roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 19, 2011 21:25:39 GMT
The point being that the only truly logical position on the scale is 4: Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Although I disagree with his phrasing of "equiprobable", saying "completely impartial" without evidence would be the best scientific position since anything left or right of that is a belief[/u].
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 9:51:13 GMT
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Not the belief that nothing happens after you die.
I do not bet. Nor do I claim there is nothing after death.
You however seem to claim there is, so be so honest as to provide evidence for that claim.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 9:52:59 GMT
even if that was possible, why would anyone do it? atheism isn't about telling other people there is nothing after death, so the question is retarded. It is for many atheists. Richard Dawkins, for example, is strongly in favor of converting others to Atheism. Nope, he's interested in convincing people to think for themselves. What Dawkins is doing is anti-theism not atheism.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 9:54:24 GMT
Just to clarify again: Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. It says nothing about a persons knowledge concerning gods.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 12, 2012 13:54:31 GMT
It is for many atheists. Richard Dawkins, for example, is strongly in favor of converting others to Atheism. Nope, he's interested in convincing people to think for themselves. What Dawkins is doing is anti-theism not atheism. It's funny how "thinking for oneself" just miraculously also happens to coincide with his worldview. He isn't trying to get people to think for themselves at all, he's campaigning (preaching) for everyone to agree with him. He's an embarassment to atheism. I'm not an atheist but I feel sorry for reasonable atheists who have to put up with having someone like that supposedly represent them.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 16:06:25 GMT
Nope, he's interested in convincing people to think for themselves. What Dawkins is doing is anti-theism not atheism. It's funny how "thinking for oneself" just miraculously also happens to coincide with his worldview. He isn't trying to get people to think for themselves at all, he's campaigning (preaching) for everyone to agree with him. He's an embarassment to atheism. I'm not an atheist but I feel sorry for reasonable atheists who have to put up with having someone like that supposedly represent them. He does not tell people they should become atheists, he just explains to them why there is no rational reason to accept theistic claims. And either way it's still anti-theism, not atheism. Dawkins does not represent atheism. Atheism has no representatives or popes. He presents his own arguments for not believing in gods. That does not mean I or any other Atheists have to agree with those arguments or his preaching. Atheism isn't a religion like Christianity is. It's simply the name for people who are not-theists.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 12, 2012 17:24:11 GMT
Richard Dawkins does represent atheism. You don't have to be a pope, in fact you don't have to even be appointed, to be the representative of something. As long as Dawkins writes book after book, and does talk after talk in which his objective is to get folks to reject something that is not his worldview (and thus accept his), he is a preacher, and most certainly a representative for atheism. He may not represent all atheists, but then again the pope doesn't represent all christians.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 19:23:01 GMT
Richard Dawkins does represent atheism. No more than the 9/11 terrorists represent Islam. Your commiting an argument from authority fallacy. You don't have to be a pope, in fact you don't have to even be appointed, to be the representative of something. As long as Dawkins writes book after book, and does talk after talk in which his objective is to get folks to reject something that is not his worldview (and thus accept his), he is a preacher, and most certainly a representative for atheism. Preacher, yes. Representative, only for his own atheism not for atheism in general. He has not been chosen nor have a majority of the world's atheists spoken out their support of him. He may not represent all atheists, but then again the pope doesn't represent all christians. He does represent all Catholics. Dawkins does not represent any group of atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 12, 2012 21:38:43 GMT
Of course he's a preacher. He tells people that they should reject their views and follow his views and become atheists. That's what a preacher does. He's motivated by a desire to convert people to atheism, otherwise he wouldn't do what he does and he wouldn't have that zealous look on his face 24/7. He's on a mission. it's a movement, like all religions.
And yes, he is a representative for atheism. You can deny it all day long but that's what he is. By the way the pope doesn't represent all catholics, but he does represent catholicism. Isms tend to produce preachers and representatives.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 5:07:10 GMT
And yes, he is a representative for atheism. You can deny it all day long but that's what he is. By the way the pope doesn't represent all catholics, but he does represent catholicism. Isms tend to produce preachers and representatives. [/quote] Nope, he still isn't. Just because someone preaches a certain belief does not make him a reprsentative. If someone started to preach that Christianity is good and that you should kill gay people because it says so in the bible, does that make him a representative for all christians? No. Your argument is severely flawed. By the way the pope doesn't represent all catholics, but he does represent catholicism. Isms tend to produce preachers and representatives. Except atheism is not an ism, it's a-theism or not theism.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 13:51:55 GMT
You're saying that preaching a certain view doesn't make someone a representative, yet earlier you said that the pope represents all catholics, which includes those who don't agree with him. You're completely contradicting yourself. If preaching a view does make someone a representative (and you have already admitted that Dawkins is a preacher) then Dawkins is a representative. If the pope preaches (which effectively he does) then he's a representative, and if Dawkins preaches (which you have said he does) then he's a representative. The question is, does the pope preach, and does Dawkins preach? Yes, and yes. The other question is, do the pope and Dawkins respectively represent their views? Yes, and yes. The pope is a figurehead and Dawkins is an active campaigner and a preacher who wants us all to convert to his worldview. He is one of the most well known atheists and he does not shy away from that. He writes books and gives talks and makes TV programmes with the objective of preaching the word. Everything about him says that he is a representative of atheism, specifically New Atheism. No, he wasn't appointed by anyone, but he effectively represents atheism by his very actions. Atheism is an ism. If you don't want it to be an ism you are free to make up another word.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:20:37 GMT
You're saying that preaching a certain view doesn't make someone a representative, yet earlier you said that the pope represents all catholics, which includes those who don't agree with him. Look if you want to debate, stick to my arguments, don't try to twist them or quote mine me. I never said the pope was the representative of catholics because he preached catholic christianity. I used the pope as an example because he has been elected/chosen as head and representative of the Christian church. This: You're completely contradicting yourself. false. What you fail to realize is that atheism isn't a movement, religion, philosophy or any other form of organized phenomenon. It's simple the name for a lack of belief in god. We're not a coherent group. The only thing we have in common is lacking a belief in god. We don't have any representatives nor dogma. If preaching a view does make someone a representative Again twisting my words, I said that someone preaching something only makes him a representative of his/her view on the subject. Not a representative of the subject itself nor any majority of the people adhering to or falling under that subject. specifically New Atheism. There's no such thing. You're again confusing atheism with anti-theism. No, he wasn't appointed by anyone, but he effectively represents atheism by his very actions. Nope, only his own view on atheism. Atheism is an ism. If you don't want it to be an ism you are free to make up another word. Your failure to understand that the prefix a- mean without is not my problem. Atheism is just that a-theism, not theism. It isn't an -ism itself. By your logic asymmetry contains symmetry and being asocial is exhibiting socially acceptable behavior. The prefix a- means that something is not the thing that follows the prefix.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:25:00 GMT
It's kind of hard to stick to your arguments when your arguments change from post to post. Yes atheism is a movement and it has representatives, such as Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:32:17 GMT
It's kind of hard to stick to your arguments when your arguments change from post to post. They don't. It's you who keeps twisting them. Yes atheism is a movement and it has representatives, such as Dawkins. It isn't. How can lacking a belief in god be a movement? Arguing against religion is anti-theism not atheism. Arguing for separation of church and state is secularism, which is supported by theists as well, not atheism. Atheism isn't a movement, it has no representatives.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:34:43 GMT
No it's you who keeps changing their mind. Atheism is a movement just as it is the expression of a belief, and it has representatives, and atheists can deny this all they like, it doesn't make the slightest difference.
|
|