Christ himself, will be no part of the world. That means voting, serving in the armed forces as hired murderers or influencing legislation.
“Christ’s true followers” eh? That’s another logical fallacy known as the “no true Scotsman”. As you seem to be falling into fallacies quite a lot, perhaps some rhetorical logic 101 would help you?
However, having said that, I don't understand why atheists object to those hypocritical ignorant so called Christians doing just that.
Why don’t you understand that – it’s obvious I’d have thought.
I don't think in God we trust belongs on money or the 10 commandments or nativity scene at the courthouse. I don't want "teachers" who are nothing more than underpaid public propaganda peddlers, teaching the Bible. The clergy and false religion has done enough damage. Prayer doesn't belong in the school and no religious organization should get any financial incentive like tax relief.
Some of the language aside, fine.
However, being myself apolitical, and thinking Christendom founded on a river of blood nothing to do with Christ, why shouldn't they be able to play the political game as they seem terribly capable of doing?
Because it’s a rigged game for the reasons you just set out.
And why can't atheists organize themselves? They always say stupid shit like "we have nothing in common." Neither did the women, blacks, gays or other minorities who managed to organize themselves and influence the world into accepting their demands to the extent they have done so.
It's secularists, not atheists and again it’s rigged game – especially in your country. How many potential congress people or senators would get elected do you think if they declared their atheism on the ballot paper (even though many of them probably are)?
Are atheists just stupid and lazy or are there not as many of them as I think or is it like I think that they are so apathetic they aren't ever going to make that sort of move? I don't think they're stupid. I guess it must be the latter.
See above. You’re from a country that voted in Trump as president remember. Where would you begin to undo that level of state-induced credulity? By playing the long game with the education system I guess, but it’s a long and bumpy road.
-
TS,
I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument.
Clearly not true. Ignoring arguments isn’t the same as not having them presented to you. Why not start with the argument that your collapsing of the multiple meanings of some terms into one is unsustainable?
Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in laboring the subject.
Shifting of the burden of proof again – anther logical error. If you think there to be such a thing as a “supernatural” god, then it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. Just now you’re in not even wrong territory.
I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.
I’m reluctant to accuse you of lying, but c’mon on now – really?
-
Really?!?
News to me - I certainly have no recollection of making any comment indicating that you were/are violent. I suggest you dig out the evidence or retract please.
At the time I posted I thought there was a possibility rather than any certainty it was you. I tried having a look for the post but there are too many threads to go through and I can't remember the words that were used. I did a search on "aggressive" and found a comment made by Ippy about my posts being "somewhat aggressive" but that was not what I was possibly mistakenly remembering and the search results showed that Ippy says that about a few posters. As there are so many posts to look through, I've given up and so have not find anything related to BHS or SD (other than commenting on derision and sneering in my posts rather than aggression). So I will retract in relation to all the people I mentioned, with my apologies.
-
At the time I posted I thought there was a possibility rather than any certainty it was you. I tried having a look for the post but there are too many threads to go through and I can't remember the words that were used. I did a search on "aggressive" and found a comment made by Ippy about my posts being "somewhat aggressive" but that was not what I was possibly mistakenly remembering and the search results showed that Ippy says that about a few posters. As there are so many posts to look through, I've given up and so have not find anything related to BHS or SD (other than commenting on derision and sneering in my posts rather than aggression). So I will retract in relation to all the people I mentioned, with my apologies.
Apology accepted.
-
There are millions of gods because a god is anything or anyone that is attributed might inasmuch as the might is greater than that of the one attributing it and or is venerated. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand this simple concept that has been accurate for thousands of years without repeating myself. A child could get it. The only reason atheists can't is that it challenges their uninformed preconceptions that the Christian gods are the only gods. Every other application, they seem to think, would be metaphoric. That isn't the case.
That is rather idiosyncratic I think and your theme seems to be getting somewhat bizarre. All gods are human ideas, including the capitalised ones, any Hindu mystical spirit and so on. If you can clearlydemonstrate otherwise, plese try to do so.Most people are idiots.
What an arrogant statement. In any case, the posters here are most certainly not. Some post some consistently daft ideas, but they are not idiots.There's no such thing as a meaningless word that I'm aware of. Look it up in your adult dictionary. Look at any example of any god ever known to mankind in any language. It's not a word game it's what the word god in any language has always and will always mean. If I'm wrong show me only one example ever of that not being the case. Read the dictionary listing of god, deity and deify and stop saying it isn't true. SHOW ME.
Be the first atheist I've ever presented with this challenge to tell me what it means to be a god. What it requires to be deified, what a god is. How the word is used. Stop dismissing me and present an argument.
That's rather smug in my opinion.The Bible.
What?!!! You think that is a rational, answers-every-query- solution?! The Bible, you must surely know, is a set of stories thought of by humans, embellished, varied and a hundred other verbs over the years and in which every thought, every word, every idea is a human one - unless of course you have proof (the 99.99recurring% type) to the contrary.
[/quote]
-
I think you are missing the point, which is about who is coining and attributing the term and for what reason.
An individual can choose to use any term about themselves and assuming they are comfortable about that term and do not find it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative (which if they've chosen to use it presumably they don't), then all well and good. Thats doesn't mean that someone else should use that term about a person who doesn't think the term is reasonable and considers it demeaning, derogatory or pejorative.
So as an example - imagine a person called Pat - used to be really overweight, but not anymore - choses to call herself Fat Pat as a light-hearted joke linked to her previous weight. No great problem.
Image on the other hand a person called Pat who is overweight and has significant anxiety over her body image - would be mortified if someone described her as Fat Pat and sees that term as demeaning, derogatory and pejorative. Would it be appropriate for other people to call her Fat Pat?
And of course we see this in the use of racially abusive language - it is considered OK for a black person to use the N-word about themselves, however it is not acceptable for a white person to use it about a black person, unless that black person has clearly indicated they are happy to be described in that manner by a white person (which is unusual).
So back to the matter in hand - look up 'Militant Christian' - there are very few hits in the first place but most are from christian organisations (or books about christian organisations) that appear to have coined that term and are happy about it. Look up 'Militant atheism' and there are huge numbers of hits, and in its modern context mostly from non atheists coining the term about atheism and using it in a pejorative manner and to try to undermine the arguments of those atheists by portraying the individuals as extreme and, let's face it, dangerous.
