Atheism: A bastardized word

I don't know if bastardized is a curse word according to RF, but the context is pretty much the same. Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

Just because atheists have opinions and attached to science as opposed to theists doesn't change that the word atheism just means lack of belief that deities (Jehovah, Thor, etc) exist.

One of the consequences of adding more things to this word-both of theist and atheist alike-gives the impression that, from a religious view, it is in opposition to religious norms and outlook. In other words, to some theists, atheism challenges the religious view of belief in deities. On the atheist point of view, unless my basic understanding is off, they seem to associate atheism with science, rejection of the christian god, and things of that nature. Both sides (in my opinion) seem to bastardize a word because of their own experiences (say indoctrination) or biases and cognitive dissonance (such as the uncomfortable and defensive response of being challenged that they 'may not' be deities).

Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

In addition, I understand that it is hard to believe no gods exist but I don't understand the need to find outstanding justifications for it. I don't know.

Rant over.

Enjoy.

um...
Perhaps it is that some theists feel threatened by science.
Now since they can not argue with science, they argue with atheists, who they associate with science.
and if they can get an atheist to admit they do not know something, then they have won a battle against science.
Maybe?

Unveiled Artist said:

I don't know if bastardized is a curse word according to RF, but the context is pretty much the same. Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

Just because atheists have opinions and attached to science as opposed to theists doesn't change that the word atheism just means lack of belief that deities (Jehovah, Thor, etc) exist.

One of the consequences of adding more things to this word-both of theist and atheist alike-gives the impression that, from a religious view, it is in opposition to religious norms and outlook. In other words, to some theists, atheism challenges the religious view of belief in deities. On the atheist point of view, unless my basic understanding is off, they seem to associate atheism with science, rejection of the christian god, and things of that nature. Both sides (in my opinion) seem to bastardize a word because of their own experiences (say indoctrination) or biases and cognitive dissonance (such as the uncomfortable and defensive response of being challenged that they 'may not' be deities).

Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

In addition, I understand that it is hard to believe no gods exist but I don't understand the need to find outstanding justifications for it. I don't know.

Rant over.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

From both the athiest and theist side there seems to be assumed add-ons to what a persons worldview is if they say they are atheist. I think this is because of black and white views (lazy thinking) and because of what has been popularized on social media. For this reason I get into conflict with both atheists and theists because I don't have a vendetta against religion, a fascination with science and evolution, I reject that there is an objective moral code, I am fascinated by mystical claims (I don't agree with the term supernatural) etc.

IMO Atheists align themselves with science for many reasons. But in my experience Christians and muslims (not all theists) align atheists with science because they want to claim that atheists have a religion (thus saying that we are hypocrites) and that they want to pin them down so that they can discredit their arguments. I would agree in many cases that there are atheists that associate themselves with science and make bold claims, but when an atheist steps outside this line of thinking, it can be really frustrating for both other atheists and Abrahamic theists.

Unveiled Artist said:

I don't know if bastardized is a curse word according to RF, but the context is pretty much the same. Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

Just because atheists have opinions and attached to science as opposed to theists doesn't change that the word atheism just means lack of belief that deities (Jehovah, Thor, etc) exist.

One of the consequences of adding more things to this word-both of theist and atheist alike-gives the impression that, from a religious view, it is in opposition to religious norms and outlook. In other words, to some theists, atheism challenges the religious view of belief in deities. On the atheist point of view, unless my basic understanding is off, they seem to associate atheism with science, rejection of the christian god, and things of that nature. Both sides (in my opinion) seem to bastardize a word because of their own experiences (say indoctrination) or biases and cognitive dissonance (such as the uncomfortable and defensive response of being challenged that they 'may not' be deities).

Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

In addition, I understand that it is hard to believe no gods exist but I don't understand the need to find outstanding justifications for it. I don't know.

Rant over.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

I think what was hardest was accepting that we, humans, lack any knowledge about "God'. Especially since there are so many out there claiming otherwise.

Science, I see, as a method of knowledge. Not perfect knowledge but consistent, repeatable knowledge. I suspect atheists turn to science as a means to gain knowledge which they found lacking in religious belief.

IOW "Science, when faith simply doesn't cut it any more".

Atheism just means 'not theism'. It is a statement of what someone does not believe (usually the Abrahamic God concept in western society) BUT it doesn't state what they DO believe about reality and the universe. If not bastardized, 'atheism' is not a belief system.

Mestemia said:

um...
Perhaps it is that some theists feel threatened by science.
Now since they can not argue with science, they argue with atheists, who they associate with science.
and if they can get an atheist to admit they do not know something, then they have won a battle against science.
Maybe?

Click to expand...

