Atheism

[eucharist04]

Since atheist do not believe in God, why do they spend all their time and energy something they believe does not exist?

 

[Watchman]

Good ol’ GK

"[T]heir mood about the whole religious tradition they are in a state of reaction against it. It is well with the boy when he lives on his father’s land; and well with him again when he is far enough from it to look back on it and see it as a whole. But these people have got into an intermediate state, have fallen into an intervening valley from which they can see neither the heights beyond them nor the heights behind. They cannot get out of the penumbra of Christian controversy. They cannot be Christians and they can not leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith.

Now the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. … [W]hile the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning…"

 

[eucharist04]

What is funny about atheist is that they use their standards of observation and their very limited knowledge to say there is no God. Very unscientific.

 

[Leela]

What is funny about atheist is that they use their standards of observation and their very limited knowledge to say there is no God. Very unscientific.

I don’t know of any atheist who thinks that the nonexistence of God is a scientific fact. No one has to accept anything on faith to be unconvinced of the evidence for gods.

Note also that “atheist” is a term coined by believers that believers use to marginalize those who don’t believe as they do. This thread seems to be based on the assumption that people think of themselves in terms of what they don’t believe rather than in what they do–that some people think that atheism is as much a part of their personal identity as Christianity is for yours.

Best,
Leela

 

[Watchman]

This thread seems to be based on the assumption that people think of themselves in terms of what they don’t believe rather than in what they do–that some people think that atheism is as much a part of their personal identity as Christianity is for yours.

Many don’t. We hear from the most vocal, however. Some of those do.

Peace,
WM

 

[MarcoPolo]

Note also that “atheist” is a term coined by believers that believers use to marginalize those who don’t believe as they do.

On what do you base this claim? I’m aware of a number of prominent atheists who identify themselves by this term.

 

[Leela]

On what do you base this claim? I’m aware of a number of prominent atheists who identify themselves by this term.

see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology

"In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός “god”) meant “godless”. The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods, ungodly” instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or “impious”. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as “atheistic”. As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), “atheism”. Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[9]

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[12] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God”,[13] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[14] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[15] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[16] theist in 1662;[17] theism in 1678;[18] and deism in 1682.[19] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today’s theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[20]

Karen Armstrong writes that “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word ‘atheist’ was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term ‘atheist’ was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.”[21] Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.[22] In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply “disbelief in God”.[23] Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the “absence of belief in deities”, rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.[23][24][25]"

Though many people accept the label of atheist, you will find that many also do not generally self-apply the term.unless they are involved in a debate with theists. But there are some purposes for which people who do not believe in God need a word to describe themselves.

Best,
Leela

 

[MarcoPolo]

Though many people accept the label of atheist, you will find that many also do not generally self-apply the term.unless they are involved in a debate with theists. But there are some purposes for which people who do not believe in God need a word to describe themselves.

Well then I think it’s a little reckless to blanketly paint the term atheist as a tool used “to marginalize”, whether or not Wiki or Karen Armstrong says so, especially considering the etymology of the word, and it’s use today in the context of this thread and abroad.

 

[Leela]

Well then I think it’s a little reckless to blanketly paint the term atheist as a tool used “to marginalize”, whether or not Wiki or Karen Armstrong says so, especially considering the etymology of the word, and it’s use today in the context of this thread and abroad.

Historically it has been a pejoritive. Some nonbelievers have tried to reclaim it in the way that some African Americans have tried to reclaim the n-word and as homosexuals have reclaimed “queer.” Personally, I think it is a word that we shouldn’t even need in this day and age anymore than we need a word for someone who is not a racist or not an astrologer. But if people want to label me as an atheist, I don’t argue. I just point out that it is what you call me, not what I call myself.

Best,
Leela

 

[mlchance]

I just point out that it is what you call me, not what I call myself.

So then the blog in your sig isn’t yours?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Leela]

So then the blog in your sig isn’t yours?

– Mark L. Chance.

Yes. I used the term because I thought it would attract the people I want to talk with in my blog. I’m not saying that the tern does not have it’s uses, but I generally think it is a liability for people who do not believe in gods.

Here is an excerpt from a post called “The End of Atheism” where I discussed this issue:

"It seems to me that the better world we actually hope for is one without “theisms” of any kind–monotheism, polytheism, or atheism. Since atheism is only defined in contrast to theism, an end of theism would necessarily mean the end of atheism.

I’ve also thought for some time that there is some subtle question-begging going on in the atheist/theist issue. “Do you believe in God?” is a question that pretty much presupposes that there is a God that can either be believed in or not. An end of theism would mean that this “God/no gods” game is one that we are no longer even interested in playing. In other words, could we reasonably hope for a world where there were only atheists? As a lack of belief in gods, atheism only comes up within a context where people are interested in gods–within a “theistic” context. A strategy of ending theism by means atheism will necessarily fail because atheism helps perpetuate this fundamental theistic context.

I think it is this “theistic context” that Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, was talking about when he asked, “Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently…in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.”

Best,
Leela

 

[edwest2]

After visiting numerous atheist, secular humanist, bright, free thinker and ‘reason’ related web sites, religion is the number one topic of conversation. It seems that reality is theirs alone. That religion owns irrationality, unreason, myth and superstition. The group Rally for Reason is primarily supported by groups that identify themselves as atheist.

On Christian forums, atheists (some using the red letter A in their sigs or avatars) are the majority of evolution supporters. Evolution is a fact, God is not. And even though some people are careful to say that God cannot be entirely ruled out, the fact of the matter is, according to them, God and superstition should just disappear. The world would be better off without them.

For those who don’t know or don’t remember, this was the goal of the former Soviet Union. Marxists wanted kids to be taught there is no God and no superstitious concepts are real. Parents, especially grandparents, were viewed as threats.

So atheism has decided that science and the mind of man constitute the whole of reality.

Finally, anyone who denies God or doesn’t care about any kind of god concept (a common comment is along the lines of “Hey, I don’t believe in Santa Claus or pink unicorns either. Don’t you get it just doesn’t matter to me?”) can do wonderful things for others. There are atheists in the arts, in science and elsewhere who have made significant contributions to future generations. In the end, the core message of the Church never changes, that God exists, loves us and wants to heal us and be in a relationship with us.

I would like to remind all those reading this that knowledge and experise can only go so far. The world-class experts on Wall Street caused a worldwide financial disaster. By the numbers, expert, rational people. But I’m reminded of a quote from Milton: “Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.”

In the end, that is what all this is about. Your life is not your own. And one last quote from Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu: “No future without forgiveness.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

Since atheist do not believe in God, why do they spend all their time and energy something they believe does not exist?

FWIW, my thoughts:

First, not all atheists are concerned with Christians or other believers. But of course the squeaky atheist gets the attention. How’s that for twisting an idiom?

Some atheists object to Christianity (I’m just going to focus on Christianity here, but one could extrapolate to other beliefs easily enough) because some Christians are annoying and judgemental. Or, OTOH, they are clearly unserious about their professed Christian beliefs.

Some atheists object to Christianity because they reject the moral framework that Christianity proclaims. A great deal of this rejection has to do with sex. Also, some atheists object strongly to the notion that they will be held eternally accountable for their behaviors.

Some atheists object to Christianity because they think Christians are deluded fools, and somehow are a threat to their ideal of society, and are not like any of their friends.

Even though it is often brought up, I don’t believe any atheist really opposes Christianity because of the Crusades or the Inquisition or the witch burnings. I think that’s just a club they use to affirm their opposition based on other reasons.