Education on the actual meaning of the word 'Atheist'.

I *think* atheism has been politicised in recent decades. It's ripe with symbolism like an image of a gun.

A gun is a symbol of freedom or symbol of oppression. For some inner city mothers, it's a symbol of murder and loss. It's multi-dimensional for meanings.

True atheism is the utter absence of religious thoughts. Not a 'belief system,' not a 'faith' and not an ideology. It's a person who spends life without even thinking about God. It's as meaningless to an atheist as what's in the back of a stranger's kitchen cupboard.

Sadly, atheism has been taken over and has the emotive symbolism of a gun. People have badges and we've got the militant atheists engaged in ideological warfare with religious groups. We had the 'brights' movement and there's the Skeptic's Society etc etc. Real atheists are silent on the topic because they don't care about it.

(I was atheist throughout childhood and have tip-toed over to agnostic)

a reply to: Kandinsky

Kandinsky,

As an atheist i gotta say i think about ancient myths all the time. Some good stories there like Hercules or Horus and the like.

I also love fantasy books with magic, spirits and gods.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Yeah, I did too and had a bunch of books on mythology. Still got Bullfinch and Joseph Campbell and a clutch of Lewis Spence.

My point was true atheists (imo) don't consider the existence of gods or God at all. They can express an opinion if prompted and otherwise doesn't cross their minds. It's an absence of belief instead of a 'belief that God that doesn't exist.'

A guy like Dawkins can also be genuinely atheist (rabidly even lol), but he's aligned with a group and is militant. His is an identity whereas your common, or garden, variety atheist wouldn't often define themselves as atheist. Hard to explain, a real atheist doesn't exist in opposition to faiths or magical thinking; they just exist regardless of other beliefs.

Does that make better sense?

a reply to: Kandinsky

Kandinsky,

Yup I now understand the context in what you mean on a true atheist within an atheist leicchardt scale.

I guess in that context im not a true atheist, i always or at least mostly try to understand the 'evidence' of theist claims.... i just reject their evidence as faulty, unintelligent, false, guess work etc etc.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

It's certainly an interesting point of study. Left alone on an island, I suspect humans would eventually produce a religion.

I weigh up beliefs too and even weigh up the beliefs of Chris Hitchens et al. No favourites lol.

a reply to: snowspirit

No. I know, but I also understand that the experiences that led to my surety are not things that can be leveled to someone who does not believe as absolute, concrete proof. They are anecdotal and based on testimony.

So when engaging in a discussion of this nature, the best I can put forward is the same universal epiphany a formerly atheist friend of ours had -- he realized that he couldn't honestly be a atheist anymore because he just couldn't believe in it. If he really didn't believe there was a god or gods, then he had to be agnostic because he also had to acknowledge that logically there was just no sure way he or anyone else could have completely and definitively proven that.

Now, he's still pretty sure there aren't any gods, but he at least admits there's just no way to know that for sure. So, he's agnostic.

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe you Are making assumptions, no one knows what anyone thought 500.000 years ago, not even 10.000 years ago..

You are welcome to prove me wrong. But I don't think you can. Which is the basis of theology is it not? If you can't prove me wrong, I must be right. Or I am arguably right, which is the same thing. As far as the evidence suggests, atheism has seniority. Because that's what the facts show. 3.3 billion years without a god, not counting time before life, and 500,000 years arguing over which god is most likely and what constitutes as evidence in favor of or against. And we still can't agree on that. Just saying.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I *think* atheism has been politicised in recent decades. It's ripe with symbolism like an image of a gun.

A gun is a symbol of freedom or symbol of oppression. For some inner city mothers, it's a symbol of murder and loss. It's multi-dimensional for meanings.

True atheism is the utter absence of religious thoughts. Not a 'belief system,' not a 'faith' and not an ideology. It's a person who spends life without even thinking about God. It's as meaningless to an atheist as what's in the back of a stranger's kitchen cupboard.

