Religion and Atheism

[usfan]

The degree of one's conviction is not relevant to the term. The term "atheism" refers to the proposition that God/gods do not exist. Just as the term "theism" refers to the proposition that God/gods does exist.

If someone wants to add a qualifier to their religious beliefs, they can.

Sunni Muslim
Catholic
Hard Atheist
Agnostic leaning Atheist.

Few people have an exact set of beliefs that their general label describes. But if you were answering a poll on 'religious beliefs', the general term will have to do.

I could answer to many labels, regarding my philosophical opinions. Christian, historical Christian, existentialist, Truth Seeker, bible thumper, fundamentalist.. and while they might all be partially accurate, in defining my beliefs, none are pure descriptions. Greater detail requires more information, and more qualifiers.

Only recently.. the last couple of decades or so.. has 'Atheism' become blurred, as a descriptor. It is approaching 'Christian!', as an ambiguous label! 50 years ago, an atheist was someone who did not believe in God. Now, such a simple description will elicit howls of protest and indignation, with irate variances scolding anyone who tries to define it generically.

But that is the nature of language. 'Christian', has gone that route before, and 'religious!', is joining the ambiguity club of Orwellian redefinitions.

 

[Augustus]

No, if one breaks it down the "a" in atheism means without. Therefore a-theism means without theism, or without a belief in a God or gods. Atheism is best defined as being without a belief in gods. That covers everyone from hard atheists to sort atheists.

⚙ Define atheism :: Etymology

It's etymological origin is actually athe[os]-ism, not a-theism.

So, based on the etymology, it breaks down as athe-ism not a-theism which obviously makes a significant difference. Your source even acknowledges that the term is not derivative of theism, but then presents its definition as being derivative of theism.

Anyway, word meanings are defined purely by usage, not general conventions regarding prefixes and suffixes, so people are free to define the term however they see fit. Arguing its etymology reflects a-theism is not really correct though.

 

[usfan]

Again, the above could be said about anything that doesn't exist, or exists but is never presented in any way within your reality - and therefore may as well not exist. And because it can be said of anything like that, it means you are just speaking nonsense. It means that it is entirely arbitrary what you insert into the sentences you write, because it would all make just as much sense.
I know you have seen this kind of thing dozens of times before, but it is no less applicable in this situation:
The emoji at the end just rounds it all out perfectly, don't you think?

I think there is a major difference, in comparing 'God', to imaginary things.
1. There are millennia of human testimony, to the existence of God. Nobody seriously believes in the tooth fairy.
2. Humans have a 'sense' of 'something'.. angst, purpose, eternity, that belies claims of nothingness.
3. Ignorance or denial of a spiritual/supernatural realm does not make it go away.
4. This 'sense', or awareness of the supernatural crosses all time, region, race, and culture.
5. Atheism has always been a small, minority view, and has grown recently mostly from institutional Indoctrination, and zealous proselytizing.
6. The human mind/soul/essence is not satisfied with a godless, naturalistic explanation of our existence, but innately senses a spiritual reality.. in general.
7. Minority, crackpot, and outlier opinions have always come and gone, in man's quest for Truth about our existence. The poem 'Blind Men and the Elephant', is a good word picture of this.
8. Emoji can go either way, and, like science, do not sanction atheistic naturalism.

 

[usfan]

Sometimes i think the problem is our culture, that gives trophies to everyone, and tries to make children feel 'special!', and better than everyone else. Many do not grow out of that fantasy, but insist their opinions are somehow more 'enlightened!', or on a higher plane than the huddled masses.

It is an elitist view, pounded into children, especially in academia, to make them feel superior to the non-special who do not share their Enlightenment. Most people gain circumspection, and realize they are just another soul, in the melting pot of humanity, but some cannot let go of the fantasy, and insist on an elitist view of themselves. It is a 'snowflake effect', that the hard realities of life usually melt, unless they are stuck in an echo chamber of constant affirmation of their uniqueness.


