18 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby2) "Activist (AAA)
[b]"Behold, the six types of atheists"
By Dan Merica, CNN "How many ways are there to disbelieve in God? At least six, according to a new study. Two researchers at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga found that atheists and agnostics run the range from vocally anti-religious activists to nonbelievers who still observe some religious tradition ...[text shortened]... re an atheist, which of these six describes you; or would an additional category 7) be required?[/b]
The next typology relates to being socially active. These individuals are termed the Activist Atheist/Agnostic. Individuals in the AAA typology are not content with the placidity of simply holding a non-belief position; they seek to be both vocal and proactive regarding current issues in the atheist and/or agnostic socio-political sphere. This sphere can include such egalitarian issues, but is not limited to: concerns of humanism, feminism, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered (LGBT) issues, social or political concerns, human rights themes, environmental concerns, animal rights, and controversies such as the separation of church and state.
Their activism can be as minimal as the education of friends or others, to much larger manifestations of social activities such as boycotting products, promoting legal action, or marching public demonstration to raise awareness. Activist Atheists/Agnostics are commonly naturalistic or humanistic minded individuals, but are not limited to these types of ethical concerns. It is not uncommon for AAA individuals to ally themselves with other movements in support of social awareness. The Activist Atheist/Agnostic’s are not idle; they effectuate their interests and beliefs." (same study/3-6 to follow)
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by Proper KnobProbably with the theist who keeps an open mind, but at the moment doesn't believe in atheism. Who is also well versed in the literature of their theism and likes to debate others on internet forums. Who also speaks out against ludicrous and dangerous beliefs which some religions practice today and is appreciative of the arguments of many atheists.
What about if you are an atheist who keeps an open mind, but at the moment doesn't believe in God(s). Who is also well versed in the literature on atheism and likes to debate others on internet forums. Who also speaks out against ludicrous antiquated religious beliefs but who appreciates some useful religious teachings? Where would you pigeon hole that atheist?
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThat person would be a mixture of 1,2,3,4 and 6 according to the classification system you posted.
Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]What about if you are an atheist who keeps an open mind, but at the moment doesn't believe in God(s). Who is also well versed in the literature on atheism and likes to debate others on internet forums. Who also speaks out against ludicrous antiquated religious beliefs but who appreciates some useful religious ...[text shortened]... ersation, "would an additional category be required" to embrace these Proper Knob distinctions ?
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by divegeesterIt's not possible to believe in atheism.
Probably with the theist who keeps an open mind, but at the moment doesn't believe in atheism. Who is also well versed in the literature of their theism and likes to debate others on internet forums. Who also speaks out against ludicrous and dangerous beliefs which some religions practice today and is appreciative of the arguments of many atheists.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by rwingettSo human beings should simply not even try to believe in atheism then.
It's not possible to believe in atheism.
Rwingett tells us that it is impossible to do so.
Okay, rwingett, I will stop even trying to on your word.
This may explain why I can never remember being a person that didn't believe that there was something as an ultimate factor of existence, if not a Force or Vibration or Oversoul or even a great huge Question Mark somewhere in the universe, our my own ego.
I always thought there was SOMETHING maybe much unlike the God in the Bible ... but something.
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonshipYou cannot "believe" in atheism for the simple reason that atheism is not a belief.
So human beings should simply not even [b]try to believe in atheism then.
Rwingett tells us that it is impossible to do so.
Okay, rwingett, I will stop even trying to on your word.
This may explain why I can never remember being a person that didn't believe that there was something as an ultimate factor of existence, if not a Force or Vi ...[text shortened]... ys thought there was SOMETHING maybe much unlike the God in the Bible ... but something.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
You cannot "believe" in atheism for the simple reason that atheism is not a belief.
I am not sure what it is you think will work to the advantage of atheism by arguing that it is "Oh too distinct and special to be even called a belief."
Maybe you could site someone for me of about 300 to 500 years ago who so defined that atheism was not a belief.
Do you have any such thinker in past centuries who argued that?
Originally posted by sonshipIt's a play on words; a belief in religion is different to a strongly held point of view which could could also be said to believing something to be true. Believing that someone is speaking the truth enters into judicial language also, where a jury may or may not choose to believe something based on the evidence being either compelling them to believe, or not. It makes atheists feel more comfortable to say atheism is not a belief, but from a linguistic point of view an atheist "believes" that atheism is correct. It's all smoke and mirrors.You cannot "believe" in atheism for the simple reason that atheism is not a belief.
