Why don't atheists seem like atheists?

[shunyadragon]

I lack a belief that that any Gods exist. That doesn't mean I have a belief that no Gods exist. I lack the belief in a Christian God that some folks have for example. I lack theism.

Changing the wording does not change the meaning of atheism.

Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge about God, which IMO is everyone on the planet. Sure I know folks claim otherwise, I just don't happen to believe them. So a person can say I'm agnostic but I'm likely to throw it right back at them.

This is an incomplete not usable definition of agnosticism, because by itself 'lack of knowledge of God' is simply ignorance of the existence of God. A more concise complete definition is as follows:

From: agnosticism definition - Google Search
Agnosticism - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

There is also many agnostics, maybe most, who essentially could careless and are indifferent as to whether God(s) exist or not.

 

[Milton Platt]

. Seem like a angry anti-theist.

*SHRUGS*

Which atheists are you talking about?

 

[Milton Platt]

. Seem like a angry anti-theist.

*SHRUGS*

Your bucket is to big. You need to indicate which atheists you are talking about. don't say "all" because you have only met a tiny fraction of them.

 

[Milton Platt]

Changing the wording does not change the meaning of atheism.



This is an incomplete not usable definition of agnosticism, because by itself 'lack of knowledge of God' is simply ignorance of the existence of God. A more concise complete definition is as follows:

From: agnosticism definition - Google Search
Agnosticism - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

There is also many agnostics, maybe most, who essentially could careless and are indifferent as to whether God(s) exist or not.

This sounds pretty close to the truth in my case. I did not grow up in a religious household and for the better part of my life, was simply indifferent. I accept the label of atheist now, but before the last couple of decades, I simply never gave any of this any thought. It had no place in my life one way or the other. In a census or any poll, I always checked "other", not meaning another religion, but meaning I assumed I was something other than the other options always listed. What the other was, I had no idea, and didn't care. So I guess I was apathetic/agnostic for a long time. Just didn't have the terms.

 

[Willamena]

. Seem like a angry anti-theist.

*SHRUGS*

Except those of us who understand theism?

 

[Milton Platt]

Except those of us who understand theism?

yeah, maybe.......I have never been religious, so always viewed theism from the outside looking in. I only get my hackles up when theists decide that they need to push their own beliefs off on others in the form of things like creationism in public schools, or laws which favor their particular religion. I can get short and snappy sometimes in online conversations, but that is more frustration. And I recognize and try to tamp that down. It does not facilitate better communication.

 

[Nakosis]

Changing the wording does not change the meaning of atheism.

I'm telling you how I use it. You don't have to agree, that's just the way it is. It's the way many atheist use it. Obviously I can't tell you how to use it, but when I say atheist that's what I mean.

This is an incomplete not usable definition of agnosticism, because by itself 'lack of knowledge of God' is simply ignorance of the existence of God.

Not usable for you, it obviously doesn't fit the narrative you want to create. I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

[Nakosis]

It remains the legal definition of religion,

Yes a system of beliefs which has nothing to do with atheism.

and in the broader definition of religion as in the reference I previously cited defining Atheism as religious minority. It really does not change anything regardless of what you call it. Atheists remain the most hated, disliked, not trusted minority in America,

Maybe if they could define it right they wouldn't be so threatened by it.

What 'Ain't necessarily so' said: 'One only need not assume that it does [exist].' is a more compatible statement of agnostic belief.

From: agnosticism definition - Google Search
Agnosticism - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

More compatible with your narrative.

During 1958, Bertrand Russell, an English philosopher commented on whether "Atheist" or "Agnostic would be a better term for his religious beliefs about God. He wrote:

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm telling you how I use it. You don't have to agree, that's just the way it is. It's the way many atheist use it. Obviously I can't tell you how to use it, but when I say atheist that's what I mean.

Not usable for you, it obviously doesn't fit the narrative you want to create. I'm perfectly fine with it.

The English language, like any language, has the purpose of communication with more people than yourself. The definitions I use are standard English and philosophical definitions, and not mine, Again, rewording does not change the generally accepted meaning of atheism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge about God, which IMO is everyone on the planet.

Yes, everybody actually is agnostic whatever their claims to knowledge might be. If they claim to know for a fact that gods do or don't exist, we know that they are making a claim to knowledge that they cannot possibly have.

But the way that the word agnostic is used in the sense of agnostic atheist, for example, refers to the claim of the individual, They are only called agnostic when they claim uncertainty.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The English language, like any language, has the purpose of communication with more people than yourself. The definitions I use are standard English and philosophical definitions, and not mine, Again, rewording does not change the generally accepted meaning of atheism.

And the generally accepted meaning of atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From: Court rules atheism a religion

"A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.

Fahling said today’s ruling was “further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

“It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts’ is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited,” Fahling said."

This guy Fahling is showing us his sense of Christian privilege, or Christian exceptionalism - the sense that the Christian version of any idea is the only one that matters. He's like the child that gets a cookie, and then gets angry when his sister gets one, too.

Here this man appears to object to atheists getting the same right to convene in and fellowship in prison as the various religions. The court ruled that for this purpose, his atheism be treated like a religion. No good for him.

