A very wise Atheist once told me..

[Union Yes]

That the UN should amend it's charter..

No child under the age of 18 can be indoctrinated with religion.

Whether it's creating war, or bashing gays, or brainwashing children, or oppressing women, or minorities.

No child should ever have that forced down their throat.
Religious indoctrination forces it down their throats.

Religion continues to behave very very badly.

What that Atheist said rings truer each passing day.
BTW his name was Richard Dawkins.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. HERE HERE! or Hear Hear! as you see fit.

[Union Yes]

11. It's all good.

:hi:

[bain_sidhe]

13. I'm partial to "Hear Here!" myself n/t

[Martin Eden]

56. Same here ... "Hear Here!" is grammatically functional

It says I hear you right here!

[Richardo]

2. Which just goes to show that atheists can be as stupid as anyone else.

I understand his point, and can even agree with it to some extent. (BTW, I'd extend it to political indoctrination as well. No person under 18 should be made to, or allowed to, carry a sign at a protest, especially if that sign is in the first-person singular).

But 'amend the UN charter'? WTF difference would that make?

Plus, in the US, there's that messy First Amendment of the Constitution to deal with. Good luck repealing THAT.

[aikoaiko]

3. Did he define indoctrination beyond "forced down their throat"?

[david13]

4. Yes, I agree. Dawkins does it again. He also says

you hear about christian children, etc.
They are not. They are merely indoctrinees subject to the propaganda of the parents.
And rarely have the intelligence or the option of making their own decisions.
dc

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Or what, the UN shows up at your house and ships you off to a camp? That was tried that already

Didn't work out too well for the Germans.

[spoony]

6. Lol.

What else can even be said about such a phenomenally idiotic statement?

[Union Yes]

10. Care to elaborate?

[MadHound]

7. What do you consider being "indoctrinated"?

Going to church, attending services, at what point does it become indoctrination?

And frankly why do you, or Dawkins, or the UN get to decide on how I raise my children?

Sorry, though I'm agnostic on the matter of religion, I find this POV of yours rather intrusive and foolish. Parents do have, within certain limits, the right to raise their children as they see fit.

[Union Yes]

9. Captive audience=indoctrination.

Do the children have a choice?

[MadHound]

12. Ah, so by the definition school is indoctrination as well,

As is other activities of youth. Whatever.

Sorry, but Dawkins, you and the UN have no say in this matter whatever.

What about parents who "indoctrinate" their kids in the philosophy of atheism? Should they be prohibited from doing that as well?

[darkstar3]

18. And how would anyone "indoctrinate" someone in atheism?

What are the strictures and dogmas of atheism? What ARE its doctrines?

Oh, right, none...

And while I personally don't agree, there are many people who live quite near me who believe that public school IS indoctrination. They are wrong simply because the schools in question do not in fact expose their captive audiences of children to specific doctrines and force them to accept them as truth. But while public school does not qualify as indoctrination, the same cannot be said about Sunday School.

[mrbarber]

25. You've obviously never had the pleasure of hanging around militiant atheists.

[darkstar3]

29. Well, considering I don't know what "militiant" means...

Is that a new word for belonging to a militia?

[Christa]

34. Please feel free to share.

I am curious to know more about the so called militant atheists.

In all my life I have never met one, but I have met many, far too many militant Christians.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

38. What the hell is a "militant atheist"???

Are the godless taking up arms and threatening violent revolution and the murder of police officers? Hmmmm - that DOES sound familiar. Was that atheists that were picked up in Michigan? Oh, you're right, my bad, that was actually a militant christian group. When you find a militant atheist group, please let me know.

Seriously, stop with the stock insults. It's childish and honestly doesn't make you look very good.

[jgraz]

51. My guess is... anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior

Isn't that how all the open-minded theocrats define it?

[beam me up scottie]

61. Run! Hide the babies! It's a militant atheist!

[darkstar3]

65. Good one! n/t

[TokenQueer]

111. Love it.

:spray:

[MadHound]

35. Of course you can indoctrinate somebody in atheism,

It too is a believe system like any other believe system. It is simply the believe that there is nothing, no god, no afterlife, no supernatural, etc. And just like any other believe system, one can be indoctrinated in it. Conversations with children about there being no god, etc.

But the fact of the matter is that we simply do not know what happens after death, or what the ultimate origin of our universe was, etc. Theists posit that there are mystical, supernatural beings involved. Atheists posit that there is nothing. But neither knows for certain, they are both operating on faith.

[darkstar3]

47. Incorrect.

From the Greek "A" meaning without and "theos" meaning gods or deities, an atheist is merely someone who lacks belief in any god or gods. There are atheists who believe in afterlife ideas such as reincarnation.

There is no doctrine, no dogma, no holy writ to atheism, and therefore it is impossible to indoctrinate (root words, people) anyone in atheism.

[MadHound]

48. So tell me then, do you know what happens after a person dies?

No, you can't. You, as an atheist, believe that we simply die, that's it, lights out. But you don't know that. It is simply a belief that you cannot prove. Thus, you engage in a belief system.

Atheists are just as dogmatic in their belief system as any theists, and a pox on both houses. The egos of both sides simply can't allow them to admit the truth, namely that they don't know, can't know the answers to those big metaphysical questions. So instead instead they flee into their separate corners and cling to their respective belief systems, holding them both up as the truth, when the truth is very simple, yet profound; we as humans simply don't know.

And both pass their belief system on to others, fight over their respective belief system turfs, both sides afraid of what they simply don't know.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

50. Then you are an agnostic,

Since you are admitting that you don't know one way or the other, then you are an agnostic.

This is what happens when people toss around terms without knowing what those terms mean. You call yourself an atheist, then by definition you believe that we simply die, there is no after life. You believe that there is no supernatural being(s). That is the meaning of being an atheist, if you don't trust me (even though I've read tons on this, taken several classes) then go do the research yourself. I'm not trying to "put beliefs in my head", I am accepting you at your word, since you argued the atheist side of the debate with vehemance, I assumed that you were an atheist. If not, then my apologies. But if you are going to call yourself an atheist on the one hand, and yet say that you don't know on the other, well, hey, you're agnostic.

As far as atheists who believe in reincarnation, well again, sorry, but they're not atheists either. They could be working the Deist line or something similar, or could be working their own personal spiritual vein, that's fine, but that's not atheism.

Words mean things, definitions mean things.

What falsehoods have I written? That atheists are dogmatic? Hell, you have to look no further than DU to see that. Same can be said about their egos, on both sides, not allowing them to admit to the truth. One side says some form of afterlife, the other says dirt. Both sides are adamant, and yes, like any other philosophical conflict, egos are tied up in the matter, which I do find to be a bit entertaining, but on the whole really kind of irritating for a number of reasons.

As far as ad hom tu quoque, well, if the shoe fits. . .:shrug:

So, which is it, are you agnostic or atheist. Sorry, but logic and theology both state that you can't be both, nor can you be an atheist who believes in some sort of scientifically based afterlife, again, that's a belief system. You don't have to answer me, I really don't care. But at least be honest with yourself about the matter.

[darkstar3]

53. Wrong.

So wrong, and yet so adamant. Ah, to be young again...

I do not believe in any gods. I am therefore an atheist.

I do not know what happens after death. That is mutually exclusive from any concept of god.

Agnostics who do not believe in any gods just happen to also be covered by the definition of atheist.

Now go back and read your own screed on language, and start taking your own advice. You have misused a large number of religious terms in this little subthread because you have convinced yourself that atheism is a "believe system". (Seriously? How do you fuck that up?)

