Who's going to protect the Christians?

[Chris_Sleeps]

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.

Why not?

I am charitable. I am an atheist. Thus I'm a charitable atheist.

 

Where is that incorrect?

[Super Hans]

Tony, you're more obsessed with Christians than Christians are.

[onewheeldave]

Why not?

I am charitable. I am an atheist. Thus I'm a charitable atheist.

 

Where is that incorrect?

 

It's not. I've never said it is.

 

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).

 

Whereas, some Christians, are charitable, because of their beliefs.

 

Clearly this is a semantics point. As far as I'm concerned, you can have it either way i.e.

 

there are charitable atheists (in which case there are aggressive atheists too)- or:

 

there are no 'aggressive atheists' (in which case there are no charitable ones either).

 

Your choice, pick one and stick to it

 

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.

[Chris_Sleeps]

atheists have no beliefs (though people do have beliefs and some of those people happen to be atheists).

Is that not a contradiction?

Atheists have no beliefs, but some atheists have beliefs.

there are charitable atheists (in which case there are aggressive atheists too)- or:

 

there are no 'aggressive atheists' (in which case there are no charitable ones either).

 

Your choice, pick one and stick to it

Why is there one choice?

I don't understand.

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

I think I'm getting closer. You'd only apply the noun if the person doing the act was motivated by that noun? So an angry Christian is only angry if his motivation for being angry is Christ? If it wasn't he'd just be angry man who happened to also be a Christian?

 

A very odd use of language, I must admit.

 

Call me a 'charitable humanist who also happens to be an atheist' then. Label me up.

 

---

I've edited because I really can't work out what you're doing. It's a very obscure linguistic trick you're playing.

[PaliRichard]

Is that not a contradiction?

Atheists have no beliefs, but some atheists have beliefs.

 

Why is there one choice?

I don't understand.

 

I think I'm getting closer. You'd only apply the adjective if the person doing the act was motivated by that adjective? So an angry Christian is only angry if his motivation for being angry is Christ? If it wasn't he'd just be angry man who happened to also be a Christian?

 

A very odd use of language, I must admit.

 

Call me a 'charitable humanist who also happens to be an atheist' then. Label me up.

 

That's it you've got it.

 

You can be an angry atheist but you're not angry because you're an atheist you just happen to be an angry person who just so happens to be an atheist.

 

Likewise you can't be charitable because of your atheism, you're just a charitable person who happens to be an atheist as well.

 

As Dave said the point has been argued many times before but it is a vitally important point to distinguish before any debate is undertaken that is likely to include atheism.

 

It's importance comes from the fact that you can't prove a negative, yet if someone claims to be an atheist because they believe there are no Gods then they have to provide evidence for that belief because it is a positive position.

 

A lack of belief does not require evidence, you simply don't believe in something, in this case we are all born atheist, but believing that there isn't something is an absolute position so evidence is required; so if you were to say 'I believe there is no God' you would have to provide evidence for that statement.

 

Believing there is no God is not a default position, it is a position brought about through reasoning.

 

Have I made it clearer or muddied the waters more? Sorry if it's the latter!

[Chris_Sleeps]

That's it you've got it.

I understand the principle. It's the linguistic trick I don't get.

 

Please note, I've edited my previous post. It is the noun that is being used as a pivotal point.

 

I'll carry on with the example:

 

A angry Christian. = A man whose anger is motivated by Christ.

A angry man who also happens to be a Christian. = Now man is the pivotal noun. Is the man angry about being "a man"? We don't know, so now that noun can't be used.

 

Unless the noun 'man' is treat differently to the noun 'Christian'.

[onewheeldave]

Is that not a contradiction?

Atheists have no beliefs, but some atheists have beliefs.

 

Why is there one choice?

I don't understand.

 

I think I'm getting closer. You'd only apply the noun if the person doing the act was motivated by that noun? So an angry Christian is only angry if his motivation for being angry is Christ? If it wasn't he'd just be angry man who happened to also be a Christian?

 

That's why I said it was your choice.

 

Do you wish to only apply the noun if the act was motivated by that noun? If so, fine- as long as I know that's how you see it, then we can have a meaningfull discussion without any confusion on that point.

 

Or, Do you wish that the noun can be applied, even if the act isn't motivated by that noun? If so, fine- as long as I know that's how you see it, then we can have a meaningfull discussion without any confusion on that point.

 

There's one choice because the 2 are mutually exclusive. But, as far as I'm concerned, that choice is yours.

 

Whichever one you choose, clearly it applies to both believers and non-believers.

 

And, even it you still don't understand the disinction, or, consider it a underhand linguistic ploy, no problems, forget about it, as the main point I'm making is-

 

 

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.

[PaliRichard]

I understand the principle. It's the linguistic trick I don't get.

 

Please note, I've edited my previous post. It is the noun that is being used as a pivotal point.

 

I'll carry on with the example:

 

A angry Christian. = A man whose anger is motivated by Christ.

A angry man who also happens to be a Christian. = Now man is the pivotal noun. Is the man angry about being "a man"? We don't know, so now that noun can't be used.

 

Unless the noun 'man' is treat differently to the noun 'Christian'.

 

I think it's reasonable to suggest 'man' being treated differently to 'Christian' is a reasonable breaking (or bending - depending on your view) of the rules considering 'man' doesn't hold any distinct meaning in this case but 'Christian' has 'baggage' as soon as it is said.

 

I think that's why it's important to make the distinction before a debate starts - I'm not sure the linguistic properties are that important once both sides of affirmed that they understand the meaning - but that's just me.

[Anna B]

I've led a fairly blameless life without it for the last 48 years Anna and I resent the fact that you equate atheism with aggression when most religions are used as an excuse for violence now and most definitely in the past. Northern Ireland is just one example

 

I do apologise if I've offended you, it certainly wasn't intentional.

 

I have had some interesting debates with representatives of Humanist groups and personally have found them to be just as bigoted in their views as in any religion, and actually quite aggresive, but perhaps that's hust me.

 

Where religion is concerned, I like the way we just jog along in this country, live and let live, tolerant and not too concerned. Yet many people put CofE on their census form and dispite rarely attending church, believe it to be so.

I believe many of these people would jump to defend their beliefs / way of life, if they were threatened.

 

More trouble is the last thing we need so let's hope it's never put to the test in that way.

[Chris_Sleeps]

That's why I said it was your choice.

 

Do you wish to only apply the noun if the act was motivated by that noun? If so, fine- as long as I know that's how you see it, then we can have a meaningfull discussion without any confusion on that point.

 

Or, Do you wish that the noun can be applied, even if the act isn't motivated by that noun?

It's okay. I'm with you. If I understand the rules I can play along.

 

I'm a Charitable Humanist who also happens to be an Athiest. I'm in.

I think it's reasonable to suggest 'man' being treated differently to 'Christian' is a reasonable breaking (or bending - depending on your view) of the rules considering 'man' doesn't hold any distinct meaning in this case but 'Christian' has 'baggage' as soon as it is said.

It's a very linguistic approach to take. I'm wondering if I can apply the adjective 'linguistic' to the noun 'approach' now.

 

Is the approach motivated by language? *thinks* I think it is. Yeah. I'll stick with it.