Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism

[laylow]

Right. That’s subjective morality.

What authority determines the morality? If it’s not directly “because the book says so” and it’s not from human experience (since it appears most people believe it is not detrimental to society, then what authority is saying it’s wrong and where does this authority receive its power?

You really, seriously, do not understand Christian morality. No problem, we can’t know everything, but you should know things you are attempting to dispute.

Of course I don’t. It is contradicting and obviously not always based on the greatest good.

 

[goout]

Of course I don’t. It is contradicting and obviously not always based on the greatest good.

What is contradictory?
Don’t just make an assertion. What do you find contradictory about Christian morality?

 

[Vonsalza]

Again, anyone making a positive claim about reality has the burden of proof to explain why they think reality has that idea instead of it not having that idea. The default position is to start from nothing and then build from there.

Small adjustment - the default position is not “nothing”. It is “undefined”. “Nothing” is a claim. Assuming you agree with this fact-
Cool. The word “atheist” does not describe this position.

They are not changing the current understanding of reality, the religious are.

Nope. Have a little fun and look up “atheist” in dictionaries that predate the 90s. Definitely the 70s. You’ll get, roughly, “one who believes that there is no god or gods”. Which makes sense. That definition matches the etymological word.

I’ll refer, again, to my jar analogy and I’m putting it specifically to you, what position on the marbles am I making?

I’m not questioning your religious beliefs. I’m questioning the term you use to label them.

The seat is already taken, I’m afraid.

 

[Spyridon]

conversations with people using the word “Atheism”. From an atheist, Atheism is an idea that doesn’t exist. Here’s how I and the other atheists use these words:

Atheist - Single position on a single question.
Question - “Are you convinced that the supernatural exists?”
Answer - “No, No I am not.”
The label “Atheist” is just that, someone who is not ,currently, convinced that the supernatural exists based on the bad reasons and bad evidence presented for why someone else does.
They are just unconvinced of

My friend, what you are describing is the classical atheism, not the new atheism.

The four horsemen of the new atheism - Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet and Harris - do NOT describe their atheism in the way you describe yours.

You are describing a classical atheism more reminiscient of the likes of Antony Flew or Charles Templeton (though Flew famously converted to Deism toward the end of his life).

You would be less frustrated and more accurate in your terminology if you just describe yourself as agnostic, because when people hear “atheist” these days, they think “rabid atheist/new atheist Dawkins type.” And honestly, I don’t think Dawkins is a true atheist. I think he’s more accurately called a misotheist. Listen to his diatribe where he goes on a rampage against God describing him in words like “most capricious bully and malevolent character in all of fiction.” Those aren’t words of dispassioned atheism or agnosticism. Those are words of hatred and disgust. Dawkins doesn’t just disbelieve in God - the very idea of God disgusts him. He hates God or the concept of Deity. He’s a misotheist. If Jesus appeared to Dawkins in the flesh, I could almost guarantee Dawkins would spit in his face.

Most of the “new atheists” are similar. They aren’t like you, a true atheist (agnostic). They are misotheists.

So in summation, my friend, you may do better calling yourself agnostic because the term atheist has been hijacked in recent years and no longer means what it used to.

Be well my friend, and may God bless you.

 

[Damian]

I’m not questioning your religious beliefs. I’m questioning the term you use to label them.

The seat is already taken, I’m afraid.

Okay, so word slap match. I don’t do those. As to the idea I am communicating, what is your objection here?

Small adjustment - the default position is not “nothing”. It is “undefined”. “Nothing” is a claim. Assuming you agree with this fact-
Cool. The word “atheist” does not describe this position.

I agree here. I was trying to describe the default position of someone with no data on the subject being discussed/experienced/etc. They are at a default position of zero (name removed by moderator)ut on it and have to start from there.

 

[rcwitness]

What do you mean by “god”? There are multiple versions of god. The people sitting next to you in church probably have a personal definition that will differ from yours, so what is your definition?

You mean different from the creed we profess together? Are you aware of the Nicene Creed? Its very discriptive of the God we are gathered to worship and receive.

