| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"TD" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2005 04:46:22 AM |
| Object: |
Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
Are Atheists really Theists? & Is Atheism a religion?
I thought of putting this brief article together in response to the
flood of religious nonsense on a.a. It is interesting to have
discussions with different faiths if they are sincere about the
discussion. It is also interesting to see how Fundamentalist in
particular attempt to reconcile absurdities with logic and what manner
of excuses they invent to avoid the obvious.
I know that I may differ to quite a few on this News-Group in regards
to this but that is my opinion. However the nonsense that has dribbled
through of late is an absurdity of the Hindu variety.
The Dr. Jai Maharaj (apparently not a real Dr.) posts (and the old Janu
posts) do not attempt to discuss anything other than the views
'Hinduism is great', 'spam reigns supreme' and all other understandings
(even other religions, faiths or paths) are either wrong or inferior. I
will leave it to the religions to fight it out amongst themselves as to
which in their eyes is the 'better' religion. Instead I would like to
focus on the issue of defining atheism.
Please do not cross post this article nor reply to it with added
News-Groups; this is for a.a. only. If a Theist wants to respond they
can have the decency to subscribe to this group and keep it within the
confines of this group.
====
The Meaning of Atheism [1]
"Theism" is defined as the "belief in a god or gods." The term "theism"
is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god -
the personal god of monotheism - but as used throughout this book,
"theism" signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix
"a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without
theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the
absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence
of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.
Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any
kind," [2] or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are
categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism - and
they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of
atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence
of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god
does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.
As here defined, the term "atheism" has a wider scope than the meanings
usually attached to it. The two most common usages are described by
Paul Edwards as follows:
"First, there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if
he maintains that there is no God, where this is taken to mean that
"God exists" expresses a false proposition. Secondly, there is also a
broader sense in which a person is an atheist if he rejects belief in
God, regardless of whether his rejection is based on the view that
belief in God is false." [3]
Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does
justice to atheism in its widest sense. "Atheism" is a privative term,
a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. If we use the
phrase "belief-in-god" as a substitute for theism, we see that its
negation is "no-belief-in-god" or in other words "a-theism." This is
simply another way of stating "without theism" or the absence of belief
in god.
"Theism" and "atheism" are descriptive terms: they specify the presence
or absence of a belief in god. If a person is designated as a theist,
this tells us that he believes in a god, not why he believes. If a
person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not
believe in a god, not why he does not believe.
There are many reasons why one may not believe in the existence of a
god: one may have never encountered the concept of god before, or one
may consider the idea of a supernatural being to be absurd, or one may
think that there is no evidence to support the belief in a god. But
regardless of the reason, if one does not believe in the existence of a
god, one is an atheist; i.e., one is without theistic belief. ... One
either accepts the proposition "god exists" as true, or one does not.
====
Playing with the word Belief
The connotation behind the words 'belief' and 'believe' is often played
upon by religionists as a proof that atheists are religious in one way
or another.
It is a fact that words change (in their meaning) from one culture,
time period and society to the next. Even amongst individuals of the
same community various words can take different shades of meaning. When
a discussion arises often a word is placed in a context (or framework)
that is familiar to the speaker; but such a word may well be completely
different to the understanding or interpretation of the other person.
The context, history, personal interpretation or understanding of a
word along with its definition should be considered by religionists
before they attempt to play pointless word games.
For example if I were to say:
"I believe that when I turn on this tap water will come out".
A simple enough statement on its own and easily understood by most
people in my community. However this simple statement can also be read
in the following ways:
Atheist:
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist (in normal day to day events):
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist playing word games:
Atheists are religious because they 'believe' or have faith in
something.
The above example leads to an important question as to the honesty and
motive of the person who distorts a simple statement and turns it into
something they want it to say. A Theist in a normal day to day life
situation would not attach any spiritual or added meaning to the
sentence, yet this miraculously changes when they enter a discussion
with an atheist.
Many Theists (Fundamentalists in particular) seem to exhibit a
dualistic (or '1984') form of thinking along with a heavy dose of
double standards when a discussion ensues. On the one hand they take a
word and its definition 'as is' while on the other hand they attempt to
manipulate it to try and make it say what they want it to say.
If a Theist is serious (and honest) then atheism must be defined by
atheists, if a Theist can not agree to atheism being defined by
atheists (and the definition itself being accepted) then any discussion
is pointless. If a Theist forces his opinion then atheists by all
rights have the right to re-define Theism in any way they see fit which
would certainly not go down well with most Fundamentalists.
====
Theist games
Theists attempt to re-define atheism in a context that agrees with
their views. This is partially valid if they want to discuss their
opinion of atheism with other Theists who agree with their definition.
