Is Atheism Positive?

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m flattered - or should it be “flattened”? To think my sarcasm is never a vice really brings me down to earth with a bump… It would make me a sheep in wolf’s clothing…:getholy:

Why isn’t there an emoticon for a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

I’ve seen a few of those in this forum.

 

[tonyrey]

:bigyikes:

Why isn’t there an emoticon for a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

I’ve seen a few of those in this forum.

I think :bigyikes: conveys the effect quite well in the absence of something more explicit.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism undoubtedly has some positive effects. It is often an antidote to primitive ideas of God but, like every extreme view, it is an excessive reaction to superstition. It is literally soul-destroying and leaves us with nothing substantial or inspiring. It is also ab-surd in the original sense of the term because it leaves us without a surd.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is also ab-surd in the original sense of the term because it leaves us without a surd.

I ended up being late for work, trying to sort out the roots of the word absurd and surd.
Having wasted my time, I thought you might want to do likewise.

Actually, one meaning in english of “surd” has to do with consonants that are silent.
In this respect your proposition is false, in that “atheism” contains both a “t” and an “s”.
So, it can be said that atheism contains more than its share of “surdity”.

Another english meaning of surd is the irrational root of some integers; the square root of 2 for example.
Atheism is quite irrational to the majority of people in the world although it tries to claim rationality as its own.
It’s very “surdy” to many.

Now, “Abnormal” means “away from the normal”, so what about absurd?
What got me googling was the usage of “ab”.
Those of us who still remember our Latin know it to mean “away, from”:
e.g.: "Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine. Ab omni peccato, . . . " (This is quite a simple prayer that might help me get through some bad days.)
I don’t think absurdity has to do with being away from the surdity.

Now, “surd” has its roots in the Proto-Indo-European word *swer"-, meaning “ringing, whistling”.
The Latin word “sordus” is derived from this and it means “deaf, inattentive, dull”
French contains the word “sourd”, Italian and Spanish “sordo”, Portugese and Sicilians use “sordu” and where I was born, the real old folk would say “sord” or maybe “sort” depending on which valley they are from; all these mean deaf.

Absurd actually originates through the French from the Latin, “absurdus” ‎meaning “incongruous, dissonant, out of tune”.
So, “absurd” would have more to do with the idea of “arising from” rather than “being away from” the surd.

Not to derail the thread, getting back to the OP “Is atheism positive?”
Along the lines of the analysis above, we can note that it is derived from the French “athéiste”, which goes back to the Greek “atheos” meaning “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly.”
It is formed through the combination of “a” which means “without” and “theos”, Greek for “a god”.
Something that is without anything, is less whatever that was; it therefore involves a negative, which is the opposite of what is positive.

Slow day? Quite the opposite - needing of distractions and some silliness.

 

[tonyrey]

I ended up being late for work, trying to sort out the roots of the word absurd and surd.
Having wasted my time, I thought you might want to do likewise.

Actually, one meaning in english of “surd” has to do with consonants that are silent.
In this respect your proposition is false, in that “atheism” contains both a “t” and an “s”.
So, it can be said that atheism contains more than its share of “surdity”.

Another english meaning of surd is the irrational root of some integers; the square root of 2 for example.
Atheism is quite irrational to the majority of people in the world although it tries to claim rationality as its own.
It’s very “surdy” to many.

Now, “Abnormal” means “away from the normal”, so what about absurd?
What got me googling was the usage of “ab”.
Those of us who still remember our Latin know it to mean “away, from”:
e.g.: "Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine. Ab omni peccato, . . . " (This is quite a simple prayer that might help me get through some bad days.)
I don’t think absurdity has to do with being away from the surdity.

Now, “surd” has its roots in the Proto-Indo-European word *swer"-, meaning “ringing, whistling”.
The Latin word “sordus” is derived from this and it means “deaf, inattentive, dull”
French contains the word “sourd”, Italian and Spanish “sordo”, Portugese and Sicilians use “sordu” and where I was born, the real old folk would say “sord” or maybe “sort” depending on which valley they are from; all these mean deaf.