That's the difference.
Ok yes I acknowledged that I understood that BHS does not consider himself a militant atheist and does not like the term to be applied to himself. I was disagreeing with his generalisation that if a theist uses the term about an atheist that they are trying to poison the well.
Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole."
It is therefore conceivable that theists will use the term without implying any equivalence to terrorists or trying to poison the well.
-
VG,
Ok yes I acknowledged that I understood that BHS does not consider himself a militant atheist and does not like the term to be applied to himself. I was disagreeing with his generalisation that if a theist uses the term about an atheist that they are trying to poison the well.
Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole.
I really think you’re sick. I’m going to ask the mods to sanction you.
(Naturally by “sick” I mean the urban slang sense of “cool”, and by “sanction” I mean the sense of “permit”. I’d hate for you to think that I was attaching these terms in a pejorative way. Wot me? Never!)
It is therefore conceivable that theists will use the term without implying any equivalence to terrorists or trying to poison the well.
Of course it's conceivable - that's the defence to the charge of poisoning the well. Something being conceivable though doesn't imply its intent.
-
VG,
At the time I posted I thought there was a possibility rather than any certainty it was you. I tried having a look for the post but there are too many threads to go through and I can't remember the words that were used. I did a search on "aggressive" and found a comment made by Ippy about my posts being "somewhat aggressive" but that was not what I was possibly mistakenly remembering and the search results showed that Ippy says that about a few posters. As there are so many posts to look through, I've given up and so have not find anything related to BHS or SD (other than commenting on derision and sneering in my posts rather than aggression). So I will retract in relation to all the people I mentioned, with my apologies.
Not necessary for me, but thank you.
-
Ok yes I acknowledged that I understood that BHS does not consider himself a militant atheist and does not like the term to be applied to himself. I was disagreeing with his generalisation that if a theist uses the term about an atheist that they are trying to poison the well.
I think that the coining the term to apply to modern atheists and their approach to discourse and attaining their objectives is most definitely 'poisoning the well'. It is clearly an attempt to portray individuals and/or their view as extreme and dangerous when there is no indication that they are. Indeed, certainly in the UK most of the 'wants' of those accused of being 'militant' atheists align with mainstream popular opinion - e.g. only teaching science as science, not wanting Bishops having automatic places in the HoLs, opposing state funded faith schools, etc etc - these views are in the mainstream not the extreme. Nor are their proposed methods for attaining their objectives in any way 'militant' as they entirely work via debate, discussion, changing minds by argument and democratic means. Where exactly is the 'militia' to go along with these 'militant' atheists. There isn't one.
Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole."
You don't have to be 'militant' to be in a state of war do you - often wars involve an aggressor and a non aggressor. That the non aggressor may choose to defend themselves in a 'war' doesn't mean they are in any way militant.
And you are simply taking words, selectively and out of context no doubt (your Dawkins quote) and potentially twisting them for an agenda. We currently talk about being in a state of war with the coronavirus - does that mean we are somehow all 'militants' in some respect - I don't think so, we are simply using that term to talk about a threat that we are defending ourself against.
-
VG,
I really think you’re sick. I’m going to ask the mods to sanction you.
(Naturally by “sick” I mean the urban slang sense of “cool”, and by “sanction” I mean the sense of “permit”. I’d hate for you to think that I was attaching these terms in a pejorative way. Wot me? Never!)
Of course it's conceivable - that's the defence to the charge of poisoning the well. Something being conceivable though doesn't imply its intent.
How do you propose to establish the intent of the person using the term?
-
I think that the coining the term to apply to modern atheists and their approach to discourse and attaining their objectives is most definitely 'poisoning the well'. It is clearly an attempt to portray individuals and/or their view as extreme and dangerous when there is no indication that they are. Indeed, certainly in the UK most of the 'wants' of those accused of being 'militant' atheists align with mainstream popular opinion - e.g. only teaching science as science, not wanting Bishops having automatic places in the HoLs, opposing state funded faith schools, etc etc - these views are in the mainstream not the extreme. Nor are their proposed methods for attaining their objectives in any way 'militant' as they entirely work via debate, discussion, changing minds by argument and democratic means. Where exactly is the 'militia' to go along with these 'militant' atheists. There isn't one.
You don't have to be 'militant' to be in a state of war do you - often wars involve an aggressor and a non aggressor. That the non aggressor may choose to defend themselves in a 'war' doesn't mean they are in any way militant.
And you are simply taking words, selectively and out of context no doubt (your Dawkins quote) and potentially twisting them for an agenda. We currently talk about being in a state of war with the coronavirus - does that mean we are somehow all 'militants' in some respect - I don't think so, we are simply using that term to talk about a threat that we are defending ourself against.
You suggested I look up 'militant atheism' so I assumed you already had. When I looked up the term at your suggestion, in order to try to see your perspective, the Dawkins Ted Talk came up on the 1st page so I assumed you would be able to find it and read it in context yourself rather than making assumptions about what I had quoted.
If you haven't done that, then to make your life easier here's the link and you can tell me why you think it is out of context or where Dawkins disapproves of the label "militant atheist" or thinks it is poisoning the well
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_militant_atheism
-
Richard Dawkins has a TED talk entitled Militant Atheism and states "it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war." and "Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism, and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do. In an audience as sophisticated as this one, that would be preaching to the choir. Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism." and " My approach to attacking creationism is -- unlike the evolution lobby -- my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole."
This is the most amazing bit of quote mining I've seen in quite a while - trying to imply that these highly selected quotes taken entirely put of context suggest Dawkins to be aggressively whipping up a militant atheist agenda (whatever that means).
Read the entire talk:
https://ted2srt.org/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism
Dawkins only uses the word 'militant' twice - once for a laugh (which is your selected quote, but you failed to indicate it was meant to be humorous), and secondly as part of an anecdote about a person who lived in the 19thC.
And most of the rest of the talk is about levelling the playing field - in other words creating a society in which being atheist is no more or less acceptable than being christian or republican or a Windows user.
-
You suggested I look up 'militant atheism' so I assumed you already had. When I looked up the term at your suggestion, in order to try to see your perspective, the Dawkins Ted Talk came up on the 1st page so I assumed you would be able to find it and read it in context yourself rather than making assumptions about what I had quoted.
