Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, you are choosing a definition of atheism that lets you invalidate it. The favorite whipping boy of theists is Richard Dawkins, and his definition of atheism is as follows: ""I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

You can tell him he's wrong for calling himself an atheist, but then if this is the definition that atheists use to describe their position, how do you get to tell them they are wrong? It's like telling Hindus they are not really Hindus because your preacher described the religion to you, and they don't seem to practice it.

Wanted to address this separately. As I noted above, Dawkins, does not define himself as a strict atheist, rather he says he is "agnostic" according to how he defines agnosticism.

But your quote brings us back to the difference between belief (the 99% or 100% question) and action ("I live my life as though he is not there" and the quotes from the article I cited re "de facto atheism" or "temporary atheism in practice" or TAP). I think it's totally consistent with what Dawkins is saying to distinguish between (1) one's take on the probability of god's existence, and (2) how you live your life/how you act. Dawkins seems to do this himself: at the end of the day, he still says (1) he's agnostic because he's not 100% certain god doesn't exist, however he says (2) he acts as if God doesn't exist, ie. he acts as if he's atheist (what he calls TAP).

To bring this full circle, this is a bit of a sidetrack, although an interesting one, to the point that several of us have addressed to the Ranting Atheist. Our first point was about her hubris in claiming she's 100% certain, because even Dawkins doesn't do this. My other point was that her analogy about wearing a parka in July was flawed, because she seems to be implying that if you act a certain way (not wearing parkas, not praying), this is the same thing as being certain your beliefs are 100% true. That's[b] not what Dawkins is saying when he says "I think God is very improbable, but live my life as though he's not there."

Signed,
An Episcopalian
(Gotta go off to a party, sorry to sign off, this is interesting)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heehee! Nice guesses, but wrong on all counts. I'm a lifelong liberal living in Takoma who thinks tax rates need to increase. I just think your idea of targeted taxes on private school families is an idiotic one that would be very bad tax policy.

Perhaps you need to look up the understanding of the word liberal....

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:

"In a healthy gallbladder, the bile is all one consistency. In a gallbladder containing sludge, on an ultrasound the gallbladder can be seen with two consistencies of bile. The upper consistency looks thinner and healthy, while impurities like cholesterol and mucous have sunk to the bottom and create a thicker bile at the bottom. This thicker bile is known as gallbladder sludge."

To learn more about bile, or the meaning of fancy words, go online or check you're local libary!

Ah ha ha ha! Your, not you're. And there's no way sludge can make the "mountain" you talked about.

Grammar policing good citizens is unfriendly. But grammar policing trolls like the Ranting Atheist -> a worthy occupation!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, you are choosing a definition of atheism that lets you invalidate it. The favorite whipping boy of theists is Richard Dawkins, and his definition of atheism is as follows: ""I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

You can tell him he's wrong for calling himself an atheist, but then if this is the definition that atheists use to describe their position, how do you get to tell them they are wrong? It's like telling Hindus they are not really Hindus because your preacher described the religion to you, and they don't seem to practice it.

Wanted to address this separately. As I noted above, Dawkins, does not define himself as a strict atheist, rather he says he is "agnostic" according to how he defines agnosticism.

But your quote brings us back to the difference between belief (the 99% or 100% question) and action ("I live my life as though he is not there" and the quotes from the article I cited re "de facto atheism" or "temporary atheism in practice" or TAP). I think it's totally consistent with what Dawkins is saying to distinguish between (1) one's take on the probability of god's existence, and (2) how you live your life/how you act. Dawkins seems to do this himself: at the end of the day, he still says (1) he's agnostic because he's not 100% certain god doesn't exist, however he says (2) he acts as if God doesn't exist, ie. he acts as if he's atheist (what he calls TAP).

To bring this full circle, this is a bit of a sidetrack, although an interesting one, to the point that several of us have addressed to the Ranting Atheist. Our first point was about her hubris in claiming she's 100% certain, because even Dawkins doesn't do this. My other point was that her analogy about wearing a parka in July was flawed, because she seems to be implying that if you act a certain way (not wearing parkas, not praying), this is the same thing as being certain your beliefs are 100% true. That's[b] not what Dawkins is saying when he says "I think God is very improbable, but live my life as though he's not there."

Signed,
An Episcopalian
(Gotta go off to a party, sorry to sign off, this is interesting)

Ooops, those attempts at bolding really didn't come out. Hope it's still clear.

Re the point about "strong atheists," I can't recall anybody calling themselves one.

But there are several here who call themselves "atheists" instead of "agnostics." The Ranting Atheist is an obvious example. The point from the Dawkins post is there are a very small number of true atheists - and everybody else is actually probably mislabeling themselves. Not sure we needed to get into these weeds, but I blame the Ranting One.

Anonymous wrote:

Dawkins does not go around calling himself an agnostic. He has explained in detail what he means by atheism and you have decided that he is not an atheist. But he calls himself an atheist. Dawkins is not mislabeling himself.

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins calls himself a "De Facto Atheist" (level 6) instead of a "Strict Atheist" (level 7). Then he goes into some stuff about how level 6 is "temporary agnostic" or something.

Bottom line, though, "de facto" means "not exactly" as opposed to "de jure" which means by law, i.e. an actual atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

After all the semantics, it basically means he's agnostic.

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.

Here is a good article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/camp-quest-is-atheists-answer-to-bible-school/2011/07/19/gIQAe1hRbI_story.html

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins calls himself a "De Facto Atheist" (level 6) instead of a "Strict Atheist" (level 7). Then he goes into some stuff about how level 6 is "temporary agnostic" or something.

Bottom line, though, "de facto" means "not exactly" as opposed to "de jure" which means by law, i.e. an actual atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

After all the semantics, it basically means he's agnostic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins calls himself a "De Facto Atheist" (level 6) instead of a "Strict Atheist" (level 7). Then he goes into some stuff about how level 6 is "temporary agnostic" or something.

Bottom line, though, "de facto" means "not exactly" as opposed to "de jure" which means by law, i.e. an actual atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

After all the semantics, it basically means he's agnostic.

That's like saying a Christian with occasional doubts is not really a Christian, and therefore Mother Theresa is out.

Anonymous wrote:By any definition, if you think there's even the slightest possibility God exists, even 1%, then you're agnostic, not atheist. Dawkins says he can't totally rule out God. Go back and re-read. He does NOT, as you claim, say he's "sure" God doesn't exist. Therefore, because he allows for a 1% possibility of God, he's agnostic, not atheist.

As a corollary, he, and both of us, are technically agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti monster. Unless you are willing to state you believe with 100% certainty that the FSM and Poseidon don't exist.

The discussion should end there. I'd respect Dawkins more if it did end there.

Instead, because he's uncomfortable with a wishy-washy label like "agnostic" or something, Dawkins drags us into these semantic games about "de facto" vs. "de jure/strict" atheists and "temporary agnostic practioner" or whatever that was. He says that as a "de facto" atheist he *acts* as if God and the FSM don't exist.

But *acting* as if they don't exist does nothing, NOTHING, to eliminate that 1% possibility of God from his mind. Even though he says he acts in a "de facto atheist" sort of way (and he acts like there's no FSM), he's still thinks there's a 1% probability of God (or the FSM). So he's agnostic about God (or the FSM).