Question:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs. And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within society. I’m not critical of their right do so. But I *am* critical of the numerous atheists who seek to avoid having to defend their beliefs by denying that atheism is, fundamentally, a religion. Oxford defines a religion as any "thing someone is devoted to." Further, these atheists seek to deny the fact that many of their fellow atheists proselytize their beliefs, and impress those beliefs on others. For example, the following is taken from the homepage of American Atheists: "Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. It was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case — Murray v. Curlett — was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began: "Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment." In addition, American Atheists actively advance their beliefs. These beliefs include their opposition to prayer in public schools, to a National Day of Prayer; to teaching religion in public schools (even in the context of history); and a prohibition against any religious displays on public land. Indeed, the basic motive of the "atheistic creed" seems to be the total annihilation of any public religious expression. To encourage atheists to lobby on behalf of these beliefs, the American Atheist website provides contact information for members of Congress, and urges atheists to write or email their members and let their views on these issues be known. Now, there are some components of the "atheistic creed" that I agree with with (but not many). However, I’m not arguing the validity of these beliefs. We can save that for another post. What I *am* saying is that many atheists try to hide behind the duplicitous "not-theist" argument. By doing so, they deny the fact that atheism is essentially a religion (again, Oxford defines religion as a "thing that one is devoted to"), and further deny that many atheists actively proselytize their beliefs. Regards, TAK Before you buy.
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist."
Thats what it means. Oxford defines a religion as any "thing someone is devoted to." Further, these atheists seek to deny the fact that many of their fellow atheists proselytize their beliefs, and impress those beliefs on others.
(snip) By your definition, anti-santa-ism (the disbelief in santa) is a religion. Quantumism (the belief in quantum physics) is a religion. anti-unicorn-ism is a religion. Communism, Marxism, Capitalism, and Euclidian geometry are religions. Sphereism and Geocentricism are religions. Anything that can be debated, and believed in (or not believed in), is thus a religion… Religion implies a belief STRUCTURE, it implies multiple levels of set beliefs, a creed, ceremonies, and a GOD. Atheism has no God. Atheism has no "beliefs" other than concerning the existance of the gods of religions. IF there were no religions, atheism would essentially cease to exist. You are redefining "religion" to include atheism, and by doing so are opening the flood-gates of any other philosophy, theory, and world-view that someone believes in. You can’t have it both ways. Tirdun tirdun at yahoo dot com KoX EAC Before you buy.
Response:
[snip Murray petition self-description of atheists from AA] That is, without question, a belief system. [...]
You are almost right (what I see is the comparison of parts of a belief system with – well – Western monotheism, but the difference is not the point). The problem is that Murray’s lawyers, and sometimes American Atheist representants, speak in the name of all atheists, without any mandate; and you ignore that. In my experience, atheists have lots of different belief systems (a lot more different ones than theists); most American atheists are no American Atheist members; many of them are mad at AA; and most atheists aren’t even USAmerican (just like me; I’m Hungarian). And, think about it: is ‘theism’ a religion or a belief system? It isn’t a religion but a bunch of organised or personal religions; and it isn’t a belief _system_ as it has one single common belief (in the existence of God/gods). Bye Daneel [a#323 | U of Ediacara student #000666] ! DO NOT send emails to my DejaNews adress, but to !
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist."
Because that’s what the word means. But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs.
So do bowlers, moron. And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within society. I’m not critical of their right do so. But I *am* critical of the numerous atheists who seek to avoid having to defend their beliefs by denying that atheism is, fundamentally, a religion. Oxford defines a religion as any "thing someone is devoted to."
This is only one of the definitions, and is referring to using the word ‘religion’ as being devoted to something, such as "bowling is his religion". Using your own argument, bowling is also a religion. — Merlyn LeRoy
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs.
Please tell me one thing that I believe _because I am atheist._ Go ahead, try it. You will fail, and here is why: atheism is not a belief system, it is a conclusion. I am atheist because I hold certain beliefs. I do not hold those beliefs because I am atheist. Don’t believe me? I used to hold very much the same beliefs when I was a theist. The difference was that I didn’t apply them to the concept of God. When I did, I concluded that I could not accept as true claims that people had made about god. So go ahead. Tell me what I believe because I am an atheist. I’m listening. paul
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist."