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uberllama42]

134. It seems you are the one throwing around terms you don't understand

Atheism does not imply or necessarily entail a lack of belief in the afterlife. At the time of its origin, the term bore no such implication, and any disciplined use of the word today does not either. I have never seen a definition of atheism, even from the least reliable Internet dictionary, that includes a stance on the existence of an afterlife.

Most atheists in our society are also materialists, in the sense that they don't believe in any supernatural phenomena. But "atheist" and "materialist" are not coterminous. In this time and place there is a lot of overlap between the two, but that is not necessitated by the definition of "atheism."

I also don't accede to the notion that agnosticism is an intermediary position between theism and atheism. Agnosticism is an epistemological stance. An agnostic--again, assuming a disciplined application of the term--believes either that he does not himself know that answer to a question, or more broadly that no one can know that answer. The term is almost always applied to belief in God, but it need not be. Most of the Christians I know IRL are agnostics on "big-picture" questions. They believe in God and the afterlife, but they don't claim to know for sure whether that belief is actually true.

I believe that there are no gods and that there is no such thing as an afterlife, but at the same time I don't claim to know for sure that those things don't exist. There is no conflict in those positions. I think that, given the weight of evidence collected by science, the existence of personal gods as well as the existence of any human persona that persists beyond a person's death are both very unlikely. I would expect to see that the universe worked differently than it does if those things were true. On those grounds, I think their existence is very unlikely.

At the same time, I admit that my expectations about what a world with gods or an afterlife would look like might be incorrect. Maybe you would need to look at things from the other direction, so to speak. Maybe if you are a ghost--for lack of a better term--you can see all kinds of things in the world of the living that point to the existence of an afterlife, that living beings can't and don't understand.

I don't think that's the way things are, but I acknowledge that they could be that way. That makes me an agnostic. I also think that there are no gods. That--and that alone--makes me an atheist. These sophisticated uses of the terms are more correct, in my opinion, than the vernacular uses, in which atheism and agnosticism are discrete points on a spectrum. Those uses of the terms box them in and make them less useful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. Do you have a belief system that you were alive yesterday?

Do you have a belief system that a crocodile is not about to fall on your head? These too are beliefs you cannot prove. You cannot prove that your memory is not a story that has been fed to you, or that you made up and then forgot that you made it up. There are 'beliefs' common to any rational person - that our memories are a rough record of past events, that crocodiles are never seen falling through the air in the area you are in (though that is probably a belief implied by several other beliefs you hold), and so on.

But atheism is not a system. It is either a lack of belief in gods, or a belief that gods do not exist (and yes, I've read more of the rest of this thread than I wish I had - clearly "a lack of belief in gods" is an accepted definition, and one that makes sense given the derivation and history of use of the word). With either definition, it's only one belief at the most. That is not a system.

If you're going to say that every thing we think is a 'belief system', then it's a meaningless term.

You also ought not to unilaterally redefine atheism by claiming that it entails the belief there is no personal existence after death. It's possible to be an atheist and believe in reincarnation.

Why do you think the possibility of life after death is a big metaphysical question? Is that any bigger than the question of whether, during the periods we sleep, our minds are directing a small furry creature living on a planet orbiting Spica? This is the first time I have considered such a possibility. I suspect that most other people haven't considered it either (for a start, I suspect they haven't heard of Spica). Was this a part of all these people's belief systems? Do we need to add lack of clarity on small-furry-Spicaness to the list of philosophical failings of atheism and theism, because we can't prove what our minds are doing when we are asleep?

There is, however, no good evidence of the Spican creatures, and there's good evidence that our minds can't have effects on things that are light years distant, bound up in the laws of physics, the understanding of which has produced useful and reliable results. Similarly, there's no good evidence of life after death, and there's good biological evidence that the mind is a result of neural activity that is dependent on continued life of the organism (eg the effects of trauma, drugs or lack of oxygen on the brain).

We live our lives on similar good evidence, and don't let the lack of evidence for an infinite number of possibilities affect us much. Some people have tried to insert 'life after death' as something we need to worry about. I think 'life after death' is considered a 'big metaphysical question' because it's a claim of various religions, for whom it's a useful excuse for why one's life can continue to be shitty even after you do the things the priests tell you to. It's possibly the main con in religion - telling people they have to wait till they're dead for the really convincing proof of the truth of the religion. Since it runs against the experiences we all have in our lives, I think it's up to those making such a claim to provide some decent evidence for it, rather than saying "well you can't prove it's not true either". I can't prove Middlearth doens't exist either, but somehow that's not regarded as a big metaphysical question.

[TransitJohn]

132. Yes, I know what happens.

The body decomposes, unless it's been embalmed, in which case it decomposes slower.

[TransitJohn]

133. Delete, dupe n/t

n/t

[Christa]

33. Oh, come on!

You cannot be serious?

Don't you get atheism?

You cannot indoctrinate someone with nothing.

[MadHound]

37. But atheism is not simply nothing, it isn't a null

It is a belief system just like any other religion is. It isn't the truth, one must take atheism on faith that there is nothing after death, or that there are no supernatural beings. But since we don't know for certain, then one must take atheism, like any other religion, on faith and faith alone.

Therefore, since it is a belief system, one can certainly be indoctrinated by it. Sure, it isn't done in the formal manner that other religions are, but it is done none the less. There are many religions where parents are the indoctrinating influence, and atheism can be, and is, indoctrinated the same way.

[Christa]

42. You don't know for certain

as you just gave voice to your doubt about a god.

I know for certain. If you never bring it up, never talk about non existing deities, it is never mentioned, (except for Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy), there is nothing to deny, nothing NOT to teach.

See it this way: I assume your are Christian? You never talk to your children about Mohamed, you never taught them anything about Islam, or did you? I seriously doubt if you had.

It is exactly the same - the same way you ignored other religions, we just ignore ALL religions.

Atheism is not and cannot be indoctrinated. If what you said is true, you indoctrinated your children not to be Muslim or any other religion.

[MadHound]

45. That's the point, nobody knows for certain

Let's clear up some serious, mistaken assumptions of yours.

First off, I'm not Christian in any sense of the term. Though born into a Christian family, I gave up the faith, for a number of reasons, when I was twelve. On the subject of religion, I take the only true intellectually honest position, namely I don't know, I can't answer those big questions, i.e. I'm agnostic.

As an agnostic I recognize that nobody on this earth, the religious or the atheist, can honestly answer the big questions, what happens after we die, is there some supernatural being, how we got here. Anybody who says otherwise is simply being intellectually dishonest with themselves. It could be that, as the atheists believe, we are nothing and we simply die. It could be as the Christians state, we are judged and go to either heaven or hell, depending. We simply don't know.

Secondly, I don't have children. However I am around many children and do pass on my point of view to them, namely that neither I nor anybody else knows for certain, and if you do choose to follow one path over another, recognize that you are doing so by using faith, again, it doesn't matter if you're religious or atheist, you are still following that path by faith alone.

Oh, and for your information, I've studied many religions. I don't ignore any religion, including atheism, though I do find them all to be as I said earlier, intellectually dishonest.

As far as atheists go, sorry, but they do not ignore all religions. One has but to look in the news to see the ongoing war between atheists and other religions, mainly Christian, in this country. Sure, it isn't armed warfare, but it is still virulent and vicious. Atheists don't ignore other religions, they deliberately set themselves up in direct opposition to them, much as a person and their reflection in the mirror.

Atheism can be and is indoctrinated, I've explained this to you before. It happens all the time. What do you tell your children when they ask about God? Do you tell them that God is but one possible belief system and that we don't really know about these matters? Or do you tell this child that we're nothing but come from dust, go to dust, and there is no God? That is a belief system, and you have just indoctrinated that child.

