A Question for the Atheists and Agnostics

Pinkie: Don't equate not accepting a belief (soft atheism) with actually rejecting that belief (hard atheism).

admin: What's the harm in the mindset?

Pinkie: Because it's not an accurate understanding of their beliefs. It's like equating radical and mainstream Islam.

admin: I don't believe in mainstream Islam.

Pinkie: Then there's another harm there. Do you believe all Christians are the same too?

admin: No. I believe that Christians believe in their holy book. If they don't believe in their holy book they technically can't be called Christ followers. I've read the holy book of Islam. It's the best English translation ever, and I know what it calls Muslims to do. If Muslims aren't following their holy book they can't be called Muslims.

Pinkie: But words can be interpreted differently, and not everything they believe in is necessarily written in the Qu'ran. Islam is a general term for several different religions (Sunni, Shia etc). They may have many beliefs in common, but they are not all the same. As with Christians, I might add. Christians today believe heaps of stuff not technically in the Bible, and interpret the words of that book a specific way.

Atheist, too, is a general term. There are many different sects of atheism and not all of them outright reject God.

admin: That's like being a evolutionist and only believing 1/10 of what is normal.

Pinkie: Why?

admin: Because if you you profess to be a Muslim but only believe in 1/10 of what they teach you aren't a real Muslim.

Pinkie: But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there isn't one teaching that's "Muslim". "Muslim" refers to a person who believes in one of a much larger body of faiths. "Islam" is not just one religion, just like "Christianity" is not just one religion.

admin: But that's what I'm saying. I started the premise and you went off on your own trail.

Pinkie: If you accept that premise then why don't you accept that not all atheists believe the same thing about God?

admin: I accept that atheists don't believe in God.. That's why they are anti-theists. I also accept that to disbelieve God you also have to believe there is no God.

Pinkie: "I also accept that to disbelieve God you also have to believe there is no God."

Why? That's assuming a dichotomy - you don't have to believe at all. Soft atheism doesn't believe in a God nor does it believe there is no God. It just doesn't believe in anything. What would you call somebody who has never even thought of God?

Pinkie: Most of the dilemmas, confusion, and problems associated with the term "atheist" as we may perceive is the result of the English language. The English language is vague, obtuse, and ambiguous which leaves room for multiple definitions of the same word(for example atheism, blue, cat). The English language is too flexible so to get a precise definition is unlikely due to the English language. "Atheism" in French is very precise and meticulous about what is to be associated and what is not to be associated with said term.

Tophatdoc: You're right, atheism is not a replacement for religion. And religions do provide for entire belief systems. But becoming an atheist doesn't mean not having a belief system, or morals. It just means that those come from other sources. So it's irrational and short sighted to say that atheists are dangerous because they cannot morally distinguish between a bug and a human. It just means that whatever moral code they have, it's not derived from religion.

As far as why it's an option for "Religion" because it is more informative than, simply "none" since theists can also be irreligious. It's like having "bald" as an option for "Hair Color."

drafterman: First and foremost I reject your central premise outright. You say that it is "irrational" and "short-sighted" to say that atheists are dangerous. Atheism, does not state whether the bug or the human being has value regardless. So don't attempt to implicate your own opinions on what something is or is not when there are definitions in dictionaries.

I also believe human beings are irrational and that is why humanity is able to adapt, evolve, and progress. So that is a good thing, not bad. If human beings were like a computer and had central functions which were set definitely with consistency, human beings would still be stuck in paleolithic societies limited to core functions which would be unchangeable. Many studies in neuroscience on cognitive behavior support the idea that human beings are irrational creatures due to inconsistencies. I don't accept your views on "irrationality."

I also think you may be confusing ethics and morality. Although I am not quite sure because you mentioned "code," as in the practice of morals.

Tophatdoc: "Atheism, does not state whether the bug or the human being has value regardless."

Becoming an atheist doesn't mean not having a belief system, or morals. It just means that those come from other sources. So it's irrational and short sighted to say that atheists are dangerous because they cannot morally distinguish between a bug and a human. It just means that whatever moral code they have, it's not derived from religion.

If you're going to ignore what I'm saying, I'm just going to repeat myself.

drafterman: Hi drafterman.