McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Why do you assume I think them "equally probable"?
I simply have not seen anything to convince me either way.
If you think calling me names will make me pick a side, you are sadly mistaken
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
I simply have not seen anything to convince me either way.
If you think calling me names will make me pick a side, you are sadly mistaken
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes - OK - maybe we are going on two different tangents in discussing this...although I have a sneaking suspicion - reading between the lines of some of Jefferson's private communications - that he suspected there might not be any God after all, let alone a providential one.
I do get the point of "providential deism" - the idea that God created the universe in such a way that it was (as it were) destined to provide for humanity when humanity arose. But there certainly was a tension between the Leibnizian "best of all possible worlds" kind of deism and Voltaire's more overtly humanistic "we must tend our garden" approach. It is difficult to discern exactly what 'deists' of the 18th and early 19th century really believed because in most cases we have only their public statements and published writings and it was certainly not a shrewd political move to avow disbelief in a deity. Publicly, Jefferson remained a Christian - albeit a very unorthodox one - privately he was "all over the place". I don't see cynicism in that, America (like most of the world at that time and America to this day) was just not ready to be led by an non-believer.
So it is difficult to determine exactly what each "deist" did believe in any particular time - and in any case, they had this unfortunate 'freethinker's' habit of changing their minds. Bolingbroke, for example, whose thinking was certainly an important influence on Jefferson, and whose writings against both religion and theology are certainly deistic, seems to have also secretly written a treatise avowing atheism (which he also explored in some detail in his less covert writings) but dare not publish it. It apparently came to light only after his death. And John Toland - who when he was in his deistic phase had heard threats to have his books (specifically Christianity Not Mysterious) publicly burned - moved on to pantheism later in his life. The thinking of enlightenment thinkers - especially on matters of religion - was not static - and for me, that is their greatest legacy - the idea that its OK to keep changing your mind about your beliefs as long as you keep thinking about it.That was the message - the importance of reason in determining what to believe and what should be considered 'right'.
Anyway, my point is - and if I recall correctly, Bolingbroke had made similar arguments but (perhaps deceptively?) put them the other way round and made them the argument of the 'theist' (by which I believe he meant deist) against the atheist - the origin of good, the origin of moral virtue, if these are based on eternal principles of what is good and right, might just as easily be eternal 'values' of a naturalistic universe as a supernatural creator - might they not? I can't believe for a moment that this thought had not occurred to such an astute and brilliant mind as Jefferson's - or the other freethinking 'deists' of his era. So whether he really held to "providential deism" for purely philosophical reasons, I'm not sure. But it could be - they still held a Newtonian view of the cosmos of course, and that demanded a divine hand, not only to wind up the clock but also to keep the orbs in their assigned places. It would be another century before Einstein et al would finally relieve God of that duty. So perhaps there was still a compelling reason to hold on to a philosophical belief in divine providence in that respect.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
What does it mean to be an Atheist ( not a mocking thread)
It means never being able to see your own image in a mirror.
It means never being able to see your own image in a mirror.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Fence sitter isn't really name calling when it is apt. So, no that was not the intention.
And if you haven't seen any evidence that would lead you to believe one is more likely than the other, then you believe them both equally probable. If you have seen evidence, then you believe one is more likely than not, hence you either believe god exists or believe he does not exist. Otherwise, you believe neither is more likely, and therefore believe they are equally probable.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about yourself?
Augustus
…
I agree it is often difficult to identify the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) held by many thinkers from this era.
The fact that there is little difference between the religious/philosophical views of liberal Christians, deists and atheists demonstrates the common origin of such strains of Enlightenment thinking though.
The Idea of Progress, whether in its original Christian, deistic or atheistic forms is basically indistinguishable from Divine Providence. Irreligious proponents Condorcet and Turgot even acknowledge its intellectual origins in the Christian tradition.
Even today, Secular Humanism is really a form of 'providential atheism'
... or the irrelevance of religion to morality.
Augustus
…
Why do you think that one's ideological worldview and socio-cultural environment should be considered irrelevant to morality?
How do you explain the great differences between the moralities that exist across different cultures?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I fully agree with the definition you provided.
Atheism is not a claim. It's not a doctrine. It's actually a pretty meaningless word.
It's a single stance on a single issue, really.
It's a specific response to a specific question.
"do you believe in god(s)?"
"no"
That's it.