If you haven't done that, then to make your life easier here's the link and you can tell me why you think it is out of context or where Dawkins disapproves of the label "militant atheist" or thinks it is poisoning the well
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_militant_atheism
Already replied to you - and already linked to it.
Where exactly does Dawkins espouse militant atheism except to get a laugh from his audience, who of course know his opponents regularly accuse him of being a 'militant' atheist and in the context of the anecdote about Darwin and Aveling.
Where does Dawkins describe himself as militant atheist - answer he doesn't.
Somehow I suspect you haven't actually read the text of his talk - but hey how much easier to take a couple of quotes out of context and create an impression that the overall talk doesn't give.
-
VG,
How do you propose to establish the intent of the person using the term?
I don't need to - the damage is already done. How would you intend to establish my intent when I call you sick and call for you to be sanctioned?
-
Already replied to you - and already linked to it.
Where exactly does Dawkins espouse militant atheism except to get a laugh from his audience, who of course know his opponents regularly accuse him of being a 'militant' atheist and in the context of the anecdote about Darwin and Aveling.
Somehow I suspect you haven't actually read the text of his talk - but hey how much easier to take a couple of quotes out of context and create an impression that the overall talk doesn't give.
His audience is laughing repeatedly throughout the talk so the audience laughing indicates what exactly in your opinion?
You suspect wrong - I read the text of the talk, which is why I copied and pasted from the text and subsequently linked to it to give context to my quotes. What impression is it that you think I have created? Or rather what impression have you formed from your interpretation of my post? Maybe you formed the wrong impression or made an incorrect assumption about the impression you think I was trying to create.
Dawkins espouses rocking the boat, which from reading the text sounds like his interpretation of militant atheism.
You have not answered my question - why don't you quote where you think Dawkins is disapproving of the term 'militant atheism' or thinks it is poisoning the well.
-
His audience is laughing repeatedly throughout the talk so the audience laughing indicates what exactly in your opinion?
That he is making a comment that it intended to be humorous obviously.
His one comment on militant atheism (apart from the reference to Aveling) isn't defining himself as a militant atheist, nor a call to arms to militant atheism. Nope it is a humorous comment based on the fact that he is seen as some kind of evil bogey man by many US theists and accused of being a 'militant ' atheist. He is poking fun at those people and playing to the gallery.
-
You suspect wrong - I read the text of the talk, which is why I copied and pasted from the text and subsequently linked to it to give context to my quotes. What impression is it that you think I have created? Or rather what impression have you formed from your interpretation of my post? Maybe you formed the wrong impression or made an incorrect assumption about the impression you think I was trying to create.
Dawkins espouses rocking the boat, which from reading the text sounds like his interpretation of militant atheism.
He espouses being less polite and apologetic about being atheist. He wants people who are atheist to feel comfortable to say that they are atheist without facing vilification from society, he is espousing people who do not like religion to be able to voice their opinions without being seen as some kind of bogeyman.
That is about as militant as saying that a woman in the early 20thC should be able to say that they think women should be able to vote without being seen as crazed loons and a danger to society. Militant, my foot.
And since when was 'rocking the boat' somehow tantamount to being militant - anyone who opposes the establishment order is rocking the boat, regardless of whether they support militant approaches. To rock the boat by giving a TED talk, militant?!? I mean WTF - last time I looked militants took to the streets with weapons, overthrew establishment institutions with violence and force. They don't give TED talks, ask people to be a tad less polite, suggest they read a few books and perhaps use democracy to make progress.
-
This is the most amazing bit of quote mining I've seen in quite a while - trying to imply that these highly selected quotes taken entirely put of context suggest Dawkins to be aggressively whipping up a militant atheist agenda (whatever that means).
I have not suggested Dawkins is "whipping" up anything. You used the word "whipping", not me so I suggest you don't attribute something to me that I never said. The whole point of my quotes was to say that in the TED talk Dawkins does not suggest that militant atheism is violent or extreme or dangerous. He seems to be using the term 'militant' as part of his language of being at war and as you suggested, which I agree with, you can be at war with an idea or a lobby without being considered violent or dangerous or extreme.
Read the entire talk:
https://ted2srt.org/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism
Dawkins only uses the word 'militant' twice - once for a laugh (which is your selected quote, but you failed to indicate it was meant to be humorous), and secondly as part of an anecdote about a person who lived in the 19thC.
And most of the rest of the talk is about levelling the playing field - in other words creating a society in which being atheist is no more or less acceptable than being christian or republican or a Windows user.
Again you are making incorrect assumptions - I did read the entire talk. I think you are misinterpreting the way Dawkins uses the term 'militant atheism'. The anecdote about the person living in the 19th Century - Darwin and Aveling - was important so not sure why you are pretending it is not relevant to this discussion. Dawkins described Aveling as a militant atheist. Can you provide a quote to say that Dawkins disapproved of Aveling for being a militant atheist or thought Aveling did anything violent because of his militant atheism? As far as I can see from the transcript Dawkins does not see militant atheism as suggesting violence but considers it rocking the boat. How are you analysing the following part of the TED talk? Dawkins says as follows:
"He [Darwin] even became uncharacteristically tetchy with Edward Aveling. Aveling was a militant atheist who failed to persuade Darwin to accept the dedication of his book on atheism -- incidentally, giving rise to a fascinating myth that Karl Marx tried to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin, which he didn't, it was actually Edward Aveling. What happened was that Aveling's mistress was Marx's daughter, and when both Darwin and Marx were dead, Marx's papers became muddled up with Aveling's papers, and a letter from Darwin saying, "My dear sir, thank you very much but I don't want you to dedicate your book to me," was mistakenly supposed to be addressed to Marx, and that gave rise to this whole myth, which you've probably heard. It's a sort of urban myth, that Marx tried to dedicate "Kapital" to Darwin.
21:30
Anyway, it was Aveling, and when they met, Darwin challenged Aveling. "Why do you call yourselves atheists?" "'Agnostic, '" retorted Aveling, "was simply 'atheist' writ respectable, and 'atheist' was simply 'agnostic' writ aggressive." Darwin complained, "But why should you be so aggressive?" Darwin thought that atheism might be well and good for the intelligentsia, but that ordinary people were not, quote, "ripe for it." Which is, of course, our old friend, the "don't rock the boat" argument. It's not recorded whether Aveling told Darwin to come down off his high horse.