[Christa]

55. Point taken, however

Whose word do you have about a god? The word of a bunch of superstitious illiterates who believed the earth was flat and the that the earth was the center of the universe, created for us by a god.

Not really evidence, I would say.

[MadHound]

58. I don't take the word of the either the religious or irreligious,

I use my own judgment and intellectual capabilities. That is why I came to the only intellectually honest position there is, namely agnostic, because quite frankly on the big issues of theology, spirituality, metaphysics, we simply don't know the answers. What happens when we die? We don't know, we can't know. How did we get here, again, we neither can nor do know the answer to that one. Therefore there is the possibility that there could be some supernatural being. There is also the possibility that there isn't, or, as I'm arguing with another poster about downthread, it could be some sort of combination. But the point is, we don't know, one way or the other, and anybody, be they theist or atheist, who claims otherwise is engaging in a belief system, ie a religious practice of some sort, even if it the belief in the null.

[beam me up scottie]

59. "I use my own judgment and intellectual capabilities"

There's the problem.

Stop redefining me, it's intolerant and illiberal.

[MadHound]

60. I'm not redefining you,

You define yourself. However words mean things, definitions mean things. If you call yourself an atheist, then that means that you believe that there is no afterlife and that there is no God, no supernatural being. This is the standard definition of atheist, you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, there is no scientific basis for this atheistic belief system because we simply don't know one way or the other, we can speak with certainty about there being an afterlife or not, a God or not.

[beam me up scottie]

63. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You go define your bad self anyway you want, but stop telling us what we believe based on your staggering ignorance and blatant intolerance.

[MadHound]

64. LOL, sadly typical, you don't have the intellectual facts to back up your POV,

So you resort to personal attacks and bullshit. Here, let me make this easy for you.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
<http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheism>

This is a pretty standard definition, and if you go further, atheism is the belief that there is no supernatural explanation for matters such as ultimate beginnings or whether or not there is an afterlife.

Have you taken any classes in philosophy or religion? Have you read any of the philosophical or theological works that concern religion? If not, I suggest that you go educate yourself. You seem to be operating on a definition that you yourself have made up for your own convenience. If you have anything solid to back your argument, I would be interested in seeing it.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Intellectually dishonest much? You skipped most of that definition, it actually reads:

a·the·ism (th-zm)

NOUN:

1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

What a piece of work you are.

[MadHound]

69. How does the rest of that definition prove me intellectually dishonest

Frankly I think number 2 only backs up my POV, being that it uses the word "doctrine". Hmm, where have we heard that before:think: Oh, yeah, in connection with theists, who also have a doctrinal belief system, as apparently atheists do:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

73. Cherry picking definitions to support ignorance and intolerance is intellectually dishonest.

Read it again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=242869&mesg_id=243428">post #81

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods.
You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

[MadHound]

76. Speaking of cherry picking,

You cherry picked your own post below, which has a lot of mention of belief in relation to atheism. Putting such cherry picked diatribes in large red print doesn't make them anymore valid, it just shows how intellectually desperate and dishonest you are.

See my answer to your post below for my full comment.

[beam me up scottie]

81. I highlighted the text hoping you would actually learn something from people who are BETTER INFORMED

Incredibly naive of me, I see that now, you didn't even read the citations or go to the links. :eyes:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

~ Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970

I see now that it's not your fault, you are simply incapable of understanding anything beyond your own ignorant, narrow and intolerant definition of atheism.

Sad.

[MadHound]

83. You're better informed? Really?

How much formal study have you done on this matter? How many classes have you attended, either in theology or philosophy? What is your reading on this subject? Or are you simply stating that you're better informed because you call yourself an agnostic?

[beam me up scottie]

First, Princeton is right, we lack belief. Second, you need to work on that reading comprehension.

The person I quoted makes you look like you're still playing with those cheap wooden in-anatomically-correct Noah's animals in Sunday School.

His name is Austin Cline

Austin Cline has been actively involved in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism on the Internet for over 10 years.
Experience:

Austin Cline is a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and a former Publicity Coordinator for the Campus Freethought Alliance. Austin has also lectured on religion, religious violence, science, and skepticism.
Education:

Austin Cline holds a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Arts from Princeton University. He also studied for one year each at the University of Zurich and the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich, Germany. In America, Germany, and Switzerland, Austin has studied both religion and philosophy.

So, yes, he certainly is more educated and informed than you.

The text I posted was from his website and is very relevant when one compares it to your religious ignorance:

Here he tries to explain the different types of atheism (I don't think he had you or the rest of R/T in mind when he penned it - try to muddle though as best you can:

Definition of Atheism: Dictionaries, Atheists, Others Define Atheism

What is the definition of atheism? How do atheists define atheism? How do dictionaries, standard and online, define atheism? There is some disagreement about the definition of atheism and it is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

***

Belief, Disbelief, and Denial: Disbelief is Not the Same as Denial

Atheists who try to explain what atheism is and is not encounter significant hurdles created by the failure of so many people to understand basic terms like belief, disbelief, knowledge, and faith. Atheists can't expect people to truly comprehend how atheism is the absence of belief in gods if they don't understand how belief differs from knowledge or how disbelief differs from denial. Atheists who can explain these basic concepts may find it easier to have productive discussions with theists.

Not Believing vs. Believing Not - The Difference Between Disbelief and Denial
Many have trouble comprehending that 'not believing X' (not believe gods exist) doesn't mean the same as 'believing not X' (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.

If you've made it this far ( :rofl: ) keep going, it gets better:

What do Dictionaries Say About the Definition of Atheism?:

Comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries use "disbelief in God or gods" when defining atheism. When we take a closer look at "disbelieve," we find two senses: an active and a passive. In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This broad definition of atheism is not new: atheists have been using it since at least the mid 18th century and dictionaries have been using it since at least the late 19th century.

What’s the Difference Between Belief & Disbelief?:

Is disbelief in an idea the same as believing that the idea isn’t true? No: mere disbelief in the truth of a proposition is not equivalent to the belief that the proposition is false and that the opposite is true. If you make a claim and I disbelieve it, I am not necessarily saying that your claim is false. I may not understand it well enough to say one way or the other. I may lack enough information to test your claim. I may simply not care enough to think about it. There are a variety of reasons why I might disbelieve something and the most basic meaning for disbelief is to simply lack belief.

Why Are There Misunderstandings About Atheism?:

Misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit a narrow, limited concept of atheism. Reliance on dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem.
It is possible that some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite — a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human beliefs or belief systems operate.

There's many more scholars where he came from, I could keep this up for weeks.

[MadHound]

89. But disbelief and belief are, epistemologically speaking, simply two sides of the same coin

"If the agent's epistemic state is represented by a ranking function ρ (on a field of propositions over the set of models ModL for the language L, as explained in section 1.3) the ordering ≼ρ that is defined for all α, β in L by

α ≼ρ β if and only if ρ(Mod(¬α)) ≤ ρ(Mod(¬β))

is an entrenchment ordering for B = {α ∈ L: ρ(Mod(¬α)) > 0}. Ranking theory thus covers AGM belief revision theory as a special case (Rott 2009 defines, among others, entrenchment orderings and ranking functions for beliefs as well as for disbeliefs and non-beliefs). It is important is to see how ranking theory goes beyond AGM belief revision theory. In the latter theory the agent's prior epistemic state is characterized by a belief set B together with an entrenchment ordering ≼. If the agent receives new information in the form of a proposition A, the entrenchment ordering is used to turn the old belief set into a new one, viz. B ∗ A. The agent's posterior epistemic state is thus characterized by a belief set only. The entrenchment ordering itself is not updated. Therefore AGM belief revision theory cannot handle iterated belief changes. To the extent that belief revision is not simply a one step process, AGM belief revision theory is thus no theory of belief revision at all. (The analogous situation in terms of subjective probabilities would be to characterize the agent's prior epistemic state by a set of propositions together with a subjective probability measure, and to use that measure to update the set of propositions without ever updating the probability measure itself.)"

