Is Atheism A Religion?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Copyright American Atheists, Inc. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

ATHEISM
__________________________________________________ _______________

by Madalyn Murray O'Hair

The following is the text of an address given by the founder of
American Atheists at the Eighth Annual Convention of the American
Rationalist Federation, on 25 August 1962, before the US Supreme Court
had agreed to hear the case now known as Murray v Curlett. The speech
was originally printed in The American Rationalist, Volume 17, Number
3, September/October 1962.

The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its
philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That
philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light
of the data provided by progressive science and social experience.
Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge
gained over the centuries.
[email.gif]-Submit
We make a fundamental error, I think, as we tilt at the windmills of
imagined gods. We need to review from where we have come, under what
conditions, and to see the threshold upon which we stand now.
Our history has been marked by a ceaseless struggle against ignorance
and superstition. In ancient Greece the works of the materialist
philosopher Democritus, who first taught the atomic theory of matter,
were destroyed. Anaxagoras was banished from Athens for being an
Atheist. The materialist philosopher Epicurus, revered by the ancients
for having liberated man from fear of gods and for asserting the
validity of science, was for 2000 years anathematized and falsely
depicted as an enemy of morality and a disseminator of vice. The
Alexandria library, housing 700,000 scientific and literary works, was
burned by Christian monks in 391 AD. Pope Gregory I (590-604)
destroyed many valuable works by ancient authors. In every society
there have been forces that have stood to lose by the dissemination of
progressive scientific views. In the past these forces either directly
persecuted progressive scientists and philosophers or sought to
distort scientific discoveries so as to deprive them of their
progressive, materialistic implications.
The Inquisition, a papal invention for suppressing all opposition to
the Catholic Church, savagely persecuted all progressive thinkers;
Giordano Bruno, Ludilio Vanini, and Galileo come readily to mind.
Voltaire was imprisoned in the Bastille, and Diderot was sent to
prison. In our own country we are familiar with the story of Thomas
Paine, of the Salem witch trials, of Ingersoll, of Einstein. The
struggle is unceasing, as important today as during any other period
of history.
We need, therefore, to see what we fight and why. We need not direct
our main assault against the Bible or the Koran. We need not argue
endlessly about the historicity of Jesus. We should look past
trinities and angels and other theological blind alleys. We must look
to materialistic philosophy which alone enables men to understand
reality and to know how to deal with it. It is true that today our
kind are no longer burned at the stake, but there are many other ways
of exerting pressure. Our scientists and progressive philosophers are
dismissed from universities and other employment. Outspoken scientific
and philosophical works are much less likely to be published than
rather senseless junk. Character assassination is common. Reactionary
religious propaganda is unceasingly drummed into unthinking minds
through the captive media of mass communication. As always, our
opponents today are formidable. But our strength lies in the positive
approach of uncovering and publicizing the laws of nature and human
behavior, and in applying these laws in the interest of human welfare.
We need not waste our time with endless arguments about tortuous paths
of the endless labyrinths of theology.
We need to know upon what we base ourselves. Atheism is based upon a
materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural
phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there
be any. Nature simply exists. But there are those who deny this, who
assert that only mind or idea or spirit is primary. This question of
the relation of the human mind to material being is one of the
fundamental questions dealt with by all philosophers, however
satisfactorily. The Atheist must slice through all obfuscation to
bedrock, to the basic idea that those who regard nature as primary and
thought as a property (or function) of matter belong to the camp of
materialism, and that those who maintain that spirit or idea or mind
existed before nature or created nature or uphold nature belong to the
camp of idealism. All conventional religions are based on idealism.
Many varieties of idealism exist, but the apologist for idealism and
opponents of materialism go under many names; we have, for instance,
dualists, objective idealists, subjective idealists, solipsists,
positivists, Machians, irrationalists, existentialists,
neo-positivists, logical positivists, fideists, revived medieval
scholastics, Thomists. And opposed to these stand alone the Atheistic
materialists (or perhaps naturalists, Rationalists, freethinkers,
etc.) who have no need for intellectual machinations, deceptions, or
masquerades.
Whether or not the Bible is pornographic literature is only a side
issue. Let us see what the Idealist camp features. The church teaches
a contempt for earthly life and that to reach some imagined "heaven"
is the main goal of life.
And, significantly, the church teaches that this goal can be achieved
only as the reward for obedience and meekness. The church threatens
the wrath of God and the torment of hell for those who dare to oppose
its teaching. But Materialism liberates us, teaches us not to hope for
happiness beyond the grave but to prize life on earth and strive
always to improve it. Materialism restores to man his dignity and his
intellectual integrity. Man is not a worm condemned to crawl in the
dust, but a human being capable of mastering the forces of nature and
making them serve him. Materialism compels faith in the human
intellect, in the power of knowledge in man's ability to fathom all
the secrets of nature and to create a social system based upon reason
and justice. Materialism's faith is in man and his ability to
transform the world by his own efforts. It is a philosophy in every
essence optimistic, life-asserting, and radiant. It considers the
struggle for progress as a moral obligation, and impossible without
noble ideals that inspire men to struggle, to perform bold, creative
work.
Modern materialism - or naturalism - is linked with the everyday
experience of people. It believes in experiment as the basis of
knowledge, and neglects no sphere of reality. It advances itself as an
ideological weapon for use in progress. It is in social life that man
develops his mind and emotions, will, and conscience, and puts meaning
and purpose into life. He does not closet himself in solitary prayer
and dream of death as a door opening unto eternal bliss. A materialist
lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideals; he is
concerned with the problems and joys of life, not death. He is deeply
involved with shaping his life as a useful member of society and
contributing what he can to its progress.
The Idealist sees science and man as subordinate to religion, to
"idea," and sees knowledge as subordinate to faith. The ultimate
object of the idealist is to furnish evidence of the existence of
"God." He lays great stress on moral questions, but the morality he
preaches is one of meek submission, of passive acceptance, and thus,
of justification of existing social evils. This morality substitutes
prayer and appeals for divine assistance for struggle and protest
against social injustice. The entire Idealist philosophy is contrived,
with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo.
Ours is a time when successful struggle against this reactionary
philosophy requires more than a petulant argument over the authorship
of the Gospels, more than a negative attack on the totalitarian and
monolithic authoritarianism of conventional religion, but rather an
aggressive action program to spread the positive philosophy of
materialism.

