I heard this today and liked it. Credit to Phil Ferguson, on the Atheist Experience. "There is no Atheism."
I am an atheist. That tells you nothing at all about my morality, my belief system, my political leanings, or anything else. Atheist: A person who does not believe in God or gods. That's all you can know about me when I say I am an Atheist.
There is no Atheism: ISM: a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism).
What do you think? Are we an ISM. I engage in skepticism, rationalism, and most certainly Hedonism. But can I do "Atheism" Is not believing in a God or gods an ISM?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Probably an “ism” in the definition sense listed as state or condition. I am in a state of disbelief or no belief or withholding belief.
NOT in the “devotion or adherence” sense often associated by theists with an “ism”.
That’s why when asked to clarify or define usage there is often negative feedback.
Disbelief is not an action. It is a response to an action. You can not be in a state of disbelief until someone says something that you do not believe in. Unless of course you run about your daily life repeating "I don't believe in God or gods" over and over and over like a mantra.
I see your point ... I’m not in a state of “atheism” - it’s a condition (lol).
@ Cog “ Unless of course you run about your daily life repeating "I don't believe in God or gods" over and over and over like a mantra”
Only here and I tend to have to write it a lot...
Truer words were never spoken.
@ Lion IRC
Still waiting for you to provide the evidence on the other posts we were debating!
@ILC Re: To Lion - "Still waiting for you to provide the evidence on the other posts we were debating!"
Hey, you'll have to forgive poor ol' Leo. It would appear he has a severe case of A.D.D. (Asshole Dishonesty Disorder). Even if he were to take the time to answer your questions, you still couldn't afford to believe any of the shit coming out of him.
I already DID answer ilovechloe
Do you even read the thread before your premature verbal ejaculations?
Yes, you were saying you don't think Saul of Tarsus knew that Jesus of Nazareth was the person at the center of the growing movement which Saul himself was engaged in persecuting. That's an odd claim. That Saul might not have known who Jesus was.
You also make the astounding claim that the persecution of the early Christian movement was some sort of allegory.
I think the scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus of Nazareth existed.
I think Pontus Pilate believed Jesus was a real human being.
I think Saul knew who Jesus was and believed He was a real person.
I think the early Church believed their church was based on the teachings of a real person who actually did exist.
You also seem to be speculating that Paul/Saul's understanding of the person Jesus of Nazareth may have been garnered from his reading of bible texts. But Paul's earliest understanding of Jesus was that Jesus deserved to be Crucified and that Jesus' followers deserved to be persecuted. How do you Crucify a person who never existed?
How does Paul expect to be taken seriously if (according to your conspiracy theory) his version of events goes like this;
..."Hey everybody, me and the Sanhedrin and the Romans were pranking you guys all along. There never was a person called Jesus. We faked the Crucifixion. The imaginary persecution of imaginary Jesus' imaginary followers was all part of an allegorical pantomime. And now, I bring you Part Two of my story, where I suddenly start pretending that I've seen the resurrected Jesus and I'm going to continue pranking you by insisting that Jesus was the actual Messiah *wink* and that everyone should follow His teaching."
Is Lion hijacking every thread with his inane bullshit? Just asking. I thought the question was worth thinking about. Apparently not.
I beg your pardon?
ilovechloe - IN THIS THREAD - asked me for a response to a question from another thread.
Now, this is the Atheist Republic Forum where;
- Threading lines and post number sequences get scrambled like the pea and thimble trick.
- Folks lose their shit if you take longer than two hours to reply to them because they've got nothing better to do than sit at their pc all day pressing the F5 key.
- Where busy-body hall monitor types decide to take it upon themselves to start threads on behalf of other users. WTF?
- Obsequious believers are supposed to grovel at the feet of pretentious smug atheists and say how grateful we are for the chance to lern moar thanks to their self-rightness 'splaining.
- The intellectual "debate thread" is apparently some sort of carnival arcade shooting gallery where abusive atheists practice aiming hominem insults at visiting theists as a form of target practice.
And that's all fair enough. It's your pig sty. You can make it what you will.
But don't get on my case about 'hijacking' a thread when the off-topic anarchy that goes on here at ARF makes Talk Rational look like a well run convent.
@ Forum Users
Kleenex Stat to Aisle 4.
Where was that rant about ad hominems and so forth? That was our resident pussy wasn't it?
