>half an hour in >he's already sperging about how

>>8868429
>atheism
yes, yes you did

>>8868429
>He thinks he has to read chapters in order.
Skip right to the meme chapter.

>>8868444
Birth of the meme is like 5-6 pages in this chapter.

Dawkins might unironically be autistic. He says something like "genes subconsciously think that..." in the first chapter. Direct invocation of Divinity, no awareness whatsoever.

>>8868431
>he rejects an idea because of its followers
Literally everything is bad because there will always be some retard associated with everything.

>>8868563
He then spends an autistic amount of time he doesn't mean "literally" think to which I thought "come on man, no one would be stupid enough to misinterpret that - get to the point".

Guess you proved me wrong anon.

Don't read this book.

No one takes memetics in the scientific community seriously and Dawkins himself misunderstood it.

This guy is literally inconsequential to the field.

>reddit core fedora pop science atheism

what do you think

Go straight to The Extended Phenotype.

>>8868429
It's an important work in the field of Evolutionary Biology. The book's potency/effect is dulled by random jabs at the big G and shit, though.

And I think the meme chapter was more of a thought experiment at the time of the writing. Or that's how I read it anyway.

The Extneded Phenotype is better/has less mass appeal. My copy has tiny fucking text, though. Like size 8. Not sure what the fuck they were doing. I'd say they're both worth reading if you can get over his personality in the text.

>>8868429
>half an hour in
lol

>>8868429
>Scientist doesn't believe in ancient desert people's cult
>Shocked Enquirer reader rants on the internet about it
SHOCKING

>Bat-Boy divorces. Son confesses "I am gay"

>>8868593
Way to put words in his mouth.

Atheism is a belief system. Its like saying you don't like republicans and creating a new party called the anti-republicans.

It is autistic drivel in itself, reading a book about it just shows how fucking stupid the reader is.

See >>8868803

File: nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>8869506
>Atheism is a belief system.

File: _20161218_075712.jpg (104KB, 1440x1072px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1440x1072px

>>8868429
Yes... you did. Get out while you still can.

>>8869558
Yes it is. If this is as confusing for you as you make it out to be, then you've got a long way to go in your development.

File: richie.png (49KB, 602x357px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 602x357px

JIDF pls go

>>8870562
It is the absence of a belief in man made cults. It is not a faith of any sort, it is not a system, as walking is not another type of car, it is another type of transportation now lacking that system car.

Develop.

>>8870591
>It is the absence of a belief in man made cults.
It certainly is not that.

>>8870593
Many people who claim the be atheist are referring to their loss of religion. this is in the word after all (theism) though they go about their lives obeying pseudo-religions like capitalism and the like, they are free from the ancient cults.

>>8870610
Don't use flowery language to hide bullshit bro, the fact is there are atheistic cults and religions (cult of reason, kopimism etc). You may not want atheism itself to be a belief, but you'll just end up defining something removed from common language and understanding and most likely your own experience.

The sort of words you're looking for are lapsed, irreligious, non-religious and agnostic.

>>8870591
So do you think atheism and naturalism (at least methodological naturalism) are unrelated?

Do you think atheists can reject this naturalism and still call themselves atheists?

>>8870590
Why did Dawkins go from a biologist to a pop-science guy that makes passive aggressive tweets on the internet

>>8870660
Because deep down he does not understand human nature and it kills him.

>>8870660
A lot of it is to do with that Oxford chair his friend paid for that is now filled by Marcus de Sautoy. This atheism thing is like a mid-level financial elite thing. Him, I think Hitchens too and that de Botton guy with a few others tried to form a new university along those lines a few years back too.

>>8870638
Of course.

My question: do you think people are rational?

File: tumblr_nmaautAb0Q1qa6vr1o1_1280.jpg (148KB, 1024x1545px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x1545px

>>8869506
>>8870562
>Atheism is a belief system.

yeah in the same way that having no bananas is the same as having some bananas

jesus fuck this board is full of fucknuts

also if you don't understand the ideas he's presenting in the selfish gene, you should probably just go back to your woo special deep thoughts pop-thinkers like zizek or whatever and leave science to the clever kids

pic unrelated

>>8870700
lol butthurt /sci/ontologist detected

>>8870699
So if a person rejects methodological naturalism, on what grounds do they reject spirituality?

My answer: They have a rational capability but this is a small fragment of the person.

Whats the relationship to the topic?

>>8870726
>on what grounds do they reject spirituality?
Which grounds would you prefer?

