We are all atheists
I've heard this quote before, and I've always thought it was a great one:
Stephen F. Robert (apparently speaking to a Catholic)
"We are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
That makes more sense than I know what to do with. And now I rememeber where I read it. Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" highlights the very same idea.
Everyone is either a complete atheist or a near atheist. If you don't believe in Vishnu, Thor, Aphrodite, Ra, or Allah, you need to ask yourself why. And then you need to apply the exact same criteria to your own god of choice. Is there any difference?
True atheists simply believe in 1 less god than you.
Raymond Camden's BlogCFC version 5.8.001
It's pretty logical, really, in order to qualify as an Atheist, you must believe in no God. Therefore:
If (Number of Gods you believe in = 0)
Then
Atheist = False
Else
Atheist = True
End IF
Being an Atheist is a true/false statement.
There are more classifications of course, that would require some more complex logical statements:
Switch (Number of Gods you believe in)
When (0)
Classification = Atheist
When (1)
Classification = Monotheist
When (>1)
Classification = Polytheist
End Switch
Its a pretty logical equation, and I hope that Atheists - who pride themselves on logic - can follow it.
In conclusion, you can be an Atheist, Monotheist or Polytheist, and these groups are mutually exclusive. Also, Dawkins has once again proved himself to be a pompous little shit who is talking out of his ass.
That last part is not the result of a logical expression, just a personal opinion.
Cheers,
David
Atheist comes from Greek: "A" meaning without, "theist" from belief. This has always referred to a belief in God/Religion and has the same context today.
It's pretty logical, really, in order to qualify as an Atheist, you must believe in no God. Therefore:
If (Number of Gods you believe in = 0)
Then
Atheist = True
Else
Atheist = False
End IF
Being an Atheist is a true/false statement.
There are more classifications of course, that would require some more complex logical statements:
Switch (Number of Gods you believe in)
When (0)
Classification = Atheist
When (1)
Classification = Monotheist
When (>1)
Classification = Polytheist
End Switch
Its a pretty logical equation, and I hope that Atheists - who pride themselves on logic - can follow it.
In conclusion, you can be an Atheist, Monotheist or Polytheist, and these groups are mutually exclusive. Also, Dawkins has once again proved himself to be a pompous little shit who is talking out of his ass.
That last part is not the result of a logical expression, just a personal opinion.
Cheers,
David
Davo
If I asked a person if they believed in Vishnu and they said "no", then they are an atheist with respect to Vishnu. They are "without belief in the deity called Vishnu".
Perhaps in order to satisfy strict linguists, of which there are many within the atheistic ranks, the statement should be re-phrases as: "We are all infidels"
If I don't believe in Vishnu, I am an non-believer in Vishnu, and that is not the same as being an atheist. Its not a strict linguist thing - Atheism is a classification, and its very very simple.
The problem is, your guy - Dawkins - is talking out of his ass, and you feel compelled to defend him.
Now, you ARE right about us all being "infidels", well, at least, most of us. It is unfortunate, but thats a tag that "non-believers" are painted with by "believers", and it doesn't matter if you are an Atheist or a Christian or anything else. THAT is where we all share a common experience, and its probably the argument that Dawkins should have made in the first place.
Cheers,
Davo
Your argument rests upon an exacting definition of the word "atheist" as determined by etymology. This is a perfectly valid stance, and one that many people hold. However, others would argue that this definition is not absolute and certainly not simple. A quick search of multiple sources will indicate that the subjective idea of "atheism" is, unfortunately, up for debate. Dawkins himself ranks degrees of belief along a continuum. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a continuum of belief closely resembles the real world. Both believers and non-believers can rank themselves on a continuum of belief.
Here is an excellent article that describes the issue. http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.ht...
I don't need to win this argument, because I'm NOT an atheist, I just enjoy doling out some logic and reason right back at you all :-) I enjoy seeing you defend your theological leaders irrationality, just because he says so, and I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to save this for a future conversation. Therefore, if I were you, I'd make sure you "win this one" - but don't use "pure logic", please.
If I walked into an Atheist convention (I don't know, do they exist?) and proudly declared "I am an atheist", but then started preaching how the world was created in 6 days, and dinosaurs used to be pack animals before the great flood, what would the reaction be? Would it be..."Come on in, the waters warm!". You seem to think they would.
Now, I'm sure said Atheists would be very nice, and engage in cordial conversation, but would this "atheist" be taken seriously? Would he/she really be an atheist?
While we're at it, why don't we expand on my being something that I'm not. I'm a Muslim, a Hindu and an Agnostic. Well, I'm not, but I am, kind of like the same way I'm NOT an atheist, but I am.
Good stuff - please reply....please!
Davo
Many Catholics don't take the time to step back and examine their belief. With thousands of gods to choose from, why this one in particular? How can a rational person believe in one invisible deity and not any other? If the Catholic does not believe in Ra, why not? What criteria of non-belief does the Catholic attribute to Ra that their own god can successfully overcome?