Sadly, atheism has been taken over and has the emotive symbolism of a gun. People have badges and we've got the militant atheists engaged in ideological warfare with religious groups. We had the 'brights' movement and there's the Skeptic's Society etc etc. Real atheists are silent on the topic because they don't care about it.

(I was atheist throughout childhood and have tip-toed over to agnostic)

It should not be expected of atheists to be silent just because theists are being loud.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Is the Basis of theology to prove you wrong? Well, no.

Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities, seminaries and schools of divinity.

Theology - Wikipedia


understand more truly their own religious tradition,

understand more truly another religious tradition,

make comparisons among religious traditions,

defend or justify a religious tradition,

facilitate reform of a particular tradition,

assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,

draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,

draw on the resources of a tradition to explore possible ways of interpreting the
world,

explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition or
challenge (ex. biblical criticism) or oppose (ex. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view.

a reply to: coomba98

There are tribes that created religion without interference of a modern religion, most of the practices and rituals are mimick nature natural law, and then combine that with human nature.. It is a great topic.. Is their view scientific since they approach the natural order of life?

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: TzarChasm

Is the Basis of theology to prove you wrong? Well, no.

Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities, seminaries and schools of divinity.

Theology - Wikipedia


understand more truly their own religious tradition,

understand more truly another religious tradition,

make comparisons among religious traditions,

defend or justify a religious tradition,

facilitate reform of a particular tradition,

assist in the propagation of a religious tradition,

draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present situation or need,

draw on the resources of a tradition to explore possible ways of interpreting the
world,

explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition or
challenge (ex. biblical criticism) or oppose (ex. irreligion) a religious tradition or the religious world-view.

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by the word "critical' in this context, but I'm not sure I would call the study of the divine as it is practiced on this forum 'critical". "Analysis of the merits and faults" seems to be the simplest breakdown. And a lot of grudges are formed as byproducts of this process as well, functioning almost as baggage for the critiquing methodology rather than elucidating the subject as it is supposed to. Digressing, I was addressing the falsification of weak or unsupported claims in the study of theology, hence "prove me wrong...if you can" which is what it always seems to come down to in these threads. I was trying to wrap a playful attitude around a grain of unfortunate truth, being serious without being too serious because a lot of members here take it way too seriously, a personal affront as opposed to a team exercise where we chase the ball instead of the players. As to the statistical content, well...stats are stats. I've made my case. For all practical purposes, literally 99.9% of earths existence both with life and without has been spent in absence of any god construct.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Kandinsky
I *think* atheism has been politicised in recent decades. It's ripe with symbolism like an image of a gun.

A gun is a symbol of freedom or symbol of oppression. For some inner city mothers, it's a symbol of murder and loss. It's multi-dimensional for meanings.

True atheism is the utter absence of religious thoughts. Not a 'belief system,' not a 'faith' and not an ideology. It's a person who spends life without even thinking about God. It's as meaningless to an atheist as what's in the back of a stranger's kitchen cupboard.

Sadly, atheism has been taken over and has the emotive symbolism of a gun. People have badges and we've got the militant atheists engaged in ideological warfare with religious groups. We had the 'brights' movement and there's the Skeptic's Society etc etc. Real atheists are silent on the topic because they don't care about it.

(I was atheist throughout childhood and have tip-toed over to agnostic)

It should not be expected of atheists to be silent just because theists are being loud.

Each to their own.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You do know a brain has a simple purpose of keeping you alive? 4.5 BY of evolution, most of the things you do in everyday life is in blind faith, a construct of Atheism is faith/belief in the state, relying it to impose moral, ethics and cultural values without a concept of God.

We had religion before, it's a slow progress of understanding human nature, are we truly bad? What is our needs? Do we need laws? Do we need a purpose and a meaning?

Our script language is in its infant stage, do you know what they believed before that? Does the cave paintings show anything? When did we develop speech?

You assume a great deal based on your subjective reality, it's called imagination in another word..

a reply to: TzarChasm

...and bald is a hair color.

It's not a rejection of belief systems; it's a rejection of deities, and a faithful one at that. "Without God", but rarely without the same superstitions that allowed God in the first place.