>My answer: They have a rational capability but this is a small fragment of the person.
What an irrational view.

People aren't rational, and can easily hold logically contradictory views at the same time; this is the least of it. This applies to me and you.

>>8870700
Belief in no-God is a belief, yes.

Having no bananas is having no bananas, because in the discussion we are talking about bananas.

>>8870591
>zero isn't a number
still a mathematic entity
>bald isn't a hairstyle
still a style
>black isn't a color
still a crayon
>apathy isn't an emotion
still a mood

you're just raising a shield of semantics between you and people you dislike, but it's nothing, it's just words, an abstraction.
rejection of one belief for another still requires systemic thought. whether you say something is or is not real requires reasoning.
you are not an atheist as a stone is atheist, you're atheism requires a conviction

>>8870731
So your point is simply that people don't need rationality or logic to refute God, they can just not accept it because why not?

>>8870731

Your a snide cunt, mate. And you're not as clever as you think you are.

>>8870741
Yep. Among other things.

>>8870750
Fair enough.

What other things?

>>8870750
So you personally, do you think that naturalism is a good model for the world?

>>8870748
Never reply to me or my posts ever again.
>>8870756
Literally any view you can think of. "Evil exists therefore God cannot exist", "oh well I just never really thought about that kind of thing", "I am a literal sophist and don't believe in anything but me", and good old nihilism.
>>8870765
Nope. What's that got to do with anything?

>>8870769
Solipsist fuck me.

>>8870635
>there are atheistic cults
There are people who have clubs, say the Masons, who wrap themselves in play cults. They could have Christian membership though.

>>8870638
I don't even know what you mean by "naturalism" so I'll pass.

>>8870735
Fallacious nonsense. An atheist who is in fact a theist isn't an atheist.
Life is the journey, the walker is the atheist, the car is religion. If your form of transport is the car, you are using a system. Walking is the absence of a system.

>>8870769

You're a disappointment to the species.

>>8870769
I'm just curious, is all. Most of the people I've met counter supernaturalism with naturalism. I am used to atheism being very strongly linked to belief in (at least methodological) naturalism.

My personal suspicion (and I'm sorry for this) is that you're lying about that lack of preference for naturalism to prove your point.

But I also take the other perspectives as possible, I just don't think they hold much weight for someone like you who has clearly spent time thinking about this sort of stuff. That is, I have not met self-described atheists who would pitch those perspectives day to day.

>>8870787
Masons are de facto theistic, you have to believe in a cognisant higher power. They don't accept atheists.

>>8870788
You just disobeyed my orders. That's the last mistake you'll make, pal...
>>8870787
>I don't even know what you mean by "naturalism" so I'll pass.
Kinda like positivism. TL;DR only nature exists.
>>8870790
Speaking of which I'd say positivism suits you more than naturalism.

Also, I'm not an atheist.
>>8870795
Masons are deists, IIRC.

>>8868795
>No one takes memetics in the scientific community seriously and Dawkins himself misunderstood it.

Not true.

>>8870795
Oh. Whatever.
To remake my point. There are no legitimate atheist churches, ceremony or dogma. It's not something to believe in. Its just a word for a state of being.

>>8870816
>TL;DR only nature exists.
So like materialism. Ones own inner thoughts exist, but that's no evidence for a soul. It's a part of nature to me.

>Masons are deists
Are they really? I know the founders of the US were, but I didn't know that was a fixture of theirs

File: CxmWjc4.jpg (64KB, 500x417px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x417px

>>8868429
Behead Those Who Insult The Virgin Mary

>>8870837
>There are no legitimate atheist churches, ceremony or dogma.
Only to the same degree there are no theistic ones. You can be a theist just by being vaguely spiritual and not having any part in organized religion, or you can join a strict religious order or whatever. Same with atheism.

>>8870816
>Masons are deists
To me that would still come under theist, otherwise we get a lot of weird nomenclature with gnostics and such.

>>8870860
>To me that would still come under theist,
Yeah.

>>8870837
There are cults and religions that don't have gods. Like cults to flying saucers and sects of Daoism and Buddhism.

>>8870853
>vaguely spiritual
>Prescribing to some form a dogma
Hm. No.

Name me two countries of the Moon, and their spoken language if you can.

>>8870871
Right. All of which aren't atheism.
People that fall into those are agnostic-theists, who probably see themselves as agnostic-atheists, but are wrong of course.

>>8870876
>>vaguely spiritual
>>Prescribing to some form a dogma
That's my point. Theistic doesn't necessarily entail being dogmatic, any more that atheism entails being non-dogmatic.