Always remember you're unique - just like everyone else.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think there is a major difference, in comparing 'God', to imaginary things.

There is little to no difference. Fiction is fiction, and I would argue that all any theist has ever done is attribute/imagine all the things to it that they want "god" to encompass and/or slightly plagiarize/borrow other people's ideas of god/deity and then add their own spin. This idea is supported by the evidence - in the form of hundreds of sects of Christianity, believers with hundreds of ideas and different interpretations of scripture - believers nearly at one another's throats over ideas for which they have no evidence other than The Bible, and, of course, the fact that there are so many other religions and ideas to begin with. Some of which have come and gone from this world entirely. People believed in them, and now there is no one left to. Certainly doesn't mean it was "true" while the people believed it. I think even YOU would agree with that.

1. There are millennia of human testimony, to the existence of God. Nobody seriously believes in the tooth fairy.

And humans have been wrong for (relatively) huge lengths of time about many grand facts surrounding the nature of our planet and the universe. The idea of "Flat Earth" prevailed for quite a long time. People thought the stars were holes poked in some kind of dome for quite a long time. People thought sickness was some kind of mystical tainting of the blood for quite a long time. People can be wrong... even about serious things. And many of those things have a lot in common with the prevailing ideas of God in that no one scientifically tested or examined, or no one was able (sometimes only until instrumentation and widespread use of such technology was available). And then we dispelled those ideas as nonsense. We may never be able to do that with "God" specifically, because the idea itself is unfalsifiable without some further ability to investigate or demonstrate proper aspects of God - which no one ever seems to be able to offer.

2. Humans have a 'sense' of 'something'.. angst, purpose, eternity, that belies claims of nothingness.

So what? Most humans also have a sense that something might jump out of the darkness at them after watching a scary movie. That doesn't mean there is something that can materialize out of darkness, does it?

3. Ignorance or denial of a spiritual/supernatural realm does not make it go away.

This is such a horrid point... this doesn't even work in your favor. The "spiritual/supernatural" was never HERE to begin with. It can't be demonstrated, can't be produced/reproduced, can't be measured, can't be examined. Minus those things, it is as good as non-existent. It is folly to say that there is, definitively, a "spiritual/supernatural realm." You cannot, in any way, bring forward verifiable evidence of this. You cannot.

4. This 'sense', or awareness of the supernatural crosses all time, region, race, and culture.

So does being afraid of the dark. Who cares? To my mind, this is evidence that the human ego is extremely strong and works on most people's minds unchecked most of the time. So many people I have encountered feel they are just about OWED a "purpose" to their lives. That they are entitled to some kind of "meaning" - that they are "destined" for more. That is plain and simple conceit, arrogance, hubris - and it means nothing. Your mind is no more important a part of you than any other. It seems that way - TO THE MIND, but minus the heart - you're dead. Minus your digestional tract - you're dead. Minus your skin - you're dead. Minus your lungs - you're dead. Through artificial/medical means, we can overcome certain deficits - but the same can be said for the mind. We can keep the body alive through artificial means even without the mind active at all in the body. The mind is one part of a whole, and is no more, or less important than those other parts. But it THINKS it is... and that's where I believe all this "supernatural"/"god"/"I hope there is more out there for ME" crap comes from. All of it.

5. Atheism has always been a small, minority view, and has grown recently mostly from institutional Indoctrination, and zealous proselytizing.

It's not "proselytizing" in the slightest. It's getting people to realize better ways of thinking lead to rejection of claims until they have been demonstrated to be correct/true. That's it. Atheism just follows naturally from shifting to those realistic ways of thinking. Letting go of your interpretation of the world that puts all sorts of fictitious levels and layers on top of it. Unless you can demonstrate it, IT MAY AS WELL NOT EXIST. This is true of anything.

6. The human mind/soul/essence is not satisfied with a godless, naturalistic explanation of our existence, but innately senses a spiritual reality.. in general.

You can't equate "mind" and "soul' - you can't. There is precisely ZERO evidence of a mind without a body moving on into "eternity," let alone even a couple seconds. And there is a fat, whopping TON of evidence that suggests that the mind is so intrinsically tied to the body (and therefore to the materials of the body) that when that body is damaged too severely, the "mind" goes bye-bye. And if the "soul" is something different than the "mind" when the "mind" can be damaged by physical hurt, then I don't given one flying crap what the "soul" is, because it isn't what I consider "me" - it isn't my consciousness and memories if those can be lost but the "soul" somehow remains. And if it isn't my consciousness and memories, and it never once presents itself to me in reality - then I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT.

7. Minority, crackpot, and outlier opinions have always come and gone, in man's quest for Truth about our existence.

Yeah - and your crack-pot opinions have come, and they are on their way out. Don't let the proverbial door hit you.

8. Emoji can go either way, and, like science, do not sanction atheistic naturalism.

I honestly believe sometimes that some people think emojis strengthen the look/feel of their argument. It is a sad, sad state of affairs. Shows a complete lack of fundamental understanding of what makes communication worthwhile. To hell with emojis.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

He has a point though; modern atheism largely arose in response to Classical Monotheism; it may be said to be a product of Abrahamic religion. You only have to listen to how most atheists phrase themselves, I don't believe in God. Only on here have I seen them include 'or gods'.

Isn't it quite obvious? Atheism was going to rise up within a culture granting various freedoms (speech/religion) versus whatever the prevailing thought was on "god" within that culture. It then gets applied to other claims about "God"/"gods" when those are learned, but doesn't it make complete sense that it would be in response to the religion that puts itself in the faces of those adopting an atheistic stance? The religion of the people doing all the law-making for quite a large stretch of time within the countries that granted such freedoms to its people?

You could point to Islam, and ask why there isn't a greater prevalence of atheism within that culture if it is so fundamental/prolific... but you would be ignoring one simple fact - the countries within which Islam is the majority religion practiced do not have the freedoms I spoke of as requisites for people to be able to come forth with words opposing the majority in this fashion. Religion as a governmentally controlling institution has only ever proven itself to be dangerous, and adverse to progress. One need only look again at Islam, and the crushing blow that religious control dealt to the academic metropolis that the Middle East used to be. Even now, the countries that are prospering culturally/socially/academically have a strong secular core. The best outcomes occur when people keep their professional and their religious lives well separated.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Love, beauty, honor, justice, compassion, infinity, pi, zero, a vacuum, time, space, reason, ... just off the top of my head.

I actually like posts like this... they provide a great segue into a discussion about how some of those things only exist as concepts or shared ideas within thinking minds. Which is exactly what I believe God to be. So, what an excellent analogy @PureX. Kudos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's etymological origin is actually athe[os]-ism, not a-theism.

So, based on the etymology, it breaks down as athe-ism not a-theism which obviously makes a significant difference. Your source even acknowledges that the term is not derivative of theism, but then presents its definition as being derivative of theism.

Anyway, word meanings are defined purely by usage, not general conventions regarding prefixes and suffixes, so people are free to define the term however they see fit. Arguing its etymology reflects a-theism is not really correct though.

You misunderstood it. It says that the roots of the word atheism predate the word theism. But even its oldest form was based upon a lack of belief in gods:

"The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities"21"

 

[viole]

I think there is a major difference, in comparing 'God', to imaginary things.
1. There are millennia of human testimony, to the existence of God. Nobody seriously believes in the tooth fairy.

Ad populum, therefore a fallacy. There are centuries of history concerning superstitions of any kind, too. Not to talk of equivalent nonsense like astrology and stuff.

2. Humans have a 'sense' of 'something'.. angst, purpose, eternity, that belies claims of nothingness.

Yes, and that is why they make up gods. Just look how different they are. It is obvious that such beliefs are unreliable in general.

3. Ignorance or denial of a spiritual/supernatural realm does not make it go away.

Yup, like the belief that tarots can predict the future, black cats bring bad luck, that zodiac signs are important, etc. etc. etc.
All these things are all caused by the slumber of reason, and they will not leave because most people do not like to reason about it.

Hope springs eternal. And they get mad if you attack their little comforting delusion.

4. This 'sense', or awareness of the supernatural crosses all time, region, race, and culture.

Again, does not say anything about objective existence. The same can be said with most superstition

5. Atheism has always been a small, minority view, and has grown recently mostly from institutional Indoctrination, and zealous proselytizing.

Yes, like people who understand relativity. The minority status is actually a good sign that we are right. And we atheists all agree on the main characteristics of god, its not existence. We do not fight between atheists of Jesus and atheists of the elephant God, whether is three or one, or several, or some other nonsensical version of that figment of the imagination, lol.

6. The human mind/soul/essence is not satisfied with a godless, naturalistic explanation of our existence, but innately senses a spiritual reality.. in general.

True. That is why it makes up things. It need to fill holes, somehow. Probably, a naturally selected trait that helped us survive despite the obvious pointlessness of nature.

7. Minority, crackpot, and outlier opinions have always come and gone, in man's quest for Truth about our existence. The poem 'Blind Men and the Elephant', is a good word picture of this.
8. Emoji can go either way, and, like science, do not sanction atheistic naturalism.

The amount of people believing X, does not say anything about the truth of X, in lack of independent evidence. It is as simple as that. And that is why the Blue fairy and any flavor of God are ontologically equivalent, pending external evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If a God had, in any way, interacted with our 4 dimensional reality, there would be some evidence of that interaction.

Good point. The idea that the supernatural realm is capable of reaching out to modify the natural world physically as with miracles, but that in looking back, the supernatural is not detectable, is to suggest that it is possible for causality to be one-way, like a cue ball could move an object ball on impact, but not the other way around.

None of the militant atheists consider their beliefs to be, 'religious', and most are indignant for them to be included in that descriptor.

Militant atheist? We don't become militant.

There are millennia of human testimony, to the existence of God. Nobody seriously believes in the tooth fairy.

That's not an argument for the existence of gods, is it?

People that used to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa only stopped believing in them because they were told that these were made up. If nobody tells you that the religious ideas that your parents were teaching you at the same time aren't true, you might not ever know.

Ignorance or denial of a spiritual/supernatural realm does not make it go away.

We don't need to make it go away. It was never here. What is easier to ignore than something that is not detectable even in principle. Isn't that the same as the definition of the non-existent?

What makes the supernatural spiritual? That it contains spirits?

Atheism has always been a small, minority view, and has grown recently mostly from institutional Indoctrination, and zealous proselytizing.

The rise of atheism in the West is simply the expected result of the decline of Christianity. Religion is self-destructing in the news with scandal after scandal for decades now opposite zero wins, and science keeps narrowing the gaps for gods to reside in. We don't need them for anything. The universe can apparently assemble and operate itself without a builder or operator.

Only after these changes did atheists get a voice to begin helping with the decline of organized, politicized religion invading lives where it is unwelcome. Perhaps the exercising of that ability and how atheists express their feelings about a church that has marginalized and demonized them since antiquity is what you meant by militancy in atheists. I would imagine that you are unaware of the damage done to atheists by the church, and their reasons for distrusting and disliking it.

The human mind/soul/essence is not satisfied with a godless, naturalistic explanation of our existence, but innately senses a spiritual reality.. in general.

This human mind is.

One does not need gods or religion to have a spiritual life - to experience awe, gratitude, mystery, and connectivity. In fact, I would suggest that religious beliefs can interfere with authentic spirituality, especially one that essentially disconnects you from your world, depicting it as a cruel place made of base matter ("the world" is meant as a derogatory term), populated with sin-infected creatures that one is warned not to be engaged with, and that we are ghosts trapped in vile flesh ("the flesh" is also derogatory) waiting to leave this world for a better one. And in the meantime, don't trust your mind, either. That's Satan trying to fill you with doubt and steal your soul. Don't listen to yourself.

All of the gratitude, awe, mystery and connectivity that should be directed to our world is ripped away and redirected to an imagined realm populated by imagined spirits with such teaching.

As I just asked, how is that spiritual? Because it includes spirits?

Always remember you're unique - just like everyone else.

You might like this :

Only recently.. the last couple of decades or so.. has 'Atheism' become blurred, as a descriptor. It is approaching 'Christian!', as an ambiguous label! 50 years ago, an atheist was someone who did not believe in God. Now, such a simple description will elicit howls of protest and indignation, with irate variances scolding anyone who tries to define it generically.

I have a very clear understanding of what atheism is, as does just about every other atheist. It's the Christians that have trouble understanding who we are, but you seem to have gotten it right there - "someone who did not believe in God" You won't revert to "someone who says that there is no God" again, will you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To be more specific, their "doctrine" is that if any gods existed, they (the atheists) would be able to detect this existence to the degree of it being "proven" to them. And since this has not occurred, they surmise, then, that no gods exist unless and until it is proven to them, to their satisfaction, that one or more gods does exist. This IS a "worldview". This IS an ideological "doctrine". And it IS a theological proposition. It is, in a word, a "belief". So that most atheists are being deliberately deceptive when they claim they simply "do not believe" the theist's proposition. Because, in fact, they have and hold a whole contrary belief system of their own.

And here's a nice example of what I mean by theists having trouble learning what an atheist is. I don't claim that no gods exist, or that all gods should be detectable. I am happy to admit that I am agnostic on gods ad frankly, cannot begin to estimate the likelihood of a god that does not want to be or cannot be detected. Should I just pick a number out of the air? 37%? 6%?

I also don't ask others to prove that their god exists. They can't, and I know it. So do they. I just tell them that I won't be following them without a good reason to do so, and if they have none, then no thank you.

Your definition of atheist doesn't include the vast majority of people with no religion or god belief who self-identify as atheists. Telling me about my beliefs and whether they constitute a religion or not requires that you know what those beliefs are.

Even if I were to say that no gods exist, that's hardly a worldview or ideology. It's a single idea My ideology is secular humanism. It is a comprehensive worldview, complete with its own metaphysics, epistemology, and moral theory. The Affirmations of Humanism summarize this world view very nicely. If you like, you can add one more idea for the secular humanists that assert that there are no gods. That lone idea is what is being called an ideology, worldview, and religion in this thread.

Oh, I have seen quite a few atheists who appear relatively 'obsessed' with the presumed righteousness of their position. And of whom this obsession gets practiced on a regular basis. It may not be common, but it clearly does happen. And it fits the description of a religion very well, as it's very similar to a religious fundamentalist's ideology and behavior.

Is that your basis for calling atheism a religion - what quite a few atheists have done, but not commonly? How about if quite a few atheists don't do that? Are they still also in this religion?

My definition of a religion includes gods. I find it most useful to distinguish between those who believe in them, who I call religious, and those that do not. These groups of people think, vote, and behave differently. They give what could have been their charitable contributions to the needy to churches, which use most of the money to generate more Christians and build more churches.

That's what I mean by religion, especially when its politicized. That's when the distinction between religious and not religious becomes more clear and more important.

Atheists are qualitatively different. They don't have a religion to push, so they don't need buildings, clergy, or missionaries. They can give our extra dollars to people who need it, and they won't make you say a prayer or recite any belief they want you to hold for it. And they won't come knocking at your door to tell you the good news that there might not be a god.

Love, beauty, honor, justice, compassion, infinity, pi, zero, a vacuum, time, space, reason, ... just off the top of my head.

Abstractions don't exist except as ideas in sufficiently intelligent heads. They are called abstractions because they are abstracted from that which can be experienced. Thus love refers to a set of behaviors that we can observe in ourselves and others, as well as feelings that we experience directly in ourselves. These behaviors and feelings have objective and subjective reality for us, but not the abstraction that stands for that reality.

The really weird thing is that you and so many other atheists believe that there is some sort of innate logical demand that you be "convinced".

Once again, you misunderstand. The atheist doesn't demand that you convince him. He declines to follow you if you can't. That's different.

You can't detect what isn't there

That's a good thing to remember, especially when considering the supernatural, which we are told is undetectable.

The term "atheism" refers to the proposition that God/gods do not exist

Still?

You won't be qualified to discuss atheism as a religion or anything else until you learn what atheism is and what atheists actually believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose atheism can get quite religious when they desire to convert everybody to it.

I don't see evidence of atheists proselytizing.

Personally, I don't care what other people believe as long as it doesn't intrude into the lives of unbelievers. If a person is presently dipping a chicken talon in goat's blood, hammering it to a post, and dancing nude around it all night while shaking a stick affixed with jingly bells and howling at the moon to center his life and give it meaning, far be it from me to object as long as he is a good neighbor and doesn't keep my family up at night with his beliefs and rituals.

How can an atheist have an opinion about the nature of what they conclude is a non-existent God?

Do you have opinions about Santa? I do. He's a mythical person, for starters. His nature, we are told, is to be jolly, a hard worker, a lover of children, and generous.

Likewise with gods that aren't believed in. They can be described anyway. Sometimes they can angry, petty, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, capricious, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadistic, or prudish. Some require worship and submission. But saying such things doesn't mean one believes that those gods exist.

They would be better served to wonder what distinguishes man from all other known species.

Why can't we do both?

Science is mute when it comes to the right and wrong of things; moral vs. amoral, love vs. hate, or justice vs. injustice. Only in the realm of religion or spiritual philosophy are such concepts explored

I don't get my morals from religion, or from whatever is meant by spiritual philosophy. I would call it moral philosophy, and for me, it was derived through the application of rational ethics - that is, reason applied to empathy - to the utilitarian position that the summum bonum is that which produces the most opportunity for the greatest number of people to pursue life liberty, and happiness as they conceive of them. With that goal for society in mind, guidelines for behavior thought to best facilitate that goal are tested and tweaked as appropriate.

No holy books or spirits involved.

 

[Augustus]

You misunderstood it. It says that the roots of the word atheism predate the word theism. But even its oldest form was based upon a lack of belief in gods:

Which means it can't have been 'without theism'.

Also, in its oldest form it related to not accepting the right gods, or not honouring them in the right way. "Belief" wasn't important back then as that was really a product of monotheism.

"The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities"21"

That's what I said: athe[os]-ism. It is -ism added to atheos, not a- added to theism.

If we are going purely on the construction of the term, atheos = without gods -ism = principle/philosophy/doctrine. This doesn't relate to simply being 'without theism', but of adopting a specific philosophical position in regard to the gods.

As I said, words are defined by usage not various conventions of pre/suffixes, and there may be other reasons to prefer one definition or another. Making the argument that 'without theism' is the 'true' definition according to the etymology is wrong though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which means it can't have been 'without theism'.

Also, in its oldest form it related to not accepting the right gods, or not honouring them in the right way. "Belief" wasn't important back then as that was really a product of monotheism.



That's what I said: athe[os]-ism. It is -ism added to atheos, not a- added to theism.

If we are going purely on the construction of the term, atheos = without gods -ism = principle/philosophy/doctrine. This doesn't relate to simply being 'without theism', but of adopting a specific philosophical position in regard to the gods.

