Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

OK, do you think that just being 'bad' also has a genetic contribution?

 

 

What do you mean by 'bad'? It's a word almost empty of meaning unless you give it context.

 

For example, is a person who breaks the law bad? Even if it's a stupid law? Many people would say a person who smokes weed is 'bad', whereas I wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's quite simple, if you think being evil (or bad) has a genetic contribution then why not good as well? I'm wondering about your thought process on this so please feel free to ensue as much confusion as you wish.

I said that, IMO, evil came from either genetic factors, extreme environmental factors (e.g. sexual abuse, physical violence, being brought up by sociopaths etc), or, some combination of both.

 

Because that's pretty much in accord with what the professionals say on the matter.

 

My feelings are that, when it comes to the kind of extreme evil we're talking about here, that extreme environmental factors (sexual abuse, physical violence, being brought up by sociopaths etc) are the most likely, but I can't rule out the genetic contribution.

 

Either way, IMO, that kind of evil is a consequence of serious mental illness.

 

If I had to pin down what I thought 'good' is, i think a starting point would be the absence of evil i.e. a healthy state of mind (not mentally ill).

 

Another factor would be a degree of empathy, because, without the ability to have empathy with others, it's unlikely a person will be doing things for the benefit of others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose I'm asking both questions really.

 

Well, when it comes to moral choices, they're determined, at least in part, by whether a person is good or evil. If they have the kind of psychological damage that leads them to commit evil acts, then, as a result of that, they will want to hurt people.

 

A different source of evil intent is delusion- many people who commit atrocities do so because, in their eyes, they think they are actually doing good. For example, many consider George Bush to have unleashed a great deal of evil into the world, he's certainly responsible for a huge amount of death and misery. Yet, as far as he was concerned, he was doing good- he felt that his actions were necessary for the defence of his nation.

 

In the case of Hitler, i suspect that it was a mixture of the 2- it's obvious from his writings that he felt the German race was being suppressed and attacked, and so, that his actions were actually a form of self-defence, plus, I would imagine there was an element of mental illness there as well.

 

There's no one answer- each case is different.

 

As for where I get my ideas of what morality is, and what the source of evil is, that's from living in the world for 40+ years, reading various theories of morality, from my studies in philosophy, studying and practising buddhism, a multitude of other factors, and thinking it through for myself.

 

But, isn't that the same for everyone- each of us has to decide themselves about morality. You can just take the word of whatever 'experts' you want (e.g. believers may base their morality on the teachings of their church, others may take it from the teachings of psychologists, but, the act of taking on those teachings has to be the persons choice).

[llamatron]

I also don't really refer to myself as an atheist, because of the many different ideas of what an atheist is (I know you guys have a very specific definition of the term, but, a lot of the general public use varying different definitions).

 

What different ideas? If you are a humanist you don't lose your atheism, you are looking at sub categories not different categories of atheism.

[onewheeldave]

What different ideas? If you are a humanist you don't lose your atheism, you are looking at sub categories not different categories of atheism.

 

We've touched on, in this thread, that some of the general public, have different definitions of what an atheist is.

 

Due to the fact that there are current dictionaries (real ones and online ones) that define atheists as someone who believes there is no God- That is a very different definition to an athiest as simply one who lacks belief in God.

 

Clearly, an atheist faced with that can say 'well, that's the wrong definition!' and back that up with reference to etymology etc.

 

However, that doesn't alter the fact that a significant portion of the public still use the other definition, and that is likely to persist over the next few years.

 

From my perspective, that means that if I did describe myself as an atheist, it would be knowing full well that some people will take it to mean that I believe God doesn't exist.

 

Which, for me, is not the case. Unlike most sceptics, I'm not going to rule out the existence of something 100%, unless there is reason or evidence that indicates it doesn't exist- and I know I'm on shaky ground with that one, as sceptics would say that an absence of evidence is sufficient grounds for denying that things existence.

 

Nevertheless, my position remains, I do not have a belief in God, yet I will not claim that God definitly does not exist, unless I get evidence (which, let's face it, is not going to happen) or reason (other than simple lack of evidence) that shows it.

 

That's reason one- and I do appreciate that most atheists will dismiss it as irrational.

 

Secondly, knowing that some believers are somewhat sensitive when it comes to the existence of their God being denied, I don't want them to think that I'm doing so, when I'm not, and, if they are using the other definition of 'atheist' that is exactly what they will think.

