Atheists' 'hate' sign blasted in lawsuit

[RobbyS]

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.

Given that the term “agnostic” was coined by Huxley, to mean really a person who did not believe in God but believed in the Christian moral code , the term agnostic means many different things. Choose your agnostic. He will range from deist to atheist, from vague to definite.

 

[Syntax]

Given that the term “agnostic” was coined by Huxley, to mean really a person who did not believe in God but believed in the Christian moral code , the term agnostic means many different things. Choose your agnostic. He will range from deist to atheist, from vague to definite.

Perhaps…

My own complaint is that even if an agnostic lacks a belief in God, this doesn’t automatically lump him into the category of being an atheist. Some agnostics (such as myself years ago) don’t have a belief in God, nor a belief in God’s non-existence, and sometimes nor do they simply lack a belief at all. I simply didn’t know what I believed and what I didn’t believe, or whether I did not have a belief or, in fact, did have a belief. It seems that this binary stuff about Theist/Atheist is way too simplistic.

 

[AntiTheist]

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?

Under that particular table, someone with the positive and fully-convicted belief that there are no gods would be a gnostic atheist – i.e. someone who not only does not have a belief in gods but also holds the positive belief that there are no gods (under a slightly different set of definitions, such people are called “strong atheists,” to distinguish them from “weak atheists,” who merely lack belief).

It’s been my experience that strong atheists are not all that common, at least among atheists who have seriously thought about the issue. I recall seeing more than one thread on an atheist site in which weak atheists criticized a strong atheist on the grounds that the claim “there are no gods” cannot be sufficiently substantiated with evidence and that one should merely lack the belief in gods.

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.

It’s not inconsistent. You either have a belief in a god or you don’t.

Now, of those who don’t, some also hold a positive belief, but that’s separate from the issue of distinguishing them from theists.

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”?

Because theists are defined by holding a belief, and atheists are defined by not holding that 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.

Well, you can do that, but you’d be wrong. For starters, not all atheists have a positive belief (none of the atheists that I personally know do), and more importantly, theists all do have a positive belief in some entity.

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.

I’m not ascribing a belief to them or suspending any. I’m noting that they do not have a belief in a god. “Atheist” is a word that means “person who does not have a belief in a god.”

The problem here is that you are convinced that “atheist” has to mean someone who holds the positive belief that there are no gods, and that’s not how the word is actually used – at least by most atheists, many professional philosophers, and many theists as well.

Your only argument appears to be that agnostics don’t like being called atheists. Well, as soon as they start believing in a god, I’ll stop calling them atheists. Until then, I will use the word that means “person without belief in a god,” which happens to be “atheist.”

 

[AntiTheist]

I simply didn’t know what I believed and what I didn’t believe, or whether I did not have a belief or, in fact, did have a belief.

If you don’t know whether or not you have a belief, then you don’t have a belief. By definition. A belief is the acceptance of a claim as true.

For instance, if I think the evidence for Bigfoot is inconclusive, and I can’t make up my mind about it, I clearly cannot be described as a person who believes that Bigfoot exists. No matter how conflicted I am about it, it would be correct to describe me as a person who does not have a belief in Bigfoot. If “A-Bigfootist” was a word, I would be one.

Now, if I studied the evidence more and concluded that Bigfoot was a load of nonsense, I still would not have a belief in Bigfoot. I’d still be an A-Bigfootist.

 

[Syntax]

If you don’t know whether or not you have a belief, then you don’t have a belief. By definition. A belief is the acceptance of a claim as true.

No. Again, the fact of the matter is still undetermined whether or not an agonstic has a belief or not. He simply doesn’t know. That’s how I was as a struggling agnostic. Sometimes I thought I had a belief, and sometimes I thought I lacked a belief. But by no means did I qualify myself as simply “lacking a belief”–and so many other agonstics are this way too. Many agnostics will manifest their skepticism not merely toward the question of whether God exists is true or false, but also toward whether they do or do not have a belief. They simply cannot determine it. So they stand outside of your binary distinction between Theist/Atheist.

