Originally posted by KneverKnightThat's a little too nebulous to really comment on.
Hmmm ... tricky one.
Something that exists outside of normal physical processes, yet has impact on a person's sense of him/herself, something intangible yet intrinsic to a person.
Atheism literally means "without theism". Theism, of course, is the belief in a god or gods. So atheists lack any belief in any gods. That is literally all the term means, although it is usually extended to include a lack of belief in any supernatural phenomena as well.
Originally posted by rwingettI though atheists didn't have a point of view as a group except
The atheists, meanwhile, will concievably be made to feel unwelcome from posting their point of view in both the debates forum and the spirituality forum.
as it pertained to religion. This means that you aren't inhibited any
differently than the religious, no?
That is, there is no point of view that would be relevant in debates
that wouldn't necessarily have some sort of religious predicate to
inspire it (which, necessarily, would be over here).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioTricky, Nemesio, very tricky. What I mean, of course, is that it could be perceived that this forum has been assigned specifically to the theists. They would seem to be free to proselytize to their heart's content here. An atheist who wanted to contest their point of view would be made to feel as though he was intruding on their territory, so to speak. After all, the forum is titled "spirituality" and could be interpreted as being the exclusive domain of "spiritual" people.
I though atheists didn't have a point of view as a group except
as it pertained to religion. This means that you aren't inhibited any
differently than the religious, no?
That is, there is no point of view that would be relevant in debates
that wouldn't necessarily have some sort of religious predicate to
inspire it (which, necessarily, would be over here).
Nemesio
A person's atheism is only one facet of his entire being. By learning that someone is an atheist the only thing you can know for certain is that they do not believe in a god or gods. But they will, of course, have many beliefs that are not encompassed by their atheism, which they may wish to argue for. An advocacy of the theory of evolution is one that has a very high correlation with atheism. But one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Originally posted by rwingettI think I'm getting off topic here so I'll quit.
That's a little too nebulous to really comment on.
Atheism literally means "without theism". Theism, of course, is the belief in a god or gods. So atheists lack any belief in any gods. That is literally all the term means, although it is usually extended to include a lack of belief in any supernatural phenomena as well.
What's a nice atheist like you doing in a place like this anyways?
Originally posted by rwingett
Tricky, Nemesio, very tricky.
Please don't misconstrue my question. I'm not trying to be tricky.
I don't see how, if atheism has no tenets, no beliefs, no doctrines,
and no concepts except as a response to theism, how you would feel
the slightest bit censored in the debates forum.
And, as atheism only exists in response to theism, the only place to
discuss such a notion would be in either a thread containing a religious
idea or a forum for discussing religion.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why?
A person's atheism is only one facet of his entire being. By learning that someone is an atheist the only thing you can know for certain is that they do not believe in a god or gods.
Theism is only a facet of a person's being. Just someone who is an
atheist will necessarily a religious argument by virtue of its being
founded on a religious principle, a literalist (say) will accept that
argument.
But they will, of course, have many beliefs that are not encompassed by their atheism, which they may wish to argue for. An advocacy of the theory of evolution is one that has a very high correlation with atheism. But one does not necessarily follow from the other.
So, what would the debate be? I believe in evolution because xyz?
A literalist could make the same counterarguments they always do
without referring to the Bible (you know, carbon dating goes wrong
after 1000 years, or whatever). Neither you nor the literalist is
inhibited on that front.
Again, I don't see how this affects you any more than it affects Darfius.
If he wants to preach about God, then here's a forum. If you want to
preach against God, here's a forum.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ExyNyxie: " ... going down this path (notably its the Forum Wars mob who are the most vocal in this matter)"
This is the stance another forum takes on this issue and this has always been my advice to the admins with regards with how to deal with the issue of religious discussions. It's a no win situation and it has been the downfall of many other si ...[text shortened]... e the most vocal in this matter) then you'll reap what you sow.
..... and they like to depict themselves as champions of "Freedom of Speech", like Rwingett and No1, just to name two prominently vocal members of the "Forum Wars Mob", also known as "The Wolfpack" ...... and there are others who are anxious to embrace the priviliges they deny others.
I wonder what would have been the alternative solution ? To ban the most vocal of the streetfighters ?
EDIT: Of course the question is directed in particular to those who criticise the solution the admins have chosen.
Originally posted by rwingettRwingett: "... They would seem to be free to proselytize to their heart's content here."
Tricky, Nemesio, very tricky. What I mean, of course, is that it could be perceived that this forum has been assigned specifically to the theists. They would seem to be free to proselytize to their heart's content here. An atheist who wan ...[text shortened]... ith atheism. But one does not necessarily follow from the other.
You were always allowed to proselytise your intolerant views filled with hatred and resentment towards religious people, dear Rwingo.
Originally posted by NemesioMy only point in all this is that the forum title, "Spirituality", along with the little halo symbol, seems to be weighted in favor of the theists. I would like to see a more neutral term.
Originally posted by rwingett
[b]Tricky, Nemesio, very tricky.
Please don't misconstrue my question. I'm not trying to be tricky.
I don't see how, if atheism has no tenets, no beliefs, no doctrines,
and no concepts except as a response to theism, how you would feel
the slightest bit censored in the debates forum.
And, as atheism only ...[text shortened]... bout God, then here's a forum. If you want to
preach against God, here's a forum.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettThe symbol is not necessarily a halo. It may be an enso which is not a theist symbol.
My only point in all this is that the forum title, "Spirituality", along with the little halo symbol, seems to be weighted in favor of the theists. I would like to see a more neutral term.
http://www.doku-zen.de/images/bokuseki/315.jpg
I guess it's open to debate...
Main Entry: seg·re·ga·tion
Pronunciation: "se-gri-'gA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 a : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means b : the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group <segregation of gifted children into accelerated classes>