Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Subscriber Tom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    31 May '18 21:00 / 1 edit
    Just came across this in a generic search "When did the definition of atheism change." According to this writer, it changed around the turn of the century, just as I suspected:

    "From what I have been able to research, the “new age” definition is not that old. The earliest mention of it that I could find was after 2001.

    Prior to that redefining, atheism was in direct opposition to theism. That is where the ‘a’ comes from. Theists stated that “there is a God,” while atheists, standing in direct opposition, stated that “there is no God.”

    "Penn Jillette, a self proclaimed atheist (I dare say anti-theist) alluded to this new age definition in his book "God, No!" (c. 2011). In post book interviews, he was asked why he did not believe in God. His answer was:

    “What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist -- I don't know. If I don't know, I don't believe. I don't know exactly how we got here, and I don't think anyone else does, either. We have some of the pieces of the puzzle and we'll get more, but I'm not going to use faith to fill in the gaps. I'm not going to believe things that TV hosts state without proof. I'll wait for real evidence and then I'll believe.”

    Penn Jillette’s position is actually agnosticism: “I don’t know.”
    - Christopher Finch, PhD Theology, CSI/Forensic Scientist
  2. Standard member Romans1009
    Cretinous Mutterings
    31 May '18 22:09
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    Just came across this in a generic search "When did the definition of atheism change." According to this writer, it changed around the turn of the century, just as I suspected:

    "From what I have been able to research, the “new age” definition is not that old. The earliest mention of it that I could find was after 2001.

    Prior to that redefining, ...[text shortened]... ually agnosticism: “I don’t know.”
    - Christopher Finch, PhD Theology, CSI/Forensic Scientist
    Great post.

    Atheists apparently want to hedge their bets by softening their stance, but it won’t wash. Just as ignorance of the law and knowingly breaking the law are the same things from a legal perspective.
  3. 31 May '18 22:25
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    Just came across this in a generic search "When did the definition of atheism change." According to this writer, it changed around the turn of the century, just as I suspected:

    "From what I have been able to research, the “new age” definition is not that old. The earliest mention of it that I could find was after 2001.

    Prior to that redefining, ...[text shortened]... ually agnosticism: “I don’t know.”
    - Christopher Finch, PhD Theology, CSI/Forensic Scientist
    Claiming only a lack of belief that deity exists, changes the burden of proof in terms of what is to be proven. It makes the proof subjective and rather uninteresting: proving one lacks a belief.

    That particular atheist can even admit that s/he believes there is no God, acknowledging that s/he has no proof, because whenever a proof comes to light the theists, if need be, modify the biography of God, to retain nondisprovability. This is possible because the theists as the positive and prior claimants, rightfully own the rights on the biography of this God they believe in.

    Of course ownership of this right is self-serving to the interests of whoever owns it.
  4. 31 May '18 22:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    Great post.

    Atheists apparently want to hedge their bets by softening their stance, but it won’t wash. Just as ignorance of the law and knowingly breaking the law are the same things from a legal perspective.
    No doubt, John 3:18 takes care of these bet hedging stance softeners.

    “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son.”
  5. Standard member Ghost of a Duke
    Zen Master
    01 Jun '18 09:51
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    Just came across this in a generic search "When did the definition of atheism change." According to this writer, it changed around the turn of the century, just as I suspected:

    "From what I have been able to research, the “new age” definition is not that old. The earliest mention of it that I could find was after 2001.

    Prior to that redefining, ...[text shortened]... ually agnosticism: “I don’t know.”
    - Christopher Finch, PhD Theology, CSI/Forensic Scientist
    Not sure if it is 'new age' or not, but my own atheism is quite straight forward.

    I am not 'anti' religion (unless it impacts negatively on people or myself) and am genuinely pleased for folks who believe they have found answers that make them happy and secure. (Even if I don't agree with them). Many of the people I work with find great strength and solace in their chosen faith, so I certainly wouldn't begrudge them that.

    As an atheist, I am not anti God or God hating, simply because I do not believe God is there at all. This has been discussed before, but personally I don't see how I could be anti something or hate something that I don't believe is real. It really would be like a declaration of my hatred for unicorns.

    I live a life void of God, but not a life that has a void. I have not replaced God with any alternative, just like the lack of unicorns in my life hasn't left a unicorn shaped hole in my existence. I'm generally an optimistic and hopeful person, with a morality that works for me and the people around me.
  6. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    01 Jun '18 10:12
    Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
    Not sure if it is 'new age' or not, but my own atheism is quite straight forward.