Absurd actually originates through the French from the Latin, “absurdus” ‎meaning “incongruous, dissonant, out of tune”.
So, “absurd” would have more to do with the idea of “arising from” rather than “being away from” the surd.

Not to derail the thread, getting back to the OP “Is atheism positive?”
Along the lines of the analysis above, we can note that it is derived from the French “athéiste”, which goes back to the Greek “atheos” meaning “without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly.”
It is formed through the combination of “a” which means “without” and “theos”, Greek for “a god”.
Something that is without anything, is less whatever that was; it therefore involves a negative, which is the opposite of what is positive.

Slow day? Quite the opposite - needing of distractions and some silliness.

I apologise for making you late for work but it’s a fascinating subject and certainly not a waste of time because it helps to clarify our ideas. The prefix “ab” certainly has a negative connotation, e.g. abnormal, abject, abstinence (with Lent approaching!) whereas a “surd” may refer to a sound but it also an “irrational” number - which reflects the meaning of absurd because it doesn’t fit into a rational scheme of things and is not fundamental. I finish up by contradicting myself and believing that in this context “ab” doesn’t mean “without” but “from”! Garbage in garbage out. Whole numbers are more intelligible and “wholesome” than infinite regressions which lead to obscurity and presuppose integers - just as corruption presupposes integrity and atheism presupposes theism. To adapt King Lear’s words once again. “Nothing shall come of nothing and everything has come from something!”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism is perhaps nowhere less positive than it is in North Korea, where it is the official state religion and is in total control of all religious sects. Traditional religion is suspect as a way of challenging the ruling authority of the government, which is vested in a person who by all accounts world wide is considered to be not playing with a full deck.

 

[aclausen]

Atheism is perhaps nowhere less positive than it is in North Korea, where it is the official state religion and is in total control of all religious sects. Traditional religion is suspect as a way of challenging the ruling authority of the government, which is vested in a person who by all accounts world wide is considered to be not playing with a full deck.

The state religion in North Korea is the Cult of the Kims. It’s technically atheist, in that it denies other gods, but it is most certainly a religion in which the Kims take on superhuman powers of mind and body. In fact, all the major Communist regimes; the USSR, China and North Korea simply replaced the traditional religions of the jurisdictions they took over with state-sponsored personality cults.

Do you seriously think the most modern atheists would consider personality cults to be appropriate or right?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The state religion in North Korea is the Cult of the Kims. It’s technically atheist, in that it denies other gods, but it is most certainly a religion in which the Kims take on superhuman powers of mind and body. In fact, all the major Communist regimes; the USSR, China and North Korea simply replaced the traditional religions of the jurisdictions they took over with state-sponsored personality cults.

Do you seriously think the most modern atheists would consider personality cults to be appropriate or right?

Why wouldn’t they? Worship of Nogod is a fast growing cult throughout the world.

 

[aclausen]

Why wouldn’t they? Worship of Nogod is a fast growing cult throughout the world.

I’m an atheist, and I wouldn’t worship any man or woman. My lack of belief in gods also is a lack of belief that humans can have god-like powers.

But it’s always possible you know my motives better than I, right?

 

[zyzz]

Why wouldn’t they? Worship of Nogod is a fast growing cult throughout the world.

Here is an observation for you:

Q: Who are the people who belong to a “cult”?
A: The people who attend the church next to yours!

Can you show me the “church” where this “nogod” is being worshipped? Do they perform rituals? Do they sing hymns praising this “nogod”? Because I am not familiar with any of that. Since you are soooo familiar with this “nogod”, you should be able to enlighten us poor ignoramuses. Sheeesh!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is an observation for you:

Q: Who are the people who belong to a “cult”?
A: The people who attend the church next to yours!

Can you show me the “church” where this “nogod” is being worshipped? Do they perform rituals? Do they sing hymns praising this “nogod”? Because I am not familiar with any of that. Since you are soooo familiar with this “nogod”, you should be able to enlighten us poor ignoramuses. Sheeesh!