 

(Let me make clear that, if I did believe God definitly does not exist, that I would have no problem saying so to anyone, but, that is not what I believe).

 

Thirdly, I do engage in practices which, although not religious, can definitly be described as spiritual (as I previously mentioned, buddhism was once a big part of my life, and, in many ways, is still influential (incidently, IMO, buddhism is not a religion and is fundamantelly atheist (in the sense that it neither affirms nor denies God) although I am aware that, in some countries e.g. Thailand, it has become one))).

 

Fourthly, as I have mentioned often, when it comes to vocal atheists (Dawkins et al), personally, I think their approach is problematic. I think that, in some ways, they have become the public image of what an atheist is, and, many, many people find their approach hostile and, when it comes to religious belief, attacking.

 

I know many of you do not find them attacking and hostile, but, lots of religious believers do feel attacked, and, of course, many atheists as well have condemned their approach.

 

I certainly do not want to be associated with them.

 

Of course, the vocal atheists are just a small subset of all atheists, but, due to their huge public presence (especially with Dawkins, who has been involved with publicity campaigns) I believe a lot of the public are starting (albeit, mistakedly) to assume that Dawkins represents what an atheist is.

 

I realise that a lot of the above refers to the misconceptions of the general public, but, to me, the fact that non-specialist members of the public have misconceptions is understandable. When I write something, it's not only atheists who are going to read it, so, I will word it accordingly.

[llamatron]

We've touched on, in this thread, that some of the general public, have different definitions of what an atheist is.

 

Due to the fact that there are current dictionaries (real ones and online ones) that define atheists as someone who believes there is no God- That is a very different definition to an athiest as simply one who lacks belief in God.

 

Clearly, an atheist faced with that can say 'well, that's the wrong definition!' and back that up with reference to etymology etc.

 

However, that doesn't alter the fact that a significant portion of the public still use the other definition, and that is likely to persist over the next few years.

 

From my perspective, that means that if I did describe myself as an atheist, it would be knowing full well that some people will take it to mean that I believe God doesn't exist.

 

Which, for me, is not the case. Unlike most sceptics, I'm not going to rule out the existence of something 100%, unless there is reason or evidence that indicates it doesn't exist- and I know I'm on shaky ground with that one, as sceptics would say that an absence of evidence is sufficient grounds for denying that things existence.

 

Nevertheless, my position remains, I do not have a belief in God, yet I will not claim that God definitly does not exist, unless I get evidence (which, let's face it, is not going to happen) or reason (other than simple lack of evidence) that shows it.

 

That's reason one- and I do appreciate that most atheists will dismiss it as irrational.

 

Secondly, knowing that some believers are somewhat sensitive when it comes to the existence of their God being denied, I don't want them to think that I'm doing so, when I'm not, and, if they are using the other definition of 'atheist' that is exactly what they will think.

 

(Let me make clear that, if I did believe God definitly does not exist, that I would have no problem saying so to anyone, but, that is not what I believe).

 

Thirdly, I do engage in practices which, although not religious, can definitly be described as spiritual (as I previously mentioned, buddhism was once a big part of my life, and, in many ways, is still influential (incidently, IMO, buddhism is not a religion and is fundamantelly atheist (in the sense that it neither affirms nor denies God) although I am aware that, in some countries e.g. Thailand, it has become one))).

 

Fourthly, as I have mentioned often, when it comes to vocal atheists (Dawkins et al), personally, I think their approach is problematic. I think that, in some ways, they have become the public image of what an atheist is, and, many, many people find their approach hostile and, when it comes to religious belief, attacking.

 

I know many of you do not find them attacking and hostile, but, lots of religious believers do feel attacked, and, of course, many atheists as well have condemned their approach.

 

I certainly do not want to be associated with them.

 

Of course, the vocal atheists are just a small subset of all atheists, but, due to their huge public presence (especially with Dawkins, who has been involved with publicity campaigns) I believe a lot of the public are starting (albeit, mistakedly) to assume that Dawkins represents what an atheist is.

 

I realise that a lot of the above refers to the misconceptions of the general public, but, to me, the fact that non-specialist members of the public have misconceptions is understandable. When I write something, it's not only atheists who are going to read it, so, I will word it accordingly.

 

No one has argued with different definitions of atheism on this thread, you are just having trouble not grouping them into your own categories.

 

Also looking online all the definitions seem the same, one says there is some disagreement about the definition between theists but that atheists agree. hmmmm who should we take the lead from there?

