Elton John: ban organised religion

[Heresson]

that's just a term

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Will9
Atheism is not a faith, or a religon. It is a world view.

Nobody said it is "a" faith let alone a religion; it was only argued that the assertion defining atheism relies on faith.

[Perfection]

@Darius

Well, the dictionary definition doesn't indicate that atheists must believe that "There must not be a God" (logical impossibility) rather that "There isn't a God" (various empirical rejections that admit possibility would be included). I think my definition fits with that scheme but I suck at semantic debates and I'm not attached to my definition so I'm not gonna push it much further.

My chief point is that atheists don't have to discount God as being impossible.

The whole agnosticism/atheism thing is a messy semantic debate that I don't care too much about. I call myself an atheist because agnosticism sometimes has the stereotype of being wishy-washy and self-unsure.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
rather than that he directly agrees with the view that organised religion should be banned.

Why wouldn't we be better off with assuming that he meant exactly what he said?

[Aeson]

I agree the way atheist is used can be confusing. The way to avoid confusion is to look at what a person actually says, rather than what they label themselves as.

Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God. Those who claim there is no God are practicing this form of atheism. It is a statement of belief.

Weak atheism is a lack of belief that there is a God. Those who say they don't know or don't care are practicing this form of atheism. It is a statement of lack of belief (at least in regards to God).

Belief itself is not a problem. Without it, we would all cease to function in the face of any uncertainty. As everything is uncertain to some extent, so to is a corresponding extent of belief necessary to function. Using belief to deny that that uncertainty exists is the problem. That gets in the way of doing what is necessary to address the uncertainty and reduce it through further advances in understanding.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Perfection
Well, the dictionary definition doesn't indicate that atheists must believe that "There must not be a God" (logical impossibility) rather that "There isn't a God" (various empirical rejections that admit possibility would be included).

Even the latter statement doesn't admit possibility AFAICS, and failure to admit possibility is, IMO, itself a leap of faith. "Since there has been no proof of a god's existence, I consider the notion of god completely irrelevant in my life" is about the only conception of atheism that I find devoid of faith.

Originally posted by Perfection
The whole agnosticism/atheism thing is a messy semantic debate that I don't care too much about. I call myself an atheist because agnosticism sometimes has the stereotype of being wishy-washy and self-unsure.

I hate semantic debates as much as you, but in my experience the use of the term "atheism" is ultimately counterproductive for the beliefs most atheists actually hold. Whereas "atheism" is a term tarred by so many pejorative connotations that theists just plug their ears and shout lalalaIcan'thearyou, agnosticism is a notion most theists can at least understand despite respectful disagreement. Which option do you think contributes to a healthier discourse and a more tolerant society?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Aeson
I agree the way atheist is used can be confusing. The way to avoid confusion is to look at what a person actually says, rather than what they label themselves as.

Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God. Those who claim there is no God are practicing this form of atheism. It is a statement of belief.

Weak atheism is a lack of belief that there is a God. Those who say they don't know or don't care are practicing this form of atheism. It is a statement of lack of belief (at least in regards to God).

Belief itself is not a problem. Without it, we would all cease to function in the face of any uncertainty. As everything is uncertain to some extent, so to is a corresponding extent of belief necessary to function. Using belief to deny that that uncertainty exists is the problem. That gets in the way of doing what is necessary to address the uncertainty and reduce it through further advances in understanding.

I agree 100%, but as I said in the post above this the 'strong atheists' have unfortunately stigmatized atheists as a whole, which has permanently stifled any advances in understanding.

Regardless of who is actually at fault for this stigma, I'm saying adoption of agnosticism would be the pragmatic decision for 'weak atheists.'

[chequita guevara]

I'm with Dawkins.

[Odin]

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Odin
Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color

...and who called atheism a religion?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Darius871
Even the latter statement doesn't admit possibility AFAICS, and failure to admit possibility is, IMO, itself a leap of faith.

Well it goes to the notion of, "Yes, it's logically possible, but that logical possibility is such insufficient evidence that we can realistically assert that such a notion utter baldardash and call it wrong."

Originally posted by Darius871
I hate semantic debates as much as you, but in my experience the use of the term "atheism" is ultimately counterproductive for the beliefs most atheists actually hold. Whereas "atheism" is a term tarred by so many pejorative connotations that theists just plug their ears and shout lalalaIcan'thearyou, agnosticism is a notion most theists can at least understand despite respectful disagreement. Which option do you think contributes to a healthier discourse and a more tolerant society?

No, I'm not changing just to validate thier pajoritive stereotypes. That's just crappy PC-mongering.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Perfection
No, I'm not changing just to validate thier pajoritive stereotypes. That's just crappy PC-mongering.

Fair enough then, but you would only be changing a mere word to advance unchanged beliefs. In the long run the status quo will do them a disservice, but that's your choice.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Darius871
Fair enough then. I just think in the long run you're doing your beliefs a disservice.

Why? People should get over labels.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Perfection
No, I'm not changing just to validate thier pajoritive stereotypes. That's just crappy PC-mongering.

So why let a pejorative stereotype determine things the other way around?

I call myself an atheist because agnosticism sometimes has the stereotype of being wishy-washy and self-unsure.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Perfection
Why? People should get over labels.

Should they? Yes. Will they? **** no!

In light of this there's something to be said for pragmatism.

Edit: and what Aeson said.