>>8870816
>Speaking of which I'd say positivism suits you more than naturalism.
>Also, I'm not an atheist.
No thanks and me neither. I don't want any ism.

>>8870912
Tell us more about your fascinating life philosophy, Mr. Bueller; it intrigues me.

>>8870834
>Not true.

True.

>>8870700
I'm sorry, I rather read something like "Understanding Physics" by Asimov then go through pop sci garbage like "The Selfish Gene".

>>8868429
No. You picked up the obly dawkins worth reading. Push ahead to the prisoner's dilemma and ultimately youll see this book isnt about his usual atheistic shpeal but a well constructed argument for altruism in an indifferent universe.

>>8870787

An atheist that is a theist is most definitely an atheist. But being either requires conviction. That's the point. Walking is another system of travel. The result of either the car or walking is that you travel.

>>8868795
>No one takes memetics in the scientific community seriously

>>8871364
No.
Atheists exist. The main trust of this argument is that there are none, or rather that atheism is theism under another name, not humans lack the conviction to ever do without theism, or whatever you're driving at.
>The result of either the car or walking is that you travel.
The journey=life. Walking is self-propelled, system-less

>>8871164
It's simple, really. I am the walrus.

>>8871350
>You picked up the obly dawkins worth reading.
>implying The Ancestor's Tale isn't worth reading

>>8868795
Explain, pls

>>8870876
>being this fucking dumb

Did you even read what that guy wrote? Kek

>>8870700

I don't know what you mean by bananas, I've never seen any what the hell are you talking about

>>8870591
you're nitpicking
it's not a belief system, but it is a belief
>nuh uh it's a lack of belief
which is the same as belief in a negative, an atheist believes there is no divine power

>>8871765

>an atheist believes there is no divine power

an intelligent atheist would ask you to qualify what exactly you're talking about

clearly there are emotional, historical, and traditional associations with divinity, every culture talks about entering altered states to contact higher beings or seeing monsters and demons

but I mean your job to qualify what you mean by divinity, is to get an atheist to experience Divinity, and after failing to find that experience in the Bible or any similiar religious texts or stories, how exactly does one do that

>>8871770
the fuck are you even saying?
I only said "divine power" instead of "higher power" because I thought someone would go "nuh uh I believe we live in a simulation and I worship the machines that run it because of Roko's basilisk but they're not gods so nyaah"

>>8871776

I'm saying its not very constructive to call atheism a belief system, there are some clear cultural associations of god or gods but if an atheist has never experienced divinity they'll reject your statements because they don't know what you're talking about, being color blind isn't a belief system, but there are people who have experienced colors they have not

File: Dawkins.jpg (132KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 500x333px

No. The book's actual contribution is the idea that evolution is truly taking place at the level of individual genes and gene sequences that are in and of themselves competing for survival via their effect upon the host organism who's proteins they code. He goes well out of his way to warn off any notion of consciousness or design on the part of the genes themselves. He also points out that human perception too is a product of it's evolutionary environment and thus is inherently essentialist and thus our view of "species" as a concept is inherently warped into a collection of seemingly individual entities all of which are actually part of a branching continuum leading back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor which is probably a small, single-celled organism which is the creation of abiogensis aka the dawn of life.

The book was written in the 1970's and these ideas are largely accepted today by evolutionary scientists, you probably already believe most of them yourself but couldn't express them as concisely as he does in this book. You're reading a circa generation X biology textbook, basically.

Lots of people don't like Dawkins because he's openly a millitant atheist and deliberately tries to promote millitant atheism with the influence he has at hand. This is his "thinking about theists" face.

File: Julius-15.jpg (12KB, 218x218px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 218x218px

I wonder what would happen if Dwakins read Tempest of Shakespeare or something lol

File: ruskayayaya.jpg (83KB, 744x900px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 744x900px

>>8871793

Solid post.

>>8871792
you didn't even read my post, I'll post it again
>you're nitpicking
>it's not a belief system, but it is a belief

File: 1394621642928.jpg (565KB, 1030x1279px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1030x1279px

>>8871729
For you
>Only to the same degree there are no theistic (churches) ones. You can be a theist just by being vaguely spiritual and not having any part in organized religion, or you can join a strict religious order or whatever. Same with atheism.
>Same with atheism
No. Not only is there is no church for an atheist, there is no vaguely spiritual feeling. How did you miss that in my first response?
>Being this fucking dumb.