I am not sure what it is you think will work to the advantage of atheism by arguing that it is "Oh too distinct and special to be even called a belief."
Maybe you could site someone for me of about 300 to 500 years ago who so defined that atheism was not a belief.
Do you have any such thinker in past centuries who argued that?
18 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonshipYou really don't get it, do you?You cannot "believe" in atheism for the simple reason that atheism is not a belief.
I am not sure what it is you think will work to the advantage of atheism by arguing that it is "Oh too distinct and special to be even called a belief."
Maybe you could site someone for me of about 300 to 500 years ago who so defined that atheism was not a belief.
Do you have any such thinker in past centuries who argued that?
People don't become atheists because they "believe" in atheism. They do so because they don't believe in theism. Theism is a belief. Atheism is the absence of that belief, or the negation of it. Atheism has no propositional content of its own. It affirms nothing. There is nothing to believe in.
Now, again, I have absolutely no interest in whether you agree with that. What I would like to know, though, is whether you understand it, because I get the distinct feeling that you don't.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by rwingett
You really don't get it, do you?
People don't become atheists because they "believe" in atheism.
They do so because they don't believe in theism. Theism is a belief. Atheism is the absence of that belief, or the negation of it. Atheism has no propositional content of its own. It affirms nothing. There is nothing to believe in.
Now, again, I have absolutely no interest in whether you agree with that. What I would like to know, though, is whether you understand it, because I get the distinct feeling that you don't.
It sounds like you are attempting to move a philosophy into a totally unfalsifiable posture.
And I never took a class on philosophy. Perhaps, next you will find a way to say that it is impossible to even disagree with atheism.
Now that would be handy - a philosophy which is not a belief and cannot even be disagreed with.
This could be fun - "Atheism - a ________ that cannot be disagreed with."
Then a little down the road you just insert into the blank "reality" and you got it made !
Originally posted by sonshipSo you really don't understand it.
[quote] You really don't get it, do you?
People don't become atheists because they "believe" in atheism.
They do so because they don't believe in theism. Theism is a belief. Atheism is the absence of that belief, or the negation of it. Atheism has no propositional content of its own. It affirms nothing. There is nothing to believe in.
Now, again ...[text shortened]... en a little down the road you just insert into the blank [b]"reality" and you got it made ![/b]
I have never taken a philosophy class either, and generally have a low opinion of the host of armchair philosophers that infest this site. That's all well and fine because atheism is not a philosophy. It, again, has no propositional content of its own.
Between a theist and an atheist, theism is the only belief being considered, which is theism. One does not "falsify" atheism. Rather, one "affirms" theism. Or tries to. And atheists do not put forward arguments to demonstrate that atheism is "true", but to demonstrate that theism is (probably) false. There is a very significant difference between those two.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by rwingett
So you really don't understand it.
I have never taken a philosophy class either, and generally have a low opinion of the host of armchair philosophers that infest this site. That's all well and fine because atheism is not a philosophy. It, again, has no propositional content of its own.
There have been some hefty atheists in the past centuries. I asked you to name one over about 200 years back who argued as you do.
I'll assume one of the following:
1.) you need more time to find one
2.) you don't know of one
3.) there are none
4.) You'll ignore the request as not important
If I missed something let me know.
All philosophies and theologies hone in and strengthen their views where they have found vulnerabilities. Theists do it just as much.
And your re-wording of what the word "atheism" is suppose to communicate sounds just like that.
Between a theist and an atheist, theism is the only belief being considered.
Even with only ONE side of the matter - it is to be determined if it is true or false. If theism is true then atheism is not. If atheism is true then theism is not.
The truth of one makes the falsity of the other.
I am willing to play by those linguistic rules come what may.
It is curious that some of the latter atheists are no longer willing to play by those rules.
One does not "falsify" atheism. Rather, one "affirms" theism. Or tries to. And atheists do not put forward arguments to demonstrate that atheism is "true", but to demonstrate that theism is (probably) false. There is a very significant difference between those two.
Why should I be interested in atheists who "do not put forward arguments to demonstrate that atheism is true" ?
You are a pretty regular poster here. Why do you frequent a Spirituality Forum to " ... not put forward arguments to demonstrate that atheism is true" ?
Do you confront theists simply to not take up the challenge to put forward arguments of the truth of atheism ? Maybe your new arguments are designed to be too obscure and foggy to have their obfuscations fit into human communication.
Give me the old style atheist who makes me wake up in the middle of the night sweating thinking "Maybe they're right."
These latter "non-belief" atheists are too self defeating.