P.Z. Meyers: "There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now." (page 2)

jay88

bohm-I believe in germ theory because we can see germs in the microscope
............

Without belief there would be no germs, point made.

I would think that a scientist should have greater respect for the English language and the value of precise definitions. It's pointless for him to get upset about the definition of atheism and try to add meaning to term to make him look better as an atheist. He has fallen into the same trap that opponents of atheism often fall into when they associate the term atheism with negative stereotypes or try to impose their own limited definition of the term. It makes it hard to have an effective dialogue when members of both sides of the debate try to subvert the term for their own purposes.

I think he makes some good points about the many positive things that are associated with many atheists. These can and should be celebrated. It doesn't require hijacking the English language to make atheism some kind of club that only allows the kind of atheists that agree with his perspective.

wobble

Here in the UK, in the Press, they have used the expression "Fundamentalist Atheist" as though Richard Dawkins or someone is radicalising the minds of formerly moderate Atheists at some non-theistic Madrasser school.

What nonsense, as has been pointed out, the word "Atheist" is little use as a label to tell you something about a person.

I do not play golf, so I am a Fundamentalist Non-golfer I suppose, although actually I would quite like to play golf, so I suppose really I am a Moderate Non-golfer.

I like Undercover's point about the value of comedy in fighting ignorance and superstition, the more we poke fun at the WT the weaker it becomes.

cofty

It's pointless for him to get upset about the definition of atheism and try to add meaning to term to make him look better as an atheist.

I think if you read his article carefully and his input to the comments that follow on his blog you will see that he is not saying this. He accepts the dictionary definitionion but he is saying that it is just dumb for an atheist to resort to this when they are discussing their position. It adds nothing to the debate. All it says is "I'm an atheist becasue I don't believe in god". This is a meaningless truism.

Somebody who has examined the case for god and rejected it has a way of understanding the world that that goes way beyond the dictionary definition and Myers is encouraging atheists to have more to say about that.

moshe

If God would just show up, then religionists wouldn't have to keep convincing everyone that their "faith based" belief system is the correct one.

villabolo

The reason I'm an atheist is because there is no more proof of God than there is of Fairies.

No, this is not a scientific issue at all. It is a matter of logic and intuition combined. You can no more "disprove" the existence of God(s) than you can disprove the existence of Fairies; the reason being that they are, almost by definition, deliberately invisible to human perception at their convenience (Which is most of the time to most people.). This is the logical aspect of atheism.

Of course, there may be quite a few things that are not observable by humans that nonetheless are real. So why not God? This is where intuition coupled with logic answers. Because you can multiply NON-EXISTENT invisible entities. So what is the distinction between invisible but actual things and their purely imaginary counterpart? Deductive reasoning.

Certain "laws" (I prefer the word principles.) of nature and Cosmic concepts serve as examples. But they can be proven, or at least highly suspected. The existence of God(s); that is a sentient being with an existence outside the Cosmos, which gets involved in human affairs or, at least, with the mere creation of the Cosmos itself; is not provable.

All the attempts to do so have been neutralized by science and logic. Disproving an alleged proof, however, is not the same as disproving the mere existence of what the alleged proof set out to confirm. In other words, you cannot disprove the existence of God(s) or Fairies; you can only disprove the proofs offered on their behalf.

Religion is another issue though, which I won't tackle here. Suffice it to say that religion does not even have to be theistic to be religious. Or it may conceivably be but not have the pernicious effects of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions.

Villabolo

OnTheWayOut

I just read LWT's opening post above and the comments left so far. Undercover's comment is great. Particularly the last part about comedians doing more to enlighten people about atheism than others.

Myers has some great points, but I accept that many non-religious people just aren't that into their own reasons for disbelief.

I also understand that it's a sound-bite world (or bumper-sticker world) and short statements that grate people the wrong way (and the right way) like "Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings" are wonderful at pointing things out. Okay, so not all believers are ready to kill innocent people, but it stops and makes them think what unquestioning belief can cause.

DT

"He accepts the dictionary definitionion but he is saying that it is just dumb for an atheist to resort to this when they are discussing their position. It adds nothing to the debate. All it says is "I'm an atheist becasue I don't believe in god". This is a meaningless truism. "

I disagree. It is essential to clarify the definition of atheism when discussing or debating the subject with those who misunderstand or misuse the term. Unfortunately, this includes a large percentage of discussions on atheism. It is pointless to proceed to a war of ideologies when the participants are using different definitions of the same words.

In many cases, the simple definition of atheism is the best defense against those load the term with excess baggage. Once this is explained, the person can either continue with their unreasoning attacks or accept what atheism is and then decide if further discussion is desirable. In many cases, further discussion is unprofitable. When there is further discussion or debate, at least it can avoid needless confusion over definitions.

If someone asked me what my atheism means to me, I would consider that to be a pointless question. It just means what the word means. I have opinions and ideas that go beyond atheism but it would be silly to imply that they are shared by atheists in general or that they are somehow involved with the definition of atheism or what atheists ought to stand for.

P.Z. Meyers: "There simply aren't enough atheists angry at me now."

Share this