would an atheist actually have to think to be considered an atheist

for me as stated Atheists are an intellectual lot. The level of philosophical discussion not found today everywhere especially in the mediocrity one finds with Dawkins and his cohorts spreading and applauding their non thinking nebulous Bible bashing.

we've seen the mediocrity here at PF when people thought Zeitgeist was authentic . simple gushing and drooling over the idea they had some proof about the life of our Saviour Jesus Christ the Son of God being a tale.

No proof can be given to say He did not exist.

Emperors ruled against His followers from the moment He died. Emperors followed Him hundreds of years later, and if you think they just did that for they knew nothing about their own history, well have fun with that..


If all you have is uneducated people saying they don't believe but do not discuss anything of value can you actually demean the philosophic intellect of an atheist with these non thinking offer nothing individuals

I mean does;t one have to at least put some effort into thinking about the existence of God and defining God to actually call yourself an Atheist.

a label a few decades ago that had some intellectual weight to it.
People talked for hours about God and sought to come to terms with the very idea of God.

Bible bashing and mocking was not the entirety of the discussions but merely a result in feeling superior due to the level of thought put into the matter.

Today like the Dawkins crowds you get nothing more than Bible bashing and mockery.
It's like the ground work does need to be covered and ideas won through hours of discussion…it's all totally absent of any real intellectual debate.

No discussions , nothing resembling philosophy 101…

so i ask you would an Atheist actually have to do some sort of homework on the subject before he can become nothing more than just a dictionary definition?

 

Not all atheists act in this manner. Some can actually carry on a decent conversation. IMHO, Dawkins just wrote and sold books on controversial subjects for fame and money. That is why his ideas are mostly drivel.

 

Are you asking if we consider the evidence before electing to disregard supernatural god claims? In an intellectual rather than emotional "I want it to be true" way?

 

It is not atheists who make the wild claim that something that can not be seen , touched , smelled or otherwise experienced exists .
To put it in a simpler manner prove to me that FSM doesn't exist .

Few fabricated texts count for nothing and fortunately much of scripture was written in my mother tongue so i can spot the edited parts .

 

Why would an atheist need to define god? All an atheist needs to do is look at your guy's definition of god, see all the things that contradict that particular premise, and dismiss it.

You guys have the burden of proof. What is Bible bashing anyway? Citing the embarrassing parts that require you never ending apologetics? I will never understand why Christians are offended when someone quotes the Bible.

 

Sadly no. You're right to bring up the definition - anyone who doesn't believe in a god is an atheist, whether they're intellectual about it or not. It might be nice if that wasn't the case, but that's all the word means.

 

well i always will be a believer, but at one time a die hard atheist prone to fanatical attacks whilst drunk..sober , no, drunk it lowered the bar for me and became someone who just tried to get some jollies from jabbing at the belief in others.
Mind you my conversations sober were sobering for the believer and i made points in actually have a few toss their belief system out the window…


a task that cannot be done in the manner from which bible bashing and mocking can't accomplish.

it takes intellect and a deep philosophical argument to actually discuss God.

your use of the words , wait you did say "we"…right so there is a crowd that is here and of the same mind …
a mindless chatter on the subject of philosophy that is a "we"…

hhhmmmm…ok…
so you people with this quote

where have i given evidence to God being supernatural to use your words.
what is this , put words into my mouth and then disregard the post and the rebuttal turns to gravy on your shirt.

here have a napkin and clean that up..did not your mother teach you how to eat as well as converse.

you know your entire response just stinks of mind numbing tripe.

do you realize how perverse you are to invoke any sort of intellectualism to your post with this..

whats "i want it to be true '…anyway…how old are you?..one!

i mean how does one converse about something so important as philosophy with someone who degrades the very meaning of with words like "supernatural god claims" and "I want it to be true"…

so ….the main reason i responded to you was to point out that Emperors and officials of the Roman Empire recognized Jesus Christ and His followers as very real.