It is not valid however to re-define atheism when a discussion ensues
with atheists who have their own definition.
Theists attempt to deny atheists the right to use the words belief,
believe or faith in a non religious context. In their eyes this is a
hidden proof that atheists are secretly religious in some way and/or
that atheist's hold to a set of doctrines or teachings on account of
'believing'.
Non-Belief is turned into 'belief'
Insistence of Non-Belief is turned into 'doctrine,' 'dogma' or
teachings (with spiritual connotations).
And so on it goes.
Quick One Liners (if anyone has some more please list them below)
* If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
* If atheism is a religion, then not believing in atheism is atheism.
====
An honest Theist speaks
I have had the good fortune to know a Theist (Salmun Harut) that over
the years I have come to respect. He belongs to an eclectic group and
not one of the main religions. I asked him about the question of
atheism and its definitions. He said:
"It does not matter how a Theist tries to define atheism, it is
immaterial and of no consequence or value. What is important and should
be noted is how an atheist defines atheism; therein lies the true
meaning. If one is thirsty they do not go and ask for food, in a
similar instance one does not go to a religion or theism to find the
definition of atheism."
What about the different dictionary definitions?
"It does not matter, dictionaries do not take into account personal
understandings, one should go directly to the atheists and ask them how
they define Atheism and then accept it. Only from the acceptance of
their own definition can a true dialogue be opened. If the Theist is
not willing to accept how an atheist defines himself then the Theist is
being dishonest and wants to engage in rhetorical word games."
----
Footnotes:
[1] The Case Against God By George H. Smith
[2] John Hick, Philosophy of Religion (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1963), p. 4.
[3] Paul Edwards, "Some Notes on Anthropomorphic Theology," Religious
Experience and Truth, edited by Sidney Hook (New York: New York
University Press, 1961), pp. 241-242.
----
.
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
28 Apr 2005 08:54:53 AM |
|
|
"TD" <yulingaz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114681582.787385.132340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Are Atheists really Theists? & Is Atheism a religion?
[snip]
====
Playing with the word Belief
The connotation behind the words 'belief' and 'believe' is
often played
upon by religionists as a proof that atheists are religious
in one way
or another.
It is a fact that words change (in their meaning) from one
culture,
time period and society to the next. Even amongst
individuals of the
same community various words can take different shades of
meaning. When
a discussion arises often a word is placed in a context (or
framework)
that is familiar to the speaker; but such a word may well be
completely
different to the understanding or interpretation of the
other person.
The context, history, personal interpretation or
understanding of a
word along with its definition should be considered by
religionists
before they attempt to play pointless word games.
For example if I were to say:
"I believe that when I turn on this tap water will come
out".
A simple enough statement on its own and easily understood
by most
people in my community. However this simple statement can
also be read
in the following ways:
Atheist:
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist (in normal day to day events):
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist playing word games:
Atheists are religious because they 'believe' or have faith
in
something.
It can be argued that even the theist does not believe in the
the tap = water analogy in any religious sense. If no water
comes out, he or she recognizes the fact. Faith would require
that the person insist that the fact no water can be seen
cannot be taken as proof that there is no water present.
[snip]
I appreciate your efforts here, and I enjoyed the article.
I would like to add a caution about the word honesty and the
underlying suggestion that theists are inherently untruthful,
even liars. I believe that a lie entails an intention to
deceive, and with rare exceptions, theists firmly believe in
their "truth." While it may be in a sense dishonest to refuse
to accept, even deny the existence of verifiable evidence,
their conditioning requires it, and deception is not their
intention. I fear we may be committing the same kind of
contextual error as theists when they redefine belief and
faith to fit their argument if we fail to recognize that
intellectual dishonesty and a lie are not exactly the same
thing.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TD" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
29 Apr 2005 06:20:43 AM |
|
|
Marvin wrote:
-Big Trim-
It can be argued that even the theist does not believe in the
the tap = water analogy in any religious sense. If no water
comes out, he or she recognizes the fact. Faith would require
that the person insist that the fact no water can be seen
cannot be taken as proof that there is no water present.
A very good point, thank you.
I would like to add a caution about the word honesty and the
underlying suggestion that theists are inherently untruthful,
even liars. I believe that a lie entails an intention to
deceive, and with rare exceptions, theists firmly believe in
their "truth." While it may be in a sense dishonest to refuse
to accept, even deny the existence of verifiable evidence,
their conditioning requires it, and deception is not their
intention. I fear we may be committing the same kind of
contextual error as theists when they redefine belief and
faith to fit their argument if we fail to recognize that
intellectual dishonesty and a lie are not exactly the same
thing.
You are correct I will modify and re-word that a bit.
