Agrippina wrote:

Ciarin wrote:Why do atheists say "theist" when they really mean "Christian"? Why do atheists phrase questions about the christian god as if he were the only one? For example "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" or "Does God hate shrimp?", or "Yet another question about God?" Why do atheists sometimes confuse atheist with irreligious skeptic? Why do you get pissy when a theist generalizes atheists(as I have done in this post), but you find it perfectly normal to generalize theists?

I think that for a lot of us, I know it is for me, it's shorthand. When I say 'god' I mean all of them, any theism and any god.

You can't really mean all of them since what would apply to omni-gods rarely apply to gods in a pantheon and vice versa.

Ciarin wrote:

Cause in my experience whenever atheists mention theists, or ask theists something, you're only intended audience are the christian theists the majority of the time. In fact, when I've attempted to answer a few questions directed at theists, I was told I should've realized the OP meant christian and didn't need to answer.

weird, I thought this was "questions for atheists", not "questions for people asking questions for atheists."

I am sure you've heard this answer before, but nevertheless, the answer will be supplied as often as is needed...

You mostly hear about christianity because it is within a context of christianity that most of the vocal critique arises. It's what we who post on forums, are most often surrounded by. It is the common example that can be referred to. Islamic nations are notorious for not permitting critique - and often answering critiques with threats of violence and/or death. Christianity would like to, but are pacified by laws against such things.

The better question to ask is why christians imagine they are the only ones being critiqued? You can find critiques of Islam and other religions if you actually look for them.

For my own part, as I said, my critiques span all the monotheistic traditions, and beyond. If you were to ask me, I would say that Islam is the youngest, and least house-trained, cult of the same Abrahamic tradition.

Ciarin wrote:
I'm not left out. I just think you guys are putting an importance on the abrahamic god that isn't necessary. It seems you're telling christians/muslims/jews that it's their god or no god, or that their god is actually the only god. Some of you guys even capitalize it, giving it due deference.

Well, for the context in which we live, such is the case. Paganism has been superseded by the Abrahamic faiths. Religious discussions today are inevitably about those faiths- they ARE modern religion.

Considering all the different creeds in theism, one can hardly generalize them to any degree of accuracy. In fact the only honest thing to say about them is that they all have a god belief, much like the only thing you can say about atheists is that they all lack a god belief.

Different groups have different doctrines. I can generalize about Catholics "They all listen to the Pope". Because it's part of Catholicism. I can generalize about Jehovah's Witnesses: "They don't take care of their children". Because refusing blood transfusions is part of their doctrine.
It's a logical difference. To be a theist, you need to follow certain rules. Not so for atheists. It's a completely different semantic concept.

dglas wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Cause in my experience whenever atheists mention theists, or ask theists something, you're only intended audience are the christian theists the majority of the time. In fact, when I've attempted to answer a few questions directed at theists, I was told I should've realized the OP meant christian and didn't need to answer.

weird, I thought this was "questions for atheists", not "questions for people asking questions for atheists."

I am sure you've heard this answer before, but nevertheless, the answer will be supplied as often as is needed...

You mostly hear about christianity because it is within a context of christianity that most of the vocal critique arises. It's what we who post on forums, are most often surrounded by. It is the common example that can be referred to. Islamic nations are notorious for not permitting critique - and often answering critiques with threats of violence and/or death. Christianity would like to, but are pacified by laws against such things.

The better question to ask is why christians imagine they are the only ones being critiqued? You can find critiques of Islam and other religions if you actually look for them.

For my own part, as I said, my critiques span all the monotheistic traditions, and beyond. If you were to ask me, I would say that Islam is the youngest, and least house-trained, cult of the same Abrahamic tradition.

I don't care that you mostly focus on christians, it's to be expected. That not what I was asking about. I'm talking about using "theist" when you really mean "Christian". What's the deal with using the term "theist"? I suspect it's because you're labeled "atheists" and "theists" would be an appropriate label for your opposition. I just think it's more accurate, and honest, to say christian when you're really talking about christians. Same goes for muslim if you're really talking about muslims, etc etc etc. Actually I don't normally see people use "theists" when referring to muslims, it's usually just with christians or the abrahamic combo pack.

