Former Atheists

[theatheistguy]

A- means 'lack of' or 'without'
Anti- means 'opposite' or 'in opposition of'
-ism means a 'position', 'state', 'act' or 'belief'

 

[Nautyskin]

I don't really care what labels people want to attach - just don't try to tell me what I believe, or *must* believe based upon the label you choose, and if you're not sure what I mean by the label that I decide represents my views best .. ask me.

 

[mirandansa]

A- means 'lack of' or 'without'
Anti- means 'opposite' or 'in opposition of'
-ism means a 'position', 'state', 'act' or 'belief'

The first problem is that "atheism" consists of 3 morphemes and their modificatory relationship can be interpreted in 2 ways:

[a-the(o)]-ism --> no-god ism (One believes/claims that there is no god.)

a-[the(o)-ism] --> no god-ism (One lacks the belief/claim that there is god.)

It's the same in other languages such as Japanese:

無神論 (mu-sin-ron)

[無神] 論 --> no-god ism

無 [神論] --> no god-ism

(This is something which can be disambiguated in logical languages like Lojban.)

The second problem is that "theo/god" can mean other than a monotheistic "Creator". There seems to be a serious misunderstanding among many "atheists" that the refutation of monotheistic religious belief systems such as Christianity and Islam is tantamount to falsifying "theism" itself. While there can be a valid affirmation of "atheism" against mythical religions, to claim from there that "theism" itself has been debunked rests on nothing but intellectual negligence. Likewise, it is erroneous for those Christian or Muslim "theists" to presume that their religious views can represent the most comprehensive understanding of "theism". Both sides need to grow and advance the general level of their discourse and dialogue.

At any rate, what's the point of maintaining such a confusing set of labels? We can start a dialogue on religion or the notion of god without first identifying with a tag. I detect dispensable tribalism in the current divisive theist/atheist debate. We don't have to make such assertions as "I am an atheist.", "She is a theist.", etc. Instead of the copula "be", we can just use verbs: "I don't believe Yahweh exists.", "She believes Allah exists." Here's a relevant insight from E-Prime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime

 

[jericomovie]

Cheers to E-Prime, and thanks for the inter-language perspective.　よろしく御願いします！

 

[theatheistguy]

A- means 'lack of' or 'without'
Anti- means 'opposite' or 'in opposition of'
-ism means a 'position', 'state', 'act' or 'belief'

The first problem is that "atheism" consists of 3 morphemes and their modificatory relationship can be interpreted in 2 ways:

[a-the(o)]-ism --> no-god ism (One believes/claims that there is no god.)

a-[the(o)-ism] --> no god-ism (One lacks the belief/claim that there is god.)

While I understand the confusion, I would say that the 'a-' of atheism is in response to theism and therefore it is the lack of theism. To clear up the confusion further, the word anti-theism also exists which is the belief that no deities exist.

The second problem is that "theo/god" can mean other than a monotheistic "Creator". There seems to be a serious misunderstanding among many "atheists" that the refutation of monotheistic religious belief systems such as Christianity and Islam is tantamount to falsifying "theism" itself. While there can be a valid affirmation of "atheism" against mythical religions, to claim from there that "theism" itself has been debunked rests on nothing but intellectual negligence. Likewise, it is erroneous for those Christian or Muslim "theists" to presume that their religious views can represent the most comprehensive understanding of "theism". Both sides need to grow and advance the general level of their discourse and dialogue.

I understand this confusion well and accept that theos or deus is a far wider term that 'white, bearded, creator daddy sitting in the sky' and rather is a general term for a supernatural being. The additional qualities of being worshipful, omnipotent, omniscient, etc are all dependant upon the individual deity.

I call myself an atheist, an anti-theist and an agnostic because although I don't know if a deity exists, and may not be able to know, I have no evidence of one and have plenty of evidence of natural origins which I believe remove the need for a deity (though obviously don't remove the possibility of one).

At any rate, what's the point of maintaining such a confusing set of labels? We can start a dialogue on religion or the notion of god without first identifying with a tag. I detect dispensable tribalism in the current divisive theist/atheist debate. We don't have to make such assertions as "I am an atheist.", "She is a theist.", etc. Instead of the copula "be", we can just use verbs: "I don't believe Yahweh exists.", "She believes Allah exists."