I realize why there is a debate, but it usually will come from someone with a grudge against the belief in God and scholars seem skewed as to their proof of this person even.

there is an artifact…i hate wiki…

but here goes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

this link goes with the facts of historic evidence
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/pontiuspilate/g/PontiusPilate.htm

interesting take on the man's change of attitudes
https://www.raptureready.com/soap/wasson32.html

so you talk about facts and intellectualism….but fall flat …what about your historic claims? you talk but there is no walk

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ntius-pilate-a-name-set-in-stone-1084786.html

so if there was no Christ why would Pilate be so popular…what made him more than a mere note in the annals of history?
It was his meeting and making judgement on the Man ,Jesus of Nazareth

 

oki doke…no place at my dad's coffee table for you..

you want to be a dictionary definition….how deep...

 

Im not offended when someone decides a Metaphor of Life is to be interpreted as historic.
It's not embarrassing for me, and for those that wish it to be historic, whats the problem with that.
I at one time, drunk, would get my jollies mocking these people …it was loads of fun for the drunken me…
Guilt at the level of what i had become to extract such jollies always followed the next day...


you find some need to point out the belief of someone and then offer some puffed up ego of yours as superior to the embarrassed ones..

really now…is that how you get your jollies…where is the debate..whats left to discuss..nothing says you..why bother even thinking about it…just deny and try to make those that believe feel something from your words.

thats real intellectualism…pure intellect that is…

i've always shied away from people that complained about thoughtfulness….


oh i see…you decide that all atheists don't need to define God..why bother…we are a dictionary definition and why even waste any time discussing it…when all we need to do is mock and make fun and impute our designated admitted non thinking unto any one who believes in any aspect of what God could possibly be.

it's easy for you…i look at it as lazy, if indeed you have an intellect….at the very least ,absurd little mindless ramblings best said once so as to not look so small…

so evoke the mind numbing definition you so proudly wear like a badge of superiority..when you can't discuss…just can't..

how many times have you used this post in so many words here…
hmmmm..
anything on the subject…how far down the rabbit hole do you go….

nowehere, you then decide there is no rabbit hole …and feel superior for it….

mediocrity is a terrible thing ...

 

Now, I agree with you on most things (albeit not always your method of debate) so I'll put this in a way less intended to offend than the Doc has.

What about those who consider Kim Il Sung a god? (I realise that he is dead, so in that respect, he can be argued not to exist, but imagine I asked the question in the early nineties.) Similarly, Sun gods and pantheists (or whatever you call the god in a pantheistic view, Pan?). I can take it upon myself to provide proof of, at least, the existence of each of these, but that should be the only thing that is required to contradict the idea of atheism.

I appreciate that this is a nit picky, useless, aggressive, narcissistic and egocentric view, but I happen to hold it, and while it may not have a use in everyday life, I feel that this is an issue that should be dealt with when choosing labels for oneself.

 

Eh? How did you bungle your interpretation of what I said, so badly?

 

yeah well i have been flamed like no tomorrow for pointing that out about Dawkins..he is a carnival …

and the decent conversation is what i seek…
i do know what you know and others just deny exists and become nothing more than a dictionary definition..lol

 

The problem with this is that atheism is the disbelief of a deity. so then the proponents of these ides would carry the burden of proof in:
1. Proving that Kim Jong Ill was a god. Which there is no evidence to suggest that he was. All evidence points towards him being a mere man and exhibiting the characteristics of totalitarian statism in which the leaders are worshiped as deities. Which would be, in contradiction to the idea of humanism or "free thinking". Given the lack of evidence by the proponents, it can be dismissed.
2. The "Pans" would need to prove that the sun was in fact a deity, and provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin. Which there is no evidence that suggests that such a position is correct, it can be easily dismissed.

So I do not see how your argument really applies here Good Sir.