Anyone who claims to be a "not theist" without being able to define either gods or theism, nor what is it that makes a theist a theist, should be asked to provide evidence that "not theism" is a factual description of themselves. After that, they should be laughed at and dismissed as the fools they are. But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs.
Certainly. And some of these beliefs are no different from superstitions. And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within society.
The belief that all theists are stupid and/or irrational is a commonly preached tenet. There is also the dogma that human beings come in two flavours: theist and atheist. Naturally, all of this is simply presumed as true, no arguments are ever presented in support, other than fallacies. I’m not critical of their right do so. But I *am* critical of the numerous atheists who seek to avoid having to defend their beliefs by denying that atheism is, fundamentally, a religion. Oxford defines a religion as any "thing someone is devoted to." Further, these atheists seek to deny the fact that many of their fellow atheists proselytize their beliefs, and impress those beliefs on others.
That’s because they have convinced themselves that they don’t actually have any beliefs with respect to their "atheism". It’s much like a naive neo-Darwinist, who tells you that his opinions on what went on during the precambrian era are not opinions at all, but statements of fact. For example, the following is taken from the homepage of American Atheists:
(snip) "Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."
If you actually speak to an American Atheist about this issue, he/she will tell you atheism isn’t a belief nor does it involve any beliefs, regardless of what is written in their publications. O’Hair maintained this position as well. Now, there are some components of the "atheistic creed" that I agree with with (but not many). However, I’m not arguing the validity of these beliefs. We can save that for another post. What I *am* saying is that many atheists try to hide behind the duplicitous "not-theist" argument.
But that’s the whole point. Hiding from reality. (snip) — Atheism makes you stupid.
Response:
most American atheists are not American Atheist members; many of them are mad at AA; and most atheists aren’t even USAmerican (just like me; I’m Hungarian).
The public battle here in America is mostly between zealot extremists of both sides. Or at least these are the groups getting the most press. Atheism isn’t a religion, but some Atheists religiously promote it in order to counteract the Christian Fundamentalist zealots who can’t keep their self-righteousness to themselves. The zealous Fundies never get it though. Instead of asking themselves what they might’ve done to provoke the attacks, they just dodge responsibility by blaming it on attacks from Satan against their righteousness. When they do the beating, it’s God’s will. When they receive the beating, it’s Satan attacking them. They can never lose. M Before you buy.
Response:
So, by your definition, one’s political affiliation, spouse, child, family, hobby, profession (have you ever met a devoted teacher? father? stamp collector? Republican? activist?)…the list could go on ad nauseum…is also one’s religion? What then is Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism by comparison to these things? What about those theists who do not express devotion to their faiths (as seems to be the case with most Americans)? Or are you going by a different definition of "devoted"? Please enlighten us here. We atheists are so clearly inferior users of the language. Is this the way you read the Dictionary? Form an opinion about the definition of a term and then seek out the one that most closely suits your purpose? Or is it an inherent part of your religion to ignore the obvious? Ever hear of the effect of context on a word? Ever hear the old song, "My Girl’s Pussy"? Do you know what the singer’s referring to? (I’ll give you three guesses; you clearly need them.) On to your use of the word "proselytize." When a Christian minister attempts to fight to have the so-called Ten Commandments hung on public building walls, is he proselytizing his faith? (Okay, I’ll hold your hand through this one.) The answer is no. The same goes when an atheist or atheist organization works to support the wall separating church from state. It is not proselytizing. Go ahead, look it up. Your argument rapes logic and leaves it bloody, waiting to die. Fortunately, it will survive. Additionally, you, sir, have committed a heinous offense to the English language. Again, it will survive. Yet you must pay for your offense. Your penance is to say fifty Hail Ben Jonsons and read the complete OED from the first cover to the last. * * * Glenn * * * argument. By doing so, they deny the fact that atheism is essentially a religion (again, Oxford defines religion as a "thing that one is devoted to"), and further deny that many atheists actively proselytize their beliefs. Regards, TAK
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
: Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. : Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." Yep. See the OED. : But this is clearly not so. Nope. Clear to a slanderous liar and contemptable bigot, perhaps. : Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs. Ultimately irrelevant; atheism merely allows the set of all potential beliefs or belief systems that do not contain gods. Atheism itself is not a belief system. Knowing someone is an atheist does not say one iota about what one believes; only what one does not believe. This is only confusing to a fanatic blinded by a polar view of the world. : But I *am* critical of : the numerous atheists who seek to avoid having to defend their beliefs : by denying that atheism is, fundamentally, a religion. Oxford defines a : religion as any "thing someone is devoted to." Equivocation fallacy. You’re selectively using the most imprecise and metaphorical definition, inappropriate to the context in which you are using it, to arrive at a false conclusion. Is politics a religion in the same sense Catholicism and Buddhism are? Of course not; religion, in the context under discussion, is more than something someone is devoted to. Same goes for bowling. I know devoted bowlers – is bowling their religion? Or opera-goers? Or spouses? Using this definition is fine for common speech; we know that when we say "sports is Bob’s religion", we don’t mean it in the same way as we do when we say "Methodism is Bob’s religion". As such, I can be as devoted to atheism as humanly possible; it still does not make it a religion under any precise usage. I expect you know this; and thus, your remark is another slander from your "tolerant" faith. : For example, the following is taken from the homepage of American : Atheists: American Atheists speaks for itself; it does not speak for the majority of atheists, even in the US. While (like the ACLU) useful for winning rights in court for atheists and other secularists, one is not necessarily a member by being an atheist, unlike…say… the Catholic Church. : In addition, American Atheists actively advance their beliefs. These : beliefs include their opposition to prayer in public schools, This is not a belief; it is a desire for the enforcement and protection of constitutional *law*, which your "tolerant" religion constantly seeks to overturn. Since when is opposing having someone else impose their religious beliefs on minority schoolchildren itself a religious belief? : National Day of Prayer; to teaching religion in public schools (even in : the context of history); and a prohibition against any religious : displays on public land. Indeed, the basic motive of the "atheistic : creed" seems to be the total annihilation of any public religious : expression. Liar. It is opposition to religion using govenment power (and, ultimately backed by police violence) to prevent any religious group from imposing itself in the public sphere. Granted, I don’t expect you to understand the distinction, since the use of government force to impose your particular religion’s mores is part and parcel of your "tolerant" church. *NO* secularist organization opposes private and voluntary expressions of conscience. But public religious displays indicate government support, and are hence an involuntary imposition of the selected religion on all those who do not hold it. Voluntary prayer in public school is perfectly legal and acceptable to atheists and secularists (and other religious minorities, for that matter [*]), as long as it does not occur in such a way as to single out non-participants, at which point it becomes coercive. [*] I find theocrats’ use of the "atheists want to keep religion out of public life" argument particularly disingenuous, especially considering that most suits against public displays of religion or prayer in schools are brought by believers, often even of the majority religion. So much for "tolerance", Kempis. Here you are spouting the usual pro- theocratic hate speech we’ve come to expect from your sort. I sniffed you out from the start, I can say with significant smugness. | Peter Wykoff Walker II Alt.Atheist #3 | "He who wishes to succeed Dept. of Space Physics, Rice University | in life must learn not to | heed the Bird of Prophecy." BAAWA Squire-in-training | | -Esigie, Oba of the African
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs.
Various -different- beliefs. Atheists need not have any beliefs in common. And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within society.
Sure. What individual doesn’t, directly or indirectly, promote his/her own beliefs? I’m not critical of their right do so. But I *am* critical of the numerous atheists who seek to avoid having to defend their beliefs by denying that atheism is, fundamentally, a religion. Oxford defines a religion as any "thing someone is devoted to."
According to my copy of the OED, yes, as the -fourteenth- alternate usage of the word. This is certainly not the way most people would define the term. This definition is listed to reflect hyperbolic statements such as "Baseball was his religion," not as the primary meaning of the word. Note the primary definition: "Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life." You are trying to equivocate on the different meanings. However, as long as you are clear about your definitions, that’s not a problem. By the definition you give, I suppose some atheists could be considered religious. However, to demonstrate that atheism as a whole is a religion by your definition, you would have to show that -all- atheists are devoted to their atheism. This is certainly not the case. Most atheists don’t give it a second thought in their day-to-day lives, except maybe those posting on this newsgroup. In any case, it is important to remember that this kind of "religion" is fundamentally different from what most people mean when they say, for example, that Christianity is a religion, and thus the two statements are not comparable. Further, these atheists seek to deny the fact that many of their fellow atheists proselytize their beliefs, and impress those beliefs on others.
Which atheists do this? Be specific. I for one freely admit that some atheists attempt to convert others. Personally, I wish they wouldn’t. Live and let live, I say. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -For example, the following is taken from the homepage of American Atheists: "Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. It was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case — Murray v. Curlett — was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began: "Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."
