Define Atheism

Originally posted by Digi
At that point you start getting far too academic with terms for regular use, so it stops having usefulness. It might be less ambiguous to a select few, but would undoubtedly require more explanation for most...and those same people would likely try to ascribe a common label at that point anyway.

Peach and I had this discussion in another thread (OTF).

My position was: Actually using the correct label may make the person (because they will most likely be ignorant of it) have to shutup and listen to you explain what it means in 2 or 3 sentences. That can be advantageous for people like Styletime who are more soft-spoken or timid.

Her position was the same as yours because people just don't know and may blow you off/pretend to know what it means but not really know/think it means one thing but it's wrong.

I say stick with the best labels possible.

Let's try it both ways and report back. lol

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Define Atheism

Not believing in God so firmly that one is just as annoying as a Christian fundamentalist. 😛

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not believing in God so firmly that one is just as annoying as a Christian fundamentalist. 😛

I'd argue that it's stereotypes like this that are just as annoying.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not believing in God so firmly that one is just as annoying as a Christian fundamentalist. 😛

I agree.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd argue that it's stereotypes like this that are just as annoying.

To me, he was referring to the extreme poles in his quote, not all atheists or theists (he's an atheist, IIRC).

I dislike both poles as they are both annoying. I like the people closer to the center ... at at LEAST the people that can admit "I don't know".

Originally posted by dadudemon
To me, he was referring to the extreme poles in his quote, not all atheists or theists (he's an atheist, IIRC).

The 😛 face means he was being completely non-serious.

Your reading of his answer wouldn't make sense anyway since it's dependent on him answering a request that wasn't actually made.

A "Describe an apple."
B "It's a thing you drive."
A "No, that's wrong."
C "To me he's refering to cars so I'd say he's right."
A *shoots C*

Originally posted by dadudemon
I dislike both poles as they are both annoying. I like the people closer to the center ... at at LEAST the people that can admit "I don't know".

The poles are much less of a problem than the stereotype that the poles are all that exist since that forces people closer to the center in the director of their favored pole out of what they think is self defense.

Radicals and fundamentalists of most philosophies and movements are problematic and/or annoying.

They are, however, not all equally problematic and annoying due to differences in severity and mass.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Radicals and fundamentalists of most philosophies and movements are problematic and/or annoying.

I agree.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are, however, not all equally problematic and annoying due to differences in severity and mass.

I also agree, here. How many extreme atheists do you know that are white supremacists?

BAM!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The 😛 face means he was being completely non-serious.

Your reading of his answer wouldn't make sense anyway since it's dependent on him answering a request that wasn't actually made.

A "Describe an apple."
B "It's a thing you drive."
A "No, that's wrong."
C "To me he's refering to cars so I'd say he's right."
A *shoots C*

I actually don't understand your logic at all, here.

It doesn't make sense.

Here's what really happened:

A: Describe an apple.
B: It's a thing you can make only pies with. 😄
A: No, that's wrong.
C: I agree with B. 😖hifty:
A: I...uhhhh...lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
I dislike both poles as they are both annoying. I like the people closer to the center ... at at LEAST the people that can admit "I don't know".

Precisely. There's kind of a Buddhist/Zen idea that you answer any question that is secular with a more spiritual response and any spiritual question with some mundane or secular response. Kind of illustrates that a "Religion of No Religion" is ideal.. not being vehemently for OR against the idea of God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The poles are much less of a problem than the stereotype that the poles are all that exist...

Well said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Radicals and fundamentalists of most philosophies and movements are problematic and/or annoying.

They are, however, not all equally problematic and annoying due to differences in severity and mass.

Exacly! Well said.

For example, the more radical and fundamental Muslim you are the more everyone should be scared and worried.

The more radical and fundamental Jainist you are, the less the rest of us have to worry about you.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The more radical and fundamental Jainist you are, the less the rest of us have to worry about you.

I dunno, ever gotten a hug from Digambara monk?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The poles are much less of a problem than the stereotype that the poles are all that exist...

It's mainstream media that doesn't usually acknowledge different and more subtle perspectives. But we smarter--or rather more enlightened--types know better.

I was thining...500 years from now, will we universally look back and laugh at our religiosity? Like, "Man, I can't believe or forefathers believed this stuff." I know there are some people that do it now but the majority of us don't.

Believing religiosity literally, yes. I hope that day does come, but proper spirituality will never die and shouldn't. And proper spirituality can reside within all religions.

"All major religious traditions carry basically the same message: that is love, compassion and forgiveness. The important thing is they should be part of our daily lives."

~ Dalai Lama

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thining...500 years from now, will we universally look back and laugh at our religiosity? Like, "Man, I can't believe or forefathers believed this stuff." I know there are some people that do it now but the majority of us don't.

That's hard to answer. Sitting here in 2012 in a very secular corner of the world I want to say "Yes, absolutely. We're on the cusp of exactly that." but looking back at history it seems less likely. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all lasted for more than a thousand years each and all still have large sects of very strict adherents.

Howard Taylor once said:

We shall assume, for the sake of argument, that religion is adopted by the foolishly optimistic, in an effort to answer the unanswerable questions....

Now, some folks will try to tell us that in 1000 years science and society will have made SO much progress, and will be SO understanding of the human condition, that there will be no need for religion as we know it--even for low-IQ, highly violent types like mercenaries, professional sportspersons, and art critics.

Hmmmm. That sounds "foolishly optimistic" to me.

I'm a 1 or 2 on Digi's scale

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Believing religiosity literally, yes. I hope that day does come, but proper spirituality will never die and shouldn't. And proper spirituality can reside within all religions.

Of this, I agree. I am studying this very subject right now, in school.

"spiritual" vs. "spirituality".

The former is necessary for health, wellness, and even recovery (medical) while the latter can fulfill both the spiritual and provide positive purpose in one's life.

However, the latter means one will often rely on a 'higher power' so it is basically theism of sorts.

As long as we have the genes that we do, we probably will continue to be spiritual.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's hard to answer. Sitting here in 2012 in a very secular corner of the world I want to say "Yes, absolutely. We're on the cusp of exactly that." but looking back at history it seems less likely. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all lasted for more than a thousand years each and all still have large sects of very strict adherents.

Howard Taylor once said:

I certainly hope that withing 500 years most people will look back at modern religiosity and say "Man, I can't believe our forefathers acted that way." even if they retain the same beliefs.

That's how I am now: I look back and loathe the extreme majority of the world's religions. I still think religion will have a place 500 years from now (hopefully, we are all still around to discuss this). There will certainly be room for a belief in a higher power even if we conquer all information to be known from this universe.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm a 1 or 2 on Digi's scale

hmm

It would seem Digi has become a minor celebrity in the religion forums due to his ability to articulate what many of us could not.

That scale should probably be bookmarked or stickied for us to refer back to.

Digi...expand that scale to include theism. Then make a "third kind" for that scale that people like Symmetric Chaos and I talked about: pretty please? 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would seem Digi has become a minor celebrity in the religion forums due to his ability to articulate what many of us could not.

That scale should probably be bookmarked or stickied for us to refer back to.

Digi...expand that scale to include theism. Then make a "third kind" for that scale that people like Symmetric Chaos and I talked about: pretty please? 😄

Lol. Anyway, I probably shouldn't. The number of discussions I've had about the intricacies of atheism and its definition far outnumber those for theism. I fear any scale I might make would be far less authoritative and open to criticism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I dunno, ever gotten a hug from Digambara monk?

All sorts of lol there...and all sorts of no.

Although...I can't quite decide if I'd like to see a lot more of them or a lot less. Probably less. I'll meditate on that.