Maybe if they secretly oppose the Catholic Faith, which would be a terrible deception, and they should not receive His body and blood.

 

[Vonsalza]

The confusion is that the religious have been taught to view this group of people by a certainty instilled from their pulpit instead of engaging these people and asking them themselves.

Respectfully, sir, you’ve absolutely no more dominion over the word than I do.

Yes we are deliberately causing confusion because the default position that the religious side is taught to accept about what and who an atheist is, is just plain wrong.

No. You want to redefine a word that already has a known and accepted definition. “Seat’s taken”.

So what does this have to do with you? You and your religion have to have a religious community? You seem to imply that people can not have this as an option? You are directly implying that you would force this to not happen in some form.

…what are you even talking about?

If people want to be religious, then they can freely join your church. If they do not, then they can freely not join your church. This idea really stinks of totalitarianism.

Oh dear… Catharsis. That’s what’s going on right here…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’m not questioning your religious beliefs. I’m questioning the term you use to label them.

The seat is already taken, I’m afraid.

Okay, so word slap match. I don’t do those.

Per Voltaire, if you’re not up for it, then you can excuse yourself from the discussion. Defining terms was his rule #1.

Vonsalza:

Small adjustment - the default position is not “nothing”. It is “undefined”. “Nothing” is a claim. Assuming you agree with this fact-
Cool. The word “atheist” does not describe this position.

I agree here. I was trying to describe the default position of someone with no data on the subject being discussed/experienced/etc. They are at a default position of zero (name removed by moderator)ut on it and have to start from there.

Still a little, bitty, tiny issue. Zero is a position. The default is undefined. It’s not “no” or “nothing” or “zero”. It is undefined.

 

[Damian]

Everyone can agree on a written doctrine, but when asked to put “god” into their own terms as they experience it, it always seems to be different from person to person. So what is your personal definition of this deity as you experience it. Not what your church defines it as, but as you experience this deity. If that clarifies it. Like how I can read a book about a mockingbird and still have my own personal experienced definition of it as well.

 

[laylow]

That’s fine, but you’re still not answering the question.

Boom. We’ve killed God as a matter of policy. Everyone rejoice. So what replaces it? Statism is the natural runner-up and that was bloodbath during the 20th century. More died than in all the religious wars combined, by one analysis I saw.

What you’re not giving is the “why”. And I understand. You may have never thought about it, but you don’t really have one beyond individual inclination. No offense intended.

I obviously do not claim to have the full answer. I think you need to have intelligent conversations with people of all walks of life to attempt to understand the entire human experience. Laws need to be made and amended and amended, etc, based on what is learned and what went wrong. The current system is flawed in many ways. One is that by the time one leaders ideas are implemented and tried, they are already being undone by the next elected leader due to some sort of political ideology.

I think you start will low-hanging fruit and attempt to enact laws that cause the least to anyone. The obvious one to me is gay marriage. These people’s lives are already disadvantaged in many ways, who business is it if they want to get married and live the life they want to and pursue happiness?

I understand and that’s a concession I’m totally willing to make for the sake of this conversation. I just think that my “deistic” god is more a part of the world in a metaphysical way than deism suggests. But if you want the concession, fine. Here ya go.

I’m not interested in any concession. I just think that for the sake of discussion, it shows how significantly the appropriate or mis use of terms can impact the understanding of someone’s take in the discussion.

 

[Damian]

Respectfully, sir, you’ve absolutely no more dominion over the word than I do.

Correct, but the idea and actions the religious apply in our world has direct consequences for people’s lives. That is the point I care about. Atheist, to religious, equates to the enemy. Oh don’t even engage one for yourself, don’t go find out for yourself, our dear leader has all the answers for you.

No. You want to redefine a word that already has a known and accepted definition. “Seat’s taken”.

Okay distracting from the point of the conversation. It’s like someone fixated on a misspelled word in a letter instead of the context of the letter. Not the point of the letter.

 

[Vonsalza]

I obviously do not claim to have the full answer.

Bold step! That’s one of the biggest hang-ups for atheism - theism does so many things for society and when asked to replace those when they reject god on a material basis, they usually balk.

