Atheism FAQ - first draft

[foal]

I'm a "weak atheist" and prefer not to call myself "agnostic", because to me "agnostic" implies that I think the question "is there a god?" is a good or interesting question. It may also imply I think the question is "unknowable", which is also not true. I prefer the simple "lack of a belief in God" meaning of atheism.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
we're looking for a definition of the word as commonly used.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try this to clarify what the term carries-

My neighbor is an atheist.

List all the views he has on the topic and why he is one.

luckyme

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
To put atheism in any other way then the absence of a belief is misleading, biased, and just plan propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually just factually correct, although the effort by all of those "atheists" who incorrectly labelled themselves to change the meaning of that label rather than correctly reidentify themselves as "agnostics" is well under way and so the meaning of the word is slowly changing to catch up.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it's true that some people, mainly non atheists, even self identifying agnostics, think atheism must contain some sort of active denial of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, people who understand "English."

[ QUOTE ]
But this is an Atheism FAQ. And all though the alternate, read wrong view, should be mentioned. It does a great disservice to pretend that the other view is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pretending that reality is acceptable is a terrible thing. Pretending that the "weak-atheist" definition is acceptable is what truly does a great disservice. The question here is is this supposed to be a FAQ or a propaganda piece? If it's a propaganda piece, then please feel free to fail to give the correct definitions equal time.

[foal]

Post deleted by foal

[foal]

LOL, English is not math! It's continually changing and filled with areas of gray, plasticity, etc.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
bluebass -

Most Christians who endlessly quote Pascal's Wager are misrepresenting it. In the same passage of Pensees where the Wager appears, Pascal says, "Il faut s'abetir"---that is, "One must make oneself stupid."

The Wager was not really meant as an "argument" for Christianity. It was more of a post hoc rationalization for committing intellectual suicide. A typical artifact of the glorious Protestant tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you just wrote. I do know that Pascal was a world class mathmetician. Which meant that there was no way he could have said what most people think he said.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bluebass -

Most Christians who endlessly quote Pascal's Wager are misrepresenting it. In the same passage of Pensees where the Wager appears, Pascal says, "Il faut s'abetir"---that is, "One must make oneself stupid."

The Wager was not really meant as an "argument" for Christianity. It was more of a post hoc rationalization for committing intellectual suicide. A typical artifact of the glorious Protestant tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you just wrote. I do know that Pascal was a world class mathmetician. Which meant that there was no way he could have said what most people think he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he's not one of those second rate mathematicians who assured us that god's constant intervention was needed to keep the planets in orbit? whew.

luckyme

[tame_deuces]

I think the FAQs dividing of 'weak atheists' from 'agnostics' is just nitpicking at best. The notion that the difference between an agnostic and a weak atheist is that the agnostic hasn't 'looked at evidence' seems ludicrous to me, as it agnostics also are to be found just as many categories and varieties as atheists (if not more). At best you can say they looked at the evidence and came to another conclusions (the impossibility of absolute knowledge on the subject vs probable cause for scepticism).

And some of us who in action take a 'strong atheist' stance do so because we think believing the world somehow being controlled by forces outside human control is an idea that is detrimental to the pace of which we can solve some of the big problems the world is going to face. Medical problems, overpopulation, an energy crisis and food shortgages are some of those problems.

Iow. we deny the existence of god due to the practical limitations belief in god(s) or similar beliefs cause to the norms and ethics governing our modern societies. The academic background for this 'belief' is not fullproof, but academically speaking it is more than good enough.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the FAQs dividing of 'weak atheists' from 'agnostics' is just nitpicking at best. The notion that the difference between an agnostic and a weak atheist is that the agnostic hasn't 'looked at evidence' seems ludicrous to me, as it agnostics also are to be found just as many categories and varieties as atheists (if not more). At best you can say they looked at the evidence and came to another conclusions (the impossibility of absolute knowledge on the subject vs probable cause for scepticism).

And some of us who in action take a 'strong atheist' stance do so because we think believing the world somehow being controlled by forces outside human control is an idea that is detrimental to the pace of which we can solve some of the big problems the world is going to face. Medical problems, overpopulation, an energy crisis and food shortgages are some of those problems.

Iow. we deny the existence of god due to the practical limitations belief in god(s) or similar beliefs cause to the norms and ethics governing our modern societies. The academic background for this 'belief' is not fullproof, but academically speaking it is more than good enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
This discussion suggests to me that you should drop the whole agnostic/atheist discussion from any proposed FAQ. I would imagine it should only include positions which are at least consensus, even if not universal. Clearly the agnostic/atheist distinction is not something "we" as a group are able to agree on - inclusion in a FAQ seems to dignify it as an "official position".

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bluebass -

Most Christians who endlessly quote Pascal's Wager are misrepresenting it. In the same passage of Pensees where the Wager appears, Pascal says, "Il faut s'abetir"---that is, "One must make oneself stupid."

The Wager was not really meant as an "argument" for Christianity. It was more of a post hoc rationalization for committing intellectual suicide. A typical artifact of the glorious Protestant tradition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you just wrote. I do know that Pascal was a world class mathmetician. Which meant that there was no way he could have said what most people think he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he's not one of those second rate mathematicians who assured us that god's constant intervention was needed to keep the planets in orbit? whew.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure who you mean. In any case the smarts someone needs to see the faults in Pascal's supposed wager is a lot less than one needs to understand gravity.