Ignorant atheists?

[MissToxicity]

Omorose Panya

MissToxicity

In my opinion, atheists are just as ignorant as the religious.

Fix'd. Can we please get it right, people? Atheism is the opposite of theism, not religion.

MissToxicity

To me, it is absurd to say with certainty that something does or does not exist. You cannot know - you can only believe.

(A)theism only deals with beliefs, not absolutes.

Perhaps I was not basing my argument on opposites, or technicalities. I was comparing what I consider two wrongs. smile
You fixed nothing.

[Omorose Panya]

I am actually ignostic, not agnostic.

[Andrew_Aurion]

Omorose Panya

I am actually ignostic, not agnostic.

I've never even heard of that before. That is a very interesting concept. I never thought about the definition of a god, in fact, I don't really know what the definition is...

[Knight of Kiloran]

In other words, OP finally realized that ignorance exists on BOTH sides of the religious debate. Cool story, bro.

[Omorose Panya]

MissToxicity

Perhaps I was not basing my argument on opposites, or technicalities. I was comparing what I consider two wrongs. smile
You fixed nothing.

An atheist can be religious. Ergo, you can't discern between atheists and the religious. You don't have to accept it but it's the truth. Your point was incorrect. Get over it.

[Omorose Panya]

Andrew_Aurion

I've never even heard of that before. That is a very interesting concept. I never thought about the definition of a god, in fact, I don't really know what the definition is...

Exactly! When brought up, we kind of just have this fuzzy idea. We might just think "Well, the bible god, of course!" without a clear picture. Not that the bible gives us one---it just uses a bunch of analogies to describe god. At its very laziest, it describes god as "Is". ("I am the great 'I am.'" wink How can anyone prove or disprove that?

I don't remember who told me about ignosticism, but it makes a much better case than agnosticism (in regards to this).

I don't like agnosticism anyway. It's kinda like trying to objectively prove that we can't know some things, or that some things are inherently disprovable. So long as it exists and follows the laws of the universe, and so long as we have the technology, anything is provable.

A riddle I made up: What is the difference between possible and impossible? Time.

My teacher said "will" and I like that too.

[DeMeniac]

The fact is, not all atheist have the same beliefs just as all Christians share different views. We all can't share the same view, otherwise debate is just boring.

[Platinum xx]

way too lazy to read the whole original OP, but the second post only made me want to say that atheism is a lack of religion.
i don't think i've ever encountered an ATHEISTIC RELIGION.

[Omorose Panya]

Platinum xx

way too lazy to read the whole original OP, but the second post only made me want to say that atheism is a lack of religion.
i don't think i've ever encountered an ATHEISTIC RELIGION.

Good thing Buddhism doesn't exist!

...Whoops.

An atheistic religion is one that does not centralize any gods or deities. It is not a religion derived from or "about" atheism.

[B4T]

I sir, am an ignorant atheist. We're all ignorant of something!

[Auntie Proton]

I'm a fan of political philosophy.

[Ellema]

Omorose Panya

I am actually ignostic, not agnostic.

Thanks for sharing this link! I am an atheist (dare I say that I was?!), but lately I've been having problems with the term.* I am only confident that God doesn't exist in that I don't think that any current religion is particularly persuasive. I am open to the idea that God exists in some form that I am unaware of (though I personally think that the chance is minute). To me, such a belief looks a lot like agnosticism. However, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of labeling myself an agnostic, mostly for political reasons. I believe that expressing agnosticism is giving Judeo-Christian religions (particularly Christianity) too much credit, when in fact I think that particular belief system is silly at best and horrendously immoral at worst. Because Christianity is so dominant where I live, saying "I'm an agnostic" will make most people assume that I am conflicted about Christianity, when I actually just want to leave my options open since I don't possess any definitive proof that God doesn't exist. So I call myself an atheist because I think that broadcasting where I stand on Christianity is more important than being absolutely, technically, 100% accurate in describing my beliefs. Because you're right: people usually will just assume that you're talking about the majority religion.

Anyway, the point in that irrelevant mess up there was that ignosticism articulated my growing problem with atheism/agnosticism much more elegantly than I have AND posed a solution! And it is compellingly simple: that we instead begin discussing the question of God's existence one step back, by defining our terms. Once we've established which God we're talking about, we can dismiss the current, nonfalsifiable ideas of God as meaningless while remaining open to the idea that someone, somehow could conceivably discover the existence of a falsifiable God. It eliminates the loophole in my atheism. I love it.

Of course, my whole understanding of ignosticism is based on a wikipedia article, so if I'm getting anything wrong feel free to help me out. wink

*Not because of Dawkins or so-called "ignorant atheists"! I appreciate Dawkins's aggressiveness; I think that he is an important contrast to the aggressive religious voices that we are so inundated with. As for ignorant atheists...all ideologies are going to have some stupid members, so I'm not all that concerned.

[Tallie]

Genevaman

So my suggestion is this. Forget religion. Forget creationism. Preach of the wonders of the truth rather than the failures of the false. (No offense to the religious. xp ) I don't mean to say give religion immunity to criticism but merely not to make it our focus. We are atheists. Not anti-Christs.

Learn what evolution actually is before preaching its wonders. Or at the very least don't claim to know everything about biology. (Unless you do. 3nodding )

And PLEASE! Don't dismiss philosophy as the same thing as theology.
There IS a distinct difference between the two.

Any opinions anyone?

I love you o.O Best thread on the subject I've seen in a loong time.
I agree. Believing and preaching about anything that you don't understand yourself is ignorant, to say the least. It's similar with Christians who don't know their bibles very well, and try to denounce all science.
The world is not black and white. I don't believe you can look at all religion and say that it's all bad, or even that one religion is all bad.

[Genevaman]

Omorose Panya

Genevaman

Socrates always was one of my favourite Western philosophers. I think the mystique of what he did and didn't say made him all the more interesting. Mind you Plato was a genius in his own right with his "I think therefore I am" and founding of the academies and what not.

....Descartes?

Have you read Allegory of the Cave?

Whoops! Misquote! sweatdrop

I honestly have no idea how I mixed that up or what quote I even mixed it with... Although I was watching a movie with a plot revolving around that quote so maybe it just slipped into my head?

In any case both Plato and Descartes are fine examples of the créme-de-la-créme of Western philosophy. One again though... *facepalm*. sad

As for "Allegory...." Yes, I have. An amazing piece of work and a prime example of both a mastery of analogy and insight. I have a translated copy of Plato's "The Republic" that was given to me six years ago by one of my primary school teachers before I left. It's what sparked my interest in philosophy in the first place. I remember reading it at the age of thirteen and just being blown away by it. 3nodding

Mind you I hardly understood what half of it was about at the time. xp