22:14
(Laughter)
22:16
But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago. You'd think we might have grown up since then.
-
That he is making a comment that it intended to be humorous obviously.
His one comment on militant atheism (apart from the reference to Aveling) isn't defining himself as a militant atheist, nor a call to arms to militant atheism. Nope it is a humorous comment based on the fact that he is seen as some kind of evil bogey man by many US theists and accused of being a 'militant ' atheist. He is poking fun at those people and playing to the gallery.
He is urging atheists to become militant atheists and illustrating his request by referring to someone whom he labels a militant atheist, who as far as I can tell was a teacher and an author and not a violent person. Which part of that indicates that he thinks militant atheism is violent?
-
You have not answered my question - why don't you quote where you think Dawkins is disapproving of the term 'militant atheism' or thinks it is poisoning the well.
I never claimed that so there is no onus on me to provide any quote to that effect.
You on the other had ruthlessly quote mined to give the impression that in the TED talk Dawkins applies the term militant atheist to himself rather than implying that others apply to him (he never does) and that it is somehow a call to arms for militant atheism (it isn't) unless you think that being able to feely state what your belief and opinions are is somehow a militant action.
-
He espouses being less polite and apologetic about being atheist. He wants people who are atheist to feel comfortable to say that they are atheist without facing vilification from society, he is espousing people who do not like religion to be able to voice their opinions without being seen as some kind of bogeyman.
That is about as militant as saying that a woman in the early 20thC should be able to say that they think women should be able to vote without being seen as crazed loons and a danger to society. Militant, my foot.
And since when was 'rocking the boat' somehow tantamount to being militant - anyone who opposes the establishment order is rocking the boat, regardless of whether they support militant approaches. To rock the boat by giving a TED talk, militant?!? I mean WTF - last time I looked militants took to the streets with weapons, overthrew establishment institutions with violence and force. They don't give TED talks, ask people to be a tad less polite, suggest they read a few books and perhaps use democracy to make progress.
I suggest you take it up with Dawkins - he is the person who seems to be using the term 'militant atheism' in a way where it does not mean violence and force. But as I have already asked you to analyse what he said, break it down, to show where he thinks militant atheism is an atheist who uses force and violence, I will wait for you to respond to that request.
-
I never claimed that so there is no onus on me to provide any quote to that effect.
You on the other had ruthlessly quote mined to give the impression that in the TED talk Dawkins applies the term militant atheist to himself rather than implying that others apply to him (he never does) and that it is somehow a call to arms for militant atheism (it isn't) unless you think that being able to feely state what your belief and opinions are is somehow a militant action.
Ok so you don't have evidence that Dawkins thinks that using the term 'militant atheist' is poisoning the well. I will leave it to Dawkins' own words to create an impression to the people who read it. You will have to ask Dawkins to confirm the impression he intended to create with his words.
-
He is urging atheists to become militant atheists and illustrating his request by referring to someone who labels a militant atheist, who as far as I can tell was a teacher and an author and not a violent person. Which part of that indicates that he thinks militant atheism is violent?
Maybe you should read up a little more on Edward Aveling - he was a revolutionary marxist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of the established orders by whatever means was necessary as per the views of his friends Karl Marx (he translated Das Capital into English and married his daughter) and Engels. And of course from that tradition comes the genuine militant atheist movements of the early 20thC, particularly in the USSR.
But of course all Dawkins is doing in his anecdote is repeating Aveling's view that a person shouldn't feel they have to call themselves agnostic rather than atheist out of politeness and to seem respectable. Plus of course to be able to recount an entertaining anecdote about Aveling, Darwin and Marx.
-
Ok so you don't have evidence that Dawkins thinks that using the term 'militant atheist' is poisoning the well.
I haven't found a single example where Dawkins has described himself as a militant atheist (perhaps he does somewhere but it isn't obvious) - opponents often describe him as a militant atheist, and he often says that he is accused of being a militant atheist.
Surely you can enlighten us Gabriella and provide examples where Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.
-
Ok so you don't have evidence that Dawkins thinks that using the term 'militant atheist' is poisoning the well.
On poisoning the well - much of the talk is about opponents using atheist, and by extension militant atheist, as a derogatory term - poisoning the well, so to speak. Hence:
'Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism: Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."'
The tenor of the talk is effectively to claim back the term atheism - to use an analogy - he is a gay man espousing that other gay men should feel confident to say 'I'm out and I'm proud'. Is a gay man who able to state that he is out and proud a militant? I don't think so.
-
A few years ago I remember seeing a news piece with a covertly recorded video clip from inside a mosque where a fruit loop speaker was exhorting his audience to all manner of violent actions. What struck me though was that all his ire was aimed at atheists, expressly so in fact. No doubt he had issues with believers in other faiths, but for him not believing in a god at all was utterly beyond the pale. They (we) were the real enemy so far as he was concerned – he seemed pretty happy about calling for a fatwah against them too. I guess in part at least that’s what you get when you demonise atheists with inappropriate language like “militant”: “Hey, if they’re militant about us we should be militant about them first right? Grab your weapons boys!”
Clearly it would be more accurate to use terms like, “committed”, "strongly held”, “polemical” etc but where’s the fun in that when you can blithely use a term instead that also includes all manner of armed violence?
-
A few years ago I remember seeing a news piece with a covertly recorded video clip from inside a mosque where a fruit loop speaker was exhorting his audience to all manner of violent actions. What struck me though was that all his ire was aimed at atheists, expressly so in fact. No doubt he had issues with believers in other faiths, but for him not believing in a god at all was utterly beyond the pale. They (we) were the real enemy so far as he was concerned – he seemed pretty happy about calling for a fatwah against them too. I guess in part at least that’s what you get when you demonise atheists with inappropriate language like “militant”: “Hey, if they’re militant about us we should be militant about them first right? Grab your weapons boys!”
Clearly it would be more accurate to use terms like, “committed”, "strongly held”, “polemical” etc but where’s the fun in that when you can blithely use a term instead that also includes all manner of armed violence?
But that is, of course, the whole point - to equate the words 'extreme', 'militant' etc as being the same when applied to atheist as well as being applied to religious extremists. 'Look there go the militant atheists, they are just the same as the militant islamists'.
