Ignorant atheists?

[LeonDecimus]

This is the definition I know.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

From some internet dictionary, dont care about source.

So, essentially, If you are driven and focused about efforts...say to raise money for a homeless woman. You and the group devoted to that are acting religiously.

Ever hear the phrase "So and so did some action religiously"
With devotion.
It essentially is a set of beliefs that one pursues strongly. Savvy?
So...Atheism is not a religion. Anti-Theism is technically a religion.

[reishyn]

MemoriesThatKill

It's somewhat true. But I think a line has to be drawn between Atheists and Anti-theists.

Most definitely.

[reishyn]

AstroFemme

Beyond_Oblivion

AstroFemme

atheism is not a religion.

It is no more a religion than theism is. It is a classification of philosophical thought regarding the existence of deities. Religions fall under both of these terms, but neither is a religion in and of itself.

According to wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

Religion:an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"


According to en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

Religion: A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred; Any practice that someone or some group is seriously ...

So, based off these widely accepted definitions, I would have to say that atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

(Sorry for the cliché but the occasion called for it.)

[Valtiel the Watcher]

Every group of people ever will have both raving idiots and wise intellectuals. Unfortunately the very vocal minority of shouting idiots is what is usually responsible for the negative stereotypes associated with most groups. that's all people usually see because they're always so loud and annoying.

[viper232]

LeonDecimus

This is the definition I know.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

From some internet dictionary, dont care about source.

So, essentially, If you are driven and focused about efforts...say to raise money for a homeless woman. You and the group devoted to that are acting religiously.

Ever hear the phrase "So and so did some action religiously"
With devotion.
It essentially is a set of beliefs that one pursues strongly. Savvy?
So...Atheism is not a religion. Anti-Theism is technically a religion.

Anti-theism?

... Who, with the possible exception of hitchens, is actually an "anti-theist"? I mean, even Dawkins has admitted he doesn't want to limits anyone's ability to practice religion, he's arguing against it as flawed from logical standards, and isn't backed by evidence... but does that make him an "anti-theist and participating in a religion"? Consider, for a moment, string theory.

If I argue "string theory has failed to garner any empirical evidence, and hence any belief in the theory is premature" then am I an anti-string theorist, or an intellectually honest physicist?

If I argue "there is as of yet no evidence of a flying teapot outside of Jupiter, hence belief is unwarranted", am I an "anti-teapotist", participating in a religious cult of "anti-teapot...try" or am I an intellectually honest human being who is providing a rational argument why belief in something rather specific is unwarranted?

How does one qualify as being "anti-theist"? Does raising an argument against theism instantly qualify one? So does it follow a standard of "you can be an atheist, but the second you try to support your atheism with a rational argument you become part of a religion and an anti-theist"?

>.> prominent atheist wise, I'd really argue the only true "anti-theist", the guy who might actively want to stiffle religious beliefs, would be Hitchens, the rest seem just to be providing their own arguments and justification. People like Dawkins seem hell bent on avoiding attempts to stifle religion, I'm curious how this "anti-theist" label can be attached.

[reishyn]

viper232

LeonDecimus

This is the definition I know.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

From some internet dictionary, dont care about source.

So, essentially, If you are driven and focused about efforts...say to raise money for a homeless woman. You and the group devoted to that are acting religiously.

Ever hear the phrase "So and so did some action religiously"
With devotion.
It essentially is a set of beliefs that one pursues strongly. Savvy?
So...Atheism is not a religion. Anti-Theism is technically a religion.

Anti-theism?

... Who, with the possible exception of hitchens, is actually an "anti-theist"? I mean, even Dawkins has admitted he doesn't want to limits anyone's ability to practice religion, he's arguing against it as flawed from logical standards, and isn't backed by evidence... but does that make him an "anti-theist and participating in a religion"? Consider, for a moment, string theory.

If I argue "string theory has failed to garner any empirical evidence, and hence any belief in the theory is premature" then am I an anti-string theorist, or an intellectually honest physicist?

If I argue "there is as of yet no evidence of a flying teapot outside of Jupiter, hence belief is unwarranted", am I an "anti-teapotist", participating in a religious cult of "anti-teapot...try" or am I an intellectually honest human being who is providing a rational argument why belief in something rather specific is unwarranted?

How does one qualify as being "anti-theist"? Does raising an argument against theism instantly qualify one? So does it follow a standard of "you can be an atheist, but the second you try to support your atheism with a rational argument you become part of a religion and an anti-theist"?

>.> prominent atheist wise, I'd really argue the only true "anti-theist", the guy who might actively want to stiffle religious beliefs, would be Hitchens, the rest seem just to be providing their own arguments and justification. People like Dawkins seem hell bent on avoiding attempts to stifle religion, I'm curious how this "anti-theist" label can be attached.

