| 2003-11-18 20:00:04
| #virus from 2003-11-18 20:00:00 (showing messages 1-30) Bookmark the permanent url.
|
| 20:00:04 | Lucifer | Time to start |
| 20:00:13 | Lucifer | Tonight's topic is "defining atheism" |
| 20:00:33 | Lucifer | The motivation for this was a discussion on the list recently |
| 20:00:57 | Lucifer | One vocal person took exception to the definition in the Virian lexicon |
| 20:01:24 | Ophis | Ophis (~Ophis@[death to spam].ip216-239-71-102.vif.net) has joined #virus |
| 20:01:42 | Lucifer | ATHEISM:(vl) The doctrine that there is no God. Atheists believe that there is insufficient evidence for God and/or that the concept of God is incoherent so its existence is logically impossible. |
| 20:01:50 | Crypsis | http://virus.lucifer.com/lexicon.html |
| 20:02:13 | Lucifer | This was not meant to be how atheism should be used everywhere |
| 20:02:23 | hkhenson | wassail |
| 20:02:27 | Lucifer | The purpose was to define how we use it (unqualified) in discussions on the list |
| 20:02:41 | Lucifer | * Lucifer welcomes all newcomers |
| 20:02:51 | Ophis | whassup! |
| 20:03:17 | Lucifer | So the questions to discuss this evening are: Do we need a change? and, if so, what should it be? |
| 20:03:30 | localroger | I'd agree with the unnamed vocal person that the Virian definition may be overly narrow. It implies a very positive belief in the nonexistence of God, while I see the term more as "a-theism" -- without theism -- absence of a positive belief on the matter at all. |
| 20:03:33 | hkhenson | alternative would be that there are no gods . . . . yet. |
| 20:03:49 | hkhenson | heh heh |
| 20:04:08 | Lucifer | Overly narrow for us? |
| 20:05:06 | localroger | I don't think that a strong positive belief in the nonexistence of God is necessary for consistency with the rest of the Virian memeset. An absence of dogma would seem to be even more consistent with the Virtues, even if that includes an absence of the dogma that There Is Definitely No God. |
| 20:05:30 | Lucifer | Well, yes, no one is being dogmatic afaik |
| 20:05:52 | localroger | If you stomp your foot and say "there is definitely no God," then that is a dogmatic statement even if you happen to agree with it. |
| 20:06:05 | Lucifer | Who is doing that? |
| 20:06:10 | localroger | *cough* |
| 20:06:13 | Ophis | "logically impossible" seems very affirmative for such a nebulous concept. Wouldn't something like "rationally irrelevant" be better. |
| 20:06:20 | hkhenson | I think it would be more shocking if we flat out stated there are no gods, and we regret the fact, so we are in the process of making some of them. |
| 20:06:48 | localroger | Ophis: agree. |
| 20:06:52 | Ophis | I like hkhenson's approach :-) |
| 20:07:12 | prometheus | What is the distinction between atheism and agnosticism then, localroger? |
| 20:07:54 | Ophis | you tell me prometheus |
| 20:07:56 | localroger | Agnosticism is a positive assertion that the matter is unknowable. |
| 20:08:52 | Lucifer | That is not the original meaning |