It is a classic trope used to portray perfectly reasonable views and behaviours as somehow extreme and dangerous.
-
Maybe you should read up a little more on Edward Aveling - he was a revolutionary marxist who believed in the revolutionary overthrow of the established orders by whatever means was necessary as per the views of his friends Karl Marx (he translated Das Capital into English and married his daughter) and Engels. And of course from that tradition comes the genuine militant atheist movements of the early 20thC, particularly in the USSR.
But of course all Dawkins is doing in his anecdote is repeating Aveling's view that a person shouldn't feel they have to call themselves agnostic rather than atheist out of politeness and to seem respectable. Plus of course to be able to recount an entertaining anecdote about Aveling, Darwin and Marx.
Do you have any evidence that Aveling was violent or not? More importantly do you have any evidence that Aveling was violently promoting atheism or not? Currently my impression is that Dawkins, an atheist, was labelling another atheist, who had not committed violence, a militant atheist. If you can show that Dawkins was aware of violence committed by Aveling in the promotion of atheism and that is why he called Aveling a militant, then please present it and I will change my opinion.
-
That he is making a comment that it intended to be humorous obviously.
His one comment on militant atheism (apart from the reference to Aveling) isn't defining himself as a militant atheist, nor a call to arms to militant atheism. Nope it is a humorous comment based on the fact that he is seen as some kind of evil bogey man by many US theists and accused of being a 'militant ' atheist. He is poking fun at those people and playing to the gallery.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that he was inviting people to be militant atheists without inviting them to be violent.
-
Do you have any evidence that Aveling was violent or not? More importantly do you have any evidence that Aveling was violently promoting atheism or not? Currently my impression is that Dawkins, an atheist, was labelling another atheist, who had not committed violence, a militant atheist. If you can show that Dawkins was aware of violence committed by Aveling in the promotion of atheism and that is why he called Aveling a militant, then please present it and I will change my opinion.
I don't believe Aveling was personally violent but he was an active and founding member of a variant of movements that subscribed to the classic marxist view that revolutionary methods, including violence if necessary were justified in meeting their revolutionary ends. And of course many marxist and communist revolutions did just that.
Alongside the standard marxist approach developed a more specific militant atheist movement in the late 19thC (look it up), that specifically espoused revolutionary means to remove religion from marxist societies as religion was seen as one of the pillars of the established order that needed to be toppled.
-
I haven't found a single example where Dawkins has described himself as a militant atheist (perhaps he does somewhere but it isn't obvious) - opponents often describe him as a militant atheist, and he often says that he is accused of being a militant atheist.
Surely you can enlighten us Gabriella and provide examples where Dawkins describes himself as a militant atheist.
Let me know when you have had a chat with him and he can explain why he urged his audience to become militant atheists. If the term really is universally understood to mean violent atheists and he was recorded encouraging people to use violence to promote atheism I imagine encouraging violence would have got him in trouble with the authorities.
On the other hand, if people don't automatically associate militant atheism with violence it would explain why, as far as I know, he did not get into trouble for inciting violence. Unless you have evidence to the contrary and he was censured for encouraging violence?
-
I don't believe Aveling was personally violent but he was an active and founding member of a variant of movements that subscribed to the classic marxist view that revolutionary methods, including violence if necessary were justified in meeting their revolutionary ends. And of course many marxist and communist revolutions did just that.
Alongside the standard marxist approach developed a more specific militant atheist movement in the late 19thC (look it up), that specifically espoused revolutionary means to remove religion from marxist societies as religion was seen as one of the pillars of the established order that needed to be toppled.
Well surely the important point is to establish whether Aveling was violent in the promotion of atheism since we are discussing the militant atheism label rather than political labels. I have not seen any evidence that Aveling used violence to promote his atheism.
Did he commit violence in promotion of his Marxism?
-
On poisoning the well - much of the talk is about opponents using atheist, and by extension militant atheist, as a derogatory term - poisoning the well, so to speak. Hence:
'Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case, fall back on the popular phobia against atheism: Teach your children evolution in biology class, and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."'
The tenor of the talk is effectively to claim back the term atheism - to use an analogy - he is a gay man espousing that other gay men should feel confident to say 'I'm out and I'm proud'. Is a gay man who able to state that he is out and proud a militant? I don't think so.
So in explaining my opinion that 'militant' does not necessarily mean violent, I link to a Christian website that calls for people to become militant Christians while not espousing violence and you responded that it's ok for Christians to call themselves militant Christians and for it to mean non-violence, however it's problematic for theists to describe atheists as militant atheists as they are trying to imply atheists are violent.
I then link t Dawkins, an atheist, apparently not having a problem with describing a seemingly non-violent atheist as a militant atheist, and urging a room full of non-violent people to pursue militant atheism (presumably not violently and therefore in a similar way to the militant Christian example) and you say he is claiming back the term atheism. I have no idea where you are going with the 'claiming back' argument but can you or can you not post some evidence that Dawkins thought the term "militant atheism" in his TED talk means violent atheism?
-
I often wonder if the predilection of atheists not to be labelled or indeed classified is motivated by the same impulse which makes the guilty not properly identify themselves.
-
Vlad,
I often wonder if the predilection of atheists not to be labelled or indeed classified is motivated by the same impulse which makes the guilty not properly identify themselves.
No you don't often wonder that, and it's the improper labelling that's the problem.
One might equally "often wonder" why the need to label atheists with a term commonly used for violent behaviour when perfectly appropriate terms that don't serve to poison the well are available for what they actually do.
One might also wonder why the people who do that nonetheless don't also feel the need to do it for those who argue just as well and as commitedly for positions that don't threaten their religious convictions - politics for example. Is an MP who makes a passionate speech with no call to arms whatsoever also "militant" or just, well, passionate?
Funny thing about poisoning the well - people who do it don't like the label of doing it.
-
A few years ago I remember seeing a news piece with a covertly recorded video clip from inside a mosque where a fruit loop speaker was exhorting his audience to all manner of violent actions. What struck me though was that all his ire was aimed at atheists, expressly so in fact. No doubt he had issues with believers in other faiths, but for him not believing in a god at all was utterly beyond the pale. They (we) were the real enemy so far as he was concerned – he seemed pretty happy about calling for a fatwah against them too. I guess in part at least that’s what you get when you demonise atheists with inappropriate language like “militant”: “Hey, if they’re militant about us we should be militant about them first right? Grab your weapons boys!”