It's exactly the same as resenting the fact that loving, committed, same sex be granted the legal status as analogous heterosexual couples.

And it's exactly the same as resenting the inclusivity of "Happy holidays" rather than the more ethnocentric and exclusive "Merry Christmas."

He also gives us a whiff of his sense of Christian persecution by falsely claiming that "public expressions of true religious faith [are] prohibited." We also see it in the "Happy holidays" when the use of that term is labeled a War on Christmas.

 

[shunyadragon]

Quaranists have seemed pretty reasonable to me, in terms of holding their own beliefs, but not forcing them on others.

The Quaranists reject the Hadith, religious authority of the Imams, and hold to a literal interpretation of the Quran and the Pentateuch, and should not confused with Islamic modernist movements that also reject the Hadith. Quaranists more resemble sola scriptura of Protestant Christianity.

This isolationist view of religious belief is not productive in any religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

More compatible with your narrative.

During 1958, Bertrand Russell, an English philosopher commented on whether "Atheist" or "Agnostic would be a better term for his religious beliefs about God. He wrote:

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

This illustrates the utility of this latest usage of atheist and agnostic. Russell would no longer need to choose between them He is clearly what we call an agnostic atheist - one who both rejects the god claims of other and admits that he cannot know that gods do or do not exist. That's him. That's me. Why should we submit to an older formulation that makes those categories mutually exclusive.

It's also what Dawkins is telling us when he describes himself as a 6.9 on his theistic probability scale:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

He would call himself a 7 except that he knows the limits of his knowledge. He accepts his agnosticism, but wants us to know that his is only philosophical doubt, which is merely an understanding that one cannot be certain, and distinct from psychological doubt, which is the nagging feeling that we generally mean when we refer to doubt.

 

[Desert Snake]

Your bucket is to big. You need to indicate which atheists you are talking about. don't say "all" because you have only met a tiny fraction of them.

Then adress interpret as the ones who do seem like. You don't have to be so literal with the wording.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This sounds pretty close to the truth in my case. I did not grow up in a religious household and for the better part of my life, was simply indifferent. I accept the label of atheist now, but before the last couple of decades, I simply never gave any of this any thought. It had no place in my life one way or the other. In a census or any poll, I always checked "other", not meaning another religion, but meaning I assumed I was something other than the other options always listed. What the other was, I had no idea, and didn't care. So I guess I was apathetic/agnostic for a long time. Just didn't have the terms.

You were also atheistic as I use the word. You didn't have a god belief, which makes one an atheist according to the commonest definition of atheist used by those who self-identify as such.

It sounds like you were not antitheistic, but had you been, you would have been able to add that qualifier as well.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then adress interpret as the ones who do seem like. You don't have to be so literal with the wording.

It is up to you to explain, and it is best you mean what you say and say what you mean. You cannot expect others to read between the lines for a meaning that is not in your statements.

 

[Desert Snake]

And the generally accepted meaning of atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

That is a problem with the definition from theism, to atheism.
Is the theist who claims gnostic theism, not a theist? The problem is putting too much emphasis in the word "belief", as opposed to simply the claim of theism, regardless of "why"or how someone reached that conclusion. 'Belief"does not indicate evidence or reason, it actually is the adherence, in religious terms.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is someone who has a belief in deity, yet chooses to not adhere to a deity, not an atheist?
The traditional usage of believer is adherence.
That is why when someone says they believe in jesus, for example, we don't ask them, 'hmm yet do you adhere to Jesus? We know it means that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

yeah, maybe.......I have never been religious, so always viewed theism from the outside looking in. I only get my hackles up when theists decide that they need to push their own beliefs off on others in the form of things like creationism in public schools, or laws which favor their particular religion. I can get short and snappy sometimes in online conversations, but that is more frustration. And I recognize and try to tamp that down. It does not facilitate better communication.

You might be antitheistic as well, by which I mean one who considers particular forms of religion to be a net harm to the community. If you would prefer to see the forces behind the Christian church's political agenda in America diminished to level of the Jews and Muslims, then you might be an antitheist. Each of those groups might impose a ban on pork on all Americans if they had the power to do so, but they don't. We can't say that about the Christian church, which has invaded the president's cabinet, and is positioned to stack the Supreme Court, The antitheist want to see that political presence weakened to the same degree as the other religions in America.

This is the attitude that is called angry or militant atheism, but as you can see, it is previously disempowered people that have finally gotten a voice objecting to many aspects of the modern Christian church including, as Shunyadragon documented, the marginalizing and demonizing of atheists by depicting them as immoral people outside of the norm of acceptability in America, but more importantly, antitheists are people that feel a need to defend a cherished American principle, church-state separation, from a political force that has no respect for it. It wasn't that long ago that atheists were deemed unfit to teach, coach, adopt, or serve on juries, and voters apparently still consider us unfit for elected office. There are no openly atheistic member of either house of Congress to my knowledge.

I hope that you will agree that this is a very reasonable position, that it is sincerely held and being constructively offered - not angry - and is in opposition to what are considered bad or unjust ideas - not people. Antitheists are also accused of hating Christians (and God).