Defining God and Atheism (page 2)

Panda

Hmmm... I wanted to say something clever. Something like "What would happen if god and atheism walked into a bar?" I mean, would the universe implode or something? Or how would anyone define atheism if there wasn't even a question about whether there was a god/being. Imagine there's no heaven, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too...

I consider myself an atheist. But I also consider myself (and this is more important as far as world peace is concerned) an anti-theocrat. I rememeber a few years ago some atheists were throwing around the word "brights", which is nice enough but maybe not as definite as atheist. When my theist friends ask how to describe my beliefs (should anyone ask) I tell them to call me a raging atheist --- that way I circumvent all the wonderous christian arguments for belief in a god.

But I also like to label myself as a non-believer. I find that non-believer gives pause to the conversation. A long enough pause for me to skeedaddle---

jaguarbass

What are your thoughts? Is anybody else concerned about how we define things like god and atheism?

According to Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion, being known as an atheist can cause you some serious repercussions.

So, yes I am concerned how I define God and atheism and who I define it too.

Your topic makes me think of the apostle Pauls words, about being all things to all people when I in Rome Im a roman.

When I'm around Christians, I'm a Christian.

I dont need to tell Christians that I work with that I am an agnostic and possibly an atheist.

I'll be run out of town on a rail and tar and feathered.

I see myself as an observer in this world. I am sympathetic and relate to what atheist say.

But I dont see the upside to me wearing the label.

PrimateDave

This is an interesting topic that is closely related to a recent thread started by Sirona. I also consider myself a non-theist. I think the point is well expressed by the Wikipedia article on Nontheism:

The word non-theism is not in the Oxford English Dictionary as of 2007, which has however "non-theist" and "non-theistic", "Not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity." It should be noted that the term is macaronic, combining Latin "non-" with Greek ?e??. First recorded usage of Non-theism is by G. J. Holyoake in 1852,[1] who introduces it because
"Mr. [Charles] Southwell has taken an objection to the term Atheism. We are glad he has. We have disused it a long time [...]. We disuse it, because Atheist is a worn-out word. Both the ancients and the moderns have understood by it one without God, and also without morality. Thus the term connotes more than any well-informed and earnest person accepting it ever included in it; that is, the word carries with it associations of immorality, which have been repudiated by the Atheist as seriously as by the Christian. Non-theism is a term less open to the same misunderstanding, as it implies the simple non-acceptance of the Theist's explanation of the origin and government of the world."

The point is putting into words what we think and feel. Many of us raised in monotheistic, Christian families, were not given the vocabulary to fully express our thoughts. Sometimes the word we think best explains our beliefs can come with additional connotations that we may disagree with. God, religion, spirituality, and atheism are words that carry broad ranges of meaning depending on who you are speaking with or writing to.

Dave

jstalin

Yes, there is a subtle difference:

Atheist: I have a firm belief that there is not a god.

Non-Theist: I do not believe there is a god.

I consider myself a non-theist.

Deputy Dog

DT

What is your problem with the word "agnostic"? I believe it's the word you seem to be looking for. Atheism, nontheism are both word that adress the topic of theism.

DT

Thank you for all the insightful comments.

What is your problem with the word "agnostic"? I believe it's the word you seem to be looking for.

The term agnostic is a useful one and I sometimes feel comfortable applying it to myself. The problem I have is that it is very broad and has some negative connotations. I think I can illustrate one of the problems this way. When I was a JW and believed in the existence of Jehovah, I still admitted to myself that I was also an agnostic. Logically, we can never know anything with complete certainty. Even if the evidence seems overwhelming, we can never fully trust that our impressions of the outside world are accurate or that our ability to evaluate evidence isn't compromised. One definition of agnostic is one who believes that it isn't possible to have certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, so I believe that applied to me, even when I was a pretty strong theist. Some people even view themselves as agnostic theists. They may believe in a god, but openly admit that they don't have firm evidence for their belief.

I'm definitely not a theist, so the term agnostic isn't very descriptive in my case. Some people view agnostics as not very interested in the question of god's existence or unwilling to expend the mental effort to evaluate the evidence. It's such a broad term that I'm sure that is true for some agnostics, but this isn't really fair the large number of agnostics that don't feel that way.

Gopher

Atheist: I have a firm belief that there is not a god.
Non-Theist: I do not believe there is a god.
I consider myself a non-theist.

In response to Jstalin's comment above, as an atheist (and a member of Minnesota Atheists) I object to the definition that an atheist has a "belief". BELIEVERS in a deity have a belief. Atheism is non-belief in god, pure and simple. An atheist is a non-theist.

Now, there are "strong" atheists and "weak" atheists. Strong atheists either assert that there can be no god, or that belief in god is dangerous or foolish. Weak atheists simply have concluded there is not enough evidence for a god, and they pretty much leave it at that. The vast majority of atheists (including myself) are of the "weak" variety.

Deputy Dog

DT

Logically, we can never know anything with complete certainty.

I mean no disrespect. If you believe this to be true, why would you be surprised to find language elusive?

DT

DT
Logically, we can never know anything with complete certainty.
I mean no disrespect. If you believe this to be true, why would you be surprised to find language elusive?

I'm not surprised to find language elusive. It think part of the problem is that some people place too much trust in their perception of words. This is especially true about topics that people are emotionally involved in. Atheism in not just a description, it is a word that has been demonised and has changed in meaning as society changes. People often have strong emotional associations and outdated definitions in their mind when they use it. This causes problems in communication when others view the word differently. We can't avoid the fact that language is elusive, but we can avoid some of the problems when we recognise how elusive it can be.

real one

There is a God Jehovah or Yahwey

Defining God and Atheism

Share this