@OM: Nawww. I think it was that raven character that thinks it is a cow.
@Lion Re: "Where busy-body hall monitor types decide to take it upon themselves to start threads on behalf of other users."
...*shrill sound of whistle*... Hey!... Stop!... WHERE is your hall pass, young man?... *tapping foot impatiently*... Don't make me go running to the principal's office to tattle on you... *glancing at watch*... To-DAY, mister!
Your “paws” seemed full, so I let it slide. But I didn’t get a response.
No biggy though -
I thought you said you don’t swim in the “deep end”
Do you think there's a problem with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being Jewish names?
Was it the comment about your 90 degree rotated avatar that you wanted me to respond to?
Oh...maybe you're referring to the atheism epidemic and its various pathologies.
Well social media tech is just the mirror that allows us to see the existential angst playing out in full view.
@Lion ... your tail is in a knot! If you don’t know - then in the famous words of Al Pacino “Forgetta’bout it”
@ Lion IRC
"Do you think there's a problem with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not being Jewish names?"
I don't give a shit if their names are Jewish. What is relevant (nice try at a distraction) is who authored the four Gospel accounts.
It was Whitefire13 who raised the question of whether Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Jewish names.
And I was being pressed for an explanation as to why I hadn't responded.
So settle down pal! nobody is trying to distract you.
David... it was me :)
I’ve read your guys’ previous history lesson(?!?!) back and forth - and for me, I made the comment regarding their English names.
For me, personally, I don’t get “excited” about the text history, but others do, and it’s interesting to read.
The, so called, gospels, were un-authored...So put whatever names you like in place...might I suggest, jimbo, billy-bob, latisha and ogunkluk.
Hahaha! Glad you're back!!
"I heard this today and liked it. Credit to Phil Ferguson, on the Atheist Experience. "There is no Atheism."
I like it too.
I 'm fed up with Christian apologists coming to the forum to inflict their ignorant views about atheists.
However, I think 'atheism" will remain in common use for some time ,no matter how ill informed the users might be. I have no issue with the definitions below
From the oxford learner's dictionary:
lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
The Wikipedia article is also interesting
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". In antiquity, it had multiple uses as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society, those who were forsaken by the gods, or those who had no commitment to belief in the gods. The term denoted a social category created by orthodox religionists into which those who did not share their religious beliefs were placed. The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason.-----"
----Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God."
It seem atheism takes on new meanings once one adds qualifiers. But as far as I can tell, not otherwise.
@Cranky: Nodding in general agreement. Interesting comment "OPPOSITE
theism" To oppose theism? Asking for evidence, facts, examples is "opposite?"
Isn't this merely a blind assertion? Atheism is not the belief in no gods after all.
"@Cranky: Nodding in general agreement. Interesting comment "OPPOSITE
theism" To oppose theism? Asking for evidence, facts, examples is "opposite?"
Isn't this merely a blind assertion? Atheism is not the belief in no gods after all.'
NO. The difference here is semantic I think.
This atheist is about belief, not that which can necessarily be proved. That becomes knowledge, gnosis. Hence I call myself agnostic atheist. IE I do not believe, but do not claim to know. I do not oppose theism, I simply disbelieve. I'm unable to oppose it in principle because imo, such a claim is unfalsifiable.
This atheist says only I do not believe in gods. I do not assert "there are no gods" or "I believe there are no gods" .Imo both statements are affirmative claims and attract the burden of proof.
I speak only for myself, and am indifferent to the positions of others calling themselves atheists. .
@ Cranky "and am indifferent to the positions of others calling themselves atheists. ." Well said. There is no such thing as a nonstampcollector.
@Cog Re: "There is no such thing as a nonstampcollector."
I wish you had told me this yesterday. The wife recently redid the closet in our master and things were getting moved around and old things were getting tossed. I knew I had my nonstamp collection in my non-junk drawer as I specifically remember not collecting many really cool stamps like the non-moon landing, Non-MLK day, etc.
So it wasn't there. I panicked, Blamed my wife. She swore she had never even seen my non-collection, that I had never ever discussed it. It caused a rift. Now I feel like an idiot.
I'm going to make it up to her. I'm not going to pick up flowers on the way home, a really beautiful bouquet without roses or anything else. Then, I'm not going to pick up dinner and I'm specifically not going to crack open an expensive bottle of wine. I'm sure all of this will not lead to some hanky panky later.
If only I hadn't known.