Who's going to protect the Christians?

[PaliRichard]

And that's what humanism is. So this strawman argument of; "atheists can't do good inspired by their atheism because their atheism has no doctrine" fails.

It doesn't take into account of what morals/principles/ethos come about specifically because of a lack of belief in a god.

 

Atheism isn't humanism.

 

You're confusing the two, I would guess most, if not all humanists are atheist but not all atheists are humanists,they are not intertwined as neatly as you are making out.

 

You may be being inspired by the doctrine of humanism but you're not being inspired by a lack of belief in God, that's silly.

 

Animals and babies aren't 'inspired' by the default position of lack of belief in God. Only once you have developed a sense of reason can something inspire you, that may come from the belief that God doesn't exist or being opposed to those who are, but it certainly, most definately doesn't come from a lack of belief.

 

If you're going to debate with the big boys stop using the term 'strawman' as a strawman.

 

No, it's being specifically motivated by my lack of belief based on how I've rationally come to the conclusion that I don't believe in god[/Quote]

 

You're not believing in God is entirely different to a lack of belief in God, philosophically it's almost an opposing view.

[Dromedary]

 

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

 

 

Also one of the reasons why we cant all be born atheist as that is a conscious choice, maybe it would be better to say we are born agnostic.

[PaliRichard]

Also one of the reasons why we cant all be born atheist as that is a conscious choice, maybe it would be better to say we are born agnostic.

 

No it wouldn't.

 

Agnosticism is the result of having reasoned on whether there is God and not being sure either way.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in God.

 

Anti Theism is the concious choice you're talking about, the belief that there is no God.

 

They are specifically philosophical distinctions, even dictionaries disagree on the meaning of the word Atheism which is why it's so important to make the distinction in debate.

[Ryedo40]

I disagree with this though- there aren't sufficent atheist/humanist and secular charities to take up the slack, and no evidence that there will be in the future.

 

OK, just let's say that the current religious charities suddenly ceased. Somehow, I don't think religious people would suddenly stop doing charity. In fact, I'd say it's very likely they'd join a secular equivalent. If that was the case, the secular charity will, naturally, gain more resources and expand.

 

 

I'm not saying it definitly won't happen, simply that there's no evidence that shows it definitly will.

 

I think there is evidence; partly because of the increase in the number of secular and humanist charities that have sprung up over the last decade.

 

The reality is, that if the current services provided by religiously orientated groups ceased, there could well be no provision.

 

That's hardly going to be a reality. I also think it's naive to suggest there could well be no provision(a quick look on the internet and you'll find people from all walks of life starting and running their own charitable organisations and events for some cause or another).

[Dromedary]

No it wouldn't.

 

Agnosticism is the result of having reasoned on whether there is God and not being sure either way.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief in God.

 

Anti Theism is the concious choice you're talking about, the belief that there is no God.

 

They are specifically philosophical distinctions, even dictionaries disagree on the meaning of the word Atheism which is why it's so important to make the distinction in debate.

 

Sorry, I was going by this

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

 

Page 3 and 4 give plenty of examples.

[PaliRichard]

Sorry, I was going by this

 

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

 

No problem, as I said it's easy to make the mistake because

 

a) different dictonaries disagree, because

 

b) in common language the difference between the two is rarely necessary.

 

But when you're debating about religion and all that comes with those debates these distinctions are vitally important, as I said anti Theist and atheist have almost opposite meanings.

 

Another one is faith and blind faith, that's mixed up even more but again in common usage the difference isn't really important.

[six45ive]

Atheism isn't humanism.

 

I never said it was.

 

You're confusing the two, I would guess most, if not all humanists are atheist but not all atheists are humanists,they are not intertwined as neatly as you are making out.

 

I've not made such a claim here either. I think you need to go back and read what I actually said as this strawman you're building is getting pretty large.

 

You may be being inspired by the doctrine of humanism but you're not being inspired by a lack of belief in God, that's silly.

 

Well.....at last. You've at least got half a sentence correct. My atheism has come about through a great deal of rational thought about various god claims, all of which I've rejected. To me that is inspiring as well as being inspired by a more humanistic approach to the problems facing mankind. Please don't be a presumptious or arrogant person in trying to tell me what inspires me and what doesn't.

