How Americans Feel About Religious Groups

[TownieDeac]

That's essentially a linguistics theory that I guess is the non-believer's version of Apophatic Theology. That's different than believing that God does not exist. I doubt the majority of Atheists ascribe to that theory (in fact it would seem inconsistent for a self-described Atheist to ascribe to that theory).

Yes. Exactly. Precisely. It's my point, and it describes the concept that it's an absurd concept not worth linguistically having.

 

[RChildress107]

Yes. Exactly. Precisely. It's my point, and it describes the concept that it's an absurd concept not worth linguistically having.

Fair enough. It's not really relevant to the discussion though, other than to say that any discussion surrounding distinctions between Atheists, Agnostics, and Theists is non-sensical because the word "God" has no meaning.

It doesn't really counter my point that Atheism is a positive belief that there is no God.

 

[tiltdeac]

Even if that's true Atheism isn't a blank slate. Agnosticism would be the blank slate.

I'd argue the opposite. Strict agnosticism is a positive belief that we cannot know whether there is or isn't a deity, while atheism at the most fundamental level is simply an absence of believe in deity(s). I'll grant that common use doesn't support these definitions, though.

 

[TownieDeac]

Not to mention a blank slate is ignoring the conceptions of God, not considering them whatsoever. It's not not having an opinion, or being undecided in the face of the question.

 

[RChildress107]

I'd argue the opposite. Strict agnosticism is a positive belief that we cannot know whether there is or isn't a deity, while atheism at the most fundamental level is simply an absence of believe in deity(s). I'll grant that common use doesn't support these definitions, though.

Yeah I was going off the common use of agnosticism. Weak atheism is an absence of belief. Strong Atheism isn't.

 

[RChildress107]

Not to mention a blank slate is ignoring the conceptions of God, not considering them whatsoever. It's not not having an opinion, or being undecided in the face of the question.

Yeah mdmh already covered this technicality, but I don't think that's how numbers (or whoever brought it up originally) was using it.

 

[TownieDeac]

Yeah mdmh already covered this technicality, but I don't think that's how numbers (or whoever brought it up originally) was using it.

A priori knowledge or understanding isn't a technicality, it's the source of this debate.

 

[RChildress107]

A priori knowledge or understanding isn't a technicality, it's the source of this debate.

I don't think we will ever agree because you appear to be coming from a position that belief in a super-natural deity is the natural, default position and, therefore, absence of belief can be framed as "positive belief that God does not exist." Is this correct? I come from a paradigmatic frame in which everyone is born an atheist.

I agree with P4nthers. Everyone starts off a blank slate IMO.

Interesting conversation, though, as a theist (and more than that, a Christian), I view all of Creation as the product of the Creator (God) and think there is something in all of Creation that innately knows its source. I certainly get the idea that "we're born agnostic/atheist," and from a purely philosophical view, probably agree. But from a theological view, I'd say we start as something close to agnostics, but being tuned towards our Creator- the struggle is to hear those notes and respond.

That's the source of this debate. Which is really a side debate that spun off from the initial debate about whether Atheism entails a positive belief (or set of beliefs).

Numbers used blank slate to refer to "atheist" in Panthers post. He did not mean it in the sense you used it.

 

[Deacfreak07]

The atheists are being the biggest dicks on this thread for what it's worth.

 

[TWDeac]

I think the conversation has been pretty level headed so far.

 

[TownieDeac]

That's the source of this debate. Which is really a side debate that spun off from the initial debate about whether Atheism entails a positive belief (or set of beliefs).

Numbers used blank slate to refer to "atheist" in Panthers post. He did not mean it in the sense you used it.

The atheists are being the biggest dicks on this thread for what it's worth.

agreed

 

[awaken]

Consider Helen Keller
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/joyanyway/joy232.html

In one of her letters, Helen told Bishop Brooks that she had always known about God, even before she had any words. Even before she could call God anything, she knew God was there. She didn't know what it was. God had no name for her -- nothing had a name for her. She had no concept of a name. But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God's love. And when she received the gift of language and heard about God, she said she already knew.

 

[TWDeac]

Consider Helen Keller
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/joyanyway/joy232.html

Forgive me if I don't hold this account with the highest regard. I'm sure there are a few blind atheists that would give a different viewpoint.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Yeah again, I'll say that I'll tolerate being labeled obnoxious or abrasive with my atheist beliefs if the alternative is staying silent and creation being taught in schools. I don't mean to be rude on here though since I acknowledge that were just having a discussion on sources of knowledge and not really having a policy debate.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Yeah again, I'll say that I'll tolerate being labeled obnoxious or abrasive with my atheist beliefs if the alternative is staying silent and creation being taught in schools. I don't mean to be rude on here though since I acknowledge that were just having a discussion on sources of knowledge and not really having a policy debate.

I think you could change a word or two in this passage, and it's an evangelical ranting about teh gheys. I get what you're saying, and I don't think creationism has any place in the classroom either. However, you (and 94 too) tend to consistently come off as intolerant as the most conservatively religious posters on here (probably Wrangor) when it comes to religion.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Yes I'm pretty intolerant of religion because I believe it ultimately leads to a society content with the status quo and unwilling to advance with the times.

For the most part atheists aren't on what most objective individuals might consider "the wrong side of history"

 

[Wakeforest22890]

People can believe what they want but if it rises to a level where it is heavily impacting public policy (i.e. Education) I personally prefer intolerance of beliefs to avoid views like creationism from being in the curriculum. If there weren't vocal opposition to these policies in many districts - essentially casting a religious belief as something not worth teaching in school - then we would be in a totally different situation in curriculum

 

[Wakeforest22890]

So yes it is viewpoint bias on my part.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Forgive me if I don't hold this account with the highest regard. I'm sure there are a few blind atheists that would give a different viewpoint.

This may seem heretical, but I believe that just as "nature abhors a vacuum", so does human nature.

 

[awaken]

Yes I'm pretty intolerant of religion because I believe it ultimately leads to a society content with the status quo and unwilling to advance with the times.

For the most part atheists aren't on what most objective individuals might consider "the wrong side of history"

So you're a Crusader?