Although I agree that labels can lead to misconceptions, I think that these can be cleared up in a civil and reasonable debate (in other words, not the kind of debate where, even if you weren't to use labels but rather state "I don't believe in your deity," a hissy fit would still be thrown). It also helps to identify those with similar views, not to enforce a type of tribalism as you stated, but rather to find friends, groups, campaigns, etc which share similar views to you.

 

[khantron]

Jericomovie:

There are many people who call themselves atheists and the one thing that nearly all have in common is that they hold the position that they do not believe in any gods. They may go further and call bullshit on specific gods, like Odin, Aphrodite and Yahweh, while reserving judgment on more consistent gods like deist gods, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or they may say that "I believe no god's exist". But it is useful to know the broad position, that they lack belief in gods.

While it seems to be your opinion is that the word atheist should mean "belief that no gods exist" this is not what atheists necessarily believe. I suspect that you are trying to redefine the position of a significant number of atheists so that you can more easily argue against it. it may be a failure of my imagination that causes me to impugn your integrity, but I can think of no other plausible motivation.

 

[jericomovie]

It may be a failure of my imagination that causes me to impugn your integrity, but I can think of no other plausible motivation.

Then impugn my integrity, if it never occurred to you to simply ask me.
But indeed, I already explained.

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.

 

[mirandansa]

The first problem is that "atheism" consists of 3 morphemes and their modificatory relationship can be interpreted in 2 ways:

[a-the(o)]-ism --> no-god ism (One believes/claims that there is no god.)

a-[the(o)-ism] --> no god-ism (One lacks the belief/claim that there is god.)

While I understand the confusion, I would say that the 'a-' of atheism is in response to theism and therefore it is the lack of theism. To clear up the confusion further, the word anti-theism also exists which is the belief that no deities exist.

"anti-" can mean "against", "hostile to", etc. Think of "anti-abortion" -- the position against the practice of abortion. In this case, activity is as much concerned as belief is. Likewise, "anti-theism" can mean the position against the practice of theism. It's a more positive and behavioural antagonism toward a mode of understanding and its expression, which might lead to an explicit or subtle form of censorship. Wisemonkey888 makes this distinction:

The second problem is that "theo/god" can mean other than a monotheistic "Creator". There seems to be a serious misunderstanding among many "atheists" that the refutation of monotheistic religious belief systems such as Christianity and Islam is tantamount to falsifying "theism" itself. While there can be a valid affirmation of "atheism" against mythical religions, to claim from there that "theism" itself has been debunked rests on nothing but intellectual negligence. Likewise, it is erroneous for those Christian or Muslim "theists" to presume that their religious views can represent the most comprehensive understanding of "theism". Both sides need to grow and advance the general level of their discourse and dialogue.

I understand this confusion well and accept that theos or deus is a far wider term that 'white, bearded, creator daddy sitting in the sky' and rather is a general term for a supernatural being. The additional qualities of being worshipful, omnipotent, omniscient, etc are all dependant upon the individual deity.

Note also that "God" doesn't have to be supernatural, as in panentheism.

I call myself an atheist, an anti-theist and an agnostic because although I don't know if a deity exists, and may not be able to know, I have no evidence of one and have plenty of evidence of natural origins which I believe remove the need for a deity (though obviously don't remove the possibility of one).

But theism can be about other than a deity -- a postulated immortal being; it can be about divinity -- an attribute. The referent of "God" need not be an existence; it can be a quality, just like "beauty". And just like "beauty" is more about perception than logical understanding, "divinity" or "God" can be more about perceiving a certain quality from the world than knowing a discrete existence inside or outside the world.

This is the kind of realisation I happened to attain after I had kept identifying exclusively with "atheism" against "theism". I could debunk all kinds of monotheistic religions, but, contrary to the naive impression I had at the time, I could never actually gave the lie to theism. We cannot settle and turn away from theism just by pointing out how we don't have a belief in the existence of a being, because theism can be more than a position of an ontological claim, just like aestheticism.

"atheism" is no longer a useful and meaningful term for me. In fact I'm increasingly taking a dislike to it, as I see people undermining with this label a valuable sensibility for a certain kind of question and dialogue concerning our existences in a cosmological context. "have plenty of evidence of natural origins", yes, I agree, I have that too; but are we living to just understand things? Lately we have had the Perseid Meteor Shower. I guess many people, like myself, got out to see this magnificent shower in the night sky. But why did we want to see it? To understand it? I don't think so. We got out to feel something about it. We wanted to emotionally appreciate things about the cosmos. We wanted to embrace our experience of existing in/with/as the cosmos.

