Atheism Shouldn't Exist

[FalloutJack]

This isn't in the religious board for a reason, btw; as the thread will demonstrate, it isn't about religion.

OT: Atheism should not exist. Why?

"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

-- Sam Harris

That's one hell [/pun] of a point.

Thoughts?

Captcha: global warming

The Problem: You have to call it something. Atheists think don't believe in god. Nihilists don't believe in anything. These things are self-defeating lines of thinking, one way or another, but you still need a term for the people who think this way. It's not about whether Atheism is a religion or not...because it's not. It's a philosophy. Philosophy and religion collide constantly, so this comes as no surprise. As a Catholic myself, I'm of the opinion that there is a god. However, as a cynic, I also believe that god isn't always a nice guy. Life is funny that way.

Oh wow a christian that has actually read the bible instead of saying "god is good" for no reason! Respect to you sir.

That doesn't mean I agree with you
How is Atheism a Self-defeating line of thinking? Just curious to what you mean by that.

As for the word Atheism, I think it is a valid term. We need a term to easily say "I am not religious".

Oh yeah, aced Rationalism with that line of thinking.

Okay, the comment I made about self-defeating was a biiit of a stretch for atheism, as that's mostly what I think of nihilism. (I don't expect to hear much from the nihilists on that, because to them what I say doesn't mean anything anyway.) I stretched it to fit atheism because it's another mode of thinking that goes to alot of work over denying god existence.

Quite possibly one reason why people might mistake it for a religious fervor (which it isn't) is that those who do believe in god will defend their positions just as strongly. You get the same thing in some philosophical debates, which is why I drew that parallel. (Yeah, I know, other-guy-who-quoted-me... You don't buy into that, but I feel it's a better line of thinking there.)

I'm not arguing against the use of the term. Like I said, you have to call it something. We live in a word where pointing to a thing and calling it something is key. The universe doesn't have labels, so we have to make them up as we go along. So, it's not calling it Atheism that's the problem here. It's attaching any list of misnomers and misinformation to it that is the issue.

 

[Redingold]

So what you're saying is that privatives shouldn't exist, because you shouldn't need to signify the absence of something?

Fair enough, but now you're no longer allowed to use the words dark, cold, penniless, dead, ignorant or unhappy, since these words also signify the absence of something.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Why should the word not exist? It serves the purpose of defining a person who rejects religious beliefs. In my honest opinion the idea that such a term should not exist is extremely pretentious and stupid.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Then perhaps we should also remove the word free from the dictionary since there is no need to state an absence of price or absence of some sort of overlord.

Yeah, you seem to have missed the point entirely.

Let me explain: free means no price. The 'thing' being described is the lack of repayment required. Atheism means not religious. But religion shouldn't be accepted by default; you shouldn't need to state that you aren't religious. It is reasonable to expect an object or service to require payment, so it is also reasonable to use the word free. Why should it be reasonable to expect someone to have a religious perspective? The terms (free and Atheism) are being used to describe lack of what is otherwise implied--if everything was free or it was rare for anything not to be free, the term wouldn't exist.

If you still don't get it: Atheism can only exist in a world where people are expected to be religious by default--a.k.a.: a fucked up world--and need to inform others otherwise.

-Snip- Why am I such a dunce sometimes? I tiredly read your post and missed EVERYTHING. Just pretend I'm not here, I'll go back to my room quietly

 

[idarkphoenixi]

This isn't in the religious board for a reason, btw; as the thread will demonstrate, it isn't about religion.

OT: Atheism should not exist. Why?

"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist.' We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

-- Sam Harris

That's one hell [/pun] of a point.

Thoughts?

Captcha: global warming

Being a "non-astrologer" or " non-alchemist" isn't nearly as relative as being non-religious. Atheism, as a word, only exists because religion plays such a huge part in how the world functions. Some people strongly oppose religion and as a result want to be able to identify themselves and be able to display their non-religion to other people.

 

[Sis]

Atheist: a person that believes that there is no god.

What's a Non-astrologist? A person that believes that there is no space?

No. Atheists don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't BELIEVE anything. See the above post.

Atheism isn't about belief--and that's the entire point. It's the absence of any belief at all. "No one calls a baby an Atheist." Babies don't believe there is no god. They don't believe anything.

I'm not saying there are no Atheists that feel like this, but I do say that most of them believe that there is no god.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Apologies about the incorrect use of the word atheist. That was my mistake.

It's not really surprising and it isn't a sign that you're not well-informed. The actual definition of Atheism has been so muddied and stretched over time that even very intelligent people misunderstand it. It's one of those words that gets co-opted, like when people use angst to describe a teenager; angst means anxiety and fear, but most people use it to say nihilistic or arrogant.

Atheism is the belief system of atheists.

There's no such thing as an Atheist belief system. It is the absence of a belief.

Exactly. I always laugh my ass off when someone says "Atheists believe God doesn't exist." What don't people get? Atheism by definition means lack of belief--not disbelief. It means neutrality. It means absence. No one calls a baby an Atheist.

My personal favorite is to point out that by definition most people are Atheists of one kind or another, since how many of these people believe in Zeus or Thor or Bastet or Bhaal. All of which are gods.

