Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

Ah yes, and but of course, and there in lies the problem, or rather where your journey begins

You have just mentioned it yourself.

All the laws hang on the first two Greatest Commandments, you my fine fellow are a Atheist so forget the first, you cannot take the Golden rule in isolation, you need to take all the other scriptures into consideration, for instance, whilst contemplating the Golden rule you also need to look at, "let he who is without sin" or " take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brothers"



All there old son 😊welcome to Gonnagles Biblay study for beginners ❤️a small fee may be asked, every possession you own, not me asking its that Jesus character✝️

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Anthropocentric, nice word, in its simplest form "are we special" am I right, this is what anthropocentric means, I have had a wee google and this is basically what the word means to me, help me out I am a empty book waiting to have my pages filled with wisdom.

Gonnagle.

There are two typical definitions of anthropocentric - one (as you suggest) is considering humans to be special and the most significant entity of the universe. The second is interpreting or regarding the universe in terms of human values and experiences. It is the second definition I am referring to, although the two are often linked.

So my point is that trying to understand the universe by reference to subjective human experiences, emotions, etc etc is anthropocentric. And also inherently misdirected as the universe has no requirement for humans to even exist (indeed they didn't exist for virtually all of its existence) and whether or not a human likes the sound of another human's voice is so mind-numbingly parochial (and anthropocentric) as to be ludicrous in cosmic terms.

Point is that just because something seems to be important to you (or more generally important to humans) doesn't make it important in terms of the universe.

[Stranger]

All the laws hang on the first two Greatest Commandments, you my fine fellow are a Atheist so forget the first, you cannot take the Golden rule in isolation, you need to take all the other scriptures into consideration, for instance, whilst contemplating the Golden rule you also need to look at, "let he who is without sin" or " take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brothers"

Hum, cherry-picking. You seem to have 'forgotten' about all the other stuff in the bible, you know, the slavery, the genocide, the nasty, vengeful, unjust, basically psychopathic God that is portrayed in much of it....

[Gordon]

All the laws hang on the first two Greatest Commandments, you my fine fellow are a Atheist so forget the first, you cannot take the Golden rule in isolation, you need to take all the other scriptures into consideration, for instance, whilst contemplating the Golden rule you also need to look at, "let he who is without sin" or " take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brothers"

I get that these phrases mean a great deal to Christians but I don't think that they are necessarily profound.

'Sin' is no more that a loaded label for subjective views that some (or many) may disapprove of, and subjective opinions aren't fixed and are not necessarily grounded in religious doctrines (ancient or modern). The 'beam in the eye' thing is no more than a recognition that a degree of self-awareness is usually a good thing before acting, and I don't think Christianity is required in order to come to that conclusion.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Thank you for enlightening me, sincerely and I will think on, but I do think we are special, but right now as I type this for all the wrong reasons, Ukraine, Gaza, Trump and last but definitely not least the state the planet is in, my holy book tells me we were given dominion but from beginning to end we have fucked up and fucked up severely, we are very poor caretakers, we don't own this planet,  we are piss poor caretakers.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Hum, cherry-picking. You seem to have 'forgotten' about all the other stuff in the bible, you know, the slavery, the genocide, the nasty, vengeful, unjust, basically psychopathic God that is portrayed in much of it....

Dear Stranger,

Guilty yer honour, I do pick the biggest most ripe most succulent cherries, but this argument has been going on for ever, especially on this forum and even when it was the good old BBC, so yes I do cherry pick, the wisest, the most profound cherries.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

I get that these phrases mean a great deal to Christians but I don't think that they are necessarily profound.

'Sin' is no more that a loaded label for subjective views that some (or many) may disapprove of, and subjective opinions aren't fixed and are not necessarily grounded in religious doctrines (ancient or modern). The 'beam in the eye' thing is no more than a recognition that a degree of self-awareness is usually a good thing before acting, and I don't think Christianity is required in order to come to that conclusion.

Dear Gordon,

Correct✝️

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremy,

Yes and I am one, the Golden rule, Our Lord Jesus was very specific about this, Mathew 22 verses 37 to 39, but most religions have there own version, but I have had this discussion before, the Golden rule does belong just to theists it is universal.

