Who's going to protect the Christians?

[PaliRichard]

Because, as I'm sure you know, my comment about humanism was in response to the post below[/Quote]

 

So what I have done is in fact not misread it as what I said about it still applies, I've just taken it on it's own merit rather than in the context of the post you replied to.

 

So that changes what I said how?

 

As you can see I then went on to make the point of how one position can be used to inform another. In other words, how a rejection of a certain kind of belief can help to initiate a different and less dogmatic approach to solving mankind's problems. That's the difference between atheism and humanism[/Quote]

 

I'm aware of how one position can inform another, I was talking about lack of belief (I acknowledge I should have specified that I meant the 'lack of belief' meaning of atheism. However, as my previous post responding to you that made the comment about not being able to be motivated by a lack of belief in something;

That is not being motivated by a lack of belief in something, that is specifically being motivated by someone else's belief in something that you disagree with[/Quote] in response to you saying

People can be motivated by a lack of belief in a god[/Quote] I took it as read that we were talking about the same definition)

 

So in context of that definition your

atheists can't do good inspired by their atheism because their atheism has no doctrine[/Quote] being described as a strawman argument makes no sense, as it implies that atheism can inspire, which I've already shown is a silly proposition when used in the 'lack of belief' context which we had both been applying.

 

So I will ask again, how have I misread it?

 

So, like a lot of religious people, I see you have no problem in misrepresenting somebody else's position by taking a quote out of context. Disingenuous to say the least[/Quote]

 

I haven't misrepresented your position, you have yet to show how I have used the quote out of context. The only way that it could possibly have been is if you were referring to atheism being a belief that there is no God, in which case you had changed the use of the word across the discussion from 'lack of belief' to 'belief no God exists' - One thing I am not is not a mind reader, and I took it that you were using the meaning you had already been employing.

 

D'oh! Squibble in this case being any one of a number of god claims that all have a certain dogma attached to them that I have a lack of belief in.[/Quote]

 

Why is it loopy? A lack of belief is a lack of belief. You have been telling me how you have come to your belief there is no God through reason. Surely you have assessed the evidence to come to that belief?

 

If you have then it's not a lack of belief that has brought you to that place but assessing the evidence put forward by those who do believe and making an informed decision.

 

If atheists can't define themselves then who can? I believe you're a buddhist. Please tell me who defines what buddhism is?[/Quote]

 

Where did I say atheists can't define themselves? I never said that.

 

What I actually said was

Defining Atheism soley on the basis of groups of atheists who fit themselves into holes is just as silly as defining creation based on the words of creationists and not taking into account any other position[/Quote]

 

I said defining atheism in a narrow remit was silly, even the dictionary's (as I previously pointed out) don't have such a narrow definition.

 

What I said was it is silly to define atheism based on one set of people's definition of it. Just like defining creationsim on a creationists definition, no rational person would do it, yet apparently such a narrow view of athesm is accepted by those who claim to be the very rational voice in these kinds of debates.

 

If a Buddhist were to ask me to define what Buddhism is it would be different to what the Dalai Lama would say because I belong to a different lineage, yet if we were to talk to someone who knew nothing of Buddhism we would probably use virtually the same description because we would be aware that the conversation needed a certain definition.

 

It's not always about how we define ourself but how we use words appropriately, if I were to use only the narrow definition of Buddhism in conversation it would more often than not miss the point.

 

Nice bit of rhetorical nonsense there.[/Quote]

 

Nice grown up debating there.

 

And use who's definitions pray tell?[/Quote]

 

Personally I'd use one appropriate to the debate.

 

For anybody wondering, this shows the difference between atheism and agnostic. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Atheist%252520v%252520Theist.png?imgmax=800

 

And here's some info on the difference between atheism and anti-theism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm

.

.

.

.

 

 

Maybe you should read your own links.

 

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all.

 

When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn't quite compatible with anti-theism[/Quote]

 

When defined narrowly as denying the existence of gods, the compatibility between atheism and anti-theism may appear more likely[/Quote]

 

That's what I've been saying.

 

Although your lovely little atheist chart is a bit confusing. There is a difference between 'does not believe' and 'lack of belief' which is not present on the chart and provides an important distinction.

[RootsBooster]

Firstly, forgive the snips, there is a LOT of text which has nothing to do with my post here, so I chopped it. Also not all of the quotes appear in order, which affects nothing.

