onewheeldave Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Actually it's Phil Plait, saw this video soon after it came out and I agree with his line of reasoning almost entirely. Here's the full video. If you enjoyed that here's another video you might enjoy of somebody who I'm in broad agreement with (although I do think he gets i glaringly wrong in one or two places). Presumably one of the things he gets, in your opinion, glaringly wrong, is his understanding of 'atheism' to mean 'there is no God' (@1:20) That aside, cheers for the link, just watched it, he makes some good points, and, it's good to see a sceptic who is open to some of the positive aspects within religion/belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) That's not relevant when it comes to word definitions and 'common usage' though. I'd say spot on, but each of those claims has an objective reality- they're either mathematical facts, or facts about the physical world. Words, and how we use them, are entirely human creations, and, like it or not, a lot of what makes a modern language, is down to common usage. And, often, that common usage is contrary to etymology, or, even logic. Much of a words meaning, it's 'correctness', is down to the way it is actually used. Common usage can, and often does, 'trump' etymology. Once again you're way too quick to jump on anything I say to try and score a cheap point but you keep failing miserably. If you carried on reading that page you'll see that there are similar fallacies that fit similar scenarios. So, if you want to be pedantic this is the more accurate fallacy that you're committing. Either way you're clearly committing a fallacy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html This is why there needs to be clear definitions of terms.....and people, irrespective of how many, who are muddying the water of terminology in an attempt to bring you down to their level need to be shown up as the frauds they are. Language is about communication and if you can't rely on the correct terminology then understanding and knowledge becomes lost which is precisely what the religious want. It's this dishonest use of language that is so harmful and leads so many people to not understanding the process of how you determine fact from fiction. Stephen Fry gets it so right in this clip at about 1.05 mins. Edited September 30, 2012 by six45ive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Presumably one of the things he gets, in your opinion, glaringly wrong, is his understanding of 'atheism' to mean 'there is no God' (@1:20) Absolutely. Anybody who claims 'there is no god' is a gnostic atheist. That aside, cheers for the link, just watched it, he makes some good points, and, it's good to see a sceptic who is open to some of the positive aspects within religion/belief. Actually his biggest failure for me is about creating a building where atheists can go just for quiet and contemplation. We already have them.....THEY'RE CALLED CHURCHES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 An atheist doesn't have to be without doctrine but if you wish to attach militant to a person who is an atheist he/she has to be espousing some doctrine which is why I originally brought secularism/humanism into the frame many posts ago. What the doctrine is doesn't matter, antitheism, socialism, fascism etc, etc, etc. Hence if you were to attach militant to me it would be a militant secularist or humanist or antitheist etc but not atheist. I'm afraid you've got it wrong yet again so let me try bullet form to make it clear what my position is as an atheist, antitheist and secular humanist. 1/ I don't believe in god.* 2/ I believe there are no gods. 3/ If a god could be proved to exist then I still wouldn't follow it, pray to it or worship it etc.....I think the idea or the realisation of a god would be inhuman and childish. 4/ I don't know that there aren't any gods. 5/ I'm as near to certainty as can be, without actually knowing, that there are no gods. Atheism is only applicable to * If it makes it any clearer to OneWheelDave, most of the 5 listed would be atheist by default, but to qualify as an atheist, only number 1 has to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) What's to help? The fact that you agreed with me in your post #238 that "derogatory and deliberately provocative language is prevalent amongst all demographics", and then in the very same post and the next post #239 you single out the sceptic community for making such remarks, and in turn make offensive comments against them. I'm afraid this tell me that you have an agenda against that community, and I don't think there's much point in debating with you. I've made it quite clear that, IMO, those who claim to be sceptics/rationalists have a higher standard by which to conduct their debates with non-sceptics/rationalists- there's no excuse for them using counter-productive and deliberately insulting language. Do you disagree? To which bit? Yes, I disagree. There is no higher standard by which sceptics/rationalists should conduct their debates, with the exception that they should be more sceptical and/or rational of course. No, I agree. There's no excuse for using counter-productive and deliberately insulting language, but this applies to everybody equally. There's also no excuse for feigning insulting language where there is none, or reacting in a violent manner. Edited September 30, 2012 by quisquose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Absolutely. Anybody who claims 'there is no god' is a gnostic atheist. I dunno, gnostic atheist suggests that they know there is no God. I'd go more with anti-theist atheist, but I can understand why most people just say "atheist". For the sake of debate though, I do think that the differences matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 anti-theist atheist Anti-theist, as I understand it from Hitchens, is that even if it was proven that God did exist, they'd oppose them. They wouldn't worship them anyway. It's not a positive statement that "God doesn't exist". This, in short: 3/ If a god could be proved to exist then I still wouldn't follow it, pray to it or worship it etc.....I think the idea or the realisation of a god would be inhuman and childish. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted September 30, 2012 Author Share Posted September 30, 2012 Absolutely. Anybody who claims 'there is no god' is a gnostic atheist. Actually his biggest failure for me is about creating a building where atheists can go just for quiet and contemplation. We already have them.....THEY'RE CALLED CHURCHES!!! Please don't campaign to get them all shut down yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Anti-theist, as I understand it from Hitchens, is that even if it was proven that God did exist, they'd oppose them. They wouldn't worship them anyway. It's not a positive statement that "God doesn't exist". This, in short: Am I wrong? I'm really not sure. I've always viewed the belief that there is no God as mild anti-theism. Theism itself isn't a god, so I can't see how anti-theism would mean refusal to worship. If theism is the belief in god/s, then anti-theism must be someone who is against the belief in god/s (in my opinion). The one thing I am pretty sure about is that to qualify as an atheist, you only need to be without belief in god/s. EDIT: The rufusal to worship, even if there was a God, is similar in some ways to my own apatheism: It doesn't matter to me if any gods exist or not. Edited September 30, 2012 by RootsBooster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Please don't campaign to get them all shut down yet. He isn't, he's saying that atheists can go and enjoy churches. Quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts