The Unseen Moon
Banned
However, there are many people who do use the term "atheist" to mean a positive belief in the absence of any gods.
--- snip ---
Because atheism has multiple definitions that differ in scope, it can be problematic when one seeks precision in one's language.
Exactly!'Atheist' is a fine, succinct, neutral common noun for someone who does not believe in gods. I'll be damned before I wipe it from my lexicon because people might associate me with Dawkins or Hitch. That would be like Christians prefering to call themselves 'pro-Jesus' to avoid being associated with Pat Robertson or the Pope. IMO.
Sigh. Everybody has to have their own take on what something means.
Atheism doesn't mean I think I can prove there is no god. It doesn't mean I hate Christians. All it means is I don't hold to any theism. Period. Silly how many folks don't hold to any theism yet are loathe to refer to themselves as atheists.
That approach, although practical, is a huge part of the problem. As long as bigots are shielded from the reality that most atheists are safe, friendly and moral people, the prejudice against atheists will continue. The bigots can maintain their belief that atheists are amoral and dangerous, because they are never shown otherwise by good, "out" atheists.Hi, (Mr.) Devil (Sir). I agree with everything you say but would add that there are reasons other than philosophical for refusing the atheist label. If you own a business in a small American town and call yourself an atheist, your children will not only go hungry but will likely be ostracized. They'll suffer. I'd rather name my son 'Sue' than admit to atheism in a small town.
There is nothing "negative" about atheism, and atheists who go about calling themselves "non-believers" in attempt to sound "softer" or "less confrontational" or "less radical" only make the problems of ignorance about and prejudice against atheists worse.
I think atheist is fine -- it means:
A -- absence of
Theism -- belief in god
It is a sign of respect and open-mindedness for a Theist to ask an atheist "On what facts do you base your non-belief?"
We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.
I sometimes have refered to myself as a "lapsed Baptist" (clarifying, American Baptist Convention, not Southern Baptist). These days, it might be "secular humanist," although depending on audience I might add, "the polite term for atheist." Sometimes, "nondogmatic atheist," as I don't feel the need to convert believers to my position -- other than to irritate pushy religionists occasionally by pointing out the absurdities of, say, biblical literalism. No one calls me anything in particular in that regard, though, as I do not seek to get into those discussions.. . . I am just curious to know if other non-believers care what they are called, and what word they prefer to use when presented with the question what they believe.
I point to my No Soliciting sign. If that does not suffice, I give them my handout that includes statement that soliciting includes proselytizing for or in any other way representing any religion whatsoever. But the No Soliciting sign seems to keep them away. The occasional commercial soliciter, though, that is another story. Those people can be terminally dense. I give them a copy of the handout and close the door. Some are apparently unable to read, though.To the people who knock on my door at the most inopportune times, I usually just say "I'm all squared away with God, thanks." . . .
That approach, although practical, is a huge part of the problem. As long as bigots are shielded from the reality that most atheists are safe, friendly and moral people, the prejudice against atheists will continue. The bigots can maintain their belief that atheists are amoral and dangerous, because they are never shown otherwise by good, "out" atheists.
Those who refuse to be part of the solution remain part of the problem.
I think most of us are trying to skate uphill here. It's not easy trying to provoke a positive spin on Atheism when politicians outright call Atheists Un-American.
There's a lingering stigma that won't disappear merely because we believe ourselves to be rational or logical or devoid of any religious associations, and it doesn't help matters much when census radicals still list "Atheist" as a religion in itself.
Isn't 'atheism' then revealed to be a conclusion arrived at prematurely? Lacking the facts?
On what facts do you base your non-belief in Santa Claus? Unicorns? Bigfoot?
I don't need to individually analyze and reject each and every religion that anyone has ever imagined to intelligently conclude that belief in supernatural beings and a non-material world has no logical or factual foundation.
To the extent that 'atheism' is a conclusion that CAN NEVER be supported ... other than by mere belief / faith?
Hmmmm the same argument can be used against people who don't believe in evolution. If a lack of belief is invalid because it can never be supported, then a lack of belief in evolution and that means a person must be a believer.
EVOLUTION WINS!
What made you guys atheists/nonbelievers? (Just curious to know.)
What facts are you talking about?
It seems like it is only logical to start from the position that unless you observe something, its not there,
otherwise you have to catalog every possible infinite number of non-existent things every second and that's not even possible.
So if something isn't observed then the only sensible starting point is that it isn't there.
(there's a furniture store a few towns over that's closed on Sundays, and it says something like, "I'll see you in church" on the sign - I'm not so drawn to purchasing furniture there). I don't see a need to spread my atheism any more than I want someone to spread their religious beliefs.
You've succeeded in completely derailing this thread, the point of which was to discuss the use of the label atheist v. non-believer.I'm asking about the 'facts' (your facts) that support an atheistic 'conclusion' ...
I have no problem with anyone who admits "I don't know, so I cannot reach an intelligent conclusion about the existence of God, gods, etc"
I could have a problem with someone who defends an unintelligent or unsupported conclusion.
Atheists are in error imo when they attempt to claim that FAITH or a believer's SUBJECTIVE spiritual evidence needs the same sort of 'evidence' or 'support' that ATHEISTS fail at delivering.
Faith is the support the Faithful demand of themselves. They live up to the criteria their Faith positions demand.
What 'facts' does an ATHEIST position demand ... that ATHEISTS can supply?
Because if you cannot support your own position by your own criteria ... your position fails. Period.
By that criteria, the need to 'observe or it doesn't exist' ...much of current quantum theory and astronomical theory must be rejected.
You could not accept historical accounts of events you cannot observe. (or if you accept them, you then must explain how you reject religious accounts by witnesses of religious events)
HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS itself is reduced to mere subjective hallucination.
Do that if it's what you need to hold your conclusions together.
I do understand your point. However, I could as easily destroy your point by saying: THAT is exactly WHY you cannot intelligently reach your atheistic conclusion. 'It's not even possible' to quote you.
I could say "And if you were thinking straight, you'd realize you hold an unsustainable conclusion." Which calls your thinking (and your position) into doubt.
I don't mean to insult YOU there, but I'm offering a direct counter-argument to your statements.
Again, accepting THAT extreme position damages any materialist argument concerning a huge spectrum of human experience.
You cannot 'observe' any other human's subjective human awareness.
But does that mean you think YOU are the only self-aware being on this planet, and everyone else is merely an automaton robot presenting you with 'observeable' stimuli?
I think right there is where we start backing you away from the validity of your rebuttal above.
I'm happy to continue the discussion.
But I ask for THEIR EVIDENCE to support anyone's "no god exists" position.
If they fail to give it, they fail by THEIR standards, not mine.
Because by my standards, you're ALL creatures of FAITH ... and when folks claim evidence but only support it with their atheistic faith ... that supports MY position!!!