<snipped down a little>

 

At the end of the day, atheists will also, when in trouble, go back to the 'atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief in supernatural/unprovable entities' stance, which, in their eyes, effectively makes an 'aggressive atheist' a logical impossibility.

Not quite, it's a lack of belief in gods. Some atheists do believe in other supernatural stuff.

Why are you presenting this as some kind of retreat tactic? Why would an atheist, when in trouble, "go back" to this? How will it get them out of trouble?

The definition is something you seem to agree with here...

I have said that you're not charitable because of your atheist beliefs- atheists have no beliefs (though people do have beliefs and some of those people happen to be atheists).

Although saying "atheists have no beliefs" isn't technically correct. An atheist can have beliefs, but those beliefs don't come from being an atheist.

Either way, the fact remains that atheism, as a doctrine/whatever it is that atheism is, has no set of beliefs, and, is simply a lack of belief.

Agreed.

However, as we're seeing in this thread, that stance also means, by the same reasoning, that they cannot make any claims that 'atheists are charitable' either.

 

I'm quite keen to see how they deal with that, it would be unfortunate if the thread gets locked before that. Of course, it's entirely your choice- if you really wish to pursue the 'aggressive atheism' point, but, honestly, it will only lead to a locked thread, IMO.

The important difference here is that you've compared "atheists are charitable" which can be true, atheists can be charitable (but this is not due to or part of atheism) to "aggressive atheism" which suggests that atheism itself can be aggressive, or inspire/encourage/promote aggression.

This is not true. If you had compared "atheists can be charitable" to "atheists can be aggressive" then I wouldn't see a problem. Atheists can be charitable or aggressive, but neither is to do with an absence of belief in God(s).

Thus no atheist can be charitable because of their atheism

agreed

[PaliRichard]

no, even when you have defined it, you can have a lack of belief. If you knew the definition of a Squibble (it starts with a capital btw) would you necessarily believe in it?

 

Bum.

 

You're right

 

Apologies Six, I was trying to type that out at work and obviously tripped over myself!

 

Many apologies.

[RootsBooster]

Bum.

 

You're right

 

Apologies Six, I was trying to type that out at work and obviously tripped over myself!

 

Many apologies.

 

Well I'm guessing you're not getting too much sleep at the moment!

(by the way, little fellah smells like his nappy needs changing)

[Anna B]

Erm, Christians? I stand up for my values and religious leanings, do Christians need someone other than themselves to fight their battles for them? Is it that weak a religion that without someone to tell them what to do they fall at the first hurdle?That's not my experience of Christianity, the majority of Christians I know are perfectly capable of protecting themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately in this multi-cultural society all religions seem to be protected (that's good) except Christianity. Hence the well documented arguments over wearing a cross at work etc.

 

I think some people think that as England is by Definition a Christian country with a 'Church of England' tied into the state's political structure, Christianity should not need defending in it's own country, and are therefore aghast when these situations come up.

 

If you were brought up in the fifties as I was it was taken for granted that Christianity would permeate all areas of life: school assemblies and lessons in the Bible, Council meeting prayers, local church at the centre of the community, Sunday school, 'Christian values' in the home etc.

 

For these people life has changed beyond measure and they are seriously worried at what they see as a decline in Christianity, when what they probably mean is an English way of life.

[PaliRichard]

Well I'm guessing you're not getting too much sleep at the moment!

(by the way, little fellah smells like his nappy needs changing)

 

Hah I wish. Him and Pali mummy are still in hospital, both good but the wee fella isn't good enough with his feeding to be allowed home yet.

 

So it's just me and Pali doggy at the mo!

[onewheeldave]

Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post

Either way, the fact remains that atheism, as a doctrine/whatever it is that atheism is, has no set of beliefs, and, is simply a lack of belief.

 

Thus no atheist can be charitable because of their atheism; whereas, some Christians are charitable, as a result of their Christian beliefs.

 

 

I'm not sure that's correct. An atheist does not believe in god/gods, and thus all the associated stuff like heaven/hell etc. Therefore it could be argued that because they believe those things do not exist and for the individual there is only this life that is important to help others in this life as there isn't any god doling out eternal sweeties to the wronged.

The first bits correct, and, a couple of the atheists on this thread have agreed with me that it's correct: 'atheism' is a lack of belief.

 

A lack of belief can't cause anything (how a person thinks/feels about a lack of belief can cause them to act in a certain way of course).