Gonnagle.

Why would the author of Matthew or even Jesus know that the Golden Rule is something of which God approves? Why are you so certain when you also claim we don't really know anything about God.

[jeremyp]

I think in the immortal words of the playground, you started it.

Err, no.

[Steve H]

Dear fellow Posters,

Well here we are again happy as can be all good friends and jolly good company

Our story starts in a faraway galaxy, a beautiful place, some say the very centre of the known universe, picture the scene, three very wise but aged gentlemen sitting in a den of ill repute which sells ( quite legally ) substances of mind altering qualities. Now one of these gentlemen mentions a quote from a book he had read regarding atheism ( need to mention that this particular gentleman was rather handsome in a rugged weather beaten sort of way ) anyway this book was written by a atheist, sorry Cheerful atheist ( the writers description not mine ) and below is the quote from the said book.

“No it's not!" said Constable Visit. "Atheism is a denial of a god."

"Therefore It Is A Religious Position," said Dorfl. "Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.”
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

So my simple question which I posed in the den of ill repute is, is Atheism a form of belief

Gonnagle.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby.

The "Atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" seems to be only about fifty years old as a prevailing definition. You can't research this definition without rapidlycoming across the name of Anthony Flew who wrote about it.
Now, I'm pretty sure there were atheists prior to this becoming the prevalent definition of atheism who would have defined it in other ways.
Contemporary atheists in some sense are New Atheists.

Atheism on this board is undeniably a hobby to those who have religiously spent over a decade on this forum

[Maeght]

Dear Atheists,

Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.

My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo

The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY

https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/

It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY

Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY

Atheism WHY

Gonnagle.

Don't see what any of that actually has to do with God.

[ProfessorDavey]

The "Atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" seems to be only about fifty years old as a prevailing definition. You can't research this definition without rapidlycoming across the name of Anthony Flew who wrote about it.
Now, I'm pretty sure there were atheists prior to this becoming the prevalent definition of atheism who would have defined it in other ways.
Contemporary atheists in some sense are New Atheists.

Atheism on this board is undeniably a hobby to those who have religiously spent over a decade on this forum

Oh dear - there you go again with your 'appeal to tradition' - if it is older it must be better.

Frankly atheism mere being a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods is the only definition which makes any kind of sense, as it takes as its core element theism which is a belief in the existence of god. The prefix 'a' in this context means not or without - so the word atheist literally means not-theist or without theism. In others words a lack what theism is - i.e. a lack of belief in god.

But also there is the further, and rather obvious point - which is what the term means to those who actually describe themselves as such. And I (and I think most atheists here) consider myself to be atheist because I do not believe in god or gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - there you go again with your 'appeal to tradition' - if it is older it must be better.

Frankly atheism mere being a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods is the only definition which makes any kind of sense, as it takes as its core element theism which is a belief in the existence of god. The prefix 'a' in this context means not or without - so the word atheist literally means not-theist or without theism. In others words a lack what theism is - i.e. a lack of belief in god.

But also there is the further, and rather obvious point - which is what the term means to those who actually describe themselves as such. And I (and I think most atheists here) consider myself to be atheist because I do not believe in god or gods.

Were I suggesting that atheism wasn’t a lack of belief your post might elevate above error but I don’t.
What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.

[Gordon]

Were I suggesting that atheism wasn’t a lack of belief your post might elevate above error but I don’t.
What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.

An absence of beliefs in something (in this case 'God') is a rejection of all/any of the arguments trotted out by theists.

It is also recognition that some of the claims and justifications offered by Christian theists are too hopeless to be taken seriously.

[Stranger]

The "Atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" seems to be only about fifty years old as a prevailing definition. You can't research this definition without rapidlycoming across the name of Anthony Flew who wrote about it.

Unless one does the bleedin' obvious and looks up 'agnostic atheism' in wiki and goes to the history section: Agnostic atheism §History.

[Stranger]

What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.

You really can't be this stupid, can you? Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in any God or gods, but no person is just an atheist, with no other views, including about god(s) and religion.

And disbelief is the default position for any proposition about the world. That applies to scientific hypotheses just as much as to god(s).

