Who's going to protect the Christians?

[six45ive]

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.

 

No, you made an assumption instead of asking for clarification or asking a question on my position given a differing context.

 

So that changes what I said how?

 

I never made a claim that it changes what you said, I simply pointed out that you were too quick to assume a position I'd taken which I hadn't given the different position that you were taking as opposed to the post I was responding to.

 

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; in response to you saying I took it as read that we were talking about the same definition)

 

Just to make it clear. I'm stating that both implicit atheism and explicit atheism can inspire somebody to do good.

 

So in context of that definition your 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.

 

For you to make a comment that we'd both been using the same understanding of 'lack of belief' I'd need you to explain what your understanding is of the term as it seems it differs from my understanding.

 

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.

 

I do believe that 'there is no god' but the definition I'm using here is my interpretation of the term 'lack of belief in god'. It seems to differ from yours somewhat as I've just mentioned above.

 

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?

 

I've assessed the evidence when it comes to me claiming that no gods exist but my lack of belief is based on the fact that there isn't, nor can there be, any evidence that gods exist and therefore there is nothing to assess.

 

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.

 

I've just dealt with this above.

 

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

 

:roll:I never said that you did say that.

 

What I actually said was

 

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.

 

In what way is it silly? What reason could any other group have for defining atheism in a different way from the way it's being defined by the atheists on the thread that your discussing the issue with?

 

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.

 

What a load of obsfuscating BS. The whole point of having clearly understood and agreed upon definitions is so that everybody in the conversation is clear about what's being said. Therefore, in a discussion with atheists about atheism there is no other definition than the one that the atheists understand and use. To argue any differently serves no other purpose than a crass attempt at muddying the waters or to try and shift the burden of proof of claim making away from the theists and onto the atheists.

 

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.

 

Yes, which is basically what I said in my last point but there are still basic tenets of buddhism that you can't escape from.

For example if I started to debate with a xtian and half way through the conversation he didn't think Jesus was the son of god, wasn't raised after 3 days and he wasn't born of a virgin then I'm clearly not talking to a xtian no matter how much he claims to be one. The conversation would be over very quickly and I'd assume he was simply a troll.

 

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.

 

Agreed, but with the links I've provided I don't get how you're implying that I'm using a narrow definition of atheism.

 

Nice grown up debating there.

 

:hihi:You started it.

 

Personally I'd use one appropriate to the debate.

 

I am doing. Originally in response to somebody else.

 

 

Maybe you should read your own links.

 

Please don't quotemine because you think you see something which supports your position, once again taking something out of context. It really does make you look extremely disingenuous. All you're doing is claiming that I'm arguing from a position that I'm not. If you are serious about understanding my actual position then you need to ask me clear, unambiguous questions and not assume my reply to another poster has anything to do with your mindset.

 

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.

 

It's not present because it's not necessary. 'Does not believe there are any gods' could be interpreted as a claim to knowledge. 'Lacking a belief in god' doesn't make a claim of knowledge. The chart simply addresses these two issues; do you believe/disbelieve in god (theist/atheist) (this encompasses both implicit and explicit atheism) and do you claim to have knowledge that god exists/doesn't exist (gnostic/agnostic) (this addresses knowledge as opposed to belief)?

Fundamentally you really aren't capable of having a serious debate unless you at first educate yourself with your 'opponents' actual position otherwise you will end up arguing, either unintentially or partially intentionally, against a strawman.

Or maybe you actually do understand in which case your arguments are very much full on strawmen.

[Ryedo40]

.. but point out that the same line of reasoning means that atheism can't be the source of positive things either (such as charity).

 

I'm not entirely sure about this. I think I kind of agree but maybe atheism itself is a positive thing. Throughout history, for example, quite a lot of theists have stood in the way of blood transfusions, vaccines, organ transplants, stem-cell research and birth control. They have, and continue to do this because they believe it's what their god wants.

 

An atheist, not holding those taboos, is free to search for real answers to our problems; and the knowledge gained from that can lead to positive things.

[RootsBooster]

But atheism isn't a lack of belief. It's a belief that theism is incorrect and that god/gods don't exist.

Then what does that make me? I don't believe in God.

After reading the dictionary definition and finding out the origin of the word, I always thought it meant I was an atheist.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2013 at 16:14 ----------

 

Just to make it clear. I'm stating that both implicit atheism and explicit atheism can inspire somebody to do good.

 

Can you explain how?

