Former Atheists

[Fictionarious]

To the subject this thread started on, how about Anne Rice?

I have copies of her famous vampire series in which she basically explores an immortal and consequentially "immoral" passion of bloodsucking and genderless beauty, which is an extremely well written series by the way,
but I also have a copy of her spiritual confession of how she was "called out of darkness" and found her way back to Christ after falling away from her vaguely religious upbringing in early adulthood.
It might be true that hers is a case of "relapse", but no argument can be made that she was never an atheist, by anyone who has read her works. She clearly was.
What she has not necessarily ever been however, is a strict empiricist. What apparently brought her back to Christ was her historical study of the Jews (which she did for a novel she was writing or something) and the sheer romance of the improbability of their survival as a religion into modern day, combined no doubt with other things like personal tragedy and revelation.

 

[sgrunterundt]

That discussion has gone on quite long enough.

jericomovie, you claim that "atheism" means belief that there are no gods, despite the fact that it is not the popular usage of the word. Fine. Would you then kindly suggest another word we can use for people believing like the majority of us do? Then we can get on with the original discussion rather than discussing pointless semantics. You will have to find a word without "-ism" though, since lack of belief cannot be an -ism.

Or could you maybe agree to humor us on our usage on the word, for the purpose of discussion? Truth be told we are going to continue using "atheism" outside of this thread, despite the claims of it being incorrect.

After all language should be a tool for communication, not a hindrance. The important thing is that every one understands the message, not that the words are used according to old babylonian rules - whatever they say.

 

[jericomovie]

That discussion has gone on quite long enough.

jericomovie, you claim that "atheism" means belief that there are no gods, despite the fact that it is not the popular usage of the word. Fine. Would you then kindly suggest another word we can use for people believing like the majority of us do? Then we can get on with the original discussion rather than discussing pointless semantics. You will have to find a word without "-ism" though, since lack of belief cannot be an -ism.

Or could you maybe agree to humor us on our usage on the word, for the purpose of discussion? Truth be told we are going to continue using "atheism" outside of this thread, despite the claims of it being incorrect.

After all language should be a tool for communication, not a hindrance. The important thing is that every one understands the message, not that the words are used according to old babylonian rules - whatever they say.

Changing language is fine, but for what reason? Calling oneself an atheist is a significant thing in our culture. It's a bit of a club. But changing the rules of language just so one can feel included is like curving one's own test scores so one can say he got an "A". It's cosmetic.

The proper term for a person who does not believe without evidence is a "skeptic", as in "skepticism". There is no classifying word for a person who simply admits ignorance, other than perhaps "humble", and what a shame it is that any ism would assume such a title, prima facie.


In response to difficulty with "amoralism", here's a reference you can all check yourselves online:

Amoralism is the complete absence of moral beliefs, and/or the unequivocal belief that the theory of morality is immaterial.[1][2][3]

Though often associated with immoralism, the two are fundamentally different.[1] Immoralism is a system that does not accept moral principles and directly opposes morality, while amoralism does not even consider the existence of morality plausible.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

 

[Bearcules]

In response to difficulty with "amoralism", here's a reference you can all check yourselves online:

Amoralism is the complete absence of moral beliefs, and/or the unequivocal belief that the theory of morality is immaterial.[1][2][3]

Though often associated with immoralism, the two are fundamentally different.[1] Immoralism is a system that does not accept moral principles and directly opposes morality, while amoralism does not even consider the existence of morality plausible.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

Wow, wikipedia... and you were criticizing using a dictionary because it only had the "popular" definition?

 

[jericomovie]

Wow, wikipedia... and you were criticizing using a dictionary because it only had the "popular" definition?

Would you rather me buy you all a book and send it to you? It's an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Here's another. Remember, "amoralism" has been defined as the stance that morality is not plausible.