Apologize for the inadvertent smilies, that's what happens when using abnormal characters. If you want, I suggest that you check out the original at the link below.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-belief/>

You've got a long way to go on this one.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Still waiting for you to define my atheism. What's taking you so long?

Just made more popcorn and grabbed a beer. :popcorn::beer:

[MadHound]

91. LOL, I've already been there, done that, like I've said many times before

Atheism is a belief system, just like theism.

You've gotten your intellectual ass kicked up and down this thread, yet for some reason:think: don't seem to realize it. But hey, that's what popcorn and beer does to a person, makes them slow and sloppy.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Explain how my lack of belief is different than this definition?

Atheism:
Definitions of the term "Atheism"


Overview:

Most of the North American public define an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

It is worth noting that most of the people of the world can be regarded as a type of Atheist. Of the Gods and Goddesses who have been worshiped down through the ages -- Athena, Baal, Bacchus, Bast, Brahman, Bridget, Diana, Eostre, Fergus, Freya, Horus, Isis, Marduk, Mithras, Nerrivik, Odin, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Shiva, Sophia, Thor, Vishnu, Vulcan, Zeus, and thousands of others, the vast majority of people believe in only a few. Most believe in a single deity -- the Trinity in Christianity, Allah in Islam, Yahweh in Judaism -- and thus deny the existence of the thousands of other deities. Such people can be considered Atheists towards these other Gods and Goddesses. In the same way, Roman Pagans considered Christians to be Atheists in the early years of the Church, because followers of Jesus denied the existence of all of the dozens of Roman deities.

Some background information about "Atheist"

*Syllabication: a·the·ist

*Pronunciation: ā'thē-ĩst

*Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots:
"A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"


This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

* A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].


* A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."

According to you, perfesser, I have a belief, define it.

[MadHound]

98. Ooo, printing everything really, really big makes it truer

:rofl:

I've given you prove, up and down this thread, it is getting tiresome repeating myself time and again. In fact I gave you an Epistemology link that truly explains this to you, if you will simply read it.

But rather you keep coming back with insults and personal attacks, and repeating the same nonsensical responses.

At least try something new, try to keep up with what I'm saying. Now do you want to proceed from my Stanford link on the Epistemology of belief, or do you simply want to continue hurling insults and bullshit?

[Goblinmonger]

125. If I were to say the things you are saying about atheists

about what any other religious individual believes, you would be going off on me about being a militant atheist. Your hypocrisy is, frankly, mind-numbing and sickening. Every atheist on here is telling you the same thing about what it means to be an atheist, but you insist on defining us in your way. And then you are incredibly obtuse as to why that might possibly just piss someone off. Then you go on to claim that your agnosticism is the correct way to go without an ounce of understanding about what atheism or agnostic is. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. They are not mutually exclusive. The gnostic part talks about the knowledge and the theist part talks about belief in god. But, hey, go ahead and continue to spout your nonsense about what we all believe.

[MadHound]

96. What, can't hack the nitty gritty of philosophical basics, so you're going out for snacks and beer

Sad, truly sad. What, formal Epistemology too much for you? It sure seems to be that case since all you can respond with is the snappy(or not) one liner and can't argue the substance of my post.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them

[MadHound]

102. Go look up the definition and etymology of the word disbelief

It might help.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Why don't you look up the word "atheist" and read more than one dictionary entry?

Although I doubt that would help since you're arguing from uninformed, willful ignorance.

[MadHound]

107. Oh I've done that and more,

I've actually studied the subject, taken classes in theology and philosophy that dealt with atheism, the nature of belief, etc.

What do you bring to the table? Oh, yeah, that's right, your opinion, personal insults, popcorn, beer and Wikipedia:rofl:

[darkstar3]

119. Ah, so you're a theologian.

No wonder you're confused. Studying other faiths and the lack of faith strictly from the point of view of superiority and "look how stupid these people who disagree with us are" is going to lead to some interesting debating tactics.

Now, in this entire clusterfuck, you've asserted multiple times that atheists cannot believe in an afterlife, but so far I've seen no source to back that claim. Either provide one here, or point me in the right direction. Where, exactly, did you learn that atheists MUST believe that there is no afterlife, and why, when you are shown repeatedly by multiple atheists here the error of your assertion, do you continue to stand by it?

You do, of course, realize that redefining someone's point of view into something that you can easily deride and tear down is the very definition of a straw-man, yes? I ask because in your logical fallacy of claiming that you argue from authority on the subject, you didn't happen to mention that you took any logic classes.

You might want to brush up on straw men, arguments from authority, the REAL meaning of ad hom, and many of the finer points of logic before you try pulling definitions out of your ass to paint the rest of us with.

[beam me up scottie]

86. dupe

[darkstar3]

68. I can do that too.

a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And I'll take Princeton over Yahoo! any day.

[MadHound]

70. Ooo, OK, let's play then

"To give a correct and fully general account of the nature of justified belief is difficult and inevitably controversial. Furthermore, though the notion of knowledge as justified true belief runs up against ingenious counterexamples proposed by Edmund Gettier (Gettier 1963) , nevertheless for the present purpose of distinguishing atheism from agnosticism it is good enough to treat knowledge as at least justified true belief."

I suggest you read, perhaps then reread the whole piece. I'll give you a few minutes.

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#4>

[beam me up scottie]

71. "Let's clear up some serious, mistaken assumptions of yours."

Oxford > Philosophy Dictionary:

atheism

Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.

Encarta:

atheist

a·the·ist (plural a·the·ists)

noun

Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Wiktionary:

atheism

Noun

atheism (plural atheisms)

Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Ultralingua:

atheism n.

1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God;

Wordnet:

Overview of noun atheism

The noun atheism has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts)

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Religious Tolerance.org:

Overview:

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

***

Some background information about "Atheist"

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots:

* "A" which means "without" or "not"

* "Theos" which means "deity"


This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

* A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].

* A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

***

The problem:

Most adults in North America are Theists: they have a definite belief in one or more deities. Jews and Muslims generally believe in a male God who is viewed as a unity. Most Christians believe in a Trinity which is composed of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- three personalities who are simultaneously viewed as a single entity. Others believe in a Goddess, a pantheon of male Gods, a group of female Goddesses or an array of Gods and Goddesses.

But there are other possible beliefs concerning deity among some non-believers: A definite belief that no deity exists. The individual is solidly convinced that no supreme being exists in any form.

No belief in a specific deity. Faced with a wide variety of conflicting beliefs about deities, the individual has not accepted any of them as true.

A belief that the existence of a deity is unlikely, but not impossible. No certainty exists. However, if the person had to make a decision based on the existence or non-existence of a deity, they would probably assume that no deity existed.

The inability to reach a conclusion about deity. The person may have investigated proofs about the existence and non-existence of a deity and has not accepted any of them. They remain undecided, at least for the present, because of insufficient data.

A belief that we cannot know anything about a deity, including whether one exists or not. The person may have concluded that there is no possibility that we can ever know whether a deity exists.

A person may never have ever considered whether one or more supreme intelligences exist.


There is a general consensus that:

A person who believes in a specific God, Goddess or combination of deities is a Theist.

A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is at least one form of Atheist.

A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.


But there is no consensus on how to classify the other possible belief systems about deity/deities listed above. Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.