As I said, words are defined by usage not various conventions of pre/suffixes, and there may be other reasons to prefer one definition or another. Making the argument that 'without theism' is the 'true' definition according to the etymology is wrong though.

The point was that in Greek it still has the same meaning of "without god".

 

[Augustus]

The point was that in Greek it still has the same meaning of "without god".

And related to a specific stance one adopted rather than a lack of one.

 

[ecco]

We can certainly have well founded "opinions" on the origins of non-existent gods/God/faries/pixies et. al. They all are the creations of man's imaginings.

So you are reflecting on how atheists are expressing opinions on “origins” rather than the “nature” of what they conclude does not exist?

Do you often reflect on the nature of pixies and fairies?

 

[Sunstone]

Tao

The Tao? A god?

Just to be sure I understand you, are natural forces, such as gravity, also gods?

 

[PureX]

No, if one breaks it down the "a" in atheism means without.

No, it doesn't mean "without", it means 'the antithetical of'. To mean "without" would make it a meaningless tern, as it would designate an infinite state. The rain would be "without theism". The color blue would be "without theism". The number 5 would be "without theism". It would be a meaningless designation. But that's not what the a- designates. It designates the subject's antithetical. And the antithetical to the proposition that God exists, its that God does not exist.

Therefore a-theism means without theism, or without a belief in a God or gods.

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. Theism is not a "belief in the existence of God. Theism is the category of philosophy predicated on the proposition that God/gods exist. Philosophy isn't about what anyone believes or doesn't believe. It's about what one proposes to be true, and about debating the proposition, logically. One can believe in or not believe in a given truth proposition, and still debate it, logically, for or against it.

Atheism is best defined as being without a belief in gods. That covers everyone from hard atheists to soft atheists.

Well, that's what's best for you, I'm sure. Because that way you can attack the theist's proposition without ever having to defend your own. But no honest, discerning human is going to buy into that kind of intellectual ploy, nor let you get away with it.

 

[PureX]

If someone wants to add a qualifier to their religious beliefs, they can.

Sunni Muslim
Catholic
Hard Atheist
Agnostic leaning Atheist.

Few people have an exact set of beliefs that their general label describes. But if you were answering a poll on 'religious beliefs', the general term will have to do.

I could answer to many labels, regarding my philosophical opinions. Christian, historical Christian, existentialist, Truth Seeker, bible thumper, fundamentalist.. and while they might all be partially accurate, in defining my beliefs, none are pure descriptions. Greater detail requires more information, and more qualifiers.

Only recently.. the last couple of decades or so.. has 'Atheism' become blurred, as a descriptor. It is approaching 'Christian!', as an ambiguous label! 50 years ago, an atheist was someone who did not believe in God. Now, such a simple description will elicit howls of protest and indignation, with irate variances scolding anyone who tries to define it generically.

But that is the nature of language. 'Christian', has gone that route before, and 'religious!', is joining the ambiguity club of Orwellian redefinitions.

We very often hide our ignorance, bias, bigotry, and egotism from ourselves and from each other, behind deliberate linguistic ambiguity. Which is why I like to call it out whenever I see it being 'floated' in these conversations. I think it's crucial that we be as honest and specific as we can be in these kinds of discussions and debates. Because everything else immediately devolves into the endless blind bickering of ego-play.

 

[PureX]

I actually like posts like this... they provide a great segue into a discussion about how some of those things only exist as concepts or shared ideas within thinking minds. Which is exactly what I believe God to be. So, what an excellent analogy @PureX. Kudos.

That's exactly what God is, TO US. But what God is or is not apart from us anyone guess, and no one's knowledge. Yet the same can be said of "existence". And of "objectivity". And of a nearly everything else we humans perceive/conceive of as being "real".

The problem with the question: "Does God exist?" is that it's an absurdly incomplete question. What "God"? "Exists" how? How can we answer the question when we have no idea what the question is even asking?