Clearly it would be more accurate to use terms like, “committed”, "strongly held”, “polemical” etc but where’s the fun in that when you can blithely use a term instead that also includes all manner of armed violence?
Do you have a link? Did the speaker use the term 'militant atheist'? Did he accuse the atheists of violence in promotion of atheism or violence in pursuit of oil or land or give some detail about what violence he was accusing atheists of?
-
VG,
Do you have a link? Did the speaker use the term 'militant atheist'? Did he accuse the atheists of violence in promotion of atheism or violence in pursuit of oil or land or give some detail about what violence he was accusing atheists of?
No, I was making a different point – namely the (to me) odd phenomenon of a religious nut job being more upset by atheists than he was by subscribers to other religions. Why do you suppose that was?
-
So in explaining my opinion that 'militant' does not necessarily mean violent, I link to a Christian website that calls for people to become militant Christians while not espousing violence and you responded that it's ok for Christians to call themselves militant Christians and for it to mean non-violence, however it's problematic for theists to describe atheists as militant atheists as they are trying to imply atheists are violent.
I then link t Dawkins, an atheist, apparently not having a problem with describing a seemingly non-violent atheist as a militant atheist, and urging a room full of non-violent people to pursue militant atheism (presumably not violently and therefore in a similar way to the militant Christian example) and you say he is claiming back the term atheism. I have no idea where you are going with the 'claiming back' argument but can you or can you not post some evidence that Dawkins thought the term "militant atheism" in his TED talk means violent atheism?
I fully accept that 'militant' does not necessarily equate to violent, but it must include some elements that would typically be considered within the arsenal of militant actions, which could include (in support of a goal):
Actual violence
Threat of violence
Non violent civil disobedience - e.g. breaking of the law
Confrontational action - e.g. picketing your opponents premises, places of work (or worship etc), sending threatening letters
Mass demonstrations, with or without civil disobedience or violence
Deliberate infiltration of other/opponent organisation in order to take them over
Refusal to fulfil duties - e.g. strike action, work to rule etc
Aggressive/confrontational behaviour towards opponents
All of these might be considered to be militant actions. None of these apply to Dawkins, nor as far as I'm aware does he promote or advocate any of these. He writes books and articles, participates in debates and voices his opinions in a manner that is unerringly polite and 'academic' in manner.
Please explain exactly which of his actions are consistent with the term 'militant' and make sure that you are being consistent so that anyone else, with any other views, using those actions would also be considered 'militant'.
-
VG,
No, I was making a different point – namely the (to me) odd phenomenon of a religious nut job being more upset by atheists than he was by subscribers to other religions. Why do you suppose that was?
Well I can't speak for the religious nut job, having not had an opportunity to hear what he said.
I also have no data as evidence. Did you want an anecdote or just pure speculation without the anecdote?
-
I've presented my case. I've said enough to demonstrate my point and I've had not one single argument. Until someone comes up with an argument that can define a god or that can give me some real reason for me to think I'm the one making the error I don't see any point in labouring the subject. I usually do this right off when joining a new forum. No one has ever presented any real argument or even came forward to define god other than to give an abridged dictionary listing which excludes most of the examples of gods given without reason.
I'll tell you what else you have done - you have writhed and wriggled like a snake in a rat-trap trying to define 'GOD' and have thus given an almost perfect proof of my titling of this thread!
While speaking to you I might as well point out to you that I am, by way of religious belief a Pagan, a Pagan, Priest and Witch and the deities of my Coven are Ceridwen (Goddess) and Cernunnos (God).
I do not have any proof that these deities exist - their existence is, as I have posted before, (before your arrival) a matter of faith and not of fact.
As far as I and the majority of Witches, including those in the good ol' U S of A, are concerned that faith is as great and as real as that of Christians, just that we do not claim to have any proof that they exist.
Owlswing
)O(
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
-
I fully accept that 'militant' does not necessarily equate to violent, but it must include some elements that would typically be considered within the arsenal of militant actions, which could include (in support of a goal):
Actual violence
Threat of violence
Non violent civil disobedience - e.g. breaking of the law
Confrontational action - e.g. picketing your opponents premises, places of work (or worship etc), sending threatening letters
Mass demonstrations, with or without civil disobedience or violence
Refusal to fulfil duties - e.g. strike action, work to rule etc
Aggressive/confrontational behaviour towards opponents
All of these might be considered to be militant actions. None of these apply to Dawkins, nor as far as I'm aware does he promote or advocate any of these. He writes books and articles, participates in debates and voices his opinions in a manner that is unerringly polite and 'academic' in manner.
Please explain exactly which of his actions are consistent with the term 'militant' and make sure that you are being consistent so that anyone else, with any other views, using those actions would also be considered 'militant'.
I can only go by the usage that I am familiar with. I don't think it's just me who doesn't pigeon-hole the word militant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant
If I hear the term Islamic militant I think of someone with a weapon prepared to commit violence - either as aggressor or in self-defence.
If I hear militant Muslim it's more ambiguous - they might have a weapon or they could just be out robustly promoting Islam in a confrontational but a non-violent way trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society. If they are non-violent I imagine they are probably still being shouty and literalist in the way they go about their activism, and commit a lot of their time and energy to their cause.
A Christian militant again evokes a image of a person with a weapon. A militant Christian could be tooled up or it could be someone non-violent and promoting their cause in a robust but non-violent way, again trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society, and committing a lot of their time and energy to their cause.
An atheist militant - I would probably think of a weapon but then would struggle to define their cause as atheists need to oppose all theists in order to be atheists, rather than targeting a specific religious denomination. So they would have to blow up a multi-faith event for it to be against all theists rather than anti-Protestant or anti-Muslim etc
But a militant atheist would make me think of someone robustly and proactively opposing theism in a non-violent way and committing a lot of their time and energy to their cause of trying to convert more people to an atheist outlook.
If Dawkins, as an atheist, clarifies what he meant when he used the term while he urged his audience of atheists to militant atheism, maybe you would be less sensitive about it. It sounds like he was urging people to be more committed to robustly challenging the perceived societal pressure to be reticent or not be forward about their atheist outlook. And he was asking them to push back against or oppose those theists who want to maintain their special privileges or who want others to treat their belief in god in a sacred way.