Thank you for the input; this is what I was hoping for, other ideas,
criticism etc which in the end can perhaps create a better article.
TD
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
29 Apr 2005 11:08:21 AM |
|
|
"TD" <yulingaz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114773643.164443.291430@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marvin wrote:
-Big Trim-
It can be argued that even the theist does not believe in
the
the tap = water analogy in any religious sense. If no
water
comes out, he or she recognizes the fact. Faith would
require
that the person insist that the fact no water can be seen
cannot be taken as proof that there is no water present.
A very good point, thank you.
I would like to add a caution about the word honesty and
the
underlying suggestion that theists are inherently
untruthful,
even liars. I believe that a lie entails an intention to
deceive, and with rare exceptions, theists firmly believe
in
their "truth." While it may be in a sense dishonest to
refuse
to accept, even deny the existence of verifiable evidence,
their conditioning requires it, and deception is not their
intention. I fear we may be committing the same kind of
contextual error as theists when they redefine belief and
faith to fit their argument if we fail to recognize that
intellectual dishonesty and a lie are not exactly the same
thing.
You are correct I will modify and re-word that a bit.
Thank you for the input; this is what I was hoping for,
other ideas,
criticism etc which in the end can perhaps create a better
article.
TD
You are welcome. I look forward to your revisions, and I hope
I see them. There is so much on here that I can't read
everything. Often I skim through looking for familiar names
or interesting sounding headers, and I know that method skips
some of the best discussions.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
28 Apr 2005 11:50:04 AM |
|
|
I agree we must at least begin on the basis that both sides
are sincere in their belief/lack of belief but we do get a lot of
lies. Jose*, or whatever his name is (Mr. Stevens?) is fully aware
how we define atheism yet insists in telling us we are something
we are not. His continued refusal to accept what we say
shows he is either intentionally lying or a man with a mind more
rigid than Stonehenge in his thinking and just as solid.
*Sorry correction: Dr. Jai
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
28 Apr 2005 12:02:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:50:04 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
I agree we must at least begin on the basis that both sides
are sincere in their belief/lack of belief but we do get a lot of
lies. Jose*, or whatever his name is (Mr. Stevens?) is fully aware
how we define atheism yet insists in telling us we are something
we are not. His continued refusal to accept what we say
shows he is either intentionally lying or a man with a mind more
rigid than Stonehenge in his thinking and just as solid.
Yet he's typical of a large number of theistic bigots who are
convinced we're unreasonable, untrustworthy etc - that is part and
parcel of what they think an atheist is. So they "know" we're not
telling the truth about ourselves. The bigotry reinforces itself
circularly.
*Sorry correction: Dr. Jai
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
28 Apr 2005 11:48:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:54:53 -0500, "Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net>
wrote:
"TD" <yulingaz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114681582.787385.132340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Are Atheists really Theists? & Is Atheism a religion?
[snip]
====
Playing with the word Belief
The connotation behind the words 'belief' and 'believe' is
often played
upon by religionists as a proof that atheists are religious
in one way
or another.
It is a fact that words change (in their meaning) from one
culture,
time period and society to the next. Even amongst
individuals of the
same community various words can take different shades of
meaning. When
a discussion arises often a word is placed in a context (or
framework)
that is familiar to the speaker; but such a word may well be
completely
different to the understanding or interpretation of the
other person.
The context, history, personal interpretation or
understanding of a
word along with its definition should be considered by
religionists
before they attempt to play pointless word games.
For example if I were to say:
"I believe that when I turn on this tap water will come
out".
A simple enough statement on its own and easily understood
by most
people in my community. However this simple statement can
also be read
in the following ways:
Atheist:
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist (in normal day to day events):
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist playing word games:
Atheists are religious because they 'believe' or have faith
in
something.
It can be argued that even the theist does not believe in the
the tap = water analogy in any religious sense. If no water
comes out, he or she recognizes the fact. Faith would require
that the person insist that the fact no water can be seen
cannot be taken as proof that there is no water present.
[snip]
I appreciate your efforts here, and I enjoyed the article.
I would like to add a caution about the word honesty and the
underlying suggestion that theists are inherently untruthful,
even liars. I believe that a lie entails an intention to
deceive, and with rare exceptions, theists firmly believe in
their "truth." While it may be in a sense dishonest to refuse
to accept, even deny the existence of verifiable evidence,
their conditioning requires it, and deception is not their
intention. I fear we may be committing the same kind of
contextual error as theists when they redefine belief and
faith to fit their argument if we fail to recognize that
intellectual dishonesty and a lie are not exactly the same
thing.