>>8871765
No, I'm atheist. Theists are nitpicking and wrongly placing me, and other atheists, back in their mental bin "theist"
>it's not a belief system, but it is a belief
A lack of belief in THEISM. The word is quite specific.
I believe as far as I care to in "atheism" in that there's a nearly 0% chance for any of the three tenants (creator, immortal soul, afterlife) but I'm not dogmatic enough to count any of them out 100%, as highly unlikely as any of it is.

So. No one can tell the names of two of the nations of the moon?

>>8871869
>>8871869
>I believe as far as I care to in "atheism" in that there's a nearly 0% chance for any of the blah blah blah
THERE WE FUCKING GO WAS THAT SO HARD

>>8871869
>Not only is there is no church for an atheist,
there are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
>there is no vaguely spiritual feeling.
there is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

>I believe as far as I care to in "atheism" in that there's a nearly 0% chance for any of the three tenants (creator, immortal soul, afterlife) but I'm not dogmatic enough to count any of them out 100%, as highly unlikely as any of it is.
you're not an atheist, you're agnostic, verging on atheism.

it doesn't help anyone, yourself included, to move the goal posts as much as you have while arguing your point.

>>8868429
>half an hour in

Who the fuck counts books in time rather than pages?

>>8871920
people who haven't adjusted the default settings on their kindle

>>8870590
This made me laugh, sorry.

>>8871880
So because I'm not foolish enough to discount the 0.01% chance of one of the three tenants, atheism can't exist.

You dumb.

>>8871915
>wikipedias
This is not atheism
>[Y]ou're not an atheist, you're agnostic, verging on atheism.
I'm as far over to atheist as one can reasonably be (without taking that final foolish leap to pretending one knows there is nothing) I can go by atheist, but there are subtle levels of agnostic-atheist. The position of agnostic is a sharp fence one sits on for a few hours.
>to move the goal posts
I'm not the one moving the goal post here. I can rightly believe the sky is blue. I can start a "church of atheism" where congregants can get together and talk about Star Wars and shit. It's not a fucking faith, it's not a "spiritual experience".
I can wax poetic about Epicureanism and try to describe ataraxia or these brief bouts manufactured nostalgia I get, but they are my imagination and emotions. The notions of my former religious life have been exposed. They're gone now.
Atheism.

>>8871965
>This is not atheism
Aside from being an atheist, Jones was also a queer

>>8870735
>>zero isn't a number
Yes it is.

>>8871975
That's a cult same as the Jesus cult
You're arguing to call Jesus an atheist now.
Okay, I guess. Only his followers were Christians after all.
God is an atheist now.

>>8871982
I'm not making any statements to that effect.

You said that that there were no "atheist" churches and I simply showed you an example of that not being the case.

Jones was a marxist, and a declared atheist.

The point being that being an atheist does not preclude a belief system. In fact atheism necessitates belief as to the ontological state of the universe.

>You're arguing to call Jesus an atheist now.
No, I won't. Jesus professed his belief in God the father.

>God is an atheist now.
That would be absurd

>>8872051
Do you realize that North Korea is a declared Democratic People's Republic?

The point being, what's in a name?
I get it, words and idealism are squishy, but I've been quite exacting about this. Stop being so thick headed.

>Jesus professed his belief in God the father.
So his followers claimed
I bet you believe in King Arthur.

>God is an atheist now.
>That would be absurd
He requires no faith in himself. He was supposed to have come down to doll hose to experience what it was like being one of his toys. He left, not feeling too good about it as we're told.
Maybe he drank his own Cool-Aid

>>8872079
My point was that both the peoples temple and the DPR, as well as militant new atheism are better examples of "atheism" than your own agnosticism.

>>8872129
No. This is a whole new point, and it's dumb.
Pack it in, debate class kid.

>>8872162
>This is a whole new point

No it isn't :^)

>>8870700
>having no bananas is the same as having some bananas
"Having no bananas" is indeed the same as "having some bananas" in the sense that both these statements attempt to describe the number of bananas one has: zero and greater than zero, respectively. Atheism is the belief that there exists no god.