The amalgamation of all of a persons experience forms their belief through faith of “their” Belief System(BS) religion which means everyone is religious because humans perceive everything through their BS religion which is their nature.This shared “human nature” is the common bond of theist and atheist.All theist believes through faith in a false God because they have made a God in their own image(imagination) because of their false perception religion.An atheist does not believe through faith in any false God.

One group of humans are completely deceived about the most significant aspect of life of a human and each group believes it is the other group!However neither group of humans can “know” the truth about a God through their BS religion and each group cannot help believe what they believe because it is their nature and character(the definition of a name) to do so.

That is why it was written in the scriptures when the apostles said “in the name” of Yahoshua( …which means the deliverance of the creator God)..it wasn’t some mystical religious magic incantation as Christianity believes.It was a proclamation statement of fact(preaching) outside of themselves.In essence they were saying I am not doing any of this because I am incapable, it is not my name.

A name is the most significant aspect of a persons being because it IS the embodiment of their life.A persons nature cannot be changed BY their nature(belief through faith) it is their character and actions that is changing (repenting) their name.A name is not defined by spellings or pronunciation it is defined by it’s character attributes in action.In other words a person either changes(repents…grows) or is reactionary(stays the same..stagnates).

originally posted by: TzarChasm
For all practical purposes, literally 99.9% of earths existence both with life and without has been spent in absence of any god construct.

Considering the definition google gives me for "construct: an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence." Should earths existence without life even be included in that statement as if it somehow matters when discussing the presence or absence of ideas? Kinda obvious that ideas are absent in the absence of life, so why bring it up. And I doubt people want to puzzle their minds about whether or not animals* or plants are even capable of thinking about whether or not God exists, it seems a bit irrelevant as well. (*: no, I do not believe that humankind or humans are appropiately defined as animals, there's a clear distinction that is most noticeable in the formulation of ideas and thoughts and their type)

The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”:

“In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”

a reply to: whereislogic

Btw, atheism is unique to mankind.

Is it now? And what possible source could you cite for this claim? Did a little birdie tell you so?

There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.

Is superstition substituted for the unknown now considered a reliable compass for proof of god and morality? Was throwing virgins to a volcano or burning animal flesh to ensure plentiful crops a now considered a logical inference to the existence of a supernatural author and governor of the universe.

Sorry, but I think that if there was an interested author and governor of the universe, its presence would be ubiquitous, and not confused with volcanoes and falling stars or that the quality of its worship affects famine, disease and on whom the rain should fall.

The inability of mankind to process and accept its own mortality and its propensity to transfer its shock and awe of the reality it finds itself subject to, and to project its unease onto a mythical deity is not proof of the existence of said deity.

a reply to: windword
Can you be more predictable? I was responding to a specific claim regarding history. The remark I made about atheism was not that important and way to prone for another useless cherrypick for nitpicking and disagreement and demonstration of 2 Timothy 3:1-7. That's why I removed it. You already jumped on it and did exactly what I was anticipating when putting myself in your shoes when re-reading my comment. The other line of argumentation that ignores what I was responding to was also very predictable, which is why I made it clear why I included that quotation from The Encyclopedia Americana which has nothing to do with your suggestion that it has anything to do with providing evidence for the existence of God.

a reply to: whereislogic

Can you be more predictable?

Could you be?

The remark, that you removed, revealed your superstitious bias. Your reference to a Bible verse, that plays on an age old stereotypes, confirms your myopic bias.

a reply to: windword
Well if you can't resist that topic, you could debate the Merriam-Webster dictionary writers and publishers on the subject that I deleted again. Cause I already know you aren't interested in being reasonable about this or thinking anything through regarding that subject before voicing your objection to anything in my comment that you feel you can discredit* and/or ridicule (* by arguing it's "superstituous bias" for example).

Definition of Atheist by Merriam-Webster:

Simple Definition of atheist

: a person who believes that God does not exist

Full Definition of atheist

: one who believes that there is no deity

Simple Definition of person

: a human being