Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

Hespera · #**611** 13th July 2009, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Catherineanne

Just as a matter of interest, AV, did you ever pull the legs off spiders when you were small?

You certainly seem to be doing the equivalent of that same thing here at present. Such behaviour does not reflect well on our faith.

I suggest you desist, and show a little more respect for those who happen not to think the way you do. We are told to love our enemies, not sneer at them.

After all the comments about how "I have no respect for...." I wont particularly be looking for MORE respect. I'd settle for just not hearing the "no" respect over and over.

Hespera · #**612** 13th July 2009, 09:56 AM

Atheism is a "belief" in the same sense that "abasketballism" is a "belief".

The use of the word "belief" by Christians is used to describe atheism specifically to contrast it with belief in god. That it is the same sort of "belief". Its like saying "enolution is a religion". It isnt.

If someone wants to be a theist, and a basketball fan, fine. That doesnt make me an atheist and an abasketballist. Im just a person, who happens to be free of those particular things.

atomweaver · #**613** 13th July 2009, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Not hardly ---
SOURCE

Luv your "source", AV... If I wanted to know about Rorschach tests, the first place I'd go would be to an unbiased source like "Psycho-Heresy Awareness Ministries" The site name alone engenders clear-minded scientific objectivity...

/sarcasm

atomweaver · #**614** 13th July 2009, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Catherineanne

Yep, all those dictionaries must be wrong. It couldn't possibly be you, could it?

What is it with your obsession with dictionaries? If I want to learn about Italy, which is the more authoritative source; a dictionary, or an Italian?

Dictionaries are great as a first source, and to be on the same page on a topic, but when it gets into detailed discussions, you cling to that dictionary def in the face of a dozen atheists telling you what their beliefs entail... Time to move past such a narrow-minded approach, Catherineanne. "Nuh-UUHHH, my dictionary says different" does not, in itself, form a valid argument.

AV1611VET · #**615** 13th July 2009, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by atomweaver

What is it with your obsession with dictionaries? If I want to learn about Italy, which is the more authoritative source; a dictionary, or an Italian?

Dictionaries are great as a first source, and to be on the same page on a topic, but when it gets into detailed discussions, you cling to that dictionary def in the face of a dozen atheists telling you what their beliefs entail... Time to move past such a narrow-minded approach, Catherineanne. "Nuh-UUHHH, my dictionary says different" does not, in itself, form a valid argument.

Defining the word atheism as "a belief that a god or gods don't exist, insofar as they might," is not a useful definition.

Skaloop · #**616** 13th July 2009, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Catherineanne

Yep, all those dictionaries must be wrong. It couldn't possibly be you, could it?

Not wrong, incomplete.

And it's not just me. Pretty much every atheist in these forums and anywhere else I've seen this discussed, plus plenty of Christians in these forums, comprehend that when people talk about atheism today, the meaning of the word extends beyond the mere dictionary definition. The dictionary is not wrong, per se, since the definition it gives can be accurate in some situations, but like I said, it is incomplete because it does not yet reflect the reality of how the word is used.

The meanings of words evolve and change. Spam used to just be a brandname of pressed meat. Then people started using it to describe unsolicited emails. Now that's in the dictionary. In between, were those using spam in regard to email using it wrong? Were people confused about how meat could be sent via the internet? Was anyone arguing that it wasn't possible to get spam from PETA because spam was meat and PETA was a vegetarian organization, and therefore the two were mutually exclusive? Of course not. Because people understood the reality of the word outside of the dictionary.

Dictionaries don't lead, they catch up. And because atheism has only recently moved vocally into the mainstream, there's a lot of catching up to do in this case.

AV1611VET · #**617** 13th July 2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Skaloop

And it's not just me. Pretty much every atheist in these forums and anywhere else I've seen this discussed, plus plenty of Christians in these forums, comprehend that when people talk about atheism today, the meaning of the word extends beyond the mere dictionary definition.

Skaloop, would you explain this statement to me, please:

Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.

Skaloop · #**618** 13th July 2009, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Skaloop, would you explain this statement to me, please:

Atheists believe in one less god than Christians.

I'll try, at my own peril.

Throughout the history of mankind, many god (or god-like) figures have been worshipped and believed in. Say there were 100 of them, for the sake of this explanation. This includes the Christian God of the Bible, so in the eyes of a Christian, 99 of those gods are not actually gods. To an atheist, 100 of those gods are not actually gods. So Christians believe in 1 God, and atheists believe in 0 gods. Zero is one less than one.

And I understand that some Christians do believe that the other gods (or some of them) were real, but that God is the only true god. I'm not really addressing those ones right now, though.

AV1611VET · #**619** 13th July 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Skaloop

I'll try, at my own peril.

Throughout the history of mankind, many god (or god-like) figures have been worshipped and believed in. Say there were 100 of them, for the sake of this explanation. This includes the Christian God of the Bible, so in the eyes of a Christian, 99 of those gods are not actually gods. To an atheist, 100 of those gods are not actually gods. So Christians believe in 1 God, and atheists believe in 0 gods. Zero is one less than one.

And I understand that some Christians do believe that the other gods (or some of them) were real, but that God is the only true god. I'm not really addressing those ones right now, though.

So an atheist is one who believes in 0 gods --- is that correct?

Skaloop · #**620** 13th July 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

So an atheist is one who believes in 0 gods --- is that correct?

Not exactly. It's possible, but not quite accurate, since some don't necessarily believe in 0 gods so much as they do not believe in any gods.

It's more like "There are no gods" is the null hypothesis, and they fail to reject the null hypothesis. That doesn't mean that the null hypothesis is correct.

Anyway, I'll be gone for a couple of hours, so if anyone else wants to take over answering any further questions on this, feel free. Otherwise, I'll get back to you.