These metaphysical necessities are the fundamental reason why I believe in God. Anything else is arbitrary and perpetually subject to my own approval. There is no transcendent law, otherwise.

And I’m friends with lots of folks from lots of backgrounds. If that may surprise you.

These people’s lives are already disadvantaged in many ways, who business is it if they want to get married and live the life they want to and pursue happiness?

Do I have to bake their wedding cake? If “yes” and I don’t want to, we’ve a problem.

I’m not interested in any concession. I just think that for the sake of discussion, it shows how significantly the appropriate or mis use of terms can impact the understanding of someone’s take in the discussion.

Cool. Then my understanding of God is as a metaphysical entity that heavily impacts the metaphysical world on the day-to-day. This isn’t deism as my God hasn’t walked away, but again, I’m happy to discuss the semantic.

 

[rcwitness]

Everyone can agree on a written doctrine, but when asked to put “god” into their own terms as they experience it, it always seems to be different from person to person. So what is your personal definition of this deity as you experience it. Not what your church defines it as, but as you experience this deity. If that clarifies it. Like how I can read a book about a mockingbird and still have my own personal experienced definition of it as well.

I did not personally meet God, so I know Him through the ministry of those who came before me.

He is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He always existed, because He is outside of time. He created us and our world. He made Covenants with man through history. He was born of the Virgin Mary and became a man. He proceeds in Spirit from the Father and the Son.

 

[Spyridon]

person. So what is your personal definition of this deity as you experience it. Not what your church defines it as, but as you experience this deity

Being Itself, Truth Itself, Love Itself, The Majestic Master, the Creator and Sustainer of All, the Source of Beauty, Beauty Itself, The Peaceful Spirit, the Merciful Master, the All Seeing One, the All Encompassing Being, the Savior of Humanity, the Hope of Humanity, the Father of All Goodness.

 

[Damian]

Per Voltaire, if you’re not up for it, then you can excuse yourself from the discussion. Defining terms was his rule #1.

Which is what I started off with and then went from there. You’re not letting the context of the conversation move on from the terms used and getting to the point of the conversation. So yes, I will remove my self from that pointless conversation. I care about communicating ideas which is why I keep asking people what words they would use to describe what I am trying to communicate because people like you will not allow the context of the conversation to be addressed, only the spelling errors.

 

[Vonsalza]

Correct, but the idea and actions the religious apply in our world has direct consequences for people’s lives. That is the point I care about. Atheist, to religious, equates to the enemy.

Not really. I’m not an enemy to atheists. I just think they’re someone who believes there’s no god - as the word requires.

Okay distracting from the point of the conversation.

No, I believe the thread title is “Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism”.

Which is what I started off with and then went from there. You’re not letting the context of the conversation move on from the terms used and getting to the point of the conversation.

Again, man, the thread title is “Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism”. Semantics is the point of the conversation…

 

[laylow]

Bold step! That’s one of the biggest hang-ups for atheism - theism does so many things for society and when asked to replace those when they reject god on a material basis, they usually balk.

I find it better to admit not totally knowing the answer, than deceitfully claiming to know all of them and then providing the wrong one.

Do I have to bake their wedding cake? If “yes” and I don’t want to, we’ve a problem.

No more than I can refuse to service your car or fix your computer because I don’t like your hair color or your gender, or the fact that you like sports, etc.

Cool. Then my understanding of God is as a metaphysical entity that heavily impacts the metaphysical world on the day-to-day. This isn’t deism as my God hasn’t walked away, but again, I’m happy to discuss the semantic.

That is interesting. I consider myself agnostic because I think that term relates to epistemology. I don’t know if there is a higher being, so I’m agnostic. However, I don’t really believe there is so that is non-theistic, atheistic, because it describes what I believe. I think that there possibly could be a first cause being, but I don’t really see the necessity. I don’t see any evidence of an intervening being, and I see all religions as man-made social controls, in which the context certainly points to the knowledge of the times they were written.

