I'm seeing the discussion about what 'atheism' actually is seeping into a lot of other threads, and (in my opinion) kind of dragging them off-topic a bit.
...so I thought it best to start a new one here dedicated to this (frankly - slightly strange in my opinion) topic.
I'm not gonna add any comments to start with - I'll probably join in more later. I'm more interested in hearing what others have to say to start with. But I'd ask that everybody focus their comments around the dictionary.com definition that I will provide here:
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Can each of you replying to this thread specify whether you accept the above definitions? If no, why not?
...I've got a feeling that many will accept definition 2, but reject definition 1... (From what has been said thus far in several threads...)
The word is pejoritive, along with being a word used to describe nothing.
Drachmann, A. B. (1977 ("an unchanged reprint of the 1922 edition")). Atheism in Pagan Antiquity. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-201-8. wrote:Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed.”
All of us, even Dan Peterson, know what it's like to be an "atheist" in regards to Krishna.
So we can agree to be labeled, and play along, or we can use tools like common sense and reason to discuss things related to God or Gods and leave labels where they belong.
For me, I simply haven't seen any evidence that there is a god. I'm open to the idea that he exists, if he is willing to show me that he does. But as of today - i've got zilch/zip/nada/nothing.
Also, i'm not actively 'searching' for him. I figure, if he wants me to know he's there, he'd tell me.
So what does that make me? Agnostic? Atheist? I don't know...
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Atheism is not believing in the existence of God or gods. I'm am of the subset who like to add that an atheism must be informed lack of belief, not in the sense of being well-schooled in philosophy of religion, but in the sense of having some idea about the proposed concepts of God or gods one isn't believing in. In short, newborns aren't atheists. So you can recast my above definition as rejection in belief of God or gods. Theists often will define atheism to mean the proposition that there is no God. It's not even uncommon for them to imply that atheism means absolute certainty in this proposition. That's largely because it's an easier thing to argue against.
truth dancer wrote:Does God have to be defined as a "being" as in #2?
Is one an atheist if there is belief in the mystery? Or the Unknown? Or Source? Or creativity?
Or does belief in any of the above disqualify one from belief in the Divine?
~dancer~
Hi truth dancer,
I honestly don't understand what any of those mean. I believe that there are mysteries that are unknown (and maybe verging on unknowable) to human beings. I don't know what what is meant by "Source" (with a capital "S"), but the concept of the entire universe exploding out of a singularity makes sense to me as the ultimate source of existence. I highly value creativity ... but I would never worship "Creativity" as though it were a conscious entity.
I think that people can have transcendent and spiritual experiences, but I think that Mormonism and other religions have tried to co-opt these experiences by putting boundaries in what they mean and trying to define them for people.
I'm interested in how you'd define the concepts you listed above.
by the way, as RoP predicted, I accept definition #2, but reject #1. I don't actively "believe" that no god exists any more than I actively "believe" that there is no monster in Loch Ness.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Well, I'm certainly not an Apatheist - as far as I can tell from the description.
I DO very much care about the question of God. It's possible that I shouldn't (maybe I should have better things to worry about! I'm sure I should :) ), but I can't deny that I care - quite a bit - about the question, and the conclusion I've reached on that question. (Not only has been one that has taken a lot of thought, but has changed my relationship with all kinds of people...)
As far as the relationship between 'atheist' and 'agnostic', I've always considered myself an agnostic atheist. Atheism isn't about 'knowing' anything - it only relates to 'belief' (either 'not believing in', or 'believing in the non-existence of'. Neither 'choice' involves 'knowledge' of anything as part of the definition...)
I am also wary of the use of the word 'doctrine' in definition 1. But if I were to go for the 'belief' option available in that definition (rather than doctrine), I can take definition 1 to be:
"the belief that there is no God"
Well, that IS what I believe. I really do believe that. And I see no issue with stating that. I don't need to go listing every single supernatural entity I don't believe in - I disbelieve them all. (I don't say I KNOW there isn't a God - I am an agnostic atheist. But that isn't what atheism means...)
NOW - if someone comes up with some evidence of a God that convinces me, then of course I change my mind and I'm no longer an atheist. But right now, I literally don't believe that there is any God. At all. And I see no issue whatsoever with holding that position.
So now - a bit of a follow up question:
For those who rejected definition 1 (and for the purposes of this question, pretend that the word 'doctrine' isn't there, and focus on the word 'belief'), are you rejecting it on the grounds that you don't feel it accurately represents YOUR viewpoint - as an atheist?
....or do you reject is as essentially an 'impossible' situation - as in those kinds of atheists don't 'really' exist - even if they think they believe 'in that way'?