Originally posted by PsychoPawnIn reply to the meaning of atheism!
Can we keep this thread on topic?
I think we are at cross purposes. Atheism means - as you sort of quote - the denial of a diety and therefore the rationale of religion. Therefore as I originally stated the Atheist Club, in my opinion, should not be pro religion.
It should not be against the honest belief of those who follow a religion. Just against religion as a valid theory. It is a fantasy.
To continue my point that ateism is a unfortunately negative word - I want a word for the positive use of the human imagination. The CERN experiment, chess and scrapheap challenge are the sorts of things I love; I just need an ism to describe it .
Originally posted by leedsagainI think we actually are pretty close to being on the same page.
In reply to the meaning of atheism!
I think we are at cross purposes. Atheism means - as you sort of quote - the denial of a diety and therefore the rationale of religion. Therefore as I originally stated the Atheist Club, in my opinion, should not be pro religion.
It should not be against the honest belief of those who follow a religion. Just again ...[text shortened]... hess and scrapheap challenge are the sorts of things I love; I just need an ism to describe it .
I agree with you that it shouldn't be against the honest believe of those who follow a religion.
I guess the primary thing is that I feel that the primary goal should be to maintain a civil discussion so people can understand eachother (I know, I'm an idealist at heart).
Originally posted by PsychoPawnhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/against
I think we actually are pretty close to being on the same page.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be against the honest believe of those who follow a religion.
I guess the primary thing is that I feel that the primary goal should be to maintain a civil discussion so people can understand eachother (I know, I'm an idealist at heart).
1 a: in opposition or hostility to b: contrary to c: in competition with d: as a basis for disapproval of
By definition, atheism is against theistic religious belief. The word "against" covers everything from mere disagreement or contradiction to outright hostility.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI've changed my mind - I just had a pint of Fuller's London Pride - and there must be a God - and he apparently lives in Chiswick Lane, South London.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/against
1 a: in opposition or hostility to b: contrary to c: in competition with d: as a basis for disapproval of
By definition, atheism is against theistic religious belief. The word "against" covers everything from mere disagreement or contradiction to outright hostility.
Originally posted by SwissGambitOkay, you win the semantic argument.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/against
1 a: in opposition or hostility to b: contrary to c: in competition with d: as a basis for disapproval of
By definition, atheism is against theistic religious belief. The word "against" covers everything from mere disagreement or contradiction to outright hostility.
I hope you realize that I didn't mean "disagreement" but the "hostility to" part when I said atheism isn't necessarily against religion.
Words constructed in the negative do tend to get a “negative” reaction. Take the word dis-illusioned—as if being illusioned were the more “positive” state of mind! And yet people talk all the time about the negative effect of being “disillusioned”, as if that’s a bad thing!
Realism and naturalism are already taken to refer to specific philosophical views, such that I am reduced to saying that I am a non-supernaturalist.
I generally refer to myself as a non-theist rather than an atheist, mostly out of recognition that some eastern religious philosophies (to which I am more attuned), for example, use the G-word in ways that do not imply dualistic, supernaturalist theism. Whether that’s a good reason or not may be debatable; I really don’t care that much, so I won’t debate it. (There are analogous reasons for saying that I am a non-dualist, rather than a monist—but they seem to be strictly semantic.)
One could take a page from the Stoics, who just equate theos with nature (physis)... How about physiotheist? Not so far from Taoist, actually... But, no, I guess not...
There’s “existentialist”—as long as you pass on the angst... (But, then , there are theistic existentialists.) “Ontologist” might imply particular metaphysical speculations—or get confused with a nether-branch of medicine...
Hmmm... Not getting very far here. Maybe I should have a pint of whatever leedsagain had... Then again, this is kinda fun, so I’ll just have another of what I’m already having...
Well, that didn’t help. I’m still a non-supernaturalist, non-theist, non-dualist. And if someone’s survey form does not have a particular check-box for that, so be it. (Oh— They got a box for “Zen”? Close enough. At this point, I’ll take what I can get.)
Om namu butsu shin: I take refuge in Buddha-mind—which is just-clear-mind, which is somewhere before the shot before that last shot of what it is that I’m already having. But, then, tathata is just-this, as it is with nothing added, nothing subtracted. I’m a thathatist! (And that, I am sure, there is no check-box for.)
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYes, that was what I thought you meant.
Okay, you win the semantic argument.
I hope you realize that I didn't mean "disagreement" but the "hostility to" part when I said atheism isn't necessarily against religion.
Even though "semantic" has become a dirty word, I couldn't resist coming to the defense of the word 'against'. It's not just that it has a wide spectrum of meanings, it's that the spectrum fits nicely with my own personal experience arguing with religious people. I've argued with all types of theists. Some write very well and put a lot of thought into their views; others are dogmatists who expect to convince others by shouting their favorite platitudes over and over. Obviously, the latter evokes more hostility than the former, and yet I disagree with both.
Originally posted by leedsagainhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Atheism is a religious stance, I admit.
However I posted the original just to stir the pot a bit.
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Atheism, for some, may be a 'principle held to with ardor', but it does not conform to any of the other definitions. Therefore, labeling it a 'religion' is confusing at best.
The term atheism is pejorative; it posits theism as the norm and anything other than that as some form of moral or spiritual lapse. Perhaps non-believer (not disbeliever) or naturalist (not naturist!) would be more suitable. Why do some theists get so het up about people who chose, rationally and reasonably, to believe that there is no God. Although the non-existence of God cannot be proved, supporting arguments can be stated simply and clearly. Compare this with the tangled mass of Christian theology, its contradictory and incoherent doctrine and its fighting factions; it seems to me that it is something well worth avioding, but respectfully of course; I get things wrong too sometimes. 🙂