PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Theism and atheism, to me, are primarily concerned with the belief or nonbelief of whether the universe was brought into existence through the act of a conscious entity or that life was brought into existence through the act of a conscious entity. If you think the universe is a conscious entity that consciously brought life into existence, you are a theist (pantheist or panentheist or whatever the heck they call that position). If you do not think the universe is a conscious entity and you do not think the universe was brought into existence through the acts of a conscious entity, then you are an atheist.
I think the term "supreme being" is irrelevant to this discussion. The atheist can call the universe itself the supreme being. The word "being" is merely a contraction of the word "be" and the suffix "-ing," which is a way of something "something that exists." The word "supreme" merely means "that which is the greatest." Does it contradict atheism to say the universe is "something that exists and it's the greatest of things existing"? Of course not. I agree with others that the phrase is often seen as relating to a conscious entity but a literal interpretation of the phrase itself does not connote that quality.
As far as I can tell, the position outlined by RationalAnswers is an atheistic position.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Well, this topic took an interesting turn.
If I was supposed to be impressed by this trick, I wasn't.
Here are the problems I had with what you said in this post. Correct me if I've misunderstood you.
Those types of contrarian atheists are out there, but I think it would be a mistake to hastily assume that most atheists, or even most recent atheists, fall into that category.
What if someone isn't interested in making complicated philisophical arguments? What if someone just wants to say "I don't believe in god because I don't believe in Santa Claus"?
What if someone chooses to doubt the existence of a god based solely on what they know about biology? What would be wrong with that?
Speaking only for myself, I never tried to refute your point of view through semantics. I only ever said that if the term "supreme being" is problematic, and if the common understanding of the term can't be helped, then you should use a different term rather than going on about how it shoudln't necessarily mean a god.
Whatever your beliefs are or were staged to be, my discussing the semantic problem wasn't an argument against those beliefs.
Here was your reply to my post:
I understand what you're saying, and I agree (though too late for it to matter) that "the most important thing in existence" does not necessarily mean a god. The point of my post was simply that "supreme being" is problematic. You can't accuse people of being contrarians for their inability to get past the commonly understood meaning of those words paired together in that way.
We face a lot of theists on this site, and we see many arguments that have been presented to us countless times before. When you come here asking us to consider a new definition of supreme being, you may as well be asking us to understand that "big bang" simply means a bang that is big. It could mean that, yes, but you can't heckle us for assuming the more common meaning.
As far as "the most important thing in existence" goes, it can also point towards theism. If you were to phrase it more like "the most important thing in existence to me" then it wouldn't seem quite so troublesome. But by simply saying "the most important thing in existence", it sounds like there is a single most important thing in existence being offered. I would be much more willing to put the theist label on the latter.
Yet you nor she has any way of knowing who is a so-called "neo-theist" and who is not. An inability to argue effectively, a failure to understand your post, or a failure to read your post thorougly does not automatically make someone a "neo-theist" who is ready to "shove God's penis right back up his butt".
I find that statement to be a little ignorant, and the "test" carried out to prove it to be... well... "inconclusive" to be nice, but "shitty" to be honest.
I really don't think it did. It's true that "supreme being" does not necessarily equal "god", but you can't label us contrarians who only engage in semantic games for thinking so. We've seen theists try to validate their beliefs by trying to redefine terms or make up new ones. Also, the common understanding of "supreme being" is that it means "god". Those who labeled you as a theist probably didn't read your posts thoroughly enough or didn't entirely get them. And it makes sense that they wouldn't, as it would make sense for people to raise an eyebrow at someone who said "red herring" should not be assumed to mean a logical fallacy.
I'm curious to know what you said "in our defense" and whether or not the people here would agree that you were a good representative.
You had to defend me? How so? All I said was that supreme being has an understood definition and if you have beliefs that don't involve a god, you shouldn't apply the term, because people would be inclined to think that you believed in a god. As others said, it is a loaded word.
I somehow doubt that I was well-represented.
Seems reasonable. I wouldn't disagree with that.
Where has this been proven to be the case?
Can't atheism attract the less spiritually inclined and intelligent people? Can't someone be less spiritually inclined and intelligent?
Why does a person have to be "attracted" to atheism? Many people on this site were simply born atheists and remained that way.
Thanks. But don't start blowing yourselves yet.
I'm not so much offended by the fact that you did an expirament here as I am by the fact that you seem to be drawing conclusions that I don't think can be drawn. I was also offended by the fact that you needed to "defend" me, and yet I get the feeling that I was not being honestly represented.
RRS has a specific approach to promoting atheism. They tend to favor the "in your face" approach. It would be great for everyone to accept atheism based on their own logic and understanding of science. But I don't see anything wrong at this point in just promoting atheism as an acceptable position on the nature of the universe. Honestly, if a person wants to be atheist just because they find no more reason to believe in God than Santa Claus, then they're perfectly welcome.
That being said, just because the site bears the name "Rational Response Squad" does not automatically mean that everyone who speaks in the name of atheism on this forum claims to be familiar with philosophy or science. They might just be here to learn. They might just be here because they are contrarian. They might be here to argue biology, geology, archaeology, psychology, philosophy, or mere common sense. They might just be here to throw insults. Don't assume you know who you're testing.
How many individual posters actually replied?
How many members does this forum actually have?
Do you really think you've got some kind of great sample out of this that proves your friend's claim?
You sound as if you've come with presuppositions about who you would be sampling and then came to a hasty conclusion when you got bored. That is probably the most insulting thing about the whole ordeal.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I want to talk to the clove-smoking little sewing circle without the false pretenses.
It wasn't the false pretenses that were annoying/insulting. It was the fact that he and his "philosophy group" made a handful of presuppositions in this little test of theirs and then came to a poorly supported conclusion. As if that wasn't bad enough, he then went ahead to pat his group on the back as if something meaningful had been accomplished.
You can't suppose something about thousands of people based on a poorly constructed internet "test" that only sampled about ten of them. You also can't suppose anything about the site itself, since we have many more than 10 members.
I get the sneaking suspicion that this is a group of philosophy majors (or a philosophy major that is lying about his "group" ) that think they're a bunch of Socrates-reborn deep thinkers and love constructing trite ways to inflate their already swelling egos.
Now if I could just think of a really shitty way to test this claim and then assume it to be proven true based on an inadequately-sized sample group... hmmm....
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
He's gone. It was absurd. Let's let the damn thread die, eh?
Yeah I think it does if you believe in a supreme being or entity or what not which is supreme to us (human beings)....I pretty much think it does make you a theist.
---George Carlin---
Atheists are the higher prophets of "god", not the theists, not the religious, ask Dawkins and Harris about this, .... "atheists for god", reinventing this hugely important word g-o-d, as it ain't going away soon, .... I am an atheist so of course I believe in god, god is an atheist. ..... hijack the god word from the religious right, we atheists have to be more cleaver, simple people want god , focus on the regular people ..... Jesus was an atheist, etc etc , geezzz and more war tomarrow, WTF to do ?????
Atheism Books.