[blues1]

They should try a younger pope next time. An old man would really find all the travelling and stuff too much, I'm sure he didn't take the decision lightly, but of course his health should be more important.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

I liked the last pope best, he was the christians saviour,and if it took being propped up in a wheel barrow while going on his trip out in the pope mobile so be it,this pope I suspect used more energy up in the hitler youth:hihi:

[onewheeldave]

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.

 

No- atheism is an absence of belief.

 

You're talking about 'anti-theism'- a positive belief that God doesn't exist.

 

There are 2 definitions of atheism in some dictionaries, one of which is basically anti-theism, but, on multiple other threads here, and, worldwide, atheists as a whole have steadfastly insisted that the correct definition of 'atheism' is, 'an absence of belief'; so that's the one I'm using.

 

If you disagree, please take it up with some of the other atheists on this thread.

 

In the meantime I'll proceed on the basis of 'atheism' meaning nothing other than, 'an absence of belief'.

 

---------- Post added 14-02-2013 at 17:30 ----------

 

 

 

 

Just to make it clear. I'm stating that both implicit atheism and explicit atheism can inspire somebody to do good.

 

 

I'm curious about this as well- how can an absence of belief 'inspire' someone to do good? What exactly does 'inspire' mean in that context?

 

I can imagine someone pondering on their absence of belief about God, and thinking 'Woo- I'm going to do some good now', but there's no causal connection between the absence of belief and the persons subsequent actions there.

 

They're just choosing to do good- there's no way an absence of belief can cause that, or anything else.

[andygardener]

Then what does that make me? I don't believe in God.

After reading the dictionary definition and finding out the origin of the word, I always thought it meant I was an atheist.

 

It would make you an atheist. It is a belief though. You believe that God does not exist, ergo no heaven, no hell no judgement day etc. So the fact that you believe that those things don't exist/won't happen can guide your actions in life, either for good or bad.

[PaliRichard]

No, you made an assumption instead of asking for clarification or asking a question on my position given a differing context[/Quote]

 

I made an assumption that was reasonable to make under the circumstances, the context didn't appear to change, there was absolutley no reason to suspect it had.

 

 

 

I never made a claim that it changes what you said, I simply pointed out that you were too quick to assume a position I'd taken which I hadn't given the different position that you were taking as opposed to the post I was responding to[/Quote]

 

 

You said I had taken it out of context, in the context of the definition being used in on this thread in general, and by you in a previous post specifically (which you only now appear to be suggesting may have been otherwise) it was not out of context. Had it been taken out of context then this would have changed the context of what I said and what I said would have been innapropriate, hence the question 'So that changes what I said how?'

 

 

 

Just to make it clear. I'm stating that both implicit atheism and explicit atheism can inspire somebody to do good[/Quote]

 

Why are yoiu changing terminoliogy here? Do you mean the two definitions we have been referring to already? Calling me disingenuous then deliberately changing the terminology is a little bit sneaky.

 

If you do mean (that's me making assumptions ) the terminology we have already been using then you are still wrong regarding the lack of belief and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

 

 

 

For you to make a comment that we'd both been using the same understanding of 'lack of belief' I'd need you to explain what your understanding is of the term as it seems it differs from my understanding[/Quote]

 

I've explained it, it means lack of belief in the way a baby or an animal has a lack of belief - this is the understanding that most people outside your special atheist club seem to use, it's certainly understood as this by most people I have come across.

 

 

 

I do believe that 'there is no god' but the definition I'm using here is my interpretation of the term 'lack of belief in god'. It seems to differ from yours somewhat as I've just mentioned above[/Quote]

 

It will do as you seem to imply that a lack of belief means the same as believing God doesn't exist - they are not the same at all.

 

I've assessed the evidence when it comes to me claiming that no gods exist but my lack of belief is based on the fact that there isn't, nor can there be, any evidence that gods exist and therefore there is nothing to assess[/Quote]

 

Why can't there be evidence that a God(s) exists?

 

I've just dealt with this above[/Quote]

 

Not very well

 

 

 

:roll:I never said that you did say that[/Quote]

 

You asked

If atheists can't define themselves then who can?[/Quote] in direct response to me saying that some narrowly define themselves.

 

Come on you're staring to scrape the bottom of the barrel here trying to twist things.

 

In what way is it silly? What reason could any other group have for defining atheism in a different way from the way it's being defined by the atheists on the thread that your discussing the issue with?[/Quote]

 

It's silly in the way that we are talking about the wider use of the word and in such a case using a narrow definition is, well plain silly. It's like talking about wheeled vehicles through the ages and making the claim that only motorcycles are wheeled vehicles - silly.

