Positively negative

[Meslier]

Originally Posted by Fearless

I personally feel it a little hypocritical that someone cannot apply the same logic with ghosts as they do with god. Sorry, that's just my simplistic view.

I support the AFA's definition because I don't necessarily want to be mixed up with woo just because there is a disbelief with god, but everything else is ok.

Next thing I know I will be surrounded by fairies and leprechauns. No thanks.

This is why I have an issue with Buddhism, some of these guys call themselves 'Atheist Buddhists' but try to ignore the vast amount of woo intertwined in every other facet of the belief. If they want to take chunks and apply it to their life then of course that's fine, just don't call yourself a Buddhist unless you accept the whole package as it exists, which includes the woo. /rant

All or nothing in my books I'm afraid.

...but what would you call a person who believes in leprechauns only (no gods)... are they not an atheist...?

...if you want to separate yourself from both irrational theists and atheists, why cannot the AFA be an Australian skeptic foundation rather than an Australian atheist foundation...?

[djarm67]

This is a common point of confusion.

Atheism is not Metaphysical Naturalism.

[Meslier]

Originally Posted by djarm67

This is a common point of confusion.

Atheism is not Metaphysical Naturalism.

...I was under the impression atheism was the "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god"...

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Originally Posted by Meslier

..., why cannot the AFA be an Australian skeptic foundation rather than an Australian atheist foundation...?

There's already one of those. I watched the AFA forum and the Australian Skeptics website for a while before deciding which organisation to send my dues to. The AFA won out because I like that they identified the problems religions cause our society as the greatest concern and aimed themselves squarely at them. I find the AFA definition of atheism useful. There are no gaps for people to fill with their personal woo. If someone comes here and can read English enough to understand the definition, discussion should be able to progress from there.
Sadly, the sophists and solipsists who turn up still try their hand at finding a gap and inserting their unsupported ideas as though no-one will notice or that we will be too polite to mention it.

The Australian Skeptics (at the time I was reading their literature) had a hands off religion policy (or at least a transcript of a senior member speaking that line) and seemed to be more geared toward taking the piss out of the rationally challenged. They have since shown my assessment of their goals and methods to be extremely short sighted and I am very impressed by the wins they have had in combating woo on several fronts in Australian society in the last two years.

Also: the AFA was formerly the Rationalists Association of South Australia or something similarly acronymous.

Someone who believes in Leprechauns is surely just a theist with very modest requirements for a deity. Easily awed. Eeeyore. They are an ass (you can have your ellipses if I can have my free form).

[Loki]

Genuine belief in leprecauns is something I personally would find a little odd and I would certainly enquire as to the rational basis for such a belief. Whether the person making the assertion was atheist or theist would make no difference. Ideas are to be destructively tested, those which survive are good ideas.

So yes I would accept a person as an atheist for not accepting the existence of gods whilst laughing hysterically at their belief that (say hypothetically) they have travelled in time and that there are aliens in the vatican.

Their odd ideas would not be getting a free ride from me due to their acceptance that there is no evidence for gods.

The AFA definition merely lets it that be known straight up front.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by Meslier

...but what would you call a person who believes in leprechauns only (no gods)... are they not an atheist...?

They can be for sure, if they want to I guess, and I understand the point you're making, but I'd rather they not try to justify it here without expecting question or critique.

Originally Posted by Meslier

...if you want to separate yourself from both irrational theists and atheists, why cannot the AFA be an Australian skeptic foundation rather than an Australian atheist foundation...?

The AFA as it stands works just fine in my eyes. Can you illustrate where it may not, or do you just take issue with the definition? It's ok, you aren't the first and you won't be the last. I guess the AFA can't please everyone unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Meslier

...I was under the impression atheism was the "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god"...

I don't want to get bogged down with semantics or splitting hairs here but that terminology suggests that atheists automatically take the negative view. As in there might be a god but we don't believe it... if you catch my drift.

I myself are without a belief in (a/any) god or merely put I am 'godless'.

[Meslier]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

There's already one of those. I watched the AFA forum and the Australian Skeptics website for a while before deciding which organisation to send my dues to. The AFA won out because I like that they identified the problems religions cause our society as the greatest concern and aimed themselves squarely at them. I find the AFA definition of atheism useful. There are no gaps for people to fill with their personal woo. If someone comes here and can read English enough to understand the definition, discussion should be able to progress from there.
Sadly, the sophists and solipsists who turn up still try their hand at finding a gap and inserting their unsupported ideas as though no-one will notice or that we will be too polite to mention it.

The Australian Skeptics (at the time I was reading their literature) had a hands off religion policy (or at least a transcript of a senior member speaking that line) and seemed to be more geared toward taking the piss out of the rationally challenged. They have since shown my assessment of their goals and methods to be extremely short sighted and I am very impressed by the wins they have had in combating woo on several fronts in Australian society in the last two years.

Also: the AFA was formerly the Rationalists Association of South Australia or something similarly acronymous.

Someone who believes in Leprechauns is surely just a theist with very modest requirements for a deity. Easily awed. Eeeyore. They are an ass (you can have your ellipses if I can have my free form).

...no worries, you can have your free form...

...would you say that the definition encompasses all atheists...?
...if not what happens to the atheists it does not encompass...?
...and... who gets to make the choice...?

[Meslier]

Originally Posted by Fearless

They can be for sure, if they want to I guess, and I understand the point you're making, but I'd rather they not try to justify it here without expecting question or critique.

The AFA as it stands works just fine in my eyes. Can you illustrate where it may not, or do you just take issue with the definition? It's ok, you aren't the first and you won't be the last. I guess the AFA can't please everyone unfortunately.

I don't want to get bogged down with semantics or splitting hairs here but that terminology suggests that atheists automatically take the negative view. As in there might be a god but we don't believe it... if you catch my drift.

I myself are without a belief in (a/any) god or merely put I am 'godless'.

...I take issue with the definition... in terms of the definition (and please correct me if I am wrong)...
1) It assumes that atheists have a common value...
2) It states that there is no other way (other than science and fact) to test the truth of a statement; absurdisms and fiction can...
3) It can be extrapolated to include beliefs that are not rational... say if a person believes they will win tattslotto, does that make them a theist...?
4) I my be reading too much into it but it seems to preach that science and facts are the only tools to be used to approach life and living...
5) If any atheists do not accept the definition, the definition is incorrect, so the only way to rectify this is to remove any person who does not believe the definition...

[Mister Pervert]

Originally Posted by Meslier

...but what would you call a person who believes in leprechauns only (no gods)... are they not an atheist...?

...if you want to separate yourself from both irrational theists and atheists, why cannot the AFA be an Australian skeptic foundation rather than an Australian atheist foundation...?

Slippery ground, Meslier. Down in the trenches (and I speak from first-hand experience) there are Satanists, Pagans, nutcases and weirdos, etc. In a white-shirt-and-tie world, it might be easier to deal with such stuff - but alas, no.

Good luck in your travels...

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Meslier

...but what would you call a person who believes in leprechauns only (no gods)... are they not an atheist...?

...if you want to separate yourself from both irrational theists and atheists, why cannot the AFA be an Australian skeptic foundation rather than an Australian atheist foundation...?

I suppose officially, the AFA is exactly what it says-there is no evidence for gods, and so we don't believe in them.
Defacto, we are skeptical of any woo, because exactly the same tools used to deconstruct gods can be used to deconstruct beliefs in the supernatural, disembodied souls, hell, heaven, reincarnation, leprechauns, Loch Ness Monsters, homeopathy, etc and ad naeuseum.

We also deconstruct science. Or at least attempt to. If we fail, then it just might be good science.