I don't use the term militant atheism myself. I don't have a problem discussing theism with most atheists I come across as I can see where they are coming from, having been one myself. I might have a problem with their demeanour or their personality or the way they articulate their views but not with their atheism.
-
I can only go by the usage that I am familiar with. I don't think it's just me who doesn't pigeon-hole the word militant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant
If I hear the term Islamic militant I think of someone with a weapon prepared to commit violence - either as aggressor or in self-defence.
If I hear militant Muslim it's more ambiguous - they might have a weapon or they could just be out robustly promoting Islam in a confrontational but a non-violent way trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society. If they are non-violent I imagine they are probably still being shouty and literalist in the way they go about their activism, and commit a lot of their time and energy to their cause.
A Christian militant again evokes a image of a person with a weapon. A militant Christian could be tooled up or it could be someone non-violent and promoting their cause in a robust but non-violent way, again trying to ensure that their particular interpretation has special privileges in society, and committing a lot of their time and energy to their cause.
An atheist militant - I would probably think of a weapon but then would struggle to define their cause as atheists need to oppose all theists in order to be atheists, rather than targeting a specific religious denomination. So they would have to blow up a multi-faith event for it to be against all theists rather than anti-Protestant or anti-Muslim etc
Surely the word must relate to the nature of the action not the nature of the cause, or you are just special pleading.
So you cannot (without being accused of double standards) describe someone who acts in a particular manner for a cause you support as 'robust' or 'committed', yet label someone using exactly the same type of actions as 'militant' or 'extreme'. That is just adding a layer of pejorative bias.
So unless you'd be comfortable to describe someone who acts in a similar manner to Dawkins in support of, for example, environmentalism (e.g. David Attenborough - also unerringly polite and with great media presence in support of a cause) or christianity (e.g. Giles Fraser - again regular and 'robust' debater, but not overtly confrontational) as 'militant' then it is inappropriate to can Dawkins as such unless you are engaged in pejorative disassembling of him on the basis that you don't like his cause.
-
I don't use the term militant atheism myself.
Yet you seem rather obsessed with it, given that you've spent ages on this thread talking about it in relation to a 30 minute talk by Dawkins in which the word is used just twice, and in neither case did he indicate he considered himself as such, nor was it mentioned in either the introduction nor the conclusion of the talk.
-
If Dawkins, as an atheist, clarifies what he meant when he used the term while he urged his audience of atheists to militant atheism, maybe you would be less sensitive about it.
From the talk I think he means it is a pejorative term he is accused of being by opponents when just accusing him of being an atheist isn't sufficient for his perceived bogeyman status - hence his joke in the middle of the talk.
-
It sounds like he was urging people to be more committed to robustly challenging the perceived societal pressure to be reticent or not be forward about their atheist outlook. And he was asking them to push back against or oppose those theists who want to maintain their special privileges or who want others to treat their belief in god in a sacred way.
Which isn't a militant position in the slightest, any more than suggesting women or black people might speak up a little more about the special privileges afforded to men and white people.
It could be a militant position if he espoused militant actions of the types I listed, but he doesn't.
-
Yet you seem rather obsessed with it, given that you've spent ages on this thread talking about it in relation to a 30 minute talk by Dawkins in which the word is used just twice, and in neither case did he indicate he considered himself as such, nor was it mentioned in either the introduction nor the conclusion of the talk.
That's a bit like saying atheists are obsessed with religion because they spend so much time on this forum discussing it.
I have an opinion. I have some time on my hands. I was too busy to come on the forum before. I can't go out to socialise with other households because of the Tier 2 lockdown. I even watched Paddington and Paddington 2. Now I'm on a discussion forum having a discussion with you because you are having a discussion with me. If you're so sensitive about the time people spend discussing things on discussion forums maybe this forum is not the best place for you?
-
Surely the word must relate to the nature of the action not the nature of the cause, or you are just special pleading.
So you cannot (without being accused of double standards) describe someone who acts in a particular manner for a cause you support as 'robust' or 'committed', yet label someone using exactly the same type of actions as 'militant' or 'extreme'. That is just adding a layer of pejorative bias.
So unless you'd be comfortable to describe someone who acts in a similar manner to Dawkins in support of, for example, environmentalism (e.g. David Attenborough - also unerringly polite and with great media presence in support of a cause) or christianity (e.g. Giles Fraser - again regular and 'robust' debater, but not overtly confrontational) as 'militant' then it is inappropriate to can Dawkins as such unless you are engaged in pejorative disassembling of him on the basis that you don't like his cause.
As I explained - I think militant the noun sounds violent. I think militant the adjective is ambiguous. Militant the adjective could just indicate robust, resilient, active, fervent, committed to a cause or it could indicate violence. I have no idea if Richard Dawkins' definition of militant atheism includes the actions in your list. Only he can tell what actions he had would consider militant atheism.
ETA: Maybe Dawkins was using militant to mean controversial. Un which case that could apply to Attenborough's views on population control eg. his view that it is barmy to say we should get the UN to send bags of flour to starving people in Ethiopia. His opponents say it is somewhat racist to blame large populations of starving Africans for climate change when the majority of environmental problems are caused by the carbon footprint of technology and fossil fuel use of wealthy countries.
-
I'm a gay militant.
My weapon of choice is glitter.
Ok it doesn't kill anybody, but they have to spend the rest of their lives cleaning the carpet.
-
As I explained - I think militant the noun sounds violent. I think militant the adjective is ambiguous. Militant the adjective could just indicate robust, resilient, active, fervent, committed to a cause or it could indicate violence. I have no idea if Richard Dawkins' definition of militant atheism includes the actions in your list. Only he can tell what actions he had would consider militant atheism.
ETA: Maybe Dawkins was using militant to mean controversial. Un which case that could apply to Attenborough's views on population control eg. his view that it is barmy to say we should get the UN to send bags of flour to starving people in Ethiopia. His opponents say it is somewhat racist to blame large populations of starving Africans for climate change when the majority of environmental problems are caused by the carbon footprint of technology and fossil fuel use of wealthy countries.