[epicSocialism4tw]

In this address, there are several clear statements of atheism as:
1) a collaborative philosophy
2) a progressive, deliberate movement of individuals led by philosophers
3) a set of eyes through which to gather truth
4) a set of behaviors through which to cope with difficulty
5) a blatant dismissal of any other philosophy but their own

[alkemical]

In this address, there are several clear statements of atheism as:
1) a collaborative philosophy
2) a progressive, deliberate movement of individuals led by philosophers
3) a set of eyes through which to gather truth
4) a set of behaviors through which to cope with difficulty
5) a blatant dismissal of any other philosophy but their own


Would that be your guidelines for 'any' religion?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Would that be your guidelines for 'any' religion?

No...I didnt include doctrine. Which atheism no doubt has. Atheism.org is a good place to look.

The things that I listed were in response to the dictionary.com definition that orangeatheist used for religion. At least two of the four given definitions apply directly to atheism. I do not know for certain whether or not the US recognizes it as a religion, though. I think that atheism is kind of like any other religion. Christians believe in Christ Jesus and have many doctrinal offshoots that make up the religion in a general sense. Jews have the same type of thing based on the law and the prophets. Atheism has athiesm, secular humanism, freethinkers, etc. all of whom claim to be superior in intellect to religious philosophers. There are some pretty amazing religious philosophers that have done great things for humanity. Its also interesting to note that the materialism and naturalism that buttresses atheism are largely western creations that spawn from the work of some of the greatest Christian thinkers of all-time. Including Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and Mendel. That's not even to mention the brilliance of Einstein, who was a Jew.

[alkemical]

I would think a collaborative philosophy would equate docrine.

[enjolras]

I think it was CS Lewis who said (paraphrased) "A belief in nothing is really a belief in everything".

Sort of the same argument here...That by not beleiving in god, you are establishing a religious belief system around the disbelief in god (you beleive in everything).

I don't agree, but it is an interesting debate.

[orangeatheist]

Copyright American Atheists, Inc. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

ATHEISM
__________________________________________________ _______________

by Madalyn Murray O'Hair



Oh, here we go.

Llama, you already admitted your goal in trying to label atheism a religion. You want to "level the playing field."

We all know that Atheism is a movement, founded by O'Hair and we all follow her Book closely and consult it Sundays before football games.

You admitted your agenda, llama. I don't think much more needs to be said.

See you at the Wednesday night Baby-BBQ!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oh, here we go.

Llama, you already admitted your goal in trying to label atheism a religion. You want to "level the playing field."

We all know that Atheism is a movement, founded by O'Hair and we all follow her Book closely and consult it Sundays before football games.

You admitted your agenda, llama. I don't think much more needs to be said.

See you at the Wednesday night Baby-BBQ!

Well, that response was both trivial and lazy among other things. You have been nothing but trivial and lazy in this discusssion. Continue on. You havent answered any of my questions, and you wont because there is merit to them.

All atheism is, is a movement founded on anti-theism with abnormally large philosophical holes. Its pitiful if you ask me. The anti-god religion.

[ClevelandBronco]

…The anti-god religion.

As a former foaming-at-the-mouth atheist, I couldn't agree more.

[orangeatheist]

Well, that response was both trivial and lazy among other things. You have been nothing but trivial and lazy in this discusssion. Continue on. You havent answered any of my questions, and you wont because there is merit to them.

