What say you reply to the content of the thread, as I did?
I'll remind you of what I said, don't mistakenly think- though it neither references you, nor contains any insulting content- that it is an insult!
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think lack of awareness of the concept is probably the default, following proper logic.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What say you reply to the content of the thread, as I did?I'll remind you of what I said, don't mistakenly think- though it neither references you, nor contains any insulting content- that it is an insult!
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
dude, you need to seriously loosen up. stop being so anal about everything. whats wrong with cutting loose and joking around a little?
It was you who decided to take a thread-related comment as an insult, you fool. (An insult!)
Do you think the people who were debating in the thread want to read your 'loosening up', general misunderstanding, irrelevancy and other pejoratives in the middle of it? That's what the OTF is for.
To anyone else who was enjoying this thread, all apologies. I have, as you can see, tried to steer it back on course. I only hope reading this part was less tiresome than participating.
I'll try again, but I have a feeling the following post will stop that in its tracks. I'll appeal again for BS-containing replies to PM.
'I think lack of awareness of the concept is probably the default, following proper logic.'
i acknowledged that i misread the post. what more do you want? you seem to be leader and commander here, or at least in your eyes.
now you have called me a fool. you even ended your last post with the perfect setup for this post.
i dont care where in life you are, there is always room for joking around. it was only a few posts, whats the harm? are you like totally serious 24/7? is this how you live your life? if so, i feel for you.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I AGREE.I think extremism is more dangerous than anything, regardless of what end of the spectrum it comes from.
However, Athiests aren't tying to tell me how to live my life. Thiests are and it's getting really annoying.
That might be implied. Obviously that is incorrect. It does not change that it is an applicable term. That people mostly use it for people that actively do not believe in God does not change that it also applies to those that don't. I also don't see the problem in knowing and differentiating between the two.And the term should be used. Because it is true. Atheism is the default. It just is. What else would you call it? You could call it "not believing in a deity"...but that's defined as atheism so you are at the beginning again. What is the problem with accepting that anyways? I mean it should be for atheists as well as Theists positive to think of it that way.
"A state of being where no God concept exists."
This is a legitimate definition of 'atheist'. There is no arguing with this. But what I think is objectionable to applying this definition to the current discussion is that it comes across more as a semantic loophole rather than a serious contemplation of the question: "What is the default state: theism or atheism?"
A default state is an option automatically selected unless changed by something else. Left to its own devices, it stays as is. If people never grew past the infant stage, then the default state would be atheist.
But people don't stay as they are. They might start out as 'atheists', but that is not their default state. The default state of a human being is to change, to grow, to question and conclude.
Given this innate propensity, what do human beings do? Well, long ago, when there was no one to tell them one way or another, they began to fabricate realities for understanding the world around them, unseen realities, projections of their own dreams and fears. Even if a caveman disagreed with the group paradigm, guaranteed he was still imagining something. There was no science. There was no objective, logic-based, alternate POV by which a caveman could say to himself, "But what if I'm just fooling myself with this spirit stuff?"
Rational thought came later, the ability to take a scientific perspective, and with that the ability to say, "Science explains the world so much better than some 'God'. Maybe there is no God, certainly not like the one in the Bible." That does seem to be what most people mean by 'atheist'.
IMO, a semantic dismissal shortchanges the whole discussion.
Haha, those are the funniest two pages I read in a long time. Not due to the guy who thought he was funny, but generally.
In other news, I am still right.
Originally posted by Mindship
"A state of being where no God concept exists."This is a legitimate definition of 'atheist'. There is no arguing with this. But what I think is objectionable to applying this definition to the current discussion is that it comes across more as a semantic loophole rather than a serious contemplation of the question: "What is the default state: theism or atheism?"
A default state is an option automatically selected unless changed by something else. Left to its own devices, it stays as is. If people never grew past the infant stage, then the default state would be atheist.
But people don't stay as they are. They might start out as 'atheists', but that is not their default state. The default state of a human being is to change, to grow, to question and conclude.
Given this innate propensity, what do human beings do? Well, long ago, when there was no one to tell them one way or another, they began to fabricate realities for understanding the world around them, unseen realities, projections of their own dreams and fears. Even if a caveman disagreed with the group paradigm, guaranteed he was still imagining something. There was no science. There was no objective, logic-based, alternate POV by which a caveman could say to himself, "But what if I'm just fooling myself with this spirit stuff?"
Rational thought came later, the ability to take a scientific perspective, and with that the ability to say, "Science explains the world so much better than some 'God'. Maybe there is no God, certainly not like the one in the Bible." That does seem to be what most people mean by 'atheist'.
IMO, a semantic dismissal shortchanges the whole discussion.
For the sake of the argument I would also agree that we can use that definition. Since it is the one that is and was generally used anyways. We just argued because it was denied that people without a concept of God are atheists.