Atheism: new religion?

[flamingjimmy]

Well, in this day and age we don't necessarily insist one a words meaning being the same as it's intial Greek origins. Like I said, comtemporary dictionaries carry the 2 seperate definitions of atheism, which is why there is often confusion.

 

The second definition is only ever used as a strawman by people like the OP though, it doesn't actually describe anyone, certainly not any atheist that I've ever met, and none of the most prominent ones.

[Chris_Sleeps]

but rejection suggests going further than that to an active belief that God does not exist?

Can we believe in a negative?

 

If I cannot see God then I can say "I cannot see him, but I believe he does exist".

I can also say "I cannot see him thus he does not exist".

 

The second conclusion may be untrue in some people's eyes, but it doesn't contain an element of belief.

[onewheeldave]

You obviously haven't watched this link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrj6qJ-GMic

The main point being made is that Stalinism is nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of beliefs in a god and doesn't have any ideology attached to it. Stalinism was a quasi religion where people replaced their fictional sky daddy with a demi god and performed atrocities on it's behalf.

Here's the Hitch talking about probably the most quasi religious state in the world North Korea.

 

I'll happily put my hand up and admit that, usually, I would not watch youtube vids of atheists and their viewpoints, because, personally, I find they usually come across, to me, as arrogant, and tend to set up and demolish large quantities of 'straw men' i.e. atack views which are not actually held by most rational religious believers.

 

In this instance, I did watch the vid, and, I'm afraid, found it to be much as i expected.

 

I won't be watching any more- I'd suggest if you're particualrly impressed by any more such vids, that you simply summarise the relevant arguments and post them here, it is after all a discussion board, and, i'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to spend thier valuable time watching these people airing their, IMO, usually badly thought out opinions and views.

 

You say atheism has nothing to do with Stalinism- in fact the stalinist govt were atheists- not only did they not believe in God themselves, but they considered religious belief to be so wrong that they effectively tried to ban anyone else from having such beliefs. They did this by executing priests and lay believers, in great numbers.

 

Once again, let me remind everyone that, personally, I don't identify atheism as being the cause of those atrocities- the true cause was evil men, who just happened to be atheists.

[onewheeldave]

The second definition is only ever used as a strawman by people like the OP though, it doesn't actually describe anyone, certainly not any atheist that I've ever met, and none of the most prominent ones.

 

Yet the fact remains that some current dictionaries carry that second definition, so it's no surprise that people use it.

 

I do agree with you that the most prominent atheists, assuming you mean Dawkins and the other vocal atheists, do not use that definition.

 

However, things are not always the way prominent atheists would like them to be, the second definition does exist, is still used and will probably continue to be.

 

Personally i have no problem with the existence of 2 definitions, as long as, in discussion, both sides are aware of which they are using.

[onewheeldave]

Can we believe in a negative?

I don't know- it depends on what you mean by believing in a negative.

 

However, it's clearly entirely possible to believe that there is no God- that god does not exist- that, in this world, there is no being that corresponds to God.

 

In much the same way that i believe there is no unicorn in my bedroom at this moment in time- not only do I withhold my belief in that unicorn in my bedroom, i actively believe that there is no unicorn there.

[Mr Prime]

I'll happily put my hand up and admit that, usually, I would not watch youtube vids of atheists and their viewpoints, because, personally, I find they usually come across, to me, as arrogant, and tend to set up and demolish large quantities of 'straw men' i.e. atack views which are not actually held by most rational religious believers.

 

In this instance, I did watch the vid, and, I'm afraid, found it to be much as i expected.

 

I won't be watching any more- I'd suggest if you're particualrly impressed by any more such vids, that you simply summarise the relevant arguments and post them here, it is after all a discussion board, and, i'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to spend thier valuable time watching these people airing their, IMO, usually badly thought out opinions and views.

 

You say atheism has nothing to do with Stalinism- in fact the stalinist govt were atheists- not only did they not believe in God themselves, but they considered religious belief to be so wrong that they effectively tried to ban anyone else from having such beliefs. They did this by executing priests and lay believers, in great numbers.

 

Once again, let me remind everyone that, personally, I don't identify atheism as being the cause of those atrocities- the true cause was evil men, who just happened to be atheists.

 

Surely you can't consider yourself more intelligent and to know better than Hitchens and Dawkins? If so then you'll have to ask yourself why they are big names with big selling books and you are on Sheffield Forum?

[Chris_Sleeps]

i actively believe that there is no unicorn there.

I'd call that knowledge. There is no belief involved, on my part.

[Chris_Sleeps]

If so then you'll have to ask yourself why they are big names with big selling books

You can't argue ad populum against religion.

[flamingjimmy]

Yet the fact remains that some current dictionaries carry that second definition, so it's no surprise that people use it.

 

I do agree with you that the most prominent atheists, assuming you mean Dawkins and the other vocal atheists, do not use that definition.

 

However, things are not always the way prominent atheists would like them to be, the second definition does exist, is still used and will probably continue to be.

 

This isn't about arrogance, its not a case of 'that's what the word means and you're just wrong'.

 

It's that the second definition doesn't describe anyone, so there's no point in using it, it exists purely so that fools like the OP can make a strawman and say 'look atheism is a religion too!'

 

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?

[Jessica23]

I'm starting to lean towards Ben Goldacre's view on this:

 

I think probably the main answer to your question is: I just don't have any interest either way, but I wouldn't want to understate how uninterested I am. There still hasn't been a word invented for people like me, whose main experience when presented with this issue is an overwhelming, mind-blowing, intergalactic sense of having more interesting things to think about. I'm not sure that's accurately covered by words such as "atheist", and definitely not by "agnostic". I just don't care.