A more moderate school of thought, associated with the name of Benedetto Croce (1925), views Machiavelli as simply a "realist" or a "pragmatist" advocating the suspension of commonplace ethics in matters of politics. Moral values have no place in the sorts of decisions that political leaders must make, and it is a category error of the gravest sort to think otherwise. Weaker still is the claim pioneered by Ernst Cassirer (1946) that Machiavelli simply adopts the stance of a scientist,a kind of "Galileo of politics",in distinguishing between the "facts" of political life and the "values" of moral judgment. Thus, Machiavelli lays claim to the mantle of the founder of "modern" political science, in contrast with Aristotle's classical norm-laden vision of a political science of virtue. Perhaps the mildest version of the amoral hypothesis has been proposed by Quentin Skinner (1978), who claims that the ruler's commission of acts deemed vicious by convention is a "last best" option. Concentrating on the claim in The Prince that a head of state ought to do good if he can, but must be prepared to commit evil if he must (Machiavelli 1965, 58), Skinner argues that Machiavelli prefers conformity to moral virtue ceteris paribus.

 

[Bearcules]

Would you rather me buy you all a book and send it to you? It's an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Just pointing out the irony.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

That discussion has gone on quite long enough.

jericomovie, you claim that "atheism" means belief that there are no gods, despite the fact that it is not the popular usage of the word. Fine. Would you then kindly suggest another word we can use for people believing like the majority of us do? Then we can get on with the original discussion rather than discussing pointless semantics. You will have to find a word without "-ism" though, since lack of belief cannot be an -ism.

Or could you maybe agree to humor us on our usage on the word, for the purpose of discussion? Truth be told we are going to continue using "atheism" outside of this thread, despite the claims of it being incorrect.

After all language should be a tool for communication, not a hindrance. The important thing is that every one understands the message, not that the words are used according to old babylonian rules - whatever they say.

Changing language is fine, but for what reason?

Curious you should say that. Seeing as the a(n) prefix does now and always has meant "non-".

Calling oneself an atheist is a significant thing in our culture.

This is largely a result of American Evangelism; we can hardly be blamed for that, nor should we kowtow to their strawman definitions.

It's a bit of a club.

If that's so then it is the most poorly organized, least homologous club I've ever seen.

But changing the rules of language just so one can feel included is like curving one's own test scores so one can say he got an "A". It's cosmetic.

Again, you're the one changing the meaning of words. At best what we're doing is resisting apologist attempts to strawman us.

The proper term for a person who does not believe without evidence is a "skeptic", as in "skepticism". There is no classifying word for a person who simply admits ignorance, other than perhaps "humble", and what a shame it is that any ism would assume such a title, prima facie.

I imagine most of us are that too, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

[jericomovie]

Curious you should say that. Seeing as the a(n) prefix does now and always has meant "non-".

not. as. an. ism.

 

[australopithecus]

According to who?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Curious you should say that. Seeing as the a(n) prefix does now and always has meant "non-".

not. as. an. ism.

Anachronism.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Just as an aside, this belief of yours Jerico would have us understand that there is no functional difference between:
Antidisestablishmentarianism and,
Adisestablishmentarianism.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Curious you should say that. Seeing as the a(n) prefix does now and always has meant "non-".

not. as. an. ism.

Not sure how this has become the subject of this thread, but the A- negation literally translates from Greek as 'un' and does apply to certain isms.

A-Cosmism
A-Theism

Anachronism isn't a type of philosophy, but is another example I suppose.

EDIT: I believe you are appealing to a strict definition of atheism as a philosophy, which would retain 'atheist' for one who believes the statement "there is no god" to be true, and label so called weak atheists as non-theists.

Since these kinds of labels have themselves become a subject of debate, is it not better to simply ask someone what they believe or don't believe? The label is of secondary importance.

 

[Andiferous]

The problem with language is that it is not an absolute system. As you pointed out earlier, the English dictionary is a vehicle for popular use, and was recorded arbitrarily for the first time by Johnson in the 18th century. You cannot define yourself by a 0 or a 1, or a true and a false using linguistics. Language is a variable and interpretive sort of thing, and varies by virtue of a number of different factors.