"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.

Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.

The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

"Apathetic Atheism," or "Apatheism" have been suggested to cover the individual who doesn't really care whether Gods or Goddesses exist. They probably live with the assumption that no deity exists.

From http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm">About.com:

What Is Atheism? Strong vs. Weak Atheism

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism.

With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

And while this is not an official definition, it is one of my favorite essays on the subject:

Types of Atheistic Belief
uberkuh @ November 30, 2005 - 6:32pm

Atheism is popularly polarized as the opposite of belief in a certain deity. This vast oversimplification arises from the presupposition that atheism exists in one easily recognizable form for one obvious reason, namely, that one is stubbornly and of free will unwilling to believe in that deity's existence. In truth, atheism is a multifaceted term encompassing a range of meanings, some of which will be carefully explored in the following analysis.

To begin to uncover atheism's semantic richness, one need only ask why atheists exist. Many reasons can then be found that collectively paint a much less abstract picture of what atheism means to those who identify with it. Until one has attempted to understand why atheists are who they are, one's biases and arguments for and against atheism must be said to be superficial and trite, and should not be taken seriously.

Atheism can be divided into a number of hierarchical types. At the highest level of analysis, atheism can be divided into 'disbelief' (D) and 'belief' (B). 'Disbelief' can then be divided into 'aware' (Da) and 'unaware' (Du) types, while 'belief' can be divided into several types, to be discussed. I will explain each of these types and provide examples during the lowest level of analysis to clarify how atheists identify with them.

First, consider atheism as type D. D represents the absence of belief in one or more deities. This is a relatively passive type as opposed to B, which is relatively active. B contrasts with D as a belief in the nonexistence of one or more deities. As mentioned, D can be divided into Da and Du types. Da can be further divided into 'unmotivated' (Da1), 'incapable' (Da2), and 'unconsidered' (Da3) types, while Du can be further divided into 'able' (Du1) and 'unable' (Du2) types. Below are descriptions with examples for each D type.

I suggest you read, perhaps then reread the whole piece. I'll give you a few minutes.

[darkstar3]

72. Thank you for that. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

74. You looked lonely.

:)

[darkstar3]

121. C'est la vie, non?

:hug: Good to see you.

[beam me up scottie]

122. Oui!

:hug: I have to sleep eventually and I'm supposed to be working on my boat but this is fun too.

[MadHound]

75. Thank you,

If you notice one of the words that keeps appearing in all those posts is "belief". Gee, that fits right in with my contention that atheism is, like theism, a belief system. You don't know that there isn't a God, you believe it, you take it on faith because ultimately, in the end, you simply can't know, therefore you have to have a faith, or belief, that there is no God.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

Perhaps you should reread your own post to get a better grasp of this concept.

[beam me up scottie]

78. "A stupid man's report ...

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

~ Bertrand Russell 1872 - 1970

Thank you for proving his.

[MadHound]

79. Again, substituting personal attacks for intellectual discourse only makes you look foolish

You were the one who posted those varied quotes which back up my POV, so you have nobody to blame but yourself for such a gaffe.

But hey, we already have seen that, given the number of times your resort to the personal attack on this thread alone, that you are no intellectual heavyweight. Perhaps it would be best to stop while you are ahead:shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

80. When trying to discuss atheism w/someone who tells us we're too stupid to understand our own atheism

it is up to you to prove *what* we do and do not believe.

Since that lead to such an EPIC FAIL on your part, I should think you'd want to crawl away from this thread and hope it dies before any other atheists see it.



Non-atheist to atheist:

"You don't seem to know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. You seem to think that there can be atheists who believe in some sort of afterlife. You seem terribly confused as to what your own stance is, and as a result you are defending a position that you vehemently claim is atheist, but in reality is agnostic...blah...blah...blah...blah, blah..blah "

[MadHound]

82. Oh, I think that I proved my points, some of them using your own sources

While most of what you have contributed are simply personal attacks. So who has had the epic fail here, yeah, that would be you. But hey, if you want to continue try and prove your point, by all means, but try not to do so with the personal insults, they really don't bolster your position at all and make you look foolish.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Your disinformation has been successfully debunked (over and over and over) by DUers and scholars

You had nothing to bring to the fight; hell, intellectually you were naked.

[MadHound]

94. Wow, speaking of showing your intellectual ignorance

That little graphic of yours is historically inaccurate. Darwin, Franklin, Lincoln, Jefferson weren't atheists.

Franklin was a Deist as was Jefferson. As far as Darwin goes, his views fluctuated throughout his life, but even he states that he was never an atheist.

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

<http://darwiniana.org/religion.htm>

Lincoln's views on religion were guarded, and while he never formally joined a church, he did reference God, divine Providence etc. Most historians agree that he was somewhere between a Deist (he was heavily influenced by the writings of Paine) and agnosticism.

Geez, can't you get anything right?

[beam me up scottie]

100. Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them

[MadHound]

108. What, no comeback for being schooled on your evident lack of historical knowledge?

Yeah, I'd try to sweep that one under the rug too if I were you, it's just flat out embarrassing.

[beam me up scottie]

110. If you were able to feel embarrassed, you'd have stopped redefining us before you had to eat crow.

Oxford > Philosophy Dictionary:

atheism

Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further.

Encarta:

atheist

a·the·ist (plural a·the·ists)

noun

Definition:

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Wiktionary:

atheism

Noun

atheism (plural atheisms)

Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Ultralingua:

atheism n.

1. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

2. The doctrine or belief that there is no God;

Wordnet:

Overview of noun atheism

The noun atheism has 2 senses (no senses from tagged texts)

1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Religious Tolerance.org:

Overview:

Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries -- not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public's word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief.

***

Some background information about "Atheist"

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots:

* "A" which means "without" or "not"

* "Theos" which means "deity"


This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

* A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].

* A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

***

The problem:

Most adults in North America are Theists: they have a definite belief in one or more deities. Jews and Muslims generally believe in a male God who is viewed as a unity. Most Christians believe in a Trinity which is composed of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit -- three personalities who are simultaneously viewed as a single entity. Others believe in a Goddess, a pantheon of male Gods, a group of female Goddesses or an array of Gods and Goddesses.

But there are other possible beliefs concerning deity among some non-believers: A definite belief that no deity exists. The individual is solidly convinced that no supreme being exists in any form.

No belief in a specific deity. Faced with a wide variety of conflicting beliefs about deities, the individual has not accepted any of them as true.

A belief that the existence of a deity is unlikely, but not impossible. No certainty exists. However, if the person had to make a decision based on the existence or non-existence of a deity, they would probably assume that no deity existed.

The inability to reach a conclusion about deity. The person may have investigated proofs about the existence and non-existence of a deity and has not accepted any of them. They remain undecided, at least for the present, because of insufficient data.

A belief that we cannot know anything about a deity, including whether one exists or not. The person may have concluded that there is no possibility that we can ever know whether a deity exists.

A person may never have ever considered whether one or more supreme intelligences exist.


There is a general consensus that:

A person who believes in a specific God, Goddess or combination of deities is a Theist.

A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is at least one form of Atheist.

A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.


But there is no consensus on how to classify the other possible belief systems about deity/deities listed above. Some have suggested the use of modifiers, like:

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.

"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.

Peter Berger suggested that the term "methodological atheism" be used to describe theologians and historians who study religion as a human creation without declaring whether individual religious beliefs are actually true.

The terms "Noncoherent Atheist" or "Noncoherentism" have been suggested to cover the belief that one cannot have any meaningful discussions about deities, because there exist no coherent definitions of "god."