All atheism is, is a movement founded on anti-theism with abnormally large philosophical holes. Its pitiful if you ask me. The anti-god religion.

Why should I accept seriously your attempt to pigeon-hole me as a dyed-in-the-wool O'Hairian Atheist? Because you believe in Yahweh, should I just assign you to the Jehovah Witnesses and ask you to defend things written by them? Please.

I've already told you my views regarding the absence of belief in a deity is a conclusion. It is not active in any way.

What questions haven't I answered? And this is REALLY funny coming from one of the ID/Creationism proponents who avoided my Creationism thread like a plague. Spare me.

Here. You made the following criteria for atheism to be viewed as a religion:

In this address,

Yes. In O'HAIR's address. Why do you think everyone who doesn't share your belief in a god can automatically be assigned to O'Hair's particular brand of non-belief? In case you missed my sarcasm, I told you, not all atheists follow O'Hair's book of Atheism and consult her writings Sunday mornings. But, what should I expect? You admitted, "To be defined as a religion would make them [atheists] just like everyone else. There would be no percieved intellectual superiority." You have an agenda, llama. You made it abundantly clear.

Anyway. You continue:
there are several clear statements of atheism as:
1) a collaborative philosophy

I have no idea what you're talking about. I told you, rejection of the god-notion is a conclusion I reached through investigation of the idea. It certainly was not collaborative nor is a philosophy. It really isn't much different than concluding I don't have an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. I fail to understand why you can't grasp this. I guess having the mind of a believer makes such concept as non-belief difficult for you to accept (unless, of course, you define it in terms of your own religious paradigm).

2) a progressive, deliberate movement of individuals led by philosophers

My movement to unbelief was led by inquiry, not philosophers. I had questions about the existence or not of this deity and I sought a number of answers to these questions. Most of them rested with my own observations and common sense. It certainly wasn't deliberate and wasn't led by any person or group of persons in particular.

3) a set of eyes through which to gather truth

I have no earthly clue what you mean by this.

4) a set of behaviors through which to cope with difficulty

Hmmm....actually, llama, a non-belief in a deity raises it's own difficulties for which belief would be a sweet remedy. However, personal integrity and a commitment to the truth of the inquiry leads me to live with these difficulties, not find some sort of behavior in atheism which allows me to cope with them.

5) a blatant dismissal of any other philosophy but their own

"Blatant"? Boy, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. But, llama, I don't blatantly dismiss any philosophy other than my own. While I see no reason to believe in a god, there have been some persuasive arguments that I've read for the existence of reincarnation. While the notion of rebirth contradicts my non-belief in the supernatural, I am nonetheless intrigued by the idea. It certainly has its hurdles to clear for me to take it seriously, but I certainly don't "blatantly" reject it.

You go ahead and keep projecting your problems with your own paradigm on those of us who have rejected your belief in the supernatural, llama. I realize it's merely part of "a set of behaviors through which to cope with difficulty". ::)

[alkemical]

OA,

i give you credit for giving more than your share of how you came to reach the conclusion you have.

I may differ with you in... heh :) - philosophy - but i treat it as valid and as sacred as my own thoughts. Hell, even i often question what i believe in - if i didn't question how would i know it's true (science or no science! ha! :) )

[orangeatheist]

OA,

i give you credit for giving more than your share of how you came to reach the conclusion you have.

I may differ with you in... heh :) - philosophy - but i treat it as valid and as sacred as my own thoughts. Hell, even i often question what i believe in - if i didn't question how would i know it's true (science or no science! ha! :) )


Thanks, ames. And I have no problem with folks who have various beliefs. I could care less if llama believes in one invisible god, three, or none. I don't care if you believe in some non-defined entity or a lion-god. Really doesn't matter to me.

What bothers me is when people try to defend that belief as somehow superior to other beliefs and then are dismayed when other people are just as sure of their own beliefs (or lack of them) as they are. I find it humorus that llama thinks atheists think their position "superior" and need to have their non-belief labled a religion to take them "down a few notches." What does that say about "religion"? What does that say about llama's opinion of his own particular beliefs? If llama doesn't think his beliefs are "superior" than any others, why does he hold them? Is he satisfied with his beliefs being called a religion so it takes his sense of superiority down a few notches?

It also bothers me when people who hold these particular religious beliefs which rely on the literal interpretation (of at least some) of the Bible, then go around trying to publically defend this belief with the "blatant dismissal of any other philosophy but their own". And then they go around and accuse others of this practice without recognizing their own use of this behavior.

I also don't like being accused of not responding to questions I did not see while a particular thread I made specifically for discusssions of certain religiously-held beliefs (creationism) are ignored wholesale.

I resent being lumped in with every other "foaming at the mouth" atheist when I did not come to my conclusions by consulting O'Hair's Holy Book or any one else's particular view. I've never read any book by any of the supposed Great Atheist Authors nor have I ever typed "atheism.org" into my web browser. It seems difficult for some folks to comprehend that the lack of belief can be a conclusion one draws on ones own without making it a "foaming at the mouth" decision.

