Reply #143: Look again

[beam me up scottie]

A brief history of the op's attempts to uh, "open a dialog" with DU atheists:

***************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-18-05 11:53 AM

135. Your atheism sounds like agnosticism, so you are not an atheist?

Have you been masquerading?

An athiest definitely believes that there are no Gods. That is what atheism is. It is a positive, declaritive position, without the possibility of doubt involved.

If you define it otherwise, you are not an atheist.

*************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-18-05 06:53 PM

145. Atheism is a dogma, like I said before

you have a dogmatic belief system, which you strongly advocate

yes, I read the blurb, I particularly like this:

"Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not."

One of the worst sentences I've read in a long time.

This is not what you practice, of course. You actively and sincerely believe it not to be true. It is your dogma, specifically.

*************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-19-05 10:46 AM

150. The "absence of belief" is a belief in and of itself

It is a cute word game, actually, which thrusts on to others the responsibility for proving their is a God than onto atheists to disprove that there is no God.

The absence of belief IS it's own absolute belief, in fact, not some time of void. It is the belief that all atheists ascribe to, the unifying principle. It is therefore the dogmatic belief of atheists.

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

2) An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

*************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-26-05 09:57 AM

45. Your point is obvious, just incorrect

YankeyMCC
"Claiming disbelief in god is a dogma is just plain silly."

Sorry, it fits these definitions of dogma. Of course, the "atheists" here seem to like to make up their own definitions of words, so maybe that is the issue.

**************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-26-05 04:07 PM

65. A lack of belief is a belief in and of itself.

"Is a lack of belief in leprechauns or Santa Claus a dogma?"

A lack of belief in this circumstance would be to believe that there is no leprechauns or Santa Claus. This belief would not be a dogma because it would not touch on a belief about God or religion.

***************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-27-05 12:15 PM

75. Religion is a universal human activity, probably a basic human need

All human cultures have religions, which indicates it as a basic human need, simply because we all do it. The function of religion is a means for humans to deal with the nature of that-which-is-greater-than-us, whether we call it God or something else. We wonder about greater meaning, and our individual role in that meaning. I've heard religion described as human psychological states projected outwards as archtypes, which could well be true. Nonetheless, it is important, it is a constant need, and it won't go away.

I also regard serious atheism as another religious faith, though I would certainly except a bit of disagreement here.

By the way, this poll does really reveal the anti-religious, pro-athiest majority on this group, which is actually worse than I thought it was.

**************


And look what I found! A thread started by op over a year ago FOR THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE of informing other DUers that DU atheists are incapable of defining themselves:


kwassa (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-03-05 07:26 AM
Original message
Lack of belief, or active disbelief?

I have a lack of belief in many things.

I lack a belief in leprachauns. I don't, however, haunt the Irish Affairs group talking about my lack of belief, because my lack of belief has a side effect: I really don't care about the issue. My lack of belief creates the corollary that the belief also lacks importance to me.

I lack a belief in Communism, either, and I don't search message boards for Communists to argue theory with. My lack of belief renders it unimportant to me.

Now, if I have an active disbelief about an issue that I think is important, I will go and argue it, because it is so important to me. It is an active, vs. the passive stance of those who maintain the idea of "lack of belief".

I see much of the activity here by atheists as active disbelief, which is simply a different belief, of course. They really don't believe in God and need to argue the point.

*******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-09-05 12:14 PM

126. A "lack of belief" is a belief in itself

which is the dogma of Athiesm, as limited a dogma that it is.

We've been through this several times already.

Want me to post the definitions of dogma again?

****************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-09-05 02:23 PM

131. And I think many atheists use the "lack of belief" posture

so they are not required to prove a thing.

******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-09-05 02:31 PM

135. I ask only for a rational position

And "lack of belief" is not the definition of atheist.

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" n : someone who denies the existence of god

******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-01-05 09:14 PM

155. There is faith in the scientific method as the absolute tool of truth

It is simply a different kind of faith. That method might turn out to be terribly flawed in a future that we can't anticipate now, or it might continue to be supported.

