Whats to post?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
This is better than the Strong Atheist DIR, whereMay I respectfully ask where to find the rules that state that? I would accept it as an arbitrary rule set by the mods but together with the explanation it becomes highly (respectfully) questionable.
What's the problem with that?
Maybe this is the problem.I was responding to the succession of posts up-thread that all essentially agreed that agnostics don't know anything.
Of course, if an agnostic knows that agnostics don't know anything, then they would seem to know at least that.
I don't know if atheism necessarily "usurped" agnosticism.
I hardly "insist" upon what is common usage.Where a few decades ago they would have been classed as 'agnostics', today the atheists insist on including them under 'atheism's' banner.
Maybe you should get out of your ivory tower and get to know the rest of us?When I was a philosophy major (early 1980's) the word 'atheist' was interpreted in the academic world to mean one who believes/asserts/claims that the proposition 'god exists' is a false proposition. Effectively the denial of god's existence.
Sorry.Where a few decades ago they would have been classed as 'agnostics', today the atheists insist on including them under 'atheism's' banner.
Not only Atheism has been watered down in colloquial language, but so has Agnosticism. Most people think of an agnostic as someone who states that he doesn't know whether a god exists.When I was a philosophy major (early 1980's) the word 'atheist' was interpreted in the academic world to mean one who believes/asserts/claims that the proposition 'god exists' is a false proposition. Effectively the denial of god's existence.
Then (I first became aware of it in the 1990's on the old usenet group alt.atheism) atheists started insisting that atheists merely lacked the belief that 'god exists', without necessarily believing that 'god exists' is false.
I believe that idea originated with Anthony Flew's distinction between 'strong atheism' (the view above that 'god exists' is F), and 'weak atheism' (simply lacking the belief that god exists without necessarily asserting god's nonexistence).
There seemed to me to be several motives for this move to a new atheist emphasis on 'weak atheism'. For one, it enabled atheists to insist that newborn babies are born into the pristine purity of atheism (they lack belief in anything including god) and only subsequently are corrupted by society. Hence atheism is supposedly mankind's natural state. And it facilitated atheists insisting that atheism has no burden of proof, since atheists simply lack a belief and aren't asserting the truth of anything.
I find both of those arguments to be unconvincing and even disingenuous.
My point up above was less combative, I was merely suggesting that 'weak atheism' intrudes on agnosticism's historical turf and seemingly would include those who are reasonably certain that they don't already know the secret of the universe. (Including whether or not anything exists that corresponds to the idea 'god'.)
Where a few decades ago they would have been classed as 'agnostics', today the atheists insist on including them under 'atheism's' banner.
Hence fewer self-acknowledged agnostics and less action for a forum like this one.
This is something religionists refuse to understand.We, on the other hand, decided two things. We are apes and not getting any better than that. And, very importantly, meh.
Shooting then a dirty glare is persecuting to them. No more school prayer is discrimination. Not being able to teach the Bible in public school is the persecuting Jesus said would happen as the conspiracy of secularists who are serving the devil fight to get rid of Christianity.But somehow, losing their ability to persecute me has turned into being persecuted.
and not just any Christian, but a particularly unpleasant, intrusive variety of Christian that can't leave nonmembers alone... Quaker would not be acceptable...Catholic would not be acceptable...Shooting then a dirty glare is persecuting to them. No more school prayer is discrimination. Not being able to teach the Bible in public school is the persecuting Jesus said would happen as the conspiracy of secularists who are serving the devil fight to get rid of Christianity.
For those who don't know, that is really how many fundamentalists do believe. Chick Tracts they don't see as nonsensical comedy, but very serious warnings. And they do want to ideally see all of society, including the state Christian.
When I was a philosophy major (early 1980's) the word 'atheist' was interpreted in the academic world to mean one who believes/asserts/claims that the proposition 'god exists' is a false proposition. Effectively the denial of god's existence.
Then (I first became aware of it in the 1990's on the old usenet group alt.atheism) atheists started insisting that atheists merely lacked the belief that 'god exists', without necessarily believing that 'god exists' is false.
I believe that idea originated with Anthony Flew's distinction between 'strong atheism' (the view above that 'god exists' is F), and 'weak atheism' (simply lacking the belief that god exists without necessarily asserting god's nonexistence).
There seemed to me to be several motives for this move to a new atheist emphasis on 'weak atheism'. For one, it enabled atheists to insist that newborn babies are born into the pristine purity of atheism (they lack belief in anything including god) and only subsequently are corrupted by society. Hence atheism is supposedly mankind's natural state. And it facilitated atheists insisting that atheism has no burden of proof, since atheists simply lack a belief and aren't asserting the truth of anything.
I find both of those arguments to be unconvincing and even disingenuous.
My point up above was less combative, I was merely suggesting that 'weak atheism' intrudes on agnosticism's historical turf and seemingly would include those who are reasonably certain that they don't already know the secret of the universe. (Including whether or not anything exists that corresponds to the idea 'god'.)
Where a few decades ago they would have been classed as 'agnostics', today the atheists insist on including them under 'atheism's' banner.
Hence fewer self-acknowledged agnostics and less action for a forum like this one.
This is better than the Strong Atheist DIR, where
only strident comments are allowed (no questions).
The mods are a strange bunch, eh.
That's optional.I thought the Strong Atheist DIR was just for those with strong odor.