 

in the first paragraph on wiki:

"there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere"

 

I think that is the point you need to take away!

[onewheeldave]

No one has argued with different definitions of atheism on this thread, you are just having trouble not grouping them into your own categories.

 

Also looking online all the definitions seem the same, one says there is some disagreement about the definition between theists but that atheists agree. hmmmm who should we take the lead from there?

 

in the first paragraph on wiki:

"there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere"

 

I think that is the point you need to take away!

 

Here's an example that covers both-

 

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

 

other dictionaries have just on of the two definitons.

 

Several atheists on this thread, very much insist that the defn of 'atheist' is the second of the ones above- and maintain that the first is incorrect (even here, the above definiton is potentially vague- I assume it's meaning 'an absense of belief in God', I think, to some 'disbelief' might be read as actively believing God does not exist).

 

It would be straightforward for the people on this thread to simply settle on, say, the 2nd definition and for me to also do so- the fact would remain that the general public are still going to be using both versions- and so my points given previously still apply.

 

Just to illustrate the confusion that arises, I've quickly pulled some quotes from the 1st couple of pages of this thread-

 

By definition, atheism is not a form of belief. It means absence of belief.

 

Once again religious zealots try to twist atheism into something akin to their own way of thinking. Because everybody must think like them, right?

 

Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

 

I would no more impose this belief on others than I do my non-belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

 

I'm quite happy to view some proof that there is a deity. If some were indeed forthcoming, I'd change my views.

 

That is the difference between fundamentalism, where views are locked solid and encased in concrete, and a free, enquiring mind.

 

Much too general and therefore wrong. It means belief or even conviction that deities do not exist.

 

It isn't an absence of belief it is a belief in the absence of god(s).

 

Perhaps HN believes that an Atheist doesn't believe in the absence of god(s)

 

If HN is an Atheist perhaps he doesn't believe that he doesn't believe in the absence of god(s)

 

It is the privative alpha, and implies negation. Maybe 'rejection' gives an opening to other ideas but there is an element of it in the prefix.

 

'Aliterate' means someone who is able to read but does not do so. That implies a sense of 'rejection', and not somebody who is 'not-literate'.

 

 

Also, as to the etymological point made earlier, I was under the impression that the prefix 'a/an' simply means 'not' or 'without', not rejection.

 

Here are some examples:

 

anaerobic - without oxygen (not rejection of oxygen)

atypical - not typical (not a rejection of typical things)

absense - not being there (not a rejection of being there)

 

Can you think of any counter examples?

 

If you know any greek there is only one definition.

 

ἄθεος

 

α - a - absence or rejection.

θεος - theos - God, Diety

 

The rejection of Thor or Zeus is atheistic. Which I'm sure is a group in which you include yourself.

 

It is not in the slightest bit general! A-theism means non-belief. Nothing more and nothing less. To claim otherwise makes as much sense as claiming that darkness is a type of light.

[llamatron]

Here's an example that covers both-

 

noun

1.

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

 

other dictionaries have just on of the two definitons.

 

Several atheists on this thread, very much insist that the defn of 'atheist' is the second of the ones above- and maintain that the first is incorrect (even here, the above definiton is potentially vague- I assume it's meaning 'an absense of belief in God', I think, to some 'disbelief' might be read as actively believing God does not exist).

 

It would be straightforward for the people on this thread to simply settle on, say, the 2nd definition and for me to also do so- the fact would remain that the general public are still going to be using both versions- and so my points given previously still apply.

 

Just to illustrate the confusion that arises, I've quickly pulled some quotes from the 1st couple of pages of this thread-

 

Those definitions are only different if you believe that there are supreme beings that are not god. That would be pretty silly. I guess that would lump scientologists in with atheists which would be odd! Sounds like a christian definition to me!

 

I do think the use of the word disbelief is odd. If you show disbelief aren't you watching something you can't believe like a man eating his own foot or something? I would be disbelieving if I watched god perform a miracle but I don't disbelieve in a god. Similar to the definition "lack of religion" I do not lack anything. It is a problem with dictionaries rather than a disagreement between atheists, you have to know who wrote them to know their agenda!

 

My definition would be:

 

A person showing no belief in any deity.

 

virtually all of the quotes you pulled also said this, an "absence of belief".