>>8869325
>the bible was written by ancient desert people therefore god doesn't exist

>>8869558
>>8870591
>>8870700

>itt: reddit refugees not understanding that atheism is a metaphysical preposition

File: Nadesico - 24 [BD.1080p] [Iznjie Biznjie] [216637F9].mkv_snapshot_06.40_[2016.12.21_17.58.24].png (3MB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x1080px

>>8868429
>Doesn't understand "shoujo" means both "young woman" and "virgin"

baka baka

>>8869292
>It's an important work in the field of Evolutionary Biology

<popsci> is NEVER an important work in the field of <science>

>>8870700
>0 isn't a number

>>8872270
>"Having no bananas" is indeed the same as "having some bananas" . . .
FFFFFFFFFFFF N– HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA No

WRONG
> . . . ancient desert people therefore god doesn't exist
Your god is an idiot for appealing to one tribe of desert people. I mean he's failed to get his message across properly. Oh wait, your argument for that is "Mysterious ways" nm then.
HAHAHAH

>/lit/ is the """intelligent""" board
lollling hard @ this thread tbqh desu

File: 1356665941098.jpg (84KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x333px

>>8872403
Bananas do indeed exist, so the comparison seems a little too sophisticated for you to grasp.
Let me restate it.
The theist has a purple thorny Mananana. (A fruit grown on one of the nations of the Moon that no one can name for me) The atheist, poor thing, has none.

>>8868795

>Don't read this book.

Yes.

>No one takes memetics in the scientific community seriously

lol science

>and Dawkins himself misunderstood it.

yeah, true

>This guy is literally inconsequential to the field.

he's inconsequential all-around

>>8870885

You're an idiot.

Everybody on this thread should be permabanned.

I didn't really think it was fedora-core when I read it...

File: 2015DonVito_VincentMargera_GettyImages-161093502161115.article_x4.jpg (77KB, 640x380px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x380px

>>8872508
ha ha joke's on you for posting then-
oh

>>8872270
>Atheism is the belief that there exists no god.
yes and only retards care about beliefs.

The stupidity in this thread is impressive.

File: 1467928312938.png (50KB, 1213x679px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1213x679px

How much do you want to pay Dawkins so that he talks to you at diner?

>>8872500
>I don't know what atheism means
For the millionth time.

>>8872508
That will come in death.

>>8871915
You can pick so many things too. Some Daoist and Buddhist interpretations are atheist and vary from vague feelings to organized religion. For other full blown churches that marry people along with Jonestown are the Kopimists and I guess the Jedis. It's not even something I'm massively interested in yet I know this shit.

>>8871869
>A lack of belief in THEISM. The word is quite specific.
>I believe as far as I care to in "atheism" in that there's a nearly 0% chance for any of the three tenants (creator, immortal soul, afterlife) but I'm not dogmatic enough to count any of them out 100%, as highly unlikely as any of it is.
You've just spouted some Dawkins bs without any critical appraisal. Almost like you're in a dogmatic cult...

>>8872535
You're the one who doesn't know what atheism means

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

>>8872494
>The theist has a purple thorny Mananana. (A fruit grown on one of the nations of the Moon that no one can name for me) The atheist, poor thing, has none.
That's a poor comparison. You're begging the question in the correct sense there, so if you believe and you go to heaven/the afterlife (or in your autism signalling example go to the moon...) the theist would own the manana, whereas the atheist would have nothing. So the existence in that example is predicated on belief. I suspect that is not your intention.

>>8868651
From a man who is quotemined so regularly it's understandable.

>>8872583
>You can pick so many things too.
No, you can't. Theism doesn't mean Judaeo-Christian. Fuck off.

>>8872590
The moon isn't heaven, you autist.

>>8872589
Atheism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun: atheism

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

>>8871515

I am not trying to argue that atheism is a kind of theism. I am saying both rely on faith.

Both require faith in the unprovable, either that God does or does not exist. They are both systems of belief, albeit one is a little more grand than the other. If you can prove that either God does or does not exist then this argument would be entirely futile. The fact that neither of those things have been irrefutably proved means that being an atheist or a theist requires some kind of faith without knowledge, or a belief.

Not even thinking about God is existing without a system.

>>8871965
>>8871965
>So because I'm not foolish enough to discount the 0.01% chance of one of the three tenants, atheism can't exist.
again, what the fuck are you talking about?
I'm saying it is a belief
IT IS A BELIEF IN A LACK OF SOMETHING, THIS IS A SIMPLE CONCEPT
I know you want to be a special snowflake that doesn't believe in anything but it doesn't work that way

>>8868429
Atheism is only a meme on reddit. You need to go back.

/lit/ is for Catholics and Marxists. Get off our board if you're going to read that crap. No one ever memed it here and we don't need it.