    Ditto.
    I'll defend anyone's right to believe whatever they like.
    But if you want to make claims, or debate, then I'll be on the side of relationism.
  7. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    01 Jun '18 10:16
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    Just came across this in a generic search "...
    What is the point of your post?
    Semantics does not change the fact of gods existing or not existing.

    Redefine "atheist" as a lover of soccer.
    So what?

    Define a non-believer in a god as a "tulip".
    So what?

    I'm a tulip.
    Happy?
  8. Standard member sonship
    the corrected one.
    01 Jun '18 12:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Ditto.
    I'll defend anyone's right to believe whatever they like.
    But if you want to make claims, or debate, then I'll be on the side of relationism.
    I'll defend anyone's right to believe whatever they like.


    Then you must be immoral.

    Do you defend Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold right to believe they can go into a school and massacre twelve students in Columbine ?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    01 Jun '18 12:25
    Originally posted by @sonship
    I'll defend anyone's right to believe whatever they like.


    Then you must be immoral.

    Do you defend Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold right to believe they can go into a school and massacre twelve students in Columbine ?
    Oh bravo! sonship, bravo!
  10. 01 Jun '18 13:05
    Originally posted by @romans1009
    Great post.

    Atheists apparently want to hedge their bets by softening their stance, but it won’t wash. Just as ignorance of the law and knowingly breaking the law are the same things from a legal perspective.
    What do you think motivates an atheist to 'hedge their bets'?
  11. Subscriber Tom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    01 Jun '18 13:50
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    What is the point of your post?
    Semantics does not change the fact of gods existing or not existing.

    Redefine "atheist" as a lover of soccer.
    So what?

    Define a non-believer in a god as a "tulip".
    So what?

    I'm a tulip.
    Happy?
    The thread was spawned by another conversation. If you don't see the relevance in the topic--which comes up on almost a daily basis--then go to some other thread. So what.
  12. 01 Jun '18 14:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
    Just came across this in a generic search "When did the definition of atheism change." According to this writer, it changed around the turn of the century, just as I suspected:

    "From what I have been able to research, the “new age” definition is not that old. The earliest mention of it that I could find was after 2001.

    Prior to that redefining, ...[text shortened]... ually agnosticism: “I don’t know.”
    - Christopher Finch, PhD Theology, CSI/Forensic Scientist
    I used to hate Penn for his atheism simply because he seemed so smart, and why should that argument get to claim someone with such a hard-on for the truth when truth was supposedly on the same side I was on?
    I loved him for his rejection of convention and his bottom line hopefulness evidenced by his sense of humor, his honoring of all those around him.

    Quite frankly, I didn't know what to do with him!

    And then I watched hours and hours of his show (with his partner, Teller) called Fool Us, and it all made sense.

    He wants to believe.
    Desperately.
    But he knows nearly all the tricks and he needs to be fooled-fooled, not simply temporarily ignorant of device.

    I now love that man, for his bravery, for his integrity in remaining true to his core.
    Tempted at every turn to simply give in, let the emotion run over him, inundate and flood his mind and being, he remains cool, detached and objective--- as though his life depended upon it.
    As though all of existence was riding on the right answer.
    What I viewed previously as stubborn will, unjustified pride, I have been taught better now to see: we are each responsible for our choice in this matter.
    We only get the one vote.
    He considers that choice deadly serious, as though all of eternity rests in the balance.

    Do I?

    EDIT: Great post; sorry to detract from the main point.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    01 Jun '18 15:12
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    I used to hate Penn for his atheism simply because he seemed so smart, and why should that argument get to claim someone with such a hard-on for the truth when truth was supposedly on the same side I was on?
    I loved him for his rejection of convention and his bottom line hopefulness evidenced by his sense of humor, his honoring of all those around him.
    ...[text shortened]... ernity rests in the balance.

    Do I?

    EDIT: Great post; sorry to detract from the main point.
    Ask sonship to threaten this Penn chap with being hung out burning on chains for eternity. If fear might turn "people from other worlds" into Christians, maybe it'd work on Penn.
  14. 01 Jun '18 15:26
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    I used to hate Penn for his atheism simply because he seemed so smart, and why should that argument get to claim someone with such a hard-on for the truth when truth was supposedly on the same side I was on?
    I loved him for his rejection of convention and his bottom line hopefulness evidenced by his sense of humor, his honoring of all those around him.
    ...[text shortened]... ernity rests in the balance.

    Do I?

    EDIT: Great post; sorry to detract from the main point.
    It's fine, we all enjoy novel twists on Pascal's Wager.
  15. Standard member Romans1009
    Cretinous Mutterings
    01 Jun '18 15:26
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    What do you think motivates an atheist to 'hedge their bets'?
    That they may be wrong and God does exist. But the way they’re hedging their bets by retreating into agnosticism is futile.