[flamingjimmy]

Those definitions are only different if you believe that there are supreme beings that are not god. That would be pretty silly. I guess that would lump scientologists in with atheists which would be odd! Sounds like a christian definition to me!

 

I do think the use of the word disbelief is odd. If you show disbelief aren't you watching something you can't believe like a man eating his own foot or something? I would be disbelieving if I watched god perform a miracle but I don't disbelieve in a god. Similar to the definition "lack of religion" I do not lack anything. It is a problem with dictionaries rather than a disagreement between atheists, you have to know who wrote them to know their agenda!

 

My definition would be:

 

A person showing no belief in any deity.

 

virtually all of the quotes you pulled also said this, an "absence of belief".

 

You're absolutely right about agendas.

 

The only people who ever say that atheism means a positive belief that there is no god are people who want to try and strawman atheism as a religion.

[onewheeldave]

You're absolutely right about agendas.

 

The only people who ever say that atheism means a positive belief that there is no god are people who want to try and strawman atheism as a religion.

 

So, what about a member of the public who wonders what an atheist actually is, goes to their dictionary, which happens to be the Longman 'top pocket English dictionary' and sees-

 

atheism n belief that there is no God -ist n

 

and, having the common misconception that dictionaries are correct, now thinks atheists believe there is no God?

 

I know you can say they should check with another dictionary, but quite a few dictionaries carry that same definition, plus, members of the public don't necessary have that much zeal for research, and, will tend to be satisfied having looked in their dictionary.

 

That's an example of a person who believes atheism means a belief that there is no God, who has no intention of building a strawman.

 

And, i guarantee you, there's a high probability that some members of the public who, for example, stumble across this post in a google search, will be scratching their heads, thinking, "what's this about? I thought the whole piont of atheists was that they don't believe in God"- that understanding of the term is rife amongst the public.

 

You can say they're wrong, but they're certainly not doing it with the intent to deceive or build strawmen- it's a widespread and accepted definition.

[llamatron]

So, what about a member of the public who wonders what an atheist actually is, goes to their dictionary, which happens to be the Longman 'top pocket English dictionary' and sees-

 

atheism n belief that there is no God -ist n

 

and, having the common misconception that dictionaries are correct, now thinks atheists believe there is no God?

 

I know you can say they should check with another dictionary, but quite a few dictionaries carry that same definition, plus, members of the public don't necessary have that much zeal for research, and, will tend to be satisfied having looked in their dictionary.

 

That's an example of a person who believes atheism means a belief that there is no God, who has no intention of building a strawman.

 

the world ain't perfect-neither are dictionaries. However that definition is not a problem really it still means no belief in any god!

 

also if they are an atheist they are one, they don't need to worry about the definition they just need to not believe in a god.

[onewheeldave]

Those definitions are only different if you believe that there are supreme beings that are not god. That would be pretty silly. I guess that would lump scientologists in with atheists which would be odd! Sounds like a christian definition to me!

 

I do think the use of the word disbelief is odd. If you show disbelief aren't you watching something you can't believe like a man eating his own foot or something? I would be disbelieving if I watched god perform a miracle but I don't disbelieve in a god. Similar to the definition "lack of religion" I do not lack anything. It is a problem with dictionaries rather than a disagreement between atheists, you have to know who wrote them to know their agenda!

 

My definition would be:

 

A person showing no belief in any deity.

 

virtually all of the quotes you pulled also said this, an "absence of belief".

 

Fair points. But I'm only pointing out the confusion that arises with these terms- definitions of atheism in dictionaries, not only vary, but include terms like 'disbelief' which themselves have varying definitions in dictionaries and in public understanding.

 

I've become quite aware, how, on threads like this, quite a high portion of the disagreements arise purely due to the fact that 2 people are using the same word but think it means a different thing, and, due to the nature of the subject (religion/atheism) are so busy getting into a heated argument, that they are totally unaware of the fact the it's down to the fact that they're using a different meaning.

 

And while it's fine for you to say 'my definition would be...' that doesn't alter the fact that someone elses definition will be different and, even if they're aware of it, they may think there's is better.

 

 

virtually all of the quotes you pulled also said this, an "absence of belief".

 

At least one thought otherwise-

 

Originally Posted by BritPat View Post

Much too general and therefore wrong. It means belief or even conviction that deities do not exist.

 

It isn't an absence of belief it is a belief in the absence of god(s).

 

and they were just quickly pulled from the 1st couple of pages- in the thread are several others who thought the same.