Definition of Atheist (page 10)

PSacramento

I think itis safe to say that while most atheist are open to th epossibility of "higher intelligence" and that could be "God", EVERY atheist does NOT beleive in the "God of Religion".

Deputy Dog

Bohm

Have you asked your brother in law if he atheistic in the sence of Dawkins or in your sence?

No.

Like I've said: " I've never had this discussion over defining it, with him". I take his words with a grain of salt. I don't believe most people give it that much thought.

As for Dawkins look at his own words:

Perhaps the best of the available euphemisms for atheist is nontheist. It lacks the connotation of positive conviction that there is definitely no god, and it could therefore easily be embraced by Teapot or Tooth Fairy Agnostics.It is less familiar than atheist and lacks its phobic connotations. Yet, unlike a completely new coining, its meaning is clear. If we want a euphemism at all, nontheist is probably the best.
The alternative which I favor is to renounce all euphemisms and grasp the nettle of the word atheism itself, precisely because it is a taboo word carrying frissons of hysterical phobia. Critical mass may be harder to achieve than with some non-confrontational euphemism, but if we did achieve it with the dread word atheist, the political impact would be all the greater.
-- Richard Dawkins, following a list of excerpts from hate mail sent to the editor of Freethought Today, after she won a separationist court battle, in "A Challenge To Atheists: Come Out of the Closet" (Free Inquiry, Summer, 2002)

THE GLADIATOR

I think itis safe to say...

I get the impression that it's not safe to say anything on this thread.

The wrath of Zeus may consume you.

May your gods protect you PSacramento.

PSacramento

After years of intense Martial arts training, my skin is so thick that I need not protection !

Or I am punch drunk, either works for me.

bohm

DD: Dawkins describe a Celestial Teapot Agnostic, which is a person who is agnostic about God as he is about the celestial teapot. Thats not the common definition of being agnostic by far. (by the way i fit in that category to).

So let me ask you again, which of the definitions of agnostic do you think apply to Dawkins? a or b?

Deputy Dog

bohm

So let me ask you again, which of the definitions of agnostic do you think apply to Dawkins? a or b?

So, you think Dawkins is being a little evasive? So do I

I think he's an A type trying to hedge his bet. It's plain from that quote he wants to redefine terms to meet his own political agenda. He doesn't really want renounce euphemisms he just wants to reshuffle the deck.

PS

After years of intense Martial arts training, my skin is so thick that I need not protection !

Or I am punch drunk, either works for me.

17 years of law enforcement will do that to ya as well.

agonus

Dawkins is an antagonist and polemicist. There's nothing wrong with atheism or science but he subscribes to a particular brand of knee-jerk atheism that's mostly just Anglocentric egotism.

agonus

By the way, there is a Celestial Teapot. Most of you know it as the constellation Sagittarius :)

bohm

DD: First you argue from the dictionary that atheist should take an antiquated, useless meaning that fits noone.

I point out to you that that is not how any atheists use the term, you point me to the dictionary and say that if its in the dictionary, thats what it mean no matter what.

You are asked what dawkins is then, since he is clearly not an atheist. You say agnostic.

I point out he does not fit the dictionary definition of agnostic at all.

You point me to a quote by dawkins where he says he is a "teapot agnostic"; your argument seem to be: "see! he said the word, he is one!". What happends here is interesting. Before you argued according to a dictinary definition, but when that style of argumentation no longer fits your agenda, you switch mode, move the goalpost, and dawkins is now an agnostic because he use the word (prefix be damned, despite the fact he add the prefix to make it clear he is not an agnostic).

Thats pointed out to you, and you argue that he fits the dictionary definition of being an agnostic.

Lets sum up. Dawkins devote a whole chapter in the God delusion (titled: "why there is allmost certainly no God") to describe how far-fetched he find the idea of an God. He likes it to believing in the tooth-fairy. You interpret that to mean:

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

But not

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

im confused.

tec

Okay - this is where I am getting confused.

Why there is ALMOST certainly no God leaves open the possibility for God - even if that possibility is almost certainly zero. Likening God to the toothfairy then brings it into the realm of there certainly is not a God.

So how is this:

Most atheists know there is no God, in the same way that most theists know there is a God.

(disregarding people who actually DO know there is a God, by means of direct communication with his Son - though this means nothing to an atheist, and rarely means anything to a theist, as well)

Tammy

Definition of Atheist

Share this