 

Christians, in contrast, don't lack belief- they have a positive beliefs/s about God, His will, their duty to follow Gods will etc, etc- which do lead them to act in certain charitable ways sometimes.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2013 at 01:29 ----------

 

People can be motivated by a lack of belief in a god. If you believe that the imaginary god that somebody else believes in does more harm to society than good then you can be motivated by that.

The guys who do the Atheist Experience show (a charitable organisation) in my signature are a prime example.

 

They're motivated by a set of beliefs they have about society, community, altruism etc. Their 'atheism', which is, in contrast, an absence of belief, can't motivate them to do those things.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2013 at 01:37 ----------

 

 

The important difference here is that you've compared "atheists are charitable" which can be true, atheists can be charitable (but this is not due to or part of atheism) to "aggressive atheism" which suggests that atheism itself can be aggressive, or inspire/encourage/promote aggression.

This is not true. If you had compared "atheists can be charitable" to "atheists can be aggressive" then I wouldn't see a problem. Atheists can be charitable or aggressive, but neither is to do with an absence of belief in God(s).

 

agreed

 

No- it's a grammar issue: I did put "aggressive atheism"- I meant though aggressive atheists.

 

I think if you look at my other posts, I'm obviously refering to aggressive atheists, not aggressive atheism.

 

As you'll notice, I consistently define 'atheism' as being 'an absence of belief'- there's no way an absence of belief can cause anything.

 

But, I hold my hands up to the mistake in grammer which was my slip, and clearly lead to the confusion- I hope I've cleared up the misunderstanding and I'm sure if you re-read my post in the light of the above, you'll find it makes more sense.

[RootsBooster]

No- it's a grammar issue: I did put "aggressive atheism"- I meant though aggressive atheists.

 

I think if you look at my other posts, I'm obviously refering to aggressive atheists, not aggressive atheism.

It needed clarifying, the smallest grammatical mistake or misspelling can make the word have a whole different meaning

As you'll notice, I consistently define 'atheism' as being 'an absence of belief'- there's no way an absence of belief can cause anything.

Which I've already acknowledged and agreed with, which is why I asked about this odd comment...

 

At the end of the day, atheists will also, when in trouble, go back to the 'atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief in supernatural/unprovable entities' stance, which, in their eyes, effectively makes an 'aggressive atheist' a logical impossibility.

(although it's actually "god(s)" not supernatural/unprovable entities)

 

so what did you actually mean by that? If you already agree that's what atheism is, why talk about it as though it's a cop-out?

[onewheeldave]

It needed clarifying, the smallest grammatical mistake or misspelling can make the word have a whole different meaning

 

Which I've already acknowledged and agreed with, which is why I asked about this odd comment...

 

 

(although it's actually "god(s)" not supernatural/unprovable entities)

 

so what did you actually mean by that? If you already agree that's what atheism is, why talk about it as though it's a cop-out?

 

I didn't talk about it as if it was a 'cop-out'. I said that it was a well-established line of argument that many atheists seem well-versed in, and one that's frequently brought in to defend against claims that atheists/atheism could be/has been the cause of negatives like aggresssion/oppression.

 

Typically, the opposition response to that is to get bogged down in trying to argue against it, but any atheist with a degree of intelligence can easily deal with any counters, as they know that particular line of argument as well as a chess player knows their chess openings.

 

So I was just pointing out that an alternative to getting bogged down in a long, back-and-forth argument that invariably goes nowhere, is to just go along with it, but point out that the same line of reasoning means that atheism can't be the source of positive things either (such as charity).

 

If negatives like aggression/oppression can't be caused by atheism, by virtue of the fact that atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief, then obviously, neither can things like charity.

[andygardener]

 

 

The first bits correct, and, a couple of the atheists on this thread have agreed with me that it's correct: 'atheism' is a lack of belief.

 

A lack of belief can't cause anything (how a person thinks/feels about a lack of belief can cause them to act in a certain way of course).

 

Christians, in contrast, don't lack belief- they have a positive beliefs/s about God, His will, their duty to follow Gods will etc, etc- which do lead them to act in certain charitable ways sometimes.

 

 

But atheism isn't a lack of belief. It's a belief that theism is incorrect and that god/gods don't exist. Someone with that belief may be motivated to good (because they believe justice can only be done in this life) or to bad (because they don't fear judgement or punishment after death), just as religious people can be motivated to good and bad by their beliefs.