Well, you can do that, but you’d be wrong. For starters, not all atheists have a positive belief (none of the atheists that I personally know do), and more importantly, theists all do have a positive belief in some entity.

But your distinction is still arbitrary. The problem is that the distinction flushes out onto the agnostic. When you just assume “lack of belief” is the appropriate way to qualify an atheist, the agnostic who lacks a belief in God is a default atheist * unbeknownst to the agnostic*. But this is problematic for the instance I suggested above.

Like I said, I can easily say that all atheists have a positive belief in the non-existence of God unbeknownst to the agnostic who lacks a belief in God and who calls himself an “atheist” thinking this is the correct distinction. So those alleged “atheists” who report otherwise are just wrong about what they are–they are actually agnostics unbeknownst to themselves.

So I don’t see any rule for determining which of our tables is correct other than your insistance on what it is people think they lack a belief about. But by the same token, I don’t see that an agnostic should be forced to call himself an atheist simply because whether he does or doesn’t have a belief is indeterminate. This is just your own insistent label about the agnostic for which he doesn’t have to agree.

 

[RobbyS]

Perhaps…

My own complaint is that even if an agnostic lacks a belief in God, this doesn’t automatically lump him into the category of being an atheist. Some agnostics (such as myself years ago) don’t have a belief in God, nor a belief in God’s non-existence, and sometimes nor do they simply lack a belief at all. I simply didn’t know what I believed and what I didn’t believe, or whether I did not have a belief or, in fact, did have a belief. It seems that this binary stuff about Theist/Atheist is way too simplistic.

Well, we Catholics say even those who call themselves Catholic are often practical atheists. If we live our lives “not under discipline,” holding ourselves free to do what we see fit with no fear of consequence,if we too have “forgotten” God, then what we call ourselves does not matter.

 

[Syntax]

Well, we Catholics say even those who call themselves Catholic are often practical atheists. If we live our lives “not under discipline,” holding ourselves free to do what we see fit with no fear of consequence,if we too have “forgotten” God, then what we call ourselves does not matter.

Yes, I competely agree! And for this very same reason I think it is appropriately honest to say that all atheists have a firm belief that God does not exist, however implict, even if they think their merely “lacking a belief” is what qualifies them as atheists. Psychologically speaking, lacking a belief that-X is derivative of having a belief that not-X, because the implicit conviction that God does not exist is manifested in the rest of atheist’s behavior.

 

[AntiTheist]

Sometimes I thought I had a belief, and sometimes I thought I lacked a belief.

Sounds like you were vacillating back and forth between having a belief and not having a belief. But it’s impossible for a person to have a belief and not have a belief simultaneously. And – if “having a belief” means “accepting a proposition as true” – then “having a belief” must always be something conscious. As I said, if you have to ask, it means you don’t have a belief.

So I don’t see any rule for determining which of our tables is correct

There aren’t any “rules” here – you and I are operating under different definitions. It’s just that my definition is the one that people actually use. That’s all.

 

[Syntax]

Sounds like you were vacillating back and forth between having a belief and not having a belief. But it’s impossible for a person to have a belief and not have a belief simultaneously. And – if “having a belief” means “accepting a proposition as true” – then “having a belief” must always be something conscious. As I said, if you have to ask, it means you don’t have a belief.

There aren’t any “rules” here – you and I are operating under different definitions. It’s just that my definition is the one that people actually use. That’s all.

A person is not always conscious of his own beliefs, and there is nothing contradictory, in principle, about wavering back and forth. And like I said, I simply don’t think merely “lacking a belief” is sufficient for calling oneself an atheist, in spite of what atheists may believe themselves. The situation is much more complex for each person than your binary categories will admit.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

a-sexual — lack of sex drive
a-gnostic — lack of knowledge
a-theist — lack of belief in god(s)

I hope this clears things up.

 

[Syntax]

a-sexual — lack of sex drive
a-gnostic — lack of knowledge
a-theist — lack of belief in god(s)

I hope this clears things up.

Wow, we weren’t aware of such definitions! Thanks for solving the problem!

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

double-post

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

a-sexual — lack of sex drive
a-gnostic — lack of knowledge
a-theist — lack of belief in god(s)

I hope this clears things up.

Wow, we weren’t aware of such definitions! Thanks for solving the problem!

No problem. We’re glad we could help you out!

 

[Aramis]

I don’t see it as a ‘hate’ sign, per se. To me, its more of an opinion about religions, and nothing less than expression of those opinions. The merits of the statement can be argued and debated, but, just because the statement may offend some, doesn’t make it ‘hate speech’.

It’s a religious statement by a recognized religion, attacking the beliefs of other religions. It’s a violation of church and state, at the very least.

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

It’s a religious statement by a recognized religion, attacking the beliefs of other religions. It’s a violation of church and state, at the very least.

Oh. Okay. So, you’re one of those who buys into the concept that not believing in a deity, is a religion?

Tell me something. Do you believe in Thor? If not, is not believing in Thor a religion in and of itself? How far are we to go with this “It’s just another religion.” concept? Be honest. Doesn’t it really boil down to a, “Since I’m a religious person, then everyone’s a religious person.” type projection on your part?

 

[Syntax]

Oh. Okay. So, you’re one of those who buys into the concept that not believing in a deity, is a religion?

Tell me something. Do you believe in Thor? If not, is not believing in Thor a religion in and of itself? How far are we to go with this “It’s just another religion.” concept? Be honest. Doesn’t it really boil down to a, “Since I’m a religious person, then everyone’s a religious person.” type projection on your part?

The statement is clearly Anti-religious. It is explicitly about all religion, and has the intention of offending large numbers of people with a slanderous remark. It is tactless, ignorant, and creates dissent–not to mention being false.

 

[Aramis]

Oh. Okay. So, you’re one of those who buys into the concept that not believing in a deity, is a religion?

Tell me something. Do you believe in Thor? If not, is not believing in Thor a religion in and of itself? How far are we to go with this “It’s just another religion.” concept? Be honest. Doesn’t it really boil down to a, “Since I’m a religious person, then everyone’s a religious person.” type projection on your part?

Atheism is a recognized religion under US law. While technically, it is the rejection of all superstitious/supernatural belief, it is a dogmatic faith that denies the possibility of validity of all others (Pretty much its ONLY dogma). An athiest is as Anti-Thor as he/she/it is anti-Catholic and Anti-Spaghetti-Monster.

It functionally is a decentralized religion.

 

[abucs]

I didn’t know atheism was officially defined as a religion in the U.S. - interesting.

I guess not thinking Thor exists is a belief on the status of the “Thor question”.

In the same way more generally, not thinking that a Creator exists is a belief in the status of the ‘created universe’ question.

Perhaps if we view religion as one’s beliefs on the question of existance (and all that then follows from that) just about everyone could be seen to have a religion.

 

[Syntax]

I didn’t know atheism was officially defined as a religion in the U.S. - interesting.

I guess not thinking Thor exists is a belief on the status of the “Thor question”.

In the same way more generally, not thinking that a Creator exists is a belief in the status of the ‘created universe’ question.

Perhaps if we view religion as one’s beliefs on the question of existance (and all that then follows from that) just about everyone could be seen to have a religion.

That is illuminating. Though technically qualified as lacking a belief in God, atheism is interpreted as holding a definite stance with respect to the validity of all theistic religions–which I find incredibly interesting. For most religions (I would think) agree that God exists–so calling myself anti-protestant, or anti-mormon, is NOT a lack of belief pro or con with repsect to the God-question, only with respect to the ritual or particular dogma questions. So strictly with respect to the God-question atheism is positively contrary to the validity of all theistic religion, whereas any particular theistic religion is not contrary to the validity of any other theistic religion. hmmm…

 

[Mr_Skeptic]

If “atheism is a recognized religion under US law”, does that mean it qualifies for tax exempt status under 501(c)(3)?