It doesn't tell you what IS being believed.
It only tells you what is NOT being believed.
It's a ridiculous word really....
It's like having a word for someone who doesn't practice sports, with the different sports being various religions.
Imagine football being Islam, soccer being christianity, tennis being hinduism.
A muslim would be a football player.
A christian would be a soccer player.
A hindu would be a tennis player.
An atheist? Not any kind of player.
We don't have a word for someone who doesn't practice a sport.
Some analogies that I like, which kind of illustrate what atheism is to me:
- if religions are tv channels, then atheism is turning the TV off or not owning a tv
- if religions are types of shoe, then atheism is being barefoot
- if religions are hair colors, then atheism is being bald
- if religions are outfits, then atheism is being nude
In short: atheism doesn't refer to a belief that somebody has. It refers to the exact opposite: a specific belief (theism) that the person does NOT have.
mistoftime
Member
I was greatly relieved when was I no longer a believer.
What do you think that beliefs about the supernatural have to do with "one's ideological worldview and socio-cultural environment?"
Not with differences in their religious beliefs.
Augustus
…
Because ideology is often a major component of religion and dominant ideologies have a major impact on the socio-cultural environment of course.
Mostly, it's not about the supernatural bits, but the other stuff that these underpin.
Change 'religious' to 'ideological' and it might be easier for you to work out why you are wrong.
You don't believe that someone raised in a Secular Humanistic environment would likely have different morals to one raised in a Salafi-Jihadi environment?
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Hello again.....
Much to some Atheist member's irritation, I have classed myself as a kind of atheist........ this is how I see one kind of atheism.
I am a Deist. Deists tend to believe in an uninvolved, disinterested or unaware Deity.
I am not a Theist. Theists tend to believe in an involved, interested or aware God.
And so, being a non-theist, I am a kind of atheist. With any luck, in time, Deism and Theism definitions will be properly separated. At present some folks insist that Deism is a kind of Theism, which is daft.
I mean, deism isn't atheism either. I'd probably argue that deism is it's own thing - this kind of puts me in mind of the heathen triangle. In one corner, theres those believers who believe in the traditional notion of the gods. Personal, aware and interested. In another, there are those who think the gods are there, but aren't *their* gods as far as their interest and involvement goes. Finally, there are those (like myself) who agree with the sentiments behind the religion in question, but assign the god stories to the realm of mythology and parable. Essentially atheists, but who like the moral code of some religion or other. For me, it's asatru. Loads of stuff about just being a good person, none of the homophobia or racism but there are some pretty wild stories which are even more daft than the abrahamic ones if taken literally.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I acknowledge your mindset on all this.
But maybe, just maybe, Atheists who also lack belief in any kind of Deity just need a new word? I mean, although you are non-theists, you are also non-deists...... by calling yourselves 'atheists' you don't actually deny deism. Let's face it, the dictionaries need a good kicking and then, if they can come up with a term for Atheism and Adeism combined, then maybe atheistic Deists of my kind might be left in peace to cuddle that term all on our own?
Yeah....... it's our word! Gerroff!
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Deism is subset of theism. There's no need to create another category for it.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
I can see that guys point, and although I agree with you, I don't see that theres much to gain by splitting hairs
live and let live - if that dude doesn't want to be a theist, it doesn't affect me in the slightest.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Is it though?
Let us analyze some examples to try to better understand.
A person who believes the sun is a god and exists is a theist.
That i also believe the sun exists does not make me a theist. Why? It is because i do not believe the sun is a god.
Now if a deist does not believe any deity that they believe to exist is a god, wouldn't that be the same as me who believes the sun exists and is not a god?
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
True and I can accept anyone's definition as long as they accept mine tooI can see that guys point, and although I agree with you, I don't see that theres much to gain by splitting hairs
I even accepted him in the atheist group and he'll get a badge in the post. He can sew it to his pants.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
I'd be more curious why this person is calling the sun a god. If you can just assign god to anything then my cat becomes a god or my rug, because it ties the room together. Therefore, it's a meaningless word.
To make this more of an appropriate analogy, assume our sun was once alive and spat out some planets so he wouldn't be alone anymore, then went back to sleep. I find this a much, much better analogy for deism. The sun, in essence, becomes some deity if this person wishes to regard them as such.
So, if I believe the sun exists do I also believe the sun has intelligence? Hmmm, no.