But this isn't related to atheism. Some theists are threatened by the possibility there are no gods-and more so there are people who don't believe there are any-but I'm not sure how science is involved in the argument.

George-ananda said:

Atheism just means 'not theism'. It is a statement of what someone does not believe (usually the Abrahamic God concept in western society) BUT it doesn't state what they DO believe about reality and the universe. If not bastardized, 'atheism' is not a belief system.

Click to expand...

It's a pretty simple term that has been bastardized by one side as a religion and the other has a connection with christian god, rejection, and other add-ons with the OP science. Since atheism is simple, why is it associated with science?

Unveiled Artist said:

But this isn't related to atheism.

Click to expand...

I agree.
But that fact does not slow down the theists who think it is.

Unveiled Artist said:

Some theists are threatened by the possibility there are no gods-and more so there are people who don't believe there are any-but I'm not sure how science is involved in the argument.

Click to expand...

That is where the "bastardized" coms in....

Unveiled Artist said:

It's a pretty simple term that has been bastardized by one side as a religion and the other has a connection with christian god, rejection, and other add-ons with the OP science. Since atheism is simple, why is it associated with science?

Click to expand...

Here is a link to a thread where the 'documentary' presented conflates atheism with science.

Unveiled Artist said:

In other words, to some theists, atheism challenges the religious view of belief in deities.

Click to expand...

Does not the assertion of Atheism challenge religious belief in dieties?

MikeF said:

Does not the assertion of Atheism challenge religious belief in dieties?

Click to expand...

No. Though people take it that way. It's somewhat like saying does antisocial and social challenge each other. I just see them as opposites. It's making a position opposite the theism position.

Well, atheism doesn't mean "lack of belief in deities" for starters. And the problem here is actually called "scientism". Look it up. It's a new semi-philosophical cultural movement based on pseudo-scientific platitudes and misconceptions intended to elevate atheistic naturalism to the status of some sort of intellectualized 'holy grail'. And as with any would-be cult, the adherents can't see themselves as being in a cult. They think they have simply found the one and only viable pathway to 'the truth' (as all cultists do). It is worrisome for those who can see it for what it is. Mostly because those who can't see it for what it is have already been sucked in, or are in danger of it. And we know from past experience that these "truth cults" never end well.

End of rant.

Unveiled Artist said:

No. Though people take it that way. It's somewhat like saying does antisocial and social challenge each other. I just see them as opposites. It's making a position opposite the theism position.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. If one declares they hold Atheism as true, they are explicitly stating that belief in deities is a belief in myth, in the imaginary. It is assumed that the Theist holds their belief as a belief in something that is true and real. Atheism de facto challenges Theism.

MikeF said:

I would disagree. If one declares they hold Atheism as true, they are explicitly stating that belief in deities is a belief in myth, in the imaginary. It is assumed that the Theist holds their belief as a belief in something that is true and real. Atheism de facto challenges Theism.

Click to expand...

... Or, it's a completely meaningless term.

PureX said:

Well, atheism doesn't mean "lack of belief in deities" for starters. And the problem here is actually called "scientism". Look it up. It's a new semi-philosophical cultural movement based on pseudo-scientific platitudes and misconceptions intended to elevate atheistic naturalism to the status of some sort of intellectualized 'holy grail'. And as with any would-be cult, the adherents can't see themselves as being in a cult. They think they have simply found the one and only viable pathway to 'the truth' (as all cultists do). It is worrisome for those who can see it for what it is. Mostly because those who can't see it for what it is have already been sucked in, or are in danger of it. And we know from past experience that these "truth cults" never end well.

End of rant.

Click to expand...

You can cry 'scientism' all you want, but it is not a thing. That is why you have to say it in quotes. It is a pejorative term used by those who feel our increased understanding of the cosmos encroaching on their myth systems.

PureX said:

... Or, it's a completely meaningless term.

Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree. However, if one asserts that a particular category of imaginary things is real (Theism), a word can be used to assert that the category only contains imaginary things (Atheism).

MikeF said:

I would disagree. If one declares they hold Atheism as true, they are explicitly stating that belief in deities is a belief in myth, in the imaginary. It is assumed that the Theist holds their belief as a belief in something that is true and real. Atheism de facto challenges Theism.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't think so. If I say I don't believe god exists, that doesn't tell the other person why and what I think of the god that doesn't exist. If anything, the god I have in my mind (Zues, Thor, Jehovah) may be different than the god the other person is thinking of. I mean they may have that idea but then Pagans have similar ideas of gods being a myth. I don't see the connection.

Theist have different beliefs about gods as well. Atheism, now that I think of it, wouldn't make too much sense if we took into account all the types of god every other religion believes in. To me, it's specific to god as beings (deities like Zues and Athena) not feelings, emotions, abstract concepts, or feeling of absent of ego or higher consciousness.