If someone labels themselves something, it is because they believe it to be true and have reasoned it out for themselves. Who are you or I to tell them differently? Is it better to label them ourselves?

To suppose there is no evidence for a god and no way to disprove a god might be the same as saying "I'm assuming there is nothing, therefore no longer dwelling on the question. I will choose to assume there is nothing." That is to claim atheism without assuming absolutes.

I don't see this as an important question.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Hasn't the "I don't believe in god" | "I believe there is no god" thing been beaten to death?

Atheism isn't the stance of "I believe there is no god" it is the stance of "I am not a theist" ergo the stance of "I don't believe in god."

There is a huge difference between not believe and believing against.

You say you were an atheist. What were your views at that time?

 

[mirandansa]

I most called myself an atheist at the time of the culmination of VenomFangX's ridiculous "ministry", when YouTube most abounded in his fanboys and fangirls trolling "in the name of God".

But since then I have been rethinking about this label.

I don't believe in any supernatural entity. I don't believe in "the Creator", in "the Judge", or in "the Saviour". I'm also not a pantheist, in that I don't believe everything is individually a god. Nonetheless, I do perceive a sense of sacredness and divinity about the cosmos. True, we can explain every material process in physical terms, but that is not what the cosmos is all about. The cosmos unfolds not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. As a civilisation grows, it does away with "bad" ideas in favour of "better" ideas. Slavery eventually gives way to egalitarianism, for instance. Humanity revolves around not only material items but also ideal items. We may love a song because of electric signals in our brain but we say we love that song because we want to express the quality we experience and not the electric signals themselves. We try to change things because we have ideals, because we can talk about the future, about alternatives. "Freewill" may well be an illusion, but we don't actually linguistically predicate our actions on that discernment; we say "I decided to go" instead of explicating the physical process of nerve-firing in the brain, because such an explication, while neurologically accurate, is mostly meaningless in the actual life of interactive concious beings. We deal with meanings as well as physicalities. We identify ourselves in historical contexts. We recognise or change or invent our directions. We as well as any other animate and inanimate entities build the cosmos. We do rather than don't. We are rather than aren't. The cosmos is more than "nothing". I feel this fact alone is already sacred and divine. And the mystery of the entirety of the cosmos adds further sacredness to it.

This is where I see the possibility of recovering the notion of divinity as a proper qualitative attribution of the phenomenon of the cosmos. The processual manifestation of the cosmos is divine; it is what makes God. This is my current view. And in this sense, I'm an ex-atheist theist.

The problem is: if I now start calling myself a theist, almost certainly I will be misunderstood. People will think that I'm religious, that I believe in a supernatural creator, which totally isn't the case. I find this situation very unfortunate. Then the next most approximate label for my view on God is panentheism.

At the same time, I'm still an atheist as regards monotheistic religions. My atheism depends on the definition of God in a given conversation. For this reason, I'm an ignostic (yes, not agnostic).

To sum up, I'm an ignostic panentheist / closet-theist with the atheistic side job of debating Christians, Muslims, etc.

 

[jericomovie]

You say you were an atheist. What were your views at that time?

That might help bring things back on subject. I was a monist, materialist, hard-determinist.

 

[jericomovie]

Not sure how this has become the subject of this thread, but the A- negation literally translates from Greek as 'un' and does apply to certain isms.

A-Cosmism
A-Theism

Acosmism denies the reality of the universe.
A-Theism, even assuming a "without" or "un" is still a stance against God's existence. It is often assumed that "theism" is "belief in God", but belief is an epistemological claim, as in gnosticism (not referring to the religion, with a capital "G"). Theism is rather an ontological claim: that God exists. "A-theism" is still "that God is without existence," or that "God un-exists".

Anachronism isn't a type of philosophy, but is another example I suppose.

Anachronism is the misplacement of people in historical chronology. It still supports what I'm saying.

The label is of secondary importance.

