It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Atheism be a thing????

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
"Anyway, my point was that an opinion held in the mind might reasonably be given an "-ism" suffix, if we need a convenient label for discussing a group of people."
But that is the label churchians give to non believers, too.

I don't understand the "but", because I don't see a conflict between my statement and your response.
In what way does your comment function as an argument against the existence of the word "atheist", which is the point at issue?




posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Would there be meetings?



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
I have never had anyone say that to me.

I can't tell whether this remark relates to my first paragraph (my former self-definition as an atheist) or the second paragraph (the friendly warning about the presence of militant agnostics).
On the first, I can only say that this was my personal definition, which is as valid as yours.
As for the second- just you wait, old son. Once those militant agnostics get their teeth into a professed atheist, they don't let go. I had an agnostic room-mate in college, and I've seen the threads on this site.


I think it is safe to say that none of the god concepts which have ever been presented on here can pass any tests of validity...,

All this is completely irrelevant to the subject in hand. We are not discussing whether atheism is right or wrong, we are discussing whether "atheism" should exist as a label.
Let's go back to the beginning and start again.

The OP objected to the existence of a label for atheism on the ground that atheism ought to be the default, not needing a label. So my primary answer was that atheism was not the default in practice, whatever ought to be the case. Since atheists do exist as a distinct group, there needs to be a label of some kind before they can be discussed as a group. Otherwise we end up like that silly pop-singer who renounced having a pronouncable name for some obscure dogmatic reason.
Humans need to communicate, and human communication demands words.

His secondary objection was to the "-ism" suffix, on the ground that atheism is not a religion.
I am quite happy to accept that atheism is not a religion, so I asnwered him by arguing that the"-ism" suffix need not be limited to religious beliefs.It is reasonable to use it for an opinion held in the mind, like consciously adopted atheism.
Your contribution to this debate has been to quibble with my description of the "opinion" in atheism, which really is a side-issue of a side-issue. It doesn't affect the point I was expressing,which the OP has accepted, that an opinion may reasonably be labelled an "ism". In fact in this morning's reply to him I was able to go further and come up with words like "materialism", "consumerism", "formalism", which aren't even about consciously adopted opinions.

I'm not going to be piskie-led across the moors. Let's keep to the topic of the thread.

edit on 28-12-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Just for DISRAELI, why are you people trying to tarnish the agnostic name (praise to you) by conflating the greater glory and the true path with the unholy atheist?

Who, me? I'm not conflating. All I'm doing is pointing out that agnostics like to argue with atheists. I learned this from experience, and from observations on this very site.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

There is no atheist or atheism ... and it's not an acceptable labeling.

To label someone an "atheist", there has to be an acceptable "theism". And only from the preposition, that "God" actually exists, can you start talking about an "atheist".

Does Santa Clause exist? Millions of Children around the world, believe in Santa Clause ... and sometime in the past, there was a figure called Nicholas, who gave to orphans. Is he a God? Should we start talking "nicholausism" now?

No.

The preposition that "God" exists, is preposterous ... not from the point, that there cannot exist something that created the universe. But from the very fact, that by defining "God", you claim to BE "God". To understand an omnipotent, and omniscient entity ... you must be one yourself.

So, ALL religious people are delusional fanatics. You can believe what you want, people put stockings in their homes for Santa to put something in, and even put milk and cookies for him on the table.

The preposition is preposterous... so claiming something to be "atheist", or "atheism" ... because Santa Clause doesn't have any logical meaning to them, is an arguemental fallacy.

There is no such thing, as "theism" ... only the delusional fantasy of "godliness".



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I've never understood people attacking the atheism label. Since the dawn of time, the majority of the world has believed in a God, gods, divine beings or at least something more than the physical world. Even today, the majority of people on this planet do believe in deities, so since people who don't believe in deities are a minority, placing a label on them for the sake of identifying a minority group is fine.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Incandescent
I've never understood people attacking the atheism label. Since the dawn of time, the majority of the world has believed in a God, gods, divine beings or at least something more than the physical world. Even today, the majority of people on this planet do believe in deities, so since people who don't believe in deities are a minority, placing a label on them for the sake of identifying a minority group is fine.


First, does the majority of these believers have a clear understanding of their beliefs?

Most belief systems, come out of fear... other belief systems, come out of arrogance. Claiming to talk to God ... seeing God, that's like seeing Santa Claus.

Maybe we should define a new word ... SantaClaus -ism. So many people around the world, keep to the illusion ... it must be True, and we can't "offend" them, can we?

But, just because you want to "succumb" to people's delusions, because you want to be a "good guy". Does that mean we should now start Labelling all those who aren't delusional?

he's A-delusional ... it's A-delusional -ism

The idea, in the year 2017 is preposterous.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn
There is no atheist or atheism ... and it's not an acceptable labeling.
To label someone an "atheist", there has to be an acceptable "theism". And only from the preposition, that "God" actually exists, can you start talking about an "atheist".