 

Animals and babies aren't 'inspired' by the default position of lack of belief in God. Only once you have developed a sense of reason can something inspire you, that may come from the belief that God doesn't exist or being opposed to those who are, but it certainly, most definately doesn't come from a lack of belief.

 

The incredulity is quite awesome. Please try educating yourself before making comments that make you look stupid. I'm not insulting you here, just making a statement of fact.

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Explicit-Atheism.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/Types-Atheism-FAQ/f/Implicit-Atheism-Atheists.htm

[PaliRichard]

I never said it was.

 

I've not made such a claim here either. I think you need to go back and read what I actually said as this strawman you're building is getting pretty large[/Quote]

 

I know what you said, it was

And that's what humanism is. So this strawman argument of; "atheists can't do good inspired by their atheism because their atheism has no doctrine" fails[/Quote]

 

How exactly have I misread it please?

 

Well.....at last. You've at least got half a sentence correct. My atheism has come about through a great deal of rational thought about various god claims, all of which I've rejected. To me that is inspiring as well as being inspired by a more humanistic approach to the problems facing mankind. Please don't be a presumptious or arrogant person in trying to tell me what inspires me and what doesn't[/Quote]

 

You cannot be inspired by a lack of belief in something. That's not being arrogant, it's a blatant piece of common sense. I can't be inspired by the lack of belief in squibble until I create an idea of what squibble is, then it is not a lack of belief because I have defined it.

 

The incredulity is quite awesome. Please try educating yourself before making comments that make you look stupid. I'm not insulting you here, just making a statement of fact.

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dictionary/g/Definition-Explicit-Atheism.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/Types-Atheism-FAQ/f/Implicit-Atheism-Atheists.htm

 

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.

 

You have a narrow and philosophically limited view because you can't see the woods for the trees. Your idea of 'atheist' doesn't work unless you're using it in a very limited debate. That's fine if you're into limited debates, I'm not, I use the grown up version.

 

If you want to sit in your little humanism club and pat each other on the back for being atheist that's fine, but if you want an actual reasoned debate you'll have to learn to redifine your definitions because they are philosophically flawed.

[six45ive]

I know what you said, it was

 

And that's what humanism is. So this strawman argument of; "atheists can't do good inspired by their atheism because their atheism has no doctrine" fails.

It doesn't take into account of what morals/principles/ethos come about specifically because of a lack of belief in a god.

 

How exactly have I misread it please?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

You cannot be inspired by a lack of belief in something. That's not being arrogant, it's a blatant piece of common sense. I can't be inspired by the lack of belief in squibble until I create an idea of what squibble is, then it is not a lack of belief because I have defined it.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

You have a narrow and philosophically limited view because you can't see the woods for the trees. Your idea of 'atheist' doesn't work unless you're using it in a very limited debate. That's fine if you're into limited debates, I'm not, I use the grown up version.

 

Nice bit of rhetorical nonsense there.

 

If you want to sit in your little humanism club and pat each other on the back for being atheist that's fine, but if you want an actual reasoned debate you'll have to learn to redifine your definitions because they are philosophically flawed.

 

And use who's definitions pray tell?

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2013 at 19:51 ----------

 

 

 

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

.

.

.

.

[RootsBooster]

But just because you don't believe in god doesn't make it true, others have other beliefs where is your proof that their is no god ?

You're confusing "no belief in God(s)" with "belief that there is no God(s)"

Someone who doesn't believe in God is not making any claims, so has nothing to prove.

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.

 

That's not motivation from a lack of belief in gods, that's motivation from your belief that god is imaginary. You've just said so yourself.

 

---------- Post added 13-02-2013 at 22:26 ----------

 

You cannot be inspired by a lack of belief in something.

I agree

That's not being arrogant, it's a blatant piece of common sense. I can't be inspired by the lack of belief in squibble until I create an idea of what squibble is, then it is not a lack of belief because I have defined it.

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?

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.

yes

You have a narrow and philosophically limited view because you can't see the woods for the trees. Your idea of 'atheist' doesn't work unless you're using it in a very limited debate. That's fine if you're into limited debates, I'm not, I use the grown up version.

 

If you want to sit in your little humanism club and pat each other on the back for being atheist that's fine, but if you want an actual reasoned debate you'll have to learn to redifine your definitions because they are philosophically flawed.

yes