Many (I’d even say most) atheists (with a lower-case "a") feel this way, but not all. Remember that, technically speaking, a newborn infant is an atheist, and certainly doesn’t believe all of the above. In addition, American Atheists actively advance their beliefs. These beliefs include their opposition to prayer in public schools
Opposition to prayer -endorsed- by public schools. There’s a difference. to a National Day of Prayer;
A National Day of Prayer -endorsed- by the government. There’s a difference. to teaching religion in public schools (even in the context of history);
Never heard of this. References? and a prohibition against any religious displays on public land.
Using tax dollars, directly or indirectly, to support religious displays, gatherings, or organizations is a violation of the First Amendment. People make a big deal about the little things because otherwise it would open the door for bigger violations. How would you feel about a Satanist monument in the town park? Pagan rituals (which are a hell of a lot more fun that prayer, I can tell you that) in public schools? Would you be so adamant for the cause of religious freedom then? Ask yourself if you want freedom of religion, or freedom of -your- religion. Indeed, the basic motive of the "atheistic creed" seems to be the total annihilation of any public religious expression.
There is no "atheistic creed." Many of the more vocal atheists want to prohibit compulsory or government-sponsored religious expression. Most of us have nothing against public religious expression as long as we are not forced to participate or foot the bill. Sadly, yes, some atheists want to prohibit religious freedom. This is deplorable, but please don’t try to generalize based on the actions of a few "antitheists." To encourage atheists to lobby on behalf of these beliefs, the American Atheist website provides contact information for members of Congress, and urges atheists to write or email their members and let their views on these issues be known.
What advocacy group doesn’t attempt to enlist the public in its activism? You’re looking at American Atheists (a very extremist atheist group) and attempting to generalize the entire population based on their actions. How would you like it if we based our opinions of all theists on the actions of Hitler (a Roman Catholic)? Now, there are some components of the "atheistic creed" that I agree with with (but not many). However, I’m not arguing the validity of these beliefs. We can save that for another post. What I *am* saying is that many atheists try to hide behind the duplicitous "not-theist" argument. By doing so, they deny the fact that atheism is essentially a religion (again, Oxford defines religion as a "thing that one is devoted to"), and further deny that many atheists actively proselytize their beliefs.
Are you talking about atheism as a whole, or particular atheists, especially the American Atheists organization? -jht — Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/ http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC _ / Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) ) /. "M-O-O-N, that spells moon" – Tom Cullen ,/’ `_,
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs. And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within society.
An Atheist may have many beliefs, but it does not make them Atheistic beliefs. An educated Christian may believe in the theory of relativity, but those are not Christian beliefs. Some Atheists believe North Americans, because of their power, should help the world while others think we should let society takes its course uninterrupted. Likewise, some Christians believe they should help gays dying with aids because it is the humane thing to do while others think it is God’s wraith for their ‘disgusting acts’ and should be left to die in pain before they burn in hell forever.Bernard.
Response:
: Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. : Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." Funny how a word’s definition gets in there during discussions of the meaning of the word, isn’t it? : But this is clearly not so. Sez you. : Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs. So do Democrats. : And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within : society. Many civil rights activists try to advance their beliefs within society. So do politicians. So do environmentalists. So do some basketball fans. etc. : Oxford defines a religion as any "thing someone is devoted to." That’s only one of a number of definitions, and a rather spurious one for our purposes. A more relevant and useful definition would be: "1. any system of belief and worship based on revelation and faith," from the Scribner-Bantam dictionary (don’t have the OED, is it online somewhere?). According to this definition, atheism is most definitely *not* a religion. It is not a system of belief, but rather only one single belief held in common, more specifically a *lack* of belief. Worship is also not involved, as in the religious sense (as opposed to hero worship and such) worship would require a deity to which homage is paid, whereas the only thing atheists have in common is the lack of such a deity. Furthermore, while particular atheists may well base their beliefs of faith at their own discretion, faith is not anything approaching a universal reason for the lack of belief in god/s, and I’ve also never heard of any atheist coming about their beliefs through revelation, though this is hypothetically possible. : Further, these atheists : seek to deny the fact that many of their fellow atheists proselytize : their beliefs, and impress those beliefs on others. The fact that some atheists do, unfortunately, proselytize does not in any way make atheism a religion (unless you choose to define proselytization to only refer to the spreading of religious beliefs, in which case you would have had to already prove that atheism was a religion in order for atheist proselytization to be