Again, this is a purely personal definition, unnecessarily dogmatic. Other definitions exist, including those which atheists have applied to themselves.
Your argument from the value of the theistic proposition doesn't work. Even if a proposition is invalid, that's no reason why there shouldn't be a label used for and by people who reject it.

I don't understand why people feel the need to take the dogmatic high ground here.
What's wrong with taking the pragmatic approach?
People who reject theism want some kind of label for themselves, if only for the purpose of discussing their outlook with others. I know, because I've been one. "Are you interested in joining our Christian society?" "No," I used to reply, "because I'm..." - and how would you have completed that sentence if you banned the word "atheist"? Some long-winded round-about description? A single word, in those circumstance, is much more convenient.
Similarly there would be a label for people not believing in Santa Claus, if people not believing in Santa Claus ever felt the need to discuss their outlook. There isn't one at the moment, but only because the need has not arisen. Try it for yourself, as a practical exercise; "I used to believe in Santa Claus, but now I'm...". In whatever way you complete that sentence, you are using a label for people who don't believe in Santa Claus.

Why must we have this preciousness, this "taking the moral high ground" dogmatic approach?
It's a practical question, nothing more.
Humans want to communicate. Human communication works through words. Here is a convenient word. Nothing wrong with using it.
edit on 28-12-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Raggedyman


To be fair, saying "I don't believe" is a faith statement, atheists have a choice
Also there is a group of atheists who choose to believe without evidence other things

Not believing is a form of belief ? I believe people should have veracity and not believe anything blindly because they were told or read it somewhere.

Nothing wrong with holding in reserve until proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. This can only take the form of a spiritual encounter thats undeniable. Unlike others who tell us to believe or do something or read and believe something, because they say so.

I have more respect for those that examine the evidence, withholding judgement than in the blind follower.


Not believing in itself is not so much, it's when that non belief becomes evangelical, a fact a statement to be shared and preached
I know non believers who I wouldn't call atheists, they just don't believe, others, they preach their non belief at people
The non belief becomes a creed to be spread

Others who reject their belief become targets of ridicule or conversion.


Thats what I like the 'I don't knows'. its okay to profess we don't know, because we don't. Who has died and come back and told us what its like? Those that believe in nothing are more like Nihilists, and religious folk attest we will all be sitting around on puffy clouds eating ice cream from golden plates.

I scoff at both ends of the 'spectrum'.

Dying is like being born, we don't know what the world is like outside the womb until we get there. And everybody eventually gets there. Remaining humble about it , saying I don't know, is a good ting.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: intrptr
"Anyway, my point was that an opinion held in the mind might reasonably be given an "-ism" suffix, if we need a convenient label for discussing a group of people."
But that is the label churchians give to non believers, too.

I don't understand the "but", because I don't see a conflict between my statement and your response.
In what way does your comment function as an argument against the existence of the word "atheist", which is the point at issue?


Because I hate labels, whether given to others or professed. Claiming I am a christian or atheist is useless, we have no idea what lies beyond, claiming we do or affixing labels to a 'belief system' is pointless,

imo.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
Until we get to the point of communicating without words, we need to have words.
Once again, I'm advocating the pragmatic approach.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Atheism is not a religion, but is is a belief.

In this way it differs from Agnosticism, which expresses a fundamental inability to believe in something without being shown evidence of it, but accepts that in a fantastically convoluted universe, which itself may well be only one in a myriad suspended in a multiversal construct of implausible intricacy, that something may be out there in some manner of control. Essentially, agnosticism simply holds that "We don't know". It holds that the nature and potential for the existence of God are unknown or unknowable, but not that categorically, there is no God, no higher power.

Atheism is a firm belief that there is no God, no gods in general, that religion is a product of the human imagination and early desire for understanding, in a time where the tools of mind and machinery available to humankind, were not adequate to explain the things they saw around them. I may not agree with the point of view, but I can certainly respect its logical origins, and its status also as a legitimate belief.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: intrptr
Until we get to the point of communicating without words, we need to have words.
Once again, I'm advocating the pragmatic approach.




I.E., Labeling. You kind of have to affix labels, becuase we don't really know whats beyond the veil. None of us do. I appreciate those that admit they don't know, they are more humble.

As far as words vs. spirit thats the difference between the milk and the meat.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
So do you just want people not to talk, because they're not allowed to use words?
Whatever may be "beyond the veil", we are currently living in this world, so we need to be practical.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Organized religion are the loudest 'talkers'. Endless argument amongst themselves which belief system is better.

Note the word belief, because they don't have any but opinion to support their dogma.

Its all the argument (talk) that further grows the belief systems, making them more complex and entrenching it ever deeper in 'believers' minds.