In fact, the only people I've ever heard use the term "theist" referring to anything are atheists.

Chinaski wrote:
Well, for the context in which we live, such is the case. Paganism has been superseded by the Abrahamic faiths. Religious discussions today are inevitably about those faiths- they ARE modern religion.

Which is irrelevent. As atheists you shouldn't be treating this mythological character with any special deference.

Different groups have different doctrines. I can generalize about Catholics "They all listen to the Pope". Because it's part of Catholicism. I can generalize about Jehovah's Witnesses: "They don't take care of their children". Because refusing blood transfusions is part of their doctrine.

Except I'm not talking about generalizing the various groups in theism, I'm talking about generalizing theism.

It's a logical difference. To be a theist, you need to follow certain rules. Not so for atheists. It's a completely different semantic concept.

To be a theist, you have to believe in a god. That's it.

Now the following is conjecture. Nevertheless, I'll offer it for consideration.

We live in a beginning time where atheist and freethinker groups (of various brands) are led by former "persons of faith" who have had their faith challenged and found wanting. This is not just the case of group leaderships, but of general group memberships as well. Few of us are actually "from the cradle" atheists. This has implications. Those who have lost or abandoned their faiths are going to be critical of the context with which they are familiar, so that they may speak from personal experience. In a christian dominated social context, guess which religious affiliations these ex-theists will have abandoned. It is christianity that they will be most familiar with and chiristianity that they are going to feel they are most authorized to talk about. General critiques tend to be framed in a reference point that most are familiar with and can talk about. One would expect people to not be surprised by this. How many ex-jews or ex-muslims can we expect in a christian -dominated context?

Now, as a "from the cradle" atheist, I tend to think in commonalities between religions and generalizations, but most today, not being "from the cradle" atheists will refer to what they have personal experience with.

yea, I get why the focus is on christianity. I GET IT.

So what's so hard about saying christian when you mean christian?

Ciarin wrote:Why do you get pissy when a theist generalizes atheists(as I have done in this post), but you find it perfectly normal to generalize theists?

I generalize theist as believers in some form of the divine. It doesn't have to be a personified divinity but rather something they themselves, ultimately, consider divine in nature. So for me a deistic "first mover", for example, goes in the same bin as Allah, Azathoth, God, Thor, Yahveh or Zeus (and too many others to mention) do.

I'm also aware of the fact that religion is not the same as theism, nor yet does atheism mean you can't be religious.

Obviously, I sometimes makes mistakes and it may appear I'm not aware of these distinctions.

What's a first mover?

An non-interventionist creator divinity, in this case.

Ah.

Ciarin wrote:

Which is irrelevent. As atheists you shouldn't be treating this mythological character with any special deference.

It's not deference, it's focus based on relevance.

Except I'm not talking about generalizing the various groups in theism, I'm talking about generalizing theism.

Which is also possible. Belief in god, any modern-day god, implies specific behavioural phenomena. There is a logical connection between the belief and certain behaviour.

To be a theist, you have to believe in a god. That's it.

And belief in god, as I said above, leads to certain patterns and phenomena.

Ciarin wrote:yea, I get why the focus is on christianity. I GET IT.

So what's so hard about saying christian when you mean christian?

You'd have to ask the individual critic about that. I can only answer for myself.

Some folks critique on the basis of their personal experience; other critique on the basis of general principles or philosophical analysis. I fall in the latter group. Others fall where they may. In order to avoid the accusation that I am only attacking christianity (aside: I do not capitalize philosophies or "god"), I refer to critiques that apply to many or most religions. In order to avoid the accusation that I am only attacking christianity only, I refer to critiques that apply to many or most religions. For my own part, I don't see christian-specific critiques as all that terribly interesting.

There may be an estimation of similarities (real or otherwise) between the theistic religions that is being referenced. Further, to refer specifically to christianity, when one is putting forward a critique that applies to a wider range, may be a mistake. When one puts forward a critique based on a principle or idea, one does not want to specify one particular group as being singled out for the critique. I used the word universalizability (a meta-ethics term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability ) before. The critique applies to anyone who violates the principle in question.

