Atheism vs. Christian

[KCfromNC]

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

No. It means that some atheists are also agnostics. They can be two things.

 

[Albion]

No. It means that some atheists are also agnostics. They can be two things.

You are confirming what I said in my first post, then, about some self-described atheists using the word in a way that is different from the traditional use of the word.

 

[durangodawood]

...There is no law of sociology that true ideas quickly and automatically gain popularity over false ideas. True ideas don't have to conform to "common sense"....

For an idea to spread and persist, its got to offer something. Hope and inspiration will often do the trick in place of truth.

 

[durangodawood]

A steak knife set?....

No.
Thats second prize.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

But those aren't mutually exclusive terms. And notice that you didn't actually bother to answer my question: why isn't the term appropriate for describing my position?

(and you have just explained in a separate post why they might want to do so, just as Liberals now want to be called Progressives. )

Those aren't mutually exclusive terms either. I know conservatives, especially in the US, have tried very hard to make "liberal" a dirty word, much like certain Christians have tried to make "atheist" a dirty word. But as this liberal atheist will tell you, they've failed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...only according to the recent redefinition of the term

No. That's the root of the word...

a-theism = without theism.

Theism is the positive claim here. Atheism is a response to that claim.
Atheism is not a claim by itself.

made by atheists themselves in order to present their unbelief as somehow being a neutral position.

Well, it IS a neutral position.
You need to do something to be a theist: you need to believe a specific set of claims.
If you do NOT do that specific thing, then you are not a theist. Then you are "without theism". aka, an atheist.

There's nothing you must do or believe to be an atheist.
Again, atheism is the exact opposite: it's NOT doing what needs to be done to be a theist.

That's supposed to make Atheism seem intellectual or (for some atheists) more than simply a rejection of someone else's belief.

I just told you that it exactly IS nothing more then the rejection of a specific set of beliefs.

It's a single position on a single issue.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

The words atheist and agnostic are two completely differen concepts. They are different answers to different questions.

One deals with what you believe and the other with what you know (or can know).

I am an agnostic atheist.
I have no way of knowing if there is a god or not and I don't believe/accept the claim that there is one as a true-ism.

Atheism and agnosticism, in other words, aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are confirming what I said in my first post, then, about some self-described atheists using the word in a way that is different from the traditional use of the word.

Am I? In what way?

 

[The Cadet]

...only according to the recent redefinition of the term made by atheists themselves in order to present their unbelief as somehow being a neutral position.

So, just assuming that everything you say here is 100% accurate... So? Virtually nobody still holds to "old" definition of atheism. Most of those that do refer to themselves as "antitheists" or "strong atheists" to distinguish themselves from the far broader term "atheist", which at the moment refers almost exclusively to those who simply reject the claim that a god exists. The definition has shifted, but that doesn't really make a whole lot of difference if you ask me. Why not simply accept the new definition?

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

...Again, this is not how self-identified members of either group identifies themselves any more. There are good reasons, including etymology, to consider those two completely different issues, rather than two points on a line.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

Then they are mistaken.

I know... shocking, right?

 

[PaulA135711]

To: Davian

The Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article never uses ad populum fallacy. Nowhere in the article does it say that Christianity is more valid than atheism due to its greater numbers. The article focuses on the present and historical battle between those who advocate atheism and those who advocate Christianity. And various differences between these ideological camps.

Furthermore, the second paragraph states:

The available evidence and sound reasoning point to Christianity being true and atheism being false (see: Evidence for Christianity and Rebuttals to atheist arguments).

 

[PaulA135711]

There is not a single critic of the Conservapedia Atheism vs. Christianity article in this forum who pointed out a single factual error in the article or a single instance of illogical reasoning in the article.

"The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. " see: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html

 

[Moral Orel]

...only according to the recent redefinition of the term made by atheists themselves in order to present their unbelief as somehow being a neutral position.

That's supposed to make Atheism seem intellectual or (for some atheists) more than simply a rejection of someone else's belief.

When has "atheism" ever denoted anything else but the rejection of the idea that a God exists? What else did the word mean back then?

Early Christians were called atheists by the Romans because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. See here:

"[...]Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort [=Roman Gods] are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.[...]"​

So we can see an early Christian taking on the title of atheist, and then redefining it to suit his purposes.

 

[PaulA135711]

Re: Definition of atheism and its history/etymology

Please see:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Definition_of_atheism

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm

 

[durangodawood]

...."The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea."...

Sure, genetic reasoning is fallacious.

But genetic judgments as to whats likely to be a raft of ideologically driven polemic are quite valid.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Re: Definition of atheism and its history/etymology

Please see:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Definition_of_atheism

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm

Why not use a dictionary definition? Why the need for a biased source?

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Once again, Jesus wins!

So you found a Conservapedia article that is biased in favor of Christianity against atheism (shock, gasp) and you consider that some sort of victory?

Yeah, I think you may want to postpone the parade.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lol conservapedia?

What's the tagline for that site anyway?

"Catering to your distorted perspective for the last 5 years!"

"Rewriting the Bible because the one you've been using is filled with 'Love thy neighbor' liberalism by that godless sandal wearing hippy from Nazareth"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaulA135711]

Knee-jerk cries of bias are a genetic fallacy no matter how much one wants to rationalize it, paper over it or ignore it.

Read this C.S. Lewis essay on bulverism: http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

When are the freethinkers and rationalists going to stop being illogical in this thread?

Please see the articles:

Atheism and logic: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_logic

Atheism and logical fallacies: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_logical_fallacies

Atheism and critical thinking: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_critical_thinking

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Knee-jerk cries of bias are a genetic fallacy no matter how much one wants to rationalize it, paper over it or ignore it.

Read this C.S. Lewis essay on bulverism: http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html

Conservapedia admits to their bias themselves.