This is not an atheist forum. Did you forget to take your positive pill today?

 

[aclausen]

This is not an atheist forum. Did you forget to take your positive pill today?

But you are the one making the claim that atheism is a religion. If it’s a religion it must have some sort of worship, some ritual, some creed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m an atheist, and I wouldn’t worship any man or woman. My lack of belief in gods also is a lack of belief that humans can have god-like powers.

But it’s always possible you know my motives better than I, right?

You do worship Nogod. You worship yourself since there is no one supreme over you.

This is the fatal flaw of atheism, that it puts the self at the center of everything.

No wonder atheism is so negative, when you see how puny the self is even among atheists. The worship of Nogod is the worship of nothing but the puny self.

Pathetic.

Since I was an atheist, you might credit me with knowing more about your motives than you can imagine.

Maybe you are so bound up in your atheism that you will not credit any theist with anything?

 

[aclausen]

You do worship Nogod. You worship yourself since there is no one supreme over you.

I reject the statement completely.

This is the fatal flaw of atheism, that it puts the self at the center of everything.

This is the fatal flaw of your view of atheism. Atheism itself has no gods, not even negative ones.

No wonder atheism is so negative, when you see how puny the self is even among atheists. The worship of Nogod is the worship of nothing but the puny self.

Pathetic.

Since I was an atheist, you might credit me with knowing more about your motives than you can imagine.

I don’t really think the fact that you were an atheist is relevant to my atheism. You may have viewed as negative and pathetic, but I don’t. Nor do I put myself on any pedestal.

You make a considerable number of presumptions about people you have never met, largely, it seems, based on your biases.

Maybe you are so bound up in your atheism that you will not credit any theist with anything?

I’ve posted here maybe four or five times now, so how could you possibly make this statement about me?

 

[Aloysium]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne III:
You do worship Nogod. You worship yourself since there is no one supreme over you.

You call yourself an atheist.
Freddy Nietzsche, illegitimate Marx brother, Karl, and the man with the big chair and the seat to boot, Mao, among an assortment of others, are atheists who lived their lives accordingly and made a tremendous impact on our world. In their case Nogod = power; love = oppression.
Are you one of them?

Why don’t you just say what you believe in, if it matters to you.
Are we to read your mind about what you mean?.

To leave it at saying “no, it doesn’t exist” to things you have distorted, and about which I most likely agree with you, seems to be simple laziness of the mind. Or, you are just wanting to argue.

Is there something you’ve come up with, some system of knowledge you support that explains:
Who are you?
Why are you here?
What is the fundamental nature of reality? of being? of goodness? beauty? love? meaning?

When I was a teenager and found that nothing I had been taught could ever come close to supplying a satisfactory answer for what was most real and most important in my life, that being my own existence, love and beauty, I decided the world was irrational. “Nihilist” in that case, or “humanist”, as examples of descriptive categories are better than “atheist”.

You are setting yourself up to be misunderstood, or to remain vague and evasive as a technique in the attempt to win arguments.

 

[aclausen]

You call yourself an atheist.
Freddy Nietzsche, illegitimate Marx brother, Karl, and the man with the big chair and the seat to boot, Mao, among an assortment of others, are atheists who lived their lives accordingly and made a tremendous impact on our world. In their case Nogod = power; love = oppression.
Are you one of them?

I could go on at great length about believers of various gods who had twisted ideologies or were mass murderers as well. What exactly would that contribute, other than just a pointless shouting match where both sides compared villains?

People of all faiths or none commit horrible atrocities. You have no more license to throw Mao at me than I do to throw Ferdinand and Isabella at you.

Why don’t you just say what you believe in, if it matters to you.
Are we to read your mind about what you mean?.

I lack belief in gods. I’m an atheist.

To leave it at saying “no, it doesn’t exist” to things you have distorted, and to which I most likely agree with you, seems to be simple laziness of the mind. Or, you are just wanting to argue.

I’m trying to defend myself against people who think my atheism somehow makes me a worshipper of some “nogod” (whatever that is), or means I automatically believe in cults of personality.