Were I to say that god is an indefensible concept because the concept is stipulated such that empirical evidence simply does not apply, I am not just talking about the christian god.

Does this help?

Chinaski wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Which is irrelevent. As atheists you shouldn't be treating this mythological character with any special deference.

It's not deference, it's focus based on relevance.

The focus is irrelevant. You can talk about yahweh all day long every day of the year. I'm speaking specifically about how you treat him when you do. You use the word "god" as a proper noun rather than a noun, like it's his name. You're feeding the ego of the monotheist.

Which is also possible. Belief in god, any modern-day god, implies specific behavioural phenomena. There is a logical connection between the belief and certain behaviour.

I disagree. Kindly describe this logical connection, if you please.

And belief in god, as I said above, leads to certain patterns and phenomena.

It doesn't, whatever patterns or phenomena that occur(if at all) will depend on the theist. Also that would be a belief in a god or gods, not just god.

dglas wrote:

Ciarin wrote:yea, I get why the focus is on christianity. I GET IT.

So what's so hard about saying christian when you mean christian?

You'd have to ask the individual critic about that. I can only answer for myself.

Some folks critique on the basis of their personal experience; other critique on the basis of general principles or philosophical analysis. I fall in the latter group. Others fall where they may. In order to avoid the accusation that I am only attacking christianity (aside: I do not capitalize philosophies or "god"), I refer to critiques that apply to many or most religions. In order to avoid the accusation that I am only attacking christianity only, I refer to critiques that apply to many or most religions. For my own part, I don't see christian-specific critiques as all that terribly interesting.

There may be an estimation of similarities (real or otherwise) between the theistic religions that is being referenced. Further, to refer specifically to christianity, when one is putting forward a critique that applies to a wider range, may be a mistake. When one puts forward a critique based on a principle or idea, one does not want to specify one particular group as being singled out for the critique. I used the word universalizability (a meta-ethics term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalizability ) before. The critique applies to anyone who violates the principle in question.

Were I to say that god is an indefensible concept because the concept is stipulated such that empirical evidence simply does not apply, I am not just talking about the christian god.

Does this help?

Yes.

Regarding saying "God" rather than "a god", I came across a blog article that illustrates my point better than I can.

http://anadder.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods

Ciarin wrote:

Chinaski wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Which is irrelevent. As atheists you shouldn't be treating this mythological character with any special deference.

It's not deference, it's focus based on relevance.

The focus is irrelevant. You can talk about yahweh all day long every day of the year. I'm speaking specifically about how you treat him when you do. You use the word "god" as a proper noun rather than a noun, like it's his name. You're feeding the ego of the monotheist.

Which is also possible. Belief in god, any modern-day god, implies specific behavioural phenomena. There is a logical connection between the belief and certain behaviour.

I disagree. Kindly describe this logical connection, if you please.

And belief in god, as I said above, leads to certain patterns and phenomena.

It doesn't, whatever patterns or phenomena that occur(if at all) will depend on the theist. Also that would be a belief in a god or gods, not just god.

You're climbing on semantic windows. I don't particularly care about capitalizing "god" within a religious context, but I do enjoy the subtleties of the English language, and names, such as Thor, Odin, Apollo, Zeus, etc, are capitalized. "God" has became the name for the monotheistic deity, and according to English, merits capitalization. Breaking grammatical rules out of butthurt is petty and immature. Not that I care, particularly, but there you go.

The logical connection- well, for example, someone who believes in a god believes that morality stems from god. This puts them in a perverted mindset, where the religious basis is the standard for morality against which everything else is held. Thus, their behaviour regarding ethics will be absolutist, rather than flexible or possibly relative.
I'm sure you can think of more.

Are you seriously that obsessive about semantics, or is it just, as I suspect, a slight inferiority complex? You want Dawkins to write The Odin Delusion?

Did you read the article?

Ciarin wrote:Did you read the article?

Nah, I saw the post after I had already answered. Sorry. Bookmarked it, though.

The point isn't actually semantics, btw.