Gabriella, if you were to take a look at the UK National Secular Society's site and take note of the rather large amount of unwarranted privileges the various religions have such as:
A now fortunately a gradually diminishing privilege, the free bussing of children to religion based schools outside of their area and this privilege isn't available for children surrounded by religion based schools that would like to have the free bussing privilege to a more secular school outside of their area.
This only one of so many privileges the religious believers have, so if we non-religious people like so many of us Secular Humanists, do get a little bit rattled by some of these many privileges, perhaps you might be more inclined to understand that the ones you think of as militant are more than likely to be holding back than being aggressive.
Oh yes every time secularists campaign go against any of the many religion based PRIVILEGES, the religious believers more often than not start screaming persecution when it's the privilege that's being campaigned against not the religion itself.
Everyone should enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion as well!
ippy
-
Gabriella, if you were to take a look at the UK National Secular Society's site and take note of the rather large amount of unwarranted privileges the various religions have such as:
A now fortunately a gradually diminishing privilege, the free bussing of children to religion based schools outside of their area and this privilege isn't available for children surrounded by religion based schools that would like to have the free bussing privilege to a more secular school outside of their area.
This only one of so many privileges the religious believers have, so if we non-religious people like so many of us Secular Humanists, do get a little bit rattled by some of these many privileges, perhaps you might be more inclined to understand that the ones you think of as militant are more than likely to be holding back than being aggressive.
Oh yes every time secularists campaign go against any of the many religion based PRIVILEGES, the religious believers more often than not start screaming persecution when it's the privilege that's being campaigned against not the religion itself.
Everyone should enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion as well!
ippy
And it is a common trope for those who are trying to level a playing field to be accused of being militant or extreme by those who benefit from the special privileges an uneven playing file provides.
We've seen this accusation thrown at those campaigning for equality for women, and equality for black people, and equality for gay people ... and in this context equality for those who are not religious. But dare to 'rock the boat' (in other words not being prepared to accept an uneven status quo) and you are accused of being militant and extreme, regardless of how reasonable your request may be, how polite you are in making your request or how democratic your approach to achieving it may be.
-
Well said, ippy and Prof D.
-
And it is a common trope for those who are trying to level a playing field to be accused of being militant or extreme by those who benefit from the special privileges an uneven playing file provides.
We've seen this accusation thrown at those campaigning for equality for women, and equality for black people, and equality for gay people ... and in this context equality for those who are not religious. But dare to 'rock the boat' (in other words not being prepared to accept an uneven status quo) and you are accused of being militant and extreme, regardless of how reasonable your request may be, how polite you are in making your request or how democratic your approach to achieving it may be.
No wonder the religionists don't like the way secularism works against their privileges that much, when they are still getting away with things like a not exactly insignificant long term privilege such as the heavily subsidised, virtually free of charge recruitment service supplied and paid for by the state via our schooling system.
I suppose you could describe secularism as militant secularism when it objects to the large scale subsidies given with an apparent open hand to, in the case of the UK, to the C of E.
ippy
-
I'm a gay militant.
My weapon of choice is glitter.
Ok it doesn't kill anybody, but they have to spend the rest of their lives cleaning the carpet.
:)
-
Gabriella, if you were to take a look at the UK National Secular Society's site and take note of the rather large amount of unwarranted privileges the various religions have such as:
A now fortunately a gradually diminishing privilege, the free bussing of children to religion based schools outside of their area and this privilege isn't available for children surrounded by religion based schools that would like to have the free bussing privilege to a more secular school outside of their area.
This only one of so many privileges the religious believers have, so if we non-religious people like so many of us Secular Humanists, do get a little bit rattled by some of these many privileges, perhaps you might be more inclined to understand that the ones you think of as militant are more than likely to be holding back than being aggressive.
Oh yes every time secularists campaign go against any of the many religion based PRIVILEGES, the religious believers more often than not start screaming persecution when it's the privilege that's being campaigned against not the religion itself.
Everyone should enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion as well!
ippy
I don't think it is militant to fight against religious privileges. It depends on how you go about it. As atheists have correctly said, they are not a homogenous group and their manner of expressing their atheist views differs. I don't use the term militant atheism so I was not inclined to think about militant atheism until it was brought up in this thread.
-
And it is a common trope for those who are trying to level a playing field to be accused of being militant or extreme by those who benefit from the special privileges an uneven playing file provides.
We've seen this accusation thrown at those campaigning for equality for women, and equality for black people, and equality for gay people ... and in this context equality for those who are not religious. But dare to 'rock the boat' (in other words not being prepared to accept an uneven status quo) and you are accused of being militant and extreme, regardless of how reasonable your request may be, how polite you are in making your request or how democratic your approach to achieving it may be.
Based on Dawkins' TED talk, militant atheism to him seems about being outspoken. Dawkins can be described as confrontational, outspoken and blunt - I remember reading about a Tweet where he said in reference to a theoretical scenario of a foetus with Downs Syndrome "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
Dawkins has been known for being similarly blunt and confrontational about various topics, including religions. Any internet search will reveal his various pronouncements on Judaism, Islam, Christianity. I have no problem with Dawkins expressing his opinions and would defend his right to express them, but not sure people would describe them as necessarily being polite.
-
Based on Dawkins' TED talk, militant atheism to him seems about being outspoken. Dawkins can be described as confrontational, outspoken and blunt - I remember reading about a Tweet where he said in reference to a theoretical scenario of a foetus with Downs Syndrome "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice."
Dawkins has been known for being similarly blunt and confrontational about various topics, including religions. Any internet search will reveal his various pronouncements on Judaism, Islam, Christianity. I have no problem with Dawkins expressing his opinions and would defend his right to express them, but not sure people would describe them as necessarily being polite.
My wife and I have crossed swords with religious authority in the past and as a consequence of their, rather none too polite, ways we're more inclined to appreciate R D's direct approach, even so I'm sure there are many more that have had to suffer far more indignities than we have still it's good to see him putting in some balancing of the books as long it doesn't involve anything physical, which in his case it doesn't.
I do feel It's about time the nonreligious, now the majority here in the UK, view was put to the religious bluntly without pulling one single punch.
I don't entirely agree with his view on downs but there are things like Huntington's disease, even then perhaps genetic engineering would be a good thing there, this is a very debatable area of course.
ippy.