Ok.
[/size][/font]
Wrong, as far as this atheist´s perspective is concerned.
Wrong: "All our principles are ours. Ascribing them to a god does - although possibly correct - not add anything to their weight in these discussions."
Wrong. I do not necessarily think it´s ok - I just think it´s none of my business.
And, also wrong: All this has nothing to do with atheism.
You´ve asked.
Okay then.
Now that that's cleared up, how about we all get on like peas and carrots?
Now that that's cleared up, how about we all get on like peas and carrots?
I am under the impression I get along quite fine with everyone. We have different opinions, and we discuss them controversially. Where I come from that´s what even friends are supposed to do.
I´m not sure I understand what in particular causes you concern.
Are you looking for complete harmony, by any chance?
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
Okay, let's exchange one point of conflict for another.
I just get over the mud slinging and general disrespect found in online forums, particularly faith forums. Some of it is part of the package with the hot topics, some of it is just dysfunctional and unecessary. My peacekeeping efforts are for the latter. If you're not sure what i mean, scroll through this thread. If you're still not sure what i mean, i may or may not find a few examples in this thread depending on whether or not i could be bothered.
Okay, let's exchange one point of conflict for another.
Conflict?
I just get over the mud slinging and general disrespect found in online forums, particularly faith forums.
It´s my contention that a lot of that lies in the eye of the beholder.
Too often in my life I have worked from the assumption that the person opposite is "mad or bad" (and went with "bad"), making it near impossible to him to convince me of the opposite, but finally learned that we had just miscommunicated. And that even in real life - with body language, mimique and tone of voice available as additional interpretation help.
I won´t go there anymore.
Some of it is part of the package with the hot topics, some of it is just dysfunctional and unecessary.
Well, the person writing it found it necessary, for some reason. Either I take it as that, or I leave it (in which case I file it under "unnecessary" and won´t reply).
"Dysfunctional" presumes an agreed upon function or purpose.
I have my ideas and expecations as to how a good discussion is done, others might not necessarily share them. If I sense that our expectations do not match I see no problem in mentioning my observation and impression, asking for clarification.
My peacekeeping efforts are for the latter. If you're not sure what i mean, scroll through this thread.
I have been in this thread from the beginning. In most every case when I find something interpretable as a potential insult I can also find another, less disturbing interpretation.
If you're still not sure what i mean, i may or may not find a few examples in this thread depending on whether or not i could be bothered.
Ok.
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
So to get back onto the original topic Q, what is your opinion? Do you think there are "types" of atheists, or do you think there are "types" of people in all belief systems? Or do you not believe either of these statements? What would be your definition of an atheist? Discuss.
So to get back onto the original topic Q, what is your opinion?
I have given my opinion in post #25. I don´t think I have much to add.
Do you think there are "types" of atheists, or do you think there are "types" of people in all belief systems?
People who tend to argue from emotion as well as people who tend to avoid arguing from emotion can be found in all belief systems. (Atheism is not a belief system, though, but I will include it into the above statement anyways).
Or do you not believe either of these statements?
I think that the number of types someone sees in a group of persons tells me something about the perception, wishes, desires of the speaker and the categories he thinks in rather than about the group.
What would be your definition of an atheist?
Someone who doesn´t believe in any gods.
Discuss.
What?
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
Linear Mode
