Atheism: new religion?

[six45ive]

Fortunately, when it comes to hardened veterans of religious/atheist debates like you and me, it's not a problem because we are capable of understanding the difference between the 2 definitions, thus preventing it being a source of confusion

 

Except for when certain people are specifically debating in an ambiguous way in an attempt to 'muddy the waters' and build a strawman of the atheist position.

[quisquose]

At my father's house there is a very old dictionary which has the definition of a'theism as a simple one liner:

 

The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

 

Most old dictionaries I have examined have the simple and correct definition alone.

 

It's only really in the 20th century that the second line is added:

 

The belief that there is no god.

 

It is certainly true that somebody that believes that there is no god is an a'theist, but since he/she is already defined by the original simple definition, the addition is unnecessary.

 

It gets worse, I have noticed that some modern dictionaries, particularly US versions, have started to add the following line:

 

Ungodliness, wickedness.

 

I was in California last year, and whilst my wife took the kids shopping I popped into a library and actually found one dictionary which stated:

 

Evil.

 

It is obvious to see how the word has evolved to mean what some people want it to mean. It also seems obvious that some people here are determined to continue to twist it to confirm to their own biased opinion.

 

[onewheeldave]

I used to have a very low opinion of religion and, by extension, religious believers.

 

That would often be bolstered when I met a believer and ended up debating with them- I remember on one occasion being especially appalled when, on asking why he believed in God and what evidence he had, he said "because the Bible says God exists".

 

I was blown away, not only by the circularity of that reasoning, but also by the fact that he could not see the circularity of it.

 

I now realise of course, that there's an element of self-fullfilling propechy about it- the very religious believers who so love to get into debates with atheists, are precisely the ones who tend to not be able to be particularly rational.

 

Similarly, it's the religious nutters/fanatics who, precisly because they will stand in shopping precincts inflicting their views on passers by, who are most in the public eye.

 

The quiet ones, who are well-adjusted, often very rational and who have no compulsion to convert or convince others, are the ones who atheists rarely end up engaging in debate with.

 

I recall an aquaintence who I'd known for some years, casually mentioning that he was a Quaker. I remember being impressed by the fact that he'd gone many years and never felt the need to talk about God or his beliefs.

 

And i gradually came to realise that, probably the majority of religious believers simply get on with their own lives and have no need to feel that everyone should feel the way they do about God.

 

And i also saw that many religious believers were at least as well-adjusted and rational, as many atheists- and, of course, i encountered some atheists who were far from being well-adjusted or rational.

 

A persons worth lies in the way they are, and, their actions- their belief in god or absence of belief are, to me, not particularly relevant in comparison.

[onewheeldave]

 

It gets worse, I have noticed that some modern dictionaries, particularly US versions, have started to add the following line:

 

Ungodliness, wickedness.

 

I was in California last year, and whilst my wife took the kids shopping I popped into a library and actually found one dictionary which stated:

 

Evil.

 

It is obvious to see how the word has evolved to mean what some people want it to mean. It also seems obvious that some people here are determined to continue to twist it to confirm to their own biased opinion.

 

 

If you're saying that those dictionaries define atheism as wickedness, then I share your horror.

[six45ive]

At my father's house there is a very old dictionary which has the definition of a'theism as a simple one liner:

 

The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

 

Most old dictionaries I have examined have the simple and correct definition alone.

 

It's only really in the 20th century that the second line is added:

 

The belief that there is no god.

 

It is certainly true that somebody that believes that there is no god is an a'theist, but since he/she is already defined by the original simple definition, the addition is unnecessary.

 

It gets worse, I have noticed that some modern dictionaries, particularly US versions, have started to add the following line:

 

Ungodliness, wickedness.

 

I was in California last year, and whilst my wife took the kids shopping I popped into a library and actually found one dictionary which stated:

 

Evil

 

It seems obvious to see how the word has evolved to mean what some people want it to mean. It also seems obvious that some people here are determined to continue to twist it to confirm to their own biased opinion.

 

 

Well said, which is why it's important that it's the atheists themselves that get to define what atheism means to them and not for somebody else to tell an atheist what they are/aren't. The same applies to anybody else who chooses to define themselves in any way that they wish to.

[onewheeldave]

Except for when certain people are specifically debating in an ambiguous way in an attempt to 'muddy the waters' and build a strawman of the atheist position.

 

I agree. Muddying the waters and building strawmen are precisely the things that lead to the debate being worthless, whether perpetuated by believers or atheists (in my experience both are guilty of it).

 

One thing I've found very useful when approaching the more heated type of debates, was a saying I first encountered in the film "3:10 to Yuma" (recent western starring christian bale), which went-

 

"every way of a man is right.... in his own eyes"

 

which is actually from the bible, and I'll leave out the second part because it becomes a bit religious, but, as it stands, the part above is not only very profound, but is also secular.

 

I find it useful, when involved in debate/argument, to realise that, however wrong the other persons view seems, to him/her, in his/her own eyes, their position is just as right as I consider mine to be.

 

And, when a person has views which can clearly lead to harming others in some way- that's usually not because they have a desire to harm, but because, in their eyes, it's somehow necessary to be that way.

[six45ive]

I recall an aquaintence who I'd known for some years, casually mentioning that he was a Quaker. I remember being impressed by the fact that he'd gone many years and never felt the need to talk about God or his beliefs.

 

And i gradually came to realise that, probably the majority of religious believers simply get on with their own lives and have no need to feel that everyone should feel the way they do about God.

 

Or maybe he just felt an idiot for believing, deep down what he knows is nonsense and didn't wish to make his foolishness known to what he may feel are more intelligent people in a dominant secular society where religion has been ridiculed for most of the last 30 or 40 years.

[onewheeldave]

Big names and high book sales are a sign of the authors intelligence in the area of science and current affairs. Maybe not in the area of airport novels, there is a difference as well you know.

 

Just realised what was bugging me about that-

 

Think of stephen hawking- monster book sales far in excess of most of his peers, which is to be expected, because, as the public know, he is one of the greatest scientific geniuses of modern times.

 

And yet, amongst his peers, amongst scientists, astrophysisists etc, he's not actually rated that high.

 

Consistently, in polls conducted amongst those peers, he tends to come out relatively low, with many, to the public, obscure writers, coming out well ahead in terms of their actual scientific acheivements.

 

Yet Hawking consistently outsells them. Why? Because he's captured the public imagination. it's as much to do with his condition as with his scientific prowess- such is the nature of book sales.

[Stamen]

I believe that the word is acquaintance, but despite my grammar school education, I am not spelling police so I shall not mention the spelling error!

[onewheeldave]

Or maybe he just felt an idiot for believing, deep down what he knows is nonsense and didn't wish to make his foolishness known to what he may feel are more intelligent people in a dominant secular society where religion has been ridiculed for most of the last 30 or 40 years.

 

No- I know him reasonably well. He's actually very well-adjusted, very confident. If he felt his views were foolish then he would reject them.