possible). : An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. : An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work : now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. This is their definition of "atheist", and the sense in which they are atheists, not a common or objective definition, btw. : These : beliefs include their opposition to prayer in public schools, to a : National Day of Prayer; to teaching religion in public schools (even in : the context of history); and a prohibition against any religious : displays on public land. Indeed, the basic motive of the "atheistic : creed" seems to be the total annihilation of any public religious : expression. These also are not in any way universal to atheists. I, for one, have nothing against the teaching of religious ideas within an unbiased historical or literary context. I also have nothing against religious expression on public land, as long as that expression does not restrict my use of that land. : Now, there are some components of the "atheistic creed" that I agree : with with (but not many). And there are components of this self-proclaimed "atheistic creed" that very few atheists would necessarily agree with. : What I *am* saying is : that many atheists try to hide behind the duplicitous "not-theist" : argument. Yet the fact remains: atheism is not a religion, and the word atheist means "not theist". For example, the Scribner-Bantam says that atheims is "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God", which isn’t that good of a definition as only "God" is listed as being disbelieved in or denied, whereas more properly involves the disblief in/denial of *all* gods, but, in any case, it gets the idea across that disbelief in or denial or a deity is the only thing involved in atheism. : By doing so, they deny the fact that atheism is essentially : a religion I am totally incapable of denying the fact that atheism is essentially a religion. : (again, Oxford defines religion as a "thing that one is : devoted to"), i.e., you pick and choose among the available definitions to find one that suits your present purpose, ignoring the fact that it does not properly apply to your present argument. Patrick Alexander "To die, to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heartache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished." –Shakespeare
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." But this is clearly not so.
Yes it is, the fact that you don’t believe it is not relevant. The only thing atheists have in common is "not theist" (to use your words) or lack of theism. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs.
Yes, but these aren’t beliefs of atheism, they are beliefs of individual atheists (big difference). There’s no atheist doctrine that atheists subscribe to (other than "not theism"). It is a description of what one is not, rather than what one is. For example, the following is taken from the homepage of American Atheists: "Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization
Do not mistake a private organization’s goals to be that of Atheists in general. Most (by far) atheists aren’t a member of this group and what this group does isn’t a doctrine of atheism in general (but it may be a doctrine of theirs). So if you want to call them out on something they believe or advance, then do so, but don’t say that its atheism that is advancing that. This would be akin to me saying that since ReligionXYZ requires a human baby sacrifice on their holy night once a year that all theists believe and follow that stricture. This is silly and so is your assertation that american atheists speak for all atheists (they may speak for a very small percentage of them). And even when doing so they aren’t speaking atheist beliefs (because there aren’t any), they are speaking of a set of beliefs that some atheists have in common (besides their lack of theism). These additional beliefs are outside of atheism (which isn’t a belief structure). In short, the only thing you need to be an atheist is a lack of theism (some would argue that all are atheists towards one or more gods, but that’s not the general usage). Some atheists have other beliefs, but they are as different as the individuals. Don’t lump a private organizations beliefs in with mine and I won’t lump ReligionXYZ’s belief in with yours. "Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows.
They cannot define the lifestyle of atheists, only their members which is a very small percentage of atheists. Now, there are some components of the "atheistic creed" that I agree with with (but not many).
There is no atheistic creed (other than "not theism"). As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone. Dave.
Response:
Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist." Anyone who claims to be a "not theist" without being able to define either gods or theism, nor what is it that makes a theist a theist, should be asked to provide evidence that "not theism" is a factual description of themselves. After that, they should be laughed at and dismissed as the fools they are.
I have no trouble defining what I mean by "god" or "theism." God: A supernatural consciousness which has been, or is currently, actively involved or interested in events within the observable universe, and which necessarily possesses some attribute that can be described as "infinite" (such as immortality, omniscience, etc.). Theism: Belief that at least one god (above) exists. These are my personal beliefs, upon which I naturally base my definition of atheism. I believe my definition of "god" is a valid superset of what most people commonly mean by the word. As such, it suffices. But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs. Certainly. And some of these beliefs are no different from superstitions.
Name some. Oh, let me guess, belief that "nonstrong weak atheism" exists… And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within society. The belief that all theists are stupid and/or irrational is a commonly preached tenet.
