Comments on: “I contend we are both atheists…”

By: Ryft Braeloch

Ryft Braeloch — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:22:56 +0000

Certainly. In colloquial language the term 'atheist' usually does refer to one who is 'without belief in god(s)'. However, I fail to see how this offers any support to the first clause of the Quote, for even under this particular meaning that clause is still unintelligible—which I suspect you to be aware of, given your last sentence. But again I remind you and the readers that this blog is closed. Discussion of the Quote is still ongoing (albeit intermittently) on my active blog so I would invite both you and other contributors here—like CJ and Anthony Hook—to direct your opinions and criticisms where the discussion is actually taking place. I very rarely check back here for comments. Your contributions are highly valued so, please, do not let them waste away here where the cobwebs are taking over. "I Contend We Are Both Atheists" - Response to Comments II

By: almightybob

almightybob — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:59:49 +0000

Well, if you take ‘theism’ to mean ‘belief in a god’, then a-theism means ‘lack of belief in a god’. Since you lack belief in, say, Vishnu, who for some is a god, this is – tadaa! – lack of belief in a god.

Of course, if you interpret ‘theism’ to mean ‘belief in any god’ then you are right, the speaker is not talking to a fellow atheist but a theist.

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:01:34 +0000

Your analysis of the last part of the statement is incredibly weak. You assume that one can know which God is true, and you use scriptures written by jews and christians for jews and christians as somehow being evidence for the existence of the Christian god. However, all religions scriptures claim to be correct. Obviously, though, they cannot all be correct.

I find it amusing that you criticize the ability of others to think when it comes to the slogan, but utterly fail to debunk it.

By: Anthony Hook

Anthony Hook — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:08:27 +0000

Incidentally (and I know this is supposed to be a closed forum, so this is my last post) but if Stephen ever stumbles across this comment it would be nice if you could fix the minor technicality in the first sentence. It’s already a powerful quote, and I’ve already made use of it as it stands, but that would be nice. Without getting into it too deeply; maybe substitute “atheists” for “non-believers” in the first sentence, or some other word that doesn’t have such a rigid definition. And just to reiterate; I never contested this part. I just didn’t care much for taking that obvious aspect of the quote and running with it with such a smug elitist tone when the underlying message is perfectly valid.

By: Anthony Hook

Anthony Hook — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:32:24 +0000

“He does not bother to prove a thing; his statements are to be considered valid and true by virtue of his having asserted them.”

That’s an ironic statement. You hold that thought and now read both your entire article and your own response to my comment. Where exactly do you prove anything? Or where do you even make a single credible point, other than picking up on the use of the word ‘atheist’ even though the quote itself revolves around one way to intuitively think of atheism. A non-atheist directing the word “prove” at an atheist is laughable frankly.