"Apathetic Atheism," or "Apatheism" have been suggested to cover the individual who doesn't really care whether Gods or Goddesses exist. They probably live with the assumption that no deity exists.

From http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/whatisatheism.htm">About.com:

What Is Atheism? Strong vs. Weak Atheism

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism.

With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god — if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

And while this is not an official definition, it is one of my favorite essays on the subject:

Types of Atheistic Belief
uberkuh @ November 30, 2005 - 6:32pm

Atheism is popularly polarized as the opposite of belief in a certain deity. This vast oversimplification arises from the presupposition that atheism exists in one easily recognizable form for one obvious reason, namely, that one is stubbornly and of free will unwilling to believe in that deity's existence. In truth, atheism is a multifaceted term encompassing a range of meanings, some of which will be carefully explored in the following analysis.

To begin to uncover atheism's semantic richness, one need only ask why atheists exist. Many reasons can then be found that collectively paint a much less abstract picture of what atheism means to those who identify with it. Until one has attempted to understand why atheists are who they are, one's biases and arguments for and against atheism must be said to be superficial and trite, and should not be taken seriously.

Atheism can be divided into a number of hierarchical types. At the highest level of analysis, atheism can be divided into 'disbelief' (D) and 'belief' (B). 'Disbelief' can then be divided into 'aware' (Da) and 'unaware' (Du) types, while 'belief' can be divided into several types, to be discussed. I will explain each of these types and provide examples during the lowest level of analysis to clarify how atheists identify with them.

First, consider atheism as type D. D represents the absence of belief in one or more deities. This is a relatively passive type as opposed to B, which is relatively active. B contrasts with D as a belief in the nonexistence of one or more deities. As mentioned, D can be divided into Da and Du types. Da can be further divided into 'unmotivated' (Da1), 'incapable' (Da2), and 'unconsidered' (Da3) types, while Du can be further divided into 'able' (Du1) and 'unable' (Du2) types. Below are descriptions with examples for each D type.

Explain why these sources are wrong using alternative sources that prove absolutely that your definition of "atheism" is the One True Definition™.

[MadHound]

113. You've posted all of that before, I've answered all that upthread,

And again, thank you for helping prove my point. Now then, would you care to discuss that historical inaccuracy you posted upthread, you know, the one concerning how Franklin, Jefferson, et al are supposedly atheists?

Oh, yeah, that's right, you got that wrong, much like you've gotten virtually everything you posted in this thread wrong.

Look pal, you really don't know what you're talking about, your lack of education is showing. My suggestion, give it up while you're still able to exit gracefully.

[beam me up scottie]

115. You answered nothing. Prove that my atheism isn't atheism. Cite references that refute my claim.

And prove that your personal definition is the only valid one.

Stop trying to dodge the question, put up or shut up.

[MadHound]

116. LOL! Put up or shut up? You sound like a twelve year old

Look kid, I've answered your questions, I've refuted your points, I've even tried to be civil to you, and yet you're responding with threats of violence here (much like any fundamentalist does when their belief system is threatened I might add).

It is pointless to continue this discussion with you, you apparently have to much emotional baggage wrapped up in this and aren't responding to reason. So I'm going to drop this now, and I suggest that you back away from the from the computer slowly and cool down, you're taking this way too seriously, especially for a supposed atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

118. And you debate like one.

Now that it's obvious to everyone reading this thread that you can't back up your claims, you wanna take your ball and go home.

Jeez, you're too timid to even tell me what I believe, c'mon, I'm an atheist, this should be easy for someone with your education.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

84. No, she's right, you really do have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not an insult if it's true.

[MadHound]

85. Really, so tell me then,

How is atheism not a belief system? An atheist has no empirical evidence that all we do is simply die. An atheist has no empirical evidence that there is no God. Atheists instead take all of those as simply a matter of faith. That means that it has a belief system.

[beam me up scottie]

92. This should be easy enough for ya:

Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities.<1> It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.<2> A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.<3>

The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century. Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist.<4> Between 64% and 65% of Japanese describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-believers,<5><6> and to 48% in Russia.<5> The percentage of such persons in European Union member states ranges as low as single digits in Italy and some other countries, and up to 85% in Sweden.<5>

Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence. Common rationales for not believing in any deity include the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from nonbelief. Other arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to the social to the historical. Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,<7> rationalism, and naturalism,<8> there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.<9>

In Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.<10> However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic.<11>

***



***

Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."<28> Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."<29> Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

In Western civilization, the view that children are born atheist is relatively recent. Before the 18th century, the existence of God was so universally accepted in the western world that even the possibility of true atheism was questioned. This is called theistic innatism—the notion that all people believe in God from birth; within this view was the connotation that atheists are simply in denial.<30> There is a position claiming that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis, that atheists make deathbed conversions, or that "there are no atheists in foxholes."<31> Some proponents of this view claim that the anthropological benefit of religion is that religious faith enables humans to endure hardships better (cf.opium of the people Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher February, 1844). Some atheists emphasize the fact that there have been examples to the contrary, among them examples of literal "atheists in foxholes."<32>

[MadHound]

95. LOL! Wiki!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

The final, or perhaps first, refuge for the intellectually weak and mentally bankrupt.

Wiki:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Get back to me when you have some peer reviewed material, not that crap that can be written, and altered by anybody.

[beam me up scottie]

99. ReligiousTolerance:Atheism is not disbelief in a deity; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them

Apparently, this is too confusing for you. A 3rd grader would have grokked the fact that there are many types of atheism and each atheist is different.

Do you have a kid who's still in school? Maybe some personal tutoring is in order.

[MadHound]

103. Your repetition of an etymologically incorrect definition of a word doesn't make it right

Even the third time you do it.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Your lack of evidence shows you're incapable of proving your claim.

Pfft.

2 one-liners in a dictionary and you think you're edumacated about atheism.

Like I said, I have a long list of scholars to back up my claim while you've got your opinion.

[MadHound]

106. Lack of evidence, pfft yourself.

You have yet to comment on either of the Stanford links I posted, and I'm especially interested in your reaction to the Epistemology one that I posted. Your only response to that was to eat popcorn and drink beer:rofl:

Would you care to comment on that piece, or are you simply going to continue to throw around more insults?

[beam me up scottie]

109. Here are the arguments that you're using to tell us what we believe:

What about parents who "indoctrinate" their kids in the philosophy of atheism?

***

It too is a believe system like any other believe system. It is simply the believe that there is nothing, no god, no afterlife, no supernatural, etc. And just like any other believe system, one can be indoctrinated in it.

***

You, as an atheist, believe that we simply die, that's it, lights out. But you don't know that. It is simply a belief that you cannot prove. Thus, you engage in a belief system.

Atheists are just as dogmatic in their belief system as any theists, and a pox on both houses.

***

Then you are an agnostic,
Since you are admitting that you don't know one way or the other, then you are an agnostic.

***

You call yourself an atheist, then by definition you believe that we simply die, there is no after life. You believe that there is no supernatural being(s). That is the meaning of being an atheist, if you don't trust me (even though I've read tons on this, taken several classes) then go do the research yourself. I'm not trying to "put beliefs in my head", I am accepting you at your word, since you argued the atheist side of the debate with vehemance, I assumed that you were an atheist. If not, then my apologies. But if you are going to call yourself an atheist on the one hand, and yet say that you don't know on the other, well, hey, you're agnostic.

***

So, which is it, are you agnostic or atheist. Sorry, but logic and theology both state that you can't be both, nor can you be an atheist who believes in some sort of scientifically based afterlife, again, that's a belief system.

