Atheists' 'hate' sign blasted in lawsuit

[Syntax]

Atheism is a belief too. I’ll try my hand at this one:

At the time of Easter, let our spirituality prevail. God and angels exist, and so does the immortality of the soul. There is one God of the natural world. Atheism is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

 

[Syntax]

My view is that the invention of ‘supernatural’ came later in our development. Before that, we just remained baffled and confused over natural phenomena and events. Lack of belief in god(s) has been around for as long as humans have been around, and longer.

Do you have evidence for this? The earliest archeological records we have strongly suggests the exact opposite, that human beings and their hominid ancestors have always believed in the afterlife and some form of the super- or exter-natural.

It is my strong opinion that the whole ‘supernatural’ paradigm was a **human invention to help us cope **with things like death or illness of family/clan/tribal members, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, illnesses caused by micro-organisms, and whole slew of natural phenomenon we had no clue about. The human mind is a remarkable thing, isn’t it?

This overused caricature of religions and the supernatural as an “invented crutch” is a biasedly uninformed and elementary observation. It gets pretty boring having to hear it from atheist myth. But hey, that’s just my opinion…

 

[PPeterson]

Atheism is a belief too. I’ll try my hand at this one:

At the time of Easter, let our spirituality prevail. God and angels exist, and so does the immortality of the soul. There is one God of the natural world. Atheism is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

i’d enjoy seeing that sign up. in both cases i think we’d be better off if people learned to handle the fact that other people think their beliefs are stupid without unnecessary whining and bruised egos…

 

[RobbyS]

Well, compared to what religion has been dishing out to non-believers for centuries, (and getting away with), the sign is quite tame. To complain about this type of speech is like a street thug who calls the police when his victims fight back.

Well, in the last century the unbelievers certainly got their licks in. Lenin and Stalin killed thousands of priests and Hitler imprisoned as many. If you look at China/Vietnam today you see how tolerant the unbelievers are.

 

[AntiTheist]

Atheism is a belief too …] Atheism is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Atheism, of course, being a lack of a belief, cannot sensibly be described as either a “belief” or a “myth.”

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

i’d enjoy seeing that sign up. in both cases i think we’d be better off if people learned to handle the fact that other people think their beliefs are stupid without unnecessary whining and bruised egos…

Cute how some folks can’t take hearing an opposing view of religion without that whining.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Atheism is…a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Our Catholic religion has been described the same way, and by a fair number of “Christian” groups.

 

[Syntax]

Atheism, of course, being a lack of a belief, cannot sensibly be described as either a “belief” or a “myth.”

False. Suspension of the belief that God exists is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the positive assertion that God does not exist. Therefore, it is a belief.

 

[AntiTheist]

False. Suspension of the belief that God exists is agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the positive assertion that God does not exist. Therefore, it is a belief.

Agnosticism is the position that one does not (or, alternatively, cannot) know whether a god exists. Atheism is the position that one does not believe that a god exists.

Now, individual atheists can hold the positive belief that there are no gods, but not all atheists hold that as a positive belief. The thing that makes atheists atheists is that they do not have belief in a god (i.e., that they lack that particular belief).

 

[Syntax]

Agnosticism is the position that one does not (or, alternatively, cannot) know whether a god exists. Atheism is the position that one does not believe that a god exists.

Now, individual atheists can hold the positive belief that there are no gods, but not all atheists hold that as a positive belief. The thing that makes atheists atheists is that they do not have belief in a god (i.e., that they lack that particular belief).

I’ve heard this before: it’s just a cute way of playing with words. Granted that agnosticism is an epistemic position about the unknowability of the God-question, I find your own construal of a “lack of belief” quite duplicitous. After all, the content of what the agnostic believes with respect to the God-question is empty, just as yours would be empty, if this is sufficient for qualifiying what an atheist, in fact, is. If I were to ask you what your belief as an atheist is with respect to the God-question, you have to “fill in” what it is that you believe. If it’s *nothing *that you believe, then your position is agnosticism by default.

You can insist all you want that you just lack a belief in God but still call yourself an atheist. But that is just as absurd as calling myself an “a-tooth-fairiest” because I merely lack a belief in the existence of fairies as if I were not committed one way or another on the existence of the tooth-fairy. It’s as if you are trying to avoid responsibility for what it is that you actually believe. I’m not convinced.

 

[AntiTheist]

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive categories. I, for example, would be an agnostic atheist in most contexts. I claim not to know whether there is a god and to also lack belief in one.

You can insist all you want that you just lack a belief in God but still call yourself an atheist.

