The Myth of the Unbeliever in Religious Nomenclature.

The Myth of the Unbeliever in Religious Nomenclature.

The Nāstika in Hinduism. The infidel in Islam. The atheist in Roman emperor-worship and classical antiquity. Heresy in Christianity and Protestantism. The blasphemer, the skeptic, the nihilist, the apostate, the pagan, the heathen—from within religious narrative, these words are condemnations against a soulless, ungrateful betrayer and enemy of God. Outside of religion, they are meaningless.

Oh atheists, how you allow yourself to play along with the religious narrative. As diligent as any acolyte has ever been, you’ve once again bought into this story as you continue to mine an already exhausted vein in seeking any sign of yourself among the dusty statues and ghosts of religious nomenclature. Worse, you play a parody of yourself in their show, a caricature, and instead of destroying outright the idea of the unbeliever, the infidel, the heretic and the atheist by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt through your works and your deeds and your reason, that the idea that there are soulless, sinful betrayers of God wandering the Earth is not only completely wrong, but untenable, just like every other superstition in their canons, you instead adopt them and justify the superstition. Indeed, you act them out. Perhaps you were too busy imagining that there are some ideas within the religious doctrines to not believe in, as if it was possible to not believe in something that was never there in the first place, but you forgot to negate the very dangerous idea of the unbeliever in your quest for vanity, and started to believe in it. Where you could have emancipated the memory of those who were wrongly put to death for atheism and heresy, you fuel the flames beneath their feet and push the hemlock through their veins by embodying the very same character that they were once condemned for being.

Sure, you’re an atheist, and you should perhaps be very proud of yourself; but remember that you are only an atheist in reference to the religions and to nothing besides. Nowhere outside of religion and religious discussion will you find use for your precious label. As a matter of fact, In order to call yourself an atheist, you must in some way hang about religion, and refer to yourself from within its shadow. This is, of course, a necessity, because it was the religions themselves who condemned and slandered human beings with these words, and nowhere outside the religions do they have any other purpose. Who would have thought that these human beings would take up the cause and start slandering themselves? In a strange twist of irony, those same people who were condemned for so long started to wear their pejoratives as badges of honour—at least when it was safe enough to do so—as if the religious priests and inquisitors and those who seek to impose a spiritual ladder of which and where you seem to remain on the bottom rung, have been right all along.

The spiritual hierarchy is a myth, and all designations and labels designed to inflate this non-existent pecking-order are superstitions. The agnostic theistic argument that “there are no such beings as atheists” is actually quite apt, but better, and more humorously, this argument is more an admission of guilt than anything, for if there are no such things as atheists, every religious doctrine has been wrong for condemning people as such. Of course they were wrong! Of course there are no atheists! Atheism, the unbeliever, the infidel, the heretic, is church propaganda, rhetorical inventions, cleverly devised to convince others of some hidden evil within their brothers and sisters—a sin called non-belief.

It’s not that you lack faith or belief as those who would condemn you—even yourself—would have you believe, but that you instead have more faith than any “man of faith” could ever hope to have. With no need for vast stretches of the imagination, you have faith in the substantive, in reality, in the knowledge reaching and creating drives that each human possesses, when they have faith in mere words and parables that someone wrote down one time. Trade with a theist one tiny piece of God for the small rock you hold in your hand, and you possess infinitely more in your hand than he could ever hope to grasp. Your faith is greater and of more value, and your belief, of higher quality and refinement—theirs, empty.

So while you fight tooth and nail to seize this church idea and frame it to your liking, rhetorically redefining it here and there against the thousands of years of its traditional use by making it more meaningless than it ever was, and in the process throwing off real faith and real belief in favour of their version of unfaith and unbelief in order to fit into their little category, remember that one was only an unbeliever when he was systematically condemned as such by church nomenclature.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ahhahaha, that's awesome! you nailed it.

But, if the vein were exhausted then there wouldn't be atheists, right?

Now, c'mon, smartypants, let 'em get back to work, it's better than a Jerry Lewis telethon.

I have been bombarded with religion since I was a child. General Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and the like have been shoved down my throat for as long as i remember. I even tried to go with the flow at one point in my life and ended up getting ostracized for being naturally curious and asking too many "questions that we just don't ask".

So please tell me how I am "allowing myself to play along with the religious narrative". Please elaborate on how I am "adopting and justifying the superstition".

The spiritual hierarchy is a myth, and all designations and labels designed to inflate this non-existent pecking-order are superstitions.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying all religions are false? Is there another one nobody knows about that is right, or are you saying that there are no gods?

It’s not that you lack faith or belief as those who would condemn you—even yourself—would have you believe, but that you instead have more faith than any “man of faith” could ever hope to have.

I don't understand your logic here. How does not believing in something with zero supporting evidence require faith? Christian believe in God, but do not believe in Thor, are you saying it takes MORE faith to not believe in Thor than it does to believe in God? If that is the point you were trying to make, then I will have to fully disagree with you. By the very definition of faith, It does not take faith to not believe in God, Thor, or the Easter bunny.