[broncocalijohn]

Atheism is not a religion as it basically states that to be an atheist, you do not believe in a higher being. Why would you follow a set of rules of philosophy against something that you dont believe EXIST in the first place? If there was a group of people that believe we are from aliens and the mothership is coming to pick them up in Nike shoes and purple robes and I dont believe that theory, do I then come up with an anti-alien mothership group to counteract it? No! I just let the yahoos believe what they want. Now if I think it is dangerous cult group and want to get them to believe in God or not to believe that perspective at all, then I could get a group to counter the Alien mothership group. If there is an Atheist meeting/philosophy and such, then there are motives behind it. Do they want to convert the chrisitians into non belief like themselves? Who knows. To me if you are in an Atheist group, then you feel threatened by everyday lives of religious people. If, as an atheist, think that people are just wasting their time and not much else, then why have a group to counter the religious flock? Basically, if you are an atheist you dont need a group. You just do what you do everyday. To have a countergroup of philosphy points out that their might actually be a God/Jesus etc. By putting your name as Orange Atheist and "Religion stops a thinking mind" has other issues concerning religion. To let everyone know that you dont believe in a higher being must cover up something extreme that bothers you. Let it go.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sort of the same argument here...That by not beleiving in god, you are establishing a religious belief system around the disbelief in god (you beleive in everything).

Technically speaking, an atheist isn't necessarily a person who doesn't believe in God - just a person who doesn't embrace a theistic conception of God.

In other words, there is such a thing as "atheism in the name of God," as it were.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What bothers me is when people try to defend that belief as somehow superior to other beliefs and then are dismayed when other people are just as sure of their own beliefs (or lack of them) as they are. I find it humorus that llama thinks atheists think their position "superior" and need to have their non-belief labled a religion to take them "down a few notches." What does that say about "religion"? What does that say about llama's opinion of his own particular beliefs? If llama doesn't think his beliefs are "superior" than any others, why does he hold them? Is he satisfied with his beliefs being called a religion so it takes his sense of superiority down a few notches?


For people like angrydrama, religion is like a big Bayer Asprin. It makes shame and guilt-based people feel righteous. As the theologian/therapist John Bradshaw put it, it's nothing more than "toxic shame trying to be more than human."

[Hogan11]

Does Jesus believe in hamburgers?

[orangeatheist]

Atheism is not a religion as it basically states that to be an atheist, you do not believe in a higher being. Why would you follow a set of rules of philosophy against something that you dont believe EXIST in the first place?

Yes.

I suppose llama is a member of the religion in non-belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.

If you don't believe it, it's a religion!

[BroncoBuff]

Atheism is intellectually wrong - incorrect - unsupported by facts.

[BroncoBuff]

... and I can prove it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Atheism is intellectually wrong - incorrect - unsupported by facts.

... and I can prove it.

This I gotta hear! :~ohyah!:

[mosca]

Atheism is intellectually wrong - incorrect - unsupported by facts.

... and I can prove it.

do i detect sarcasm here?

[BroncoBuff]

No sarcasm .... here's my proof:


First, we must define the terms. An "atheist" holds an affirmative belief that NO higher power exists ...NOW ... Using the knowledge we have acquired of the physical world, namely, the unfathomably unfathomable size, age and expansion of the universe, the puzzling unknown dark matter which makes up most of the mass in the universe, "Planck's Wall" at 10 to the negative 42nd power of one second after the big bang, where the only four known forces in the universe break down, the growing body of theoretical evidence that there may be 11 separate dimensions to the physical universe, aka super-string theory ... given all this ....

PLUS ... the micro-world we've known for barely 100 years, the sub-atomic quarks and muons, the fact that atoms are 99% open space (if you placed an atom's size on the scale of a 14-story building that's 1/2 city block wide and 1/2 city block long, the nucleus of that atom would take up the mass of a raisin flotaing between the 6th and 8th floors, while the electrons would have the mass of mere specks of dust - from the book "Dancing Wu Li Masters"), the hide-and-go-seek nature of quantum mechanics, which seems to me like perhaps God is winking at us ..."Oh, so you've arrived at the sub-atomic level my children? Watch this little trick." My feeling was God was already winking at us with fractals, with Pi, with the fibbonacci sequence, etc... maybe not the "God" of Michaelangelo ... but somebody clearly has a sense of humor with quantum mechanics.

Given all this. This overload of inexplicably inexplicable reality, and the fact that the more we actually learn, the less we actually know .... given all this, and you're going to tell me you have an "affirmative belief that NO higher power exists"?

Sorry.

Given the facts we know, the only supportable intellectual response re: the existence of a higher power is: "Insufficient Data to Draw a Conclusion."

[BroncoBuff]

Ergo ... atheism is intellectually unsupportable.

