God given rights. Do you really have any?

[henry quirk]

Sell what you like, I say. Be honest about what you're sellin', I also say.

Well yeah. Do you think anyone is being dishonest?

In context, as I say...

Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by, "atheist?"

The people who both declare themselves such, and are lauded as such: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche...all the ones that are ordinarily mentioned immediately when one speaks of "famous Atheists," or of "Atheist thought." That's who I mean.

Who would you cite as an example of Atheism?

Do you regard anyone who does not believe in a single deity an atheist,

No. There are polytheists, animists, spiritists, pantheists...the field is much more various than that. Atheists actually comprise an extremely small minority of the world's population, both historically and now. To be an Atheist, one has to believe there are no gods or God at all, of any description, and probably that there are no supernatural entities of any kind, as well. For if one did purport to believe in the supernatural, then the idea of God would surely be back on the table, and one would merely be agnostic again.

In other words, is theism belief in just any kind of supernatural existent, or only a specifically described deity?

Technically, in Comparative Religions parlance, for example, "Theism" describes any belief that includes a God or gods...and they tend do speak that way, even though those two are different concepts. The differentiation is usually made by the prefix, such as "poly-" or "mono-".

But I'm speaking of Judeo-Christian monotheism in particular...I just don't always bother to put the "mono-" prefix on, since these other belief systems are not conceptually part of the same package, and are actually differentiated from Judaism and Christianity by the fact of their referring to different entities than the real God.

[uwot]

Do you think anyone is being dishonest?

In context, as I say...

Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

Sorry henry, yer gonna have to spell it out for me. Who of the atheist/apatheist, religionist or opportunist is dishonest?

[RCSaunders]

What do you mean by, "atheist?"

The people who both declare themselves such, and are lauded as such: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche...all the ones that are ordinarily mentioned immediately when one speaks of "famous Atheists," or of "Atheist thought." That's who I mean.

Who would you cite as an example of Atheism?

I don't. If someone claims to be an atheist, I'll take their word for it, but otherwise I'm very reluctant to label individuals with beliefs they do not claim. I would never identify someone with any belief they deny, which apparently is no problem for you.

Do you regard anyone who does not believe in a single deity an atheist,

No. There are polytheists, animists, spiritists, pantheists...the field is much more various than that. Atheists actually comprise an extremely small minority of the world's population, both historically and now.

To be an Atheist, one has to believe there are no gods or God at all, of any description, and probably that there are no supernatural entities of any kind, as well. For if one did purport to believe in the supernatural, then the idea of God would surely be back on the table, and one would merely be agnostic again.

I certainly agree the vast majority of human beings have always been gullible and superstitious holding endless supernatural beliefs. I am a little surprised that you only regard those who have no superstitious beliefs as atheists.

In other words, is theism belief in just any kind of supernatural existent, or only a specifically described deity?

Technically, in Comparative Religions parlance, for example, "Theism" describes any belief that includes a God or gods...and they tend do speak that way, even though those two are different concepts. The differentiation is usually made by the prefix, such as "poly-" or "mono-".

But I'm speaking of Judeo-Christian monotheism in particular...I just don't always bother to put the "mono-" prefix on, since these other belief systems are not conceptually part of the same package, and are actually differentiated from Judaism and Christianity by the fact of their referring to different entities than the real God.

What you seem to have said is that there is a definition of theism in the field of comparative religion which includes belief in any supernatural beings (mono- or poly- theism) and another definition of theism which is your own (and perhaps that of others who believe as you do) that only pertains to the, "Judeo-Christian," deity you call the, "real God." Is that right?

I don't see how that agrees with the view that a rejection of any deity (mono or poly), so long as there is belief in something supernatural, is not atheism, but if that is what you mean, essentially you only regard one who holds no view of the supernatural as an atheist.

If that's what you mean by atheist, fine. I still think identifying anyone in terms of what they are not gullible or credulous enough to even consider is a mistake.

[henry quirk]

Do you think anyone is being dishonest?

In context, as I say...

Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

Sorry henry, yer gonna have to spell it out for me. Who of the atheist/apatheist, religionist or opportunist is dishonest?

You mean are Dawkins, Hume, Nietzsche, Camus, Russell, Hitchens, or Hughes dishonest?

I can't say: I don't know enough about any of 'em to say which is atheist/apatheist, which is religionist, and which is opportunist.

Mannie could probably categorize them, but I don't know that he accepts the standard I laid out.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by, "atheist?"

The people who both declare themselves such, and are lauded as such: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche...all the ones that are ordinarily mentioned immediately when one speaks of "famous Atheists," or of "Atheist thought." That's who I mean.

Who would you cite as an example of Atheism?

I don't. If someone claims to be an atheist, I'll take their word for it...

Well, that means that you do think all those men were Atheists. And they all took a credal position against the existence of God. So Atheists do that.