***

It is a belief system just like any other religion is. It isn't the truth, one must take atheism on faith that there is nothing after death, or that there are no supernatural beings. But since we don't know for certain, then one must take atheism, like any other religion, on faith and faith alone.

Therefore, since it is a belief system, one can certainly be indoctrinated by it. Sure, it isn't done in the formal manner that other religions are, but it is done none the less. There are many religions where parents are the indoctrinating influence, and atheism can be, and is, indoctrinated the same way.

***

As far as atheists go, sorry, but they do not ignore all religions. One has but to look in the news to see the ongoing war between atheists and other religions, mainly Christian, in this country. Sure, it isn't armed warfare, but it is still virulent and vicious. Atheists don't ignore other religionsAs far as atheists go, sorry, but they do not ignore all religions. One has but to look in the news to see the ongoing war between atheists and other religions, mainly Christian, in this country. Sure, it isn't armed warfare, but it is still virulent and vicious. Atheists don't ignore other religions, they deliberately set themselves up in direct opposition to them, much as a person and their reflection in the mirror.

Atheism can be and is indoctrinated, I've explained this to you before. It happens all the time. What do you tell your children when they ask about God? Do you tell them that God is but one possible belief system and that we don't really know about these matters? Or do you tell this child that we're nothing but come from dust, go to dust, and there is no God? That is a belief system, and you have just indoctrinated that child., they deliberately set themselves up in direct opposition to them, much as a person and their reflection in the mirror.

***

If you call yourself an atheist, then that means that you believe that there is no afterlife and that there is no God, no supernatural being. This is the standard definition of atheist, you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, there is no scientific basis for this atheistic belief system because we simply don't know one way or the other, we can speak with certainty about there being an afterlife or not, a God or not.

***

But disbelief and belief are, epistemologically speaking, simply two sides of the same coin

***

If you notice one of the words that keeps appearing in all those posts is "belief". Gee, that fits right in with my contention that atheism is, like theism, a belief system. You don't know that there isn't a God, you believe it, you take it on faith because ultimately, in the end, you simply can't know, therefore you have to have a faith, or belief, that there is no God.

***

Really, so tell me then,
How is atheism not a belief system? An atheist has no empirical evidence that all we do is simply die. An atheist has no empirical evidence that there is no God. Atheists instead take all of those as simply a matt.er of faith. That means that it has a belief system.

Stanford?

Really?

Sounds more like you went to the Pee Wee Herman school of logic.

[MadHound]

114. Again, you have nothing so you're resorting to personal attacks in lieu of actual knowledge

You've been doing so for most of this thread. It is evident that you frankly don't know what you're talking about and don't wish to enlighten yourself. Therefore this exchange has become fruitless and pointless. So I'll just quit wasting my time and go on my way.

So go ahead, get your last childish word in, I know that you can't resist. But hey, that will just prove my point, that you substitute insults and attacks for actual knowledge.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Those are "your" arguments, you have no facts to back up your ridiculous claims.

If you did you would have produced them by now.


One more chance, back up these claims:

It too is a believe system like any other believe system. It is simply the believe that there is nothing, no god, no afterlife, no supernatural, etc. And just like any other believe system, one can be indoctrinated in it.

What a load of crap, that's not what I believe and I am an atheist.

You, as an atheist, believe that we simply die, that's it, lights out. But you don't know that. It is simply a belief that you cannot prove. Thus, you engage in a belief system.

How do you know what I believe?

So, which is it, are you agnostic or atheist. Sorry, but logic and theology both state that you can't be both, nor can you be an atheist who believes in some sort of scientifically based afterlife, again, that's a belief system.

Sorry, but your kind of "logic and theology" is bullshit. One can indeed be an agnostic atheist, and no, it's not a belief system either.

If you notice one of the words that keeps appearing in all those posts is "belief". Gee, that fits right in with my contention that atheism is, like theism, a belief system. You don't know that there isn't a God, you believe it, you take it on faith because ultimately, in the end, you simply can't know, therefore you have to have a faith, or belief, that there is no God.

Wow, that Stanford education is really paying for itself, isn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

88. See what I mean?

He hasn't read a single word that's been posted. He's a One Dictionary Fundamentalist.

[humblebum]

128. The history of organized atheism includes some heavy indoctrination. nt

[conscious evolution]

44. Did you have to say the

Pledge of Allegiance when you were young?
The Pledge is an excellant example of indoctrination.
The main function of schools,however,is the socialization of children.

[mrbarber]

24. So everytime my parents were lecturing me it was "indoctrination"

Sweet, someone get the UN involved!

And what about those kids that choose to go to religious events even if there parents are not religious? Or do you think that no child is intelligent enough to make any kind of decision for themselves? (unless, of course, they choose to be atheist, which we all know is the "right" choice. Give me a freaking break)

[Twillig]

41. "I'm agnostic on the matter of religion"

"Hello CSPAN, yes, thanks for taking my call Long Time Democrat voter here, but
I'm afraid to say that I will be voting Republican...etc. etc. "

Yeah, bullshit.

[MadHound]

46. Whatever, you don't know me,

You are simply projecting what you want to see. Whatever. What you choose to believe about me doesn't mean a thing to me, other than I see you in, well let's say, a diminished light. Somebody tells you the truth, yet you choose not to believe it, what does that say about you? Not much.

But, that matter aside, parents have the right to raise their children in whatever faith they wish, within certain defined limits. You wish to take that away from them, who are you to deny people these rights? Oh, yeah, that's right, a political chatboard bloviater with delusions of power. Nothing to be concerned about, bye.:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

66. "Whatever, you don't know me,"

You are simply projecting what you want to see. Whatever. What you choose to believe about me doesn't mean a thing to me, other than I see you in, well let's say, a diminished light. Somebody tells you the truth, yet you choose not to believe it, what does that say about you? Not much.

[MadHound]

77. Ah, more ad hominem, personal attacks substituting for intellecual discourse

Of course this is, coming from you, no surprise at all.

[darkstar3]

120. You obviously have no idea what ad hominem means,

or you would have recognized it in your own post that BMUS is quoting. I suggest you stop using big words and phrases until you know the full meaning behind them.

[iris27]

126. No, we've just seen it all before.

It's always the "agnostics" who are the most vocal in support of religion and trying to assert that strong atheism is the only atheism, when 90+% of atheists have never even met a single strong atheists.

Tell me, do you have a belief that zombies don't exist? Are you indoctrinating children in this belief?

[Mojambo]

8. Parents insist on the right to fuck up their kids however they wish.

There's no changing it either.

[patrice]

14. Real Freedom should be a, if not The, guiding value in all things.

[Warpy]

15. Robert Service said it best

The Skeptic

My Father Christmas passed away
When I was barely seven.
At twenty-one, alack-a-day,
I lost my hope of heaven.

Yet not in either lies the curse:
The hell of it's because
I don't know which loss hurt the worse --
My God or Santa Claus.

Most of us atheists had religion shoved at us when we were kids and the religion died the same death Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all did and for the same reason.

People who wish to behave badly will do so with or without religion, as the antics of the anti religious Communist Party demonstrated in the last century and the antics of the Ayn Rand fans demonstrate now.

Monstrous people will find an excuse to do monstrous things, in other words, and they will find non monstrous people to go along with it.

[conscious evolution]

43. Santa and the bunny are the start of

the indoctrination.
They teach toddlers there is a magical being that goes around the world once a year giving them good things if they are good little children.
When they are older this makes it easier to get them to believe in another magical being that will give them good things.The only difference is that you have to die before you get the good stuff.

Anyone in the advertising biz will tell you it is easier to brand a person for life when they are young. Think Joe Camel.
The jesuits have a saying 'Give us the boy at six and he will be one of us at sixty'

Wiki has a pretty good page on indoctrination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
This page also has some very informative links to related topics.