I agree we must at least begin on the basis that both sides
are sincere in their belief/lack of belief but we do get a lot of
lies. Jose, or whatever his name is (Mr. Stevens?) is fully aware
how we define atheism yet insists in telling us we are something
we are not. His continued refusal to accept what we say
shows he is either intentionally lying or a man with a mind more
rigid than Stonehenge in his thinking and just as solid.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
28 Apr 2005 01:16:29 PM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in
message news:nl4271l6oq8rnh09gnug0d3ccp6gksv5r5@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:54:53 -0500, "Marvin"
<marvin2@FOGstarband.net>
wrote:
"TD" <yulingaz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114681582.787385.132340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Are Atheists really Theists? & Is Atheism a religion?
[snip]
====
Playing with the word Belief
The connotation behind the words 'belief' and 'believe'
is
often played
upon by religionists as a proof that atheists are
religious
in one way
or another.
It is a fact that words change (in their meaning) from
one
culture,
time period and society to the next. Even amongst
individuals of the
same community various words can take different shades of
meaning. When
a discussion arises often a word is placed in a context
(or
framework)
that is familiar to the speaker; but such a word may well
be
completely
different to the understanding or interpretation of the
other person.
The context, history, personal interpretation or
understanding of a
word along with its definition should be considered by
religionists
before they attempt to play pointless word games.
For example if I were to say:
"I believe that when I turn on this tap water will come
out".
A simple enough statement on its own and easily
understood
by most
people in my community. However this simple statement can
also be read
in the following ways:
Atheist:
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist (in normal day to day events):
That when the tap (knob) is turned water will come out.
Theist playing word games:
Atheists are religious because they 'believe' or have
faith
in
something.
It can be argued that even the theist does not believe in t
he
the tap = water analogy in any religious sense. If no
water
comes out, he or she recognizes the fact. Faith would
require
that the person insist that the fact no water can be seen
cannot be taken as proof that there is no water present.
[snip]
I appreciate your efforts here, and I enjoyed the article.
I would like to add a caution about the word honesty and
the
underlying suggestion that theists are inherently
untruthful,
even liars. I believe that a lie entails an intention to
deceive, and with rare exceptions, theists firmly believe
in
their "truth." While it may be in a sense dishonest to
refuse
to accept, even deny the existence of verifiable evidence,
their conditioning requires it, and deception is not their
intention. I fear we may be committing the same kind of
contextual error as theists when they redefine belief and
faith to fit their argument if we fail to recognize that
intellectual dishonesty and a lie are not exactly the same
thing.
I agree we must at least begin on the basis that both sides
are sincere in their belief/lack of belief but we do get a
lot of
lies. Jose, or whatever his name is (Mr. Stevens?) is fully
aware
how we define atheism yet insists in telling us we are
something
we are not. His continued refusal to accept what we say
shows he is either intentionally lying or a man with a mind
more
rigid than Stonehenge in his thinking and just as solid.
--
Les Hellawell
Point taken.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TD" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
29 Apr 2005 06:36:50 AM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
I agree we must at least begin on the basis that both sides
are sincere in their belief/lack of belief but we do get a lot of
lies. Jose, or whatever his name is (Mr. Stevens?) is fully aware
how we define atheism yet insists in telling us we are something
we are not. His continued refusal to accept what we say
shows he is either intentionally lying or a man with a mind more
rigid than Stonehenge in his thinking and just as solid.
That was my mistake I inadvertently focused on the Fundamentalists that
I am familiar with (and are/were dishonest) and wrongly extended that
to all Theists without giving it a second thought. Ugh I must be
getting old to make a slip up like that. :-(
I am glad Marvin picked up on it; otherwise I would have ended up doing
the very thing I dislike amongst others.
TD
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists really Theists? / Is Atheism a religion? |
29 Apr 2005 09:11:49 AM |
|
|
On 29 Apr 2005 04:36:50 -0700, "TD" <yulingaz@hotmail.com> wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
I agree we must at least begin on the basis that both sides
are sincere in their belief/lack of belief but we do get a lot of
lies. Jose, or whatever his name is (Mr. Stevens?) is fully aware
how we define atheism yet insists in telling us we are something
we are not. His continued refusal to accept what we say
shows he is either intentionally lying or a man with a mind more
rigid than Stonehenge in his thinking and just as solid.
That was my mistake I inadvertently focused on the Fundamentalists that
I am familiar with (and are/were dishonest) and wrongly extended that
to all Theists without giving it a second thought. Ugh I must be
getting old to make a slip up like that. :-(
I am glad Marvin picked up on it; otherwise I would have ended up doing
the very thing I dislike amongst others.
Also of course whilst I always default to accepting they are sincere
in their beliefs they very rarely return the courtesy and respect my
right not believe.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