[Spider]

No sarcasm .... here's my proof:


First, we must define the terms. An "atheist" holds an affirmative belief that NO higher power exists ...NOW ... Using the knowledge we have acquired of the physical world, namely, the unfathomably unfathomable size, age and expansion of the universe, the puzzling unknown dark matter which makes up most of the mass in the universe, "Planck's Wall" at 10 to the negative 42nd power of one second after the big bang, where the only four known forces in the universe break down, the growing body of theoretical evidence that there may be 11 separate dimensions to the physical universe, aka super-string theory ... given all this ....

PLUS ... the micro-world we've known for barely 100 years, the sub-atomic quarks and muons, the fact that atoms are 99% open space (if you placed an atom's size on the scale of a 14-story building that's 1/2 city block wide and 1/2 city block long, the nucleus of that atom would take up the mass of a raisin flotaing between the 6th and 8th floors, while the electrons would have the mass of mere specks of dust - from the book "Dancing Wu Li Masters"), the hide-and-go-seek nature of quantum mechanics, which seems to me like perhaps God is winking at us ..."Oh, so you've arrived at the sub-atomic level my children? Watch this little trick." My feeling was God was already winking at us with fractals, with Pi, with the fibbonacci sequence, etc... maybe not the "God" of Michaelangelo ... but somebody clearly has a sense of humor with quantum mechanics.

Given all this. This overload of inexplicably inexplicable reality, and the fact that the more we actually learn, the less we actually know .... given all this, and you're going to tell me you have an "affirmative belief that NO higher power exists"?

Sorry.

Given the facts we know, the only supportable intellectual response re: the existence of a higher power is: "Insufficient Data to Draw a Conclusion."

ok lets pretend for a second , that I dont have a clue as to what you just said , could you break it down in laymens terms

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First, we must define the terms. An "atheist" holds an affirmative belief that NO higher power exists ...

Are you sure this definition of atheism is correct?

I thought atheists simply believed God (usually as defined by the Judeo-Christian notion of God) didn't exist.

And do atheists really affirm a negative, i.e., no God exists, or do they simply hold that the burden to prove the existence of God rests with the believer?

In any case, I consider myself an atheist, i.e., a person who does not embrace a theistic conception of God, but I do not deny the existence of a higher power - far from it. (And "higher power" is pretty ambiguous.)

[epicSocialism4tw]

ok lets pretend for a second , that I dont have a clue as to what you just said , could you break it down in laymens terms

Spider, I think that he basically said that the data isnt out there to prove or disprove God's existence, and so little data exists that it requires speculation either way you look at it. So, you can either believe or not.

My first glimpse into complexity that I thought argued pretty well was the framework of cellular metabolism which provides a cell with the substrates it needs to do work (build things necessary for survival). I think that human homeostasis is pretty amazing also as a cumulative effect of zillions of collaborative processes...in other words, your body is a highly efficient machine that is extremely complicated in a way that humans have used to model poor imitations like computers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I could be all wrong here, but I would guess that orangeatheist, et al, would say that the burdon to prove the existence of God is on the believer, and that an atheist is someone who merely holds that no such proof exists.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Are you sure this definition of atheism is correct?

I thought atheists simply believed God (usually as defined by the Judeo-Christian notion of God) didn't exist.

And do atheists really affirm a negative, i.e., no God exists, or do they simply hold that the burden to prove the existence of God rests with the believer?

In any case, I consider myself an atheist, i.e., a person who does not embrace a theistic conception of God, but I do not deny the existence of a higher power - far from it. (And "higher power" is pretty ambiguous.)

atheism is broken into prefix a- and theism, meaning: "without God".

It suggests the exlusion of any logical deduction of a higher operating intelligence or overlord of sorts. It would exclude any other god, including greek, etc. It would also exclude Plato's "Immoveable Mover". You arent an atheist if your above definition holds consistent.

If you are arguing against the Christian God, it is important to note that the Christian God has been nearly completely undefineable because he diplays traits that are unique and unhuman. Meaning that defining him in the realm of human actions and reason is very limiting. That includes using the label "He", etc. YHWH is the "name" of this God, and he has been recognizeable throughout the ages because of certain discernable events that are recognizeable through repeated experiments and experimentation. Edit: Christians use the trinity to describe this God. God is more understandable as a person through the behaviors of the righteous, compassionate, and just Yeshua (Jesus) while still displaying the "otherness" of God when he performed miracles. YHWH comprises another piece of the triad, representing the creator and giver aspect God who was originally introduced to Abraham and was understood to be the whole, but not understood until Yeshua made him more clear. The Holy Spirit comprises the other part of the triad, that is supposed to live inside of us and communicate subtelties to us. They are all aspects of the same thing. I'm not the best at describing the relationship among the components of the trinty, but Ive always looked at it kind of like something like a fungal ring (I just pulled this example out of the air): most of it is buried underground, but we know that the ring is there if we dig. We can see the individual fungi above ground, and there are spores that travel through the air that are difficult to see. Three physical aspects of the same thing.