Alright, then. But don’t just take my word for it. Simon Blackburn, in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, writes: " Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."

You see, I’m explaining how these words are actually used and what they really refer to. The word “atheism” is used to refer to people who don’t have a god-belief. To qualify as an atheist, you simply have to lack that one belief. Some of those atheists have the active belief that no gods exist, but by no means all of them do.

But that is just as absurd as calling myself a-tooth-fairiest because I merely lack a belief in the existence of fairies.

And if there were a large contingent of people who believed in fairies for reasons of “tradition” and “personal experience” – i.e. no actual evidence – I would be happy to label myself an a-tooth-fairiest to distinguish myself from them.

Incidentally, this is the reason that it is so hard to organize atheists: atheists are a diverse group because they are defined by not accepting one single thing. Atheists can – and do – hold all kinds of divergent beliefs on all sorts of other subjects.

 

[Syntax]

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive categories. I, for example, would be an agnostic atheist in most contexts. I claim not to know whether there is a god and to also lack belief in one.

Now you’re playing with the term “agnosticism.” I disagree. I would think atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Agnostics lack a belief precisely because they claim not to know the answer to the question, and they continue to honestly search because the question really haunts them. Atheists who allegedly “lack a belief in God” typically don’t find the question disturbing at all.

Alright, then. But don’t just take my word for it. Simon Blackburn, in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, writes: " Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."

I am certainly entitled to reasonably disagree with Blackburn. After all, I am a philosopher by profession too.

You see, I’m explaining how these words are actually used and what they really refer to. The word “atheism” is used to refer to people who don’t have a god-belief. To qualify as an atheist, you simply have to lack that one belief.

Like I said, you can insist on this common usage, I’m just not buying it. Psychologically, it just doesn’t hold up whatsoever. The genuine agnostics that I know truly wrestle with the question because they find the suspension of their beliefs unnerving–they genuinely want an answer.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Now Agnostics lack a belief precisely because they claim not to know the answer to the question, and they continue to honestly search because the question really haunts them.

The genuine agnostics that I know truly wrestle with the question because they find the suspension of their beliefs unnerving–they genuinely want an answer.

The agnostics whom I know aren’t searching for an answer. I doubt that most wrestle with the question. Their position, when we’ve discussed it, has been, “I don’t know.” As a philosophy professor, you undoubtedly meet more people for whom the question is vital, but I doubt that the agnostic in the street goes beyond a surface study of it - just as the average Catholic in the street doesn’t go beyond what he learned in grade school or maybe even high school catechism with regards to Catholicism.

 

[AntiTheist]

I am certainly entitled to reasonably disagree with Blackburn.

Sure, but you’re not entitled to be right. Kai Nielsen, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, writes: “Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God.”

Further, Paul Edwards writes, “an ‘atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition.”

My point is that “lack of a belief in god” is an accepted definition of “atheist,” and it is the way in which most atheists – at least almost all of the atheists I’ve ever met and heard of, anyway – actually use the word.

Agnostics lack a belief precisely because they claim not to know the answer to the question, and they continue to honestly search because the question really haunts them.

And that would make them agnostic atheists.

Atheists who allegedly “lack a belief in God” typically don’t find the question disturbing at all.

You’re painting with too broad a brush here. I know atheists who claim that they wish they could believe in a god but that the evidence is not there. Yet they have no problem identifying as atheists. They are “without (belief in) gods” – precisely what the word “atheist” means in its etymology and precisely how the word is commonly used today by actual atheists.

 

[Syntax]

Sure, but you’re not entitled to be right. Kai Nielsen, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, writes: “Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God.” Further, Paul Edwards writes, “an ‘atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition.”

My point is that “lack of a belief in god” is an accepted definition of “atheist,” and it is the way in which most atheists – at least almost all of the atheists I’ve ever met and heard of, anyway – actually use the word.

Maybe if you shouted your point and made it more emphatic I would agree…lol

And that would make them agnostic atheists.You’re painting with too broad a brush here.I know atheists who claim that they wish they could believe in a god but that the evidence is not there. Yet they have no problem identifying as atheists. They are “without (belief in) gods” – precisely what the word “atheist” means in its etymology and precisely how the word is commonly used today by actual atheists.

It’s funny that you say that because your own definition makes all agnostics default atheists. I was agnostic once, and I would not say that my lack of my belief in God was sufficient for calling myself an atheist. And many other agnostics would disagree with you too. Talk about painting too broadly! You atheists seem to want both condtions to be sufficient, namely, “lack of a belief in a God”, and a “positive belief in the non-existence of God.” You are hogging all the logical space needed to make distinctions since there is no more room for the non-atheist agnostic. Can’t you see this?