 

first up a pantheist is someone who sees the Creation and the Creator as One and the Same.
The traditionalist sees one as something outside God due to being created by a Singular Being..therefore they have nothing in common with God except in being this Being's Creation. and Bow down and create all sorts of images and supernatural attributes , mostly human.

where as a Pantheist is God.

well the literal definition in the dictionary states so.
but it also has limited definition of what a physicist is..
physicist |ˈfizəsist| noun
an expert in or student of physics.

but one would argue it doesn't stop there…lol…

ah swensson..how ya doing….


edit note..the "Pans" do not worship a sun god

 

None of this really addresses anything.

Why are you obsessed with the screenname "Wolverine"?

 

well then why ask.

 

What does being a dictionary definition even mean? All he said was that atheism and atheist have definitions.

 

I would say regardless of the topic one should have a working knowledge if they wish to challenge others.

Would a theist actually have to think to be considered a theist?

Would a theist actually have to do some sort of homework on the subject before he can become nothing more than just a dictionary definition?

Is there actual homework a theist can do to gain actual knowledge of the subject or is his belief based on a faith that does nothing to account for subjectivity?

Your premise is flawed for several reasons but the biggest one is that the subject being mocked as you say is a claim made on faith, as in belief in something for which there is no evidence, what does an opponent of this claim really have to study in order to challenge it?

Can I study nothing but pagan myths to challenge a Christians God claim or nothing but the bible to challenge a Muslims God claim? The claim itself is empty, believers fill it with their faith, therefore there is nothing an atheist can learn other then how to be credulous in order to challenge the claim itself.

However when it comes to a religion and the tenets and history of that religion than yes one should have working knowledge before they engage in the discussion but that is not the same as rejecting the claim that God exists. I doubt you spent any time researching all the claims of aliens and bigfoots and lochness monsters before rejecting them.

 

Hey Doc.

I did not wish to imply that pantheists worship the sun, I was merely listing groups that worship as gods things that have been proven to exist.

A definition is not defined after what is in the dictionary. A definition is defined by what you mean when you use a word, and dictionaries strive to mimic this. Sometimes, dictionaries are spot on, other times, not so much. As for the physicist one, I think that's a fairly good definition. Definitions have no impact on what you are thinking about different things, but when you try to tell me what you were thinking, you'll have to use words, and if you mess up the definitions, you may be saying things that are untrue even if what you actually thought was true.

I'm not 100% that I understand your post properly, so if there is anything I have failed to address, feel free to write it again, preferably in different words.

 

best post I've read here in quite some time.

- - - Updated - - -

this reads like a petulant mind vomit, from someone caught with their pants down.

 

The problem there is that the word "god" isn't properly defined, and stating that that word refers to a certain kind of man in the sky and not another kind of deity is not our decision to make. To determine whether Kim Il Sung is a concept worthy of the word "god", we would have to consult the definition of the word god. That definition is inconclusive, and the linguistically appropriate way of dealing with that is that any definition is acceptable, as long as it is presented and/or agreed upon. The definition of Kim Il Sung as a god is certainly presented and is accepted by many people in Korea (that, of course can be debated, but the point stands free of the particular example). To not accept that as a definition is to imply a definition on your own, (a definition is defined to be the "necessary and sufficient" conditions for a concept to deserve a certain word and if you have a complaint about the definition, then that complaint would be a necessary condition and thus a part of the definition) Thus, he can be regarded as a god, at least for the purpose of rejecting "all gods" (rather than a specific one or subset of gods). These gods exist for linguistic purposes and should be taken into account when choosing whether or not the word atheist can be applied to a person. This, of course, has no impact on our understanding of morality, powers, nature and so on.

Similarly, the word "god" isn't defined to be referring to something with a supernatural origin (as I said earlier, I didn't mean to imply that pantheists worship the sun, that was a communication error, probably on my part since none of you understood me). The sun qualifies well. Again, it's not the evidence but the definitions that I disagree with you on.

I have no particular will to glorify Kim Il Sung or some ball of gas, but when this kind of thinking can be stretched to things whose godliness is less obviously false, such as the concept of physical laws or some aspect of the particular corner of spacetime that happens to be the start of our arrow of time, the lines blurr a bit, and this leaves space, not for anything like today's religions, but enough to criticise atheism in its purest form. This is merely linguistic, and has no impact on the real world, but since "atheism" is a word, it follows the rules of linguistics.