Commonly, perhaps, but not universally. There is certainly evidence that atheists in general tend to be more intelligent and/or educated than theists. What causal relationship the correlation implies is still not entirely clear. I also maintain that faith-based religions -are- irrational, as there is no rational basis for believing something without sufficient evidence (and if sufficient evidence existed, no faith would be required). Yes, that means that quite a lot of commonly-held beliefs are irrational too. I never said otherwise. There is also the dogma that human beings come in two flavours: theist and atheist. Naturally, all of this is simply presumed as true, no arguments are ever presented in support, other than fallacies.
Huh? Law of the Excluded Middle. A person is either A or ~A, regardless of what A is. Even without a precise definition of theism, one can still assert that either a person is a theist or he/she is not, purely from this law. That’s because they have convinced themselves that they don’t actually have any beliefs with respect to their "atheism". It’s much like a naive neo-Darwinist, who tells you that his opinions on what went on during the precambrian era are not opinions at all, but statements of fact.
Please inform us what beliefs atheism necessarily entails. If you actually speak to an American Atheist about this issue, he/she will tell you atheism isn’t a belief nor does it involve any beliefs, regardless of what is written in their publications. O’Hair maintained this position as well.
If they say so, they are hypocritical. American Atheists, as an organization, has attempted to speak for all atheists in the past, despite the protests of those they are supposedly representing. They are as rabid as any other fanatical group. O’Hair gets no respect from me. Now, there are some components of the "atheistic creed" that I agree with with (but not many). However, I’m not arguing the validity of these beliefs. We can save that for another post. What I *am* saying is that many atheists try to hide behind the duplicitous "not-theist" argument. But that’s the whole point. Hiding from reality.
Why is it "hiding" to admit we are unconvinced by the available evidence? -jht — Jeremy Todd Database Programmer _,/ http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/~toddjh/ College of ACES, UIUC _ / Zupfe Boy and Night Owl (And Kangaroo Aficianado) ) /. "M-O-O-N, that spells moon" – Tom Cullen ,/’ `_,
Response:
those that don’t like this cross posting, get on Kempis’s butt about it. Many atheists seem to claim that atheism is not a belief system. Atheism, they say, means nothing more than "not theist."
Yup, any other beliefs ahve nothing to do with that, right up there with constipation & aconstipation [if the word exists]. Nothing to base a lifes ethics or morals over. But this is clearly not so. Atheists, in general, adhere to various beliefs. And many atheist activist seek to advance those beliefs within
Once again, your mantra is getting very old & wearying. The basis of my choosing to not dust you for giggles in grins is not based on my atheism. Though some xians say their basis for not just dusting people is based on their theism. Such a sad thing that must be, or do they even know that have mentally castarated themselves? society. I’m not critical of their right do so. But I *am* critical of the numerous atheists who seek to avoid having to defend their beliefs by denying that atheism is, fundamentally, a religion. Oxford defines a
It’s not, wheter you can or ever will wrap your mind around that comcept is of no concern to me or mine. By extention, that probably includes the members of the group that are atheist. religion as any "thing someone is devoted to." Further, these atheists seek to deny the fact that many of their fellow atheists proselytize their beliefs, and impress those beliefs on others.
What anyone does is their concern. When they, as you are doing, try to tell me that I don’t know my own mind [after 57 winters I am pretty comfortable with it] they will be looked upon as some mildly amusing science project proving that sounds can be coherent yet devoid of menaing. BTW, who are these they’s you keep referencing. Doubt you will put my name with them & provide any evidence. For example, the following is taken from the homepage of American Atheists:
Really, & where am I obligated to accept their guidance or instruction? Not being theist allows me to consider the merits of any position I am capable of understanding or interested in. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Since 1963, AMERICAN ATHEISTS has been the premier organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. It was born out of a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case — Murray v. Curlett — was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of our First Amendment rights. It began:" "Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."
Bully for them, now one more time: How is that any manner of being obligatory on me? Aren’t you the one that has been impling "Don’t lump all xians toghether", or is that a different TAK? Or are you claiming [in the part I snipped below] that only religious people should band together & present a poitical force? Get over it or not, atheism is really a rather insignificent[sp] [why such a big word for such a little concept?] portion of their life & thoughts. Like the sunshine on a cold day, it’s a warming concept, but that’s about all to those that are living it without the worries of theism. Just out of curiousity, which of the god[s]
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.