Sometimes -- such as the time of a meteor shower -- we become aware, even faintly or obscurely, of the sacredness of our existence. Yes, existence. We are, rather than aren't. My new appreciation of theism (as panentheism) involves a sensibility for such sacredness. No supernatural "Creator", no "Saviour", no "heaven", no "magic", no "prayer". Pure sacredness. Pure divinity of experience. When you speak, that's divine. When you cry, that's divine. When I observe things, I perceive a process that is divinity in nature. The cosmos is God.

At any rate, what's the point of maintaining such a confusing set of labels? We can start a dialogue on religion or the notion of god without first identifying with a tag. I detect dispensable tribalism in the current divisive theist/atheist debate. We don't have to make such assertions as "I am an atheist.", "She is a theist.", etc. Instead of the copula "be", we can just use verbs: "I don't believe Yahweh exists.", "She believes Allah exists."

Although I agree that labels can lead to misconceptions, I think that these can be cleared up in a civil and reasonable debate (in other words, not the kind of debate where, even if you weren't to use labels but rather state "I don't believe in your deity," a hissy fit would still be thrown). It also helps to identify those with similar views, not to enforce a type of tribalism as you stated, but rather to find friends, groups, campaigns, etc which share similar views to you.

I guess that's practically true for many people. At the same time, I feel sad that we often think of dissidents as non-friends.

 

[jericomovie]

@mirandansa
well said.

 

[RichardMNixon]

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.

But that's just the point. Agnostic atheists are already considering the epistemology of theology, that is why we use agnosticism as a modifier. Objecting to its use as a modifier as you are is therefore not an objection to our epistemology; it's an objection to our semantics.

 

[Nautyskin]

When I observe things, I perceive a process that is divinity in nature. The cosmos is God.

Awe and wonder at the machinations of nature, interpreted as divinity? Where have we seen that before?



What does it mean? - Indeed.

My new appreciation of theism (as panentheism) involves a sensibility for such sacredness. No supernatural "Creator", no "Saviour", no "heaven", no "magic", no "prayer". Pure sacredness. Pure divinity of experience. When you speak, that's divine. When you cry, that's divine.

Divinity.

Show me it.

 

[jericomovie]

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.

But that's just the point. Agnostic atheists are already considering the epistemology of theology, that is why we use agnosticism as a modifier. Objecting to its use as a modifier as you are is therefore not an objection to our epistemology; it's an objection to our semantics.

what epistemological considerations would you deem prudent to the conversation, then?

 

[RichardMNixon]

what epistemological considerations would you deem prudent to the conversation, then?

I'm not worried about epistemology, you are. You said a change in use of words would make "non-believers ... consider the epistemological nature of theology."

My point is:
What epistemological considerations could you make if atheism was considered a positive belief (there is no god) that you couldn't make if atheism is considered a negative belief (god is not believed in)? If the difference in definition allows for some new epistemology, you have a point. If it doesn't, you're arguing semantics.

 

[lrkun]

"atheism" is no longer a useful and meaningful term for me. In fact I'm increasingly taking a dislike to it, as I see people undermining with this label a valuable sensibility for a certain kind of question and dialogue concerning our existences in a cosmological context. "have plenty of evidence of natural origins", yes, I agree, I have that too; but are we living to just understand things? Lately we have had the Perseid Meteor Shower. I guess many people, like myself, got out to see this magnificent shower in the night sky. But why did we want to see it? To understand it? I don't think so. We got out to feel something about it. We wanted to emotionally appreciate things about the cosmos. We wanted to embrace our experience of existing in/with/as the cosmos.

Different people have different reasons for doing things.

Although I don't agree with you're reason with respect to emotion, I can respect your argument, because if I apply analogy here. In the case of music, I enjoy listening to it, despite their is no need to do so. ^-^

Illustration:

Instead of thinking about God and the universe, I just wish to be effective in my daily routine and focus in a manner to bring out the best of my abilities in the task at hand.

What I mean to say is that I prefer to pay attention to the things that are around me and how I can be a better citizen and help my fellow brothers and sisters as I live my life.