I am a little surprised that you only regard those who have no superstitious beliefs as atheists.

Don't get too excited. I think I can show that Atheism is a) naive, b) irrational, and c) petulant, d) non-evidentiary e) either impotent in scope or overreaching, in every case, and f) unliveable in outcome. So I would say it comes well behind the field, actually.

What you seem to have said is that there is a definition of theism in the field of comparative religion which includes belief in any supernatural beings (mono- or poly- theism) and another definition of theism which is your own (and perhaps that of others who believe as you do) that only pertains to the, "Judeo-Christian," deity you call the, "real God." Is that right?

No, that's not quite it.

The "umbrella term" in comparative religions is the suffix -theism. The prefixes specify what kind of "-theism" is in view. But I pointed out that comparative religion view is flawed, because it takes for granted that, say, the many gods of polytheisms or the spirits of animisms are the same concept and entity as the Supreme Being of Judeo-Christian monotheism, which clearly they're not. (Even if one didn't believe in any of the aforementioned at all, that should be obvious to anyone who understands the relevant concepts.) So I think the comparative religion set are being a bit too politically delicate and a great deal too factually imprecise in assigning the suffix "-theism" to both.

[RCSaunders]

The people who both declare themselves such, and are lauded as such: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche...all the ones that are ordinarily mentioned immediately when one speaks of "famous Atheists," or of "Atheist thought." That's who I mean. ...

Call anyone anything you like and even say what they think and know. I have no idea why you are in such a sweat to assert what others think and believe, but, thought I don't agree at all, I'm not going to discourage you.

[Immanuel Can]

The people who both declare themselves such, and are lauded as such: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche...all the ones that are ordinarily mentioned immediately when one speaks of "famous Atheists," or of "Atheist thought." That's who I mean. ...

Call anyone anything you like...

I don't. They do.

Why don't you? On what basis do dismiss their confession? Do you accuse them of lying, or of misunderstanding their own position?

[RCSaunders]

The people who both declare themselves such, and are lauded as such: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Hume, Freud, Nietzsche...all the ones that are ordinarily mentioned immediately when one speaks of "famous Atheists," or of "Atheist thought." That's who I mean. ...

Call anyone anything you like...

I don't. They do.

Why don't you? ...

Because I'm not interested in labeling people, as though that were some kind of ground for judging them. "Well he's evil because he's an atheist, or agnostic, or liberal, or Marxist, or Republican, or Catholic."

The ideas and beliefs that determine my behavior are important to me, but it's not possible for me to what anyone else actually thinks and believes. All I have to go by is what they say and what they do. If someone says that do no believe something, that is all I can know. I cannot go on and psychologize and extrapolate, "well then that means he thinks and believes all this other stuff," which you just make up.

[attofishpi]

I have the God given right to call God a kunt, what I don't have is the forum right to call God a ****...because we are still in the world of childish twatfuckery.

[Immanuel Can]

Call anyone anything you like...

I don't. They do.

Why don't you? ...

Because I'm not interested in labeling people,

THEY do it.

Why do you reject what THEY say about themselves?

[Greatest I am]

God given rights. Do you really have any?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a right is given to us by governments, they assume and have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. If governments do not accept and do this enforcement duty, then citizens have a corrupted government.

If a right is given to a soul, by god, he would have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. The fact that they often are, indicates that he is shirking his duty.

To me, rights are like laws, completely useless and worthless unless they can be enforced by a given power when they are breached.

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none?

Regards
DL

Humanity doesn't have rights. We have obligations that can lead to rights. Man becomes aware of higher values above animal values of which obligations are a part of through the Spirit. Since we never read of voluntary obligations but only the demand for rights. the state will define your rights and give you obligations. The Great Beast becomes God. Let's see how that works.

“The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.”

― Simone Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties towards Mankind

I agree with your views but end more optimistically.

The first duty of a free person, or one who has taken a right, is to insure that all share in that freedom or right.

Yin and Yang.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

Psychobabble is speculative nonsense, but this rings true, and I think you for the compliments.

I have become my enemy and am a fundamental religionist. Religionist equates to tribal and tribal is in our DNA and is thus quite good.

I label myself a Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I have the God given right to call God a kunt, what I don't have is the forum right to call God a ****...because we are still in the world of childish twatfuckery.

I dislike the god religions but do not mind the knowledge and wisdom religions that put man above god.

Which of the vile religions do you see as the least vile?

Regards
DL

[Dubious]

It also depends from what perspective god and all its appendages is viewed. Historically considered the entire concept can be discounted since it only has a record of created gods and how they developed; from a philosophical aspect one can mindtrip on god in any manner one likes. From a theistic point of view god is a fixed entity that demands belief and total subservience to maintain itself not unlike a divine dictatorship ruling by divine right. It's ultimate injunction is to yield if you know what's good for you.