I agree. Most people value being able to call themselves atheist, though. As I would propose is evident with the controversy of the subject.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Acosmism denies the reality of the universe.
A-Theism, even assuming a "without" or "un" is still a stance against God's existence. It is often assumed that "theism" is "belief in God", but belief is an epistemological claim, as in gnosticism (not referring to the religion, with a capital "G"). Theism is rather an ontological claim: that God exists. "A-theism" is still "that God is without existence," or that "God un-exists".

This is an interesting point. I'd not considered theism as an ontological claim or epistemological claim, but rather simply a statement of one's conviction. Gnostic theism (again, not "Gnosticism") has the appearance of an ontological claim, because the claimant is first adopting the position that knowledge of god is possible, then stating a belief in said god, but I don't think this necessarily qualifies either.

I am not certain that individuals can make ontological claims on the basis of faith alone, because faith in something doesn't grant it the property of existence, so its existence remains an open question.

If Atheism and Theism are not statements of belief, but claims about the world, what are the correct terms to describe a believer and non-believer?

With respect, I doubt this will have much bearing on the debate as it goes forward, since there is a colloquial agreement amongst atheists and theists alike (ignoring some fundamentalists) that the term "atheist" predominantly indicates a lack of belief, rather than the claim that no gods exist.

 

[jericomovie]

Acosmism denies the reality of the universe.
A-Theism, even assuming a "without" or "un" is still a stance against God's existence. It is often assumed that "theism" is "belief in God", but belief is an epistemological claim, as in gnosticism (not referring to the religion, with a capital "G"). Theism is rather an ontological claim: that God exists. "A-theism" is still "that God is without existence," or that "God un-exists".

This is an interesting point. I'd not considered theism as an ontological claim or epistemological claim, but rather simply a statement of one's conviction. Gnostic theism (again, not "Gnosticism") has the appearance of an ontological claim, because the claimant is first adopting the position that knowledge of god is possible, then stating a belief in said god, but I don't think this necessarily qualifies either.

I do not believe it is proper to assume gnosticism or agnosticism are mere adjectives, or qualifiers for the theist/atheist label. Gnosticism is simply the assertion that God, if such exists, is knowable. Agnosticism simply asserts that God, if such exists, is not knowable. The *theist/atheist/gnostic/agnostic* plane earlier depicted is a bit of a mystery to me. I've only seen it here, and on YouTube. I'm hoping it wasn't contrived on YouTube.

I am not certain that individuals can make ontological claims on the basis of faith alone, because faith in something doesn't grant it the property of existence, so its existence remains an open question.

Pardon? Grant the property of existence? Do you suppose people have faith in things they believe don't exist? Question of its existence or not, anyone can make an ontological claim about anything, can they not?

If Atheism and Theism are not statements of belief, but claims about the world, what are the correct terms to describe a believer and non-believer?

It would rely on the terms of their belief, or lack of belief. If, for example, their lack of belief is the result of a lack of evidence (empirical or otherwise), they are a skeptic. As was said, if merely the position is one of unknowing, or uncertainty, there is no label for this, as it is not itself a posture.

With respect, I doubt this will have much bearing on the debate as it goes forward, since there is a colloquial agreement amongst atheists and theists alike (ignoring some fundamentalists) that the term "atheist" predominantly indicates a lack of belief, rather than the claim that no gods exist.

This discussion, at this point, means nothing as to whether or not there is a God, you're right. However, if, say, the terms "gnosticism" and "agnosticism" are freed from simply being seen as modifiers, non-believers might consider the epistemological nature of theology, and change the entire debate for the better.

 

[AndromedasWake]

I am not certain that individuals can make ontological claims on the basis of faith alone, because faith in something doesn't grant it the property of existence, so its existence remains an open question.

Pardon? Grant the property of existence? Do you suppose people have faith in things they believe don't exist? Question of its existence or not, anyone can make an ontological claim about anything, can they not?

Yes, you're right.