[Gonnagle]

If no one can answer what a god is then it's a meaningless answer. You could just as well say you believe in floaters, and ask me why I don't.

Dear Sane,

Correct, you Atheist type chaps are on fire with all your wonderful posts The question should not be "what is God" but rather "what does God want" me personally on this fine Glaswegian Saturday morning as I enjoy my second cup of coffee, two things, the Teddy bears to win the league, the Lord moves in mysterious ways and my wee treble to come up at the bookies, but then that is me just being me

So yes meaningless question, meaningless answer, but I don't think it is beyond our evolved ape brains to ask what does God want ( evolved ape, ProfDaveys fault, he has me all a tizzy about the word Anthropocentric ).

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

So yes meaningless question, meaningless answer, but I don't think it is beyond our evolved ape brains to ask what does God want ( evolved ape, ProfDaveys fault, he has me all a tizzy about the word Anthropocentric ).

Yeah, we can make up nonsense questions, but what's the point? What does sapgitgul want? If you can't say what God (or sapgitgul) is, or how it communicates, then it all meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

Were I suggesting that atheism wasn’t a lack of belief your post might elevate above error but I don’t.
What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.

Well let's wait until someone joins this MB who is atheist and considers this to be more than being merely a lack of belief in god or gods and you can have that conversation with them.

But as far as I am aware all the atheists on this MB define their atheism as not believing in the existence of god or gods, nothing more, nothing less (I certainly do).

Of course there is discussion about why we don't believe in god or gods and we may have other views, for example about religion. But none of that changes the point that the atheists here (I think) see their atheism as merely a lack of belief in god or gods.

So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.

[Nearly Sane]

Well let's wait until someone joins this MB who is atheist and considers this to be more than being merely a lack of belief in god or gods and you can have that conversation with them.

But as far as I am aware all the atheists on this MB define their atheism as not believing in the existence of god or gods, nothing more, nothing less (I certainly do).

Of course there is discussion about why we don't believe in god or gods and we may have other views, for example about religion. But none of that changes the point that the atheists here (I think) see their atheism as merely a lack of belief in god or gods.

So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.

I think what Vkad is doing is conflating the fact that no atheist is simply that, a person who lacks belief in gods, with the erroneous idea that being an atheist requires anything more than being capable of believing in gids but not doing so.

He's had this pointed out to him many times but continually ignores it because he lies.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.

I get it, I really do, it is the why I am stuck on, I honestly think the honest stance is Agnostic, Atheist is so final, Atheist screams at me I have all the answers, but then as I think how can a evolved ape/monkey have all the answers✝️

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Yeah, we can make up nonsense questions, but what's the point? What does sapgitgul want? If you can't say what God (or sapgitgul) is, or how it communicates, then it all meaningless.

Dear Stranger,

You are getting there, one small step for man one giant leap for mankind.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.

I get it, I really do, it is the why I am stuck on, I honestly think the honest stance is Agnostic, Atheist is so final, Atheist screams at me I have all the answers, but then as I think how can a evolved ape/monkey have all the answers✝️

Gonnagle.

But agnosticism and atheist refer to different things - the former is about knowledge, the latter about belief. So I (and many others) consider myself to be an agnostic atheist and that isn't a contradiction. I am agnostic because I do not know that god exists or does not exist, however I do not believe that god exists due to the lack of credible evidence to support the existence of god, hence I am also atheist.

On the knowledge part (agnosticism) some people go further on the basis that the existence of god is unknowable.

So to my mind the honest stance on knowledge is that we do not know whether or not god exists, hence we should all be agnostics. However some people believe that god exists, hence should really be agnostic theists, while others do not believe that god exists, hence are rally agnostic atheists.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Prof,

So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.

I get it, I really do, it is the why I am stuck on, I honestly think the honest stance is Agnostic, Atheist is so final, Atheist screams at me I have all the answers, but then as I think how can a evolved ape/monkey have all the answers✝️

Gonnagle.

Bollocks. Prof D's stance as he has explained clearly is an agnostic atheist. Further thinking you might be right on one thing doesn't mean you are certain you are right on everything