Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion • Page 20
-
-
Khanivor wrote:
Unpopular in the Deep South.
Personally, I most certainly do not believe in any god, nor do I think they exist. However, I cannot say with certainty that no such being exists.
What do you call that? -
Atheist -
SwissEvans 368 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years agoAn agnostic atheist
Doesnt believe in a god, but doesnt claim to know there is no god -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoI consider myself a strong agnostic. Partly because I feel it's more accurate and partly because there are people out there who react in the most tedious manner when they hear the word atheist.
PES_Fanboy wrote:
Fucking tell me about it. Gotta be very, very careful who you opine on, ooo, the majority of things, to around these here parts.
Khanivor wrote:
Unpopular in the Deep South.
Personally, I most certainly do not believe in any god, nor do I think they exist. However, I cannot say with certainty that no such being exists.
What do you call that? -
mothercruncher 19,474 posts
Seen 12 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoThat makes me feel a bit uncomfortable- I'm an atheist, fuck how (ignorant) people interpret that. It won't change my use of it. In a way, I'm sort of like one of those amazing Christians in the Colosseum. -
SwissEvans 368 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years ago@Khanivor you stated you don't believe there is a god. That makes you an atheist. You might not like the word. But that's what you are by definition of your position.
Like I said before agnostic isn't a middle ground between believing or not. You either believe or you don't.
You might not know for sure. But knowing is what gnosticism refers to. Or in your case agnosticism. You don't believe in a god. You're an atheist. You don't know for sure. You're agnostic atheist. They're two different things.
Its semantic I know. But to be honest it says a lot people feel uncomfortable saying they're an atheist. As if its shameful or a bad thing. And that's something that needs fixing. Sadly most prominent atheists are fairly confrontational or vitriolic because being that way makes for good debates or TV, and while I agree with their arguments they could sometimes make them better or more could be done to promote humanist charity work to show that not be living in god doesn't mean you just go around causing arguments and being dicks about their views. But just like most theists don't stand on a street corner shouting and trying to convert, most atheists don't either.
Anyways. The book is a good read haha.gif)
-
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 13 years ago@SwissEvans
No.
You either believe, don't believe, or think there isn't enoughevide ce either way to make a decision. Khan I I agnostic. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 13 years agoAnyway, I loved Dawkins reading of those emails. He has some great comic timing. -
The issue is that of knowledge as employed by human beings, not in the abstract. If you believe, you 'know'. The crux is when you don't believe. You can not believe, but not know, or not believe and say you do know. There is a clear distinction there, just as there is in the abstract: evidence is utterly irrelevant there, it's simply a matter of faith or lack thereof.
Edited by RedSparrows at 01:24:59 29-01-2015 -
Daryoon 5,912 posts
Seen 6 hours ago
Registered 20 years agoNone of this is real and you're just dreaming. -
L0cky 2,080 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoTo really boil your brain with semantic distinction: I don't believe in any gods, but generally I don't consider myself to be an atheist, at least not actively.
In a thread like this I can state that I am atheist (adjective not noun) as it is a simple fact and is relevant to the context given by the discussion.
However, in general I don't consider myself to be an atheist (noun) any more than most people consider themselves to be a-santa-ists, a-toothfairy-ists or a-unicorn-ists.
It's simply not a defining characteristic of who I am. -
iancognito 2,476 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 14 years agoL0cky wrote:
I can understand where you're coming from.
To really boil your brain with semantic distinction: I don't believe in any gods, but generally I don't consider myself to be an atheist, at least not actively.
In a thread like this I can state that I am atheist (adjective not noun) as it is a simple fact and is relevant to the context given by the discussion.
However, in general I don't consider myself to be an atheist (noun) any more than most people consider themselves to be a-santa-ists, a-toothfairy-ists or a-unicorn-ists.
It's simply not a defining characteristic of who I am.
I expect a lot of people had a similar experience to me. I was baptised and although I never went to church, up to the age of about 11 in school we were taught Christianity as fact. Around the ages of 7-10 we had 2 separate 1 hour assemblies which would feature some bible story and a prayer at the end, plus 1 hour of hymn practice where we practiced singing hymns. Looking back, I'm sure we could have found better things to do for 3 school hours a week.
At my upper school we had what they called the "act of collective worship" which seemed to boil down to 15 minutes of prayer to the god of your choice. We could opt out only by parental permission. The school said they preferred us to opt out and attend only if they wanted to. I expect the thought of surly teens being forced to pray wasn't appealing to them.
I don't remember an exact point where I stopped believing but I suspect it was sometime around my teens. I didn't read any atheist literature but the more I thought about religion the less sense it made. I haven't felt the need to put myself in a category but perhaps I should. Once I'd decided that no amount of prayer or church attendance or bible reading would change what would happen after I died I stopped thinking about it. I'd have to put effort into deciding if I was atheist or agnostic. -
SwissEvans 368 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years ago@spamdangled
No to you lol. In a nice way
I won’t go into a massive semantics argument about it. I’ve already explained the difference between Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism in early posts.
But you either actively believe in a god or you don’t. If you say, “I’m not sure”, you de-facto put yourself into the disbelief category because you don’t believe or have yet to be convinced. Its weak atheism/agnostic atheism. But it’s still atheism. Gnosticism is a subset of belief, it simply qualifies the strength of the belief you hold. It is not a third, middle ground option.
From the iron chariots website, a good explanation of the difference of atheism and agnosticism
Or a video
[youtube]
http://youtu.be/Az4LKnQ9hu8?t=11m39s[/youtube]
Last edit: FYI, not intentionally trying to be confrontational with anyone. So sorry if it can come across that way.
Edited by SwissEvans at 10:18:47 29-01-2015
Edited by SwissEvans at 10:23:42 29-01-2015 -
L0cky wrote:
I think this is quite interesting. It's about a lot more than what a person does or doesn't believe, but what they practise or how active they are on their faith / no faith.
It's simply not a defining characteristic of who I am.
I'd say there are many theists in this camp as well, the only difference being they happen to believe in God. However it doesn't make any real difference to their lives in the sense that they don't practise any sort of faith.
I think this can also get a bit blurry with religion. Richard Dawkins' atheism is clearly a big part of his life, his conversations and his public 'preaching'. It's not wildly different to a lot of religions it just doesn't have a deity. -
RunningMan 3,098 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years agoBut in Dawkins case, he isn't preaching. Preaching is delivering a sermon to a group of people. Dawkins is not doing that. -
His reason rallies, his published books and the like aren't exactly a million miles away. -
Dawkins position started off originally as getting angry with people who rejected science because it disagreed with their faith (around the time of "Blind Watchmaker") and more recently he's just plain angry at how organised religion hold what he consider undue sway in public life.
God Delusion I haven't read but I've stayed clear of it because it just reeks of crap armchair philosophy. See also Sam Harris.
BUT the point is neither of them represent anything greater than themselves.
Edited by chopsen at 12:17:23 29-01-2015
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