I'm not sure how atheism can challenge theism actually unless theist have a solid definition of god that would render that even possible (and to even explain or defend if one is asked to).

PureX said:

Well, atheism doesn't mean "lack of belief in deities" for starters.

Click to expand...

A personal war with dictionaries, eh.
Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com
noun
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Unveiled Artist said:

I don't know if bastardized is a curse word according to RF, but the context is pretty much the same. Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

Just because atheists have opinions and attached to science as opposed to theists doesn't change that the word atheism just means lack of belief that deities (Jehovah, Thor, etc) exist.

One of the consequences of adding more things to this word-both of theist and atheist alike-gives the impression that, from a religious view, it is in opposition to religious norms and outlook. In other words, to some theists, atheism challenges the religious view of belief in deities. On the atheist point of view, unless my basic understanding is off, they seem to associate atheism with science, rejection of the christian god, and things of that nature. Both sides (in my opinion) seem to bastardize a word because of their own experiences (say indoctrination) or biases and cognitive dissonance (such as the uncomfortable and defensive response of being challenged that they 'may not' be deities).

Why or what is the reasoning of aligning atheism with science and common atheist "opinions about" science?

In addition, I understand that it is hard to believe no gods exist but I don't understand the need to find outstanding justifications for it. I don't know.

Rant over.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell, theism is an ancient method that humans used when they wanted to understand how and why the world around them operated. Why do the seasons change? Why are there storms? Why did my child get sick and die? Why do we exist? We didn't understand these things, and so we told stories, borrowed and elaborated upon older myths, and eventually created specialized social positions like shamans, witch doctors, and priests to be living repositories of these stories and lore. For a very, very long time, this is all we had.

Then along comes science. Suddenly, we have methods that are designed to incisively cut through bias, tradition, and imagination in order to demonstrate reality in its starkest form, with the clearest explanations. With each new scientific explanation, a small bit of one or more religions was demystified and laid out in systematic natural detail.

Now, with hundreds of thousands of discoveries under the mantle of science, religions are shrinking in scope and explanatory power. We no longer need religion to tell us why lightning strikes anymore, or why diseases appear and spread, why there are volcanoes, or why people's minds seem possessed by spirits. Instead, religion has retreated farther back from objective reality into attempts to explain the origin of the universe, or why we can use logic, or why we feel moral intuitions, and other extremely esoteric problems that few people consider in their daily lives.

Looking at the track record, every time we've pitted a scientific finding against a religious claim, the religion has lost. A theological explanation has never replaced a scientific fact. Not once. Science has given us reliable medicine, communication around the world, flight, computers, and so much more. No prayer, philosophical argument, nor supernatural speculation or blood ritual has ever done anything remotely so real and beneficial. I think that religious people realize this. I think they see their religions receding into the ever-shrinking pocket of our current scientific ignorance.

For this reason, atheism is a natural fit with science. We can apparently explain all the known scientific things without a god, and mere induction suggests a god probably isn't needed to explain the remaining unknown things. While a religion can be interpreted to be compatible with science, no scientific evidence has ever positively supported any religious claims, and such evidence only seems to discredit them when there is a direct conflict. Still, an atheist can believe in the supernatural, crystal power, spirits, or whatever. As long as they're not convinced any gods exist, they're sill an atheist.

Unveiled Artist said:

I wouldn't think so. If I say I don't believe god exists, that doesn't tell the other person why and what I think of the god that doesn't exist. If anything, the god I have in my mind (Zues, Thor, Jehovah) may be different than the god the other person is thinking of. I mean they may have that idea but then Pagans have similar ideas of gods being a myth. I don't see the connection.

Theist have different beliefs about gods as well. Atheism, now that I think of it, wouldn't make too much sense if we took into account all the types of god every other religion believes in. To me, it's specific to god as beings (deities like Zues and Athena) not feelings, emotions, abstract concepts, or feeling of absent of ego or higher consciousness.

I'm not sure how atheism can challenge theism actually unless theist have a solid definition of god that would render that even possible (and to even explain or defend if one is asked to).

Click to expand...

I would say that it is immaterial as to why the Atheist has come to that conclusion. Nor does it have to reference any particular one. It is a definitive statement that, to date, there is no evidence to support any theistic entity. And I agree that the definition of god/gods should be restricted to the concept of entity or being with an independent consciousness. To simply call unconscious, physical reality 'god' is silly and disingenuous, and renders the term 'god/gods' useless.

Does not matter how the Theist defines there belief if it makes claims outside of observable reality. Atheism is a short-hand way of saying that one rejects all such artificial constructs of reality. **Edit: A short-hand way in common usage of the term, not the literal philosophical definition.