 

[AntiTheist]

You are hogging all the logical space needed to make distinctions since there is no more room for the non-atheist agnostic. Can’t you see this?

“Agnostic” and “Gnostic” address knowledge. “Atheist” and “Theist” address belief.

You can be an agnostic theist (i.e. you can claim not to know whether god exists but to believe anyway). You can be a gnostic theist (i.e. you can claim to believe in a god and to know that that god exists). You can be an agnostic atheist (i.e. you can claim not to know whether a god exists and not believe in one). You can be a gnostic atheist (i.e. you can claim that you don’t believe in a god and that you know that there is not one).

Theist/Atheist is a binary position. If the question is “Do you believe in a god?” an answer of “yes” makes you a theist. Any other answer must make you an atheist.

Now, look. You can continue to use your own idiosyncratic definitions, Syntax. You’re “entitled” to do that, I guess. But it’s going to produce problems when you try to communicate with other people, who will be using different definitions from yours.

Of course, if you don’t care about communicating with others, that’s a different story.

 

[Syntax]

“Agnostic” and “Gnostic” address knowledge. “Atheist” and “Theist” address belief.

You can be an agnostic theist (i.e. you can claim not to know whether god exists but to believe anyway). You can be a gnostic theist (i.e. you can claim to believe in a god and to know that that god exists). You can be an agnostic atheist (i.e. you can claim not to know whether a god exists and not believe in one). You can be a gnostic atheist (i.e. you can claim that you don’t believe in a god and that you know that there is not one).

Theist/Atheist is a binary position. If the question is “Do you believe in a god?” an answer of “yes” makes you a theist. Any other answer must make you an atheist.

Now, look. You can continue to use your own idiosyncratic definitions, Syntax. You’re “entitled” to do that, I guess. But it’s going to produce problems when you try to communicate with other people, who will be using different definitions from yours.

Of course, if you don’t care about communicating with others, that’s a different story.

Your table is incomplete: where are you making room for those who have a positive and fully-convicted belief that God does not exist? Are they not included on here? Are you implying there are no such people? And if Theist/Atheist is a totally binary distinction, then why did you mention those atheists with a positive belief that God does not exist who are supposed to be distinct from those who simply lack a belief in God? Now you’re being inconsistent.

And why is it that we must qualify an theist’s position as consisting of a positive belief, but qualify the atheist’s position as consisting of a “non-belief”? I can easily turn the same distinction around and say that theists simply lack the belief in the non-existence of God, whereas all atheists have a positive belief in the non-existence of God. The point is that your distinctions are totally arbitrary.

Further, it is not a matter of whether or not I intend on communicating with people (I am communicating with you after all), it is matter of whether or not the distinction you are drawing is an honest distinction. For instance, you just qualified all agnostics as either theist or atheist. But so many agnostics would consider themselves neither. You are ascribing beliefs to them which they don’t have, or are suspending. So this alleged binary distinction between Theist/Atheist is not kosher for some people.

 

[Syntax]

“Agnostic” and “Gnostic” address knowledge. “Atheist” and “Theist” address belief.

You can be an agnostic theist (i.e. you can claim not to know whether god exists but to believe anyway). You can be a gnostic theist (i.e. you can claim to believe in a god and to know that that god exists). You can be an agnostic atheist (i.e. you can claim not to know whether a god exists and not believe in one). You can be a gnostic atheist (i.e. you can claim that you don’t believe in a god and that you know that there is not one).

Theist/Atheist is a binary position. If the question is “Do you believe in a god?” an answer of “yes” makes you a theist. Any other answer must make you an atheist.

Moreover, your definition of a “gnostic atheist” would be internally self-contradictory if all “atheist” means is “not having a belief in God.” For how could one know that God did not exist, if he did not also have a belief that God did not exist? For one cannot know X is true unless one also has a belief that X. The existence of a belief is a necessary condition for knowing that one’s belief is true.

 

[RobbyS]

That’s subjective. I just see it as a matter of statement. Nothing more. I think a lot of what’s at play here is peoples’ own projections.

That’s because you are the person talking, not the personal listening.

 

[Syntax]

That’s subjective. I just see it as a matter of statement. Nothing more. I think a lot of what’s at play here is peoples’ own projections.

yeah right, as if the statement were opaque and stood apart from the intentions of the person who wrote it. It’s a statement, yes, but the intent of the latter half is clear–to offend.