This is very closely linked with the Kalam argument, but there are two main differences. For starters, the Kalam is concerned mainly with the creation of the universe. My argument works just as well with "lesser" concepts, since gods that are not monotheistic do not need to be the creator of the universe. Secondly, the Kalam argument is often criticised for not pinning down the nature of god (that is the only criticism I can find on Iron Chariots) whereas my argument makes no such assumption and happily slaps the label "god" on processes, concepts, collections of concepts, perceived structures of ideas and so on.

 

One thing that make the discussion hard is many have their own version of just what God is.
Most all will say the creator of the universe, after that it splits 100s of ways.
Paths to God in the 'afterlife' vary as well. Christians have many ways, Jews, muslims, all have differing paths.

It is hard to discuss something that has almost as many identities as there are people who believe in God.
And this is just the God of abraham. How about the many of creator entities?

 

why would anyone want to indulge themselves without it.

depends…same holds true for theists.. far too many do not question what they profess to believe in and dedicate their life to..
let alone rant about it in a forum ...

in the sense i 'm using here, most defiantly ...

actually many a theist holds a PHD in Philosophy , the knowledge you see is of a philosophical nature…you do realize that…same with atheists..they are either denying or supporting a philosophical argument…which is tantamount to what you bring to the table…there is nothing inherently wrong with an atheist that has no philosophical argument , just absurd in hanging out in philosophical forums and offering nothing more than "there is no God prove that there is"..it's fun if your a teen ager filled with angst… i've been there.

actually my philosophical bent is not one entirely needing faith in order to exist. it's a way of looking at life. I believe in intelligent design and enjoy a philosophical argument , but just saying it's not true cause to…well like i said not all atheists are this mind numbingly bereft of subject material.

I say there is evidence of a philosophical belief in God… i say there is a God, you say there isn't one, do i ask youth prove your absence of faith.
try this ;
show me the meaning in the meaning of anything as well….

It's a start to a discussion…i would enjoy it immensely

if your premise is there is no God than yeah sure…


but again all you have done so far in this post is say you don;t believe in so many ways …

.


ahhh but if you wish to actually discus the nuance and the belief and the faith then it is no longer a mere knowledge of the religion , one has to bring their own philosophical arguments to the table if it is to be anything more than a test on the history and facts…

not really my cup of tea, i have a friend who believes they saw big foot and anything big foot is a huge thing for her…


as for aliens…i have a story…with a friend…both cold stone sober and we defiantly saw something that was there and everyone was like hypnotized to the fact it was there…in fact i had to hit my friend in my car from a wide awake wide eyed looking into space to dazed out to a full blown …"What the F$%^"

buit never pursued the whole alien thing…

my point is simply this ..there is a lot of philosophical argument to atheistic thinking..not belief for an atheist does not believe in God..but that being said there are atheists that can really make …for lack of better words…a mountain out of a mole hole ..

you are not of that nature…ok fine..maybe you really know how to tie knots or something ….cool…….
but i don;t rant and rave over and over that i don;t care for knots…

so what is it then…
you have no philosophical arguments to put on the table…

you proudly defend this aspect of your being, wear this ignorance like a badge and then have the gaul to say " an atheist is only rejecting the claim that God exists/and nothing else ."

fine ….what about discussing the meaning of meaning…

is this some useless exercise for people to discuss.
or is it just a word used as in these parameters

meaning |ˈmēniNG| noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:
adjective
intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed:
meaningly adverb


you see... it's not all that simple unless your that simple.

 

You mean "misquotes" the bible. Atheists are constantly trying to convince themselves they are correct. It must be difficult to live in constant doubt like that.

 

Dawkins is a scam artist that sold books to rubes who believe his drivel. It is sad that someone like Dawkins has to leave the lab and create controversy in a totally unrelated field to get money out of anyone who will listen.