I kind of went tangential there...back on topic. God as Christians understand ( I cant speak for other faiths) is known as the governor of processes, the creator of the universe, the Great Cause, the Omniscient, the Omnipresent, the Just, the Righteous, etc. All of which are completely unhuman.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

atheism is broken into prefix a- and theism, meaning: "without God".

I don't think this is accurate. The prefex 'a' means "anti" or "against" or "opposed to." Hence, an atheist is opposed to a theistic notion of Divinity or Higher Power or whatever you want to call it.

It suggests the exlusion of any logical deduction of a higher operating intelligence or overlord of sorts. It would exclude any other god, including greek, etc. It would also exclude Plato's "Immoveable Mover". You arent an atheist if your above definition holds consistent.

Not at all. "Higher operating intelligence" is quite ambiguous, and is certainly not incompatible with atheism. There are millions of people who believe in a "Higher operating intelligence" who do not necessarily espouse a theistic notion of said intelligence. Go to India or Tibet sometime and you'll meet some of them.


If you are arguing against the Christian God, it is important to note that the Christian God has been nearly completely undefineable because he diplays traits that are unique and unhuman. Meaning that defining him in the realm of human actions and reason is very limiting.

All of the above applies to any form of theism or deism. The Judeo-Christian God is not unique in this respect. However, it's the popular image of a God that gives Him (or Her) more cultural and historical weight than the theological conception, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, even abstruse theological concepts are still graven images.

I kind of went tangential there...back on topic. God as Christians understand ( I cant speak for other faiths) is known as the governor of processes, the creator of the universe, the Great Cause, the Omniscient, the Omnipresent, the Just, the Righteous, etc. All of which are completely unhuman.

It's precisely the foregoing notions of God's attributes that expose the illogic of the traditional theological proofs for His existence.

And the attributes you described may be "unhuman" but they are human conceptions nonetheless.

[clarker]

I just have to say I enjoy reading the last few posts on this thread. Very interesting. Especially angryllama and LABF. It is hard to talk about religion and not have it break down into post after post of insults.

You both have given me somethings to think about and that is cool.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just have to say I enjoy reading the last few posts on this thread. Very interesting. Especially angryllama and LABF. It is hard to talk about religion and not have it break down into post after post of insults.

You both have given me somethings to think about and that is cool.

Cool deal.

I'm a religious liberal, so about the only time I get steamed when discussing religion is when I'm dealing with people who insist that theirs is the only "true" religion (or when I'm getting angry about people who do cruel and immoral things in the name of some religion or another.)

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't think this is accurate. The prefex 'a' means "anti" or "against" or "opposed to." Hence, an atheist is opposed to a theistic notion of Divinity or Higher Power or whatever you want to call it.

I know that the prefix "a-" means without. We use the prefix alot in science (e.g. asymmetry, asexual, etc). I think it comes from greek, and I know that theism comes from the Greek "theos" meaning god. I am pretty sure that the definition in modern english usage concerns the concept of greek "theos" and would include alternates to the Judeo-Christian God.



All of the above applies to any form of theism or deism. The Judeo-Christian God is not unique in this respect. However, it's the popular image of a God that gives Him (or Her) more cultural and historical weight than the theological conception, wouldn't you agree?

I dont think that sociological practice or historicity is of any importance when juxtaposed with the raw essentials of the faith as far as Christianity is concerned. Sure, cultural influences come into play, but it would be unfairly reductionary to fail to recognize that there is reciprocating interplay between the culture and the ideal. I dont agree with your premise because I prescribe to the idea that the abstract moral construct is a product of genetics and is innate in every culture in the world. That is a subject of its own, though and I dont want to go too far off track.



And the attributes you described may be "unhuman" but they are human conceptions nonetheless.

They're human conceptions of unachievable abstractions that in their own nature are fluxuos. Defining something as simple as justice becomes difficult, but yet we know that its something that we want and aspire to. You have to go to Plato to get close to the idealism here.

[BroncoBuff]

Are you sure this definition of atheism is correct?

I thought atheists simply believed God (usually as defined by the Judeo-Christian notion of God) didn't exist.

It's right: ATHEIST: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." The use of 'gods' small 'g' encompasses everything I think.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

[clarker]

Cool deal.

I'm a religious liberal, so about the only time I get steamed when discussing religion is when I'm dealing with people who insist that theirs is the only "true" religion (or when I'm getting angry about people who do cruel and immoral things in the name of some religion or another.)I can undestand when people really believe that their religion is only "true" religion, I just don't like it when they are a prick about it.

I think I'm with you. I believe in a higher power, but I'm don't believe in the Bible's story of creation. But the more I learn about science and evoution, I can't believe that it all happened by chance.

Anyways I really enjoyed reading this thread.;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

the more I learn about science and evoution, I can't believe that it all happened by chance.