There is faith that there is no God, under the more traditional definition of atheists, and, of course, I see atheists as people of great faith. But, you knew that, and so do others around here, and I am sure most "atheists" here reject that claim.

Faith doesn't requre tools or techniques, it is simply belief, which is a choice.

*******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-19-05 01:35 PM

319. Atheism is a belief system, not a lack of belief, as I have stated before

I never said it was a religion. It has some characteristics that are similar to religious faiths, however.

*****************

Here the op complains that Richard Dawkins only uses ONE definition of religious faith (apparently the op never looked up the definition of hypocrisy in his dictionary.):

kwassa (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-21-05 11:13 AM

17. The problem is Dawkin's definition of faith

quoting Dawkins:

"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence,"

Um, no, faith has many other definitions, and there lies the problem. As with many words in these discussions, I find that atheists may use the word faith differently than many others, which creates misunderstandings, of course, and the usual heated round of discussions where people use common words in completely different ways.

To recapitulate, please note that Dawkin's definition fits under #2:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

**************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-14-05 07:44 AM

73. Some atheists use a narrow and perjorative definition of "faith"

Everybody has faith in something, if we look at the real definitions of faith. These discussions always break down at the point of language, because we are saying different things when we use the same words.

Do I have to go get the definitions again? Part of the endless circle of these atheist vs. believer discussions (though atheists are also believers, too, for that matter).

You have faith in science or reason or whatever. Everyone has faith in something.

here we go again:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3) Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4) often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5) The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6) A set of principles or beliefs.

Atheists generally only use faith in the sense of Definition #2. I see atheists as faith believers in Defintions #1 and #6.

Any question?

**************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-15-05 12:31 PM

129. no, but atheism is a faith

I know you don't like it when I say that.

Of course, we define the word athiesm and faith differently, so it is pointless to argue. I'm stuck on those old-fashioned dictionary definitions

**************

Here is the op admitting that there is more than one definition of atheist:

kwassa (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-25-06 02:01 PM

101. I don't agree, or course. Atheism is very much something

Here are some different definitions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:
"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.
Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.
The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

********************

Only to turn around and inform an atheist that he is using the wrong definition of it in regards to his own atheism:

kwassa (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-28-06 05:30 PM

42. There are several definitions of atheism

Edited on Tue Feb-28-06 05:31 PM by kwassa
you and other atheists here choose to express only one of them.

Frankly, no one fights hard over a lack of belief, or anything they don't believe in. I think you and many others here have a very strong affirmitive belief that there is no God, judging simply by your behavior in this group.

And that is another definition of atheism.

******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-01-06 07:57 AM

101. Hey, I am only judging by actions, not words, just like the Christians

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, its a duck. Some atheists here act like the truest of true believers.

There are a million things I have a lack of belief in. I don't spend one second identifying myself by what I don't believe in, but by what I do believe in.

The fairly militant atheists here continually fight for a void, if I was to believe their stance. They fight for a "lack", whatever that is.

********************

Here the op tells us that being gay is not a choice while atheism is:

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-01-06 03:34 PM

136. well to me homosexuality is not a choice and atheism is ...

as belief always involves choice, so I really don't see the parallel.

*******************

kwassa (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-15-06 02:45 PM

127. To me, quite honestly, atheists have beliefs

But atheists here use the words "belief" and "faith" differently than the broader meanings used in the world, and as what we see in the dictionary definitions.

I don't use it as a dig at all, merely an observation.

It is like the old joke "Everyone believes in something, I believe I will have another beer."

I understand that the word "belief" has an extraordinarily negative connotation to atheists, but they have a specific, from what I can see, definition that is not more widely used in the world. To atheists belief connotes only believers in specific religious ideas, not believers in the scientific method, or in winner of the next Superbowl, or in the value of a certain political candidate. These are all beliefs, though, as the word is defined

***********************

And we're back to the this week's thread, which, as I already pointed out, is a duplicate of a thread he started in March of LAST YEAR to call out DU atheists.


If the op were to do this to any other minority, wouldn't such behaviour be labeled intolerant?


Ad homs?


Please.


I think DU atheists deserve a medal for restraint.