There's a difference between giving an honest opinion and shoving ideals down people's throat. It's the people who practice the latter whom this OP is about.
It's like reverse street-preaching and there's been quite a lot of it recently unfortunately.
As I've already stated I actually like Dawkins but his younger fanbase has been growing close to intolerable in recent years. I'm not saying give religion immunity to criticism. If one is approached in discussion or debate on such a matter feel free to express your views. But to go out of your way to prove someone wrong on a matter is both pretentious, rude and ignorant in my opinion. I'm not calling this on every atheist but rather the select few who follow this conduct.
Afterall. I, myself, and probably many others on this thread are atheists.

[Inscriven]

viper232

How does one qualify as being "anti-theist"? Does raising an argument against theism instantly qualify one? So does it follow a standard of "you can be an atheist, but the second you try to support your atheism with a rational argument you become part of a religion and an anti-theist"?

Atheism is only an idea. One singular one that we all agree on, everything else is individual. But there is a line splitting atheists, and one of these halves can be called 'anti-theist'.

The old school is the atheist who approaches this whole thing on a philosophical level. They are open to dialogue with other people of other faiths and desire to gain a common ground understanding and way of doing things. Politically speaking they want to keep everything secular, but generally do not care if others practice their beliefs as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's own beliefs.

The new school of atheism is... well, not so friendly. They're downright militant. These are the people that follow people like Dawkins and Hitchins who see religion as a pox on society and that people must be shocked to their senses by being abrasive, offensive, and belittling to believers.

Example from Hitchens from an NPR article:

Quote:

For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval.

The article that the quote is a part of is an interesting short read about the state of atheism:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889251&ps=cprs

[Delusionary_Angel]

You know what's really ******** up, and the thing I find most comforting about atheism? I don't have to tell anyone. Once you're dead, you're dead. Believe and believe as you might, you're going to end up right next to every other human being in the dirt. Changing minds can be good. In fact, it's downright helpful, to the population at large. But it's not needed. It won't change the end of the story. I'm tired.

[Repellant]

Valtiel the Watcher

Every group of people ever will have both raving idiots and wise intellectuals. Unfortunately the very vocal minority of shouting idiots is what is usually responsible for the negative stereotypes associated with most groups. that's all people usually see because they're always so loud and annoying.

But it works. The majority is stupid enough to listen.

[AxeSlayerMiyavi]

Inscriven

The new school of atheism is... well, not so friendly. They're downright militant. These are the people that follow people like Dawkins and Hitchins who see religion as a pox on society and that people must be shocked to their senses by being abrasive, offensive, and belittling to believers.

Though I am anti-theism, I don't bother with theists. I just let them wallow in their ignorance and truly believe that someday they will come to their senses on at their own accord. What type of atheist does that make me?

[Autotrack]

✩ Stand up for what is right. ✩

▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽ ▽▽▽

I feel that, although I am Atheist, religion plays a large role in our society. Religion gives me reason to explore further into the world of science, to prove to myself the reasons I do not believe in a higher being.

△△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△ △△△

✩ Even if you're standing alone. ✩

[tomcat41]

The word ignorance is a subjective one.

One could find all atheists ignorant if he so chooses.

I believe in Jesus but respect those who do not. It is a choice that should not be forced upon others. But I am ignorant of atheists for the most part, I know almost none and the ones I hear about are the crazy ones who challenge In God We Trust.

In God We Trust is a historical thing on our money that was sort of a SCREW YOU to the commies

[Christopher Columbine]

To me, it always seemed like all atheists (other than ones I know as smart people IRL) are like the ones you hate.

[Beyond_Oblivion]

Aaxi

I feel that, although I am Atheist, religion plays a large role in our society. Religion gives me reason to explore further into the world of science, to prove to myself the reasons I do not believe in a higher being.

The thing that I don't really like about this is that it implies that there is a choice to be made between religion and science.

tomcat41

In God We Trust is a historical thing on our money that was sort of a SCREW YOU to the commies

And the reason it was put there as a "screw you" to the "communist" nations of the times is because they were atheists, unlike the good Christians in the US, which is reason enough for it to be removed. Add to that the fact that our last President (amongst others) used it as a reason to discriminate against atheists and it should be more clear that it should be done away with.

[tomcat41]

Beyond_Oblivion

Aaxi

I feel that, although I am Atheist, religion plays a large role in our society. Religion gives me reason to explore further into the world of science, to prove to myself the reasons I do not believe in a higher being.

The thing that I don't really like about this is that it implies that there is a choice to be made between religion and science.

tomcat41

In God We Trust is a historical thing on our money that was sort of a SCREW YOU to the commies

And the reason it was put there as a "screw you" to the "communist" nations of the times is because they were atheists, unlike the good Christians in the US, which is reason enough for it to be removed. Add to that the fact that our last President (amongst others) used it as a reason to discriminate against atheists and it should be more clear that it should be done away with.

The majority of the U.S is Christian incase you did not know.
Yes the constitution says seperation of church and state...
So for that reason it should be.
I agree with you there.
But historically it WAS a screw you to the commies.

So politically I see why it should be removed... but I am in favor of it because I do have a God.
Though I can see your side and am not calling you an idiot for thinking that.

My thinking is that we all have different thoughts. But Respect for each others thoughts should be something we all have in common...
so in no way am I dissing you.