Of it's self Atheism makes a simple statement, a rejection of the belief in deities. There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics. There is no statement, as to moral conduct, decorum, social interaction. There is no indication of Rights and obligations of,both citizen and government.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government and, as the theism's force themselves on the people,as history demonstrates.Does such an Atheistic government pick up the mantle of a godly omnipotence, and if so, is there a difference?

Atheism rejects the belief in god/s, not god/s as no Atheist possesses universal intelligence and it would be foolish to make such a claim. The exercise of reason however,give proper indication that a god/s do not exist. That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.

Tags: Atheism, Rights, and, obligations, philosophy, theism

Views: 1351

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Gregg
I cannot begin to tell you what your contribution means. It was clear, concise and to the point. You are right up there with the best minds in objective reasoning. Your compelling sense of inquiry, combined with your articulation of the English language leaves me in awe. Thank you so much.

LOL That was a great passive/aggressive response, I am in awe of your amazing intellect and reasoning tools...you da MAN!!!

Hey Charles, it would help us low-browed folks if you'd put links into your posts so we'ns can get's some idea of what you'ns is referring to.

For example: "Serious study is now underway that may prove that the universe is two dimensional, not three."

Click on the pretty blue words.

(BTW I like Fermilab and what they do there.) I stand corrected.

............................................................

"But i digress and I do tend to ramble."

Don't we all.  A Sapien flaw we all seem to share. ;)

PurpleWikipedia: Purple is a range of hues of color occurring between red and blue. The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as a deep, rich shade between crimson and violet.

I have never heard agnostic and Atheist used in such a combination. Can we use agnostic theist in a similar context?

Sure.

One may believe God exists (theism) while admitting no way to be certain (agnosticism). Likewise, one may not believe God exists (atheism) while admitting no way to be certain (agnosticism).

Agnostic atheism is the stance of the world's most famous "atheist" Richard Dawkins and lots of TA members as well (including me).

The same is not true of agnostic theism. It's rare to encounter a theist who claims anything less than certainty that God exists (which is ridiculous).

It's also rare to encounter a "pure" agnostic.

Gallup
I do not find Dawkins of any particular interest, so your association there is not impressive. To many labels is like to much frosting on the cake, not necessary, although I do understand the attempt to mitigate or explain a position.
I find Occam's principle works best. Personally, I prefer the identity of Sapien, as in reasoning being, discerning being, but most do not make that connection, as I do.

I do not find Dawkins of any particular interest, so your association there is not impressive.

Now that's a classic: content free, circular reasoning. (Gallup, I don't find Dawkins particularly impressive, so your association there is not interesting.)

To [sic] many labels is like to much frosting on the cake, not necessary...

It's meaningless to dismiss the seven descriptors in the Dawkins scale as "not necessary" without explaining how or why.

If you don't support the point you haven't made one.

...although I do understand the attempt to mitigate or explain a position.

In this case the explanatory worth is that agnosticism refers to the position one takes on whether God is knowable and (a)theism refers to the position one takes on believing God exists. The combination of the two has come into common usage (and is not an invention of Dawkins').

I find Occam's principle works best. Personally, I prefer the identity of Sapien, as in reasoning being, discerning being, but most do not make that connection, as I do.

The lack of connection is a non sequitur fallacy. Your statement about "reasoning being" does not logically follow your argument that terms like agnostic atheism are superfluous.

Gallup

I do not find Dawkins of particular interest, which means that I do not find him or his writing, his exercises in academia interesting. This is pretty straight forward.
I don't think I ever mentioned, 'seven descriptors', or anything other than Dawkins himself. I, personally think that there should be around 134 descriptors, if not more. If we do this we can sit around and discuss nothing for a much longer period of time.
I appreciate your input, but we are not speaking the same language, which means that any positive outcome here is less than hopeful.

@C.J.H.:

You sir are on a roll. :)

Are you trying to communicate your ideas?  Or just your superior attitude?

I do not find Dawkins of particular interest, which means that I do not find him or his writing, his exercises in academia interesting. This is pretty straight forward.

Yes, Charles. We have established your penchant for circular reasoning (now for the second time).

I don't think I ever mentioned, 'seven descriptors', or anything other than Dawkins himself.

Likewise, we have established that your point (regarding the unnecessary nature of the Dawkins' scale) was content-free, unsupported and therefore nonexistent.

I, personally think that there should be around 134 descriptors, if not more.

If you don't support the point you haven't made one.

It must be a relief not having to explain anything, considering that 134 descriptions of atheism and agnosticism is a reversal of your previous position that just 7 descriptions are "to [sic] much frosting on the cake".

If we do this we can sit around and discuss nothing for a much longer period of time.

It's your "discussion" that's without content, Charles.

My discussion has the content of pointing out that yours has none and is unsupported.

I appreciate your input, but we are not speaking the same language...

I agree in that I'm being rational and you're not. If you dispute this, quote me and point out the flaw in my reasoning. Be specific.

...which means that any positive outcome here is less than hopeful.

I think so too, Charles. I've witnessed many tales of the incorrigible and the outcome is the same.

It's uncommon that folks like you ever change. But it's not uncommon for theists with poor critical thinking skills to show up here under false pretenses to question the value of atheism or associate us with totalitarian states. 

I'm not quite prepared to say this describes you-- aside from the poor critical thinking skills-- but I'm starting to wonder.

I don't think the Dawkins Scale is intended to offer anyone an identity. It just clarifies and simplifies the different possible positions on one issue. That being said, I'd favor a six-point Likert over Dawkins' seven-point; I think the Pure Agnostic position is unnecessary because it is untenable. How can anyone maintain a perfect 50/50 uncertainty for any length of time? Wouldn't the tiniest fragment of evidence or unexplained happenstance tip the balance one way or the other? In an odd-numbered Likert the middle position is a cop out, IMO.

I think the Pure Agnostic position is unnecessary because it is untenable. How can anyone maintain a perfect 50/50 uncertainty for any length of time?

I understand and agree, but isn't the strong theist position just as untenable? On what basis can anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that God exists?

Likewise for the strong atheist position. How can anyone claim to know with 100% certainty?

Wouldn't a theist claim the atheist's position is untenable?

That a position is untenable does not stop people from claiming it.

Wouldn't the tiniest fragment of evidence or unexplained happenstance tip the balance one way or the other? In an odd-numbered Likert the middle position is a cop out, IMO.

The Dawkins' scale is an instrument for describing one's stance on the God claim. That it has a bottom, middle and top doesn't require anyone to land precisely in those spots. Dawkins, for instance, describes himself as a 6.9 on his own scale. They're necessary as units of measure (but not necessarily the only ones).

Good point.

Gallup
I am a very simple man who detests absolutes and too, positions that claim indecision, when reasonable evidence exists to make a rational decision.
I am not certain that gods do or do not exist, but based on the capacity to reason objectively, with respectable knowledge of science and the origins and practices of theistic belief; it is not reasonable to embrace a philosophy of fence sitting or demagoguery.
I am an Atheist due to the fact, that for me such a philosophy, is concurrent with all available evidence. With this no other apologetic or mitigation is necessary.
Dawkins scaled position is, "silly".Iam 98.7% Chimp, 60% dog and 10% tree.Now what?
I enjoyed the strength of Madylin Murray O'Hare, meet her several times and Ayn Rand. With these people there was a position.

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service