So while you fight tooth and nail to seize this church idea and frame it to your liking, rhetorically redefining it here and there against the thousands of years of its traditional use by making it more meaningless than it ever was, and in the process throwing off real faith and real belief in favor of their version of unfaith and unbelief in order to fit into their little category, remember that one was only an unbeliever when he was systematically condemned as such by church nomenclature.

The only think I am "fighting tooth and nail" for is a stop to the injustices that come along with religion. Pedophilia, suicide bombers, honor killings, murder, oppression, emotional harm, child abuse, etc all at the hands of people claiming to be working for "God", or "Allah", or any other of the 2000+ gods people have dreamed up over the course of history. This is what I am fighting against, and I will continue to fight no matter how hard you try and belittle me.

How you can claim to have such insight in to my motivation, and the motivation of every individual that refuses to believe in the hogwash that is religion is beyond me.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh atheists, how you allow yourself to play along with the religious narrative.

You seem to think that "atheist" is a less worthwhile concept than "theist". Your thoughts are usually very well reasoned, but in this, I have to say you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. And you're degrading atheism as an idea in order to do it.

This is, of course, a necessity, because it was the religions themselves who condemned and slandered human beings with these words, and nowhere outside the religions do they have any other purpose. Who would have thought that these human beings would take up the cause and start slandering themselves?

The word 'gay' is thrown around in the same capacity as four letter words I'm not allowed to post here. And yet, homosexuals still say that they are gay, despite the fact that it's all but an insult now. "That's gay" "Don't be gay" "how gay is that?" "this is so gay".

I don't allow others' misuse and abuse of words to control my own perception and understanding of those words. In not using the word "atheist" to describe myself, THEN I would be doing what you're talking about. But if a gay man were to walk up to you with a rainbow shirt reading that's so gay, that's what I call pride. Confidence. Self respect. Knowing what "they" think and not caring. I have no problem being an atheist, and if you see that as an insult, I am sorry for you, because life must be so difficult with everyone controlling your vocabulary.

but remember that you are only an atheist in reference to the religions and to nothing besides. Nowhere outside of religion and religious discussion will you find use for your precious label. As a matter of fact, In order to call yourself an atheist, you must in some way hang about religion, and refer to yourself from within its shadow.

We have liberals and we have hippies. Only when it comes to atheism is the idea of being defined by our opposite suddenly despicable. The fact is, EVERYTHING is defined, to a significant degree, by its opposite. I am comfortable with petting a dog because it's NOT a mountain lion. I am comfortable with drinking coffee because it's NOT laundry detergent. I am comfortable with using ATS because it's NOT some ridiculous blog managed by an illiterate delusional idiot with a keyboard.

Also, that's my choice. Deal with it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hey, Les Mis! Another thread telling atheists all about ourselves! Looking at your profile, I see it's time for your yearly "atheist label" thread! LOL

You're right. I am only an atheist as regards religion. Outside of religion, it's meaningless.
I am only an environmentalist in reference to the environment. Outside of the environment, it's meaningless.
I am only a (mostly) liberal as regards politics. Outside of politics, it's meaningless.
I am only a wife as regards the institution of marriage. Outside of marriage, it's meaningless.
I am only a female as regards human gender. Outside of gender, it's meaningless.

I am not "proud" of any of my labels in life. I am what I am. And I'm not fighting tooth and nail about anything. But these labels do let others know where I stand on some things and who I am, what I think. They encourage conversation and debate. I like that.

It's not that I don't believe in religion. Religion exists. To not take a position on religion is certainly an option. But I have taken one. I don't follow it. I am a heretic, and apostate, an atheist. Yes, the idea of religion gives me this name. That's OK with me. The idea of marriage gives me the designation "wife". The idea of gender gives me the designation "female".

Being an atheist means no more or less to me than being a "female".

I understand that you don't believe in deities, yet refuse to call yourself an atheist. That's cool. Your choice. But not everyone is going to see things your way.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
That's my choice. Deal with it.

Gosh, I wish I'd said that. LOL

.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You seem to be chastising those that take a position either way...

So, you're a fence sitter?

a reply to: xDeadcowx

So please tell me how I am "allowing myself to play along with the religious narrative". Please elaborate on how I am "adopting and justifying the superstition".

The whole OP was me telling you. These are religious words invented and used by religious people. You might as well call yourself Djinn.

I don't understand your logic here. How does not believing in something with zero supporting evidence require faith? Christian believe in God, but do not believe in Thor, are you saying it takes MORE faith to not believe in Thor than it does to believe in God? If that is the point you were trying to make, then I will have to fully disagree with you. By the very definition of faith, It does not take faith to not believe in God, Thor, or the Easter bunny.

Read the rest of the paragraph without your blinders. I said you have faith in real things, your friends, your loved ones, your reason and the world. Faith isn’t a bad word you know. So no that is not the point.