 

[Damian]

Being Itself, Truth Itself, Love Itself, the All Encompassing Being,

Can you clarrify this? Don’t know what you mean here.

the Creator and Sustainer of All, the Merciful Master, the All Seeing One, The Majestic Master, the Father of All Goodness

What makes you think this idea actually manifests in something that is part of reality?

the Source of Beauty, Beauty Itself, Goodness

Beauty and love and goodness are subjective terms to me. So I am the source of those as I understand it. Can you explain more about how there can be a source of this outside of me?

The Peaceful Spirit,

What do you mean by spirit?

the Savior of Humanity, the Hope of Humanity,

Savior / Hope from what?

None of this is very specific. So let me give you an example of what I was looking for. Describe a human: give it’s characteristics (physical, emotional, etc.). Such as typical time length of life, ranges of height, color, movement abilities, strength, mental skills, evolutionary history, etc.

 

[Vonsalza]

I find it better to admit not totally knowing the answer, than deceitfully claiming to know all of them and then providing the wrong one.

I don’t think religious people are being deceitful, but ok.

It’s just a situation where we can’t stop. The motor has to keep running and the lights have to stay on, so “wait and let me think about it” doesn’t practically work. until then, our rights as Americans are endowed to us by our creator until you raise a better alternative.

No more than I can refuse to service your car or fix your computer because I don’t like your hair color or your gender, or the fact that you like sports, etc.

There’s a slight difference. I’m doing nothing to affirm homosexuality when I replace your alternator. But when I put two grooms on top of my wedding cake, it’s a bit different.

That is interesting. I consider myself agnostic because I think that term relates to epistemology. I don’t know if there is a higher being, so I’m agnostic. However, I don’t really believe there is so that is non-theistic, atheistic, because it describes what I believe. I think that there possibly could be a first cause being, but I don’t really see the necessity. I don’t see any evidence of an intervening being, and I see all religions as man-made social controls, in which the context certainly points to the knowledge of the times they were written.

I care almost zero about “first cause”. Saying “God created the big bang” doesn’t solve a problem that isn’t also solved by saying “The big bang created itself”.

I need God because without it, raping a child is only “wrong” because it’s what I’ve been taught - just as an example.

Moreover, there’s not really any such thing as “wrong”. It’s just a made up construct. Sans God, my life is finite and I need to do everything I can to maximize my enjoyment of it - transcendent of such labels as “right” or “wrong”. If I obey the law despite wanting to break it, it’s only because I thought I might get caught and that the punishment was more costly than the pleasure.

 

[laylow]

It’s just a situation where we can’t stop. The motor has to keep running and the lights have to stay on, so “wait and let me think about it” doesn’t practically work. until then, our rights as Americans are endowed to us by our creator until you raise a better alternative.

Well I have yet to hear from the Creator. Heck, we can’t all even agree upon who the creator is. Our rights were endowed by something that doesn’t speak? Sounds like a Sci-Fi movie.

There’s a slight difference. I’m doing nothing to affirm homosexuality when I replace your alternator. But when I put two grooms on top of my wedding cake, it’s a bit different.

I’m not talking about homosexuality. It is against my religion to serve people with Blonde hair. I have freedom of religion. You have blonde hair. Sorry, you’re out, take your car elsewhere.

I care almost zero about “first cause”. Saying “God created the big bang” doesn’t solve a problem that isn’t also solved by saying “The big bang created itself”.

I need God because without it, raping a child is only “wrong” because it’s what I’ve been taught - just as an example.

I never have understood the premise that morality can only come from a supreme being. Raping is kid is wrong because it’s obviously wrong! The golden rule would suffice for that. Put yourself in the shoes of the kid. Humans are intelligent enough to contrive morality.

Moreover, there’s not really any such thing as “wrong”. It’s just a made up construct. Sans God, my life is finite and I need to do everything I can to maximize my enjoyment of it - transcendent of such labels as “right” or “wrong”. If I obey the law despite wanting to break it, it’s only because I thought I might get caught and that the punishment was more costly than the pleasure.

Using the same theory, it seems as though God is the only reason for wanting to do good, which to me doesn’t seem to be much of a moral proposition. Appeal to the dictator instead of deciding for oneself.