So, Atheism. What that all about then?
Common sense.
Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?
by Quillsky 243 Replies latest jw friends
-
nicolaou
-
agonus
Terry, I feel you on the "THAT'S ME" epiphany.
When I first heard of "OCD", I was like, "oh, well, DUH..."
Then I actually learned about cult behavior and I was like, "oh, well, DOUBLE DUH..."
Then my sister told me about Asperger's and it was "Three DUHS and I'M OUT!"
I didn't put it quite as eloquently as you but you get my drift.
-
Essan
Seeing as we were talking definitions, here are a couple more which demonstrate the hierarchy of meaning historically and presently.
"Atheism (a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" - The Dictionary of Philosophy.
"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, [note this defines 'disbelief' as definite denial, not 'lack of belief'. Essan.] whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology." - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
There is no doubt that the secondary meaning is being promoted by a vocal community of Atheists (even here) as they attempt to redefine Atheism and wipe out the original and common primary definition.
Why?
-
Essan
Nic, I agree, Atheism is 'common sense'.
Theism - lack of 'common sense'.
Atheism - 'common sense'.
Agnosticism - 'uncommon sense'.
Granite, Garnet, Diamond.
Astrology, Classical Physics, Quantum Physics.
:)
(I'm being playful here but I'm not sure how well it will be received in this atmosphere).
-
Leolaia
There is no doubt that the secondary meaning is being promoted by a vocal community of Atheists (even here) as they attempt to redefine Atheism and wipe out the original and common primary definition. Why?
Because philosophical positions on the question of God do not yield a simpistic binary of theism = belief that there is a God and atheism = belief that there is not a God.
-
Essan
Leolaia, I agree that "philosophical positions on the question of God do not yield a simpistic binary of theism... and... atheism".
That is why Agnosticism exists as a third option. Atheism doesn't need to be redefined because Agnosticism already exists.
-
Terry
I've noticed a strong tendency (compulsion?) on the part of Believers (or those whose foundational value is faith) to insist on certain binary conditions as a "given" in nature.
I think it can logically be demonstrated there is a reason for this.
Choosing certainty over uncertainty eliminates the spectrum of grey area between BLACK and WHITE.
If you are afraid of the gray area because there are too many variables to consider and compare and feel comfortable with....the simplest way
to ease your anxiety is to eliminate that gray area by dogmatically insisting IT ISN'T THERE.
Therefore, you can't allow those who disagree with you to access or reference it either! It brings that anxiety back into play!
BELIEF is spackle. You can't see the crack in your thinking. FAITH is denying the reality of alternate explanations to yourself and everybody else.
Consequently, a person of FAITH can not, must not, will not allow that ATHEISM can also mean "without god" and not merely AGAINST god.
The Spackle patrol is on duty!!
-
LockedChaos
Athiesm
Not a Belief
but an Acceptance of Reality
-
DT
"There is no doubt that the secondary meaning is being promoted by a vocal community of Atheists (even here) as they attempt to redefine Atheism and wipe out the original and common primary definition. Why?" I think we can agree that the term atheist has a very long history (well over two thousand years). During this time, the basic term has had many different meanings and has often been used and abused by people with an agenda. Of course, members of the atheist community have a tendency to promote a meaning of the term that makes sense to them and actually describes most people who consider themselves atheists. The term atheist was initially used as a derogatory term. I don't see why atheists should be content with definitions of atheist that are meant to be insulting. I question your assertion that your favored definition of atheist is the original definition. The original use of atheist was to describe people who were ungodly or impious (without god). It was only used as an insult and reflected the prejudices of the people using the term. Therefore, we have examples of the Romans using the term for early Christians because they didn't worship the Roman gods. The original meaning of atheist was far broader than the definitions in use today. Even though you are an agnostic, you would have certainly been called an atheist according to early meanings of the word. Eventually, some people began to conclude that the term atheist could be useful to distinguish themselves from theists. It shouldn't be a surprise that they resist definitions of the term that are insulting or misrepresent them.
-
Quillsky
Exactly DT.....
Eventually, some people began to conclude that the term atheist could be useful to distinguish themselves from theists. It shouldn't be a surprise that they resist definitions of the term that are insulting or misrepresent them.
So perhaps there is no ultimate definition of the word itself.
Is it one of those loaded conceptual words where the mere usage of the word and the context says more about the user of it, and their attitude towards themselves in relation to the intended recipient, than about the core historical and current meaning of the word?