Further: as far as being practical, we already now how to behave towards one another , its ingrained in our 'spirit'. That is whats most important for us as humans, to behave like humans during our time here.

The rest is shadow play on the cave wall.


edit on 28-12-2017 by intrptr because: Fighter:



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Atheism is not a religion, but is is a belief.

In this way it differs from Agnosticism, which expresses a fundamental inability to believe in something without being shown evidence of it, but accepts that in a fantastically convoluted universe, which itself may well be only one in a myriad suspended in a multiversal construct of implausible intricacy, that something may be out there in some manner of control. Essentially, agnosticism simply holds that "We don't know". It holds that the nature and potential for the existence of God are unknown or unknowable, but not that categorically, there is no God, no higher power.

Atheism is a firm belief that there is no God, no gods in general, that religion is a product of the human imagination and early desire for understanding, in a time where the tools of mind and machinery available to humankind, were not adequate to explain the things they saw around them. I may not agree with the point of view, but I can certainly respect its logical origins, and its status also as a legitimate belief.
I know you are going by the textbook definition, but as i see it, and i would like you to consider, another way of looking at atheism.

Atheism: the refusal to accept the claims that gods exist, due to a lack of evidence for those claims.

I just think the textbook def does not sum up the actual position of atheists. It gets brought up a lot that saying “ gods do not exist” is as much as a claim of faith as “ gods do exist “. In all practical matters this may be so.

If someone showed me a god, i would not continue to deny it’s existence.


edit on 28-12-2017 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

No, with respect, I do not accept that idea.

Atheism is a belief, but it requires no faith at all, in the strictest sense. Faith is only properly bought into the picture when dealing with ones relationship to, or indeed the existence of a deity.

Belief however is a more general term. Atheism is, for atheists, a matter of empirical data supporting the absence of a creator God. They believe what the evidence suggests, they have a belief. They have no faith, because in their view, faith has no meaning. For example, when I climb a ladder, I do not require to have faith in its qualities as a load bearing object, because I can examine it using experiments which produce empirical data SHOWING it to be strong enough to bear my weight.

However, I HAVE to have faith in God, because there is no physical experiment I can perform which proves or disproves His existence.

I am prepared to indulge in that faith, and atheists are not.

I have a faith, and ergo a religion. Atheists have a belief and empirical reasoning behind their belief, which is why I can respect it, but they do not have faith that God does not exist, because having to bring faith into it would render atheism a religion, which it most fundamentally is not.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
firstchurchofatheism.com...





With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost.





The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions.


www.atheistrev.com...




Quite simply, this church exists for nothing more than to provide atheists with a secular alternative for conducting weddings. Someone ordained in this church can legally perform weddings and other ceremonies.

No longer do atheist couples have to tolerate Christian clergy. If one forgets for a minute that atheist couples have always had a secular alternative to church weddings (i.e., the courthouse), this begins to sound fairly appealing.Of course, the courthouse wedding is not going to be filled with pro-atheist messages while a ceremony performed by an atheist minister could be. So maybe this is enough of a reason to support this alternative.


(bold is mine)

So it seems it is more than a thing.




posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU


If religion does not change, why is there a NEW testament?


You may have noticed that from said NEW testament a new religion spawned... one which the people of the OLD testament disagree with...


Also, religion is about belief, science is filled with theories, you would have to believe in, for the rest of the science to be true, right?


said theories are testable, and repeatable... not all of course, but the ones that are not remain theory

Heres the difference....

IF science had a theory, and something new is discovered to be more truth... the ideas change according to the most widely accepted theory

IF Christianity suddenly discovered a new book written by the very hand of Jesus himself...

NOTHING would change... it would be dismissed by all religious "authorities" and branded "heretical"



Actually that happens in science all the time.

And Christianity is changing all the time.

You are completely wrong...they are one and the same in many areas.

IT CAN be argued..and successfully that Science is a religion.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I get what you're saying, and I'm an agnostic with atheistic leanings (I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know the answer for sure, one way or the other, but err on the side of logic, I'd like to think)...but, yes, there should be a word that differentiates those of us who do not believe in a god or religion in a world so overwhelmingly populated by believers.

It's a lot easier to say, "I'm an atheist," than it is to say, "While I appreciate you ringing my doorbell at this inopportune time with pamphlets about your lord and savior, I just can't bring myself to believe in the divinity of things and the supernatural nature of the basis of your beliefs."

It's a time saver, because when most people hear "atheist," they absolutely shut down and generally don't try to keep the discussion going.

What you're saying is akin to asking, "Should there even be the word 'vacuum' since it represents an absence of everything?"

But I see your possible disdain for the word, as it has become a negative moniker that allows generalizations and preconceived biases, but hey, it is what it is.







 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join