Frankly,many people responding to your OP should spend some time studying the concepts behind the processes involved.

[MineralMan]

16. Dawkins isn't always the cleverest atheist in the room...

Parents teach their children what the parents believe. No UN Charter Amendment will affect that. Dawkins does not speak for me...as usual.

[1monster]

17. I've not indoctrinated my child with any religion. He is seventeen now, and an agnostic and confused

But at least he doesn't have to unlearn or learn to unbelieve the things that terrified me when I started down my own spiritual road.

What does bother me though, is the contempt which he occasionally shows toward believers of any religion. I tell him they, too, are making their own spiritual journeys and that he should respect the people making that journey to what brings them peace with themselves and their universe.

My spiritual journey is on going and most likely will be until I die. I embrace no formal religion and no dogma but I'm open to and examin whatever possibilities come my way. And that is what I hope for my son.

[darkstar3]

19. Unenforcable and overreaching.

Don't get me wrong, parents who emphatically teach their children about certain religious topics such as hell are quite obviously committing a form of mental and emotional abuse. But even if more people in this world agreed with that statement, there would be no way at all to enforce the rule, and it reaches too far beyond the scope of what the UN is really supposed to do anyway.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. The Soviet Union had such a law

and despite such a law existing for 70 years, the Soviet government was able only to reduce, not eliminate religious faith.

Mainly because they didn't understand that religion is experiential rather than intellectual. They thought that if they proved that the world wasn't created in six days, then everyone would quit the Orthodox Church and become atheists.

Look, I'm sorry if the OP had negative experiences with religion, but in my childhood, religion was a joyous and enriching experience.

Obviously, judging by the number of ex-fundie, ex-Mormon, and ex-Catholic atheists on this board, religious "brainwashing" isn't as powerful as Dawkins and others make it seem.

But even there, I'd rather see a child indoctrinated with such a religion than be raised by the type of parent whose approach to values is "Whatever," because then you end up with a child who is an absolute sitting duck for the empty values of the commercial culture.

Raise your children as Christians, Jews, or Muslims. Raise them as socialists, Communists, libertarians, vegetarians, scientific materialists, but please, raise them as SOMETHING. Give them a CORE set of values to follow or rebel against.

[darkstar3]

21. So atheists have no values? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. No, that's not what I said

I said to raise your child with whatever values you have. Duh, of course atheists have values.

But this lazy "I'll let my kids make up their own minds" is irresponsible, because the values that the kids end up with is mindless consumerism. Corporate America and the corporate media LOVE the children of parents who have abdicated their responsibilities to their children's ethical development.

[darkstar3]

27. Good, then.

Glad to have that clarification. I wouldn't have bothered, but it just seemed above like you were making a dichotomy between "religious" parents and "whatever" parents. If only we could all communicate telepathically, perhaps we wouldn't have such problems embodied by the phrase "did you REALLY mean x?"

[mike_c]

36. letting kids make up their own mind....

There is another way, which is basically the way I always dealt with the question of religion while my daughter was growing up-- and still do, for the most part. Bear in mind that I'm a total secularist, atheist, scientist, and cynic. I disdain religion. I don't simply have my doubts, I have a strong anti-religious perspective.

It would not have been possible for me to remain "neutral" on the topic while my kid was growing up. Instead, I realized that no one can "make up their own minds" about anything-- or at least they can't do it intelligently-- without information to base their decisions on. At the same time, I'll be damned if I was going to try to be objective about what I consider one of the most destructive tendencies in human nature.

I also realized though that the one essential component of letting kids make up their own minds is simple respect for their ability to do so, without interference. I modeled my choices in my own life, and explained them when she asked, but mostly she didn't ask. She did some minor religious things over the years, going to church or other religious services with other family members or with friends, occasionally. Her mother and I did not interfere, but we also did not participate. She amassed whatever information seemed interesting to her. I'm sure some of her family-- not her immediate family, but grandparents and the like-- tried hard to make a religious believer of her because they cannot conceive of any other life except in cartoon terms.

Religion, spirituality, belief in the supernatural-- all of those seem to hold little interest for her today, in her adulthood. She's as atheist as I am, I think. Her husband certainly is. I modeled my broader values for her, too, some of which she adopted herself, but some not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. But I'm sure you imparted SOME values, whether you knew it or not

It's the "we have no values except following the latest fad and/or conventional wisdom" parents who end up with empty-headed, confused kids.

[mrbarber]

23. Richard Dawkins=wise?

Hahahaha. No.

[jgraz]

52. Hahahaha. Yes.

[charlie]

26. When did Dawkins say that?

I know he deems religious indoctrination to be a form of child abuse. And he regards religious labelling ("a Protestant child") to be a presumptuous and reprehensible practice.

But, did he call for the UN to codify religious protection for children? If he did, I missed it. Can I have a link, a citation?

[beam me up scottie]

62. He didn't. Googled it and the only reference is this thread on DU, another msu citation.

:eyes:

[charlie]

93. Aw gee, isn't that swell?

Thanks for checking. I thought I missed something HUGH111!!!

So, now I guess we'll get to see if this circle jerk launches a rumor that'll appear on Snopes in a few months.

[Jim__]

28. Would Dawkins allow us to teach our children about patriotism?

About history? About wrongs done to us in previous wars? About wrongs done to us by surrounding ethnics? About our native culture? About our native values?

Please, tell us, oh wise one. What can we teach our children?

[darkstar3]

30. I was following you until you got here:

About wrongs done to us in previous wars? About wrongs done to us by surrounding ethnics?
That sounds strangely...jingoistic, for lack of a better word.

[Jim__]

31. It's just someof the things that children normally learn about in the process of growing up.

A few other things that lead to war, racism, etc. Dawkins' concerns seem to always zero in on religion while ignoring the rest of reality that can be blamed for the serious problems of humanity.

[darkstar3]

32. That would be for two reasons, maybe more.

1. Religion is often a cause, a justification, and an enabler of war, racism, etc.
2. Dawkins likes to sell books, and not being afraid to piss people off is one way to do that.

[conscious evolution]

40. I agree

[OneBlueSky]

54. wise indeed . . . the two most destructive forces in human history have been . . .

religion and nationalism . . . and neither seems to be losing much steam these days . . .

[humblebum]

124. Oh really? The Communists were hardly nationalists, but they were atheists

and they were responsible for the mass killings of an estimated 130 million people(democide)in the 20th century. A record.

[ironbark]

135. "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."

-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

[humblebum]

123. Lenin said the same thing. nt

[iris27]

127. Source?

Sorry, this just doesn't sound like Dawkins.

[humblebum]

129. Dawkins did sign a petition in England calling for no religious

indoctrination in the home for children 16 and under.

[iris27]

130. Dawkins believed he was signing a petition against teaching creationism in schools.

The bit about indoctrination was hidden under a link labeled "More details from petition author". He repudiated his signature on the petition as soon as he was made aware of the second bit. In any case, the petition you speak of was not addressed to the UN, but to the British prime minister (who BTW has no law-making power, only Parliament does).

[humblebum]

131. A man of Dawkins' intelligence doesn't accidentally sign such a thing,

plus he has intimated that same idea since then.

[iris27]

136. So you don't believe his retraction. I do.

It's your prerogative to believe he's disingenuous if you want.

I have seen nothing of his supposed intimations of "that same idea" since then. He is personally against the labeling of children with a faith identity before they choose one themselves, and doesn't like the idea of parents teaching their kids "Our religion X is true and here's why all the others are wrong." But he has never advocated putting the force of law behind his opinion in this matter.