The difference between your point of view and mine is that I don't see this as sacred or because it appeals to my emotion. I just like doing it. ^^

-oOo-

 

[OmegaMale]

But theism can be about other than a deity -- a postulated immortal being; it can be about divinity -- an attribute. The referent of "God" need not be an existence; it can be a quality, just like "beauty". And just like "beauty" is more about perception than logical understanding, "divinity" or "God" can be more about perceiving a certain quality from the world than knowing a discrete existence inside or outside the world.

This is the kind of realisation I happened to attain after I had kept identifying exclusively with "atheism" against "theism". I could debunk all kinds of monotheistic religions, but, contrary to the naive impression I had at the time, I could never actually gave the lie to theism. We cannot settle and turn away from theism just by pointing out how we don't have a belief in the existence of a being, because theism can be more than a position of an ontological claim, just like aestheticism.

Yeah, theism could be about those things, but is it really? I think for most theists theism in fact is "a position of an ontological claim". If religious people used the word "god" in the same way they use words like "beauty" I'd probably have little problem with them. Most theists really believe in a personal god who has created the world, answers prayers etc.

But if you wish to talk about some vague divinity, transcendence, some cosmic intellect etc. that would more accurately described as deism.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

"Divinity" or "God" can be more about perceiving a certain quality from the world than knowing a discrete existence inside or outside the world. . . . Theism can be more than a position of an ontological claim, just like aestheticism.

Yeah, theism could be about those things, but is it really? I think for most theists theism in fact is "a position of an ontological claim". If religious people used the word "god" in the same way they use words like "beauty" I'd probably have little problem with them. Most theists really believe in a personal god who has created the world, answers prayers etc.

But if you wish to talk about some vague divinity, transcendence, some cosmic intellect etc. that would more accurately described as deism.

And even if it isn't theism, even if we were talking about beauty, even if we were talking about an "emotional connection with the universe, so what? Whether you then call it deism or panentheism, what's the use of the claim? I mean, I can understand theism. It has a history, characters, stories, it has a wide overarching "story-universe" and is even largely coherent... but I can't see anything like that with deism or panentheism.
I'm probably very green at this, but to me it seems exclusively some type of magical thinking.

 

[OmegaMale]

And even if it isn't theism, even if we were talking about beauty, even if we were talking about an "emotional connection with the universe, so what? Whether you then call it deism or panentheism, what's the use of the claim? I mean, I can understand theism. It has a history, characters, stories, it has a wide overarching "story-universe" and is even largely coherent... but I can't see anything like that with deism or panentheism.
I'm probably very green at this, but to me it seems exclusively some type of magical thinking.

It's a common tactic among more "sophisticated" theists to retreat to this type of notion of god when defending their position. They argue that god is some nebulous transcendental pure being existing in a reality we can't possibly comprehend (but somehow still experience... go figure) and when the discussion is over they again pretend it's theism they have been defending all along.

As to the proper use and meaning of the term 'atheism', I think that any difficulties arise from the definition of theism. The a- prefix doesn't introduce anything as to the content of the term atheism, it simply is the negation of theism whatever the content and meaning of theism might be. So it's the lack of clarity of the term 'theism' that's the source of confusion here.

 

[theatheistguy]

"anti-" can mean "against", "hostile to", etc. Think of "anti-abortion" -- the position against the practice of abortion. In this case, activity is as much concerned as belief is. Likewise, "anti-theism" can mean the position against the practice of theism. It's a more positive and behavioural antagonism toward a mode of understanding and its expression, which might lead to an explicit or subtle form of censorship.

I've already said something to this effect above, "Anti- means 'opposite' or 'in opposition of'" so while anti-theism can be the opposite of a belief in the existence of a deity (the belief that no deities exist), it can also be in opposition to theism. However, I think it's up to the individual how they then conduct themselves that decides whether or not censorship takes place, as there is nothing in the definition that predicates censorship. So long as the anti-theist was a 'sceptic' or a 'freethinker' I doubt they would partake in censorship.

Wisemonkey888 seems to be applying a lot additional traits to anti-theists that is reminiscent of the religious person asserting that the atheist is a nihilist, an evolutionist, hates god, etc.

Note also that "God" doesn't have to be supernatural, as in panentheism.

People worship inanimate objects or concepts or people, and call them 'god' but I do not accept their definition, much I do not accept 'the universe is god' as it has no basis beyond me saying that my foot is god, or that the universe is my foot.

