questions for atheists

[fuego527]

So, basically, people use these terms as they wish? He says we (as people discussing philosophy) should refer to this as agnosticism, but when talking to the laymen should identify this as atheism.

On second thought, I guess this is not a bad thing since labels are totally irrelevant to any interesting subject.

[fuego527]

[ QUOTE ]
hi fuego,

No not at all... The reasons have more to do with my view of the god concept, which I find totally unnaceptable from a moral stand point. They are not a judgement on other people's positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to hear. The "reasons" I listed don't make much sense, but they were all I could think of that you could mean.

I find his implications interesting. He's saying that Christians are really Atheists. They truly "believe" that Zeus doesn't, and never did, really exist.

Edit: As the founder of the universe. Whereas an agnostic would say that there's just as much a chance, more or less, of Zeus founding the universe as Christ founding the universe.

[evil_twin]

Dictionary.com (hardly the worlds greatest authority) gave me the following:

a·the·ist n.One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I do deny the existence of God or gods, but for the sake of intellectual honesty I have to conceed that there is a tiny possibility that I am wrong. After all there is some pretty weird stuff out there, vis-à-vis relativity or particle based double slit experiments.

I would attribute approximately the same probability to god existing as I would to the tooth fairy existing though. We all basically know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, though we cannot utterly discount the chance that there is a weird tooth obsessed fairy type creature somewhere out there.

All in all I think it's still reasonable to call myself an athiest if the dictionary.com definition is accurate.

[fuego527]

[ QUOTE ]
I find his implications interesting. He's saying that Christians are really Atheists. They truly "believe" that Zeus doesn't, and never did, really exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define "atheist" to mean "someone who actively believes that some arbitrary deity does not exist". "Atheist" is a more meaningful term if it is defined to mean "someone who believes that no creator exists".

His arguement merely claims that nearly all theists are also atheists. Since these are merely labels, this is just semantics. Using his definitions just makes it harder for us to communicate, it is not some profound point. We already knew that rationalists and theists were disjoint sets of people, no?

Whether the truth is the xtian god, xenu, or the spaghetti monster.. its origin is still unexplained. It is simply a rhetorical device to move the question on... the question stays... the answer is immoral, judging by what is not under question, the day to day experience of life and consciousness.

[ QUOTE ]
We already knew that rationalists and theists were disjoint sets of people, no?


[/ QUOTE ]
I won't go quite this far. I do respect Bluffthis's poker strategy posts.

See the Christianity vs Scientology thread, an unbiased rational person cannot conclude that Christianity is any more likely than Scientology. You cannot be a Christian, believe that scientology is rediculous, and be entirely rational.

[Double Down]

1. Is there a bear in your room?

2. Is there a flea in your room?

3. Are you sure?

4. If you're not sure: then should we assume:
a: That the bear and the flea are there?
b: That if we don't do the bear's and flea's bidding, that they'll send us to Hell for eternity?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot be a Christian, believe that scientology is rediculous, and be entirely rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with this statement, I think it would still be correct if it was shortened to "You cannot be entirely rational".