 

What a load of obsfuscating BS. The whole point of having clearly understood and agreed upon definitions is so that everybody in the conversation is clear about what's being said. Therefore, in a discussion with atheists about atheism there is no other definition than the one that the atheists understand and use. To argue any differently serves no other purpose than a crass attempt at muddying the waters or to try and shift the burden of proof of claim making away from the theists and onto the atheists[/Quote]

 

Give over, that's possibly the worst thing I've heard you say. Using such a narrow definition on a subject that has more than that narrow definition is tantamount to deliberately skewing the answers. As I said it is no different than creationists claiming only their version of creation is valid and saying 'la la la' when evidence to the contrary is put forward - you really aren't very good at this.

 

 

 

Yes, which is basically what I said in my last point but there are still basic tenets of buddhism that you can't escape from.

For example if I started to debate with a xtian and half way through the conversation he didn't think Jesus was the son of god, wasn't raised after 3 days and he wasn't born of a virgin then I'm clearly not talking to a xtian no matter how much he claims to be one. The conversation would be over very quickly and I'd assume he was simply a troll[/Quote]

 

??? I fail utterly to see what point you are trying to make here ???

 

There are basic tennets in Buddhism (and Christianity) but we're talking about using a narrow definiition of atheism, so a comparable comment would be saying all Buddhists believe in Bodhisattvas - which they don't. The very point is that it's a narrow definition - not the central 'tennat' - so to claim what I said is what you were saying is not true at all, it's a completely different focus.

 

Agreed, but with the links I've provided I don't get how you're implying that I'm using a narrow definition of atheism[/Quote]

 

From your link

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

 

The definition I've been using is presented as

When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods[/Quote]

 

Sop your own links implicitly state it.

 

:hihi:You started it.[/Quote]

 

Well done.

 

I am doing. Originally in response to somebody else.[/Quote]

 

Dealt with in first response.

 

Please don't quotemine because you think you see something which supports your position, once again taking something out of context. It really does make you look extremely disingenuous. All you're doing is claiming that I'm arguing from a position that I'm not. If you are serious about understanding my actual position then you need to ask me clear, unambiguous questions and not assume my reply to another poster has anything to do with your mindset[/Quote]

 

You've already stated your position - you believe God doesn't exist, you have also said a lack a of belief can motivate you - which is how we got here. I haven't taken it out of context, it's not my fault your own quotes trip you up.

 

It's not present because it's not necessary. 'Does not believe there are any gods' could be interpreted as a claim to knowledge. 'Lacking a belief in god' doesn't make a claim of knowledge. The chart simply addresses these two issues; do you believe/disbelieve in god (theist/atheist) (this encompasses both implicit and explicit atheism) and do you claim to have knowledge that god exists/doesn't exist (gnostic/agnostic) (this addresses knowledge as opposed to belief)?

Fundamentally you really aren't capable of having a serious debate unless you at first educate yourself with your 'opponents' actual position otherwise you will end up arguing, either unintentially or partially intentionally, against a strawman.

Or maybe you actually do understand in which case your arguments are very much full on strawmen.

 

You have already made your position clear - you just seem unable to grasp other definitions that don't apply to you.

 

This is going nowhere, I'll leave you to it. Enjoy your little atheist club meeting where you can reinforce your ideals.

 

tata

[andygardener]

No- atheism is an absence of belief.

 

You're talking about 'anti-theism'- a positive belief that God doesn't exist.

 

There are 2 definitions of atheism in some dictionaries, one of which is basically anti-theism, but, on multiple other threads here, and, worldwide, atheists as a whole have steadfastly insisted that the correct definition of 'atheism' is, 'an absence of belief'; so that's the one I'm using.

 

If you disagree, please take it up with some of the other atheists on this thread.

 

In the meantime I'll proceed on the basis of 'atheism' meaning nothing other than, 'an absence of belief'.

 

I think you are wrong. I'm agnostic, so I can be deemed to have an absence of belief either way. An atheist in the context of what we're talking about here (can atheism promote good or bad behavior in the modern world) is vastly more likely to take the anti-theist definition than the toddler/some remote tribe that have never heard of the concept definition.

[Ryedo40]

It would make you an atheist. It is a belief though. You believe that God does not exist, ergo no heaven, no hell no judgement day etc. So the fact that you believe that those things don't exist/won't happen can guide your actions in life, either for good or bad.

 

An atheist doesn't necessarily hold the belief that a god does not exist. An atheist may think there could be a god but finds no reasonable evidence to justify holding such beliefs.

[andygardener]

An atheist doesn't necessarily hold the belief that a god does not exist. An may think there could be a god but finds no reasonable evidence to justify holding such beliefs.

 

No, that's agnostic, which is what I am.