The only think I am "fighting tooth and nail" for is a stop to the injustices that come along with religion. Pedophilia, suicide bombers, honor killings, murder, oppression, emotional harm, child abuse, etc all at the hands of people claiming to be working for "God", or "Allah", or any other of the 2000+ gods people have dreamed up over the course of history. This is what I am fighting against, and I will continue to fight no matter how hard you try and belittle me.

Your fight then must be a frenzy of swings and misses. Fighting against any of those involves actually fighting, not waging some imaginary war in the mind.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

You seem to think that "atheist" is a less worthwhile concept than "theist".

In the context of religion, it is. You’ll find it at the bottom of the spiritual caste according to all religious doctrines. If you fancy that, I will deal with it.

We have liberals and we have hippies. Only when it comes to atheism is the idea of being defined by our opposite suddenly despicable. The fact is, EVERYTHING is defined, to a significant degree, by its opposite.

Two different positions on the same idea. Two sides of the same nonexistent coin. Yes we're accomplishing a lot with this.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Hey, Les Mis! Another thread telling atheists all about ourselves! Looking at your profile, I see it's time for your yearly "atheist label" thread! LOL

I don’t have to tell you about yourselves. You have adopted the use of religious words to align yourself to a religious idea. In other words, you let theists define you, as they have done for thousands of years. Carry on!

a reply to: puzzlesphere

You seem to be chastising those that take a position either way...

So, you're a fence sitter?

I don't see any arguments in the first place. No fence to sit on.

It's more a spectator sport. Speak ill of a label they love and watch them justify their idolatry.

Throughout history there have been groups of people who did not accept the society and culture imposed on them. It is not uncommon for persecuted factions(political groups, social societies, educational cliques, Etc.) to adopt the very labels used to deride them and use that label with pride. You focus on the label of "atheist" in your post but you mentioned another. Pagans. Both labels were applied by Christians as terms of derision, contempt, disrespect. These people simply adopted the label as their own and changed the way society and culture viewed these terms. At the same time these groups also emerged as unique societies/cultures with no ties to the faction that persecuted them.

Perhaps you lost me with the eloquence of your OP but I am missing the point entirely.

a reply to: My_Reality

Throughout history there have been groups of people who did not accept the society and culture imposed on them. It is not uncommon for persecuted factions(political groups, social societies, educational cliques, Etc.) to adopt the very labels used to deride them and use that label with pride. You focus on the label of "atheist" in your post but you mentioned another. Pagans. Both labels were applied by Christians as terms of derision, contempt, disrespect. These people simply adopted the label as their own and changed the way society and culture viewed these terms. At the same time these groups also emerged as unique societies/cultures with no ties to the faction that persecuted them.

Can you provide some examples of persecuted factions adopting their labels? I mean this sincerely.

They tried to enact state atheism in revolutionary Russia and Mexico. Atrocities were committed against those who were considered religious, regardless of whether they were good or bad. So is this an example of adopting a label to change the way culture views them?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Wow, that was very clearly stated and well thought out.

I dont think in any of my religious travels what you had to say, even being so cleanly put. You defonately have wanting to change a couple miscomprehensions in my thinking.

A very good read and thanks

Cheers

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In the context of religion, it is. You’ll find it at the bottom of the spiritual caste according to all religious doctrines. If you fancy that, I will deal with it.

That's where all the cool people are anyway. I'm sure you're at the bottom of someone's barrel, too. What was it that Churchill said? "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." You sound as though being looked down on is something I should be worried about. I'll tell you something, I spent many years thinking that way. Never again. I will never again be told how to feel about myself by someone who isn't me. You don't like how I carry myself? Then keep stepping. I'll stand right here and rock on until you're far enough that you feel comfortable with your own existence again.

Two different positions on the same idea. Two sides of the same nonexistent coin. Yes we're accomplishing a lot with this.

If you were looking to ACCOMPLISH something, you wouldn't be on a conspiracy forum, deriding the value of atheism as a concept.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In the context of religion, it is. You’ll find it at the bottom of the spiritual caste according to all religious doctrines.

I disagree. Atheists are presently the vanguard representing all peoples when it comes to exploring our spiritual impulses. Go atheists!

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In the context of religion, it is. You’ll find it at the bottom of the spiritual caste according to all religious doctrines.

I disagree. Atheists are presently the vanguard representing all peoples when it comes to exploring our spiritual impulses. Go atheists!

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"

Atheists are a minority. Which I have no problem with, given how many minorities there are. We're in good company.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Social power has little to do with numbers these days.

We're in good company.

Oh, not me, I'm a heretic, my time has passed.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Social power has little to do with numbers these days.

We're in good company.

Oh, not me, I'm a heretic, my time has passed.

I'm a heretic, a blasphemer, a heathen, and a scoundrel. Depending on who you ask, of course.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your fight then must be a frenzy of swings and misses. Fighting against any of those involves actually fighting, not waging some imaginary war in the mind.

All wars start in the mind.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Well it's probably better than falling down some dark Tibetan bardo faced with a choice between only nothing or Chöd, which I am pretty sure is where LeMis is in danger of ending up if he keeps on with his ways.

(Sorry LeMis. Rivals. You understand. ((thanks for another awesome post)).