Is there something you’ve come up with, some system of knowledge you support that explains:
Who are you?
Why are you here?
What is the fundamental nature of reality? of being? of goodness? beauty? love? meaning?

When I was a teenager and found that nothing I had been taught could ever come close to supplying a satisfactory answer for what was most real and most important in my life, that being my own existence, love and beauty, I decided the world was irrational. Nihilist in that case, or humanist, as examples of descriptive categories are better than “atheist”.

You are setting yourself up to be misunderstood, or to remain vague and evasive as a technique in an attempt to win arguments.

I’m here to defend myself against those who do not know me, but seem quite happy to make declarations about what I believe or do not believe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why don’t you just say what you believe in, if it matters to you.

With this being a religious forum if you ask someone that question they might restrict their answer to religious beliefs. Even outside of a religious forum the question of “what do you believe in” can have religious connotations. For someone without religious beliefs this question might not yield much. A response with more information might come about from different wording.

“Believe in” and the various cognates, synonyms, and conjugations can be used to refer among other things to “(1)propositions that one evaluates as true”, “(2)a position, figure, or symbol that embodies one’s values,” “(3) something for which there are feelings of confidence.”

If you trying asking a non-religious person about the above you might get a different response than asking in what the person believes.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m trying to defend myself against people who think my atheism somehow makes me a worshipper of some “nogod” (whatever that is), or means I automatically believe in cults of personality.

Saw this and figured I’d comment. I’ve not read the previous pages, so pardon me if this is redundant. This is the best I’ve been able to make of it.

It seems that there is a perspective that some activities and traditions that might be viewed as “Christian” are also a part of the lives of those that are not Christian (or more specifically atheist) in some perverse way. The perspective seems to be that others are either willfully or unknowingly trying to emulate Christian life only with other things taking the place of God, Christ, or the Church.

For example, if you were to meet with other atheist regularly then you are using that to take the place of going to a Church. Music while in such a setting has been likened onto a hymn, and so on. As far as I can tell “NoGod” seems to be some placeholder for anything that is thought from this perspective to be a substitute for God. The usage seems to be coupled to the perspective that about everyone worships something and those that don’t engage in a worship practice actually worship themselves.

 

[aclausen]

For example, if you were to meet with other atheist regularly then you are using that to take the place of going to a Church. Music while in such a setting has been likened onto a hymn, and so on. As far as I can tell “NoGod” seems to be some placeholder for anything that is thought from this perspective to be a substitute for God. The usage seems to be coupled to the perspective that about everyone worships something and those that don’t engage in a worship practice actually worship themselves.

So if some humanists have a weekly meeting, you can now call atheism a religion? That seems to invoke a definition of “religion” so shallow as to be rendered meaningless. By that definition, football fans could be considered to partaking of a religious activity; they gather, they sing, and so forth.

But even if I accepted this as a legitimate argument, I don’t attend humanist meetings, congregate with atheists, and frankly, only read about the first two chapters of a Christopher Hitchens’ book before deciding his arguments were ultimately pretty shallow themselves. The same goes for Dawkins, who, while I think makes a good argument for how complexity can arise spontaneously, demeans his arguments by his attacks on religion, and specifically Abrahamic religions.

As to myself, I have long held that I feel my lack of belief in gods and the supernatural (including spirits, souls, magic, and so forth) is rational, but I do not pretend that atheism is scientific. I believe it is defensible and makes fewer presumptions and invokes fewer entities than most theistic religions (thus I believe it more firmly adheres to Occam’s principle), but I readily admit that I cannot prove in any empirical way that there is no god or gods. I am most certainly not some fiery anti-theist atheist that believes all children should be kept away from religion until they are sixteen, or wants religion banned from public life (though I certainly do not feel it proper that any religion should have any special sway over the laws of the country in which I live).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So if some humanists have a weekly meeting, you can now call atheism a religion?

That seems to be one of the perspectives. But don’t take my word for it. I’d encourage browsing through some of the previous usages of the word and forming an opinion/understanding from there.