That's how it happened for me. The more I learn about science, the more clear the great mysteries become. It's a neat journey and it continues for as long as you want to be curious. If there is a God, and that God created the universe, dont you think that "he" would be alright with you asking tough questions? "He" did in fact create the thing, and it is beautiful, so "he" might rather enjoy your recongiscance of the wonder of it all as an artist would enjoy an appreciative brother's praise of his hard work.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I know that the prefix "a-" means without. We use the prefix alot in science (e.g. asymmetry, asexual, etc). I think it comes from greek, and I know that theism comes from the Greek "theos" meaning god. I am pretty sure that the definition in modern english usage concerns the concept of greek "theos" and would include alternates to the Judeo-Christian God.

The prefix 'a' is commonly used to denote opposition or antithesis, whatever its etymology. It's also important to distinguish between etymology and use where "theism" is concerned. While your reference to the Greek "theos" is accurate, the meaning of 'theism' is more ambiguous, say, in the context of a contemporary survey of philosophy of religion or comparative religion. Also, "theos" is no more univocal than "God" in the context of a discussion of comparative religion.

I dont think that sociological practice or historicity is of any importance when juxtaposed with the raw essentials of the faith as far as Christianity is concerned. Sure, cultural influences come into play, but it would be unfairly reductionary to fail to recognize that there is reciprocating interplay between the culture and the ideal

My point was that the popular conception of a God - not the theology - is "the raw essentials of the faith" for most rank-and-file believers.

They're human conceptions of unachievable abstractions that in their own nature are fluxuos. Defining something as simple as justice becomes difficult, but yet we know that its something that we want and aspire to. You have to go to Plato to get close to the idealism here.

My point was that Christians get into logical trouble when they ascribe qualities such as you mentioned, viz., omnipotence, omniscience, etc., to their God.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's right: ATHEIST: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." The use of 'gods' small 'g' encompasses everything I think.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

I'm quite certain that this isn't the only definition one can find.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From Merriam-Webster:

theism

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

According to this definition, an atheist can be someone who doesn't espouse the foregoing specific notion of God.

[clarker]

My point was that Christians get into logical trouble when they ascribe qualities such as you mentioned, viz., omnipotence, omniscience, etc., to their God.-LABF

Ok you lost me there. See if I'm following what your saying right. Your saying it that is is illogical to say for Christians to say their God is all powerfull? Is that what your saying or am I way off?

Because if you are, then I have to ask if one says they believe in a God, not many Gods, but one. Don't they have to say that he/she is all powerful.

Again I could be way off on what your saying, so I thought I'd ask.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Also form Merriam-Webster:

atheism

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Hence, disbelief in a deity (or a deistic conception of Divinity or Higher Power or whatever) is not necessarily the same thing as categorical disbelief in some form of Higher Power.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok you lost me there. See if I'm following what your saying right. Your saying it that is is illogical to say for Christians to say their God is all powerfull? Is that what your saying or am I way off?

Yes - that's what I'm saying - given the theological problem of evil and the paradox of free will.

Because if you are, then I have to ask if one says they believe in a God, not many Gods, but one. Don't they have to say that he/she is all powerful.


I'm not sure that monotheism and the notion of a God who is not omnipotent are incompatible. There could be one God whose powers are limited.

[clarker]

Yes - that's what I'm saying - given the theological problem of evil and the paradox of free will.



I'm not sure that monotheism and the notion of a God who is not omnipotent are incompatible. There could be one God whose powers are limited.I suppose your right his powers could be limited, but if there is one god and "he" created the universe, then I would say "his" power would have few limits if any.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More definitions from Merriam-Webster:

deism

Main Entry: de·ism

Function: noun

Usage: often capitalized

: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

_______________________________________________

theism

One entry found for theism.

Main Entry: the·ism

Function: noun

: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

____________________________________________

Hopefully, by now, it's clearer that atheism can just as legitimately be defined as a denial of certain notions (as opposed to a categorical denial.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I suppose your right his powers could be limited, but if there is one god and "he" created the universe, then I would say "his" power would have few limits if any.

Yes, if, like most Christians, you buy into the notion of a creator God who created everything that exists ex nihilo, (out of nothing) then you're pretty much stuck with belief in an omnipotent God.

On the other hand, if you're a Maya Indian who believes in a rain god, and you believe that making rain is that god's only function, then it's a different ball game, obviously.

The trouble that arises when you believe in an all-powerful creator God who created everything out of nothing (and who is ontologically distinct from His creation) is explaining how things like evil and free will arose in such a state of things.

[clarker]

Yes, if, like most Christians, you buy into the notion of a creator God who created everything that exists ex nihilo, (out of nothing) then you're pretty much stuck with belief in an omnipotent God.

On the other hand, if you're a Maya Indian who believes in a rain god, and you believe that making rain is that god's only function, then it's a different ball game, obviously.