I've used that in discussion with a Christian I knew in highschool. I shit you not, this is the reply I got (more or less as an exact quote): "That doesn't count as Atheism because those gods aren't real." Her own statement went over her head, lol.

 

[Sis]

Atheist: a person that believes that there is no god.

What's a Non-astrologist? A person that believes that there is no space?

I think you're confusing 'astrology' with 'astronomy'.

... Whoopsiedaisy. I'm sorry.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Then perhaps we should also remove the word free from the dictionary since there is no need to state an absence of price or absence of some sort of overlord.

Yeah, you seem to have missed the point entirely.

Let me explain: free means no price. The 'thing' being described is the lack of repayment required. Atheism means not religious. But religion shouldn't be accepted by default; you shouldn't need to state that you aren't religious. It is reasonable to expect an object or service to require payment, so it is also reasonable to use the word free. Why should it be reasonable to expect someone to have a religious perspective? The terms (free and Atheism) are being used to describe lack of what is otherwise implied--if everything was free or it was rare for anything not to be free, the term wouldn't exist.

If you still don't get it: Atheism can only exist in a world where people are expected to be religious by default--a.k.a.: a fucked up world--and need to inform others otherwise.

-Snip- Why am I such a dunce sometimes? I tiredly read your post and missed EVERYTHING. Just pretend I'm not here, I'll go back to my room quietly

Lolol. It's okay. I'll forgive you I've done my fair share of sleepy posts that I later look back on and think "wait... wut?"

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Atheist: a person that believes that there is no god.

What's a Non-astrologist? A person that believes that there is no space?

I think you're confusing 'astrology' with 'astronomy'.

... Whoopsiedaisy. I'm sorry.

I LOVE space and gobble up just about every bit of information regarding space and space travel I can, and I still have to take half a second to think which word to use in conversation, lol.

 

[theultimateend]

We've got the word "sugar-free," and "atheist" is the same thing. Except with God and not sugar.

I find "Unsweetened" to be a very weird word.

Unsweetened Tea? So...Tea?

 

[orangeban]

But there are different types of atheism, you get agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. How are we meant to distinguish those two types without using the word atheist?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Why should the word not exist? It serves the purpose of defining a person who rejects religious beliefs. In my honest opinion the idea that such a term should not exist is extremely pretentious and stupid.

Atheists don't reject anything. Atheism, by very definition, is the absence of belief. ANTI-theists reject religion.

I'll use an example someone else just used that sums it up nicely: if religions were channels, Atheism is turning off the TV. Atheists aren't against religion and they don't deny any god exists. Atheists simply aren't in the debate at all. Atheists are the ones in the middle who shrug their shoulders and say "show me some proof."

The perfect example of an Atheist: a baby. Babies don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't believe there is no god. Atheists don't BELIEVE anything.

And that's where all this comes from. See, Atheists don't belong in the religious arena. They aren't arguing anything and they don't have a belief of any kind. While pro and anti-religious people are arguing, Atheists are outside the building, not caring. Why should we label people not involved at all? If Atheism meant believing there is no god, then the title would fit as it is religious (anti-religious, to be exact). But it doesn't. Which is why the analogy of "you don't call a non-sky-diver a name" works. Religion is a choice and the people who don't make the choice to have a belief shouldn't have labels thrust on them. Being Christian or Catholic or Buddhist are choices. Everyone is born Atheist and if everyone is something by default, why does it need a name?

 

[dreadpirateredbeard]

By the same rationale, surely the term "amoral" shouldn't exist either as morality is an indistinct and imposed structure of acceptable social interaction based on distinction of consequence.

We can still refer to a baby as amoral however as their actions are not guided by the these rules.

Therefore, and in the same way, surely a lack of belief in any prescribed deity, "atheism" is the term that stands in opposition to that of belief in a deity, "theism".

I think it is the basest form of implied superiority to think that your particular structure of thinking should be so global as to defy a distinct term to describe it.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

But there are different types of atheism, you get agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. How are we meant to distinguish those two types without using the word atheist?

You can't be a something Atheist or an Atheist something. That's a misnomer. Atheists don't believe anything. Period. Done. Full stop. If you are an Atheists who believes there might be a god or a higher power, you aren't an Atheist.

That's like calling yourself a carnivorousness vegan; you either are or you aren't.

 

[Spambot 3000]

Apologies about the incorrect use of the word atheist. That was my mistake.

It's not really surprising and it isn't a sign that you're not well-informed. The actual definition of Atheism has been so muddied and stretched over time that even very intelligent people misunderstand it. It's one of those words that gets co-opted, like when people use angst to describe a teenager; angst means anxiety and fear, but most people use it to say nihilistic or arrogant.

Ah, I see. Thanks for that, I like learning new things.

Atheist: a person that believes that there is no god.

What's a Non-astrologist? A person that believes that there is no space?

I think you're confusing 'astrology' with 'astronomy'.

... Whoopsiedaisy. I'm sorry.

That's alright, the whole 'astrology' and 'astronomy' mix-up isn't very uncommon. Mainly because both words sound so similar.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I think it is the basest form of implied superiority to think that your particular structure of thinking should be so global as to defy a distinct term to describe it.

That's the thing-Atheist IS the default; you are born without belief, blank, neutral and completely outside of debate. You aren't born believing anything at all. You later decide to believe something through brainwashing or perceived evidence.