But theism can be about other than a deity -- a postulated immortal being; it can be about divinity -- an attribute. The referent of "God" need not be an existence; it can be a quality, just like "beauty". And just like "beauty" is more about perception than logical understanding, "divinity" or "God" can be more about perceiving a certain quality from the world than knowing a discrete existence inside or outside the world.

This is the kind of realisation I happened to attain after I had kept identifying exclusively with "atheism" against "theism". I could debunk all kinds of monotheistic religions, but, contrary to the naive impression I had at the time, I could never actually gave the lie to theism. We cannot settle and turn away from theism just by pointing out how we don't have a belief in the existence of a being, because theism can be more than a position of an ontological claim, just like aestheticism.

The basis for my definition of atheism or anti-theism is not a rejection of 'beauty' or an abstract term such as 'divinity', rather it is respectively the lack of belief and the belief against the existence of a deity. Obviously when people start talking about 'the universe is god' or 'beauty is god' or 'this carrot is god' then I do not reject their supposed deity's existence, rather I reject their definition of godhood.

"atheism" is no longer a useful and meaningful term for me. In fact I'm increasingly taking a dislike to it, as I see people undermining with this label a valuable sensibility for a certain kind of question and dialogue concerning our existences in a cosmological context. "have plenty of evidence of natural origins", yes, I agree, I have that too; but are we living to just understand things? Lately we have had the Perseid Meteor Shower. I guess many people, like myself, got out to see this magnificent shower in the night sky. But why did we want to see it? To understand it? I don't think so. We got out to feel something about it. We wanted to emotionally appreciate things about the cosmos. We wanted to embrace our experience of existing in/with/as the cosmos.

I think you're confusing atheism, in a way that man religious individuals do, with being nothing more than scientifically minded, cold hearted machines, that just wish to gather information. Look, atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity, and you're right, it is a relatively useless term, my bed is an atheist, all new born children are atheists, Buddhists are atheists, many who reject every word of science, are atheists. You may want to look into some Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, Michio Kaku and many more who show the poetry, beauty and awe of science and the human experience.

I guess that's practically true for many people. At the same time, I feel sad that we often think of dissidents as non-friends.

The concept of 'the other', yes I agree, but if you realise this and keep it in mind with your dealings, you can avoid such idiocy.

 

[Reedstilt]

Because semantic arguments are so much fun, I might as well throw in my two cents.

A question for Jerico and those affirming that "a(n)-" + "-ism" denotes a positive position, what would you call a person who believes that the existence of gods is currently unknown? How about a person who believes that the existence of gods is unknowable?

From my understanding, both of these people could be called agnostics, with context distinguishing the two. Perhaps you have different labels to apply to those two positions. I'd be interested to hear them.

Now, going back to the original topic of the thread. With all the definitions being tossed around this thread, I've decided to announce my resignation from Club Atheism. Adevism sounds more applicable.* The gods of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Norse, the Jews (and Christians and Muslims), the Hindus, the Aztecs, the Celts, the modern mystics, etc. do not exist. This includes all manner of legendary beings from the most all-encompassing Godhead to the lowliest dryad and pixie. I should toss things like the Tao on that list too, though, lacking personhood, I cannot properly call it a god.

Now, somewhere "out there," a being that we might call a god could hypothetically exist. I could probably devise a god concept that is logically consistent with our current observations right now. But that would be a pointless exercise. You can't argue something into existence. Until we have actual evidence for it, we can say nothing of its properties. So, if a god exists, it's not one of the thousands that have been worshiped here on Earth, and it is otherwise unknown.

By way of comparison, I'd like to point out that I'm also an anatlantisist. Lost cities of the ancient world might exist waiting to be discovered, but Atlantis itself is fable. There's no point debating the municipal policies of these lost cities, if they exist, until we start excavating them. Additionally I am an adinanthropist. The yeti, yeren, bigfoot, grassman, etc. do not exist. Unknown primates of different sizes and habitats may exist around the world, but until we discover them we have no business writing their natural histories.

*For the purposes of this thread at least. In everyday use, I foresee this conversation:
"I'm an adevist."
"A what?"
"I don't believe in legendary gods."
"Oh, you're an atheist?"
"...yeah..."
Might as well save myself some time.