>>8873666
New anon here. Consider this, both of you: Are these two statements semantically identical?
>"I don't believe that there is a God"
>"I believe that there is no God"

File: 89717293798123.jpg (315KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1280x720px

>>8869558
>>8870700

Go donate to your church fedoralords >>8872520

>>8873708
They are identical in content but inverse in approach. Glass half full vs Glass half empty. Aggressive atheists push their own beliefs passive atheists do no believe in gods. These fedora lords have turned atheism into their own religion substitute and then preach about their intellectual superiority for "not believing in false gods"

>Bananas

>>8868795
>No one takes memetics in the scientific community seriously and Dawkins himself misunderstood it.
Bullshit.

>>8873671
>/lit/ is for Catholics and Marxists
I'm okay with this

>>8869506
>Atheism is a belief system.
Are you fucking retarded?

>>8868429
Shit man, it was good enough in 10th grade. Some books are good as an introduction to a subject and just that.
Nobody in their right mind derives their entire knowledge of evolutionary biology and/or God based on The Selfish Gene.

>>8870700
Atheism: It seeks to replace in itself the moral power of religion, in order to appease the spiritual thirst of parched humanity and save it; not by Christ, but by force.

-Fyodor Dostoevsky

I think he puts it well. Much of atheist ethics/morals are derived from judeo-christian values. Atheists like to pretend this isn't true, but it is overwhelmingly the case. Atheism definitely is a belief system, as the denial of a god has many philosophical implications which atheism must answer for, as many western values are christian and the denial of a god implies the denial of these values, which must be replaced with atheist values. Therefore creating the need for a belief system. Although most atheists don't get this far, they would rather meme about xD sky daddy man rather than think for themselves.

>>8873708
Look up modal logic sometime and you'll find that no they're not the same.

>>8873110
>>8873666
I think I see your brain blockages now.

Lets do a visual for you. In one yard you have theism and in the yard next door you have atheism. Some people in the theism yard hug the far side of the fence so tight they get splinters in the lips. These people will remain devout dunderheads their whole lives. others will question their particular brand of faith and maybe switch places. Some will get up on that middle fence position. That fence is absolute agnosticism. Now it's uncomfortable to be up there, they start to worry about their existence and get mopey, so after a short while they climb down on one side or the other. Sometimes to get right back up there and back and forth they go. Some settle on that atheist side and saunter over to the middle, some sprint to the far side fence and hit their head.
It doesn't matter what you call yourself. where you've been in these figurative yards. In the theist yard you have your own personal conception of god/soul/afterlife. In the atheist yard you trouble yourself with other things that take faith, capital, states, freedom/fate. Those other things are as real as Santa. "atheism" is absence of faith or concern. I'm not troubled with anymore than a christcuck posting a hat-tipper at me.

>>8873748
>fedoralords
>Le anime-christian
Child, please. Your kind keep the fedora folders

>>8874693
But my dear Fyodor, you're thinking of liberal-capitalism.
A shame the old man never read Stirner.

>>8875818
It's great that you have your own definitions of what the words atheism and theism mean. These definitions are not however, the accepted definitions used in academic and serious philosophical literature, where a clear distinction is made between atheism and agnosticism, two words that you seem to use interchangably. I encourage you to read some more and brush up on the topic before continuing this discussion.

>>8875818
>Lets do a visual for you.
Oh look another religious parable from the Dawkins atheist. If you want to live in your little world where that amounts to atheism not being faith fine but stop jabbering at everyone else. And why is someone who hasn't bothered with Kierkegaard pretending to have read Stirner now?

>>8876244
See >>8872864
Atheism is the yard, not the far end of the fence alone. There is subtlety to ones thinking. Now stop being so amateurish.

>>8876249
Here's your (You) Mr Babyhead

File: John-Paul-II-Pope-2.jpg (147KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 2000x1000px

>>8876350
the definition isn't rigorous enough

actually read
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
and stop pretending to know what you're talking about

File: Stirner02.jpg (22KB, 220x567px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x567px

>>8876423
I've already said as much, but I guess I can't blame you for not wanting to read the whole thread. I'm probably arguing with a half dozen babyheads ITT.

I don't have any respect for philosophers lingo, much less theologians opinions on anything, so I have gone to some lengths to tell you my definition.
Again. "Atheism" isn't a razor thin fence at the other end of the *atheist* yard. That is merely the 100% sure of themselves. Beliefs come in all sorts of varieties, not even half of them have to do with the three tenants of theism. I have faith that my friend will pick me up at the time he said he would, etc.
The theists are in their yard, the atheists are in theirs. When they start to consider getting on the middle fence they are moving towards "agnosticism" IE the middle position.

Now you know the workings of my head, and you can see I am an atheist. Eat it and shut it.