Claiming to be atheist, but..

I see your point, but I think it makes sense to distinguish between the following two positions though:

1) Someone who isn't confident enough to even make an educated guess on the issue

2) Someone to whom the existence of God is about as unreasonable as the existence of pink, flying unicorns

According to your definition, both represent Agnosticism. If it were suddenly universally accepted that atheism is a subcategory of agnosticism, I'd be happy too. The problem's just that some theists as well as agnostics accuse atheists of being dogmatic and 'having faith in the non-existence of God'. And in theory, it's possible to be a 'dogmatic/gnostic atheist', though this hardly ever happens.

Oh well, let's drop this. We agree on the actual parameters, the rest is just semantics. I'm more and more convinced that labelling people 'atheist' was a very bad strategy to begin with.

"I find it more satisfying to describe myself as placing my confidence in logic, reason and the scientific method."

-- Good point, I should start doing that too.

Well, it was nice to briefly revisit the topic so thanks for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's a simple question of advocation, which you do not understand. You self label yourself as The Atheist (the being a definite article, and in this context, an affirmation) and don't realize that you by doing so have taken a stand.

---

Fallacy upon fallacy.

I do know what I'm advocating, and my name, complete with the definite article was chosen very deliberately to make a statement and a stand. That's a stand by me personally, nothing to do with "atheism", or any other atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Someone who does not believe in a deity need not concern themselves even with the notion of atheism, as atheism in itself stems from an understanding of the world within a dialectic question (atheism would be the anti-thesis to theism) but really non-believe predates belief.

---

Nonsense.

Atheism means what it has always meant and it's quite simple:

"a" without + "theism" belief in god/s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I do not believe in God, I just don't think people who pontificate with such a zealous anti-theism public should act as if they are somehow morally higher because of their lack of belief.

---

Which people are these? I repeat that I have repeatedly asked you to identify these mythical anti-theists you're railing against, but I have yet to see evidence of them. I actually know a couple of strong anti-theists, but they generally keep it pretty quiet.

Where are these zealous anti-theists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Simply put, not believing in a deity in itself signifies nothing about the morality of character, and believing in God does not particularly either.

---

Very good, we found something to agree on at least.

I have been labouring that very point.

The rest of your post appears to be no more than personal observations about me, and therefore irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

You seem to be opposed to people posting their views on message boards.

---

That's the strangest part. It appears that atheists shouldn't enter religious debates, but it's ok for non-theistic non-atheists to enter debates on atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodo25

This isn't quite true. (Preference) utilitarianism has gained a lot of support recently and is now regarded by many philosophers as the ethical theory. Its flawlessly consistent, and the basic axioms are of a sort you can't sensibly disagree with. The standard objections to utilitarianism are almost as misguided as the standard objections to atheism. Some philosophers will never understand that, but as long as the arguments for utilitarianism crush any argument against it, who really needs an overall 'consensus'?

---

No, you're putting the cart well before the horse here, because utilitarianism pre-supposes that value to a species, group or individual is somehow moral. Not to mention who decides what is "desirable".

It'll make a good subject for discussion elsewhere if you want to start a thread, but a bunch of philosophers agreeing on it being cool isn't anything like consensus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

If you don't want people to talk about this, why are you talking about it? If you dislike theist/atheist debate, why are you here debating it? You seem to be opposed to people posting their views on message boards. Advice? Get over that and have fun talking with people on message boards, or try your hardest to get them shut down (good luck with that), or excuse yourself from activities you despise. I don't know if it's clear, but no one else is making personal attacks. Best wishes in resolving your conflicts.

---

I am not debating the existence of God, I told you, I do not believe in God. It is you who are forcing the debate, I never once have mentioned such a debate. I am talking about this obsession with confrontation people who call themselves atheists have, this obsession with promoting their non-belief. I didn't make any personal attacks, it is you who are making personal attacks.

All you're saying is that you object to people expressing opinions of anti-religiosity. I don't see why though, the opinion is as relevant and open to debate as any other.

My own anti-religiosity only extends so far as pushing towards secularism in the public sphere.

I suppose I interject occasionally in religion debates when people make false claims about evolution, which usually make me cringe as a biologist, or some other grossly inaccurate statement.

And the occasional jab when I'm feeling *****y.

I'm not sure any of that qualifies as promoting atheism though.

My take on the issue in a nutshell...

http://media.fthink.org/wp-content/u...3/morality.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I am not debating the existence of God, I told you, I do not believe in God. It is you who are forcing the debate, I never once have mentioned such a debate. I am talking about this obsession with confrontation people who call themselves atheists have, this obsession with promoting their non-belief. I didn't make any personal attacks, it is you who are making personal attacks.

---

So, calling people obsessed isn't a personal attack, but Varenne asking why you're debating it is.

Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BibliophileTRJ

My take on the issue in a nutshell...

---

Always popular!

It's a bit like my old avatar: (you have to watch for a few seconds)

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s...stavatar-1.gif