The trouble that arises when you believe in an all-powerful creator God who created everything out of nothing (and who is ontologically distinct from His creation) is explaining how things like evil and free will arose in such a state of things. You guys have given me some things to think about. I really enjoyed reading this thread, but I'm beat. I have to get some sleep.

I think on what you said and perhaps we can talk some more about it later.

Later
Clarker

[BroncoBuff]

From Merriam-Webster:

theism

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

According to this definition, an atheist can be someone who doesn't espouse the foregoing specific notion of God.
I disagree. "Theism" (though you used a 'z' instead of an 's') is not, by definition, inclusive of ALL notions of God or god. In that sense, "theism" and "athesim" are not antonyms. Your mistake is believing they are.

But none of this matters. The argument I made is an old Mensa argument against atheism, and it readily admits that MOST people who say they are "atheist", actually mean - once they understand the difference - that they are "Agnostic."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You guys have given me some things to think about. I really enjoyed reading this thread, but I'm beat. I have to get some sleep.

I think on what you said and perhaps we can talk some more about it later.

Later
Clarker

Later.

BTW, I believe in an all-powerful God - but I don't believe in a God who is ontologically distinct from His creation or His creatures. I also believe that this God is responsible for all of His creation - the good and the evil (or what us mortals conceive as good and evil.)

[BroncoBuff]

Hopefully, by now, it's clearer that atheism can just as legitimately be defined as a denial of certain notions (as opposed to a categorical denial.)
I love you, man - but that's the mistake. It can't. Atheism is the denial of ANY and ALL notions ... it IS the categorical denial ...

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>a·the·ism http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Datheism) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifthhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifm)
n.


<LI type=a>Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.<HR align=left width="25%">[French<TT> athéisme</TT>, from<TT> athée</TT>, atheist, from Greek<TT> atheos</TT>, godless :<TT> a-</TT>, without; see a-<SUP>1</SUP> +<TT> theos</TT>, god; see<TT> dhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gifs- </TT>in Indo-European Roots.]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
[Download Now (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/eref/buy_HMAFF00004.jsp) or Buy the Book (http://dictionary.reference.com/bookstore/ahd4.html)]<!-- google_ad_region_end=def -->
<TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #3f3f3f 1px dotted" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=src>Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4): <CITE>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.</CITE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- end ahd4 --><!-- begin wn --><!-- google_ad_region_start=def -->
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I disagree. "Theism" (though you used a 'z' instead of an 's') is not, by definition, inclusive of ALL notions of God or god. In that sense, "theism" and "athesim" are not antonyms. Your mistake is believing they are.

That was my point, i.e., that "'theism' is not, by definition, inclusive of ALL notions of God or god."

Therefore, atheism, i.e., the rejection or antithesis of theism, is not a categorical rejection of any or every notion of God or Higher Power or whatever.

BTW, the 'z' was from the pronunciation key - not the spelling.

"theism" and "athesim" are not antonyms. Your mistake is believing they are.

Whether or not they are antonyms depends on the definitions of terms you adopt.

[BroncoBuff]

I believe in one Holy, Catholic and apostolic definition ....

[BroncoBuff]

;d

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I love you, man - but that's the mistake. It can't. Atheism is the denial of ANY and ALL notions ... it IS the categorical denial

Not according to the definitions I provided.

To me, the use of prefix and suffix are pretty intuitive and self-evident, i.e., 'a' (anti, anithesis, denial, negation, etc.) and "theism" (belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.)

Further, definitions of "theism" you find in a dictionary aren't as specific as the definitions you would find in a survey of comparative religion, wouldn't you agree?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I believe in one Holy, Catholic and apostolic definition ....

My definition would probably be closer to Allan Watts. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From Wikipedia:

Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism. It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist. The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

While strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general, strong atheists can have naturalistic tendencies and would likely also reject such beliefs. However, spiritual or supernatural beliefs would not preclude someone from being a strong atheist.

Some strong atheists qualify their position by stating what specific deities they think do not exist. They may believe that deities, such as the Abrahamic God, do not exist, based on the description of these deities provided by their followers. They may believe certain gods to be logically impossible based on these descriptions, or they may be swayed by one or many of the arguments against the existence of deities with certain characteristics (for example, that the problem of evil makes it impossible for a deity to be an omnipotent, completely benevolent/loving creator of everything). It is not unusual for a person to be a strong atheist with respect to particular deities and be a weak atheist with respect to other gods. Indeed, one may be (and in fact the overwhelming majority of theists are) a theist with respect to one or several deities and a strong or weak atheist with respect to all other deities. For example, Christians typically believe that the God of the Bible exists, but believe that Zeus, Thor, Krishna, and so forth, do not. A typical atheist joke is that there is only a small difference between a strong atheist and a Christian: they agree that most deities don't exist and disagree about only one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

[BroncoBuff]

Ahhhhhhhhh, touche, my friend!